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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/12/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 14 contains a period at the end of the second line; this is interpreted to be a typographic error to be replaced with a comma. Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Interpretation
For claims that have been rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) over the recitation of “the WCl5” or “the WCl6” lacking antecedent basis due to being recited in the alternative in a parent claim, to proceed with further examination the Examiner has applied the interpretation of “the WCl5 or the WCl6,” importing such alternative language from the parent claim, and therefore the sole presence of either compound reads on limitations containing this phrase.
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 8-13 and 16-18 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.
Claim 8 recites “when applying a second condition, the WCl5…” which lacks antecedent basis since claim 8 depends upon claim 2 which depends upon claim 1, wherein the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 includes the interpretation where WCl5 is not present in the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites “when applying a second condition, the WCl6…” which lacks antecedent basis since claim 9 depends upon claim 2 which depends upon claim 1, wherein the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 includes the interpretation where WCl5 is not present in the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites “when applying a second condition, the WCl5…” which lacks antecedent basis since claim 10 depends upon claim 2 which depends upon claim 1, wherein the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 includes the interpretation where WCl5 is not present in the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites “when applying a second condition, the WCl6…” which lacks antecedent basis since claim 11 depends upon claim 2 which depends upon claim 1, wherein the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 includes the interpretation where WCl5 is not present in the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites “a greater volume of the WCl5 condenses;” this limitation lacks antecedent basis since claim 12 depends upon claim 1 which recites WCl5 in the alternative (“one of WCL5 or WCL6” in line 1); therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation includes the embodiment where WCl5 is not present.
Claim 13 recites “a greater volume of the WCl6 condenses;” this limitation lacks antecedent basis since claim 13 depends upon claim 1 which recites WCl6 in the alternative; therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation includes the embodiment where WCl5 is not present.
Claim 16 recites inter alia “the WCl5;” this limitation lacks antecedent basis since claim 16 depends indirectly upon claim 1 which recites WCl5 in the alternative; therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation includes the embodiment where WCl5 is not present.
Claim 16 recites “the total pressure is within 1% to 10% of a true vapor pressure of the WCL5.” In light of the disclosure it is apparent that this percentage range is to be treated as an error bound, meaning “the total pressure is the value of true vapor pressure of the WCl5 with an error margin of ±(1-10)% the value of the true vapor pressure of the WCl5,” and this interpretation has been applied by the Examiner in this Office action. However, it is improper to import limitations from the specification; see MPEP 2111.01(II). In this case, the claim language leaves open the possibility of alternative interpretations, such as “the total pressure being 0.01 to 0.1 times the value of the true vapor pressure of the WCl5,” which therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 18 recites the same language and therefore suffers from the same issues of indefiniteness.
Claim 17 recites inter alia “removing the WOCl4” and “the low WOCl4 content is not validated.” These limitations lack antecedent basis, since it is not clear what previously recited compound is being referred to as “the WOCl4;” the recited compound comprises WCl5 or WCl6 but is not recited as comprising WOCL4. Similarly, it is not clear what measurement condition defines “is not validated.” Claims 16 and 18 provide such a definition in terms of ranges of pressure values, but the Examiner notes that claim 17 does not depend on these claims, and therefore it is unclear what “validated” refers to in the claim.
Claim 18 recites inter alia “the WCl5” this limitation lacks antecedent basis since claim 18 depends upon claim 17 which recites WCl5 in the alternative; therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation includes the embodiment where WCl5 is not present.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu 2016 (EP 3081667 A2) in view of Wu 2020 (US 20200189928 A1), referred to herein as Wu ’16 and Wu ’20, provided on the IDS (Wu ’16 is provided as the US publication, here the EP publication is cited).
Regarding claim 1, Wu ’16 teaches a method (methods for purification of tungsten hexachloride, 0001) comprising:
(a) Obtaining a source vessel (boiler) containing WOCl4 and one of WCl5 or WCl6 (introducing a crude material comprising WCl.sub.6 and at least one impurity into a boiler, 0013; impurities comprise WOCl4 and WCl5, 0018);
(c) Separating the WCl5 or the WCl6 from a second portion of the WOCl4, wherein the separating comprises applying a second condition to the source vessel, so as to produce a WCl5 vapor comprising WOCl4 or a WCl6 vapor comprising WOCl4 (wherein the boiler is heated to one or more temperatures at or above the boiling point of WCl.sub.6 to cause at least a portion of the crude material to vaporize, 0013);
Flowing the WCl5 vapor or the WCl6 vapor to a collection vessel (transferring the boiler vapor stream into a connector, 0013);
Applying a third condition to the collection vessel, so as to produce a WCl5 condensate or a WC16 condensate, and a second WOCl4 vapor (introducing the condenser stream into the condenser wherein at least a portion of the condenser stream condenses into a fluidizing bed comprising WCl.sub.6 β-form crystals, 0013; condenser vapor, 0013);
Removing at least a portion of the second WOCl4 vapor from the collection vessel (at least one impurity is removed from the condenser through an exhaust, 0013); and
(d) Recovering a precursor in a collection vessel (end product stream is withdrawn, 0013).
Wu ’16 does not teach step (b) of separating the WCl5 or the WC16 from a first portion of the WOCl4, wherein the separating comprises: applying a first condition to the source vessel, so as to produce a first WOCl4 vapor; removing at least a portion of the first WOCl4 vapor from the source vessel.
However, Wu ’20 teaches an analogous method (0017) of purifying a material comprising tungsten chloride and at least one impurity, wherein the WCl5 or WCl6 is separated from a first position of the WOCl4 (deposition of tungsten chloride while maintaining light impurities in the gaseous phase, 0088) in a source vessel (first vessel, 0027) wherein the separating comprises: applying a first condition to the source vessel, so as to produce a first WOCl4 vapor (0087) and removing at least a portion of the first WOCl4 vapor from the source vessel (0089).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wu ’16 with the additional step taught in Wu ’20 and arrive at the claimed invention, where the step is added such that it is the first condition applied, and the teachings of Wu correspond to the second and third conditions applied. One would be motivated to do so to further purify the solid product obtained by the step of Wu ’20, since Wu ’20 teaches that the obtained product (“28”) may be subjected to further purification (0090). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the method taught by Wu ’16 would be equivalent to the step of “reintroducing” the product as raw material as Wu ’20 teaches (0097) since Wu ’16 teaches that the method is a purification method of tungsten chloride as well (“methods for purification of tungsten hexachloride,” 0001). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 2, Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 teach the invention as applied to claim 1. Wu ’20 further teaches that the source vessel of Wu ’20 (first vessel, 0027) and material contains impurities including WCl4 (tungsten tetrachloride, 0084). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the modification of Wu ’16 with Wu ’20 as discussed above would therefore necessarily contain impurities taught by Wu ’20, thus meeting the limitation of the source vessel containing WCl4.
Regarding claim 3, Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 teach the invention as applied to claim 1. Wu ’20 further teaches that the first condition is a condition under which a total pressure of the source vessel is below a true vapor pressure of WOCl4 for a given first temperature (“such separation can be achieved by utilizing different vapor pressure,” 0083).
Regarding claim 4, Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 teach the invention as applied to claim 3. Wu ’20 further teaches that the first condition is a condition under which a total pressure of the source vessel is above a true vapor pressure of WCl5 or WCl6 for a given first temperature (WCl6, 0083).
Regarding claim 5, Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 teach the invention as applied to claim 1. Wu ’20 further teaches that when applying the first condition, the first WOCl4 vapor comprises a greater volume of WOCl4 than WCl5 or WCl6 (WCl6, “most WCl6 can be condensed,” 0083).
Regarding claim 6, Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 teach the invention as applied to claim 1. Wu ’16 further teaches that the second condition (boiling) is a condition under which a total pressure of the source vessel (boiler) is below a true vapor pressure of the WCl6 (a heated carrier gas stream 201 reduces the vapor pressure in the boiler which allows for faster boil up rate of raw material, 0041) for a given second temperature (boiler is heated to at or above the boiling point of WCl6, 0041).
Regarding claim 9, Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 teach the invention as applied to claim 2. Wu ’20 further teaches that the raw material contains at least 80% by weight of the target tungsten chloride (0084) and therefore can contain no more than 20% of the impurity WCl4. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the second condition when applied would therefore necessarily result in a tungsten chloride vapor that comprises a volume range overlapping with the instant claimed range, of a greater volume of the WCl6 than the WCl4, since the molar quantity of the WCl6 is 80% ÷ 396.55 g/mol = 0.002 moles per gram of raw material while the molar quantity of the WCl4 is 20% ÷ 325.65 g/mol = 0.0006 moles per gram, which is an order of magnitude lower, and further Wu ’20 teaches that other impurities may be present (0084), thus teaching a range of less than or equal to 0.0006.
Regarding claim 12, Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 teach the invention as applied to claim 2. Wu ’16 teaches applying a third condition to the collection vessel, so as to produce a WCl5 condensate or a WC16 condensate, and a second WOCl4 vapor (introducing the condenser stream into the condenser wherein at least a portion of the condenser stream condenses into a fluidizing bed comprising WCl.sub.6 β-form crystals, 0013; condenser vapor, 0013).
While Wu ’16 does not explicitly teach that the condenser stream comprises a greater volume of WCl5 than WOCl4, Wu ’20 teaches that the tungsten chloride may be WCl5 or WCl6 (abstract) and both may be separated from impurities, where WOCl4 is deemed an impurity (0087). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the teachings of Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 would result in a condensate that is substantially comprised of WCl5, since Wu ’20 teaches that the WOCL4 is vaporized to be separated and isolated (0088, 0089) and therefore more WCl5 would be in the condensed product than WOCl4.
Regarding claim 13, Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 teach the invention as applied to claim 1. Wu ’16 further teaches that the third condition is a condition under which a greater volume of the WCl6 condenses than the WOCl4 ("WCl6 is formed as a condensed solid,” 0018); this meets the limitation of a greater volume of WCl6 condensing than WOCl4.
Regarding claim 14, Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 teach the invention as applied to claim 1. Wu ’16 further teaches e) validating a low WOCl4 content of the precursor present in the collection vessel, wherein the validating step e) comprises: e1) measuring a WOCl4 content of the precursor, so as to validate or not validate the low WOCl4 content of the precursor (XRD validation, Examples 2 and 3). The low content of WOCl4 is validated in the teaching of Wu ’16, therefore meeting the optional limitation of e2) when the low WOCl4 content of the precursor is not validated, repeating at least one of step b), step c), or any combination thereof, so as to remove the WOCl4.
Claims 7, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu ’16 and Wu ’20, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Takahashi (US 20190233301 A1), provided on the IDS.
Regarding claim 7, Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 teach the invention as applied to claim 2. Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 do not teach that the second condition is a condition under which a total pressure of the source vessel is above a true vapor pressure of the WCl4 for a given second temperature.
However, Takahashi teaches an analogous method of producing tungsten pentachloride (0023) wherein the desired product of WCl5 is separated from WCl4 by having the WCl5 sublimed, since WCl4 has a higher sublimation point (0054) and is therefore kept in the solid phase. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Takahashi and Wu ’16 and Wu ’20, such that the step of vaporizing the WCl5 or the WCl6 is above the vapor pressure of WCl4; one would be motivated to do so since Wu ’20 teaches that the desired products are WCl5 and/or WCl6 (abstract) and that WCl4 is an impurity (0084), and Takahashi teaches that the different sublimation points allow one to separate WCl4 from WCl5 (0054) to arrive at a higher purity product. Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 teach the invention as applied to claim 2. Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 do not teach that when applying the second condition, the WCl5 vapor comprises a greater volume of the WCl5 than the WCl4.
However, Takahashi teaches an analogous method of producing tungsten pentachloride (0023) wherein the desired product of WCl5 is separated from WCl4 by having the WCl5 sublimed, since WCl4 has a higher sublimation point (0054) and is therefore kept in the solid phase. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Takahashi and Wu ’16 and Wu ’20, such that the step of vaporizing the WCl5 or the WCl6 is above the vapor pressure of WCl4, in order to produce a vapor comprising of WCl5 or WCl6; one would be motivated to do so since Wu ’20 teaches that the desired products are WCl5 and/or WCl6 (abstract) and that WCl4 is an impurity (0084), and Takahashi teaches that the different sublimation points allow one to separate WCl4 from WCl5 (0054) to arrive at a higher purity product. Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention, since the vapor being below the sublimation point of WCl4 would not contain WCl4 and therefore must necessarily comprise a greater volume of the vapor than the WCl4.
Regarding claim 10, Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 teach the invention as applied to claim 2. Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 do not teach that when applying the second condition, the WCl5 vapor comprises a greater volume of the WOCl4 than the WCl4.
However, Takahashi teaches an analogous method of producing tungsten pentachloride (0023) wherein the desired product of WCl5 is separated from WCl4 by having the WCl5 sublimed, since WCl4 has a higher sublimation point (0054) and is therefore kept in the solid phase. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Takahashi and Wu ’16 and Wu ’20, such that the step of vaporizing the WCl5 or the WCl6 is above the vapor pressure of WCl4; one would be motivated to do so since Wu ’20 teaches that the desired products are WCl5 and/or WCl6 (abstract) and that WCl4 is an impurity (0084), and Takahashi teaches that the different sublimation points allow one to separate WCl4 from WCl5 (0054) to arrive at a higher purity product. Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention, since Wu ’16 teaches the vaporization of WOCl4 (introducing a crude material comprising WCl.sub.6 and at least one impurity into a boiler, 0013; impurities comprise WOCl4 and WCl5, 0018), and Wu ’20 also teaches that the WOCl4 is vaporized (0087); therefore the vapor produced by the taught invention would comprise WOCl4 and not WCl4.
Regarding claim 11, Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 teach the invention as applied to claim 2. Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 do not teach that when applying the second condition, the WCl6 vapor comprises a greater volume of the WOCl4 than the WCl4.
However, Takahashi teaches an analogous method of producing tungsten pentachloride (0023) wherein the desired product of WCl5 is separated from WCl4 by having the WCl5 sublimed, since WCl4 has a higher sublimation point (0054) and is therefore kept in the solid phase. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Takahashi and Wu ’16 and Wu ’20, such that the step of vaporizing the WCl5 or the WCl6 is above the vapor pressure of WCl4; one would be motivated to do so since Wu ’20 teaches that the desired products are WCl5 and/or WCl6 (abstract) and that WCl4 is an impurity (0084), and Takahashi teaches that the different sublimation points allow one to separate WCl4 from WCl5 (0054) to arrive at a higher purity product. Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention, since Wu ’16 teaches the vaporization of WOCl4 (introducing a crude material comprising WCl.sub.6 and at least one impurity into a boiler, 0013; impurities comprise WOCl4 and WCl5, 0018), and Wu ’20 also teaches that the WOCl4 is vaporized (0087); therefore the vapor produced by the taught invention would comprise WOCl4 and not WCl4.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu ’16 and Wu ’20, as applied to claim 14 above, and in further view of Taruya et al. 2019 (JP 2019104659 A). The machine translation provided with this Office action is cited herein.
Regarding claim 15, Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 teach the invention as applied to claim 14. Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 do not teach applying a fourth condition to the collection vessel containing the precursor; measuring at least one property within the collection vessel; and comparing the measured property to a reference value.
However, Taruya teaches a method (pretreatment method for providing a solid material from which impurities have been removed, 0001) comprising obtaining a collection vessel (solid material container 1, 0057) containing a WCl5 precursor or a WCl6 precursor (WCl6, 0057); applying a fourth condition to the collection vessel containing the WCl6 precursor (pretreatment of solid material, 0060); measuring at least one property within the collection vessel (vapor pressure, measured by TGA, Figure 3, 0065, and TCD, Figure 2, 0066); and comparing the at least one property to a reference value (TCD at the start of the impurity removal process compared to the stabilized value after about 0.5 hours, 0062, which is dependent on the higher vapor pressure of impurities than WCl6, 0062; comparing the pretreatment vapor pressure to the vapor pressure before pretreatment, 0065).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of Wu ’16 and Wu ’20 by adding the teaching of Taruya in a step (e1); one would be motivated to do so to further purify the obtained precursor of WCl6, since Wu ’20 teaches that tungsten chloride can be further purified after being produced (0090), and Taruya teaches that the method uses a carrier gas to remove impurities on the surface (“impurities, which are oxides on the surface of the solid material, can be easily removed,” 0012) in a manner that does not disrupt the crystal phase and leads to a uniform product (0014, 0015). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 16, Wu ’16, Wu ’20, and Taruya teach the invention as applied to claim 15 above. Taruya further teaches that the collection vessel (container 1) is fitted with a pressure gauge port (0047); this therefore meets the limitations that a total pressure within the collection vessel is measured. Taruya additionally teaches that the vapor pressure of the WCl6 before pretreatment goes from 4.6 torr to 3.4 torr (0065); which is 0.1 torr or 3% of the stable vapor pressure of Wcl6 after pretreatment of 3.3 torr (0065). Taruya further teaches that this result leads to a validation of a low WOCl4 content: Taruya teaches that the pretreatment results in “the formation of a uniform crystalline state of WCl6 and a stable vapor pressure” (0065), and teaches the use of x-ray diffractometry to further validate the low WOCl4 content (“immediately after the start of the measurement, the impurity oxide WOCl4 vaporized, and then, as time passed, the crystalline state of WCl6 gradually changed to the low-temperature phase, and consequently the vapor pressure decreased further,” 0066). Therefore the teaching of Taruya meets the limitation of when the total pressure is within 10% of a true vapor pressure of the WCl6, the low WOCl4 content is validated.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taruya et al. 2019 (JP 2019104659 A).
Regarding claim 17, Taruya teaches a method (pretreatment method for providing a solid material from which impurities have been removed, 0001) comprising obtaining a collection vessel (solid material container 1, 0057) containing a WCl5 precursor or a WCl6 precursor (WCl6, 0057); applying a condition to the collection vessel containing the WCl6 precursor (pretreatment of solid material, 0060); measuring at least one property within the collection vessel (vapor pressure, measured by TGA, Figure 3, 0065, and TCD, Figure 2, 0066); comparing the at least one property to a reference value (TCD at the start of the impurity removal process compared to the stabilized value after about 0.5 hours, 0062, which is dependent on the higher vapor pressure of impurities than WCl6, 0062; comparing the pretreatment vapor pressure to the vapor pressure before pretreatment, 0065); removing the WOCl4 from the collection vessel when the low WOCl4 content is not validated (once the TCD value stabilizes, “it is no longer necessary to remove impurities… therefore it is acceptable to stop the carrier gas supply,” 0062). Taruya does not teach that this method is for the validating of a low impurity content; however, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that this method would be capable of performing the recited function since it contains all of the steps recited in the claim that perform this function.
Regarding claim 18, Taruya teaches the method as applied to claim 17 above. Taruya further teaches that the collection vessel (container 1) is fitted with a pressure gauge port (0047); this therefore meets the limitations that a total pressure within the collection vessel is measured. Taruya additionally teaches that the vapor pressure of the WCl6 before pretreatment goes from 4.6 torr to 3.4 torr (0065); which is 0.1 torr or 3% of the stable vapor pressure of Wcl6 after pretreatment of 3.3 torr (0065). Taruya further teaches that this result leads to a validation of a low WOCl4 content: Taruya teaches that the pretreatment results in “the formation of a uniform crystalline state of WCl6 and a stable vapor pressure” (0065), and teaches the use of x-ray diffractometry to further validate the low WOCl4 content (“immediately after the start of the measurement, the impurity oxide WOCl4 vaporized, and then, as time passed, the crystalline state of WCl6 gradually changed to the low-temperature phase, and consequently the vapor pressure decreased further,” 0066). Therefore the teaching of Taruya meets the limitation of when the total pressure is within 10% of a true vapor pressure of the WCl6, the low WOCl4 content is validated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/Eileen Moudou/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights