DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending
Claims 1-10 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement filed 11/20/2023 having 21 pages fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because publication dates of NPL #22-24 and 41 in the 21-pages IDS filed 11/20/2023 are missing. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Double Patenting
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. US 11845067 B2 (‘US 067) in view of WO 02/085814 (WO ‘814), taken in view of evidence by Ramis, G., et. al., Adsorption, Activation, and Oxidation of Ammonia over SCR Catalysts (Ramis). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
5. Regarding claims 1-2, the claims of ‘US 067 require a staged catalyst with a first catalyst zone comprising a first SCR catalyst on a filter and a second downstream catalyst zone comprising a second SCR catalyst on a substrate, wherein the first SCR catalyst comprises a CuCHA zeolite catalyst having a mole ratio of silica to alumina greater than about 15 and an atomic ratio of copper to aluminum exceeding about 0.25 and containing an amount of free copper exceeding ion-exchanged copper, and the second catalyst zone promotes oxidation of ammonia (Claim 1)
wherein in SCR catalysts the oxidation of ammonia occurs (Ramis, Title)
wherein selective catalytic reduction (SCR) of NO by ammonia is observed at temperatures ranging from 450 (i.e. low temperature selective catalytic reduction) – 700 K (i.e. high temperature selective catalytic reduction) (Ramis, p. 525, left column, Table 1).
Given ‘US 067 teaches a staged catalyst with a composition and structure that are identical or substantially identical with those of the presently claimed, therefore, it is clear that the staged catalyst of ‘US 619 would necessarily and inherently meet the claimed “the first SCR catalyst is sufficient to handle high temperature selective catalytic reduction, and the second catalyst zone sufficient to handle lower temperature selective catalytic reduction.”
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
However, ‘US 067 does not teach a catalyst article comprising a honeycomb wall-flow filter substrate.
WO ‘814 teaches a ceramic honeycomb wall-flow filter (Abstract), wherein a catalyst is on or in the walls of the filter channel, wherein the catalyst is suitable to catalyze, for example, the combustion of soot particles or oxidation of CO (carbon monoxide) or NOx (nitrogen oxides) (P. 6, lines 23-26), wherein the catalyst is directly bound-metal catalyst, such as base metals (P. 6, lines 29-30), including copper (P. 7, line 1), within the ceramic grains of the porous catalyst support (P. 7, line 4).
US ‘067 and WO ‘814 are analogous art as they are all drawn to wall-flow filter to treat exhaust gas streams in a diesel engine.
In light of the disclosure of forming the ceramic honeycomb wall-flow filter comprising the catalyst by WO’814, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the catalyst of US ‘067 in the ceramic honeycomb wall-flow filter of WO’814, to treat exhaust gas streams in a diesel engine, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
6. Regarding claim 3, the claims of ‘US 067 further require the staged catalyst of claim 1, wherein the second SCR catalyst comprises a CuCHA zeolite catalyst having a mole ratio of silica to alumina greater than about 15 and an atomic ratio of copper to aluminum exceeding about 0.25 (Claim 2).
7. Regarding claim 4, the claims of ‘US 067 further require the staged catalyst of claim 1, wherein the second catalyst zone comprises a platinum group metal (Claim 3).
8. Regarding claim 5, the claims of ‘US 067 further require the staged catalyst of claim 3, wherein the platinum group metal comprises Pt. (Claim 4).
9. Regarding claim 6, the claims of ‘US 619 further require the staged catalyst of claim 4, wherein the platinum content is between 0.02% and 1.0% by weight of the second SCR catalyst, and the platinum loading is from about 0.5 g/in.sup.3 to about 5 g/in.sup.3 (Claim 5).
10. Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. US 8735311 B2 (‘US 311) in view of evidence of Ramis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
11. Regarding claims 1-3, the claims of ‘US 311 require a staged catalyst comprising an aluminosilicate zeolite having the CHA crystal structure and a mole ratio of silica to alumina from about 10 to about 150 and an atomic ratio of copper to aluminum from about 0.25 to about 1, the catalyst having a first catalyst zone with copper loading on the zeolite tailored to promote an SCR reaction of ammonia with nitrogen oxides to form nitrogen and H2O selectively followed by a second catalyst zone comprising a zeolite having the CHA crystal structure and thereon a copper loading tailored to promote oxidation of ammonia (Claim 4), wherein the zones are on a single honeycomb substrate (Claim 6);
wherein in SCR catalysts the oxidation of ammonia occurs (Ramis, Title)
wherein selective catalytic reduction (SCR) of NO by ammonia is observed at temperatures ranging from 450 (i.e. low temperature selective catalytic reduction) – 700 K (i.e. high temperature selective catalytic reduction) (Ramis, p. 525, left column, Table 1).
12. Regarding claim 4, the claims of ‘US 311 further require the staged catalyst of claim 4, wherein the second catalyst zone comprises a platinum group metal.
Claim Objections
13. Claim 8 objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 8, line 1 recites, “wherein the wherein the” It is suggested to delete one of the instances of “wherein the” in claim 8, line 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-10 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.
16. Each of claims 1 and 4 recite the term, “the second catalyst zone” which lacks antecedent basis. The examiner interprets this phrase as “the second downstream catalyst zone”. Clarification is required.
17. Regarding dependent claims 2-10, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
18. Claim 6 recites the term, “the platinum content” which lacks antecedent basis. The examiner interprets this phrase as “the platinum content of the platinum group metal”. Clarification is required.
19. Claim 6 further recites the term, “the platinum loading” which lacks antecedent basis. The examiner interprets this phrase as “the platinum loading of the platinum group metal”. Clarification is required.
20. Claim 8 recites the term, “the wall flow filter substrate” which lacks antecedent basis. The examiner interprets this phrase as “the honeycomb wall-flow filter substrate”. Clarification is required.
21. Regarding dependent claims 9-10, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 8 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
22. Claim 10 recites, “The catalyst article of claim 9, wherein the ceramic comprises silicon nitride.” However, claim 9 recites, the ceramic comprises cordierite. It is unclear how claim 10 depends on claim 9. Specifically, in light of Specification [0045], the ceramic comprising silicon nitride in claim 10 is a different species from the ceramic comprising cordierite recited in claim
9. The examiner interprets, claim 10 depends on claim 8. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
23. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
24. Claims 1, 4, 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Patchett et al. (US 20060039843 A1) (Patchett).
25. Regarding claim 1, Patchett teaches an emissions treatment system comprising a first (Patchett, Abstract) and a second substrate (Patchett, [0025]);
wherein the first (Patchett2, [0023]) and second substrates are honeycomb wall flow substrates (i.e. honeycomb wall-flow filter) (Patchett, [0025])
wherein the second substrate comprises a second SCR catalyst composition (i.e. first catalyst zone) interposed with the injector (i.e. upstream) and the first substrate (Patchett, [0025])
wherein the first substrate has a first SCR catalyst composition, downstream of the injector (i.e. a second downstream catalyst zone comprising a second SCR catalyst).
Patchett further teaches the second substrate coated with the second SCR catalyst composition (i.e. first SCR catalyst zone) better suited for higher operating temperatures experienced in upstream segments of the exhaust system (Patchett, [0062]).
Patchett further teaches the first substrate is coated with the first SCR catalyst composition (i.e. the second downstream catalyst zone comprising the second SCR catalyst) better suited to cooler exhaust temperature which are experienced in downstream segments of the exhaust system (Patchett, [0062]).
26. Regarding claim 4, Patchett further teaches the first substrate has an NH3 destruction catalyst composition (i.e. the second downstream catalyst zone comprising the second SCR catalyst) with a platinum group metal component (i.e. a platinum group metal) (Patchett, Abstract).
27. Regarding claim 8, Patchett further teaches carriers for the first substrate coated with the first SCR catalyst (i.e. the second downstream catalyst zone comprising the second SCR catalyst) are ceramic-like materials (Patchett, [0083])
wherein the first substrate is a honeycomb wall flow substrate (i.e. honeycomb wall-flow filter) (Patchett2, [0023]).
Patchett further teaches the second substrate coated with the second SCR catalyst (i.e. first SCR catalyst zone) also comprise ceramic-like materials (Patchett, [0084]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
28. 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
29. Claims 5 and 9-10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patchett.
30. Regarding claim 5, Patchett teaches the catalyst article of claim 4 (see article 26 above) wherein an example of the platinum group metal component is platinum (Patchett, [0053]).
Given that Patchett discloses the emissions treatment system that overlaps the presently claimed catalyst article, including a platinum group metal comprising Pt, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the emissions treatment system with platinum as the platinum group metal component, which is both disclosed by Patchett and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
31. Regarding claim 9-10, Patchett teaches the catalyst article of claim 4 (see article 26 above) wherein examples of the ceramic-like materials (i.e. a ceramic) are cordierite or silicon nitride (Patchett, [0083]).
Given that Patchett discloses the emissions treatment system that overlaps the presently claimed catalyst article, including a ceramic comprising cordierite or silicon nitride, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the emissions treatment system with ceramic-like materials (i.e. ceramic) comprising cordierite or silicon nitride, which is both disclosed by Patchett and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
32. Claims 2-3 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patchett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zones et al. (US 20030069449 A1) (Zones) and Torre-Abreu, et. al., Selective catalytic reduction of NO on copper-exchanged zeolites: the role of the structure of the zeolite in the nature of copper-active sites. (Torre-Abreu).
33. Regarding claims 2-3, Patchett further teaches an SCR catalyst composition comprising copper-exchanged zeolites (Patchett, [0069])
wherein the first (i.e. second SCR catalyst) and the second SCR catalyst (i.e. first SCR catalyst) compositions used to coat the first and second substrate are the same (Patchett, [0025]).
However, Patchett does not teach the first SCR catalyst comprises a CuCHA zeolite catalyst having a mole ratio of silica to alumina greater than about 15 and the second SCR catalyst comprises a CuCHA zeolite catalyst having a mole ratio of silica to alumina greater than about 15.
With respect to the difference, Zones teaches a small crystallite chabazite (i.e. CHA) zeolite as a catalyst (Zones, Abstract) for reduction of oxides of nitrogen (i.e. SCR catalyst) contained in a gas stream in the presence of oxygen (Zones, [0008])
wherein the small crystallite chabazite (i.e. CHA) zeolite is SSZ-62 (Zones, [0003])
wherein the small crystallite chabazite (i.e. CHA) zeolite contains a metal or metal ion ions (Zones, [0008])
wherein an example of the metal or metal ions is copper (i.e. CuCHA) (Zones, [0008]).
Given that Patchett in view of Zones discloses the emissions treatment system as a catalyst that overlaps the presently claimed catalyst article, including the CuCHA zeolite catalyst, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the emissions treatment system with a CuCHA catalyst, which is both disclosed by Zones and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Zones further teaches the small crystallite chabazite (i.e. CHA) zeolite has a mole ratio greater than about 10 of silicon oxide to aluminum oxide (Zones, [0009]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Zones expressly teaches the smaller crystallite size SSZ-62 is use to separate carbon dioxide from a natural gas as a component in a membrane (Zones, [0045])
wherein the natural gas stream is an exhaust stream of an internal combustion engine (Zones, [0009])
wherein the metal or metal ion contained in the small crystallite chabazite (i.e. CHA) zeolite is capable of catalyzing the reduction of the oxides of nitrogen (Zones, [0008])
wherein the smaller crystallite size SSZ-62 gives greater than 90% selectivity for C2-C4 olefins and does not show methanol breakthrough for greater than 15 hours due to smaller crystallite size to achieve superior performance (Zones, [0053]).
Patchett and Zones are analogous art as they are all drawn to catalysts for the reduction of nitrogen oxides.
