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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 18 November 2025. Claims 1-37 are currently pending of which claims 16-27 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Analysis of Voltage Losses in PEM Water Electrolyzers with Low Platinum Group Metal Loadings” to Bernt et al. (Bernt).
As to claim 1, Bernt teaches an electrode, (two electrodes), for a solid polymer electrolyte assembly comprising: a first substrate, anode side titanium porous transport layer, with an ionomer free anode catalyst, iridium containing catalyst, with a loading of between 0.20-5.41 mg/cm2 ,a second substrate, cathode side carbon paper porous transport layer with an ionomer free cathode catalyst, platinum containing catalyst, with a loading of, for example, 0.025 mg/cm2 (Experimental, Membrane electrode assembly (MEA) preparation and cell assembly).
As to claim 3, Bernt teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Bernt further teaches that the first substrate and second substrate are porous transport layers, thus gas/liquid diffusion layers, having a thickness, respectively, of 280 microns and 370 microns (Experimental, Membrane electrode assembly (MEA) preparation and cell assembly).
As to claim 6, Bernt teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Bernt further teaches that the second substrate is a liquid/gas diffusion carbon based paper (Experimental, Membrane electrode assembly (MEA) preparation and cell assembly).
As to claim 8, Bernt teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Bernt teaches that the cathode catalyst is platinum applied to the membrane as a thin coating, thus considered to be a nanosheet (Experimental, Membrane electrode assembly (MEA) preparation and cell assembly). The method by which the sheet is formed on the substrate is not patentably significant in an apparatus/product claim so long as the final product is the same (MPEP 2113).
As to claim 9, Bernt teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Bernt teaches that the cathode catalyst is platinum with a loading of, for example, 0.025 mg/cm2, applied to the membrane as a thin coating, thus considered to be a nanosheet (Experimental, Membrane electrode assembly (MEA) preparation and cell assembly). The method by which the sheet is formed on the substrate is not patentably significant in an apparatus/product claim so long as the final product is the same (MPEP 2113).
As to claim 10, Bernt teaches the apparatus of claim 9. The platinum catalyst is template and surfactant free (Experimental, Membrane electrode assembly (MEA) preparation and cell assembly).
As to claim 11, Bernt teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Bernt teaches that the iridium catalyst is ionomer free iridium oxide applied to the membrane as a thin coating (Experimental, Membrane electrode assembly (MEA) preparation and cell assembly). The method by which the sheet is formed on the substrate is not patentably significant in an apparatus/product claim so long as the final product is the same (MPEP 2113).
As to claims 15 and 28, Bernt teaches a dual electrode assembly for a solid polymer electrolyte device comprising: a solid polymer electrolyte membrane (Nafion membrane), a first substrate, anode side titanium porous transport layer, arranged on a first side of the membrane, a second substrate, cathode side carbon paper porous transport layer arranged on a second side of the membrane, an ionomer free anode catalyst, iridium containing catalyst, with a loading of between 0.20-5.41 mg/cm2 and an ionomer free cathode catalyst, platinum containing catalyst, with a loading of, for example, 0.025 mg/cm2 (Experimental, Membrane electrode assembly (MEA) preparation and cell assembly).
As to claim 29, Bernt teaches the apparatus of claim 28. Bernt further teaches that the first substrate and second substrate are porous transport layers, thus gas/liquid diffusion layers, having a thickness, respectively, of 280 microns and 370 microns (Experimental, Membrane electrode assembly (MEA) preparation and cell assembly).
As to claim 30, Bernt teaches the apparatus of claim 28. Bernt further teaches that the second substrate is a liquid/gas diffusion carbon based paper (Experimental, Membrane electrode assembly (MEA) preparation and cell assembly).
As to claim 32, Bernt teaches the apparatus of claim 28. Bernt teaches that the anode catalyst is iridium oxide applied to the membrane as a thin coating, thus considered to be a nanosheet (Experimental, Membrane electrode assembly (MEA) preparation and cell assembly). The method by which the sheet is formed on the substrate is not patentably significant in an apparatus/product claim so long as the final product is the same (MPEP 2113).
As to claim 33, Bernt teaches the apparatus of claim 28. Bernt teaches that the anode catalyst is iridium oxide applied to the membrane as a thin coating, thus considered to be a nanosheet (Experimental, Membrane electrode assembly (MEA) preparation and cell assembly). The method by which the sheet is formed on the substrate is not patentably significant in an apparatus/product claim so long as the final product is the same (MPEP 2113).
As to claim 36, Bernt teaches the apparatus of claim 28. Bernt teaches that the cathode catalyst is platinum applied to the membrane as a thin coating, thus considered to be a nanosheet (Experimental, Membrane electrode assembly (MEA) preparation and cell assembly). The method by which the sheet is formed on the substrate is not patentably significant in an apparatus/product claim so long as the final product is the same (MPEP 2113).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0195186 A1 to Zhang et al. (Zhang) in view of US 2016/0186339 A1 to Mayousse et al. (Mayousse).
As to claims 1 and 15, Zhang teaches solid polymer electrolyte device comprising a solid polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM (102)), a first electrode (anode (104)) on a first side of the membrane and a second electrode (cathode (106)) on a second side of the membrane opposing the first side, each electrode comprising a substrate (112/114) comprising a porous liquid/gas diffusion layer and an ionomer free catalyst layer (108/110) (Paragraphs 0039, 0042, 0055; Figures 1 and 3-9).
Zhang further teaches that anode side catalyst comprises an iridium catalyst, but fails to teach a catalyst loading of from 0.002 to 0.35 mg/cm2 (Paragraphs 0055 and 0061; Claims 18 and 19).
However, Mayousse also discusses water electrolysis with iridium containing anode catalysts and teaches that iridium is expensive and that by incorporating a titanium support particle iridium loading can be decreased to, for example, 0.12 mg/cm2 (Paragraphs 0003, 0011, 0016, 0087 and 0097-0105). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anode iridium catalyst of Zhang with a titanium support particle and loading of, for example, 0.12 mg/cm2 in order to reduce the overall cost as taught by Mayousse.
As to claim 2, the combination of Zhang and Mayousse teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Zhang further teaches that each electrode (104/106) comprises a bipolar plate (116/118) with flow channels, and thus specifically designed to flow through these flow channels with the remainder of the plate non-porous (Paragraph 0039; Figure 1).
As to claims 3 and 4, the combination of Zhang and Mayousse teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Zhang further teaches that the porous liquid/gas diffusion substrate layer has a thickness of, for example, 25.4 microns (Paragraph 0049).
As to claim 5, the combination of Zhang and Mayousse teaches the apparatus of claim 3. Zhang further teaches that the liquid/gas diffusion layer comprises a plurality of pores (Paragraph 0042; Figures 3-9) with a diameter of, for example, 350 microns and a porosity of, for example, 68% (Paragraphs 0046 and 0047).
As to claim 6, the combination of Zhang and Mayousse teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Zhang further teaches that the porous material layers comprises a metal based patterned porous sheet (Paragraph 0042).
As to claims 8 and 11, the combination of Zhang and Mayousse teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Zhang further teaches that the anode side ionomer free catalyst comprises an iridium oxide sheet of nanoscale thickness, thus a nanosheet, formed on the substrate (Paragraphs 0055 and 0061; Claims 18 and 19). The method by which the sheet is formed on the substrate is not patentably significant in an apparatus/product claim so long as the final product is the same (MPEP 2113).
As to claims 12 and 13, the combination of Zhang and Mayousse teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Zhang further teaches that the anode side ionomer catalyst comprises, for example iridium ruthenium oxide, IrRuOx (thus Ir:Ru of 1:1), formed on the substrate (Paragraph 0061). The method by which the sheet is formed on the substrate is not patentably significant in an apparatus/product claim so long as the final product is the same (MPEP 2113).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang and Mayousse as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the Non-Patent Literature “Investigation of Titanium Felt Transport Parameters for Energy Storage and Hydrogen/Oxygen Production” to Mo et al. (Mo).
As to claim 7, the combination of Zhang and Mayousse teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Zhang fails to further teach that the substrate comprises a surface coating. However, Mo also discusses water electrolysis with liquid gas diffusion substrates and teaches that the provision of a nitride coating to those substrates enhances the interfacial electrical properties between the substrate and the catalyst layers for improved performance with low cost and easy mass production (Section IV. Conclusion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Zhang with the addition of a nitride surface layer to the substrates in order to improve performance with low cost and easy mass production as taught by Mo.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of the Non-Patent Literature “Roadmap and Direction toward High-Performance MoS2 Hydrogen Evolution Catalysts” to Cao (Cao) and further in view of CN 110064411 A to Li et al. (Li).
As to claims 1, 14 and 15, Zhang teaches solid polymer electrolyte device comprising a solid polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM (102)), a first electrode (anode (104)) on a first side of the membrane and a second electrode (cathode (106)) on a second side of the membrane opposing the first side, each electrode comprising a substrate (112/114) comprising a porous liquid/gas diffusion layer and an ionomer free catalyst layer (108/110) (Paragraphs 0039, 0042, 0055; Figures 1 and 3-9).
Zhang further teaches that the cathode side catalyst comprises a platinum catalyst and fails to teach an molybdenum disulfide catalyst.
However, Cao also discusses water electrolysis and teaches that catalyst comprising a 1T-2H heterophase MoS2 displays superior performance and long term stability for the hydrogen evolution reaction (Page 11022, Column 2, Paragraph 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cathode catalyst for hydrogen evolution of Zhang with 1T-2H heterophase MoS2 catalyst in order to use a catalyst with superior performance and long term stability for the hydrogen evolution reaction as taught by Cao.
However, Cao is silent as to a specific useful loading for the molybdenum disulfide catalyst. However, Li also discusses water electrolysis cathode catalysts and teaches that a molybdenum disulfide catalyst with a loading of from 0.1 to 0.4 mg/cm2 (100-400 µg/cm2) is an effective inexpensive catalyst (Paragraphs 0004, 0005and 0019). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the molybdenum disulfide catalyst with a loading of from 0.1 to 0.4 mg/cm2 with the expectation of effectively providing the catalyst at low cost as taught by Li.
As to claim 2, the combination of Zhang, Cao and Li teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Zhang further teaches that each electrode (104/106) comprises a bipolar plate (116/118) with flow channels, and thus specifically designed to flow through these flow channels with the remainder of the plate non-porous (Paragraph 0039; Figure 1).
As to claims 3 and 4, the combination of Zhang, Cao and Li teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Zhang further teaches that the porous liquid/gas diffusion substrate layer has a thickness of, for example, 25.4 microns (Paragraph 0049).
As to claim 5, the combination of Zhang, Cao and Li teaches the apparatus of claim 3. Zhang further teaches that the liquid/gas diffusion layer comprises a plurality of pores (Paragraph 0042; Figures 3-9) with a diameter of, for example, 350 microns and a porosity of, for example, 68% (Paragraphs 0046 and 0047).
As to claim 6, the combination of Zhang, Cao and Li teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Zhang further teaches that the porous material layers comprises a metal based patterned porous sheet (Paragraph 0042).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang, Cao and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mo.
As to claim 7, the combination of Zhang, Cao and Li teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Zhang fails to further teach that the substrate comprises a surface coating. However, Mo also discusses water electrolysis with liquid gas diffusion substrates and teaches that the provision of a nitride coating to those substrates enhances the interfacial electrical properties between the substrate and the catalyst layers for improved performance with low cost and easy mass production (Section IV. Conclusion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Zhang with the addition of a nitride surface layer to the substrates in order to improve performance with low cost and easy mass production as taught by Mo.
Claims 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Mayousse further in view of Bernt.
As to claim 28, Zhang teaches solid polymer electrolyte device comprising a solid polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM (102)), a first electrode (anode (104)) on a first side of the membrane and a second electrode (cathode (106)) on a second side of the membrane opposing the first side, thus a dual electrode assembly, each electrode comprising a substrate (112/114) comprising a porous liquid/gas diffusion layer and an ionomer free catalyst layer (108/110) (Paragraphs 0039, 0042, 0055; Figures 1 and 3-9).
Zhang further teaches that anode side catalyst comprises an iridium catalyst, but fails to teach a catalyst loading of from 0.002 to 0.35 mg/cm2 (Paragraphs 0055 and 0061; Claims 18 and 19).
However, Mayousse also discusses water electrolysis with iridium containing anode catalysts and teaches that iridium is expensive and that by incorporating a titanium support particle iridium loading can be decreased to, for example, 0.12 mg/cm2 (Paragraphs 0003, 0011, 0016, 0087 and 0097-0105). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the anode iridium catalyst of Zhang with a titanium support particle and loading of, for example, 0.12 mg/cm2 in order to reduce the overall cost as taught by Mayousse.
Zhang further teaches that the cathode side catalyst comprises a platinum catalyst, but fails to teach a catalyst loading of from 0.002 to 0.35 mg/cm2 (Paragraphs 0055 and 0061; Claims 18 and 19).
However, Bernt also discusses water electrolysis with platinum containing anode catalyst and teaches that the platinum loading can be decreased to as low as 0.025 mg/cm2 without any negative effective on performance (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to reduce the platinum loading to 0.025 mg/cm2 in order to reduce costs without reducing performance as taught by Bernt.
As to claim 29, the combination of Zhang, Mayousse and Bernt teaches the apparatus of claim 28. Zhang further teaches that the porous liquid/gas diffusion substrate layer has a thickness of, for example, 25.4 microns (Paragraph 0049).
As to claim 30, the combination of Zhang, Mayousse and Bernt teaches the apparatus of claim 28. Zhang further teaches that the porous material layers comprises a metal based patterned porous sheet (Paragraph 0042).
As to claims 32 and 33, the combination of Zhang, Mayousse and Bernt teaches the apparatus of claim 28. Zhang further teaches that the anode side ionomer free catalyst comprises an iridium oxide sheet of nanoscale thickness, thus a nanosheet, formed on the substrate (Paragraphs 0055 and 0061; Claims 18 and 19). The method by which the sheet is formed on the substrate is not patentably significant in an apparatus/product claim so long as the final product is the same (MPEP 2113).
As to claims 34 and 35, the combination of Zhang, Mayousse and Bernt teaches the apparatus of claim 28. Zhang further teaches that the anode side ionomer catalyst comprises, for example iridium ruthenium oxide, IrRuOx (thus Ir:Ru of 1:1), formed on the substrate (Paragraph 0061). The method by which the sheet is formed on the substrate is not patentably significant in an apparatus/product claim so long as the final product is the same (MPEP 2113).
As to claim 36, the combination of Zhang, Mayousse and Bernt teaches the apparatus of claim 28. Zhang further teaches that the cathode side catalyst comprises a template/surfactant free (sputter coated) platinum sheet of nanoscale thickness, thus a nanosheet, formed on the substrate (Paragraphs 0055 and 0061; Claims 18 and 19). The method by which the sheet is formed on the substrate is not patentably significant in an apparatus/product claim so long as the final product is the same (MPEP 2113).
Claims 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang, Mayousse and Bernt as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Mo.
As to claim 31, the combination of Zhang, Mayousse and Bernt teaches the apparatus of claim 28. However, Zhang fails to further teach that the substrate comprises a surface coating. However, Mo also discusses water electrolysis with liquid gas diffusion substrates and teaches that the provision of a nitride coating to those substrates enhances the interfacial electrical properties between the substrate and the catalyst layers for improved performance with low cost and easy mass production (Section IV. Conclusion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Zhang with the addition of a nitride surface layer to the substrates in order to improve performance with low cost and easy mass production as taught by Mo.
Claims 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Mayousse and further in view of Li.
As to claims 28 and 37, Zhang teaches solid polymer electrolyte device comprising a solid polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM (102)), a first electrode (anode (104)) on a first side of the membrane and a second electrode (cathode (106)) on a second side of the membrane opposing the first side, thus a dual electrode assembly, each electrode comprising a substrate (112/114) comprising a porous liquid/gas diffusion layer and an ionomer free catalyst layer (108/110) (Paragraphs 0039, 0042, 0055; Figures 1 and 3-9).
Zhang further teaches that anode side catalyst comprises an iridium catalyst, but fails to teach a catalyst loading of from 0.002 to 0.35 mg/cm2 (Paragraphs 0055 and 0061; Claims 18 and 19).
However, Mayousse also discusses water electrolysis with iridium containing anode catalysts and teaches that iridium is expensive and that by incorporating a titanium support particle iridium loading can be decreased to, for example, 0.12 mg/cm2 (Paragraphs 0003, 0011, 0016, 0087 and 0097-0105). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the anode iridium catalyst of Zhang with a titanium support particle and loading of, for example, 0.12 mg/cm2 in order to reduce the overall cost as taught by Mayousse.
Zhang further teaches that the cathode side catalyst comprises a platinum catalyst, but fails to teach a catalyst loading of from 0.002 to 0.35 mg/cm2 (Paragraphs 0055 and 0061; Claims 18 and 19).
However, Li also discusses water electrolysis cathode catalysts and teaches that a molybdenum disulfide catalyst with a loading of from 0.1 to 0.4 mg/cm2 (100-400 µg/cm2) is an effective inexpensive substitute for expensive platinum (Paragraphs 0004, 0005and 0019). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the platinum cathode catalyst with a molybdenum disulfide catalyst with a loading of from 0.1 to 0.4 mg/cm2 in order to replace expensive platinum as taught by Li. Thus a thin layer of ionomer free molybdenum disulfide, thus considered to be a nanosheet. The method by which the sheet is formed on the substrate is not patentably significant in an apparatus/product claim so long as the final product is the same (MPEP 2113).
As to claim 29, the combination of Zhang, Mayousse and Li teaches the apparatus of claim 28. Zhang further teaches that the porous liquid/gas diffusion substrate layer has a thickness of, for example, 25.4 microns (Paragraph 0049).
As to claim 30, the combination of Zhang, Mayousse and Li teaches the apparatus of claim 28. Zhang further teaches that the porous material layers comprises a metal based patterned porous sheet (Paragraph 0042).
As to claims 32 and 33, the combination of Zhang, Mayousse and Li teaches the apparatus of claim 28. Zhang further teaches that the anode side ionomer free catalyst comprises an iridium oxide sheet of nanoscale thickness, thus a nanosheet, formed on the substrate (Paragraphs 0055 and 0061; Claims 18 and 19). The method by which the sheet is formed on the substrate is not patentably significant in an apparatus/product claim so long as the final product is the same (MPEP 2113).
As to claims 34 and 35, the combination of Zhang, Mayousse and Li teaches the apparatus of claim 28. Zhang further teaches that the anode side ionomer catalyst comprises, for example iridium ruthenium oxide, IrRuOx (thus Ir:Ru of 1:1), formed on the substrate (Paragraph 0061). The method by which the sheet is formed on the substrate is not patentably significant in an apparatus/product claim so long as the final product is the same (MPEP 2113).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang, Mayousse and Li as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Mo.
As to claim 31, the combination of Zhang, Mayousse and Li teaches the apparatus of claim 28. However, Zhang fails to further teach that the substrate comprises a surface coating. However, Mo also discusses water electrolysis with liquid gas diffusion substrates and teaches that the provision of a nitride coating to those substrates enhances the interfacial electrical properties between the substrate and the catalyst layers for improved performance with low cost and easy mass production (Section IV. Conclusion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Zhang with the addition of a nitride surface layer to the substrates in order to improve performance with low cost and easy mass production as taught by Mo.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new limitations have been newly rejected as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794