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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9, 11, 13-14, 16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shi et al. (CN101554585) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations) in view of Gorywoda (US2003/0124046).
Shi et al teaches a double efficacy knitted catalyst mesh (i.e. a catalyst system) for ammonia oxidation processes(see example 4) comprising: a primary reaction zone catalyst mesh (item 1, Fig. 1), a secondary reaction zone catalyst mesh (item 2, Fig. 1), and a supplemental reaction zone catalyst mesh (item 3, Fig. 1) divided by the direction of the flow of ammonia gas in the ammonia oxidizing furnace, wherein the main reaction zone catalyst mesh being a platinum alloy has a composition of 90-95% platinum, 4-8% rhodium, 1-5% palladium by weight; the secondary reaction zone catalyst mesh has a composition comprising 50-73% ( e.g. 65%) platinum, 5-7% (e.g. 6% rhodium), 20-45% (e.g. 29%) palladium, and 0.1-5% of a metal selected from cerium, cobalt, nickel or gold (e.g. 5% gold) added to the sum of the weight of platinum, rhodium and palladium; the supplementary reaction zone catalyst mesh has a weight percentage of 9-20% (e.g. 15%) platinum, 1-5% of (e.g. 2%) rhodium, 75-90% (e.g. 83%) palladium, (para. [0008], [0021], [0024], [0027], claim 1-3, example 4). Shi et al. further disclose the main reaction zone catalyst mesh, secondary zone catalyst, supplementary zone are all wired meshes, wherein the wire diameter ratio of the catalytic mesh in the main reaction zone to the standard platinum mesh is 1.05-1.20:1, while the wire diameter ratio of the catalytic mesh in the secondary reaction zone and the catalytic mesh in the supplementary reaction zone to the standard platinum mesh is 0.72-1.05:1 (claim 2, 4, para. [0013], [0017], Fig. 1, examples).
It is noted that Shi et al disclosed noble metal wires of the catalyst mesh decreases in the flow direction and the palladium content of the noble metal wires of the catalyst mesh increases in the flow direction (para. [0009]-[0012], Fig. 1, claims 1-4, examples).
Regarding claim 1, Shi et al. does not expressly teach the secondary catalyst mesh palladium content being 70-97 wt.%.
However, Shi et al. teaches the composition of the catalyst mesh of the secondary reaction zone is suitably varied according to the ratio of the reactions that the secondary zone is responsible for and the characteristics of the system as a whole, a suitable reduction of precious metal platinum and a relative increase of palladium acting as recovery gives them a double effect both as a catalyst and as a function of
platinum recovery during use of the primary reaction zone catalyst mesh and the secondary reaction zone catalyst mesh (para. [0010]).
Gorywoda expressly teaches in an ammonia oxidation reaction for producing nitric oxide, after ammonia being contacted with a first reaction zone using platinum-rhodium alloy, the second zone can have a catalyst consisting of palladium-rhodium mesh with at least 92 wt. % (or more) of palladium, 2-4 wt. % of rhodium, and the remainder of platinum or alternatively of 82-83 wt. % of palladium, 2.5-3.5 wt. % of rhodium, and the remainder of platinum (para. [0013], claim 1-3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such palladium content in the second zone as shown by Gorywoda to modify the secondary zone palladium content of Shi et al. because by doing so can help decreasing N2O formation as suggested by Gorywoda (para. [0014], [0015]) and help decrease platinum metal usage in downstream of main reaction zone and help recovering platinum metal suggested by Shi et al (para. [0010]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt same palladium content in the second zone as that of instantly claimed via routine optimization (see MPEP §2144. 05 II) for help obtaining a desired ammonia oxidation catalyst with decreased Pt usage and decreased N2O formation.
Regarding claim 2-3, Shi et al. further teaches the main catalyst mesh, the secondary catalyst mesh and the supplementary catalyst mesh are independently warp-knitted meshes (example 1-5), wherein such warped-knitted meshes are three-dimensional structures.
Regarding claim 4, Shi et al. disclosed warp knitted noble metal wired mesh apparently has wires as ridges while holes are grooves, therefore, such noble metal wires are corrugated.
Regarding 6, Shi et al does not expressly teach the first metal wire comprises a binary platinum ally which consists of, in addition to impurities, platinum and rhodium. However, Shi et al. already teaches using platinum alloy in such first metal wire is well-known in the art (para. [0005], [0008]).
Gorywoda teaches the first zone noble metal catalyst comprises a platinum-rhodium alloy which consist of platinum and rhodium (para. [0013]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known platinum-rhodium binary alloy as shown by Gorywoda to modify the first zone noble metal catalyst (main reaction zone noble metal catalyst) of Shi et al. because adopting such well-known platinum-rhodium binary alloy to modify a well-known main reaction zone catalyst wire in an ammonia oxidation catalyst system for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP § 2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 7, Shi et al. already teaches palladium alloy can be used in downstream of ammonia oxidation catalyst system (para. [0005]. Gorywoda already teaches such limitation as discussed above. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known palladium ternary alloy which consist of palladium, rhodium and platinum as shown by Gorywoda to modify the second noble metal catalyst (secondary reaction zone noble metal catalyst) of Shi et al. because adopting such well-known known palladium ternary alloy to modify a well-known secondary zone catalyst wire in an ammonia oxidation catalyst system for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP § 2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 8-9, Shi et al in view of Gorywoda already teaches such limitations as discussed above.
Regarding claim 11, the recited third noble metal wire is platinum-free is not necessary presented in the instant catalyst system because claim 11 does not further limit the embodiment of 3-28 wt.% of at least one further metal being platinum and the dependent claim is not positively limited to the 3-28 wt.% of at least one further metal being nickel, tungsten and gold in the third noble metal wire in the catalyst system either.
Regarding claim 13, Shi et al. already teaches more than 30 layers (or zone) of platinum meshes can be used (para. [0005]), therefore, the catalyst system comprising at least one further catalyst mesh composed of platinum (or Pd) containing wire is envisioned. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt at least one further catalyst mesh composed of platinum and/or palladium wire for desired ammonia oxidation and platinum recovery as suggested by Shi et al (para. [0005]). Furthermore, adopting a further platinum or palladium wire mesh catalyst in the ammonia oxidation process for help improving ammonia oxidation efficiency just obvious choice for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Shi et al. further discloses a heat-resistant stainless steel
support mesh can be added below the catalyst mesh in the secondary reaction zone, wherein such heat-resistant stainless-steel support reads onto the instantly claimed separating element in light of the instant specification (see instantly published application US2023/0381765 para. [0117]).
Regarding claim 16, Gorywoda already teaches such limitations as discussed above (para. [0013], claim 1-3).
Regarding claim 19-20, Shi et al. does not expressly teach the second catalyst network group comprising 3 to 8 catalyst networks or the third catalyst network group comprising 2 to 8 catalyst network groups.
However, the instant specification describes catalyst network is understood to mean a single-layer or multi-layer gas-permeable fabric, and catalyst networks can be produced, for example, by weaving, braiding or knitting a noble metal wire or a plurality of noble metal wires (see the published application US2023/0381765 para. [0020]). Shi et al. also teaches three types of meshes are prepared according to their respective contents--melted, drawn into fine wires (plurality of wires expected) of the corresponding diameter and woven into warp-knitted meshes (para. [0021], [0023], [0027], [0030], [0033]), wherein such method is same or substantially the same as that of instant application used to form the catalyst network groups and Shi et al. disclosed warp-knitted meshes typically having multiple layers of fabric (i.e. at least three layers), therefore, Shi et al. disclosed second catalyst network group and third catalyst network group respectively comprises at least three second catalyst network and at least three third catalyst network, such number of second catalyst network and third catalyst network respectively overlapping with those of instantly claimed thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shi et al. (CN101554585) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations) in view of Gorywoda (US02003/0124046) as applied above, and further in view of Rjabchikov (RU2008125755) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations).
Regarding claim 4, in arguendo about Shi et al in view of Gorywoda not expressly teach at least one of the catalyst networks being corrugated, Rjabchikov knitted noble meta wire in the ammonia oxidation reaction being corrugated (claim 1-4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known knitted noble metal wire being corrugated as shown by Rjabchikov for modify the at least one noble metal meshes of Shi et al in view of Gorywoda because adopting such well-known knitted noble metal wire being corrugated to modify well-known noble metal meshes in ammonia oxidation catalyst system for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP § 2143 KSR).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shi et al. (CN101554585) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations) in view of Gorywoda (US2003/0124046) as applied above, and further in view of Boll (WO2020/148143) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2022/0089439 has been provided hereof for citations).
Shi et al. already teaches the wire diameter ratio of the catalytic mesh in the main reaction zone to the standard platinum mesh is 1.05-1.20:1, while the wire diameter ratio of the catalytic mesh in the secondary reaction zone and the catalytic mesh in the supplementary reaction zone to the standard platinum mesh is 0.72-1.05:1 (claim 2, 4, para. [0013], [0017], Fig. 1, examples).
Regarding claim 5, Shi et al in view of Gorywoda does not expressly teach the noble metal wires diameter being from 40-250 µm.
Boll expressly teaches it is well known in the art that standard platinum metal wire mesh having diameter of 76 µm is standard (para. [0008], [0048], [0062]).
Based on Boll disclosed parameter size of standard platinum wire, Shi et al disclosed main reaction zone platinum wire, secondary reaction zone noble metal wire, and supplementary reaction zone noble metal wire are all within or overlapping with that of instant claimed diameter rang thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known standard platinum wire size of 76 µm as shown by Boll for modify the noble metal wires of Shi et al in view of Gorywoda because adopting such well-known platinum standard wire size to practice well-known noble metal wires diameter in ammonia oxidation catalyst system for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP § 2143 KSR).
Claims 10 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shi et al. (CN101554585) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations) in view of Gorywoda (US02003/0124046) as applied above, and further in view of Tadeush (SU1271365) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations).
Shi et al also teaches palladium or palladium alloy can be used as third noble metal wire (para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 10, Shi et al in view of Gorywoda does not expressly teach the third noble metal wire comprising a binary palladium alloy, which consists of, in addition to impurities, palladium and nickel, tungsten, platinum or gold.
Tadeush teaches a palladium gold binary alloy with 60-99% of palladium and 1-40% of gold can be used downstream of platinum grid in an ammonia oxidation producing nitric oxide process (abstract, table 1, examples 1-9, claims).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such palladium gold binary alloy consisting of palladium, gold, in addition to impurities as shown by Tadeush to modify the supplementary catalyst wire (third noble metal wire) of Shi et al in view of Gorywoda because by doing so can help decrease platinum usage in such process as suggested by Tadeush (example 1-9). Furthermore, adopting such well-known palladium gold binary alloy to modify a well-known supplementary reaction zone palladium wire catalyst in an ammonia oxidation catalyst system for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP § 2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 11-12, Tadeush disclosed palladium-gold alloy can be platinum free and/or rhodium free (table 1).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shi et al. (CN101554585) in view of Gorywoda (US2003/0124046) as applied above, and further in view of Boll’429 (WO2021/078429) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2022/0387977 has been used hereof for citations), or further in view of Sivkov (RU2775018) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations).
Regarding claim 17 and 18, Shi et al in view of Gorywoda does not expressly teach the palladium alloy of third catalyst wire further comprises nickel or tungsten.
Boll’429 teaches noble metal alloy selected from alloy of palladium with 3-15 wt. % platinum, palladium with 1-20 wt. % platinum and 1-10 wt. % rhodium, palladium with 1-25 wt. % tungsten, and palladium with 1-15 wt. % nickel (para. [0011]-[0019], [0035]-[0043], claim 14)) can be used for gas reaction such as oxidation of ammonia to nitrogen oxide for nitric acid production (para. [0005]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known alloy of palladium with nickel or alloy of palladium with tungsten as shown by Boll’429 to modify the third catalyst network group of Shi et al in view of Gorywoda because such palladium alloy and alloy of palladium with 1-20 wt. % platinum and 1-10 wt. % rhodium are functional equivalent for oxidation of ammonia gas reaction as suggested by Boll’429 and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose, i.e. substituting alloy of palladium with 1-20 wt. % platinum and 1-10 wt. % rhodium with alloy of palladium with nickel or alloy of palladium with tungsten for the same oxidation of ammonia gas reaction is prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP§ 2144. 06 II). Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known alloy of palladium with nickel or alloy of palladium with tungsten as shown by Boll’429 to modify the third catalyst metal network group having high palladium content in the ammonia oxidation process for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Sivkov teaches mesh comprising a palladium-based alloy with a nickel or tungsten content of 1-20 wt.% can be used as catalyst gauze for trapping platinum and rhodium volatizing from platinum-based gauzes used during the catalytic oxidation of ammonia, specifically PdN-5 alloy (95% palladium and 5% nickel), and a alloy of PdRdN (94% of palladium, 5% tungsten and 1% of rhodium) (abstract, page 1 last three paragraphs, example 1-2, claims 1 and 5-6).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary kill in the art to adopt such well-known alloy of palladium with nickel or alloy of palladium with tungsten alloy as shown by Sivkov to modify the third catalyst metal network group because by doing so can help trapping platinum and rhodium volatizing from platinum-based gauzes used during the catalytic oxidation of ammonia as suggested by Sivkov (abstract, page 1 last three paragraphs).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-14 and 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-5 and 7-13 of co-pending Application No. 18/868517 in view of Shi et al. (CN101554585) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations) and Gorywoda (US2003/0124046). The co-pending application’517 teaches a substantially the same catalyst system as that of instantly claimed except the instantly claimed secondary catalyst mesh palladium content being 70-97 wt.% or platinum 3-30 wt.% of platinum. Shi et al. teaches the composition of the catalyst mesh of the secondary reaction zone is suitably varied according to the ratio of the reactions that the secondary zone is responsible for and the characteristics of the system as a whole, a suitable reduction of precious metal platinum and a relative increase of palladium acting as recovery gives them a double effect both as a catalyst and as a function of platinum recovery during use of the primary reaction zone catalyst mesh and the secondary reaction zone catalyst mesh (para. [0010]). Gorywoda teaches a downstream or secondary reaction zone catalyst having similar palladium and platinum content as that of instantly claimed. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt same palladium content and platinum content in the second zone as that of instantly claimed via routine optimization (see MPEP §2144. 05 II) to modify the catalyst system of co-pending application’517 for help obtaining a desired ammonia oxidation catalyst with decreased Pt usage as suggested by Shi et al. and decreased N2O formation as suggested by Gorywoda. It is also noted that Shi et al and Gorywoda already teach claim 16-18 and 19-20 claimed limitations as discussed above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed on 03/12/2026 have been acknowledged and thus previous objection have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments about “Shi's concept relies on a dual-function second catalyst network group that both (i) contributes catalytically and (ii) recovers volatilized platinum from the first reaction zone. See Shi at, e.g., [0010]. To achieve this, Shi describes a second catalyst network group that is platinum dominant, with a platinum content of 50-73 wt.%. See id. at [0009]”, Shi et al does not require the second catalyst network group platinum being dominant as applicant argued, rather Shi teaches reducing usage of platinum content in the ammonia oxidation system is desired (para. [0005]-[0008]). Shi et al. further teaches the primary zone platinum loss due to adsorbed platinum oxide (PtO2) to the catalyst mesh surface can be recovered via using palladium in the second catalyst group, the presence of palladium not only reducing the platinum loss of the entire system but also extends the service life of the platinum mesh (para. [0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt same palladium content in the second zone as that of instantly claimed via routine optimization (see MPEP §2144. 05 II) for help obtaining a desired ammonia oxidation catalyst with decreased Pt usage and increased Pt catalyst network with increase service life as suggested by Shi et al.
In response to applicant’s arguments about Shi et al. disclosing “The three types of catalyst meshes mentioned above must be installed in a specific order because the three regions are both independent and inseparable, playing a complementary role. In addition, each layer of catalyst mesh has a different composition and performs a specific function within the entire reaction system, so the installation order cannot be changed arbitrarily”, or “it is clear that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Shi's catalytic meshes, with respect to either the of composition individual meshes or the ordering of the catalytic meshes, whether in view of Gorywoda or any other reference, because Shi teaches each catalytic mesh 1) must be installed in a specific order, and 2) has a different composition to perform a specific function”, Shi et al. does not limit the second catalyst zone can only using the specific alloy as applicant alleged, rather Shi et al. teaches increased content of palladium in the alloy of the second catalyst zone is beneficial for the catalytic system for ammonia oxidation. Similarly, Gorywoda teaches in an ammonia oxidation reaction having a second zone, which use catalyst consisting of palladium-rhodium mesh with at least 92 wt. % (or more) of palladium, 2-4 wt. % of rhodium, and the remainder of platinum or alternatively of 82-83 wt. % of palladium, 2.5-3.5 wt. % of rhodium, and the remainder of platinum (para. [0013], claim 1-3) and such palladium alloy catalyst used in second zone of the ammonia oxidation reaction system having associated benefits decreasing N2O formation (para. [0014], [0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such palladium content in the second zone as shown by Gorywoda to modify the secondary zone palladium content of Shi et al. because by doing so can help decreasing N2O formation as suggested by Gorywoda (para. [0014], [0015]) and help decrease platinum metal usage in downstream of main reaction zone and help recovering platinum metal suggested by Shi et al (para. [0010]). It is also such substitution of Gorywoda disclosed second zone catalyst composition does not change Shi et al. disclosed different zone having different composition for different function as applicant alleged, rather after incorporating Gorywoda disclosed second zone catalyst composition to modify Shi et al. disclosed second zone catalyst composition, Shi et al. disclosed catalyst system still has a first zone for ammonia oxidation, second zone for improved recovery of platinum, reducing platinum loss thus compensate the reduced efficiency of the main zone reaction, while supplementary zone still having highest palladium content for its function as required. In summary, such arguments are not found convincing.
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 JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights