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 Claims
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 06/22/2026. Claims 1-32 are pending in the current Office action. Of these, claims 7-28 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-6 were amended by Applicant. Claims 29-32 are new claims.
Status of the Rejection
The objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The provisional rejections of claims 1-6 on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being anticipated by claims in co-pending Application No. 18/285352 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The provisional rejections of claims 1-6 on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being obvious over claims in co-pending Application No. 18/021304 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The provisional rejections of claims 1-6 on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being obvious over claims in co-pending Application No. 17/640457 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
New ground(s) of rejection are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 24 recites “complex; and”, but should recite “complex [[and]]” to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation "the complex" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, as currently amended, claim 1 does not recite “a complex”, and it is therefore unclear to what the limitation “the complex” refers.
Claim 1 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-5, claims 2-5 use the phrasing “possibly identical to or different from each other”, however claim 1 has been amended to use the phrasing “identical to or different from each other”. The use of different phrasing implies a difference in interpretation, however the specification does not support different interpretations for these two phrasings. It is therefore unclear whether “possibly identical to or different from each other” should be interpreted the same or differently from “identical to or different from each other”.
Furthermore, these claims depend from claim 1, and therefore incorporate the indefinite language of claim 1.
These claims are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 6 and 29-32, these claims depend from claim 1, and therefore incorporate the indefinite language of claim 1.
These claims are therefore indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 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.
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 1-6 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tamura (WO 2021/124616 A1, with citations to US Pat. Pub. 2021/0395902 A1 as the official English translation on file with the Office), as evidenced by Ashida et al. (“Molybdenum-catalysed ammonia production with samarium diiodide and alcohols or water” Nature 2019, 568, 536 and SI).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been interpreted as “in the presence of a catalytic complex”.
Tamura teaches an ammonia production method comprising supplying electrons from a power source (“supplying electric power … to the oxidation electrode 12 and the reduction electrode 13, … a reduction reaction occurs at the reduction electrode 13” para. 14 and Figs. 2-4), protons from a proton source (“The second electrolytic solution may be an aqueous solution” para. 16, see also paras. 15 and 17), and nitrogen molecules (“a second electrolytic solution containing nitrogen (N2),” para. 12 and Figs. 2-4), to a cathode (“reduction electrode 13” para. 20 and Figs. 2-4) in the presence of a catalytic complex (“an ammonia producing catalyst,” para. 12, see also Figs. 2-4) in a production apparatus performing electrolysis (“electrochemical reaction cell 14” para. 13 and Figs. 2-4), thereby producing ammonia from nitrogen molecules (“In the second electrolytic bath 3, nitrogen (N2) in the second electrolytic solution is reduced by the ammonia producing catalyst and the reducing agent to produce ammonia (NH3)” para. 14 and Figs. 2-4), wherein the catalytic complex is:
(A) a molybdenum complex having, as a PNP ligand, 2,6- bis(dialkylphosphinomethyl)pyridine, wherein the two alkyl groups are identical to or different from each other, and at least one hydrogen atom of the pyridine ring is substitutable with an alkyl group, an alkoxy group, or a halogen atom (“(B) a molybdenum complex having 2,6-bis(dialkylphosphinomethyl)pyridine (where two alkyl groups may be the same or different and at least one hydrogen atom of the pyridine ring may be substituted with an alkyl group, an alkoxy group, or a halogen atom) as a PNP ligand.” paras. 41 and 48, and see eqs. B1 and B2);
(B) a molybdenum complex having, as a PCP ligand, N,N- bis(dialkylphosphinomethyl)dihydrobenzimidazolidene, wherein the two alkyl groups are identical to or different from each other, and at least one hydrogen atom of the benzene ring is substitutable with an alkyl group, an alkoxy group, or a halogen atom (“(A) a molybdenum complex having N,N-bis(dialkylphosphinomethyl)dihydrobenzimidazolidene (where two alkyl groups may be the same or different and at least one hydrogen atom of the benzene ring may be substituted with an alkyl group, an alkoxy group, or a halogen atom) as a PCP ligand” paras. 40 and 45, and see eq. A1);
(C) a molybdenum complex having, as a PPP ligand, bis(dialkylphosphinoethyl)arylphosphine, wherein the two alkyl groups are identical to or different from each other (“(C) a molybdenum complex having bis(dialkylphosphinomethyl)arylphosphine (where two alkyl groups may be the same or different) as a PPP ligand” paras. 42 and 51, and see eq. C1); or
(D) a molybdenum complex of trans-Mo(N2)2(R5R6R7P)4, wherein R5 and R6 are aryl groups that are identical to or different from each other; R7 is an alkyl group; and two R7s are possibly connected together to form an alkylene chain (“(D) a molybdenum complex expressed by trans-Mo(N2)2R1R2R3P)4 (where R1, R2, R3 are alkyl groups or aryl groups which may be the same or different, and two R3s may couple with each other to form an alkylene chain)” paras. 43 and 54, and see eqs. D1 and D2); and
a solid catalyst comprising a metal catalyst is present at the cathode (“the constituting the reduction electrode 13 include a metal selected from a group consisting of gold (Au), silver (Ag), copper (Cu), platinum (Pt), zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), titanium (Ti), tin (Sn), indium (In), bismuth (Bi), samarium (Sm), and nickel (Ni), a metal material such as an alloy containing at least one of the metals, …” para. 20); wherein
electron transfer occurs at an interface between the molybdenum complex and the solid catalyst such that:
the solid catalyst supplies electrons to the molybdenum complex (see below);
the molybdenum complex activates nitrogen molecules (“The ammonia producing catalyst to be supplied into the second electrolytic bath 3 is for accelerating the production of ammonia from nitrogen under the presence of the reducing agent and, for example, a molybdenum complex is used but not limited to this.” para. 39, see also para. 10); and
ammonia is produced from the nitrogen molecules (“to reduce the nitrogen by the ammonia producing catalyst and the reducing agent in the second electrolytic bath to produce ammonia,” para. 10).
Regarding the limitation “the solid catalyst supplies electrons to the molybdenum complex”, the method of Tamura teaches the molybdenum complex is added to the cathode chamber i.e., the “(reduction reaction electrolytic bath) 3” (“Mo COMPLEX” Fig. 2 and para. 13), and a potential sufficient to reduce SmI2(OH) to SmI2(OH)- is applied to the solution (para. 35 and Eq. 4, see also Fig. 2). Tamura further teaches that it is known in the prior art (para. 5 and see Ashida) that SmI2 i.e., Sm(II), chemically reduces the Mo complexes used as catalysts in the presence of water to effect the reduction of nitrogen to ammonia (see e.g., Ashida Table 1). Therefore, the thermodynamic reduction potential used in Tamura to electrochemically reduce SmI2(OH) to SmI2(OH)- i.e., Sm(III) to Sm(II), is necessarily also thermodynamically sufficient to electrochemically reduce the Mo catalysts present in the cathode chamber. In other words, Tamura teaches the SmI2(OH) is used as a redox mediator that transfers electrons between the cathode and the catalytic Mo complex.
Because Tamura teaches application of a potential thermodynamically sufficient to reduce the Mo catalyst, it is considered that the cathode i.e., the solid catalyst, necessarily supplies at least some electrons to the molybdenum catalyst during the method of Tamura. Tamura therefore anticipates the limitation “the solid catalyst supplies electrons to the molybdenum complex” (MPEP § 2112).
Alternatively, because Tamura teaches a potential thermodynamically sufficient to reduce the Mo catalyst is applied to the solid catalyst i.e., the cathode, it is considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that at least some electrons are supplied directly from the cathode to the molybdenum catalyst in the method of Tamura.
Regarding claim 2, Tamura further teaches the molybdenum complex is (A), and is a molybdenum complex of the formula (A1), (A2), or (A3), wherein R1 and R2 are alkyl groups that are possibly identical to or different from each other; X is an iodine atom, a bromine atom, or a chlorine atom; and at least one hydrogen atom on the pyridine ring is substitutable with an alkyl group, an alkoxy group, or a halogen atom (paras. 48-49 and eqs. B1-B3).
Regarding claim 3, Tamura anticipates or, in the alternative, renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Tamura further teaches the molybdenum complex is (B) and is a molybdenum complex of the following Formula (B1), wherein R1 and R2 are alkyl groups that are possibly identical to or different from each other; X is an iodine atom, a bromine atom, or a chlorine atom; at least one hydrogen atom on the benzene ring is substitutable with an alkyl group, an alkoxy group, or a halogen atom (paras. 45-46 and eq. A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tamura anticipates or, in the alternative, renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Tamura further teaches the molybdenum complex is (C), and is a molybdenum complex of the following Formula (C1), wherein R1 and R2 are alkyl groups that are possibly identical to or different from each other; R5 is an aryl group; and X is an iodine atom, a bromine atom, or a chlorine atom (paras. 51-53 and eq. C1).
Regarding claim 5, Tamura anticipates or, in the alternative, renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Tamura further teaches the molybdenum complex is (D), and is a molybdenum complex of the following Formula (D1) or (D2), wherein R5 and R6 are aryl groups that are possibly identical to or different from each other; R7 is an alkyl group; and n is 2 or 3 (paras. 54-56 and eqs. D1-D2).
Regarding claim 6, Tamura anticipates or, in the alternative, renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Tamura further teaches the solid catalyst contains gold (“gold (Au)” para. 20).
Regarding claim 29, Tamura anticipates or, in the alternative, renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Tamura further teaches the electron transfer from the solid catalyst to the molybdenum complex occurs at the cathode interface (see below).
As described in the rejection of claim 1, above, Tamura teaches application of a potential to the solid catalyst i.e., the cathode, sufficient to thermodynamically reduce the Mo complex.
It is therefore considered that the electron transfer from the solid catalyst to the molybdenum complex in the method of Tamura necessarily occurs at the cathode interface for the reasons enumerated in the rejection of claim 1, above, mutatis mutandis.
Alternatively, it is considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the electron transfer from the solid catalyst to the molybdenum complex in the method of Tamura occurs at the cathode interface for the reasons enumerated in the rejection of claim 1, above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 30, Tamura anticipates or, in the alternative, renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Tamura further teaches the solid catalyst contains platinum or gold (“a metal selected from … gold (Au) … platinum (Pt) …” para. 20).
Regarding claim 31, Tamura anticipates or, in the alternative, renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Tamura further teaches the molybdenum complex comprises a PCP ligand (“a molybdenum complex having N,N-bis(dialkylphosphinomethyl)dihydrobenzimidazolidene” para. 40) substituted with an electron-withdrawing group (“substituted with …a halogen atom” Id.).
Regarding claim 32, Tamura anticipates or, in the alternative, renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Tamura further teaches the cathode comprises a gas diffusion electrode (Fig. 3 depicts “porous reduction electrode 13A” i.e., the cathode, as a gas diffusion electrode, see also para. 60).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 29-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 of copending Application No. 17/640457 (the reference application) as amended on 07/13/2026, in view of Tamura (WO 2021/124616 A1, with citations to US Pat. Pub. 2021/0395902 A1 as the official English translation on file with the Office).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the reference application recites an ammonia production method comprising supplying electrons from a power source, protons from a proton source, and nitrogen molecules to a cathode in a production apparatus performing electrolysis, thereby producing ammonia from nitrogen molecules (lines 1-3 and 20-21), wherein the complex is (A), (B), (C), or (D) (lines 4-19) and the proton source is an electrolyte membrane, an electrolytic solution, or both an electrolyte membrane and an electrolytic solution (lines 20-21), wherein electron transfer occurs at an interface between the molybdenum complex and the cathode such that: the cathode supplies electrons to the molybdenum complex (“using electron supplied from a power supply in presence of a complex” lines 1-2), the molybdenum complex activates nitrogen molecules (see below), and ammonia is produced from the nitrogen molecules (“an ammonia production method” line 1).
Claim 1 of the reference application does teach the cathode comprises a solid catalyst, wherein the solid catalyst is a metal catalyst, an oxide catalyst, or a combination of these.
However, Tamura teaches that a cathode used for electrochemical nitrogen reduction to ammonia can suitably comprise a metal catalyst (para. 20) and a means for supplying nitrogen gas (paras. 12 and 25-26).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of claim 1 of the reference application, by adding a solid catalyst, wherein the solid catalyst is a metal catalyst, and a nitrogen gas supply means, as taught by Tamura. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to achieve the predictable benefit of supplying nitrogen for the ammonia production reaction and providing a suitable cathode material. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding the limitation “the molybdenum complex activates nitrogen molecules”, Tamura teaches molybdenum serves as a catalyst for the reduction of nitrogen to ammonia (see e.g., para. 39). The reference claim therefore inherently or implicitly reads on the limitation “the molybdenum complex activates nitrogen molecules”.
Claim 1 of the instant application is thus rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference application in view of Tamura. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 of the reference application further teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Claim 2 of the instant application is thus rendered obvious by claim 2 of the reference application in view of Tamura. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 of the reference application in view of Tamura renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Claim 3 of the reference application further recites the limitations of claim 3.
Claim 3 of the instant application is thus rendered obvious by claim 3 of the reference application in view of Tamura. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 4, claim 1 of the reference application in view of Tamura renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Claim 4 of the reference application further recites the limitations of claim 4.
Claim 4 of the instant application is thus rendered obvious by claim 4 of the reference application in view of Tamura. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 5, claim 1 of the reference application in view of Tamura renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Claim 5 of the reference application further recites the limitations of claim 5.
Claim 5 of the instant application is thus rendered obvious by claim 5 of the reference application in view of Tamura. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 6, claim 1 of the reference application in view of Tamura renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
The modified reference claim further teaches, via Tamura, the solid catalyst contains gold (“gold (Au)” para. 20).
Claim 6 of the instant application is thus rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference application in view of Tamura. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 29, claim 1 of the reference application in view of Tamura renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Claim 1 further recites the electron transfer from the solid catalyst to the molybdenum complex occurs at the cathode interface (“using electron supplied from a power supply in presence of a complex” lines 1-2).
Claim 29 of the instant application is thus rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference application in view of Tamura. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 30, claim 1 of the reference application in view of Tamura renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
The modified reference claim further teaches, via Tamura, the solid catalyst contains platinum or gold (“a metal selected from … gold (Au) … platinum (Pt) …” para. 20).
Claim 30 of the instant application is thus rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference application in view of Tamura. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 31, claim 1 of the reference application in view of Tamura renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Claim 3 of the reference application further recite the molybdenum complex comprises a PCP ligand (see formulae B1 and B2), substituted with an electron-withdrawing group (“at least one of R3 and R4 is substituted with a trifluoromethyl group” lines 7-8).
Claim 31 of the instant application is thus rendered obvious by claim 3 of the reference application in view of Tamura. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 17, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to the objection to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks p. 21, filed 06/22/2026, regarding the rejections of claims 1-6 on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-6 on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting have therefore been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 17-18 and 20, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the limitations in question were cancelled by Applicant.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks p. 19-21, filed 06/22/2026, regarding the teachings of Tamura, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues on p. 17-18 that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been able to modify the nitrogen supply system of Tamura, such that it comprises a mass flow controller as taught by Rondinone. Applicant further argues that inclusion of a mass flow controller to control the nitrogen supplied to the system would prevent the proper operation of Tamura.
Examiner’s Response #1
As Applicant has cancelled the claim limitations drawn to the nitrogen supply i.e., the “nitrogen gas supply means”, Applicant’s arguments regarding this matter are considered moot.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues on p. 19-20 that Tamura does not teach electrons are transferred directly from the solid catalyst i.e., cathode, to the homogeneous catalyst i.e., the Mo complex, and that Tamura therefore does not read on the limitation(s) “wherein electron transfer occurs at an interface between the molybdenum complex and the solid catalyst such that: …” as recited in amended claim 1. Applicant further argues that such a modification could not be made without inappropriate hindsight bias.
Examiner’s Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the rejection of claim 1, above, it is considered that Tamura inherently discloses this limitation or, alternatively, renders this limitation obvious. As no modification of Tamura is required to read on the limitations of claim 1, hindsight bias does not apply to the rejection in question.
While a finding of inherency or obviousness may be overcome by evidence, no such evidence has been provided in support of applicant’s assertion.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #3
Applicant argues on p. 21 that, as similar claims have been allowed in Japanese Patent No. 7788699, the claims are patentably distinguished over the prior art.
Examiner’s Response #3
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Due to differences in patent law between different jurisdictions, a determination of patentability under foreign law by a foreign patenting authority does not indicate said claims are patentable under US law.
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 ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights