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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17267416, filed on 02/09/2021.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 3, the phrase “with alkaline agent” is likely intended to read “with an alkaline agent”.
Regarding claim 1, line 8, the phrase “moreover magnesium chloride water solution and magnesium hydroxide seed crystals suspension” is likely intended to read “moreover a magnesium chloride water solution and a magnesium hydroxide seed crystal suspension[[s]]”.
Regarding claim 1, line 11, the term “and alkaline agent with mole” is likely intended to read “and the alkaline agent with a mole”.
Regarding claim 1, line 13, the commas in the ratio (1,9-2,1):1 are likely intended to be periods (1.9-2.1):1, consistent with conventional notation in US practice.
Regarding claim 1, line 14, the phrase “the suspension of the previous zone” would have improved clarity if it referred to “the suspension from the crystal formation and growth zone” instead. Examiner notes it is clear the “suspension from the previous zone” is referring to the suspension produced in the crystal formation and growth zone in the previous step.
Regarding claim 1, line 15, the phrase “is maintained, the duration of” should read “is maintained, and the duration of”.
Regarding claim 4, the commas in the range 0,0001-0,01 % wt. are likely intended to be periods, as in 0.0001-0.01, consistent with conventional notation in US practice.
Regarding claim 5, line 2, the phrase “by directing magnesium hydroxide suspension to hydrothermal repeated crystallization of magnesium hydroxide particles” is likely intended to read “by directing the magnesium hydroxide suspension to repeated hydrothermal crystallizations”.
Regarding claim 6, line 4, the phrase “for magnesium hydroxide crystals washing” is likely intended to read “for magnesium hydroxide crystal washing”.
Regarding claim 7, lines 8-10, the phrase “, weight ratio of aqueous medium/magnesium hydroxide within (5-30):1 to form magnesium hydroxide suspension and then filtered” is likely intended to read “, and a weight ratio of aqueous medium/magnesium hydroxide is within (5-30):1 to form a magnesium hydroxide suspension and then filtered.”
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “calcinating of washed magnesium hydroxide crystals” is likely intended to read “calcinating the washed magnesium hydroxide crystals”.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “characterized by magnesium oxide surface treatment with” is likely intended to read “characterized by performing magnesium oxide surface treatment with”.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “selected from organofunctional trialkoxysilanes group” is likely intended to read “selected from an organofunctional trialkoxysilane group”.
Regarding claim 9, the term “alcali” is likely intended to be “alkali”.
Claims 2-9 all depend from claim 1 and thus are also objected to.
Appropriate correction is 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.
Claims 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 2, the phrase "possibly surface treated" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase “possibly” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, lines 4-5, the phrase “by continuous method in separated and isolated from each other zones” is unclear. It is unclear if the magnesium hydroxide crystals are separated and then isolated from each other in a “zone” or if the separation and isolation occur in a “zone”. In the interest of compact prosecution and in view of the instant specification, the phrase was interpreted to be requiring magnesium hydroxide crystals be produced in a continuous fashion in separate zones, where the zones are isolated from each other, such that a reactor can contain multiple zones for a continuous cascade of zones supplying magnesium hydroxide. See at least Pg. 5, line 19-Pg. 7, line 23.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations "the seed crystals treatment zone" “the magnesium hydroxide crystals formation and growth zone” and “the crystals build-up and agglomeration zone” throughout the claim lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. Examiner notes the claim mentions “other zones” in line 5, however a skilled artisan would not necessarily assume the zones outlined above at issue would be necessarily the “other zones” mentioned in line 5.
Regarding claim 2, line 4, the term “other unintended impurities” is unclear. The term is not defined in the instant specification and a skilled artisan viewing the claim would not necessarily know what an “unintended impurity” would include or exclude. This is in part due to the myriad sources of magnesium chloride that could impart different impurities that required removal. Accordingly, a skilled artisan is not apprised of the scope of the limitation and the instant application does not provides a means to ascertain the breadth of the limitation.
Regarding claim 8, the term “washed magnesium hydroxide crystals” lacks sufficient antecedent basis, as claim 1 does not perform or describe a washing step. It appears claim 6 introduces washing.
Claims 2-9 all depend from claim 1 and thus, are also rendered indefinite.
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 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 1-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US20160053073A1; cited in IDS dated 12/04/2024 as US9834659) in view of Jun et al. (KR20060102035A English).
Regarding claim 1, the preamble requires the magnesium oxide is “active and high purity”. Regarding the term “active”, Matsui teaches the preparation of magnesium oxide particles that have an average particle size of 5 µm or more and a BET surface area of 20 m2/g or more and 200 m2/g or less (Abstract). The limitation “active magnesium oxide” is interpreted to be satisfied by magnesium oxide with a BET surface area between 70-200 m2/g and an average particle size maximum of 10 µm, as outlined in the instant specification in at least Pg. 5, lines 6-10. Regarding the term “high-purity,” Matsui teaches the magnesium oxide is prepared from high-purity MgCl2 and pure water ([0063]-[0066]). The limitation “high-purity magnesium oxide” is interpreted to be satisfied by magnesium oxide prepared from high purity chemicals as in Matsui and as outlined in the instant specification in at least Pg. 1, lines 23-26.
Matsui teaches the process for preparing the magnesium oxide includes mixing magnesium chloride and pure water to form an aqueous solution, the aqueous solution can then be treated with aqueous alkali raw material, i.e. an 8.3 N solution of NaOH with a ratio of mole number of Mg2+/OH- = 1/1, to prepare a magnesium hydroxide suspension ([0066]). Matsui teaches two solutions of 480 g MgCl2 solution in 1 L of pure water are prepared, where 50% of the total magnesium chloride aqueous solution is fed to the seed crystal suspension ([0066]). Matsui teaches the magnesium chloride suspension is added seed crystals of magnesium hydroxide prior to its treatment with sodium hydroxide, where the treatment can be repeated at 1 to 50 cycles where the duration of each cycle is 0.1 to 8 hours and the temperature of each cycle about 5 to 95 °C ([0047]; [0066]). Matsui teaches the mixture comprising magnesium hydroxide seed crystals and aqueous magnesium chloride is hydrothermally treated to grow crystal particles of magnesium hydroxide that are then fired at 350 to 900 °C to prepare the magnesium oxide particles ([0049]-[0051]).
Regarding the limitation that the “magnesium hydroxide crystals are produced by continuous method in separated and isolated from each other zones: the seed crystals treatment zone, the magnesium hydroxide crystals formation and growth zone and the crystals build-up and agglomeration zone,” Matsui does not explicitly describe zones.
However, Matsui teaches the method for preparing magnesium oxide can be repeated up to 50 cycles and, as outlined above, Matsui teaches adding seed crystals, growing magnesium hydroxide particles following seed crystal addition, and transferring the mixture to an autoclave for performing hydrothermal treatment to obtain particles that are 5 µm or less in average particle size and greater than 0.1 µm ([0030]; [0043]-[0051]), consistent with crystal build-up and agglomeration. Accordingly, given that Matsui teaches performing steps that are equivalent to each claimed zone and arrives at a product that is consistent with being “active, high-purity magnesium oxide”, a skilled artisan could readily adapt the batchwise process taught by Matsui to the continuous zoned process claimed. The courts have held the claimed continuous operation would have been obvious in light of the batch process of the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.II.V.E.
Further, as stated above, Matsui teaches the magnesium chloride suspension is added seed crystals of magnesium hydroxide prior to its treatment with sodium hydroxide, where the treatment can be repeated at 1 to 50 cycles where the duration of each cycle is 0.1 to 8 hours and the temperature of each cycle about 5 to 95 °C ([0047]; [0066]). Accordingly, a skilled artisan could readily adapt the batch process of performing each cycle for 0.1 to 8 hours at 5 to 95 °C such that the treatment in each zone would fall within the ranges taught by Matsui.
A skilled artisan would be motivated to perform each treatment within the ranges taught by Matsui because the process of Matsui prepares Magnesium oxide particles that have good dispersibility and do not affect materials properties when prepared in composites ([0006]-[0007]). See MPEP 2144.05.II.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Matsui (50% of the magnesium chloride/magnesium seed crystal suspension is fed; temperature between 5 to 95°C; duration 0.1 to 8 hours (i.e. 6 minutes to 8 hours) overlaps with the claimed ranges (1-80% magnesium chloride/magnesium seed crystal suspension is fed; temperature not less than 40 °C; duration not less than 20 minutes). Therefore, the ranges in Matsui renders obvious the claimed range.
The claim further requires the “initial reagents are fed to the seed crystals treatment zone in the presence of liquid petroleum products,” to which Matsui is silent.
Jun teaches a method of preparing highly lipophilic magnesium oxide particles (i.e. having an affinity or attraction to fats and lipids) where the particles are prepared by treating magnesium hydroxide with fatty acid and petroleum solvent, where the petroleum solvent includes kerosene (Abstract; Claims; Pg. 3, par. 2-3; Pg. 4, par. 1). The term “liquid petroleum products” are interpreted according to the description in claim 4 and Pg. 8, lines 1-6 of the instant specification. Kerosene is explicitly listed as an example of liquid oil products and accordingly Jun teaching treatment with kerosene meets the limitation required by the claim.
Advantageously, the particles taught by Jun display significantly improved dispersibility and useful heat-resistant properties (Pg. 2, par. 2-3).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat the magnesium hydroxide particles with liquid petroleum products, including kerosene, in the method of Matsui in order to provide magnesium oxide particles with significantly improved dispersibility and useful heat-resistant properties, as taught by Jun.
The claim further requires the ratio of “OH-1:Mg++ within the range (1,9-2,1):1” to which Matsui teaches a maximum ratio of Mg2+/OH-1 =1/1.8 ([0065]).
Jun teaches the process includes adding an alkali metal base to a magnesium compound, including magnesium chloride, where the base is used in an amount of 1 to 3 equivalents relative to the magnesium compound (Pg. 3, par. 11-15). Both the reagents magnesium chloride (MgCl2) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) taught by Jun contain 1 mole of Mg+2 and OH- ions and accordingly, Jun teaching the base is present at 1 to 3 times the magnesium compound provides a taught range of OH-1:Mg++ of (1-3):1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Jun (OH-1:Mg++ of (1-3):1) overlaps with the claimed range (OH-1:Mg++ of (1.9-2.1):1). Therefore, the range in Jun renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, Jun teaches the base needs to be present at greater than 1 equivalent otherwise the base does not produce the magnesium hydroxide intermediate product and if too much base is used, the particles size is effected (Pg. 3, par. 11-15).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat the magnesium hydroxide particles with sodium hydroxide to arrive at a mole ratio of OH-1:Mg++ of (1-3):1 in the method of Matsui in order to produce the required magnesium hydroxide intermediate while avoiding effecting the particle size, as taught by Jun.
Regarding claim 2, Matsui in view of Jun teach the method of claim 1.
Matsui further teaches high-purity magnesium chloride is used, which can be supplied from magnesium chloride hexahydrate, magnesium chloride dihydrate, and magnesium chloride anhydrate or from natural sources including seawater or salt water ([0044]; [0063]-[0066])). Matsui teaching that the magnesium chloride is high purity and can be obtained from natural sources would require a purification of the material in order to arrive at the high-purity starting material. Accordingly, because a high-purity magnesium chloride material obtained from a less pure source (i.e. from nature) necessarily undergoes a purification step, a skilled artisan would readily conclude from the teaching of Matsui that the magnesium chloride is separated from impurities including heavy metals, iron, sulphates, boron, bromide, or other unintended impurities. See MPEP 2112.II.
Regarding claim 3, Matsui in view of Jun teach the method of claim 1.
Matsui teaches alkaline treatment is performed with sodium hydroxide ([0045]).
Regarding claim 4, Matsui in view of Jun teach the method of claim 1.
The claim further requires “adding liquid oil products liquid petroleum products that are products of direct and/or vacuum oil refining with initial boiling point not less than 150 C, final boiling point not more than 400 C, density within the range from 750 to 880 kg/m3 in the amount of 0,0001-0,01 % wt., to magnesium chloride solution,” to which Matsui is silent.
Jun teaches a method of preparing highly lipophilic magnesium oxide particles (i.e. having an affinity or attraction to fats and lipids) where the particles are prepared by treating magnesium hydroxide with fatty acid and petroleum solvent, where the petroleum solvent includes kerosene (Abstract; Claims; Pg. 3, par. 2-3; Pg. 4, par. 1). The term “liquid petroleum products” are interpreted according to the description in claim 4 and Pg. 8, lines 1-6 of the instant specification. Kerosene is explicitly listed as an example of liquid oil products and accordingly Jun teaching treatment with kerosene meets the limitations required by the claim. See MPEP 2112.II.
Jun does not explicitly teach the amount of liquid petroleum solvent is added in an amount of 0.0001-0.01 wt.% to the magnesium chloride solution. However, Jun teaches the petroleum solvent is ideally added such that the resulting weight ratio of petroleum solvent with respect to magnesium oxide is 1.5 to 5 (Pg. 4, par. 1). Jun teaches that if the ratio is too low the mixture is difficult to stir and the flowability of the magnesium oxide is lowered, while if the petroleum solvent is too high, the content of magnesium oxide in the product is reduced. Accordingly, a skilled artisan could readily optimize the amount of petroleum solvent added during the synthesis to arrive at a desired amount of petroleum solvent, as guided by the explicit motivations of Jun regarding the addition of this reagent. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Advantageously, the particles taught by Jun display significantly improved dispersibility and useful heat-resistant properties (Pg. 2, par. 2-3).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat the magnesium hydroxide particles with liquid petroleum products, including kerosene, in the method of Matsui in order to provide magnesium oxide particles with significantly improved dispersibility and useful heat-resistant properties, as taught by Jun.
Regarding claim 8, Matsui in view of Jun teach the method of claim 1.
Matsui further teaches the magnesium hydroxide is fired at 350 to 900 °C to prepare the magnesium oxide particles ([0049]-[0051]). Firing is equivalent to calcining in the art, as supported by Matsui heating to overlapping temperatures as the instant invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Matsui (350 to 900 °C) overlaps with the claimed range (300 to 700 °C). Therefore, the range in Matsui renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Matsui in view of Jun teach the method of claim 1.
Matsui further teaches the magnesium oxide particles can be surface treated with coupling agents including silane based coupling agents such as Y-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane, B-(3,4-epoxycyclohexyl)ethyltrimethoxysilane, Y-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane, Y-methacryloxypropyltriethoxysilane, Y-acryloxypropylmethyl dimethoxysilane, vinyltriethoxysilane, vinyltriacetoxysilane, p-trimethoxysilylstyrene, p-triethoxysilylstyrene, p-trimethoxysilyl-O-methylstyrene, p-triethoxysilyl-O-methylstyrene, 3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane, 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane, N-2-(aminoethyl)-3-aminoropylmethyldimethoxysilane, N-2-(aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane, N-2-(aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane, N-phenyl-3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane, N-phenyl-3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane, N-propyl-3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane,4-aminobutyltrimethoxysilane, and decyltrimethoxysilane; titanate-based coupling agents such as isopropyltrisoStearoyltitanate, isopropyltris(dioctylpyrophosphate)titanate, isopropyltri (N-aminoethyl-aminoethyl)titanate, and isopropyl tridecylbenzenesufonyl titanate; and aluminum-based coupling agents such as acetoalkoxyaluminum diisopropylate ([0037]). Matsui further teaches the magnesium oxide can be surface treated with “fatty acid and a polyhydric alcohol include esters made form a polyhydric alcohol Such as glycerin monostearate or glycerin monooleate and a fatty acid; and the like. Examples of the phosphates include a monoester made from orthophosphoric acid and oleyl alcohol, stearyl alcohol or the like, a diester made from the same, or a mixture of the two esters.” ([0038]). Matsui teaches the treating reagents are added in an amount of 1 to 5% by weight based on 100% by weight of the magnesium oxide particles ([0041]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Matsui (1 to 5% by weight based on 100% by weight of the magnesium oxide particles) overlaps with the claimed range (0.1 to 5% by weight based on the magnesium oxide mass). Therefore, the range in Matsui renders obvious the claimed range.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui US20160053073A1; cited in IDS dated 12/04/2024 as US9834659) in view of Jun et al. (KR20060102035A English) and further in view of Miyata et al. (EP0370728B1; cited in IDS dated 12/04/2024).
Regarding claim 5, Matsui in view of Jun teach the method of claim 1.
Matsui teaches hydrothermal treatment is performed where the liquid dispersion is placed in a pressure-resistant heating vessel and heated to a temperature of higher than 100 °C and lower than 200 °C for 0.1 to 8 hours ([0048]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Matsui (temperature of higher than 100 °C and lower than 200 °C; duration for 0.1 to 8 hours) overlaps with the claimed ranges (temperature 120 to 220 °C for 1 to 24 hours). Therefore, the range in Matsui renders obvious the claimed range.
The claim further requires the reaction is conducted in a pressure range of “0.1 to 2.3 MPa” to which Matsui and Jun do not specify the pressure.
Miyata teaches a method of preparing high-dispersibility magnesium oxide that includes a hydrothermal treatment of a basic magnesium chloride solution at atmospheric or elevated pressures (Abstract; Pg. 2, lines 25-42). Atmospheric pressure is equivalent to 0.101325 MPa, and accordingly Miyata teaches a hydrothermal treatment pressure of 0.101325 MPa or greater. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Miyata (hydrothermal treatment at 0.101325 MPa or greater) overlaps with the claimed range (0.1 to 2.3 MPa). Therefore, the range in Miyata renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, magnesium oxide prepared by the process of Miyata, including the hydrothermal treatment at atmospheric or elevated pressures, provides magnesium oxide that displays excellent moldability that does not degrade rubber or resins when making composites (Pg. 2, lines 43-49).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform hydrothermal treatment at pressures of 0.101325 MPa or greater in the method of Matsui in order to provide magnesium oxide particles with excellent moldability and compatibility with rubber and resin composites, as taught by Miyata.
Claims 6-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US20160053073A1; cited in IDS dated 12/04/2024 as US9834659) in view of Jun et al. (KR20060102035A English) and Wang et al. (CN103601224A English).
Regarding claim 6, Matsui in view of Jun teach the method of claim 1.
Matsui further teaches the magnesium hydroxide material is washed with pure water ([0049]; [0063]), however Matsui and Jun are silent regarding the water being deionized water.
Wang teaches a method of preparing magnesium hydroxide that includes washing the material with deionized water (Pg. 3, (4) washing and drying). Deionized water is synonymous with demineralized water.
Advantageously, the magnesium hydroxide prepared by the method of Wang, including the washing step, provides a magnesium hydroxide material that does not have added negative charges (from other metal salts) and the purity is very high (Pg. 5, par. 7).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the magnesium hydroxide washing with deionized water in the method of Matsui in order to provide magnesium hydroxide lacking added negative ions that is very high purity, as taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 7, Matsui in view of Jun teach the method of claim 1.
Matsui further teaches the magnesium hydroxide material is washed with pure water ([0049]; [0063]), however Matsui and Jun are silent regarding the water being deionized water.
Wang teaches a method of preparing magnesium hydroxide that includes washing the material with deionized water (Pg. 3, (4) washing and drying). Wang performs the washing at least one time, meeting the limitation “characterized by carrying out the magnesium hydroxide crystal washing in one or two stages.” Further, Wang teaching the washing is conducted with deionized water prior to drying is equivalent to “a first stage”. Examiner notes a second stage and washing with alkaline water, as mentioned in the claim, are not required steps.
Advantageously, the magnesium hydroxide prepared by the method of Wang, including the washing step, provides a magnesium hydroxide material that does not have added negative charges (from other metal salts) and the purity is very high (Pg. 5, par. 7).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the magnesium hydroxide washing with deionized water in the method of Matsui in order to provide magnesium hydroxide lacking added negative ions that is very high purity, as taught by Wang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights