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 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 1-2, 6-14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Younes et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0309515, hereinafter Younes) in view of Wellington et al. (WO2006/034103A1, hereinafter Wellington).
In regard to Claim 1, Younes discloses a membrane reactor (MR) system, comprising:
an enclosure comprising a shell (#102), a front cap (front inlet end) and a back cap (back outlet end), wherein the shell is porous and comprises a steam-methane reforming (SMR) catalyst (see figure 1C and paragraphs [0032]-[0033] and [0035]; Younes discloses wherein the steam-methane reforming catalyst is incorporated into or disposed on a surface of the methane reformer #120, and therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that the shell is reasonably porous.);
a feed inlet (#101) connected to the enclosure and configured to receive a feed gas comprising CH4 and H2O (see figure 1C and paragraph [0036]; steam is flowed with the hydrocarbon stream comprising methane to the methane reformer #102.);
at least one tube (#104) disposed inside the enclosure and having a sidewall defining a feed side (retentate side) and a sweep side, (permeate side) the feed side fluidly connected to the feed inlet (#101) to receive the feed gas that is configured to produce H2 catalyzed by the SMR catalyst of the shell, wherein the sidewall comprises a palladium membrane configured to selectively permeate the H2 from the feed side to the sweep side (see figure 1C and paragraphs [0034] and [0036]; Younes discloses wherein the hydrogen separation membrane #104 includes a metallic layer of palladium.);
a sweep inlet (#111) connected to the sweep side (permeate side) and configured to receive a sweep gas to carry and transport the H2 (see figure 1C and paragraphs [0044] and [0077]);
a production outlet (#103) connected to the at least one tube (#104) and configured to discharge the sweep gas and the H2 (see figure 1C and paragraphs [0036]-[0037] and [0078]); and
a retentate outlet (#105) connected to the enclosure and configured to discharge the feed gas (see figure 1C and paragraph [0038]).
Younes does not explicitly disclose wherein the membrane comprises a palladium silver (Pd-Ag) membrane.
However, Wellington teaches a reactor and process for steam reforming for producing hydrogen. The reactor comprises a reaction chamber comprising an inlet to receive a hydrogen-producing feedstock and steam, a catalyst to produce hydrogen gas from the hydrogen-producing feedstock, at least one hydrogen-selective, hydrogen-permeable gas separation module to receive reaction products and separate the reaction products into a product stream comprising hydrogen and a byproduct stream. The hydrogen-permeable gas separation module comprises a porous substrate and a hydrogen-selective membrane (see page 3, lines 5-31). The hydrogen-permeable gas separation module comprises palladium alloy with silver metal on a porous substrate (see page 5, lines 10-17).
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 membrane reactor system as disclosed by Younes by substituting a known hydrogen permeable membrane for another known hydrogen permeable membrane, such as a palladium-silver membrane, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Wellington teaches a reactor and process for steam reforming for producing hydrogen, wherein the reactor comprises a reaction chamber comprising an inlet to receive a hydrogen-producing feedstock and steam, a catalyst to produce hydrogen gas from the hydrogen-producing feedstock, at least one hydrogen-selective, hydrogen-permeable gas separation module to receive reaction products and separate the reaction products into a product stream comprising hydrogen and a byproduct stream, wherein the hydrogen-permeable gas separation module comprises a porous substrate and a hydrogen-selective membrane, and the hydrogen-permeable gas separation module comprises palladium alloy with silver metal on a porous substrate, thereby obtaining a hydrogen permeable membrane with improved durability (see page 3, lines 5-31 and page 5, lines 10-17).
In regard to Claim 2, Younes discloses wherein the enclosure comprises a casing surrounding the shell (see figure 1C and paragraph [0032]; Younes discloses the methane reformer #102 includes a pressure vessel, i.e. casing surrounding the shell.).
In regard to Claim 6, Younes, in view of Wellington, discloses the membrane reactor system as recited in claim 1. Wellington further teaches wherein the shell is longer than the Pd-Ag membrane along a longitudinal direction of the shell, and the feed inlet (#69) is offset from the Pd-Ag membrane along the longitudinal direction of the shell (see figure 4 and page 29, line 31 to page 30, line 27).
Examiner notes that although Younes, in view of Wellington, is silent in regard to wherein the feed inlet is offset from the Pd-Ag membrane along the longitudinal direction of the shell so that the feed gas is configured to produce the H2 before contacting the Pd-Ag membrane, Younes, as modified above, discloses substantially the same membrane reactor, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Younes’s membrane reactor, as modified above, is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held 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.
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 membrane reactor system as disclosed by Younes by further having the shell to be longer than the Pd-Ag membrane along a longitudinal direction of the shell, and the feed inlet is offset from the Pd-Ag membrane along the longitudinal direction of the shell so that the feed gas is configured to produce the H2 before contacting the Pd-Ag membrane, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Wellington further teaches wherein the shell is longer than the Pd-Ag membrane along a longitudinal direction of the shell, and the feed inlet is offset from the Pd-Ag membrane along the longitudinal direction of the shell, thereby obtaining a membrane reactor having improved hydrogen production efficiency (see figure 4 and page 29, line 31 to page 30, line 27).
In regard to Claim 7, Younes, in view of Wellington, discloses the membrane reactor system as recited in claim 1. Wellington further teaches the membrane reactor (MR) system comprises a plurality of shells (#82) each being porous and comprising the SMR catalyst (#70) and a plurality of tubes (#71) each comprising the Pg-Ag membrane, and the plurality of shells (#82) and the plurality of tubes (#71) are arranged concentrically and alternately (see figure 12 and page 36, lines 18-28).
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 membrane reactor system as disclosed by Younes by further having the membrane reactor (MR) system to comprises a plurality of shells each being porous and comprising the SMR catalyst and a plurality of tubes each comprising the Pg-Ag membrane, and the plurality of shells and the plurality of tubes are arranged concentrically and alternately, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Wellington further teaches the membrane reactor (MR) system comprises a plurality of shells each being porous and comprising the SMR catalyst and a plurality of tubes each comprising the Pg-Ag membrane, and the plurality of shells and the plurality of tubes are arranged concentrically and alternately, thereby obtaining a membrane reactor system having improved hydrogen generation efficiency (see figure 12 and page 36, lines 18-28).
In regard to Claim 8, Younes, in view of Wellington, discloses the membrane reactor system as recited in claim 1. Wellington further teaches wherein the plurality of shells include an outermost shell (#82) and an innermost shell (#72), between which each tube (#71) is positioned between two neighboring shells and has a respective sweep side and two respective feed sides (see figure 12 and page 36, lines 18-28).
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 membrane reactor system as disclosed by Younes by further having the plurality of shells to include an outermost shell and an innermost shell, between which each tube is positioned between two neighboring shells and has a respective sweep side and two respective feed sides, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Wellington further teaches the membrane reactor (MR) system comprises a plurality of shells each being porous and comprising the SMR catalyst and a plurality of tubes each comprising the Pg-Ag membrane, and the plurality of shells and the plurality of tubes are arranged concentrically and alternately, wherein the plurality of shells include an outermost shell and an innermost shell, between which each tube is positioned between two neighboring shells and has a respective sweep side and two respective feed sides, thereby obtaining a membrane reactor system having improved hydrogen generation efficiency (see figure 12 and page 36, lines 18-28).
In regard to Claim 9, Younes discloses wherein the shell (#102) is spaced apart from the tube (#104) with no SMR catalyst in between (see figure 1C and paragraph [0035]; Younes discloses the metal-based catalyst is incorporated into or disposed on a surface of the hydrogen separation membrane #104. Since the catalyst is incorporated into a surface of the hydrogen separation membrane, it is considered reasonably obvious, that the shell is spaced apart from the tube with no SMR catalyst in between, as claimed by the applicant.).
In regard to Claim 10, Younes, in view of Wellington, discloses the MR system as recited in claim 1. Wellington further teaches wherein the sidewall of the tube comprises Inconel to support the Pd-Ag membrane (see page 8, lines 10-17).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the MR system as discloses by Younes by further having the sidewall of the tube to comprise Inconel to support the Pg-Ag membrane, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Wellington further teaches wherein the sidewall of the tube comprises Inconel to support the Pd-Ag membrane, thereby obtaining a membrane having improved temperature strength and stability (see page 8, lines 10-17).
In regard to Claim 11, Younes discloses wherein the sweep gas comprises water steam (see figure 1C and paragraph [0077]).
In regard to Claim 12, Younes, in view of Wellington, discloses the MR system as recited in claim 1. Younes discloses wherein the water steam is pre-heated before received by the sweep inlet (#111) (see figure 1C and paragraphs [0042] and [0077]).
Although Younes, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose that the water steam is pre-heated to 600-900K, Younes clearly discloses that the operating temperature of the MR reactor #102 is from 400ºC to 600ºC (673K to 873K) (see paragraph [0066]). Further, Younes clearly discloses that steam #111 flows back to the methane reformer #102 and is heated by passing through the second side of heat exchanger #106 before being recycled and used as sweep gas for the MR reactor #102 (see figure 1C and paragraph [0077]). In view of this, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, to pre-heat the water steam to an optimum temperature in the heat exchanger, such as to a temperature of 600-900K (326-626ºC), as claimed by the applicant, in order to maintain process efficiency within the MR reactor system. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 13, Younes discloses wherein the feed gas further comprises carbon oxide and hydrogen (see paragraph [0038]).
In regard to Claim 14, Younes discloses wherein the feed inlet (#101) and the sweep inlet (#111) are respectively connected to the front cap so that the feed gas and the sweep gas are configured to flow in the same direction in the shell (#102) (see figure 1C and paragraphs [0036] and [0077]).
In regard to Claim 16, Younes discloses wherein the at least one tube (#104) and the shell (#102) are arranged concentrically (see figure 1C and paragraph [0033]).
In regard to Claim 17, Younes discloses wherein the enclosure is cylindrical (see figure 1C and paragraphs [0032]-[0033]).
In regard to Claim 18, Younes, in view of Wellington, discloses the MR system as recited in claim 1. Wellington further teaches wherein the MR system comprises a plurality of tubes (#71) in a square pattern (see figure 13 and page 35, lines 15-24).
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 MR system as disclosed by Younes by further having a plurality of tubes arranged in a square pattern, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Wellington further teaches the MR system comprises a plurality of tubes in a square pattern, thereby obtaining a system having improved spacing within the reactor (see figure 13 and page 35, lines 15-24).
In regard to Claim 20, Younes, in view of Wellington, discloses the MR system as recited in claim 2. Wellington further teaches wherein the MR system comprises a plurality of tubes (#71) arranged in a square pattern (see figure 13), neighboring tubes having a spacing of less than 22mm (see page 34, lines 24-26), and an empty volume of an enclosed space defined by the casing represents space not occupied by any of the plurality of tubes (#71) in the enclosed space is less than 10vol% of a total volume of the enclosed space (see figure 13 and page 34, lines 24-26).
Examiner notes that although Younes, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein an empty volume of an enclosed space defined by the casing represents space not occupied by any of the plurality of tubes in the enclosed space is less than 10vol% of a total volume of the enclosed space, Younes as modified above, discloses substantially the same MR system as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Younes’s MR system, as modified above, is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held 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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Younes, in view of Wellington and further in view of Essaki et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0025682, hereinafter Essaki).
In regard to Claim 3, Younes, in view of Wellington, discloses the membrane reactor system as recited in claim 1. Wellington teaches wherein the SMR catalyst comprises a catalyst comprising nickel on porous alumina (see page 20, lines 3-16). Younes, in view of Wellington, fails to disclose wherein the SMR catalyst further comprises a nickel aluminum oxide alloy including 20-40wt% of nickel based on a total weight of the nickel aluminum oxide alloy.
However, Essaki teaches a chemical reaction apparatus for generating hydrogen from a hydrocarbon gas. The chemical reaction apparatus includes a reaction chamber for generating hydrogen by reforming of methane with steam in the presence of a solid catalyst (see paragraphs [0014] and [0016]). The solid catalyst for the reforming of methane with steam comprises alumina particles which carry about 20wt% of metal nickel (see paragraph [0088]), which overlaps the claimed range of from 20 to 40wt% nickel based on a total weight of the nickel aluminum oxide alloy, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. 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 MR system as disclosed by Younes, in view of Wellington, by substituting a known SMR catalyst for another known SMR catalyst comprising a nickel aluminum oxide alloy including 20-40wt% of nickel based on a total weight of the nickel aluminum oxide alloy, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as a Essaki teaches a chemical reaction apparatus for generating hydrogen from a hydrocarbon gas, wherein the chemical reaction apparatus includes a reaction chamber for generating hydrogen by reforming of methane with steam in the presence of a solid catalyst, whereby the solid catalyst for the reforming of methane with steam comprises alumina particles which carry about 20wt% of metal nickel, thereby obtaining a SMR catalyst having improved hydrogen generation efficiency (see paragraphs [0014], [0016] and [0088]).
In regard to Claim 4, Younes, in view of Wellington and Essaki, discloses the MR system as recited in claim 3. Although Younes, as modified above, is silent in regard to wherein the nickel aluminum oxide alloy has a bed porosity of 0.3-0.5, Younes’s MR system, as modified above, contains substantially the same structural limitations and contains substantially the same SMR catalyst composition as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Younes’s MR system is capable of having a similar bed porosity as claimed, as it has been held that chemical compositions and their properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112.02.
In regard to Claim 5, Younes, in view of Wellington and Essaki, discloses the MR system as recited in claim 3. Essaki further teaches wherein the nickel aluminum oxide alloy has an average particle diameter of 5mm (see paragraph [0088]).
Examiner notes that although Essaki does not disclose that the average particle diameter of the nickel aluminum oxide alloy is 2.5-4.5mm, the average particle diameter of 5mm is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected it to have the same properties, absent evidence to the contrary and 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 MR system as disclosed by Younes, in view of Wellington, by having the average particle diameter of the nickel aluminum oxide alloy to be 2.5-4.5mm, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Essaki teaches a chemical reaction apparatus for generating hydrogen from a hydrocarbon gas, wherein the chemical reaction apparatus includes a reaction chamber for generating hydrogen by reforming of methane with steam in the presence of a solid catalyst, whereby the solid catalyst for the reforming of methane with steam comprises alumina particles which carry about 20wt% of metal nickel, and the nickel aluminum oxide alloy has an average diameter of 5mm, which is a value so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected it to have the same properties, absent evidence to the contrary and absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results, and thereby obtaining a SMR catalyst having improved hydrogen generation efficiency (see paragraphs [0014], [0016] and [0088]).
Examiner notes that although Younes, as modified above, is silent in regard to the nickel aluminum oxide alloy having a catalyst density of 2000-2700kg/m3, Younes’s MR system, as modified above, contains substantially the same structural limitations and contains substantially the same SMR catalyst composition as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that Younes’s MR system is capable of having a similar catalyst density as claimed, as it has been held that chemical compositions and their properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claims 1, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harale et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0394152, hereinafter Harale) in view of Wellington.
In regard to Claim 1, Harale discloses a membrane reactor (MR) system, comprising:
an enclosure comprising a shell (#202), a front cap (front inlet end) and a back cap (back outlet end), wherein the shell is porous and comprises a steam-methane reforming (SMR) catalyst (#209) (see figure 2 and paragraphs [0031]-[0032]);
a feed inlet (#206, #208) connected to the enclosure and configured to receive a feed gas comprising CH4 and H2O (see figure 2 and paragraph [0036]);
at least one tube (#204) disposed inside the enclosure and having a sidewall defining a feed side and a sweep side, the feed side fluidly connected to the feed inlet (#206, #208) to receive the feed gas that is configured to produce H2 catalyzed by the SMR catalyst of the shell (#202), wherein the sidewall comprises a palladium membrane configured to selectively permeate the H2 from the feed side to the sweep side (see figure 2 and paragraphs [0034], [0036] and [0039]);
a sweep inlet connected to the sweep side and configured to receive a sweep gas to carry and transport the H2 (see figure 2 and paragraph [0042]);
a production outlet (#212) connected to the at least one tube (#204) and configured to discharge the sweep gas and the H2 (see figure 2 and paragraphs [0040] and [0042]); and
a retentate outlet (#214) connected to the enclosure and configured to discharge the feed gas (see figure 2 and paragraphs [0041]-[0042]).
Harale does not explicitly disclose wherein the membrane comprises a palladium silver (Pd-Ag) membrane.
However, Wellington teaches a reactor and process for steam reforming for producing hydrogen. The reactor comprises a reaction chamber comprising an inlet to receive a hydrogen-producing feedstock and steam, a catalyst to produce hydrogen gas from the hydrogen-producing feedstock, at least one hydrogen-selective, hydrogen-permeable gas separation module to receive reaction products and separate the reaction products into a product stream comprising hydrogen and a byproduct stream. The hydrogen-permeable gas separation module comprises a porous substrate and a hydrogen-selective membrane (see page 3, lines 5-31). The hydrogen-permeable gas separation module comprises palladium alloy with silver metal on a porous substrate (see page 5, lines 10-17).
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 membrane reactor system as disclosed by Harale by substituting a known hydrogen permeable membrane for another known hydrogen permeable membrane, such as a palladium-silver membrane, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Wellington teaches a reactor and process for steam reforming for producing hydrogen, wherein the reactor comprises a reaction chamber comprising an inlet to receive a hydrogen-producing feedstock and steam, a catalyst to produce hydrogen gas from the hydrogen-producing feedstock, at least one hydrogen-selective, hydrogen-permeable gas separation module to receive reaction products and separate the reaction products into a product stream comprising hydrogen and a byproduct stream, wherein the hydrogen-permeable gas separation module comprises a porous substrate and a hydrogen-selective membrane, and the hydrogen-permeable gas separation module comprises palladium alloy with silver metal on a porous substrate, thereby obtaining a hydrogen permeable membrane with improved durability (see page 3, lines 5-31 and page 5, lines 10-17).
In regard to Claim 15, Harale discloses wherein the feed inlet (#206, #208) and the sweep inlet are respectively connected to the front cap and the back cap so that the feed gas and the sweep gas are configured to flow in opposite directions in the shell (#200) (see figure 2 and paragraph [0042]).
In regard to Claim 18, Harale in view of Wellington, discloses the MR system as recited in claim 1. Wellington further teaches wherein the MR system comprises a plurality of tubes (#71) in a square pattern (see figure 13 and page 35, lines 15-24).
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 MR system as disclosed by Harale by further having a plurality of tubes arranged in a square pattern, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Wellington further teaches the MR system comprises a plurality of tubes in a square pattern, thereby obtaining a system having improved spacing within the reactor (see figure 13 and page 35, lines 15-24).
In regard to Claim 19, Harale discloses wherein each tube (#304) has a diameter of 10-20 millimeters (see paragraph [0061]; Harale discloses the outer diameter of the tubular membrane may be in the range of 8mm to 300mm, which overlaps the claimed range of 10-20 millimeters, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.). Harale fails to disclose a thickness of 5-20 micrometers and a length of 0.25-1.0 meters.
However, Wellington further teaches the length of each hydrogen-selective membrane may be 12 inches (see page 15, line 32 to page 16, line 2), which falls inside the claimed range of from 0.25 to 1.0 meters, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. 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 MR system as disclosed by Harale by further having the length of each hydrogen-selective membrane to be in a range of from 0.25 to 1 meters, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Wellington further teaches the length of each hydrogen-selective membrane may be 12 inches, thereby obtaining a MR system having improved hydrogen generation separation efficiency (see page 15, line 32 to page 16, line 2).
Examiner notes that although Harale, in view of Wellington, does not explicitly disclose a thickness of 5-20micrometers, adjusting/changing the thickness to an optimum value of 5-20 millimeters, as claimed by the applicant, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reitmeier, R. (US Pat. No. 3,388,074)- a steam-gas hydrocarbon reforming catalyst for the production of hydrogen from a hydrocarbon and steam feed. The steam-gas hydrocarbon reforming catalyst comprises a commercial nickel catalyst consisting of 33wt% nickel on a refractory support comprising aluminum oxide based on a total weight of the nickel aluminum oxide catalyst (see column 3, lines 46-58).
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