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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and species of chlorine in the reply filed on 07/15/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a) and 818.01(c)). Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 23-24, 26, 30-38, 40, and 47 in the reply filed on 07/15/2026 is acknowledged, and claims 25, 27-29, 39, 41-46, and 48-49 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/21/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 10/21/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
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 31 and 47 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.
Claims 31 and 47 are materially identical in scope and are therefore indefinite according to 37 C.F.R. 1.75; see MPEP 2173.05(n). While claims 31 and 47 differ in the language of “while retaining all” fission products vs. “without separating any” fission products, and claim 47 includes the language of “enriching the spent nuclear fuel chloride salt to yield enriched spent nuclear fuel chloride salt,” this language does not change the scope of the claims to be different inventions. These claims are therefore identical in scope.
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 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 23, 24, 26, 31, 33, 35, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott 2014, GB 2536857 A, provided on the IDS filed 10/21/2024.
Regarding claim 23, Scott teaches a method (treatment of spent fuel, p. 1 pp. 6) for use in processing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) having uranium, fission product waste, and actinide constituents into molten salt reactor fuel, the method comprising the addition of molten salts such as chlorides (p. 2 pp. 4) and converting the spent nuclear fuel into a chloride salt fuel (claim 1, p. 5) without chemically separating the fission product waste and actinide constituents from the spent nuclear fuel (“leaving plutonium and higher actinides” in the spent fuel, p. 1 pp. 6; optional separation of fission products by volatilization, p. 2 pp. 1; decanting and volatilization to leave “a mixture highly enriched in fission products and higher actinide trichlorides,” p. 2 pp. 5). While Scott does not explicitly teach the immersing of spent nuclear fuel in a chloride salt bath, it has been held that differences in the order of performing process steps are obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2114.04.IV.C.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the method as suggested by Scott where the combination of molten chloride salt with the SNF is conducted in any order of the taught process including adding the SNF to a molten salt bath for the purpose of chlorinating the SNF as taught by Scott, since Scott teaches that the chlorination can be conducted in a liquid medium for advantageous results (p. 2 pp. 4 “superior specificity of chlorination”). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 24, Scott teaches the invention as applied to claim 23. Scott does not explicitly teach that the converting of the spent nuclear fuel into a chloride fuel does not include aqueous wet separation. However, Scott teaches that the salt is “molten” (p. 2 pp. 4) and the reaction occurs in “liquid” medium (p. 2 pp. 4), where these terms are known in the art to specifically refer to non-aqueous conditions, rather than aqueous, and further differentiates the molten salt reactor from known aqueous processes such as light water reactors (p. 1 pp. 4) and does not teach the presence of water or any aqueous media. Therefore it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the teachings of Scott are conducted in non-aqueous conditions, therefore meeting the claimed limitation of the converting of the SNF into a chloride fuel not including aqueous wet separation.
Regarding claim 26, Scott teaches a method (treatment of spent fuel, p. 1 pp. 6) for use in processing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) having uranium, fission product waste, and actinide constituents into molten salt reactor fuel, the method comprising the addition of molten salts such as chlorides (p. 2 pp. 4) and converting the spent nuclear fuel immersed in a bath (“liquid medium,” p. 2 pp. 4) into a chloride salt fuel (claim 1, p. 5) without chemically separating the fission product waste and actinide constituents from the spent nuclear fuel (“leaving plutonium and higher actinides” in the spent fuel, p. 1 pp. 6; optional separation of fission products by volatilization, p. 2 pp. 1; decanting and volatilization to leave “a mixture highly enriched in fission products and higher actinide trichlorides,” p. 2 pp. 5). While Scott does not explicitly teach the immersing of spent nuclear fuel in a chloride salt bath and converting the SNF immersed in the molten chloride salt bath into a chloride salt fuel, it has been held that differences in the order of performing process steps are obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2114.04.IV.C.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the method as suggested by Scott where the combination of molten chloride salt with the SNF is conducted in any order of the taught process including adding the SNF to a molten salt bath for the purpose of chlorinating the SNF as taught by Scott, since Scott teaches that the chlorination can be conducted in a liquid medium for advantageous results (p. 2 pp. 4 “superior specificity of chlorination”). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 31, Scott teaches a method (treatment of spent fuel, p. 1 pp. 6) for use in processing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) having uranium, fission products, plutonium and actinide constituents into chloride salt fuel for a molten salt reactor, the method comprising: converting the SNF into SNF chloride salt (initial treatment, p. 1 pp. 6; forming PuCl3 among other chlorides); enriching the spent nuclear fuel chloride salt (avoiding the formation of PuCl4 to increase presence of PuCl3, p. 1-2; “adding additional fissile material,” p. 3 pp. 4); and chlorinating the enriched SNF chloride salt to yield molten chloride salt fuel (p. 2 pp. 4; repeating of the refreshing process, p. 4 pp. 10). Scott does not explicitly teach that the converting step is conducted while retaining all fission products, plutonium and actinide constituents with the SNF; however, Scott teaches that such separation is optional (optional separation of other volatile fission products, p. 2 pp. 1). Therefore it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the teachings of Scott without separation, such teaching being obvious to try since Scott teaches separation as one of two options; it has been held that the choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art; see MPEP 2143.I.E regarding KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). In the instant case, since Scott teaches that the presence of fission products as impurities is generally acceptable in the recycling of the fuel (p. 3 pp. 4), Scott therefore teaches that the option of not separating products results in predictable performance to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 33, Scott teaches the invention as applied to claim 31. Scott does not explicitly teach that the converting of the spent nuclear fuel into a chloride fuel does not include aqueous wet separation. However, Scott teaches that the salt is “molten” (p. 2 pp. 4) and the reaction occurs in “liquid” medium (p. 2 pp. 4), where these terms are known in the art to specifically refer to non-aqueous conditions, rather than aqueous, and further differentiates the molten salt reactor from known aqueous processes such as light water reactors (p. 1 pp. 4) and does not teach the presence of water or any aqueous media. Therefore it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the teachings of Scott are conducted in non-aqueous conditions, therefore meeting the claimed limitation of the converting of the SNF into a chloride fuel not including aqueous wet separation.
Regarding claim 35, Scott teaches the invention as applied to claim 31 and further teaches the breeding of U-238 to Pu-239 (p. 4 pp. 9). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the enrichment of PuCl3 taught by Scott (p. 1-2) would use Pu-239, as Scott teaches, since the isotope must be the same in order for the refreshing process to be cyclical; therefore it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the enriching taught by Scott must necessarily contain plutonium 239, as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 47, Scott teaches a method (treatment of spent fuel, p. 1 pp. 6) for use in processing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) having uranium, fission products, plutonium and actinide constituents into chloride salt fuel for a molten salt reactor, the method comprising: converting the SNF into SNF chloride salt (initial treatment, p. 1 pp. 6; forming PuCl3 among other chlorides); enriching the spent nuclear fuel chloride salt to yield enriched SNF chloride salt (avoiding the formation of PuCl4 to increase presence of PuCl3, p. 1-2; “adding additional fissile material,” p. 3 pp. 4); and chlorinating the enriched SNF chloride salt to yield molten chloride salt fuel (p. 2 pp. 4; repeating of the refreshing process, p. 4 pp. 10). Scott does not explicitly teach that the converting step is conducted without separating any fission products, plutonium and actinide constituents from the SNF; however, Scott teaches that such separation is optional (optional separation of other volatile fission products, p. 2 pp. 1). Therefore it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the teachings of Scott without separation, such teaching being obvious to try since Scott teaches separation as one of two options; it has been held that the choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art; see MPEP 2143.I.E regarding KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). In the instant case, since Scott teaches that the presence of fission products as impurities is generally acceptable in the recycling of the fuel (p. 3 pp. 4), Scott therefore teaches that the option of not separating products results in predictable performance to one skilled in the art.
Claim 30 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott 2014, GB 2536857 A, in view of Sumita et al. 2018, US 20180202057 A1.
Regarding claim 30, Scott teaches a method (treatment of spent fuel, p. 1 pp. 6) for use in processing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) having uranium, fission products, plutonium and actinide constituents into chloride salt fuel for a molten salt reactor, the method comprising: converting the SNF into SNF chloride salt (initial treatment, p. 1 pp. 6; forming PuCl3 among other chlorides); enriching the spent nuclear fuel chloride salt (avoiding the formation of PuCl4 to increase presence of PuCl3, p. 1-2; “adding additional fissile material,” p. 3 pp. 4); and chlorinating the enriched SNF chloride salt to yield molten chloride salt fuel (p. 2 pp. 4; repeating of the refreshing process, p. 4 pp. 10). Scott does not explicitly teach that the converting step is conducted while retaining all fission products, plutonium and actinide constituents with the SNF; however, Scott teaches that such separation is optional (optional separation of other volatile fission products, p. 2 pp. 1). Therefore it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the teachings of Scott without separation, such teaching being obvious to try since Scott teaches separation as one of two options; it has been held that the choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art; see MPEP 2143.I.E regarding KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). In the instant case, since Scott teaches that the presence of fission products as impurities is generally acceptable in the recycling of the fuel (p. 3 pp. 4), Scott therefore teaches that the option of not separating products results in predictable performance to one skilled in the art.
Scott further does not teach the following limitations:
providing fuel assemblies containing spent nuclear fuel having uranium, fission products, and actinide constituents;
removing the spent nuclear fuel from the fuel assemblies; and
solidifying the molten chloride salt fuel.
However, Sumita teaches a dry reprocessing process (0004) of spent nuclear fuel (0002) wherein a fuel assembly is provided and disassembled before being subjected to a non-aqueous molten salt reprocessing process (0004). Sumita further teaches that after the process achieves a target concentration, the product is cast into a rod-shaped fuel alloy for further use as a new fuel pin (0004), which is interpreted to meet the limitation of solidifying a fuel.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Scott and Sumita and arrive at the claimed invention; one would be motivated to do so because Scott teaches the need for a cheaper fuel cycle in nuclear reactors (p. 1 pp. 3) and Sumita teaches exactly that the dry reprocessing process has a lower cost (“reduction in cost is possible,” 0003). Further Sumita teaches motivation to solidify products, in order to create a new fuel pin to reload into a fast reactor (0004). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 40, Scott teaches a method (treatment of spent fuel, p. 1 pp. 6) for use in processing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) having uranium, fission products, plutonium and actinide constituents into chloride salt fuel for a molten salt reactor, the method comprising: converting the SNF into SNF chloride salt (initial treatment, p. 1 pp. 6; forming PuCl3 among other chlorides); enriching the spent nuclear fuel chloride salt (avoiding the formation of PuCl4 to increase presence of PuCl3, p. 1-2; “adding additional fissile material,” p. 3 pp. 4); and chlorinating the enriched SNF chloride salt to yield molten chloride salt fuel (p. 2 pp. 4; repeating of the refreshing process, p. 4 pp. 10). Scott does not explicitly teach that the converting step is conducted while retaining all fission products, plutonium and actinide constituents with the SNF; however, Scott teaches that such separation is optional (optional separation of other volatile fission products, p. 2 pp. 1). Therefore it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the teachings of Scott without separation, such teaching being obvious to try since Scott teaches separation as one of two options; it has been held that the choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art; see MPEP 2143.I.E regarding KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). In the instant case, since Scott teaches that the presence of fission products as impurities is generally acceptable in the recycling of the fuel (p. 3 pp. 4), Scott therefore teaches that the option of not separating products results in predictable performance to one skilled in the art.
Scott further does not teach the following limitations:
Granulating the spent nuclear fuel to form granulated spent nuclear fuel.
However, Sumita teaches a dry reprocessing process (0004) of spent nuclear fuel (0002) wherein a fuel assembly is sheared before being subjected to a non-aqueous molten salt reprocessing process (0004), which is interpreted to meet the limitation of a granulation step, since the size of the resulting particles is not claimed. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Scott and Sumita; one would be motivated to do so in order to process fuel pins from fuel assemblies, since Sumita teaches that the dry reprocessing process is small scale and therefore reduces cost (0003) and the dry reprocessing process requires the processing of fuel pins by shearing them, as Sumita teaches (0004). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott as applied to claim 31 above, in view of Sumita et al. 2018, US 20180202057 A1.
Regarding claim 34, Scott teaches the method as applied to claim 31. Scott does not teach granulating the spent nuclear fuel to form granulated SNF prior to converting the SNF into SNF chloride salt.
However, Sumita teaches a dry reprocessing process (0004) of spent nuclear fuel (0002) wherein a fuel assembly is provided and sheared before being subjected to a non-aqueous molten salt reprocessing process (0004), which is interpreted to meet the limitation of a granulation step, since the size of the resulting particles is not claimed.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Scott and Sumita; one would be motivated to do so in order to process fuel pins from fuel assemblies, since Sumita teaches that the dry reprocessing process is small scale and therefore reduces cost (0003) and the dry reprocessing process requires the processing of fuel pins by shearing them, as Sumita teaches (0004). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 36, Scott teaches the method as applied to claim 31. Scott does not teach solidifying the molten chloride salt.
However, Sumita teaches a dry reprocessing process (0004) of spent nuclear fuel (0002) wherein a fuel pin is created by casting the product into a rod-shaped fuel alloy (0004), which is interpreted to meet the limitation of solidifying a fuel. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Scott and Sumita and arrive at a process wherein the molten salt fuel is molded into a rod shape and therefore solidified; one would be motivated to do so in order to provide fuel pins for a fast reactor as Sumita teaches (0004), since such a process would enable recycling of the fuel as both Scott (abstract) and Sumita (0004) teach; therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 37, Scott teaches the method as applied to claim 31. Scott does not teach solidifying the molten chloride salt into at least one of a group consisting of: solid salt fuel bars, solid salt fuel sticks, and canister solid forms.
However, Sumita teaches a dry reprocessing process (0004) of spent nuclear fuel (0002) wherein a fuel pin is created by casting the product into a rod-shaped fuel alloy (0004), which is interpreted to meet the limitation of solidifying a fuel into a stick. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Scott and Sumita and arrive at a process wherein the molten salt fuel is molded into a rod shape and therefore solidified; one would be motivated to do so in order to provide fuel pins for a fast reactor as Sumita teaches (0004), since such a process would enable recycling of the fuel as both Scott (abstract) and Sumita (0004) teach; therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott as applied to claim 31, in view of Sumita et al. 2018, US 20180202057 A1, and Choi et al. 2000, Economic Analysis on Direct Use of Spent Pressurized Water Reactor Fuel in CANDU Reactors, NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY VOL. 134 MAY 2001, referred to hereinafter as Sumita and Choi, respectively.
Regarding claim 32, Scott teaches the method as applied to claim 31. Scott does not teach solidifying the molten chloride salt fuel.
However, Sumita teaches a dry reprocessing process (0004) of spent nuclear fuel (0002) wherein a fuel pin is created by casting the product into a rod-shaped fuel alloy (0004), which is interpreted to meet the limitation of solidifying a fuel into a stick. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Scott and Sumita and arrive at a process wherein the molten salt fuel is molded into a rod shape and therefore solidified; one would be motivated to do so in order to provide fuel pins for a fast reactor as Sumita teaches (0004), since such a process would enable recycling of the fuel as both Scott (abstract) and Sumita (0004) teach.
Scott and Sumita do not teach milling the solidified molten chloride salt fuel to predetermined specifications for the molten salt reactor.
However, Choi teaches an analogous fuel processing process (DUPIC, p. 110) wherein the fuel powder preparation comprises milling of the fuel after oxidation/reduction to predetermined specifications (“to meet the material composition requirements,” p. 115 col. 2) in order to prepare pellets or fuel pins (p. 119, III.B.5. ‘Fuel Pin Fabrication’). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Scott and Sumita and Choi; one would be motivated to do so because Choi teaches that the milling provides homogeneity to the solid material (p. 115 col. 2). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 38, Scott, Sumita and Choi teach the invention as applied to claim 32. Sumita further teaches a dry reprocessing process (0004) of spent nuclear fuel (0002) wherein a fuel assembly is provided and disassembled before being subjected to a non-aqueous molten salt reprocessing process (0004). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Scott and Sumita and arrive at the recycling of a fuel assembly; one would be motivated to do so because Scott teaches the need for a cheaper fuel cycle in nuclear reactors (p. 1 pp. 3) and Sumita teaches exactly that the dry reprocessing process has a lower cost (“reduction in cost is possible,” 0003). Scott teaches that the fuel has uranium, fission products, and actinide constituents (p. 1 pp. 4), as does Sumita (0002, 0004); therefore the combination of teachings meets the limitation of having uranium, fission products, and actinide constituents.
Sumita further teaches that the fuel assembly is disassembled (0004); this meets the limitation of removing the spent nuclear fuel from the fuel assemblies, and sheared (0004); this is interpreted to meet the limitation of granulating the spent nuclear fuel, since the size of the resulting particles is not claimed. These steps are taught as occurring before being subjected to a non-aqueous molten salt reprocessing process (0004). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Scott and Sumita; one would be motivated to do so in order to process fuel pins from fuel assemblies, since Sumita teaches that the dry reprocessing process is small scale and therefore reduces cost (0003) and the dry reprocessing process requires the processing of fuel pins by shearing them, as Sumita teaches (0004). Therefore one skilled in the art would predictably arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Double Patenting
Claims 23, 24, and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12151948 in view of Scott. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite a halogenation of spent nuclear fuel having uranium (instant claim recites a chlorination of spent nuclear fuel having uranium), wherein the halogenation may comprise chloride, and does not recite a step of separating fission product waste and actinide constituents from the spent nuclear fuel (instant claim recites without chemically separating the fission product waste and actinide constituents from the spent nuclear fuel). Scott teaches a method (treatment of spent fuel, p. 1 pp. 6) for use in processing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) having uranium, fission product waste, and actinide constituents into molten salt reactor fuel, the method comprising the addition of molten salts such as chlorides (p. 2 pp. 4) and converting the spent nuclear fuel into a chloride salt fuel (claim 1, p. 5) without chemically separating the fission product waste and actinide constituents from the spent nuclear fuel (“leaving plutonium and higher actinides” in the spent fuel, p. 1 pp. 6; optional separation of fission products by volatilization, p. 2 pp. 1; decanting and volatilization to leave “a mixture highly enriched in fission products and higher actinide trichlorides,” p. 2 pp. 5). While Scott does not explicitly teach the immersing of spent nuclear fuel in a chloride salt bath, it has been held that differences in the order of performing process steps are obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2114.04.IV.C.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the method as suggested by Scott where the combination of molten chloride salt with the SNF is conducted in any order of the taught process including adding the SNF to a molten salt bath for the purpose of chlorinating the SNF as taught by Scott, since Scott teaches that the chlorination can be conducted in a liquid medium for advantageous results (p. 2 pp. 4 “superior specificity of chlorination”). As such the instant claims would be obvious to one skilled in the art over the patented claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM EST.
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 Merkling can be reached at (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.
/Eileen Moudou/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights