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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 2/25/2026 has been fully considered. Claim 16 is new and claims 1-16 are pending.
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.
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 1-4, 6-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (EP 3 207 991 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses a catalyst (paragraph [0153]) comprising carbon nanotubes coated with Fe-N doped carbon (a carbon support doped with a nitrogen atom and a first transition metal atom; paragraph [0153]), Pt nanostructured catalyst particles dispersed in the carbon nanotubes (a plurality of fine particles containing a noble metal and supported on the carbon support; paragraph [0153]) and wherein the Pt nanostructured catalyst particles have a particle size of at least 1 nm (average particle size of fine particles; paragraph [0018]).
Jeong does not disclose the catalyst comprising the fine particles having an average particle size of 0.8 nm or more and 1.5 nm or less.
However, the particle size of the Pt nanostructured catalyst particles of at least 1 nm overlaps the claimed range for the average particle size for the fine particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to achieve uniform distribution of particles and an increased dispersion density enabling mass production of catalysts in kilogram scales while fully utilizing a precursor thereby attaining high economical efficiency (paragraph [0011] of Jeong). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Jeong does not disclose the doping amount of the nitrogen atom being 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% and the doping amount of the first transition metal atom being 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass%.
However, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of the doping amount of the nitrogen atom to be 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% and the doping amount of the first transition metal atom to be 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% because doing so would provide more uniform distribution of the catalyst particles. Paragraph [0154] of Jeong discloses that the carbon nanotubes coated with Fe-N doped carbon provides uniform distribution of catalyst particles.
Regarding claim 2, Jeong discloses the catalyst comprising the Pt nanostructured catalyst particles have a particle size controlled to be 2 nm or less (average particle size of fine particles; paragraph [0018]).
Jeong does not disclose a catalyst comprising fine particles having a standard deviation value of 0% or more and 10% or less with respect to an average particle size value.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the particle size of the Pt nanostructured catalyst particles to be 2 nm or less in order to provide a standard deviation value of 0% or more and 10% or less with respect to an average particle size value because doing so uniform distribution of particles and an increased dispersion density enabling mass production of catalysts in kilogram scales while fully utilizing a precursor thereby attaining high economical efficiency (paragraph [0011] of Jeong)
Regarding claim 3, Jeong does not disclose the at least one of the fine particles dissolved and made minute due to power generation when the catalyst is used in a fuel cell and new fine particles containing a noble metal generated on the carbon support from metal ions generated by the dissolution
However, since Jeong discloses the catalyst comprising carbon nanotubes coated with Fe-N doped carbon, Pt nanostructured catalyst particles dispersed in the carbon nanotubes and the Pt nanostructured catalyst particles having a particle size of at least 1 nm, which is the same as the structure of the catalyst as claimed in claim 1, the catalyst of Jeong would inherently have at least one of the fine particles dissolved and made minute due to power generation when the catalyst is used in a fuel cell and new fine particles containing a noble metal generated on the carbon support from metal ions generated by the dissolution.
Regarding claim 4, Jeong discloses an electrode comprising a catalyst as described above in addressing claim 1 (electrode comprising the catalyst; paragraph [0167])
Regarding claim 6, Jeong discloses a fuel cell comprising the catalyst (paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 7, Jeong discloses a catalyst (paragraph [0153]) comprising carbon nanotubes coated with Fe-N doped carbon (a carbon support doped with a nitrogen atom and a first transition metal atom; paragraph [0153]), Pt nanostructured catalyst particles dispersed in the carbon nanotubes (a plurality of fine particles containing a noble metal and supported on the carbon support; paragraph [0153]) and wherein the Pt nanostructured catalyst particles have a particle size of 2 nm or less (average particle size of fine particles; paragraph [0011]).
Jeong does not disclose the catalyst comprising the fine particles comprising particles having a size of less than 0.8 nm.
However, the particle size of the Pt nanostructured catalyst particles overlaps the claimed range for the size of the fine particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to enable mass production of catalysts in kilograms scales while fully utilizing a precursor thereby attaining high economic efficiency (paragraph [0011]). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Jeong does not disclose the doping amount of the nitrogen atom being 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% and the doping amount of the first transition metal atom being 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass%.
However, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of the doping amount of the nitrogen atom to be 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% and the doping amount of the first transition metal atom to be 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% because doing so would provide more uniform distribution of the catalyst particles. Paragraph [0154] of Jeong discloses that the carbon nanotubes coated with Fe-N doped carbon provides uniform distribution of catalyst particles.
Regarding claim 8, Jeong discloses the catalyst comprising the Pt nanostructured catalyst particles have a particle size controlled to be 2 nm or less (average particle size of fine particles; paragraph [0018]).
Jeong does not disclose the catalyst comprising fine particles having at least one peak at less than 0.8 nm in a particle size distribution step.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the particle size of the Pt nanostructured catalyst particles to be 2 nm or less in order to provide at least one peak at less than 0.8 nm in a particle size distribution step because doing so uniform distribution of particles and an increased dispersion density enabling mass production of catalysts in kilogram scales while fully utilizing a precursor thereby attaining high economical efficiency (paragraph [0011] of Jeong).
Regarding claims 9-10, Jeong discloses a catalyst comprising carbon nanotubes coated with Fe-N doped carbon and a Pt based catalyst source supplied into a reactor under room temperature and pressure (paragraph [0153]).
Jeon does not explicitly disclose the process limitations of claims 9-10.
However, the structure of the catalyst in Jeong is the same as the catalyst made by the process according to claims 9-10.
The process limitations of claims 9-10 are product-by-process limitations.
“Even though the product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by- process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966) Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113).
There is no obvious structural difference between the structure of the catalyst in Jeong is the same and the catalyst made by the process according to claims 9-10
Regarding claim 11, Jeong discloses a catalyst electrode comprising the catalyst (electrode comprising the catalyst; paragraph [0167])
Regarding claim 13, Jeong discloses a fuel cell comprising the catalyst (paragraph [0075]).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al (US 2019/0237771 A1) in view of Jeong et al (EP 3 207 991 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hsieh discloses a membrane electrode assembly comprising an electrode comprising a catalyst layer (paragraph [0024]).
Hsieh does not disclose the membrane electrode assembly comprising the electrode according to claim 4.
However, Jeong discloses a catalyst (paragraph [0153]) comprising carbon nanotubes coated with Fe-N doped carbon (a carbon support doped with a nitrogen atom and a first transition metal atom; paragraph [0153]), Pt nanostructured catalyst particles dispersed in the carbon nanotubes (a plurality of fine particles containing a noble metal and supported on the carbon support; paragraph [0153]) and wherein the Pt nanostructured catalyst particles have a particle size of at least 1 nm (average particle size of fine particles; paragraph [0018]).
Jeong does not disclose the catalyst comprising the fine particles having an average particle size of 0.8 nm or more and 1.5 nm or less.
However, the particle size of the Pt nanostructured catalyst particles of at least 1 nm overlaps the claimed range for the average particle size for the fine particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to achieve uniform distribution of particles and an increased dispersion density enabling mass production of catalysts in kilogram scales while fully utilizing a precursor thereby attaining high economical efficiency (paragraph [0011] of Jeong). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Jeong does not disclose the doping amount of the nitrogen atom being 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% and the doping amount of the first transition metal atom being 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass%.
However, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of the doping amount of the nitrogen atom to be 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% and the doping amount of the first transition metal atom to be 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% because doing so would provide more uniform distribution of the catalyst particles. Paragraph [0154] of Jeong discloses that the carbon nanotubes coated with Fe-N doped carbon provides uniform distribution of catalyst particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane electrode assembly of Hsieh to substitute the electrode of Hsieh for the electrode of Jeong because having an electrode with a catalyst particles of 2 nm or less enables mass production of catalysts in kilograms scales while fully utilizing a precursor thereby attaining high economic efficiency (paragraph [0011] of Jeong).
Regarding claim 12, Hsieh discloses a membrane electrode assembly comprising an electrode comprising a catalyst layer (paragraph [0024]).
Hsieh does not appear to explicitly disclose the membrane electrode assembly comprising the electrode according to claim 11.
However, Jeong discloses a catalyst (paragraph [0153]) comprising carbon nanotubes coated with Fe-N doped carbon (a carbon support doped with a nitrogen atom and a first transition metal atom; paragraph [0153]), Pt nanostructured catalyst particles dispersed in the carbon nanotubes (a plurality of fine particles containing a noble metal and supported on the carbon support; paragraph [0153]) and wherein the Pt nanostructured catalyst particles have a particle size of at least 1 nm (average particle size of fine particles; paragraph [0018]).
Jeong does not explicitly disclose the catalyst comprising the fine particles having an average particle size of 0.8 nm or more and 1.5 nm or less.
However, the particle size of the Pt nanostructured catalyst particles of at least 1 nm overlaps the claimed range for the average particle size for the fine particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to achieve uniform distribution of particles and an increased dispersion density enabling mass production of catalysts in kilogram scales while fully utilizing a precursor thereby attaining high economical efficiency (paragraph [0011] of Jeong). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Jeong does not disclose the doping amount of the nitrogen atom being 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% and the doping amount of the first transition metal atom being 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass%.
However, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of the doping amount of the nitrogen atom to be 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% and the doping amount of the first transition metal atom to be 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% because doing so would provide more uniform distribution of the catalyst particles. Paragraph [0154] of Jeong discloses that the carbon nanotubes coated with Fe-N doped carbon provides uniform distribution of catalyst particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane electrode assembly of Hsieh to substitute the electrode of Hsieh for the electrode of Jeong because having an electrode with a catalyst particles of 2 nm or less enables mass production of catalysts in kilograms scales while fully utilizing a precursor thereby attaining high economic efficiency (paragraph [0011] of Jeong).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al (US 2006/0142150 A1) in view of Jeong et al (EP 3 207 991 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Yi discloses a method comprising applying a predetermined voltage to catalyst in an electrolyte aqueous solution containing 0.5 M sulfuric acid (applying, under an acidic environment, a voltage having a potential cycle to a composite; paragraph [0057]).
Yi does not disclose the method comprising the composite comprising a plurality of raw material fine particles containing a noble metal supported on a carbon support doped with a nitrogen atom and a first transition metal atom to dissolve at least one of the raw material fine particles and make the particles minute and generating new fine particles, on the carbon support, from metal ions generated by the dissolution
Jeong discloses a method comprising coating carbon nanotubes with Fe-N doped carbon and dispersing Pt nanostructured catalyst particles in the carbon nanotubes (a plurality of raw material fine particles containing a noble metal supported on a carbon support doped with a nitrogen atom and a first transition metal atom; paragraph [0153]) and controlling particle size of the catalyst particles to be 2 nm or less (dissolve at least one of the raw material fine particles and make the particles minute and generating new fine particles, on the carbon support, from metal ions generated by the dissolution; paragraph [0018])
However, Jeong does not disclose the catalyst comprising the fine particles having an average particle size of 0.8 nm or more and 1.5 nm or less.
The particle size of the Pt nanostructured catalyst particles of at least 1 nm overlaps the claimed range for the average particle size for the fine particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to achieve uniform distribution of particles and an increased dispersion density enabling mass production of catalysts in kilogram scales while fully utilizing a precursor thereby attaining high economical efficiency (paragraph [0011] of Jeong). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Jeong does not disclose the doping amount of the nitrogen atom being 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% and the doping amount of the first transition metal atom being 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass%.
However, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of the doping amount of the nitrogen atom to be 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% and the doping amount of the first transition metal atom to be 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% because doing so would provide more uniform distribution of the catalyst particles. Paragraph [0154] of Jeong discloses that the carbon nanotubes coated with Fe-N doped carbon provides uniform distribution of catalyst particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yi to substitute the composite of Yi for the catalyst of Jeong because having an electrode with a catalyst particles of 2 nm or less enables mass production of catalysts in kilograms scales while fully utilizing a precursor thereby attaining high economic efficiency (paragraph [0011] of Jeong).
Regarding claim 15, Yi discloses a method comprising applying a predetermined voltage to catalyst in an electrolyte aqueous solution containing 0.5 M sulfuric acid (applying, under an acidic environment, a voltage having a potential cycle to a composite; paragraph [0057]).
Yi does not disclose the method comprising the potential cycle being a cycle repeated between potentials of 0 V or more and 1.0 V or less based on a standard hydrogen electrode.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the predetermined voltage to catalyst in an electrolyte aqueous solution containing 0.5 M sulfuric acid to be between potentials of 0 V or more and 1.0 V or less based on a standard hydrogen electrode because doing so allows for the degree of dispersion of catalyst to be measured and determined (paragraph [0057] of Yi).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al (US 2006/0142150 A1) in view of Jeong et al (EP 3 207 991 A1) in further view of Kitao et al (US 2016/0218370 A1)
Regarding claim 16, Yi discloses a method comprising applying a predetermined voltage to catalyst in an electrolyte aqueous solution containing 0.5 M sulfuric acid (applying, under an acidic environment, a voltage having a potential cycle to a composite; paragraph [0057]).
Yi does not disclose the method comprising the composite comprising a plurality of raw material fine particles containing a noble metal supported on a carbon support doped with a nitrogen atom and a first transition metal atom to dissolve at least one of the raw material fine particles and make the particles minute and generating new fine particles, on the carbon support, from metal ions generated by the dissolution
However, Jeong discloses a method comprising coating carbon nanotubes with Fe-N doped carbon and dispersing Pt nanostructured catalyst particles in the carbon nanotubes (a plurality of raw material fine particles containing a noble metal supported on a carbon support doped with a nitrogen atom and a first transition metal atom; paragraph [0153]) and controlling particle size of the catalyst particles to be 2 nm or less (dissolve at least one of the raw material fine particles and make the particles minute and generating new fine particles, on the carbon support, from metal ions generated by the dissolution; paragraph [0018])
Jeong does not disclose the catalyst comprising the fine particles having an average particle size of 0.8 nm or more and 1.5 nm or less.
The particle size of the Pt nanostructured catalyst particles of at least 1 nm overlaps the claimed range for the average particle size for the fine particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to achieve uniform distribution of particles and an increased dispersion density enabling mass production of catalysts in kilogram scales while fully utilizing a precursor thereby attaining high economical efficiency (paragraph [0011] of Jeong). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Jeong does not disclose the doping amount of the nitrogen atom being 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% and the doping amount of the first transition metal atom being 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass%.
However, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of the doping amount of the nitrogen atom to be 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% and the doping amount of the first transition metal atom to be 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% because doing so would provide more uniform distribution of the catalyst particles. Paragraph [0154] of Jeong discloses that the carbon nanotubes coated with Fe-N doped carbon provides uniform distribution of catalyst particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yi to substitute the composite of Yi for the catalyst of Jeong because having an electrode with a catalyst particles of 2 nm or less enables mass production of catalysts in kilograms scales while fully utilizing a precursor thereby attaining high economic efficiency (paragraph [0011] of Jeong).
Yi does not disclose the method comprising perchloric acid being used for the acidic environment.
However, Kitao discloses a method for producing a catalyst (paragraph [0043]) comprising filtering and washing being done using sulfuric acid and perchloric acid (paragraph [0130]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yi to substitute the sulfuric acid of Yi for the perchloric acid of Kitao because having the required acid allows for impurities to be removed without damaging the catalyst (paragraph [0130] of Kitao).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Jeong does not disclose the doping amount of the nitrogen atom being 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% and the doping amount of the first transition metal atom being 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass%.
This argument is not persuasive as it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of the doping amount of the nitrogen atom to be 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% and the doping amount of the first transition metal atom to be 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less when a total amount of the carbon support is 100 mass% because doing so would provide more uniform distribution of the catalyst particles. Paragraph [0154] of Jeong discloses that the carbon nanotubes coated with Fe-N doped carbon provides uniform distribution of catalyst particles.
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 SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights