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 Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 04/17/2026.
Status of Rejections
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
The rejection(s) of claim(s) 22 is/are obviated by applicant’s cancellation.
The rejection of claim(s) 24-25 under 35 USC 112(b) is/are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
All other previous rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Claims 21 and 23-40 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 40, line 19, “to a hydrogen-production” should read “to the hydrogen-production”. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "adjusting hydrogen-production operations of the electrolyzer" in lines 2-3. The limitation of control of the electrolyzer “to produce hydrogen at a constant rate” is previously introduced in lines 11-13 of claim 21. It is unclear how the hydrogen-production operations can be adjusted while hydrogen is also produced at a constant rate, or whether the limitation of the constant rate is not meant to be applied while this adjustment occurs. For examination purposes, both the constant and adjusting hydrogen production limitations have been addressed in the rejections.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "adjusting hydrogen-production operations of the electrolyzer to increase an amount of reactive power that the power electronics can generate or consume" in lines 2-4. The limitation of control of the electrolyzer “to produce hydrogen at a constant rate while allowing…the power electronics to consume or generate reactive power at a changing rate” is previously introduced in lines 11-13 of claim 21. It is unclear how the hydrogen-production operations can be adjusted while hydrogen is also produced at a constant rate, or whether the limitation of the constant rate is not meant to be applied while this adjustment occurs. For examination purposes, both the constant and adjusting hydrogen production limitations have been addressed in the rejections.
Any claims dependent on the above claim(s) are rejected for their dependence.
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 21, 24 and 26-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochard (EP 3839102 A1) in view of Panda (“Control of a cascaded STATCOM with star configuration to adaptively provide reactive power to grid”, Paderborn, 2021).
Regarding claim 21, Brochard teaches a method for producing hydrogen (see e.g. Paragraph 0017, system for producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water), the method comprising:
determining an amount of reactive power for an electrolyzer of a hydrogen-production installation connected to a power grid to generate (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 2-7, Paragraph 0039, lines 1-2, and Paragraphs 0037 and 0106, calculate/determine reactive power compensation, i.e. generation to balance consumption by harmonic polluters, required from installation including electrolyser connected to a public network, i.e. power grid); and
controlling operations of the electrolyzer such that the electrolyzer generates the determined amount of reactive power (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 10-14, controlling at least one harmonic filter supplying power to the electrolyser to perform the reactive power compensation, i.e. generation) by controlling power electronics of the electrolyzer to control real power applies to a hydrogen production stack of the electrolyzer to produce hydrogen (see e.g. Paragraph 0020, lines 32-33, Paragraphs 0046 and 0065, control of electrolysis to produce hydrogen on the basis of available active power, i.e. real power, with power/current provided to electrolyser based on residual active power remaining after that necessary for reactive power compensation).
Brochard does not explicitly teach the power electronics of the electrolyzer being controlled such that hydrogen is produced at a constant rate while allowing headroom for the power electronics generate reactive power at a changing rate. Brochard does generally teach that gas may be produced by the electrolyser at different levels, particularly to satisfy a local hydrogen production demand, and the desire for reactive power compensation ability to maintained along with the gas production (see e.g. Paragraphs 0051-0052 and 0081).
Panda teaches a method for utilizing a converter for reactive power compensation of a power grid in parallel with active power consumption for hydrogen electrolysis (see e.g. Page xii, lines 1-11), wherein, by increasing the apparent power of the converter, its reactive power compensation capability can be increased while maintaining a constant active power demand of hydrogen electrolysis (see e.g. Page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Brochard to comprise increasing the apparent power of the power electronics while maintaining a constant hydrogen production rate, thus allowing headroom to generate reactive power at a changing rate, as taught by Panda to enable reactive power compensation capability to be increased while satisfying a constant active power demand for hydrogen generation. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 24, modified Brochard teaches controlling the power electronics of the electrolyzer comprising controlling one or more StatComs such that the one or more StatComs generate the determined amount of reactive power (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 10-14, and Paragraph 0098, controlling at least one harmonic filter, such as STATCOM, supplying power to the electrolyser to perform the reactive power compensation, i.e. generation).
Regarding claim 26, modified Brochard teaches controlling operations of the electrolyzer further comprising adjusting hydrogen-production operations of the electrolyzer (see e.g. Brochard Paragraph 0020, lines 32-33, and Paragraph 0021, line 14, and Paragraph 0052, control of electrolysis to produce hydrogen at a given level on the basis of available active power).
Regarding claim 27, Brochard as modified by Panda teaches controlling operations of the electrolyzer further comprising adjusting hydrogen-production operations of the electrolyzer to increase an amount of reactive power that the power electronics can generate (see e.g. Brochard Paragraph 0020, lines 32-33, Paragraphs 0046 and 0065, control of electrolysis to produce hydrogen on the basis of available active power, with power/current provided to electrolyser based on residual active power remaining after that necessary for reactive power compensation, thereby requiring decreased hydrogen production for increased reactive power generation; see e.g. Panda Page 6, reactive power compensation capability increased by increasing apparent power of converter delivering active power for hydrogen electrolysis).
Regarding claim 28, modified Brochard teaches controlling operations of the electrolyzer comprising controlling hydrogen-production operations of the electrolyzer (see e.g. Brochard Paragraph 0020, lines 32-33, and Paragraph 0021, line 14, and Paragraph 0052, control of electrolysis to produce hydrogen at a given level on the basis of available active power).
Regarding claim 29, modified Brochard teaches controlling hydrogen-production operations of the electrolyzer comprising controlling a rate at which the electrolyzer produces hydrogen (see e.g. Brochard Paragraph 0020, lines 32-33, Paragraphs 0046, 0052 and 0065, control of electrolysis to produce hydrogen on the basis of available active power, with power/current provided to electrolyser, and thereby rate of hydrogen production, based on residual active power remaining after that necessary for reactive power compensation).
Regarding claim 30, modified Brochard teaches determining an aggregate amount of reactive power for the hydrogen-production installation to generate, the hydrogen-production installation comprising a number of electrolyzers including the electrolyzer (see e.g. Brochard Paragraph 0021, lines 2-7, Paragraph 0039, lines 1-2, and Paragraphs 0043 and 0106, calculate/determine reactive power compensation, i.e. generation to balance consumption by harmonic polluters, required from installation including plurality of electrolysers);
determining a respective amount of reactive power for each electrolyzer of the number of electrolyzers to generate; and controlling respective operations of each electrolyzer of the number of electrolyzers such that the hydrogen-production installation generates the aggregated amount of reactive power (see e.g. Brochard Paragraph 0021, lines 10-14, and Paragraph 0069, lines 4-9, determined setpoint and regulation of each harmonic filter and associated electrolyzer connected in parallel for the required reactive power compensation).
Regarding claim 31, modified Brochard teaches the aggregate amount of reactive power to generate being determined such that the hydrogen-production installation maintains a constant reactive-power generation (see e.g. Brochard Paragraph 0069, lines 9-10, reactive power compensation ensured at all times, i.e. constantly).
Regarding claim 32, modified Brochard teaches the aggregate amount of reactive power to generate being determined such that the hydrogen-production installation maintains a constant power factor (see e.g. Brochard Paragraphs 0106 and 0113, reactive power compensation controlled such that power factor is as close as possible to a set point, i.e. constant value).
Regarding claim 33, modified Brochard teaches the aggregate amount of reactive power to generate being determined such that a voltage at a connection between the hydrogen-production installation and the power grid is held within a threshold (see e.g. Brochard Paragraph 0020, last two lines, and Paragraph 0062, dynamic stabilization of voltage at PCC connection with the public network, i.e. grid, via load absorption on the capacitor of the harmonic filter performing reactive power compensation).
Regarding claim 34, modified Brochard teaches the amount of reactive power to generate being determined based on a power-factor threshold of the power grid (see e.g. Brochard Paragraphs 0106 and 0113, reactive power compensation controlled such that power factor is as close as possible to a target set point, i.e. threshold, at the PCC connection to the public network, i.e. grid).
Regarding claim 35, modified Brochard teaches controlling operations of the electrolyzer comprising controlling an amount of real power the electrolyzer consumes such that the electrolyzer generates the determined amount of reactive power (see e.g. Brochard Paragraph 0020, lines 32-33, Paragraphs 0046 and 0065, control of electrolysis to produce hydrogen on the basis of available active power, i.e. real power, with power/current provided to electrolyser based on residual active power remaining after that necessary for reactive power compensation).
Regarding claim 36, modified Brochard teaches the amount of reactive power to generate being determined based on reactive-power capability of one or more power sources connected to the power grid (see e.g. Brochard Paragraph 0085, reactive power compensation accounting for additional renewable electrical energy production units connected to the network, i.e. grid).
Regarding claim 37, modified Brochard teaches the amount of reactive power to generate being determined based on reactive-power capability of one or more loads connected to the power grid (see e.g. Brochard Paragraph 0039-0040 and 0042, reactive power compensation accounting for reactive power consumed by at least one non-linear load connected to the public network, i.e. grid).
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochard in view of Panda, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Hunt et al. (U.S. 2022/0065162).
Regarding claim 23, modified Brochard teaches all the elements of the method of claim 21 as stated above. Modified Brochard does not explicitly teach controlling the power electronics of the electrolyzer comprising controlling a plurality of pulse-width modulator rectifiers of the power electronics such that the power electronics generate the determined amount of reactive power. Brochard does however teach the power electronics comprising a plurality of rectifiers of any type, such as one including IGBT switches (see e.g. Brochard Paragraph 0040, lines 4-7, harmonic filters may be rectifier bridges of any type).
Hunt teaches a power plant including a hydrogen generation system to balance active and reactive loads on a grid power system (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a converter, i.e. rectifier, for converting alternating current to direct current for an electrolyzer (see e.g. Paragraph 0078, lines 1-7), wherein the converter may be a power conversion system using IGBTs and PWM (pulse width modulation) that is suitable for providing active and reactive power services to the grid (see e.g. Paragraph 0085).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rectifiers of modified Brochard to comprise power conversion systems including PWM as taught by Hunt as a suitable particular type of rectifier including IGBTs that can provide direct current to an electrolyzer as well as active and reactive power services to a power grid. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 25, modified Brochard teaches all the elements of the method of claim 21 as stated above. Modified Brochard further teaches controlling the power electronics of the electrolyzer comprising controlling one or more StatComs such that the one or more StatComs generate the determined amount of reactive power (see e.g. Brochard Paragraph 0021, lines 10-14, and Paragraph 0098, controlling at least one harmonic filter, such as STATCOM, supplying power to the electrolyser to perform the reactive power compensation, i.e. generation). Modified Brochard does not explicitly teach further controlling a plurality of pulse-width modulator rectifiers such that that the one or more StatComs generate the determined amount of reactive power. Brochard does however teach the power electronics comprising a plurality of rectifiers of any type such as one including IGBT switches (see e.g. Brochard Paragraph 0040, lines 4-7, harmonic filters may be rectifier bridges of any type).
Hunt teaches a power plant including a hydrogen generation system to balance active and reactive loads on a grid power system (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a converter, i.e. rectifier, for converting alternating current to direct current for an electrolyzer (see e.g. Paragraph 0078, lines 1-7), wherein the converter may be a power conversion system using IGBTs and PWM (pulse width modulation) that is suitable for providing active and reactive power services to the grid (see e.g. Paragraph 0085).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified some of the rectifiers of modified Brochard to comprise power conversion systems including PWM as taught by Hunt as an additional suitable type of rectifier including IGBTs that can provide direct current to an electrolyzer as well as active and reactive power services to a power grid. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochard in view of Hunt, and further in view of Panda.
Regarding claim 38, Brochard teaches a system for producing hydrogen (see e.g. Paragraph 0017, system for producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water), the system comprising:
a connection to a power grid configured to receive electrical power from the power grid (see e.g. Fig. 2, PCC 230 for receiving electrical energy from public network, i.e. grid, 231);
one or more electrolyzers configured to receive the electrical power and to produce hydrogen (see e.g. Fig. 2, electrolyzers 250,251 receiving power to produce hydrogen; Paragraph 0043); and
a controller (see e.g. Paragraphs 0061-0062, centralized controller managing activity of harmonic filters) configured to:
determine an amount of reactive power for the one or more electrolyzers to generate (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 2-7, Paragraph 0039, lines 1-2, and Paragraph 0106, calculate/determine reactive power compensation, i.e. generation to balance consumption by harmonic polluters, required from installation including the electrolysers); and
control respective operations of the one or more electrolyzers such that the one or more electrolyzers collectively generate the determined amount of reactive power (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 10-14, controlling at least one harmonic filter supplying power to the electrolyser to perform the reactive power compensation, i.e. generation), by:
controlling respective static synchronous compensators (StatComs) of respective power electronic of the one or more electrolyzers to generate the determined amount of reactive power (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 10-14, and Paragraph 0098, controlling at least one harmonic filter, such as STATCOM, supplying power to the electrolyser to perform the reactive power compensation, i.e. generation); and
controlling respective rectifiers of the respective power electronics of the one or more electrolyzers to control real power applied to respective hydrogen-production stacks of the one or more electrolyzers to produce hydrogen (see e.g. Paragraph 0020, lines 32-33, Paragraph 0040, lines 4-7, and Paragraphs 0046 and 0065, control of electrolysis to produce hydrogen on the basis of available active power, i.e. real power, with power/current provided to electrolyser, e.g. via harmonic filter(s) comprising rectifier acting as AC/DC converter, based on residual active power remaining after that necessary for reactive power compensation).
Brochard does not explicitly teach the rectifiers being pulse-width modulator (PWM) rectifiers, but does teach that they may be rectifiers of any type, such as one including IGBT switches (see e.g. Paragraph 0040, lines 4-7, harmonic filters may be rectifier bridges of any type).
Hunt teaches a power plant including a hydrogen generation system to balance active and reactive loads on a grid power system (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a converter, i.e. rectifier, for converting alternating current to direct current for an electrolyzer (see e.g. Paragraph 0078, lines 1-7), wherein the converter may be a power conversion system using IGBTs and PWM (pulse width modulation) that is suitable for providing active and reactive power services to the grid (see e.g. Paragraph 0085).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rectifiers of Brochard to comprise power conversion systems including PWM as taught by Hunt as a suitable particular type of rectifier including IGBTs that can provide direct current to an electrolyzer as well as active and reactive power services to a power grid. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Modified Brochard does not explicitly teach the rectifiers being controlled such that hydrogen is produced at a constant rate while allowing headroom for the power electronics generate reactive power at a changing rate. Brochard does generally teach that gas may be produced by the electrolyser at different levels, particularly to satisfy a local hydrogen production demand, and the desire for reactive power compensation ability to maintained along with the gas production (see e.g. Brochard Paragraphs 0051-0052 and 0081).
Panda teaches a method for utilizing a converter for reactive power compensation of a power grid in parallel with active power consumption for hydrogen electrolysis (see e.g. Page xii, lines 1-11), wherein, by increasing the apparent power of the converter, its reactive power compensation capability can be increased while maintaining a constant active power demand of hydrogen electrolysis (see e.g. Page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Brochard to comprise increasing the apparent power of the power electronics while maintaining a constant hydrogen production rate, thus allowing headroom to generate reactive power at a changing rate, as taught by Panda to enable reactive power compensation capability to be increased while satisfying a constant active power demand for hydrogen generation. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 39, modified Brochard teaches the controller being further configured to determine the amount of reactive power to generate such that the system is balanced (see e.g. Brochard Paragraph 0021, lines 2-7 and 10-14, Paragraph 0039, lines 1-2, and Paragraph 0106, generated reactive power compensating for, i.e. balancing, reactive power consumption by harmonic polluters).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochard in view of Hunt.
Regarding claim 40, Brochard teaches an electrolyzer for producing hydrogen (see e.g. Paragraph 0017 and Paragraph 0019, lines 5-6, system for producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water with at least one electrolyser), the electrolyzer comprising:
a hydrogen-production stack configured to receive direct current (DC) power and water to produce hydrogen (see e.g. Fig. 2, electrolysers 250/ 251 receiving power in the form of DC current to produce hydrogen; Paragraph 0043, lines 1-2);
power electronics configured to receive alternating current (AC) power, cover the AC power into DC power, and to provide the DC power to the hydrogen-production stack (see e.g. Fig. 2, harmonic filters 220/ 221 absorbing AC current and outputting DC current, acting as AC/DC converters supplying the DC current to the electrolysers 250/251; Paragraph 0042, Paragraph 0043, lines 1-2, and Paragraph 0065, lines 1-2); and
a controller configured to receive a control signal and to control operations of the electrolyzer such that the electrolyzer generates reactive power according to instructions of the control signal (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 2-7 and 10-14, and Paragraphs 0062 and 0106, controller controlling at least one harmonic filter supplying power to the electrolyser to perform the reactive power compensation, i.e. generation, based on calculation, i.e. control signal) by:
controlling respective static synchronous compensators (StatComs) of respective power electronic of the one or more electrolyzers to generate the determined amount of reactive power (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 10-14, and Paragraph 0098, controlling at least one harmonic filter, such as STATCOM, supplying power to the electrolyser to perform the reactive power compensation, i.e. generation); and
controlling one or more rectifiers of the power electronics to control real power applied to the hydrogen-production stack of the electrolyzer to produce hydrogen (see e.g. Paragraph 0020, lines 32-33, Paragraph 0040, lines 4-7, and Paragraphs 0046 and 0065, control of electrolysis to produce hydrogen on the basis of available active power, i.e. real power, with power/current provided to electrolyser, e.g. via harmonic filter(s) comprising rectifier acting as AC/DC converter, based on residual active power remaining after that necessary for reactive power compensation).
Brochard does not explicitly teach the rectifiers being pulse-width modulator (PWM) rectifiers, but does teach that they may be rectifiers of any type, such as one including IGBT switches (see e.g. Paragraph 0040, lines 4-7, harmonic filters may be rectifier bridges of any type).
Hunt teaches a power plant including a hydrogen generation system to balance active and reactive loads on a grid power system (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a converter, i.e. rectifier, for converting alternating current to direct current for an electrolyzer (see e.g. Paragraph 0078, lines 1-7), wherein the converter may be a power conversion system using IGBTs and PWM (pulse width modulation) that is suitable for providing active and reactive power services to the grid (see e.g. Paragraph 0085).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rectifiers of Brochard to comprise power conversion systems including PWM as taught by Hunt as a suitable particular type of rectifier including IGBTs that can provide direct current to an electrolyzer as well as active and reactive power services to a power grid. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 04/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 21 under 35 USC 102 over Brochard, particularly regarding the power electronics controlling real power to produce hydrogen at a constant rate while allowing headroom to generate or consume reactive power at a changing rate, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Brochard and Panda.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 04/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 38 under 35 USC 102 over Brochard, particularly regarding PWM rectifiers of the power electronics controlling real power to produce hydrogen at a constant rate while allowing headroom to generate or consume reactive power at a changing rate, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Brochard, Hunt and Panda.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 04/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 40 under 35 USC 102 over Brochard, particularly regarding the PWM rectifiers, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Brochard and Hunt.
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 MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 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.
/M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights