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 Applicants amendments and remarks filed on 01/07/2026. Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-20 are pending in the current Office action. Of these, claims 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 2 and 11 were cancelled by Applicant. Claims 1 and 15 were amended by Applicant. The abstract was amended by Applicant.
Status of the Rejection
The objection to the abstract is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1, 3, 7, and 10-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1, 3, 7, 10, and 12-14 on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting are withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer filed on 01/07/2026.
New rejections of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-15 are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s affirmation of the election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 01/07/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Application No. 18/075123 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Interpretation
This application uses the term “photo electrolysis array” (as clearly defined in the claims and specification) to indicate a system comprising a photovoltaic cell connected to an electrolytic system, commonly referred to as a “photovoltaic-electrolyzer cell (PV-EC)” in the art. This should not be confused with the terms of art “photoelectrochemical cell (PEC)” or “photoelectrolysis cell” which refer to a system wherein a photosensitive component is integrated into the electrodes of an electrochemical cell to assist in the electrochemical reaction (see e.g., Sriramagiri et al. “Toward a Practical Solar-Driven CO2 Flow Cell Electrolyzer: Design and Optimization” ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 10959-10966).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 3-10, and 12-14 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 “a photo electrolysis array, the photo electrolysis array including … an electrochemical hydrogen pump fluidly connected to the photo electrolysis array”. I.e., as currently amended, claim 1 recites an “electrochemical hydrogen pump” that is both part of and fluidly connected to the “photo electrolysis array”. While it is presumed Applicant intended the hydrogen pump to be connected to the electrolyzer module, as recited in e.g., claim 15, this interpretation is inconsistent with the claim as currently drafted.
Claim 1 is therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to recite “an electrochemical hydrogen pump fluidly connected to the electrolyzer module” as recited in claim 15.
Regarding claims 3-10 and 12-14, claims 3-10 and 12-14 depend from claim 1, and therefore incorporate the indefinite language of claim 1. Claims 3-10 and 12-14 are therefore indefinite.
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, 3-4, 7, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0044548 A1) in view of Oto (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0071310 A1) and Vandenborre (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0335722 A1).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been interpreted as “an electrochemical hydrogen pump fluidly connected to the electrolyzer module”.
Kwon teaches a system for enhancing production of an aquaculture pond (abstract, paras. 2 and 23, and Fig. 1) comprising:
a photo electrolysis array (“solar water electrolysis unit 220” Fig. 2 and paras. 36-37), the photo electrolysis array including:
an electrolyzer module operable to produce hydrogen and oxygen (“water electrolysis device 221” Fig. 2 and para. 37);
a solar cell (“sunlight collector 222” Id.); and
a hydrogen pump fluidly connected to the electrolyzer module to pressurize the produced hydrogen (“pressurizer 522” Fig. 5 and para. 68), wherein:
the electrolyzer module is electrically connected to the solar cell (Id.), and
the electrolyzer module is fluidly connected to a diffuser to diffuse the produced oxygen into the aquaculture pond (“oxygen left after hydrogen is produced through water electrolysis in the self-contained hydrogen generation unit is supplied to the smart farm in order to increase the amount of dissolved oxygen.” para. 58).
Kwon does not teach the hydrogen pump fluidly connected to the electrolyzer module to pressurize the produced hydrogen is an electrochemical hydrogen pump. Kwon is silent as to the type of hydrogen pump used.
However, Oto teaches a system for compressing hydrogen produced by a water electrolyzer (“water electrolysis apparatus 1” Fig. 17 and paras. 227-231, see also abstract) using energy from a solar cell (para. 231) for later consumption by a fuel cell (“fuel cell 51” Fig. 17 and para. 231), by compressing the hydrogen using an electrochemical hydrogen pump (“electrochemical hydrogen pump 3” paras. 227-231, see also abstract), which allows for the waste heat from the water electrolyzer to be recovered by the hydrogen compressor, thereby reducing the overall energy requirements of the system (para. 31).
As Kwon teaches a system for enhancing production of an aquaculture pond farm comprising a photoelectrolysis array coupled to a water electrolyzer, Kwon is analogous art to the instant invention. As Oto teaches a system for compressing hydrogen produced by water electrolysis using solar power, Oto is analogous art to the instant invention.
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 system of Kwon, by using an electrochemical hydrogen pump as the hydrogen pump, as taught by Oto. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of recovering waste heat from the electrolyzer, thereby reducing the energy requirements of the system, as taught by Oto. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results (i.e., using an electrochemical hydrogen compressor in place of a generic hydrogen compressor to compress hydrogen produced by a water electrolyzer powered by solar energy) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Kwon does not teach the solar cell is a photovoltaic cell, but rather a solar thermal cell (para. 37).
However, Vandenborre teaches that photovoltaic cells are suitable for providing power to a system for enhancing production of an aquaculture pond farm comprising a photo electrolysis array (abstract and para. 27), and provide the predictable benefit of allowing the solar panel assembly to be safely and compactly stored when not in use (para. 27).
As Vandenborre teaches a system for enhancing production of an aquaculture pond farm comprising a photo electrolysis array, Vandenborre is analogous art to the instant invention.
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 system of Kwon by adding a photovoltaic cell to the solar cell or, in the alternative, by substituting a photovoltaic cell for the solar thermal cell, as taught by Vandenborre. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing the solar cell to be safely and compactly stored when not in use, as taught by Vandenborre. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 3, Kwon further teaches an input water pump fluidly connected to the photo electrolysis array to provide water to the photo electrolysis array (“a device for association with a water-intake unit system for supplying electrolyte” para. 70 and “water may be automatically supplied through an internal pump” para. 71).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kwon further teaches the photovoltaic cell is in electrical communication with the input water pump (paras. 5-6 and 10-11 indicate the system is capable of operating without an external power supply i.e., the solar collector is in electrical communication with all of the recited system components, see also para. 39).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Kwon further teaches an energy storage device (“battery management system (BMS) 232” para. 39 and Fig. 2) electrically connected to the photo electrolysis array to store electricity (“energy generated by the sunlight collector 222 are transferred to a battery management system (BMS) 232” Id.).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
The limitation “the photo electrolysis array is located in the aquaculture pond”, as currently drafted, is a recitation of intended use i.e., it defines the apparatus by where/how it is used, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a recitation of intended use is an apparatus capable of performing the recited intended use (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Kwon teaches that the oxygen may be diffused into the aquaculture pond directly (“oxygen left after hydrogen is produced through water electrolysis in the self-contained hydrogen generation unit is supplied to the smart farm in order to increase the amount of dissolved oxygen.” para. 58). Thus, at least the diffuser of the photo electrolysis array of Kwon is capable of being located in an/the aquaculture pond.
Kwon therefore teaches the limitation “the photo electrolysis array is located in the aquaculture pond”.
Regarding claim 12, modified Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Kwon further teaches a hydrogen load fluidly connected to the photo electrolysis array, wherein the hydrogen load is a hydrogen storage system (“hydrogen storage tank 224” para. 37 and Fig. 2) and a fuel cell (“fuel cell 231” paras. 38-39 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Kwon further teaches an auxiliary power source electrically connected to the photo electrolysis array to provide electricity to the photo electrolysis array (“energy storage device 233” para. 39 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Kwon further teaches sensors operable to measure properties of the aquaculture pond (“a farm environment measurement sensor 124” para. 27 and Fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach the sensors include an oxygen sensor operable to measure the concentration of oxygen in the aquaculture pond.
However, Vandenborre further teaches an oxygen sensor operable to measure the concentration of oxygen in the aquaculture pond (“The functions of these components may be controlled by measuring certain properties of the aquatic environment, such as … oxygen” para. 47, and see paras. 50 and 55) provides the predictable benefit of allowing the concentration of oxygen in the aquaculture pond to be controlled (see e.g., para. 55).
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 system of Kwon by adding an oxygen sensor operable to measure the concentration of oxygen in the aquaculture pond, as taught by Vandenborre. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing a controller to control the oxygen concentration in the pond, as taught by Vandenborre. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Oto and Vandenborre, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Orlebeke (WO 2007/005993 A2).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Kwon does not explicitly teach an output water pump fluidly connected to the photo electrolysis array to distribute oxygenated water into the aquaculture pond. Kwon is silent as to how the oxygen is supplied to the aquaculture pond.
However, Orlebeke teaches a system for oxygenating water supplied to an aquaculture pond (para. 12 and Fig. 3), the system comprising an electrolyzer (para. 9), wherein an outlet water pump fluidly connected to the electrolyzer (“The aquaculture medium 50 may be pumped via water intake 54 to an electrode cell 56,” para. 18 and Fig. 3, see also below) distributes oxygenated water into the aquaculture pond (“The oxygenated medium is returned to tank 49 via discharge pipe 58.” Id.), which provides the predictable benefit of additionally supplying disinfecting compounds formed during the electrolysis to the aquaculture pond (paras. 40-41 and 44).
As Orlebeke teaches a system for oxygenating the water of an aquaculture pond, Orlebeke is analogous art to the instant invention.
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 system of Kwon, by adding an output water pump fluidly connected to the photo electrolysis array to distribute oxygenated water into the aquaculture pond, as taught by Orlebeke. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of supplying additional disinfecting compounds formed during electrolysis to the aquaculture pond, as taught by Orlebeke. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding the limitation “an output water pump … to distribute oxygenated water into the aquaculture pond”, the pump connects the aquaculture pond of Orlebeke to the electrolyzer in a recirculating manner (Fig. 3), and thus is an output pump that distributes oxygenated water into the aquaculture pond.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kwon does not explicitly teach the photovoltaic cell is in electrical communication with the output water pump.
However, Kwon teaches the solar cell i.e., the photovoltaic cell in modified Kwon, is connected to the battery management system and fuel cell, which are used to provide power to the components of the system (see e.g., paras. 36 and 39).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, when modifying Kwon to comprise the output water pump, to do so such that the output water pump is in electrical communication with the solar cell of Kwon i.e., the photovoltaic cell of modified Kwon. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification in this manner because Kwon teaches the solar cell is used to supply power to the different components of the system.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Oto and Vandenborre, as applied to claim 1, in view of Shaffer (US Pat. No. 4161657).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Kwon does not teach an oxygen storage device fluidly connected to the photoelectrolysis array to store the produced oxygen.
However, Shaffer teaches a system for generating compressed hydrogen and oxygen using a water electrolyzer (“electrolysis cell 17” col. 3 lines 25-48 and Fig. 1) and a photovoltaic cell (“a solar cell array 11” col. 2 line 66 through col. 3 line 2 and Figs. 1-2), wherein the oxygen produced by the electrolyzer is stored in an oxygen storage device (“Oxygen storage tank 30” col. 4 lines 18-34 and Fig. 1) to provide the predictable benefit of allowing a controlled amount of oxygen to be supplied to an oxygen use (Id.).
As Shaffer teaches a system comprising a water electrolyzer and a photovoltaic cell, Shaffer is analogous art to the instant invention.
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 system of Kwon by adding an oxygen storage device fluidly connected to the photoelectrolysis array. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of storing the oxygen produced by the electrolyzer for controlled consumption later, as taught by Shaffer. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “wherein a first portion of the produced oxygen is diffused in the aquaculture pond and a second portion of the produced oxygen is stored in the oxygen storage device”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Kwon teaches the oxygen output of the photo electrolysis array is fluidly connected to both the diffuser (“oxygen left after hydrogen is produced through water electrolysis in the self-contained hydrogen generation unit is supplied to the smart farm in order to increase the amount of dissolved oxygen.” para. 58) and modified Kwon, via Shaffer, teaches the oxygen output is fluidly connected to the oxygen storage device (col. 4 lines 18-34 and Fig. 1). The system of modified Kwon is therefore capable of diffusing a first portion of the produced oxygen in the aquaculture pond and storing a second portion of the produced oxygen in the oxygen storage device.
Modified Kwon therefore renders the limitation “wherein a first portion of the produced oxygen is diffused in the aquaculture pond and a second portion of the produced oxygen is stored in the oxygen storage device” obvious.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0044548 A1) in view of Oto (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0071310 A1) and Vandenborre (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0335722 A1) and Orlebeke (WO 2007/005993 A2).
Regarding claim 15, Kwon teaches a system for enhancing production of an aquaculture pond (abstract, paras. 2 and 23, and Fig. 1), the system comprising:
a photo electrolysis array (“solar water electrolysis unit 220” Fig. 2 and paras. 36-37), the photo electrolysis array including:
an electrolyzer module operable to produce hydrogen and oxygen (“water electrolysis device 221” Fig. 2 and para. 37);
a solar cell (“sunlight collector 222” Id.); and
a hydrogen pump fluidly connected to the electrolyzer module and operable to pressurize the produced hydrogen (“pressurizer 522” Fig. 5 and para. 68), wherein:
the electrolyzer module is electrically connected to the solar cell (Id.), and
the electrolyzer module is fluidly connected to a diffuser to diffuse the produced oxygen into the aquaculture pond (“oxygen left after hydrogen is produced through water electrolysis in the self-contained hydrogen generation unit is supplied to the smart farm in order to increase the amount of dissolved oxygen.” para. 58).
Kwon does not teach the hydrogen pump fluidly connected to the electrolyzer module to pressurize the produced hydrogen is an electrochemical hydrogen pump. Kwon is silent as to the type of hydrogen pump used.
However, Oto teaches a system for compressing hydrogen produced by a water electrolyzer (“water electrolysis apparatus 1” Fig. 17 and paras. 227-231, see also abstract) using energy from a solar cell (para. 231) for later consumption by a fuel cell (“fuel cell 51” Fig. 17 and para. 231), by compressing the hydrogen using an electrochemical hydrogen pump (“electrochemical hydrogen pump 3” paras. 227-231, see also abstract), which allows for the waste heat from the water electrolyzer to be recovered by the hydrogen compressor, thereby reducing the overall energy requirements of the system (para. 31).
As Kwon teaches a system for enhancing production of an aquaculture pond farm comprising a photoelectrolysis array coupled to a water electrolyzer, Kwon is analogous art to the instant invention. As Oto teaches a system for compressing hydrogen produced by water electrolysis using solar power, Oto is analogous art to the instant invention.
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 system of Kwon, by using an electrochemical hydrogen pump as the hydrogen pump, as taught by Oto. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of recovering waste heat from the electrolyzer, thereby reducing the energy requirements of the system, as taught by Kwon. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results (i.e., using an electrochemical hydrogen compressor in place of a generic hydrogen compressor to compress hydrogen produced by a water electrolyzer powered by solar energy) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Kwon does not teach the solar cell is a photovoltaic cell, but rather a solar thermal cell (para. 37).
However, Vandenborre teaches that photovoltaic cells are suitable for providing power to a system for enhancing production of an aquaculture pond farm comprising a photo electrolysis array (abstract and para. 27), and provide the predictable benefit of allowing the solar panel assembly to be safely and compactly stored when not in use (para. 27).
As Vandenborre teaches a system for enhancing production of an aquaculture pond farm comprising a photo electrolysis array, Vandenborre is analogous art to the instant invention.
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 system of Kwon by adding a photovoltaic cell to the solar cell or, in the alternative, by substituting a photovoltaic cell for the solar thermal cell, as taught by Vandenborre. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing the solar cell to be safely and compactly stored when not in use, as taught by Vandenborre. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Modified Kwon does not explicitly teach an output water pump fluidly connected to the photo electrolysis array to distribute oxygenated water into the aquaculture pond. Kwon is silent as to how the oxygen is supplied to the aquaculture pond.
However, Orlebeke teaches a system for oxygenating water supplied to an aquaculture pond (para. 12 and Fig. 3), the system comprising an electrolyzer (para. 9), wherein an outlet water pump fluidly connected to the electrolyzer (“The aquaculture medium 50 may be pumped via water intake 54 to an electrode cell 56,” para. 18 and Fig. 3, see also below) distributes oxygenated water into the aquaculture pond (“The oxygenated medium is returned to tank 49 via discharge pipe 58.” Id.), which provides the predictable benefit of additionally supplying disinfecting compounds formed during the electrolysis to the aquaculture pond (paras. 40-41 and 44).
As Orlebeke teaches a system for oxygenating the water of an aquaculture pond, Orlebeke is analogous art to the instant invention.
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 system of Kwon, by adding an output water pump fluidly connected to the photo electrolysis array to distribute oxygenated water into the aquaculture pond, as taught by Orlebeke. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of supplying additional disinfecting compounds formed during electrolysis to the aquaculture pond, as taught by Orlebeke. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding the limitation “an output water pump … to distribute oxygenated water into the aquaculture pond”, the pump connects the aquaculture pond of Orlebeke to the electrolyzer in a recirculating manner (Fig. 3), and thus is an output pump that distributes oxygenated water into the aquaculture pond.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 7-8, filed 01/07/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 8-11, filed 01/07/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-15 over the prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However new grounds of rejection are made in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in Applicant’s arguments. Applicant’s arguments are therefore considered moot.
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