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 .
Priority Document
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 is acknowledged. Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment and remarks filed on 03/24/26:
The objections to the specification and claims 3 and 12 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification and claims.
The 112(b) rejection of claim 1 and resulting 112(b) rejection of claims 2-11 due to dependency are withdrawn in light of the amendments to claim 1.
The previous prior art rejection has been modified to address the claim amendments.
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 are presently pending.
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.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to delete the term “substantially” has been acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 3/par. 1-3, filed 03/24/26, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 1 and 112(b) rejections of claims 2-11 due to dependency on claim 1 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (DOI: 10.1126/science.aay1844), in view of Ma (DOI: 10.1039/d1ta06101a), and further in view of Cooper (US 10/170879) and Cole (US 20190017183) as evidenced by Li (DOI: 10.1021/acsami.1c07637).
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 is acknowledged:
“An electrolysis cell, comprising:
A cation exchange membrane;
A cathode compartment, comprising a gas diffusion electrode and a flow channel element, wherein the flow channel element is between the cation exchange membrane and the gas diffusion electrode, contacts the gas diffusion electrode, and has a plurality of flow channels arranged in parallel with each other; and
an anode compartment, comprising an anode mesh, wherein the cation exchange membrane is between the anode mesh and the flow channel element, and a distance between the anode mesh and the gas diffusion electrode is equal to the sum of a first thickness of the cation exchange membrane and a second thickness of the flow channel element”
Regarding claim 1, Xia discloses an electrolytic cell, which teaches a cation exchange membrane; a cathode compartment, comprising a gas diffusion electrode and a flow channel element, wherein the flow channel element is between the cation exchange membrane and the gas diffusion electrode, and the flow channel element has a plurality of flow channels (Fig. 1B and Fig. S1F shown below). Xia discloses an anode compartment, a H2 gas stream that is supplied to the anode (pg. 2/par. 2) and that the cathode utilizes a gas diffusion layer electrode (pg. 1/par. 4), which is equivalent to a gas diffusion electrode as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
547
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1305
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Xia does not disclose a plurality of flow channels arranged in parallel with each other.
However, Ma discloses a plurality of flow channels arranged in parallel with each other to reduce pressure drop (Fig. 5a shown below and pg. 20902, par. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
847
975
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the single serpentine channel in the flow channel element taught by Xia with a plurality of flow channels arranged in parallel with each other taught by Ma. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to use a plurality of parallel flow channels to yield the predictable result of reducing the pressure drop of the flow in the flow channel element. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success for combining the flow channel element taught by Xia with the parallel flow channels taught by Ma because electrolytic cells are modifiable and using these components involves a substitution of functional equivalents with a predictable outcome.
Xia does not disclose an anode mesh.
However, Cooper discloses an anode current collector that comprises a grid, felt, screen, foam, mesh, sponge or sintered frit (Claim 19).
Cooper does not teach that an anode mesh could be used to promote bubble dispersion, but this is evidenced by Li who teaches a mesh anode that promotes bubble detachment (pg. 45347, par. 2 and pg. 45351, par. 3), which is equivalent to bubble dispersion.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the catalyst deposited on gas diffusion layer anode taught by Xia (Supplementary Information, pg. 2, par. 2) with a mesh anode taught by Cooper (Claim 19). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to make this substitution to promote bubble dispersion. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success for using the mesh anode taught by Cooper in the electrolytic cell taught by Xia since electrolytic cells are modifiable and using the anode mesh involves a substitution of functional equivalents with a predictable outcome.
Xia does not disclose a flow channel element between the cation exchange membrane and the gas diffusion electrode, a flow channel element that contacts the gas diffusion electrode, or that the distance between the anode and the gas diffusion electrode is equal to the sum of a first thickness of the cation exchange membrane and a second thickness of the flow channel element.
However, Cole discloses a catholyte compartment (par. 32), which is equivalent to a flow channel element, between the cation exchange membrane (par. 57 and 64-65) and the gas diffusion electrode (abstract generally) where the flow channel element contacts the gas diffusion electrode (Fig. 4) as claimed. Cole also discloses that the distance between the anode and the gas diffusion electrode is equal to the sum of a first thickness of the cation exchange membrane and a second thickness of the flow channel element (Fig. 4) as claimed.
PNG
media_image4.png
686
855
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the configuration of cell components taught by Cole into the electrolytic cell taught by Xia. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate the configuration of cell components taught by Cole into the electrolytic cell taught by Xia to achieve greater resource efficiency (see Cole, par. 5). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success for arriving at the claimed invention by using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way because:
Xia taught a “base” electrolytic cell device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
Cole taught a “comparable” electrolytic cell device that had been improved in the same way as the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” electrolytic cell configuration taught by Cole in the same way to the “base” electrolytic cell device taught by Xia and the result of greater resource efficiency (see Cole, par. 5) would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Ma discloses a gas-liquid separation in the anode compartment (Fig 2a and Fig 3 shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
785
1192
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
504
595
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Ma does not disclose a debubbling mesh.
However, Cooper discloses an anode current collector that comprises a grid, felt, screen, foam, mesh, sponge or sintered frit (claim 19).
Cooper does not teach that an anode mesh could be used to promote bubble dispersion, but this is evidenced by Li who teaches a mesh anode that promotes bubble detachment (pg. 45347, par. 2 and pg. 45351, par. 3), which is equivalent to bubble dispersion.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the mesh taught by Cooper into the anode compartment housing a gas-liquid separation as taught by Ma for debubbling as evidenced by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to use an anode mesh to promote debubbling. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success for combining the anode mesh taught by Cooper with the anode separation taught by Ma into the electrolytic cell taught by Xia since electrolytic cells are modifiable and this involves a modification with a predictable outcome.
Claims 4, 6-9, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Xia, in view of Ma, and further in view of Cooper.
Regarding claim 4, Ma discloses both a copper and silver catalyst layer (pg. 20911, par. 3 and 20905, par. 3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the copper or silver catalyst layer taught by Ma into the electrolytic cell of claim 3 taught by Xia. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do this to direct reaction selectivity towards desired products. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success for using the catalyst taught by Ma in the electrolytic cell taught by Xia since electrolytic cells are modifiable and using a copper or silver catalyst involves a substitution of functional equivalents with a predictable outcome.
Regarding claim 6, Xia discloses a cathode, equivalent to a cathode compartment, that utilizes a gas diffusion layer which is equivalent to a gas diffusion electrode (Supplementary Information, pg. 2, par. 2).
Xia does not disclose a cathode compartment comprising an elastic mesh, wherein the elastic mesh is formed and braided by a plurality of nickel wires, a wire diameter of the plurality of nickel wires is from 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm, a thickness of the elastic mesh is from 1 mm to 10 mm, and the elastic mesh is in direct contact with the gas diffusion electrode.
However, Cooper discloses a cathode current collector (housed within the equivalent of a cathode compartment) comprised of a grid, felt, screen, foam, mesh, or sintered frit (claim 21). This disclosure encompasses an elastic mesh that is formed and braided by a plurality of nickel wires, a wire diameter of the plurality of nickel wires is from 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm, and a thickness of the elastic mesh is from 1 mm to 10 mm that is claimed by the applicant. Cooper also discloses that the cathode current collector is positioned in contact with a gas while concurrently in contact with electrolyte (pg. 3, par. 33, lines 8-10) which is equivalent to being in direct contact with a gas diffusion electrode since a gas diffusion electrode creates an interface between gaseous reactants and electrolytes as taught by Ma (pg. 20903-20904, section 3.3 Gas diffusion layers, par. 1).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the mesh cathode taught by Cooper in direct contact with the gas diffusion electrode within the electrolytic cell taught in claim 1 by Xia, Ma, and Cooper. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do this to promote conductivity. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of using the mesh cathode taught by Cooper in direct contact with the gas diffusion layer taught by Ma within the electrolytic cell taught by Xia since electrolytic cells are modifiable and using a mesh cathode in contact with a gas diffusion layer involves a substitution of functional equivalents with a predictable outcome.
Regarding claim 7, Ma teaches a cathode compartment comprising a gas inlet and a liquid inlet, and the anode compartment further comprising a liquid inlet (Fig. 4C shown below). It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to incorporate the cathode compartment comprising a gas inlet and a liquid inlet, and the anode compartment further comprising a liquid inlet taught by Ma into the electrolytic cell taught in claim 1 by Xia, Ma, and Cooper. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do this to configure the electrolytic cell for performing the desired reactions. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success for using the cathode compartment taught by Ma in the electrolytic cell taught by Xia since electrolytic cells are modifiable and this involves a substitution with a predictable outcome.
PNG
media_image7.png
717
1197
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Cooper discloses a cell assembly, which teaches an anode compartment with an anode mesh (claim 21), that is tilted at an acute angle (<90 degrees) (claim 1). This is equivalent to the applicants claim of an anode compartment further comprising an inclined plate, and an angle between the inclined plate and the anode mesh is from 3 degrees to 10 degrees. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to angle the cell assembly taught by Xia, Ma, and Cooper in claim 1, or part of said cell assembly, at an acute angle as taught by Cooper. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do this to promote gravity-assisted flow. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success for using the angled cell assembly taught by Cooper in the electrolytic cell taught by Xia since electrolytic cells are modifiable and this involves a modification with a predictable outcome.
Regarding claim 9, Ma discloses a gas-liquid separation in the anode compartment (Fig 2a and Fig 3 shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
785
1192
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
504
595
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Ma does not disclose an inclined plate.
However, Cooper discloses a cell assembly that is substantially rectangular or planar and tilted at an acute angle (claim 1) which is equivalent to the inclined plate taught by the applicant.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the anode compartment gas-liquid separation taught by Ma into an opening above the inclined plate taught by Cooper to ease downstream processing. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do this to create separate streams for gases and liquids and ease downstream processing. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success for to combine the anode compartment separation taught by Ma with the inclined plate taught by Cooper into the electrolytic cell taught by Xia since electrolytic cells are modifiable and this would involve a modification with a predictable outcome.
Regarding claim 13, Ma discloses both a copper and silver catalyst layer (pg. 20911, par. 3 and 20905, par. 3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the copper or silver catalyst layer taught by Ma into the electrolytic cell of claim 3 taught by Xia. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do this to direct reaction selectivity towards desired products. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success for using the catalyst taught by Ma in the electrolytic cell taught by Xia since electrolytic cells are modifiable and using a copper or silver catalyst involves a substitution of functional equivalents with a predictable outcome.
Regarding claim 15, Cooper discloses a cathode current collector (equivalent to a cathode compartment) comprised of a grid, felt, screen, foam, mesh, or sintered frit (claim 21). It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the mesh cathode taught by Cooper into the electrolytic cell taught in claim 1 by Xia, Ma, and Cooper. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to promote conductivity. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success for using the cathode mesh taught by Cooper in the electrolytic cell taught by Xia since electrolytic cells are modifiable and using a cathode mesh involves a substitution of functional equivalents with a predictable outcome.
Claims 3, 5, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Xia, in view of Ma, and further in view of Cooper as evidenced by SGL Carbon (Powering up fuel cells).
Applicant’s amendment to claim 3 has been acknowledged:
“The electrolytic cell of claim 1, wherein the gas diffusion electrode comprises a catalyst layer, a hydrophilic layer, and a hydrophobic layer, wherein the hydrophilic layer is between the catalyst layer and the hydrophobic layer, and the catalyst layer is in direct contact with the flow channel element.”
Regarding claim 3, Xia discloses a Pt-C catalyst loaded on Sigracet BC (Supplementary Information, pg. 3, par. 2) which is equivalent to a gas diffusion electrode comprising a catalyst layer, a hydrophilic layer, and a hydrophobic layer, wherein the hydrophilic layer is between the catalyst layer and the hydrophobic layer as evidenced by the manufacturer of Sigracet, SGL Carbon’s “Powering up fuel cells” (pg. 3, Sketch of the bilayer structure of gas diffusion layers shown below and pg. 3, par. 1-4).
PNG
media_image8.png
782
975
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Xia discloses the electrolytic cell of claim 3, wherein Sigracet BC is used (Supplementary Information, page 3, par. 2) which is equivalent to a material where the hydrophilic layer is a carbon black layer, and the hydrophobic layer is a carbon fiber layer as evidenced by the manufacturer of Sigracet, SGL Carbon’s “Powering up fuel cells” (pg. 3, Sketch of the bilayer structure of gas diffusion layers shown below and pg. 3, par. 1-4). Xia also discloses that a catalyst is loaded onto the Sigracet BC (Supplementary Information, page 3, par. 2), which is equivalent to a gas diffusion layer comprising a catalyst layer as claimed.
PNG
media_image9.png
559
697
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s amendment to claim 12 is acknowledged:
“An electrolysis cell, comprising:
A cation exchange membrane;
A cathode compartment, comprising a flow channel element and a gas diffusion electrode, wherein the flow channel element is between the cation exchange membrane and the gas diffusion electrode, the flow channel element has a plurality of flow channels arranged in parallel with each other, the gas diffusion electrode comprises a catalyst layer, a hydrophilic layer, and a hydrophobic layer, wherein the hydrophilic layer is between the catalyst layer and the hydrophobic layer, and the catalyst layer is in direct contact with the flow channel element; and
an anode compartment, wherein the cation exchange membrane is between the anode compartment and the cathode compartment.”
Regarding claim 12, Xia discloses an electrolytic cell which teaches a cation exchange membrane; a cathode compartment, comprising a gas diffusion electrode and a flow channel element, wherein the flow channel element is between the cation exchange membrane and the gas diffusion electrode, and the flow channel element has a plurality of flow channels (Fig. 1B and Fig. S1F shown below). Xia also discloses a Pt-C catalyst loaded on Sigracet BC (Supplementary Information, pg. 3, par. 2) which is equivalent to a gas diffusion electrode comprising a catalyst layer, a hydrophilic layer, and a hydrophobic layer, wherein the hydrophilic layer is between the catalyst layer and the hydrophobic layer as evidenced by the manufacturer of Sigracet, SGL Carbon’s “Powering up fuel cells” (pg. 3, Sketch of the bilayer structure of gas diffusion layers shown below and pg. 3, par. 1-4). Furthermore, Xia discloses an anode compartment, which teaches a cation exchange membrane is between the anode compartment and the cathode compartment (Fig 1B).
PNG
media_image10.png
847
842
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
954
713
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
559
697
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Xia does not disclose a plurality of flow channels arranged in parallel with each other.
However, Ma discloses a plurality of flow channels arranged in parallel with each other for reducing pressure drop (Fig. 5a shown below and pg. 20902, par. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
847
975
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the single serpentine channel in the flow channel element taught by Xia (Fig. S1F) with a plurality of flow channels arranged in parallel with each other taught by Ma (Fig. 5a). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to use a plurality of parallel flow channels to yield the predictable result of reducing the pressure drop of the flow in the flow channel element. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success for combining the flow channel element taught by Xia with the parallel flow channels taught by Ma because electrolytic cells are modifiable and using these components involves a substitution of functional equivalents with a predictable outcome.
Xia does not teach a catalyst layer in direct contact with the flow channel element.
However, Cole teaches a catalytic layer, which is equivalent to a catalyst layer, that is in direct with a catholyte compartment (par. 32 and Fig. 4), which is equivalent to a flow channel element.
PNG
media_image12.png
686
855
media_image12.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the catalyst layer in direct contact with a flow channel element taught by Cole into the electrolytic cell taught by Xia. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate the catalyst layer in direct contact with a flow channel element taught by Cole into the electrolytic cell taught by Xia to achieve greater resource efficiency (see Cole, par. 5). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success for arriving at the claimed invention by using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way because:
Xia taught a “base” electrolytic cell device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
Cole taught a “comparable” electrolytic cell device that had been improved in the same way as the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” of the catalyst layer in direct contact with a flow channel element taught by Cole in the same way to the “base” electrolytic cell device taught by Xia and the result of greater resource efficiency (see Cole, par. 5) would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Xia discloses that Sigracet BC is used (Supplementary Information, page 3, par. 2) which is equivalent to a material where the hydrophilic layer is a carbon black layer, and the hydrophobic layer is a carbon fiber layer as evidenced by the manufacturer of Sigracet, SGL Carbon’s “Powering up fuel cells” (pg. 3, Sketch of the bilayer structure of gas diffusion layers shown below and pg. 3, par. 1-4).
PNG
media_image9.png
559
697
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Xia, in view of Ma, and further in view of Cooper as evidenced by Ridley (US 20100086829A1).
Regarding claim 11, Xia discloses electrolytic cells in stacks (pg. 231), which is equivalent to at least two electrolytic cells formed in series as evidenced by Ridley (U.S. Patent Application US20100086829A1, par. 2).
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 Bradie S. Crandall whose telephone number is (571)272-9778. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm 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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/B.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights