麻省福州90后男征有身份女# Piebridge - 鹊桥
h*y
1 楼
背景：chemical engineering; 文章11（4一作，PL里只强调了3个一作和两个co-
author），citation 185，review 70+。只claim了老三样，claim的领域是化学工程，
被RFE要求证明“the discoveries must be major and significant to the entire
field of endeavor”。RFE的署名是Mark Hazuda,职位是Director，Officer号是0153.
下面是具体的RFE letter的话：
“This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not
show the beneficiary’s contributions are considered to be of major
significance in the field of endeavor. The submitted letters of support
attest to the fact that the beneficiary has worked on projects in the field
and has made scientific discoveries during the course of his research. This
is not uncommon for a researcher to make a new discovery during the course
of research work or during the course of research related projects in the
field. Rather, the discoveries must be major and significant to the entire
field of endeavor. The letters do not support the fact that the beneficiary
’s discoveries have been implemented in the field of endeavor and/or that
the beneficiary’s discoveries have been implemented in the field of
endeavor and/or that any contracts have been between the beneficiary and
major companies seeking to use his findings in the field. To assist in
determining whether the beneficiary’s contributions are original and of
major significance in the field, the petitioner may submit:
• Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the
beneficiary’s contribution to the field
• Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently
consider the beneficiary’s work important
• Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the
beneficiary’s contributions of major significance.
• Evidence that the beneficiary’s major significant contributions
have provoked widespread public commentary in the field or have been widely
cited.
• Evidence of the beneficiary’s work being implemented by others.
Possible evidence may include but is not limited to
o Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products
o Licensed technology being used by others
o Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the
field
Note: letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as
possible about the beneficiary’s contribution and must explain, in detail,
how the contribution was “original” (not merely replicating the work of
others) and how they were of “major” significance. General statements
regarding the importance of the endeavors which are not supported by
documentary evidence are insufficient.”
信里说做研究发文章很正常，我没有证明“the beneficiary’s discoveries have
been implemented in the field of endeavor and/or that the beneficiary’s
discoveries have been implemented in the field of endeavor”，但是我在PL和所
有推荐信里都提到了别人/推荐人应用我的工作（基于我的工作，或者受我工作的影响
），以及我的工作对这个领域（对其他研究者，甚至对于社会/环境）的影响。 而且在
PL里特意强调了top percentage（发表的文章单篇1% or 10%, 文章所在期刊的ranking
- top 10或者top 10%, 以及review的期刊的top percentage）
RFE信里还提到可能要补的材料：
• Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the
beneficiary’s contribution to the field
这个objective证据是什么？油灯图？引用数？我还有两个期刊发的reviewer of
excellence certificate（可能没啥用，因为没有质疑我的review work）
• Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently
consider the beneficiary’s work important
这个不是推荐信的作用么？我已经尽量分散推荐人所在大洲了。
• Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the
beneficiary’s contributions of major significance.
我递交了美国，德国，加拿大，台湾，和南非的推荐信还不够么？推荐信里也都提到了
重要贡献。这是要更多的推荐信？
• Evidence that the beneficiary’s major significant contributions
have provoked widespread public commentary in the field or have been widely
cited.
我在PL提到了被世界上著名的研究机构（分散在欧洲，亚洲和美洲）引用和讨论，并且
在Index of Exhibit里都附上了对应的引用我工作的文章。不知道为啥还不够。 为了
应对这一条，把油灯图也放进去，并且统计哪几个洲和那些国家引用过我的文章？然后
再把引用机构的排名，引用国家的排名也放进去？
• Evidence of the beneficiary’s work being implemented by others.
Possible evidence may include but is not limited to
o Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products
o Licensed technology being used by others
o Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the
field
这一条不知道怎么应对，没有patent。我claim的一个文章的一个coauthor倒是发了一
个专利，那个project是公司资助的，当时跟老板的要求就是专利必须全部是公司，所
以那人的专利上只有她名字和公司。找她要推荐信的话也没啥用把，因为是co-author。
请大家指教如何应对这个RFE。不知道这是模板RFE还是说我递交的证明真的不够。
谢谢大家。
author），citation 185，review 70+。只claim了老三样，claim的领域是化学工程，
被RFE要求证明“the discoveries must be major and significant to the entire
field of endeavor”。RFE的署名是Mark Hazuda,职位是Director，Officer号是0153.
下面是具体的RFE letter的话：
“This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not
show the beneficiary’s contributions are considered to be of major
significance in the field of endeavor. The submitted letters of support
attest to the fact that the beneficiary has worked on projects in the field
and has made scientific discoveries during the course of his research. This
is not uncommon for a researcher to make a new discovery during the course
of research work or during the course of research related projects in the
field. Rather, the discoveries must be major and significant to the entire
field of endeavor. The letters do not support the fact that the beneficiary
’s discoveries have been implemented in the field of endeavor and/or that
the beneficiary’s discoveries have been implemented in the field of
endeavor and/or that any contracts have been between the beneficiary and
major companies seeking to use his findings in the field. To assist in
determining whether the beneficiary’s contributions are original and of
major significance in the field, the petitioner may submit:
• Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the
beneficiary’s contribution to the field
• Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently
consider the beneficiary’s work important
• Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the
beneficiary’s contributions of major significance.
• Evidence that the beneficiary’s major significant contributions
have provoked widespread public commentary in the field or have been widely
cited.
• Evidence of the beneficiary’s work being implemented by others.
Possible evidence may include but is not limited to
o Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products
o Licensed technology being used by others
o Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the
field
Note: letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as
possible about the beneficiary’s contribution and must explain, in detail,
how the contribution was “original” (not merely replicating the work of
others) and how they were of “major” significance. General statements
regarding the importance of the endeavors which are not supported by
documentary evidence are insufficient.”
信里说做研究发文章很正常，我没有证明“the beneficiary’s discoveries have
been implemented in the field of endeavor and/or that the beneficiary’s
discoveries have been implemented in the field of endeavor”，但是我在PL和所
有推荐信里都提到了别人/推荐人应用我的工作（基于我的工作，或者受我工作的影响
），以及我的工作对这个领域（对其他研究者，甚至对于社会/环境）的影响。 而且在
PL里特意强调了top percentage（发表的文章单篇1% or 10%, 文章所在期刊的ranking
- top 10或者top 10%, 以及review的期刊的top percentage）
RFE信里还提到可能要补的材料：
• Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the
beneficiary’s contribution to the field
这个objective证据是什么？油灯图？引用数？我还有两个期刊发的reviewer of
excellence certificate（可能没啥用，因为没有质疑我的review work）
• Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently
consider the beneficiary’s work important
这个不是推荐信的作用么？我已经尽量分散推荐人所在大洲了。
• Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the
beneficiary’s contributions of major significance.
我递交了美国，德国，加拿大，台湾，和南非的推荐信还不够么？推荐信里也都提到了
重要贡献。这是要更多的推荐信？
• Evidence that the beneficiary’s major significant contributions
have provoked widespread public commentary in the field or have been widely
cited.
我在PL提到了被世界上著名的研究机构（分散在欧洲，亚洲和美洲）引用和讨论，并且
在Index of Exhibit里都附上了对应的引用我工作的文章。不知道为啥还不够。 为了
应对这一条，把油灯图也放进去，并且统计哪几个洲和那些国家引用过我的文章？然后
再把引用机构的排名，引用国家的排名也放进去？
• Evidence of the beneficiary’s work being implemented by others.
Possible evidence may include but is not limited to
o Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products
o Licensed technology being used by others
o Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the
field
这一条不知道怎么应对，没有patent。我claim的一个文章的一个coauthor倒是发了一
个专利，那个project是公司资助的，当时跟老板的要求就是专利必须全部是公司，所
以那人的专利上只有她名字和公司。找她要推荐信的话也没啥用把，因为是co-author。
请大家指教如何应对这个RFE。不知道这是模板RFE还是说我递交的证明真的不够。
谢谢大家。
