DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-43 are pending
Claims 29-32, 38, and 41 are withdrawn
Claims 21-28, 33-37, 39-40, and 42-43 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claims 24 and 33 is objected to because of the following informalities:
3. In order to confirm to proper form of claim, it is suggested to amend “poly(4-vinylpyridine);” to “poly(4-vinylpyridine).” in claim 24, line 4. See MPEP 608.01(m).
4. In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “or” to “and” in claim 24, line 4.
5. In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “litres” to “liters” in claim 33, line 3. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claim 21 is 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.
8. The term “the majority of pores in the mesoporous range have an average pore size of between 2 nm and 50 nm” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “the majority of the pores” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner interprets this as “the mesoporous range have average pore size of between 2 nm and 50 nm.”
9. Regarding dependent claims 22-28, 33-37, 39-40, and 42-43, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 21 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 21-28, 33, 36-37, 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray et al. (US 10836654 B1) (Gray) in view of Suzuki et al., Simple preparation of silica and alumina with a hierarchical pore system via the dual-templating method (Suzuki), Wu et al. Synthesis of mesoporous alumina with tunable structural properties (Wu), and Reeve et al. (US 20210008522 A1) (Reeve) taken in view of evidence by Wu2 et al., Hierarchically structured porous materials: synthesis strategies and applications in energy storage (Wu2) and Microtrac et al., The Adsorption Isotherm (Microtrac).
12. Regarding claim 21, Gray teaches a method for the removal of organic contaminates from wastewater (Gray, Abstract) wherein the method comprises contacting wastewater comprising water (i.e. fluid stream comprising water) and an organic contaminate with a basic immobilized amine sorbent (i.e. composition) (Gray, Abstract)
wherein the organic contaminant are perfluoro-compounds (i.e. PFAS) (Gray, column 3, lines 62-63);
wherein the basic immobilized amine sorbent (BIAS) (i.e. composition) comprises an inorganic support (Gray, column 4, lines 32-34) wherein the inorganic support (i.e. particulate support material) comprises alumina (Gray, column 4, lines 49-51).
Gray further teaches the BIAS comprises a polyamine (Gray, Abstract) that is the primary sorbent component of the BIAS (Gray, column 5, lines 14-15);
wherein the polyamine is a linear/branched mixture (i.e. a linear core polymer and branched core polymer) (Gray, column 5, lines 41-43);
wherein the polyamine is bound to the inorganic support via a linker (i.e. the linear core polymer or branched core polymer is covalently linked to the particulate support material) (Gray, Abstract).
However, Gray does not teach (a) particulate support material comprising a bimodal alumina having pores within a mesoporous range and pores within a macroporous range, (b) wherein the pores within the mesoporous range have an average pore size of between 2 nm and 50 nm, (c) wherein the bimodal alumina has a BET pore volume within the pores within a mesoporous range of not less than around 0.20 cm3/g, and (d) wherein the sorbent molecule further comprises one or more covalently linked sorbent groups.
With respect to the differences (a) and (b), Suzuki teaches a synthesis of silica and alumina with macro-meso-type hierarchical pore systems (i.e. bimodal alumina) (Suzuki, Abstract);
wherein porous materials have diverse applications as adsorbents (Suzuki, p. 1, left column, first paragraph);
wherein mesopores with a uniform size were clearly observed (Suzuki, p. 4, right column), that according to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) mesopores have pore sizes of greater than 2 nm to 50 nm (Wu2, 1668, left column, paragraph 1);
given the uniform mesopores have pore sizes of 2 nm to 50 nm, the pores (i.e. 100%) have an average pore size of between 2 nm to 50 nm, which falls within the claimed range.
Suzuki expressly teaches hierarchically ordered particles, having a bimodal distribution of pores are more important than unimodal mesoporous systems (Suzuki, p. 1, left column, first paragraph);
wherein macroporous materials possess excellent chemical, mechanical and thermal stability (Suzuki, p. 1, left column, first paragraph);
wherein a bimodal structure has the advantage that reagents pass through both macropores and mesopores (Suzuki, p. 1, right column, first paragraph);
wherein functionality of alumina is enhanced by adding mesoporous properties, such as a high surface area, large pore volume and uniform pore size (Suzuki, p. 2, left column, paragraph 2).
Gray and Suzuki are analogous art as they are all drawn to porous adsorbent compositions comprising alumina.
In light of the motivation for hierarchically ordered particles, having a bimodal distribution of pores and functionality of alumina is enhanced by adding mesoporous properties as disclosed by Suzuki, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include alumina with macro-meso-type hierarchical pore systems and uniform mesopores have pore sizes of 2 nm to 50 nm (i.e. 100% of pores have an average pore size of between 2 nm to 50 nm), in the method for the removal of organic contaminates from wastewater of Gray, in order to achieve the advantages that reagents pass through both macropores and mesopores and high functionality of alumina enhanced by high surface area, large pore volume and uniform pore size, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to difference (c), Wu teaches mesoporous aluminas (MAs) with tunable structural properties including BET surface area, pore volume and pore size (Wu, Abstract);
wherein MAs have a great deal of interest for their potential in a wide range of
applications such as adsorption (i.e. an adsorbent) (Wu, p. 12, left column, first paragraph);
wherein nitrogen sorption isotherms are measured (Wu, p. 14, right column, Fig. 1a) that can be used to calculate the BET pore volume with the Gurvich-rule pore volume (Microtrac, p. 3, Fig. 2);
wherein the equation to calculate the total pore volume at p/p0 = 0.99 (i.e. BET pore volume) is shown below (Microtrac, p. 5, eq. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the estimated volume adsorbed for the mesoporous alumina samples at the relative pressure of p/p0 = 0.99 is at least around 400 cm3/g (MA1P0N) (Wu, p. 14, right column, Fig. 1a), see annotated Fig. 1a, below.
PNG
media_image2.png
293
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wu further teaches that according to the nitrogen sorption isotherms are measured (Wu, p. 14, right column, Fig. 1a) the BET pore volume is ~0.62 cm3-/g (i.e. BET mesoporous pore volume of ~0.62 and ~400 cm3-/g * 1.547 *10-3), which falls within the claimed range.
Wu expressly teaches MAs have a great deal of interest from industry and academia in a wide range of applications attributed to mesoporosity features such as tunable pore size, high surface area and large pore volume, which make MAs ideal for adsorption (i.e. sorbents) (Wu, p. 12, left column);
wherein superior adsorption capability is achieved due to larger pore volume (Wu, p. 19, right column, 3.5 BSA adsorption).
Gray, Suzuki, and Wu are analogous art as they are all drawn to porous adsorbent compositions comprising alumina.
In light of the motivation for MAs have a great deal of interest from industry and academia in a wide range of applications as disclosed by Wu, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a BET pore volume of ~0.6188 cm3-/g in the method for the removal of organic contaminates from wastewater of Gray in view of Suzuki, in order to achieve superior adsorption capability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the difference (d), Reeve teaches processes for removal of a target substance from a fluid stream comprising contacting the fluid stream with a composition comprising a polyamine, a covalently linked hydrophobic group, and a support material (Reeve, Abstract);
wherein the target substances are poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) (Reeve, [0038]);
wherein the polyamine is a sorbent molecule (Reeve, [0050]) that is linear or branched (i.e. the sorbent molecule comprises a linear core polymer or branched core polymer) (Reeve, [0015]) and is covalently linked to a support material (i.e. the linear core polymer or branched core polymer is covalently linked to the particulate support material) (Reeve, Abstract);
wherein the polyamine is modified by covalent addition of a C2-C22 hydrophobic group (i.e. the sorbent molecule further comprises one or more covalently linked sorbent groups) (Reeve, [0076]).
Reeve expressly teaches a plurality of hydrophobic groups are reacted with a plurality of amine groups within the polyamine molecule (Reeve, [0054]);
wherein resultant sorbent (polyamine) molecule will possess unique properties of absorbency that may be tuned to the specific requirements of the sorbent material (Reeve, [0055]);
wherein it is an advantage that the resultant sorbent material is readily optimized to target specific substances and/or contaminants within a fluid stream by modifying the chemistry of the sorbent molecule (Reeve, [0055])
wherein modification with amphipathic groups (i.e. contains a hydrophobic group) generate a derivative product with particular utility in filtration and removal of PFAS from liquid streams (Reeve, [0063]).
Gray, Suzuki, Wu, and Reeve are analogous art as they are all drawn to porous adsorbent materials.
In light of the motivation for a plurality of hydrophobic groups are reacted with a plurality of amine groups within the polyamine molecule as disclosed by Reeve, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a polyamine that is modified by covalent addition of a C2-C22 hydrophobic group (i.e. the sorbent molecule further comprises one or more covalently linked sorbent groups) in the method for the removal of organic contaminates from wastewater of Gray in view of Suzuki and Wu, in order to achieve the advantage that the sorbent material is readily optimized to target specific substances and/or contaminants within a fluid stream by modifying the chemistry of the sorbent molecule and modification with amphipathic groups (i.e. contains a hydrophobic group) to generate a derivative product with particular utility in filtration and removal of PFAS from liquid streams, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
13. Regarding claim 22-23, the organic contaminant are perfluoro-compounds (i.e. PFAS) such as perfluorooctanoic acid, perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (i.e. perfluorobutane sulfonate), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (i.e. perfluorooctane sulfonate), perfluorooctane sulfonate (Gray, column 3, lines 62-67), which are anionic in water.
14. Regarding claims 24-25, Gray further teaches examples of the polyamines include polyethylenimine (Gray, column 5, lines 57-58), poly(allylamine) (Gray, column 5, line 67 and column 6, line 1) and polyvinyl amine (Gray, column 5, line 67) that contain more than one as well as any combination of the following amine groups: primary (—NH2), secondary (—NH), and tertiary (—N) amines (i.e. branched core polymer) (Gray, column 5, lines 32-35). Given that Gray discloses the method for the removal of organic contaminates from wastewater that overlaps the presently claimed process for removal of one or more poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances, including polyethylenimine, poly(allylamine) and polyvinyl amine, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the removal of organic contaminates from wastewater with polyethylenimine, poly(allylamine) and polyvinyl amine, which is both disclosed by Gray and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
15. Regarding claim 26, Gray further teaches examples of the polyamines include polyethylenimine (i.e. PEI) (Gray, column 5, lines 57-58) wherein the molecular weight (i.e. average molecular weight) ranges between 180 and 1,000,000 (Gray, column 5, lines 45-47), 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).
16. Regarding claim 27, the inorganic support comprises alumina (Gray, column 4, lines 49-51) in pellet forms (i.e. particles), wherein the pellet forms are beads (i.e. spheroidal particles) (Gray, column 5, line 3).
17. Regarding claim 28, the BIAS is in a packed column volume (i.e. comprised within a packed bed) (Gray, column 7, lines 2-6).
18. Regarding claim 33, Gray does not further teach a packed bed that is configured to permit a minimum water flow rate there-through of at least 2 liters/min.
With respect to the difference, Reeve teaches sorbent particles are designed to be deployed as a sorbent media for wastewater treatment in a standard packed bed (Reeve, [0048]);
wherein the processes for removal of a target substance from a fluid stream (Reeve, Abstract) allows for the deployment in large volume wastewater applications with megaliters/day flow rate (Reeve, [0062]);
wherein 1 megaliter/day is equivalent to a flow rate of 694 L/min (i.e. 1 megaliter/day = 1,000,000 L/day * (1 day / 24 hours) * (1 hr / 60 min)) (Reeve, [0062]), which falls within the claimed range.
Reeve expressly teaches a low cost and ease of production (Reeve, [0062]);
wherein cost-effective production of the sorbent material at large scale allows for the deployment in large volume wastewater applications (Reeve, [0062]).
In light of the motivation for low cost and ease of production as disclosed by Reeve, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a flow rate of 694 L/min in the removal of organic contaminates from wastewater of Gray in view of Suzuki, in order to achieve cost effective production of the sorbent material at large scale to allow for the deployment in large volume wastewater applications, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
19. Regarding claim 36, Reeve further teaches the hydrophobic group comprises a C2-C22 unsaturated alkyl (i.e. overlaps with unsubstituted C1-C12 alkyl group) (Reeve, [0017]), which overlaps with the claimed functional groups.
Reeve further teaches the hydrophobic group linear alkyl selected from an C4-C8 branched or linear alkyl selected from an isobutyl, isohexyl or isooctyl (i.e. unsubstituted alkyl group), benzene (i.e. unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group and unsubstituted aromatic group), phenol (i.e. substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group and substituted aromatic group) (Reeve, [0017]).
Reeve further teaches the polyamine is modified with an acylating agent (Reeve, [0069]) comprising the formula below wherein R1 is selected from linear C4-C8 unsaturated alkyl group (i.e. a substituted alkenyl group and unsubstituted acyl group) (Reeve, [0074]) or a phenol group (i.e. a substituted acyl group) (Reeve, [0074]) (see Structure 2, p. 8 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
108
147
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Structure 2, p. 8
20. Regarding claim 37, Gray further teaches the BIAS polyamines (Gray, Abstract) contain tertiary (—N) amines (i.e. at least one tertiary amino group) (Gray, column 5, lines 32-35);
Reeve further teaches the C2-C22 hydrophobic group (Reeve, Abstract) may be covalently attached to the polyamine via a quaternization (i.e. at least one tertiary amino group is converted to a quaternary nitrogen) (Reeve, [0081]);
wherein R1, R-2 and R3- are part of the polyamine molecule (i.e. tertiary amine) and R4 is the C2-C22 hydrophobic group (Reeve, [0081]);
wherein quaternization converts a tertiary amine group to a quaternary amine (Reeve, p. 9, Scheme IX) (see annotated Scheme IX below).
PNG
media_image4.png
186
420
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Scheme IX
21. Regarding claim 39, Gray further teaches examples of the polyamines contain more than one as well as any combination of the following amine groups: primary (—NH2), secondary (—NH), and tertiary (—N) amines (i.e. branched core polymer) (Gray, column 5, lines 32-35).
Reeve further teaches the polyamine is modified by covalent addition of a C2-C22 hydrophobic group (i.e. the branched core polymer comprises C2-C22 hydrophobic group) (Reeve, [0017]) such as linear alkyl selected from an isobutyl (i.e. the branched core polymer comprises alkyl substituted C4) isohexyl (i.e. the branched core polymer comprises alkyl substituted C6) (Reeve, [0017]).
22. Regarding claim 40, Gray does not further teach the process further comprises regenerating the composition after the contacting step.
With respect to the difference, Reeve further teaches the process further comprises regenerating the composition after removal of the target substance from the fluid stream (Reeve, [0025]).
Reeve expressly teaches regeneration as particularly advantageous in that it allows for the removal of target substances for recycling, recovery or safe disposal, as well as allowing the reuse of the sorbent material (Reeve, [0058]).
In light of the motivation for regeneration as particularly advantageous as disclosed by Reeve, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to regenerating the composition after removal of the target substance from the fluid stream in the method for the removal of organic contaminates from wastewater of Gray in view of Suzuki, in order to allows for the removal of target substances for recycling, recovery or safe disposal, as well as allowing the reuse of the sorbent material, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
23. Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Suzuki, Wu, and Reeve as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Huang et al., Facile synthesis of mesoporous γ-alumina with tunable pore size: The effects of water to aluminum molar ratio in hydrolysis of aluminum alkoxides (Huang).
24. Regarding claim 34, Gray in view of Suzuki, Wu, and Reeve do not teach the pores within the mesoporous range have an average pore size of between 2 nm and 20 nm.
With respect to the difference, Huang teaches the synthesis of γ-Al2O3 materials and their adsorption affinity towards pollutants in water (i.e. a fluid stream) (Huang, Title);
wherein the γ-Al2O3 materials were found to be effective adsorbent for the removal of selective pollutants (Huang, Abstract) such as Congo red, phenol, Cd(II), and Cr(VI) in water (i.e. fluid stream) (Huang, p. 4592, left column, Adsorption performance in water treatment);
wherein the pore widths were measured at the middle of the pore size distribution peak (i.e. average pore size) (Huang, p. 4590, right column, Table 1 Notation);
wherein the average pore widths were 3.7 and 4.1 nm, which fall within the claimed range (Huang, p. 4590, right column, Table 1 Notation).
Haung expressly teaches the pore size of the γ-Al2O3 materials determine the accessibility of surface sites for phenol molecules (i.e. organic contaminant) (Huang, p. 4593, right column, paragraph 2)
wherein γ-Al2O3 materials achieve good adsorption performance in the removal of selected pollutants from wastewater (i.e. a fluid stream) (Huang, p. 4594, left column, first paragraph).
Gray, Suzuki, Wu, Reeve, and Huang are analogous art as they are all drawn to porous adsorbent materials.
In light of the motivation for the pore size of the γ-Al2O3 materials determine the accessibility of surface sites as disclosed by Huang, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include mesopores with average pore widths of 3.7 and 4.1 nm, in the removal of organic contaminates from wastewater of Gray in view of Suzuki, Wu, and Reeve, in order to achieve good adsorption performance in the removal of selected pollutants from wastewater (i.e. a fluid stream), and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
25. Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Suzuki, Wu, and Reeve as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Orera et al., Design and characterization of macroporous alumina membranes for passive samplers of water contaminants (Orera).
26. Regarding claim 35, Gray in view of Suzuki, Wu, and Reeve do no teach a majority of the pores within the macroporous range have an average pore size between 1 μm and 10 μm.
With respect to the difference, Orera teaches macroporous alumina membranes for passive samplers of water contaminants (i.e. removal of contaminants from a fluid stream) (Orera, Title);
wherein the macroporous alumina membranes had pore morphology (i.e. pore size) consisted of spherical cavities (i.e. macropores) of 5-10 μm in diameter (i.e. a pore size of 5-10 μm) (Orera, Abstract);
given the spherical cavities (i.e. macropores) are 5-10 μm in diameter (i.e. a pore size of 5-10 μm), the majority of the pores (i.e. 100%) have an average pore size of between 5-10 μm, which falls within the claimed range.
Orera expressly teaches the connected porosity of the MCPS 1, MCPS 2, and MCPS3 samples increased (Orera, p. 1855, left column, Table 2) to those of the state-of-the-art sample (Orera, p. 1858, left column, paragraph 1);
due to the much larger pore size in the MCPS membranes (Orera, p. 1858, left column, paragraph 1);
wherein as connected porosity increases the diffusion coefficients for methylene blue (i.e. organic contaminant) increases (Orera, Abstract).
Gray, Suzuki, Wu, Reeve, Huang, and Orera are analogous art as they are all drawn to porous adsorbent materials.
In light of the motivation for the connected porosity of the MCPS1, MCPS2, and MCPS3 samples increased as disclosed by Orera, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the spherical cavities (i.e. macropores) of 5-10 μm in diameter (i.e. a pore size of 5-10 μm) in the removal of organic contaminates from wastewater of Gray, Suzuki, Wu, and Reeve, in order to achieve an increase in the diffusion coefficient for methylene blue (i.e. organic contaminant), and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
27. Claims 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Suzuki, Wu, and Reeve as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Motkuri et al. (US 20200369536 A1) (Motkuri).
28. Regarding claim 42-43, Reeve further teaches regeneration of the support material comprises applying a salt wash that in an aqueous solution (i.e. solvent liquid is water) (Reeve, [0058])
However, Gray in view of Suzuki, Wu, and Reeve do not teach the solvent liquid comprises one or more non-aqueous polar solvent(s).
With respect to the difference, Motkuri teaches a method for removing a PFAS from a sample include combining the sample with a composite sorbent (Motkuri, [0007]);
wherein the method further comprises regenerating the sorbent after use (Motkuri, [0161]) by rinsing the sorbent with water or acetone (Motkuri, [0161]).
In light of the disclosure of Motkuri of the equivalence and interchangeability of using water and acetone as the regeneration solvent disclosed in Gray in view of Suzuki, Wu, and Reeve (Reeve, [0025]), with an aqueous solution (i.e. solvent liquid is water) as presently claimed, it would therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use acetone as the solvent liquid in Gray in view of Suzuki, Wu, and Reeve, and thereby arrive claimed invention.
Conclusion
29. 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
/KELING ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights