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 .
Priority Status
Foreign priority is claimed in the Instant Application; EFD is 06/27/2023
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) Claim 4 is recites “conducting calcining”. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “calcining the mixture under an inert gas atmosphere”.
(ii) Claim 8 is objected to because “cooperates with a persulfate as a catalyst” is informal. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “wherein the magnetic Fe3O4@Cu/C composite activates persulfate to degrade an antibiotic pollutant in water”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claim 8 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.
Claim 8 recites “cooperates with a persulfate as a catalyst for efficient degradation of an antibiotic pollutant in water.” The phrase is indefinite because it is unclear whether the persulfate is the catalyst, whether the Fe3O4@Cu/C composite is the catalyst/activator, or whether the combination forms a catalytic oxidation system. Further, “efficient degradation” is a term of degree without an objective boundary, such as degradation percentage, reaction time, rate constant, or test method. See MPEP 2173.02, 2173.05(b) and 2173.05(g).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Junghans et al., (A Series of Robust Copper-Based Triazolyl Isophthalate MOFs: Impact of Linker Functionalization on Gas Sorption and Catalytic Activity, materials, 2017, 10, 338, pp. 1-17, hereinafter as, “Junghans”), in view of Aljammal et al., (Flexibility in Metal–Organic Frameworks: A
Basic Understanding, catalysts, 2019, 9, 512, pp. 1-31, hereinafter as “Aljammal”) and Seetharaj et al., (Dependence of Solvents, pH, Molar Ratio and Temperature in Tuning Metal Organic Framework Architecture, Arabian Journal of Chemistry, 2019, 12, pp. 295-315, hereinafter as “Seetharaj”).
Regarding claim 1, Junghans discloses copper-based metal-organic framework (Cu-MOF) materials having reported crystallographic unit cell parameters and orthorhombic (α, β, γ =90) Pbca crystal structures. The reported unit cell parameters for MOF=3; a= 18.75 Å, b= 24.28 Å, c= 25.40 Å and V=11,563.35 Å3 (Abstract; p. 2, 2. Results and Discussion, lines 1-8, Table 2 reports space group, unit cell parameters).
But Junghans does not disclose the exact numerical values recited in claim 1, namely a = 8.7292 Å, b = 20.4196 Å, c = 34.3986 Å, and V = 6,131.42 Å3, MOF framework flexibility and synthesis variables that affect the preparation of MOF architecture.
However, Junghans teaches the same claimed material class and crystallographic classification, namely Cu-MOF having orthorhombic Pbca structures and reported unit-cell dimensions.
Aljammal discloses that MOFs can exhibit framework flexibility and changes in unit-cell dimensions and volume (Abstract, p.11, 2.2. Thermo-Responsivity lines, lines 1-13 (unit cell expansion as a thermos-responsive; p. 11, 2.3 Mechanical Properties, line 1 thru p. 12, lines 2 (unit cell volume transformation of MOFs with external pressure).
Seetharaj further discloses that MOF architecture and crystallization are affected by routine synthesis variables including solvents, pH, molar ratio and temperature (Abstract).
The present specification reports the claimed unit-cell parameters as X-ray single-crystal diffraction characterization of the prepared crystal but does not identify the exact numerical values as critical or associate those exact values with an unexpected property. The Applicant’s specification instead describes the performance in terms of the Fe3O4@Cu/C composite [0024], PMS activation [0003], degradation efficiency [0003], anti-interference [0024], magnetic separation [0051], and recyclability [0052]. Therefore, the absent evidence that the exact unit-cell values are critical or produce unexpected results.
Junghans, Aljammal and Seetharaj are analogous arts because they are in same field of endeavor as claim 1. Claim 1 is directed to a copper-metal organic framework material having an orthorhombic Pbca crystal structure and reported unit-cell parameters. Junghans likewise teaches copper-based metal organic frameworks, including copper triazolyl-carboxylate MOFs having orthorhombic Pbca crystal structures and reported unit-cell parameters. Aljammal and Seetharaj concern MOF crystallographic behavior and synthesis-variable control, including unit-cell/framework variation and effects of solvent, pH, molar ratio and temperature.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare copper-based MOF within the known orthorhombic Pbca Cu-MOF class taught by Junghan and obtain unit-cell dimensions resulting from routine crystallization, activation, and refinement conditions taught by Aljammal and Seetharaj because Junghan discloses the orthorhombic Pbca Cu-MOFs with reported cell parameters (Abstract; p. 2, 2. Results and Discussion, lines 1-8, Table 2 reports space group, unit cell parameters), Aljammal taught that MOF that unit-cell dimensions may vary due to framework flexibility (Abstract, p.11, 2.2. Thermo-Responsivity lines, lines 1-13 (unit cell expansion as a thermos-responsive; p. 11, 2.3 Mechanical Properties, line 1 thru p. 12, lines 2 (unit cell volume transformation of MOFs with external pressure), and Seetharaj taught that MOF architecture is tunable by known synthesis variables such as solvents, pH, molar ratio and temperature (Abstract). The claim does not recite a particular ligand, framework topology, pore structure, adsorption property, catalytic property, or unexpected functional result tied to the exact numerical values of a,b,c, and V. Absent evidence that the exact unit values are critical or produce unexpected results, the claimed Cu-MOF material would have been obvious over Junghans in view of Aljammal and Seetharaj.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over in view of Junghans in view of Aljammal and Seetharaj further in view of Chui et al., (A Chemically Functionalizable Nanoporous Material [Cu3(TMA)2(H2O)3]n), Science, 283, pp. 1148-1150, hereinafter, as “Chui”).
Regarding claim 2, Junghans discloses preparing copper-based triazolyl-carboxyl
ate (the same functional group as the tris(4-(4H-1,2,4-triazol-4-yl)phenyl)amine) MOF materials from copper salts and organic framework-forming ligands under MOF-forming reactions conditions (Abstract; p. 2, 2. Results and Discussion, line 1 thru p. 3 lines 14).
Junghans further discloses water, copper acetate, and methanol and at temperature 413K (139.85oC, ~140oC) (ESI, p. 2, Table S1-Synthesis method, ligand, metal salt, solvent, product and product yield of Cu-MOF).
But Junghans does not disclose the exact claimed mixed precursor system in particular exactly the Tris(4-(4H-1,2,4-triazol-4-yl)phenyl)amine and 1,3,5-benzenetricarboxylic acid (BTC) precursor ingredients, MOF framework flexibility and synthesis variables that affect the preparation of MOF architecture.
However, Chui teaches and discloses copper-BTC MOF framework chemistry using copper and benzene 1,3,5-tricarboxylate (BTC) or the 1,3,5-benzenetricarboxylic acid (Abstract).
Aljammal discloses that MOFs can exhibit framework flexibility and changes in unit-cell dimensions and volume (Abstract, p.11, 2.2. Thermo-Responsivity lines, lines 1-13 (unit cell expansion as a thermos-responsive; p. 11, 2.3 Mechanical Properties, line 1 thru p. 12, lines 2 (unit cell volume transformation of MOFs with external pressure).
Seetharaj discloses that MOF architecture and crystallization are affected by routine synthesis variables including solvents, pH, molar ratio and temperature (Abstract).
Junghans, Aljammal, Seetharaj and Chui are analogous arts because they are directed to the same filed of endeavor: copper-based metal-organic framework and copper coordination-framework materials. Junghans teaches copper triazolyl-carboxylate MOFs having orthorhombic Pbca crystal structures and reported unit-cell parameters. Aljammal and Seetharaj concern MOF crystallographic behavior and synthesis-variable control, including unit-cell/framework variation and effects of solvent, pH, molar ratio and temperature. Chui teaches copper-BTC/HKUST-1 MOF framework chemistry using copper and benzene-135-tricarboxylate. Thus, these two references are reasonably pertinent to forming crystalline Cu-MOF materials using copper nodes and organic framework-forming ligands.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the copper MOF synthesis of Junghans with Chui’s Cu-BTC linker thereby producing the feature of the claimed Cu-MOF, because Chui’s precursor ingredient is compatible building block with Cu coordination-framework that enables the formation of the crystalline Cu-MOF materials (Chui: Abstract).
With respect to the adjusting a pH value of the system to 5 to 7 to obtain a solution,
subjecting the solution to reaction in a reactor for 72 h to 96 h to obtain a reaction product, subjecting the reaction product to gradient cooling to a temperature of 70°C to 90°C and natural cooling to room temperature, and a molar ratio of the tris(4-(4H-1,2,4-triazol-4-yl)phenyl)amine, the copper acetate, and the 1,3,5-benzenetricarboxylic acid is in a range of 1:(1-5):(1-5) in preparing the MOF material, experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Junghans and Chui do not expressly disclose the pH value, reaction time, natural cooling temperature and molar ratio; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust pH value, reaction time, natural cooling temperature and molar ratio as claimed since the solvent, pH, molar ratio, and temperature are known MOF synthesis variables affecting MOF architecture and crystallization formation of Cu-MOF as taught by Aljammal (Abstract, p.11, 2.2. Thermo-Responsivity lines, lines 1-13 (unit cell expansion as a thermos-responsive; p. 11, 2.3 Mechanical Properties, line 1 thru p. 12, lines 2 (unit cell volume transformation of MOFs with external pressure) and Seetharaj (Abstract) and absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 3, Junghans teaches copper-based MOF preparation under heated MOF-forming conditions and using solvent systems including alcohol-containing media (i.e., methanol, p. 2, 3.1 Synthesis of Cu-MOF, lines 1-7). Reaction temperature was conducted at 413K (139.85oC, ~140oC) which overlaps the claimed limitation of “145oC to 165oC”.
and maintained for 5 hrs and cool to room temperature during a period of 60 hrs (Electronic Supplementary Information, 1. MOF synthesis, first page, lines 1-5).
But Junghans does not disclose and gradient cooling at 5oC/hr to 10oC/hr.
With respect to the conducted gradient cooling speed, experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Junghans does not expressly disclose the claimed gradient cooling speed; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the gradient cooling speed as claimed since reaction temperature (i.e., including gradient cooling) affects MOF architecture and crystallization formation taught by Aljammal (Abstract, p.11, 2.2. Thermo-Responsivity lines, lines 1-13 (unit cell expansion as a thermos-responsive; p. 11, 2.3 Mechanical Properties, line 1 thru p. 12, lines 2 (unit cell volume transformation of MOFs with external pressure) and Seetharaj (Abstract) and due to absence of criticality as discussed above. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Junghans in view of Chui and Xiao et al. (Enhanced Ultrasonic-Assisted Heterogeneous Fenton Degradation of Organic Pollutants over a New Copper Magnetite (Cu-Fe3O4/Cu/C) Nanohybrid Catalyst, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2020, 59, 124321-12440, hereinafter as “Xiao”).
Regarding claim 4, Junghans and Chui discloses the Cu-MOF material as set forth above in claim 1, but both references do not disclose preparing a magnetic Fe3O4@Cu/C composite by mixing the Cu-MOF material with Fe2O3 in a hexagonal structure, grinding, transferring the mixture to a tubular furnace, and calcining under an inert gas.
However, Xiao discloses a copper magnetite Cu-Fe3O4/Cu/C nanohybrid catalyst for heterogeneous degradation of organic pollutants. Xiao teaches a copper/iron oxide/carbon catalyst system including Cu, Fe3O4, and carbon components (p. 12432, 2. Experimental Section, 2.2 Synthesis if Catalysts, left column line 1 thru right column line 20).
Xiao is analogous art because it teaches preparation of copper-containing iron oxide/carbon catalyst composite for the same environmental remediation purposes, making it reasonably pertinent to selecting a known-copper containing precursor, including the Cu-MOF of Junghans and Chui, for thermal conversion into the claimed magnetic Fe3O4@Cu/C composite.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mix Cu-MOF precursor as taught by Junghans with an iron oxide precursor as taught by Xiao in a hexagonal structure thereby producing the magnetic Fe3O4@Cu/C composite because the hexagonal architecture provides enhanced electrocatalytic and chemical performance due to synergistic metal interactions, highly exposed active sites, and hierarchical porosity (Xiao: p. 12432, left column, lines 11-27); it would have been further obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to grind the materials to obtain a uniform mixture because such mixing promotes intimate contact and uniform phase formation in thermally converted catalyst composites; it would have been further obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to use a tubular furnace would have been an obvious conventional apparatus for precise temperature control, uniform heating and controlled atmosphere calcination/carbonization; and it would have been further obvious to calcine a Cu-MOF/iron oxide precursor under inert gas to obtain a magnetic Cu-Fe3O4/Cu/C composite because calcination temperature critically affects phase formation, crystallinity, and surface area that enhanced heterogeneous catalytic activity for organic pollution degradation (Xiao: p. 12438, Conclusions, lines 1-14).
In regard to claim 5, Xiao discloses copper magnetite Cu-Fe3O4/Cu/C nanohybrid catalyst preparation by thermal treatment of copper/iron/carbon catalyst precursors (Abstract; p. 12432, 2. Experimental Section, 2.2 Synthesis if Catalysts, left column line 1 thru right column line 20).
With respect to having a molar ratio range of the Cu-MOF material to the Fe2O3 in the hexagonal structure, the grinding time, heating rate of the calcination, calcination temperature, holding time of the calcination temperature and the calcination product colling temperature to prepare the magnetic Fe3O4@Cu/Cu/C composite, experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Xiao does not expressly disclose a molar ratio range of the Cu-MOF material to the Fe2O3 in the hexagonal structure, the grinding time, heating rate of the calcination, calcination temperature, holding time of the calcination temperature and the calcination product cooling temperature to prepare the magnetic Fe3O4@Cu/Cu/C composite as claimed since the structure, solvent, pH, molar ratio, mixture grinding, and temperature are known MOF synthesis variables affecting MOF architecture and crystallization formation of Cu-MOF as evidenced by Seetharaj (Abstract; p. 298, 2.5 Mechanochemical synthesis, lines 1-10, discloses applying grinding in the mixture of metal salts and organic linkers; 3.1. Important influential factors affecting MOF synthesis and structure, left column line 1 thru right column line 36). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 6, as set forth above, Junghans, in view of Chui and Xiao, discloses the production of product Cu-Fe3O4/Cu/C (Fe3O4@Cu/C) composite as set forth above.
Claim 7-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Junghans in view of Chiu further in view of Xiao and Le et al., (Fabrication of Fe3O4/CuO@C composite from MOF-based materials as an efficient and magnetically separable photocatalyst for degradation
of ciprofloxacin antibiotic, Chemosphere, 2020, 270, 129417, pp. 1-11, hereinafter as “Le”) and Bai et al., (Cu-MOF for effectively organic pollutants degradation and E. coli inactivation via catalytic activation of peroxymonosulfate, Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2022, 132, pp. 1-9, hereinafter as “Bai”).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Junghans in view of Chui and Xiao, discloses the production of product Cu-Fe3O4/Cu/C (Fe3O4@Cu/C) composite as set forth above.
Junghans discloses preparing copper-based triazolyl-carboxylate (the same functional group as the tris(4-(4H-1,2,4-triazol-4-yl)phenyl)amine) MOF materials from copper salts and organic framework-forming ligands under MOF-forming reactions conditions (Abstract; p. 2, 2. Results and Discussion, line 1 thru p. 3 lines 14). Junghans further discloses water, copper acetate, and methanol and at temperature 413K (139.85oC, ~140oC) (ESI, p.2, Table S1-Synthesis method, ligand, metal salt, solvent, product and product yield of Cu-MOF). Chui teaches and discloses copper-BTC MOF framework chemistry using copper and benzene 1,3,5-tricarboxylate (BTC) or the 1,3,5-benzenetricarboxylic acid (Abstract). Xiao discloses using Cu-Fe3O4/Cu/C nanohybrid catalyst for degradation of organic pollutants in water (Abstract; p. 12438, 4. Conclusions lines 1-18).
But Jughans, Chiu, and Xiao do not disclose use of composite in antibiotic degradation and persulfate as a catalyst.
However, Le teaches a novel ternary Fe3O4/CuO@C composite was fabricated using iron-doped copper 1,4 benzenedicarboxylate metal-organic frameworks as a self-sacrificing template and discloses use of the composite for antibiotic degradation (Abstract) and used potassium persulfate as one of the materials used in the composite preparation (2.1 Materials, p. 3, line 6) but did not disclose it as a catalyst.
Bai further teaches Cu-MOF catalysts for activation of persulfate as peroxymonosulfate (PMS) to degrade aqueous organic pollutants (Abstract).
Bai and Le are analogous to Junghans and Chui because they are pertinent to the downstream use of copper-based MOF-catalyst materials for aqueous pollutant degradation. A POSITA seeking to use a Cu-MOF derived copper catalyst for water-contamination degradation would reasonably consult Bai for Cu-MOF/PMS degradation chemistry, and Le for Cu-MOF antibiotic degradation chemistry.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the magnetic Fe3O4@Cu/C composite configuration and preparation of the combined teachings of Jughans, Chiu and Xiao with the antibiotic degradation capability of the composite taught by Le to provide the feature “in antibiotic degradation” limitation of claim 7 because the composite shows great stability, photocatalytic activity, simple synthesis, good reusability, and is easy to recover (Le: p. 10, 4. Conclusion, lines 1-21); it would have been further obvious to use the magnetic Fe3O4@Cu/C composite configuration and preparation of the combined teachings of Jughans, Chiu and Xiao in view of Le for antibiotic degradation with Bai’s persulfate as catalyst to meet the limitation of claim 8 because the combination magnetic recovery, high catalytic activity, and compatibility with persulfate activation to treating organic pollutant in water (Bai: Abstract) and enhance antibiotic degradation (Le: Abstract)
In regard to claim 9, Bai discloses persulfate as peroxymonosulfate (PMS)(Abstract).
With respect to the PMS is added in an amount of 0.5 mmol/L to 1.5 mmol/L, experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Bai does not disclose the range of PMS added; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the added range of the PMS as claimed since oxidant concentration affects degradation rate, degradation efficiency, and reagent consumption in PMS-based oxidation systems (Bai: p. 2, 2.4 Experiment procedure, 2.4.1Activated PMS to degrade Rhodamine B experiment and analysis, left column, line 1 thru right column, line 8). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 10, Xiao discloses using Cu-Fe3O4/Cu/C nanohybrid catalyst for degradation of organic pollutants in water (Abstract; p. 12438, 4. Conclusions lines 1-18). But Xiao does not disclose use of composite in antibiotic degradation and persulfate as a catalyst.
However, Le teaches a novel ternary Fe3O4/CuO@C composite was fabricated using iron-doped copper 1,4 benzenedicarboxylate metal-organic frameworks as a self-sacrificing template and discloses use of the composite for antibiotic degradation (Le: Abstract) and Bai teaches Cu-MOF/PMS catalytic degradation of aqueous organic pollutants (Bai: Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Xiao’s composite to Bai’s persulfate and Le’s antibiotic degradation as discussed above because the Cu-Fe3O4/Cu/C composite architecture activates the persulfate to facilitate degradation of antibiotic pollutant in water (Bai: Abstract; Le: Abstract) and Liu evidences that antibiotics, including oxytetracycline (OTC), are known targets for persulfate-based degradation (Liu et al., Kinetics and mechanism investigation on the destruction of oxytetracycline by UV-254 nm activation of persulfate, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2016, 305, pp. 229-239; Abstract).
With respect to the disclose conducted degradation of antibiotic at pH range value, temperature and time ranges in the degradation of the antibiotic, experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Bai does not expressly does not expressly disclose conducted degradation of antibiotic at pH range value, temperature and time ranges; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust degradation of antibiotic at pH range value, temperature, and time ranges in the degradation of the antibiotic since pH, temperature, and reactions time affects PMS activation, catalyst surface chemistry, and degradation efficiency of OTC as evidenced by Liu
(p. 230, left column, lines 17-55). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights