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 .
Status of the Rejection
All 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments. All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are maintained and modified only in response to the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12 are dependent on now canceled claim 10. Claim 13 depends on the above rejected claim 12. It appears that at least claims 11-12 should be dependent on claim 1 and are thus interpreted as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11-15, 20, 21, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costentin et al. (US 20180023204) in view of Jeanty et al. (US 20190233957) and Ono et al. (20190085477).
Regarding claim 1, Costentin et al. teaches an electrolysis cell to electrochemically reduce CO2 into gaseous CO (Abstract) the electrolysis cell comprising:
an anodic compartment comprising: an anode (paragraph 79, 107; the anode can be made of iridium oxide and cobalt oxide which is deemed to be a catalyst capable of electrochemically oxidize water to oxygen); an anodic electrolyte solution comprising: a first solvent, and an anodic electrolyte, the first solvent being water (paragraph 81);
a cathodic compartment comprising: a cathodic electrolyte solution comprising: a second solvent, and a cathodic electrolyte, the second solvent being water (paragraph 77, 78);
a molecular catalyst being tetra phenyl iron porphyrin formed on the cathode (paragraph 72, 141 and 144):
PNG
media_image1.png
506
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
520
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a power supply providing energy necessary to trigger the electrochemical reactions involving the CO2 gas (paragraph 76).
Costentin et al. discloses an electrochemical cell but does not explicitly teach following:
electrochemical cell is a flow cell thus omitting the disclosure of an inlet/outlet for the respective anodic and cathodic compartments adapted to circulate the electrolyte solution; a channel for flowing of CO2; and pumping means to circulate and control the flow rates of the electrolyte solution and CO2 gas; and
a gas diffusion porous current cathode collector.
Jeanty et al. teaches a continuous, flow by mode system for carbon dioxide electrolysis (paragraph 29) comprising: an anode 13 (Figure Drawing); a cathode 15 including a gas diffusion electrode (paragraph 50) adjoined by a gas space 16 (reads on channel for flowing CO2) and a cathode space 14. Jeanty et al. teaches an anodic compartment 12 and cathodic compartment 14 each having their respective inlets and outlets connected to the top and bottom of electrolysis cell 11 shown in the Figure.
PNG
media_image3.png
672
758
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Jeanty et al. teaches a pump circuit comprising pumps 18, 27 for supplying carbon dioxide and electrolyte through the electrolysis cell.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modified the electrolysis cell of Costentin et al. with the continuous flow cell of Jeanty et al., thus incorporating the inlet/outlet, channel for flowing the carbon dioxide, and the pump apparatus as taught by Jeanty et al., because it would be able to reduce carbon dioxide in the continuous, flow by process, thus improving the conversion of carbon dioxide (paragraph 29, 45 of Jeanty et al.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the electrode of Costentin et al. with the gas diffusion porous electrode of Jeanty et al. as a base for applying a catalyst, because the gas diffusion electrode enables mutual contacting of solid catalyst, liquid electrolyte, and gaseous electrolysis reactant (paragraph 50 of Jeanty et al.).
Costentin et al. further does not explicitly teach following:
a current collector associated with the anode; and
an anion exchange membrane between the anodic compartment and a cathodic compartment (instead Costentin et al. teaches a proton exchange membrane; paragraph 77).
Ono et al. a carbon dioxide electrolytic device comprises: an anode current collector 13 and a cathode current collector 24 connected to power controller 40 which makes a current flow through the anode 11 and the cathode 22 (Fig. 2; paragraph 24). Ono et al. further teaches an anion exchange membrane to separate the gas generated in the anode compartment while allowing ions to move between the anode and the cathode (paragraph 26, 40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolysis cell of Costentin et al. by incorporating the current collector of Ono et al., because it would improve the current flow to the electrode. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the exchange membrane of Costentin et al. with the anionic exchange membrane of Ono et al. to separate the gas generated in the anode compartment while allowing ions to move between the anode and the cathode (paragraph 26 of Ono et al.).
Regarding claim 2, Costentin et al. teaches wherein the anodic and/or cathodic electrolyte solution has a neutral or basic pH (i.e., a pH of 6.5-7.5, paragraph 85).
Regarding claim 5, Costentin et al. teaches wherein the CO2 gas flow is at atmospheric pressure (paragraph 86).
Regarding claim 6, Costentin et al. teaches wherein the anodic and the cathodic electrolyte solutions are at ambient temperature (paragraph 83).
Regarding claim 9, Costentin et al. teaches that the metal tetra phenyl porphyrin catalyst comprising +N(C1-C4 alkyl)3 groups in the para or ortho position since the compound is the same as that of the instant claim.
Regarding claims 11-13, the instant claims are directed to an optional alternative species in claim 1. Since the rejection applies to the molecular catalyst of the first formula, the instant claims are met since they depend from an optional molecular catalyst.
Regarding claim 14, Costentin et al. teaches a phosphate buffer (paragraph 87).
Regarding claim 15, Costentin et al. teaches an electrolyte solution comprising an alkali metal hydroxide (paragraph 96). Alkali metal includes cesium thus one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that cesium hydroxide would be suitable electrolyte for electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide.
Regarding claim 20, Costentin et al. teaches immobilizing the catalyst using a binder (paragraph 72) wherein the binder consists of conductive polymers (paragraph 74).
Regarding claim 21, modified Costentin et al. teaches wherein pumping means are configured to recirculate the anodic electrolyte solution and the cathodic electrolyte solution (see Figure in Jeanty et al.).
Regarding claim 32, Costentin et al. teaches using an electrode made of carbon paper (paragraph 109, 203).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costentin et al. (US 20180023204) in view of Jeanty et al. (US 20190233957), Ono et al. (20190085477), and further in view of Goetheer et al. (US 20210047743).
Costentin et al. teaches the electrolysis cell of claim 1. However, Costentin et al. does not explicitly teach electrolyte solution having a pH from 9-14.
Goetheer et al. teaches a method for electrochemically reducing carbon oxide in a basic environment using a pH between 7-14 (paragraph 58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte solution of Costentin et al. by using the pH of Goetheer et al., because Goetheer et al. teaches that a pH of 7-14 would be suitable for electrochemically reducing carbon oxide. According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, the instant claim is dependent on an apparatus claim, therefore the pH of the electrolyte solution is directed to a material worked upon by the apparatus and would not further structurally limit the apparatus since the apparatus of Costentin et al. would be capable of being used with a solution having a basic pH.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costentin et al. (US 20180023204) in view of Jeanty et al. (US 20190233957), Ono et al. (20190085477), and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 20180066370).
Costentin et al., Jeanty et al., and Ono et al. teach the electrolysis cell as applied to claim 1. The references do not explicitly teach the Rs in the tetraphenyl iron porphyrin catalyst being all H (claim 33).
Yamada et al. teaches a tetraphenyl iron porphyrin catalyst have all the R moieties as H (paragraph 12, 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the tetraphenyl iron porphyrin catalyst of Costentin et al. with the tetraphenyl iron porphyrin catalyst with the Rs being H, as taught by Yamada et al., because Yamada et al. teaches that such catalyst would be suitable for promoting carbon dioxide reduction (paragraph 25 of Yamada et al.).
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeanty et al. (US 20190233957) in view of Ono et al. (20190085477) and Magdesieva et al. (Magdesieva, T. V., et al. "Electrochemical reduction of CO2 with transition metal phthalocyanine and porphyrin complexes supported on activated carbon fibers." Journal of The Electrochemical Society 149.6 (2002): D89. Cited in IDS 1/21/22).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Jeanty et al. teaches a continuous, flow by mode system for carbon dioxide electrolysis (paragraph 29) comprising: an anode 13 (Figure Drawing); a cathode 15 including a gas diffusion electrode (paragraph 50) adjoined by a gas space 16 (reads on channel for flowing CO2) and a cathode space 14. Jeanty et al. teaches an anodic compartment 12 in cathodic compartment 14 each having their respective inlets and outlets connected to the top and bottom of electrolysis cell 11 shown in the Figure.
PNG
media_image3.png
672
758
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Jeanty et al. teaches a pump circuit comprising pumps 18, 27 for supplying carbon dioxide and electrolyte through the electrolysis cell.
Jeanty et al. does not explicitly teach:
a current collector associated with the anode;
the first and second solvent being water; and
an anion exchange membrane between the anodic compartment and a cathodic compartment (Jeanty et al. teaches a generic membrane; paragraph 48).
Ono et al. teaches a carbon dioxide electrolytic device comprises: an anode current collector 13 and a cathode current collector 24 connected to power controller 40 which makes a current flow through the anode 11 and the cathode 22 (Fig. 2; paragraph 24). Ono et al. teaches the anode is mainly constituted of the catalyst material capable of oxidizing water to produce oxygen or hydrogen ions and reducing overvoltage in such reaction (paragraph 28). Ono et al. further teaches a device comprising an anion exchange membrane to separate the gas generated in the anode compartment while allowing ions to move between the anode and the cathode (paragraph 26, 40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolysis cell of Jeanty et al. by incorporating the current collector of Ono et al., because it would improve the current flow to the electrode. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention substitute the anode of Jeanty et al. with the anode constituted of the catalyst material of Ono et al. to oxidize water to produce oxygen or hydrogen ions and reducing overvoltage in such reaction (paragraph 28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the exchange membrane of Jeanty et al. with the anionic exchange membrane of Ono et al. to separate the gas generated in the anode compartment while allowing ions to move between the anode and the cathode (paragraph 26 of Ono et al.).
Jeanty et al. does not explicitly teach the molecular catalyst recited in claim 1.
Magdesieva et al. teaches an electrochemical cell for CO2 reduction using a cobalt phthalocyanines loaded gas diffusion electrode made of activated carbon fibers (D89, left paragraph) as the molecular catalyst:
PNG
media_image4.png
900
668
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Magdesieva et al. teaches that porphyrin and phthalocyanine both non-substituted and with tert-butyl groups complexes loaded on nanoporous activated carbon fiber supports are effective catalysts for CO2 electroreduction in the form of gas-diffusion electrodes, yielding carbon monoxide with current efficiencies up to 70% (D95, Conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the catalyst of Jeanty et al. with the catalyst of Magdesieva et al., because Magdesieva et al. teaches that cobalt phthalocyanine is an effective catalyst with high efficiency for CO2 reduction in gas diffusion electrodes.
Regarding claim 11, the unsubstituted cobalt phthalocyanine (Fig. 1 of Magdesieva et al.) reads on R1-16 being H.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeanty et al. (US 20190233957) in view of Ono et al. (20190085477), Magdesieva et al. ("Electrochemical reduction of CO2 with transition metal phthalocyanine and porphyrin complexes supported on activated carbon fibers." Journal of The Electrochemical Society 149.6 (2002): D89. Cited in IDS 1/21/22), and further in view of Wang et al. ("CO2 electrochemical catalytic reduction with a highly active cobalt phthalocyanine." Nature communications 10.1 (2019): 3602).
Jeanty et al., Ono et al., and Magdesieva et al. teach an electrochemical device of claims 1 and 10 above. The references do not explicitly teach R1 to R16 being independently +N(C1-C4 alkyl)3.
Wang et al. teaches an electrolyzer for carbon dioxide electrochemical reduction using a cobalt phthalocyanine R1 to R16 being independently +N(C1-C4 alkyl)3.
PNG
media_image5.png
604
802
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention substituted the catalyst of Jeanty et al. with the cobalt phthalocyanine having the trimethyl ammonium group, as taught by Wang et al., because Wang et al. teaches introducing a positively charged trimethyl ammonium group on the cobalt phthalocyanine forms a highly efficient and versatile catalyst for the CO2-to-CO electrochemical conversion in water (page 6, left column, last paragraph of Wang et al.).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, filed June 22, 2026, on pages 8-13, the Applicant argues that the modification of the static, dissolved-gas electrolysis cell of Costentin with the continuous flow-by system of Jeanty and the current collector/membrane features of Ono is based on an impermissible hindsight combination of references that are fundamentally incompatible in architecture, operation, and underlying chemical mechanisms (page 8). Applicant further argues that nothing in Costentin would induce a person having ordinary skill at the time of the Application to modify a static, dissolved-gas system to obtain the currently claimed gas-through-GDE electrolyzer because Costentin relies on CO2 reactant is dissolved in the electrolyte.
This argument is deemed to be unpersuasive. While Costentin discloses that an embodiment with a closed system using a static dissolved gas to study the catalytic mechanism of the reduction of CO2 into CO to allow for tight control of gas evolution (paragraph 103), Costentin also teaches an alternative embodiment in which an open environment with a flow of CO2 which saturates the electrolyte and solvent of the electrochemical cell of the invention where the configuration is particularly useful when industrial production of CO or syngas is sought for (paragraph 104). Costentin further teaches that the electrolysis cell can be operated “under a continuous flux for the long-time-scale electrolysis to avoid the CO₂ consumption” (paragraph 168). Thus, Costentin clearly suggests alternative embodiments in which CO2 reduction can be formed in a continuous manner. Furthermore, according to MPEP 2144.04(V), modifying the electrolysis cell to perform in a continuous operation would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
On page 12, Applicant argues that Jeanty and Ono are technically incompatible with the molecular catalyst system because they describe catalyst that are made of metals or metal alloys mixed with activated carbon and PTFE. They did not contemplate molecular catalyst of the instant claims. Therefore, there would be no motivation to combine these teachings.
This argument is unpersuasive. Jeanty is relied upon for teaching a continuous-flow carbon dioxide electrolysis system with an anode, a cathode including a gas diffusion electrode, and separate anodic and cathodic compartments with respective inlets and outlets connected to the electrolysis cell. Ono is relied upon for teaching a carbon dioxide electrolytic device with current collectors connected to a power controller and an anion exchange membrane. Although these references disclose different catalyst materials, the rejection does not rely on modifying Jeanty or Ono to include the molecular catalyst. Rather, Costentin is relied upon for teaching the molecular catalyst recited in claim 1, and Jeanty and Ono provide the remaining teachings and motivation to combine. Applicant has not specifically explained why the proposed combination would have been nonobvious in view of the rationale provided.
On pages 13-17, Applicant further argues Costentin would not be able to operate at the claimed conditions because Costentin uses a static dissolved-gas system lacking additional flow and temperature management systems.
Applicant’s arguments are deemed to be unpersuasive because Applicant is arguing the manner in which the apparatus is operated. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997), MPEP 2114. Furthermore, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Since Costentin in view of Jeanty and Ono teaches all the apparatus features of the instant claims and the apparatus would be structurally capable of performing with the required conditions such as pH, temperature, and pressure.
On page 18, Applicant argues with respect to claim 3 that Costentin teaches a static, dissolve-gas apparatus and therefore would be incompatible with the basic pH as recited in claim 3.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because the rejection with respect to claim 3 relies on the combination of Costentin in view of Jeanty, Ono, and Goetheer and not Costentin or Goetheer alone. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 19, Applicant argues respect to claim 33 that substituting Costentin's highly charged, water-soluble porphyrin catalyst with Yamada's unsubstituted tetraphenyl iron porphyrin (all R = H) is chemically incompatible. Replacing this structurally optimized catalyst with Yamada's neutral, water-insoluble, unsubstituted porphyrin eliminates these vital electrostatic promoting effects, drastically reducing selectivity and reaction rates. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Application would have had no scientific motivation or reasonable expectation of success to perform this substitution in a high-throughput GDE flow cell.
This argument is deemed to be unpersuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to provide objective evidence why the combination would not be obvious. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the applicant. See, for example, In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP 716.01(c).
On pages 20-21, Applicant argues against the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 11 over the combination of Jeanty in view of Ono and Magdesieva. Applicant argues that the proposed combination of Jeanty's high-throughput flow-by system with the molecular catalysts of Magdesieva is technically incompatible and lacks a reasonable expectation of success. There is no motivation to substitute Jeanty's robust metallic catalysts with the molecular complexes of Magdesieva because Jeanty and Ono are directed exclusively to metal or metal alloy catalysts mixed with PTFE. Combining the systems of Jeanty, Ono, and Magdesieva to achieve the claimed high-rate and stable molecular flow cell is therefore a product of impermissible hindsight. Similar arguments were made against the combination with Wang.
This argument is deemed to be unpersuasive. The motivation to substitute the catalyst of Jeanty with the catalyst of Magdesieva is to provide an effective catalyst with high efficiency for CO2 reduction in gas diffusion electrodes. Similarly, the motivation to combine with Wang is to form a highly efficient and versatile catalyst for the CO2-to-CO electrochemical conversion in water. Applicant's argument that the combination would render the cell inoperable because the combination would not withstand high mechanical stress is unpersuasive because the argument fails to provide objective evidence. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965).
Addressing the Declaration filed on 6/22/26, Applicant explains that the instant invention solves the problem of providing a flow cell electrolyzer that allows for a highly selective production of CO with high current densities in paragraphs 11-13 and that Costentin operates at a much lower current density and did not contemplate the molecular catalyst would work at higher current densities.
In response to applicant's argument that Costentin did not contemplate operating the molecular catalysts at higher current densities, the mere recognition of additional advantages or latent properties present but not recognized in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention (MPEP 2145); the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Since Costentin teaches the same molecular catalyst, the catalyst would be inherently capable of being operated at a high current density. Furthermore, the claims do not recite any current densities. Even so, the instant claims are directed to an electrolyzer and the current density would be merely an operable parameter of the electrolyzer and would not be given patentable weight.
The Declaration in paragraphs 14-15 further argues that Costentin does not teach the flow through structure of claim 1 and that the secondary references Jeanty and Ono teaches different metal catalyst and therefore the performance cannot be envisioned.
This argument is deemed to be unpersuasive. As discussed in the responses above, Jeanty and Ono art relied on for the flow through structures, current collector, and specific membrane recited in the claims which are conventionally known structures in a flow-through electrolyzer. While these references use a different catalyst, the obviousness rejection is not to modify these references with the molecular catalyst but rather to the primary reference Costentin which already teaches the molecular catalyst of claim 1. Jeanty and Ono provide explicit motivations for the modification. Applicant has not specifically addressed why would not be obvious to make the modifications based on the rationale provided except the highlighted differences between the catalyst of these references. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN V VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
LUAN V. VAN
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights