DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s amendments received 27 April 2026. Claim 1 was amended and new Claims 15, 16, and 17 were presented all with no new matter being added. The applicant’s reply is considered fully responsive. Currently, Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are currently pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al.
Carrasco et al. (“Influence of the Interlayer Space on the Water Oxidation Performance in a Family of Surfactant-Intercalated NiFe-Layered Double Hydroxides,” Chem. Mater. 2019, 31, 6798-6807) is directed toward LDH catalysts for water oxidation (pg. 6798: title and abstract). Zhou et al.(“Exceptional Performance of Hierarchical Ni-Fe hydroxide @ NiCu Electrocatalysts for Water Splitting,” Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, article 1806769, pg. 1-8 and supporting information) is directed toward a non-noble metal electrocatalyst for water splitting (pg. 1: abstract).
Regarding Claim 1, Carrasco et al. discloses an electrode catalyst for a water electrolysis cell (i.e.: water oxidation on pg. 6798: title and abstract), the electrode catalyst (a family of NiFe-LDH electrocatalysts for OER) comprising: a catalyst, the catalyst being a layered double hydroxide that contains a chelating agent according pg. 6799 in the section title “Synthesis of LDHs” where Ni/Fe LDH is prepared using a hydrothermal method from iron(III) chloride, nickel(II) chloride, and triethanolamine (i.e.: chelating agent) in a mixture of water/ethanol. Various other NiFe LDH materials were synthesized by anion exchange with the chloride to form sodium alkyl sulfonates as intercalants and chelating agents (pg. 6799-6800). Carrasco et al. discloses two different electrode materials and organic compound formulations for conducting electrochemical measurements using NiFe-LDH inks. The first formulation comprised LDH, a PTFE binder, acetylene black in ethanol deposited onto nickel foam electrode material (pg. 6800: Electrode Preparation). The second formulation was applied to a glassy carbon rotating disc electrode and comprised LDH, graphitized carbon, and Nafion in ethanol/water (pg. 6800: Electrode Preparation). Nafion is a sulfonated tetrafluoroethylene-based fluoropolymer-copolymer meaning it has an anionic group (i.e.: sulfonate, RSO31-). This binder is preferred over PTFE because the ionic nature of the material allows for the more facile movement of charges through the material. Since the both LDH inks were deposited directly onto the support, both the NiFe LDH and organic binder are capable of be directedly disposed on the surface of the electrode material. The advantage of using nickel foam as the electrode material is the high electrical conductivity and the high surface area which allows for the efficient deposition and packing of catalyst particles resulting in superior catalytic activity.
The first LDH electrode formulation discloses a transition metal support (i.e.: nickel foam) while the second LDH electrode discloses an anionic organic group (i.e.: Nafion) as required by Claim 1 of the instant application. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention would be motivated to use the electrode material of the first LDH formulation due (i.e.: nickel foam) due to its high surface area and increased conductivity and the organic species (i.e.: Nafion) from the second LDH formulation due to its higher ionic conductivity while still maintaining good adhesion with the reasonable expectation of forming a superior OER electrode.
Pertaining to the amendment to Claim 1, wherein the support is a particulate shape, Carrasco et al. does not disclose such as limitation since the catalytic material is deposited directly onto a nickel foam electrode material. Zhou et al. is directed toward the electrochemical modification of nickel foam (pg. 1: title). Zhou et al. discloses a water splitting catalyst (pg. 1: title and abstract; pg. 4: Fig. 3 – OER performance; pg. 6: Fig. 4 – HER performance) comprising a double layered hydroxide made of Ni and Fe (Zhou et al. on pg. 1: Abstract and Supporting Information pg. 1-2: Experimental – Synthesis of NiFe-LDH@NiCu), and a metal nanoparticle that is a transition metal alloy (Zhou et al.: Ni and Cu on pg. 1: Abstract and Supporting Information pg. 1-2: Experimental – Synthesis of NiFe-LDH@NiCu). The NiFe-LDH material is deposited onto the nanometer sized metal particle support as depicted in Fig. 1 in the various micrographs and EDS mapping (pg. 1 of Zhou et al.). Zhou et al. further discloses the process of making NiCu nanoparticles and using the material generated in-situ to form the active catalyst (i.e.: NiFe-LDH@NiCu composite in the SI on pg. 1-2: Synthesis of NiFe-LDH@NiCu). Zhou et al. indicates that the presence of the NiCu alloy in the core-shell composite reduces the electrical resistivity or enhances the electrical conductivity compared to the bulk NiFe-LDH (pg. 6: second full paragraph). The core-shell catalyst is then introduced into a solution of Nafion in a mixture of water, IPA, and ethylene glycol to form a catalyst ink which was in turn deposited onto a graphite plate (as the electrode material) as per the supporting information of Zhou et al.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the NiFe LDH catalyst of Carrasco et al. by substituting the core shell NiCu/NiFe-LDH catalyst of Zhou et al. with the reasonable expectation forming a more active OER catalyst since the core-shell material reduces the electrical resistivity or enhances the electrical conductivity compared to the bulk NiFe-LDH because of the metallic and electrically conductive core.
Regarding Claim 2, Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. disclose the electrode catalyst for the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 1, wherein the anionic functional group is a sulfonic acid group (i.e.: Nafion is a sulfonated tetrafluoroethylene-based fluoropolymer-copolymer) on pg. 6799-6800 in Electrode Preparation section in Carrasco et al.
Regarding Claim 4, Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. disclose the electrode catalyst for the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 1, wherein the organic functional group includes a perfluorocarbon polymer having a sulfonic acid group (i.e.: Nafion is a sulfonated tetrafluoroethylene-based fluoropolymer-copolymer) on pg. 6799-6800 in Electrode Preparation section in Carrasco et al.
Regarding Claim 5, Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. disclose the electrode catalyst for the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 1, wherein the layered double hydroxide contains Ni and Fe on pg. 6799-6800 in Electrode Preparation section and pg. 6802 in Table 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. disclose the electrode catalyst for the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 1, wherein the support is comprised of a transition metal alloy (i.e.: Cu/Ni) according to pg. 1-2 of the SI of Zhou et al. in the “Synthesis of NiFe-LDH@NiCu” section.
Regarding Claim 13, Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. disclose the electrode catalyst for the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 1, wherein the layered double hydroxide contains Ni and Fe on pg. 6799-6800 in Electrode Preparation section and pg. 6802 in Table 1.
Regarding Claim 14, Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. disclose the electrode catalyst for the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 1, wherein the particle support consists of Ni according to pg. 1-2 of the SI of Zhou et al.
Regarding Claim 15 and Claim 16, Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. disclose the electrode catalyst for the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 1, wherein a particle diameter of the support is approximately 20 nm as evidenced by Fig. S1(b) of the supporting information of Zhou et al. The TEM image is reproduced below and shows the nanoparticles are roughly 20 nm. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when an example disclosed by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image1.png]
Fig. S1(b) – TEM image of NiCu alloy nanoparticles from Zhou et al.)]
6. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Flegler et al.
Carrasco et al. (“Influence of the Interlayer Space on the Water Oxidation Performance in a Family of Surfactant-Intercalated NiFe-Layered Double Hydroxides,” Chem. Mater. 2019, 31, 6798-6807 – previously presented) is directed toward LDH catalysts for water oxidation (pg. 6798: title and abstract). Zhou et al. (“Prompt Electrodeposition of Ni Nanodots on Ni Foam to Construct a High‑Performance Water‑Splitting Electrode: Efficient, Scalable, and Recyclable,” Nano-Micro Lett. 2019, 11(41), 1-13) is the deposition of nickel nanodots onto the nickel foam (pg. 1: title). Flegler et al. (“Screen printed bifunctional gas diffusion electrode for metal-air batteries: Combining the best of the catalyst and binder world,” Electrochimica Acta 2017, 258, 495-503 – previously presented) is directed towards optimizing a binder for use in an electrode for the OER reaction (pg. 496: 1. Introduction).
Regarding Claim 3, Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. disclose the electrode catalyst for a water electrolysis cell according to Claim 1, wherein the organic compound has an anionic group that is a sulfonic acid group (e.g.: Nafion). However, Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. does not disclose an anionic group that is a carboxylic acid ionic group.
Flegler et al. is directed towards a gas diffusion electrode that has both oxygen reduction (ORR) and oxygen evolution reaction (OER) catalysts with the intent of optimizing the wetting of the electrode surface by binder selection (pg. 495: abstract). In the latter case, the OER catalyst is a non-noble metal oxide (NiCo2O4) (pg. 495-6: Introduction). Flegler et al. found that the use of CMC (carboxymethylcellulose) as the binder in the OER layer resulted in a layer low contact angle (i.e.: hydrophilic layer) and a system with a lower overpotential (pg. 501-2: 3.3.2. Double-layer GDE section). Moreover, the use of CMC in the OER catalyst layer facilitated wetting of the catalyst by penetration of the electrolyte through the porous layer (pg. 501: 3.3.2. Double-layer GDE section). CMC is a common binder in electrochemical application including lithium-ion batteries (pg. 495-6: 1. Introduction). As per the chemical structure below, CMC has an anionic functionality that is a carboxylic acid ionic group (R = CH2CO2H). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode composition of Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. with CMC as a binder (i.e.: “organic compound”) as disclosed by Flegler et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming an OER catalyst electrode with a lower overpotential due to the more efficient wetting of the catalyst layer by the electrolyte.
7. Claims 7, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Dresp et al.
Carrasco et al. (“Influence of the Interlayer Space on the Water Oxidation Performance in a Family of Surfactant-Intercalated NiFe-Layered Double Hydroxides,” Chem. Mater. 2019, 31, 6798-6807 – previously presented) is directed toward LDH catalysts for water oxidation (pg. 6798: title and abstract). Zhou et al. (“Prompt Electrodeposition of Ni Nanodots on Ni Foam to Construct a High‑Performance Water‑Splitting Electrode: Efficient, Scalable, and Recyclable,” Nano-Micro Lett. 2019, 11(41), 1-13) is the deposition of nickel nanodots onto the nickel foam (pg. 1: title). Dresp et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0028465 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward a membrane electrode assembly for water electrolysis with a Mn-doped NiFe-LDH OER anode catalyst (abstract and ¶5, ¶14-6, ¶21-3).
Regarding Claim 7, Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. disclose a water electrolysis device comprising a three electrode set up in a KOH electrolyte (pg. 6800: Electrode Preparation). The three electrodes are an anode that is the electrode catalyst according to Claim 1 (i.e.: OER catalyst), a steel counter electrode (i.e.: counter electrode or cathode) and a Ag/AgCl reference electrode (pg. 6800: Electrode Preparation of Carrasco et al.). However, Carrasco et al. and Zhou et al. do not disclose an electrolyte membrane as the electrochemical set up of Carrasco et al. and Zhou et al/ is designed for catalyst evaluation, not larger scale water splitting. Since the anode catalyst of Carrasco et al. and Zhou et al. is an effective catalyst for alkaline OER (pg. 6800: Electrochemical Characterization), one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use said anode catalyst in an MEA to evaluate its performance on a more industrially relevant scale.
Dresp et al. discloses a membrane electrode 100 (FIG. 6), which is used in fuel cells or electrolyzers (i.e.: water electrolysis cell) as per the abstract; ¶2, ¶4, ¶12; Claims 1, 10, and 11. Dresp et al. further discloses an anode catalyst for the oxygen evolution reaction comprises a Mn-doped NiFe-LDH material (abstract and ¶5, ¶14-6, ¶21-3). Also, Dresp’465 teaches that a binder (analogous to the anionic organic group of the present application) comprised of a perfluorinated sulfonic acid polymer (e.g.: Nafion) can be used to improve the electrode adhesion/cohesion, conductivity, and operational temperature range (¶30-31). Since both Carrasco et al. and Dresp et al. disclose LDH-based catalysts with binders for OER, they are analogous art. In FIG. 6, Dresp et al. discloses a MEA 100 for use in a reversible fuel cell (analogous to a water electrolysis cell of the instant application) as indicated by the operation flow direction 11 (¶54-56 and ¶84-92). FIG. 6 further teaches a second electrode 2 that is the cathode with an ion exchange membrane 1 disposed between the two electrodes (¶54-56 and ¶84-92).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the OER NiFe electrode catalyst of Carrasco et al. and Zhou et al. in the electrochemical cell of Dresp et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming an effective water electrolyzer for use on an industrial scale.
Regarding Claim 8, Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. and Dresp et al. discloses the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 7, wherein the electrolyte membrane include an ion exchange membrane which can be any ion exchange membrane used in fuel cell or electrolyzers technology (¶61 of Dresp et al.). The ion exchange membrane must have electrical conductivity when wet and one such example is based on Nafion (perfluorosulfonic acids), which are proton exchange membranes (¶61 of Dresp et al.).
Regarding Claim 9, Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. and Dresp et al. discloses the electrolysis cell according to Claim 7, wherein the electrolyte membrane include an anion exchange membrane, which (selectively) permits ion diffusion from the anode chamber into the cathode chamber or vice versa as per ¶54 of Dresp et al.
Regarding Claim 10, Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. disclose a water electrolysis cell, but the electrochemical reactions all occur in single space. Carrasco et al. is silent on the redox chemistry of water splitting when it occurs in multiple spaces. Since the anode catalyst of Carrasco et al. and Zhou et al. is an effective catalyst for alkaline OER (pg. 6800: Electrochemical Characterization in Zhou et al.), one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use said anode catalyst in an MEA to evaluate its performance on a more industrially relevant scale.
Dresp et al. discloses an OER anode (electrode 2 in FIG. 6 of Dresp et al.) based on a doped-NiFe LDH material like Carrasco et al, so they are analogous art. FIG. 6 of Dresp et al. discloses a MEA 100 for use in a reversible fuel cell (analogous to a water electrolysis cell of the instant application) as indicated by the operation flow direction 11 (¶54-56 and ¶84-92). FIG. 6 further teaches a second electrode 2 that is the cathode with an ion exchange membrane 1 (analogous to the diaphragm of Claim 10) disposed between the two electrodes (¶54-56 and ¶84-92). The first space and the second space as per the limitation of Claim 10 of the present application is analogous to the gas diffusion layers 3 described in ¶55 of Dresp et al. and depicted in FIG. 6. The electrodes (2, i.e.: the anode and cathode) are provided in the first and second space as per the FIG. 6 of Dresp et al.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the OER NiFe electrode catalyst of Carrasco et al. and Zhou et al. in the electrochemical cell of Dresp et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming an effective water electrolyzer for use on an industrial scale.
8. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrasco et al., Zhou et al., and Dresp et al. as applied to Claims 7 and 10 above, and further in view of Nakamura’406
Carrasco et al. (“Influence of the Interlayer Space on the Water Oxidation Performance in a Family of Surfactant-Intercalated NiFe-Layered Double Hydroxides,” Chem. Mater. 2019, 31, 6798-6807) is directed toward LDH catalysts for water oxidation (pg. 6798: title and abstract). Zhou et al. (“Prompt Electrodeposition of Ni Nanodots on Ni Foam to Construct a High‑Performance Water‑Splitting Electrode: Efficient, Scalable, and Recyclable,” Nano-Micro Lett. 2019, 11(41), 1-13) is the deposition of nickel nanodots onto the nickel foam (pg. 1: title). Dresp et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0028465 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward a membrane electrode assembly for water electrolysis with a Mn-doped NiFe-LDH OER anode catalyst (abstract and ¶5, ¶14-6, ¶21-3). Nakamura et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0301406 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward method and apparatus for water electrolysis (title).
Regarding Claim 11, Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. and Dresp et al. discloses a water electrolysis device comprising the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 7. However, Carrasco et al., Zhou et al., and Dresp et al. does not explicitly teach a power source, but said power source (e.g.: voltage applicator) would be required to promote water electrolysis as the reaction is not spontaneous under standard conditions. Nakamura et al. is analogous art to Carrasco et al., Zhou et al., and Dresp et al. since it is directed at water electrolysis (title) and has the same structure (i.e.: parts) as the water electrolysis cell of Claim 7 of the instant application. In Claim 18 of Nakamura et al., the structure of the water electrolysis apparatus is a solid polymer electrolytic membrane with an anode and a cathode disposed sandwiching the solid polymer electrolytic membrane, and a power supply unit for applying potential between the anode and the cathode. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water electrolysis device of Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. and Dresp et al. in with the power supply taught by Nakamura et al. with the reasonable expectation of applying a voltage between the anode and cathode to promote the electrolysis of water.
Regarding Claim 12, Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al., Zhou et al., and Dresp et al. discloses a water electrolysis device comprising the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 10. However, Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. and Dresp et al. does not explicitly teach a power source, but said power source (e.g.: voltage applicator) would be required to promote water electrolysis as the reaction is not spontaneous under standard conditions. Nakamura et al which is analogous art to Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. and Dresp et al. since it is directed at water electrolysis (title) and has a similar structure to the water electrolysis cell of Claim 10 of the instant application. In Claim 18 of Nakamura et al., the structure of the water electrolysis apparatus is a solid polymer electrolytic membrane with an anode and a cathode disposed sandwiching the solid polymer electrolytic membrane, and a power supply unit for applying potential between the anode and the cathode. Moreover, in ¶90, Nakamura et al. indicates that a stainless-steel mesh is used as the gas diffusion layer for both the anode and cathode, which is analogous to the “space” of the instant application as per Claim 10. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water electrolysis device of Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. and Dresp et al. with the power supply taught by Nakamura et al. with the reasonable expectation of applying a voltage between the anode and cathode to promote the electrolysis of water.
9. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Dresp et al.
Carrasco et al. (“Influence of the Interlayer Space on the Water Oxidation Performance in a Family of Surfactant-Intercalated NiFe-Layered Double Hydroxides,” Chem. Mater. 2019, 31, 6798-6807) is directed toward LDH catalysts for water oxidation (pg. 6798: title and abstract). Zhou et al. (“Prompt Electrodeposition of Ni Nanodots on Ni Foam to Construct a High‑Performance Water‑Splitting Electrode: Efficient, Scalable, and Recyclable,” Nano-Micro Lett. 2019, 11(41), 1-13) is the deposition of nickel nanodots onto the nickel foam (pg. 1: title). Tokudome et al. (“Layered Double Hydroxide Nanoclusters: Aqueous, Concentrated, Stable, and Catalytically Active Colloids toward Green Chemistry,” ACS Nano 2016, 10, 5550-5559) is directed toward catalytically active colloids (pg. 5550: title).
Regarding Claim 17, Carrasco et al. in view of Zhou et al. disclose the electrode catalyst for the water electrolysis cell according to Claim 1, wherein the chelating agent is an aminoalcohol (i.e.: triethanolamine), but does not disclose the use of 3-diketones.
Tokudome et al. is directed toward the formation of a mixed valent LDH comprised of Ni(II) and Al(III) and the material is used for catalysis so it is analogous art to Carrasco et al. and Zhou et al. Tokudome et al. indicates that acetylacetone (a 3-diketone as required by Claim 17) is used as chelating agent in the synthesis of the NiAl-LDH catalyst (pg. 5551-2: Synthesis and Characterization of LDH Nanocluster). The chelating ability of the acac facilitated the formation and stability of the nanocrystalline catalysts according to pg. 5554 of Tokudome et al.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the TEA chelating agent in the synthesis of the LDH catalyst of Carrasco et al. and Zhou et al. with the acac chelating agent of Tokudome et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming smaller, more stable LDH crystals on the NiCu support resulting in higher overall catalyst surface area and activity.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-7, filed 27 April 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner agrees that Carrasco et al. does not teach the use of a particulate transition metal support. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection of Claim 1 is made in view of Carrasco et al. and Zhou et al. The reasons for the amended rejections are explained in detail above. The reasons for the rejection of new Claims, 15, 16, and 17 are explained in detail above.
Conclusion
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is 703-756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
13. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights