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 Amendments
2. The Applicant’s amendment filed 04 June 2026 is acknowledged. The applicant has amended Claim 1 and added new Claim 17. No new matter was added as a result of the amendment nor the new claim. The applicant has cancelled Claims 7 and 14. Currently, Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 17 are 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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al.
Haas et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0379058 A1) is directed towards an electrocatalyst composition (title). Klose-Schubert et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0322631 A1) is directed toward a composite catalyst capable of being using in catalyst coated membranes (abstract).
Regarding Claim 1, Haas et al. discloses a solid supported catalyst useful for alkaline water hydrolysis (¶3-9) in particular as the anode for the catalytic generation of oxygen (Claim 35). Haas et al. further describes a core-shell catalyst made of tin oxide particles which are at least partially coated by a noble metal oxide layer where the support material (i.e.: undoped or doped tin oxide in ¶22-27) is coated by an iridium layer (¶28-36). In the iridium coating as per ¶78, Haas et al. indicates in that iridium is deposited as the oxyhydroxide and present as the oxide upon final processing (¶108). In Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b, Haas et al. shows SEM image/EDX elemental maps of the catalyst composition (¶14) from Ex. 1. Fig. 1a shows the presence of Sn which is primarily concentrated in the center (i.e.: core) with a diameter ranging from 20 nm to 100 nm and Fig. 1b shows the presence of the Ir which is concentrated on the exterior (i.e.: shell) with thickness ranging from ~1 nm to 10 nm (mostly less than 5 nm).
Haas et al. teaches an Ir content loading of 10 wt.% to 38 wt.% based on the total content of the catalyst composition with the all of the Ir being oxidized (¶28). Haas et al. discloses in Inventive Ex. 1 a composite catalyst deposited onto a tin oxide support with a BET surface area of 25 m2/g (¶109-114), which is less than the BET surface area of 80 m2/g maximum for Claim 1. The amendment to Claim 1 cites a formula (reproduced below) to determine the range of Ir catalyst loading (“Ir-G”). When the BET surface area of the support is 25 m2/g from Inventive Ex. 1, then the range of the corresponding Ir-G (i.e.: “iridium content”) would be 28.5 wt.% to 43.6 wt.%. Said range derived from the formula below is approaching the Ir content of Inventive Ex. 1 of Haas et al. (i.e.: 25 wt.% Ir) and overlaps with the broader Ir catalyst range taught by Haas et al. (i.e.: 10 wt.% to 38 wt.% Ir) meaning that Haas et al. teaches the Ir-G range of amended Claim 1 (that is less than 60 wt.% and satisfies the limitation the equation for Ir-G). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range in the prior art falls overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
[AltContent: textbox (Formula from Amended Claim 1 to Determine Range of Ir-G from instant application
[img-media_image1.png])]
The electrochemical characterization of Ir-coated SnO2 catalyst for OER is evaluated by depositing 0.120 mg total catalyst/cm2 onto a gold foil substrate using an ink comprised of Nafion and the core-shell catalyst (¶142-148). The Ir content of the OER electrode ranges from 0.012 mg Ir/cm2 (calculated from 10 wt.% Ir) to 0.046 mg Ir/cm2 (calculated from 38 wt.% Ir). Therefore, Haas et al. discloses the Ir content less than 0.4 mg Ir/cm2. However, Haas et al. does not put the OER catalyst in a coated membrane as required by Claim 1. Klose-Schubert et al. also discloses an Ir-based catalyst for OER and the catalyst comprises a support material (i.e.: inorganic oxide such as TiO2) and an iridium coating (with an precious metal oxide loading of 25 wt.% to 70 wt.), so it is analogous art to Haas et al.
Klose-Schubert et al. discloses a coated membrane containing a membrane with a front face and a rear face (i.e.: manufacture of electrodes, catalyst coated membranes, or MEAs in ¶32). For the purpose of Claim 1, the front face is being assigned to the anode and the back face is being assigned to the cathode. Klose-Schubert et al. indicates the anode catalyst is a precious metal, such as IrO2, and a cathode catalyst that is a Pt catalyst (e.g.: Pt/C or Pt-Black) as per ¶32. Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that substituting the SnO2-supported IrO2 catalyst of Haas et al. for the TiO2-supported IrO2 catalyst in coated membrane of Klose-Schubert et al. will result in an effective water electrolysis cell with similar properties (e.g.: catalytic activity) since metal oxides/inorganic oxides that are powdery, inert, and have a low solubility in aqueous electrolytes, such as SnO2 and TiO2, are known equivalents with the same purpose (Klose-Schubert et al. in ¶26-27). See MPEP 2144.06(II) - SUBSTITUTING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.
Regarding Claim 2, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the coated membrane according to Claim 1, wherein the iridium content of the coating provided on the membrane front face is maximally 0.3 mg Ir/cm2 as supported Haas et al. where the total catalyst loading deposit was 0.120 mg total catalyst/cm2 from an ink with Nafion and the core-shell catalyst (¶142-148). The Ir content of the OER electrode ranges from 0.012 mg Ir/cm2 (calculated from 10 wt.% Ir) to 0.046 mg Ir/cm2 (calculated from 38 wt.% Ir). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range in the prior art falls overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 3, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the coated membrane according to Claim 1, wherein the catalyst contains iridium in an amount of maximally 40 wt.% as supported by Inventive Ex. 1 in Haas et al. where the loading is 25 wt.% Ir (¶109-114) and the broader catalyst range of 10 wt.% to 38 wt.% Ir based on the total weight of the catalyst (¶28). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when an example from the prior art falls within claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 4, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the coated membrane, wherein the support material has a BET surface area of maximally 65 m2/g as evidenced by inventive Ex. 1 in Haas et al. (¶109-114) where the tin oxide support has a BET surface area of 25 m2/g (¶38-39) and the broader range of 5 m2/g to 95 m2/g (¶17, 24, 40-41, 45-46, and 53). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when an example from the prior art falls within claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 5, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the coated membrane according to Claim 1, wherein the iridium coating provided on the support material has an average layer thickness in the range of 1.0 nm to 5.0 nm as supported by In Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b. In Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b in Haas et al. which is an SEM image/EDX elemental maps of the catalyst composition (¶14) from Inventive Ex. 1. Specifically, Fig. 1a shows the presence of Sn primarily concentrated in the center (i.e.: core) with a diameter ranging from 20 nm to 100 nm and Fig. 1b shows the presence of Ir concentrated on the exterior (i.e.: shell) with thickness ranging from ~1 nm to 10 nm (with most thicknesses less than 5 nm). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 6, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the coated membrane according to Claim 1, wherein the support material has a BET surface area range from 2-35 m2/g compared to Inventive Ex. 1 in Haas et al. where the BET surface area is 25 m2/g (¶109-114). Haas et al. further teaches the catalyst contains 5 wt.% to 35 wt.% Ir as supported by Inventive Ex. 1 in Haas et al. where the loading is 25 wt.% Ir (¶109-114) and the broader catalyst range of 10 wt.% to 38 wt.% Ir based on the total weight of the catalyst (¶28). Haas et al. finally discloses the Ir content level of the catalyst-containing coating provided on the membrane front face (i.e.: the anode) is 0.03 to less than 0.20 mg Ir/cm2 as evidenced by deposition of 0.120 mg total catalyst/cm2 from an ink with Nafion and the core-shell catalyst (¶142-148). The Ir content of the OER electrode ranges from 0.012 mg Ir/cm2 (calculated from 10 wt.% Ir) to 0.046 mg Ir/cm2 (calculated from 38 wt.% Ir). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range in the prior art falls overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 8, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the coated membrane according to Claim 1, wherein the catalyst has a core-shell structure in which the support material is the core and the iridium-containing coating forms the shell (¶27 of Haas et al.) as illustrated by Fig. 1a which shows that Sn is primarily concentrated in the center (i.e.: core) of the particles and Fig. 1b which shows the presence of the Ir is concentrated on the exterior (i.e.: shell) or the particles (¶114 in Haas et al.).
Regarding Claim 9, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. disclose the coated membrane according to Claim 1, wherein the iridium is present exclusively in both 3+ and 4+ oxidation states, i.e.: Ir(III) and Ir(IV). In the inventive examples, Haas et al. (i.e.: Ex. 1-5) indicates that the iridium present in the supported catalyst is in the form of Ir(IV). Haas et al. further discloses that the iridium present in the catalyst layer can be Ir3+ and Ir4+ (¶33) and that the oxidation state of Ir can be determined by X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) as per ¶28. Haas et al. further indicates that the catalyst layer comprises a ratio of at least 80 at.% Ir(IV) to 20 at.% Ir(III) as per ¶34. When that ratio is normalized as per the limitation of Claim 9, the resultant ratio is at least 4.0/1.0 which is less than the maximum ratio of 4.7/1.0). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 10, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the coated membrane according to Claim 1, wherein the support material is an oxide of a transition metal (e.g.: TiO2 as per ¶14 of Haas et al.) or an oxide of a main group element (e.g.: SnO2 as per inventive Ex. 1 in ¶109-114 of Haas et al.).
Regarding Claim 17, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the coated membrane according to Claim 1, wherein the iridium content of the coating provided on the membrane front face (i.e.: the anode/OER side) is less than 0.20 mg Ir/cm2 as supported by Haas et al. in disclosing the total catalyst content deposited was 0.120 mg total catalyst/cm2 from an ink with Nafion and the core-shell catalyst (¶142-148). The Ir content of the OER electrode of Haas et al. ranges from 0.012 mg Ir/cm2 (calculated from 10 wt.% Ir) to 0.046 mg Ir/cm2 (calculated from 38 wt.% Ir). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range in the prior art falls overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
6. Claims 1, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al.
Haas et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0379058 A1) is directed towards an electrocatalyst composition (title). Klose-Schubert et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0322631 A1) is directed toward a composite catalyst capable of being using in catalyst coated membranes (abstract).
The rejection of Claim 1 below was formulated using a different rationale and different parts of Klose-Schubert when combined with Haas et al. than the rejection above discussed in ¶5 of this office action. The second rejection of Claim 1 was then extended to Claims 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16
Regarding Claim 1, Haas et al. discloses a solid supported catalyst useful for alkaline water hydrolysis (¶3-9) in particular as the anode for the catalytic generation of oxygen (Claim 35). Haas et al. further describes a core-shell catalyst made of tin oxide particles which are at least partially coated by a noble metal oxide layer where the support material (i.e.: undoped or doped tin oxide in ¶22-27) is coated by an iridium layer (¶28-36). In the iridium coating as per ¶78, Haas et al. indicates in that iridium is deposited as the oxyhydroxide and present as the oxide upon final processing (¶108). In Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b, Haas et al. shows SEM image/EDX elemental maps of the catalyst composition (¶14) from Ex. 1. Fig. 1a shows the presence of Sn which is primarily concentrated in the center (i.e.: core) with a diameter ranging from 20 nm to 100 nm and Fig. 1b shows the presence of the Ir which is concentrated on the exterior (i.e.: shell) with thickness ranging from ~1 nm to 10 nm (mostly less than 5 nm).
Haas et al. teaches an Ir content loading of 10 wt.% to 38 wt.% based on the total content of the catalyst composition with the all of the Ir being oxidized (¶28). Haas et al. discloses in Inventive Ex. 1 a composite catalyst deposited onto a tin oxide support with a BET surface area of 25 m2/g (¶109-114), which is less than the BET surface area of 80 m2/g maximum for Claim 1. The amendment to Claim 1 cites a formula (reproduced below) to determine the range of Ir catalyst loading (“Ir-G”). When using the BET surface area of the support of 25 m2/g from Inventive Ex. 1, the range of the corresponding Ir-G (i.e.: “iridium content”) would be 28.5 wt.% to 43.6 wt.%. Said range derived from the formula below is approaching the Ir content of Inventive Ex. 1 of Haas et al. (i.e.: 25 wt.% Ir) and overlaps with the broader Ir catalyst range taught by Haas et al. (i.e.: 10 wt.% to 38 wt.% Ir) meaning that Haas et al. teaches the Ir-G range of amended Claim 1 (that is less than 60 wt.% and satisfies the limitation the equation for Ir-G). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range in the prior art falls overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.[AltContent: textbox (Formula from Amended Claim 1 to Determine Range of Ir-G from instant application
[img-media_image1.png])]
The electrochemical characterization of Ir-coated SnO2 catalyst for OER (¶142-148) was conducted using the coated membrane as required by Claim 1. Klose-Schubert et al. also discloses an Ir-based catalyst for OER and the catalyst comprises a support material (i.e.: inorganic oxide such as TiO2) and an iridium coating (with an precious metal oxide loading of 25 wt.% to 70 wt.) as per ¶38-39, so it is analogous art to Haas et al.
Klose-Schubert et al. discloses a coated membrane containing a membrane with a front face and a rear face (i.e.: manufacture of electrodes, catalyst coated membranes, or MEAs in ¶32). For the purpose of Claim 1, the front face is being assigned to the anode and the back face is being assigned to the cathode. Klose-Schubert et al. indicates the anode catalyst is a precious metal, such as IrO2, with a loading of 0.2 to 2.5 mg Ir/cm2 and a cathode catalyst that is a Pt catalyst (e.g.: Pt/C or Pt-Black) with a loading of 0.1 to 1.0 mg Pt/cm2 (¶32). Klose-Schubert et al. further discloses an Ir-based catalyst for OER and the catalyst comprises a support material (i.e.: inorganic oxide such as TiO2) and an iridium coating (i.e.: IrO2) which is provided on the support material (abstract). Klose-Schubert et al. also indicates that the coated membrane comprises an ionomer which can be a polymer with a sulfonic acid-group such as Nafion (¶7, ¶9, ¶13, and ¶32). In ¶32, Klose-Schubert explicitly discloses an ionomer is used in the preparation of CCM for use in a PEM and the ionomer can be Nafion (¶7 of Klose-Schubert et al.).
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that substituting the SnO2-supported IrO2 catalyst of Haas et al. for the TiO2-supported IrO2 catalyst in coated membrane with an ionomer binder of Klose-Schubert et al. will result in a water electrolysis cell with similar properties (e.g.: catalytic activity) since metal oxides/inorganic oxides that are powdery, inert, and have a low solubility in aqueous electrolytes, such as SnO2 and TiO2, are known equivalents with the same purpose (Klose-Schubert et al. in ¶26-27). See MPEP 2144.06(II) - SUBSTITUTING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.
Regarding Claim 11, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the coated membrane according to the second rejection of Claim 1, but does not explicitly state the coating thickness (in microns) of the membrane front face. However, the thickness range of the coating on the front face of the membrane can be derived from Ex. 1 (¶38-39) and the coating weight range of the anode (¶32). Therefore, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. teaches an anode coating thickness range of ~1 micron to ~14microns (see the box below for the calculation). It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Inventive Ex. 1 of Haas et al. discloses a composite catalyst of 25 wt.% IrO2 and 75 wt. SnO2
SnO2 has a density of 6.95 g/cm3 and IrO2 has a density of 11.66 g/cm3
IrO2 is 85.73 wt.% iridium and 14.27 wt.% oxygen
Ir coating weight range: 0.2 mg Ir/cm2 to 2.5 mg Ir/cm2 according to Klose-Schubert
Density of the composite is calculated as weighted average
Density of the composite (SnO2+IrO2) = (75%)(6.95 g/cm3) + (25%)(11.66 g/cm3))
Density of the composite (SnO2+IrO2) = (5.21 + 2.92) g/cm3 = 8.13 g/cm3 = 8130 mg/cm3
IrO2 coating weight range is calculated from the Ir/IrO2 weight ratio
IrO2 coating weight range = (0.2 mg cm-2/0.8573) to (2.5 mg cm-2/0.8573)
IrO2 coating weight range = 0.233 mg IrO2/cm2 to 2.92 mg IrO2/cm2
SnO2 coating weight range is calculated from the IrO2 coating weight range
SnO2 coating weight range (min) = 0.233 mg IrO2/cm2 (75 wt.% SnO2/25 wt.% IrO2)
SnO2 coating weight range (min) = 0.699 mg SnO2/cm2
SnO2 coating weight range (max) = 2.92 mg IrO2/cm2 (75 wt.% SnO2/25 wt.% IrO2)
SnO2 coating weight range (max) = 8.76 mg SnO2/cm2
Total Coating Weight Range (SnO2+IrO2) is calculated from the individual coating weights
Total Coating Weight Range (SnO2+IrO2)min = 0.233 + 0.699 = 0.932 mg oxides/cm2
Total Coating Weight Range (SnO2+IrO2)max = 2.92 + 8.76 = 11.68 mg oxides/cm2
Coating Thickness Range is calculated from composite density and total coating weight
Minimum Thickness = (0.932 mg oxides/cm2)(1 cm3/8130 mg)(104 µm/1 cm) = ~1 µm
Maximum Thickness = (11.68 mg oxides/cm2)(1 cm3/8130 mg)(104 µm/1 cm) = ~14 µm
Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses an anode coating thickness ranging from ~1 µm to ~14 µm
Regarding Claim 12, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the coated membrane according to second rejection of Claim 1, wherein the coating provided on the membrane front face contains an ionomer (¶9, ¶13, and ¶32 in Klose-Schubert et al). In ¶32, Klose-Schubert explicitly discloses an ionomer is used in the preparation of CCM for use in a PEM and the ionomer can be Nafion (¶7) which is a sulfonic acid-group containing ionomer.
Regarding Claim 13, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the coated membrane according to the second rejection of Claim 1 above, wherein a coating containing a catalyst for a hydrogen evolution reaction is applied to the rear face of the membrane as indicated in ¶32 of Klose-Schubert et al. with a Pt-based cathode catalyst (e.g.: Pt/C or Pt-Black). As explained above for the purpose of the instant application, the cathode side of the membrane is the rear side.
Regarding Claim 15, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses a water electrolysis cell contained the coated membrane according to the second rejection of Claim 1 above (abstract, ¶22, ¶24, ¶32, and Claim 12 of Klose-Schubert et al.).
Regarding Claim 16, Haas et al. in view of Klose-Schubert et al. discloses the coated membrane according to Claim 12, wherein the ionomer comprises a polymer which contains sulfonic acid-group containing monomers as evidenced by the use of ionomers or Nafion (¶7, ¶9, ¶13, and ¶32). In ¶32, Klose-Schubert explicitly discloses an ionomer is used in the preparation of CCM for use in a PEM and the ionomer can be Nafion (¶7 of Klose-Schubert et al.) which is a sulfonic acid-group containing ionomer.
Response to Arguments
7. The applicant’s argument presented on pg. 5-6 pertaining to the anticipation rejection of Claim 1 in view of Klose-Schubert et al. is found to be persuasive. The narrowing of the catalyst wt.% range as a result of the amendment which introduced the formula below puts the new limitation outside of the express teachings of Klose-Schubert et al. Therefore, the original rejection of Claim 1 is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Haas et al. and Klose-Schubert et al. The new reasons for the obviousness rejections of Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 17 are explained in detail above.
[AltContent: textbox (Formula from Amended Claim 1 to Determine Range of Ir-G from instant application
[img-media_image1.png])]
Conclusion
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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