In light of the motivation for a small crystallite size zeolite as disclosed by Zones, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the small crystallite chabazite (i.e. CHA) zeolite containing a copper metal (i.e. CuCHA) in the emissions treatment system of Patchett, in order to achieve an ideal amount of methanol breakthrough, capable catalysis in the reduction of the oxides of nitrogen and superior catalytic performance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Patchett in view of Zones further does not teach a CuCHA zeolite catalyst having an atomic ratio of copper to aluminum exceeding about 0.25.
With respect to the difference, Torre-Abreu teaches copper-exchanged zeolites with different structures (CuMFI, CuMOR and CuY) used as catalysts in the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) of NO (Torre-Abreu, Abstract) with differing Cu/Al ratios (Torre-Abreu, p. 413, left column, first paragraph)
wherein copper is necessary to activate NO or to form NO2, with Cu(I) and Cu(II) species being involved (Torre-Abreu, p. 407, right column, last paragraph)
wherein the Cu/Al ratios range from 0.1 to 1.6 (Torre-Abreu, p. 409, right column, Results), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Torre-Abreu expressly teaches the lowest NO conversions observed at lower Cu/Al ratios have been attributed to higher acidity of the catalysts, which is not favorable to NO reduction by propene (Torre-Abreu, p. 417, left column, first paragraph)
wherein catalysts that present the highest maximum NO conversion into N2, correspond to those that contain a higher concentration of Cu2+ (i.e. high Cu/Al ratio) (Torre-Abreu, p. 417, left column, first paragraph)
wherein the activities of catalysts can be correlated with accessibility and concentration of Cu2+ ions.
Patchett, Zones and Torre-Abreu are analogous art as they are all drawn to catalysts for the reduction of nitrogen oxides.
In light of the motivation for control of the Cu/Al ratios in copper-exchanged zeolites as disclosed by Torre-Abreu, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Cu/Al ratios range from 0.1 to 1.6 in the emission treatment system of Patchett in view of Zones, in order to achieve a desired catalytic activity in the conversion of NO, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
34. Claims 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
35. It is noted that a nonstatutory double patenting rejection against claim 6, as set forth above in item #8, which would also need to be resolved.
36. While Patchett teaches the limitations of claim 1, Patchett does not disclose or suggest the limitation of claim 6. Specifically, Patchett discloses the first substrate has an NH3 destruction catalyst composition (i.e. the second downstream catalyst zone comprising the second SCR catalyst) is platinum (Patchett, [0053]) without a platinum content and a platinum loading of 0.1 to 10 g/ft3 (i.e. 5.8 *10-6 to 5.8 *10-4 g/in3) wherein limiting the amount of the platinum group metal component to less than 10 g/ft3 (i.e. less than 5.8 *10-4 g/in3) is advantageous to lead to effective and selective conversion of ammonia to N2 and H2O without NOx formation (Patchett, [0055]), which teaches away from the presently claimed platinum loading is from about 0.5 g/in3 to about 5 g/in3.
37. While Patchett teaches the limitations of claim 1, Patchett does not disclose or suggest the limitation of claim 7. Specifically, Patchett further teaches an SCR catalyst composition comprising copper-exchanged zeolites (Patchett, [0069])
However, Patchett does not disclose or suggest the copper-exchanged zeolite is Cu-SSZ-13.
With respect to the difference, Zones teaches a small crystallite chabazite (i.e. CHA) zeolite as a catalyst (Zones, Abstract) for reduction of oxides of nitrogen (i.e. SCR catalyst) contained in a gas stream in the presence of oxygen (Zones, [0008]) wherein the small crystallite chabazite (i.e. CHA) zeolite is SSZ-62 (Zones, [0003]) containing copper metal (i.e. Cu-SSZ-62), which is advantageous to prior art catalysts with larger crystallite sizes, such as SSZ-13, due to greater than 90% selectivity for C2-C4 olefins and not showing methanol breakthrough for greater than 15 hours (Zones, [0053]), which teaches away from the presently claimed staged catalyst comprises Cu-SSZ-13 and a platinum group metal.
Conclusion
38. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 5.
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 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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights