Detailed Action
This is a Final Office action based on application 18/384,737 filed on 27 October 2023. The application is a continuation of application 17/025,493, with priority to US provisional application 62/903,299 filed 20 September 2019.
Claims 9-11, 13, and 15-22 are pending and have been fully considered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Rejection
The §102 rejection of claim 9 over Bahar is withdrawn.
The §102 rejection of claim 15 over Bahar is maintained.
The §103 rejection of claim 9 over Hansen and Atanasov is maintained.
The §103 rejection of claim 15 over Hansen and Atanasov is withdrawn.
New grounds are presented to address amended claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Regarding claim 15, Bahar discloses a system comprising a steam electrolyzer (para [0117], figure 1, humidity control device 10 electrolyzes H2O molecules from steam channel 21 at anode 20 yielding O2 and gas and protons, then combines protons with O2 at cathode 40 to regenerate H2O molecules, which humidify the air stream exiting the device at 50. This device reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “steam electrolyzer” as claimed, because it is a device that electrolyzes water vapor) that includes an anode (figure 1 anode 20), a cathode (figure 1 cathode 40), and a polymer electrolyte located between the anode and the cathode (figure 1 electrolyte 30),
wherein the polymer electrolyte comprises a stable acid-doped quaternary ammonium functionalized polymer (para [0147]-[0148], the polymer electrolyte comprises a styrene-butadiene block copolymer backbone functionalized with quaternary ammonium hydroxide ion pair, i.e. an acid-doped quaternary ammonium polymer wherein the doping acid is water);
wherein the anode comprises iridium (claim 18, “the anode catalyst is selected from the group consisting of: iridium, iridium oxides ...”); and
a steam source fluidly coupled to the anode of the steam electrolyzer (figure 1, a water vapor source (unlabeled) introduces water vapor into chamber 21 via the inlet at the bottom).
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 9, 10, 13, 18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Hansen” (Hansen et al, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 37, 10992-11000 (2012)) in view of “Atanasov” (Atanasov et al, J. Power Sources, 343, 364-372 (2017)).
Regarding claim 9, Hansen teaches a system comprising a steam electrolyzer (pg 10992 abstract, “Steam electrolysis test with a phosphoric acid doped AquivionTM membrane was successfully conducted”; pg 10994 §2.5 para 1, “...in an in-house designed test cell”) that includes an anode (pg 10994 §2.3 para 1, “anodes ...”), a cathode (pg 10994, §2.3 para 2, “cathodes ...”), and a polymer electrolyte located between the anode and the cathode (pg 10994 §2.4, “Commercially available AquivionTM ... membranes ... doped in 85 wt% PA” (phosphoric acid); per pg 10993 left column para 4, “Aquivion” is the trade name of a perfluorinated sulfonic acid polymer electrolyte),
a steam source fluidly coupled to the anode of the steam electrolyzer (pg 10994 §2.5 para 3, “Water was fed ... through an evaporator”).
Hansen teaches that PEM electrolysis devices and PEM fuel cells alike operate more efficiently at temperatures above 100 °C (pg 10992 right column – pg 10993 left column para 2), and that operating temperature is limited by the ability of the proton exchange membrane to function at elevated temperatures (pg 10992 – 10993 §1). To this end Hansen selects, as the polymer electrolyte material for the steam electrolyzer, a polymer which was previously shown to be effective for high temperature operation of an H2 / O2 fuel cell (pg 10993 left column para 4).
However, Hansen’s polymer electrolyte is a perfluorosulfonic acid membrane doped with phosphoric acid (pg 10994 §2.4). Hansen does not teach wherein the polymer electrolyte includes phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrene).
Atanasov discloses a polymer electrolyte including phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrene) (pg 364 abstract, “In this paper we introduce polyelectrolyte membranes based on phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrene) (PPFS)”). Atanasov teaches, while that prior art polymer electrolyte membranes that are doped with phosphoric acid are effective at temperatures over 100°C, those prior art membranes are prone to the leaching away of phosphoric acid during operation, and that the performance stability of such membranes is improved by attaching the acid group to the polymer as a phosphonic acid group (pg 365 left column para 2). Atanasov teaches that their disclosed membrane material is stable to high temperatures (pg 367 left column para 3 – right column para 2), a good proton conductor at above 100 °C (pg 369 figure 3), and is effective as a PEM fuel cell electrolyte (pg 369-372 §3.3, “fuel cell performances ...”; pg 370 figure 6, pg 371 figure 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hansen’s PEM steam electrolysis system by selecting, as the polymer electrolyte material, the polyelectrolyte of Atanasov which comprises a fluorinated styrene monomer with a phosphonic acid group attached thereto, because Hansen’s disclosed system uses as its electrolyte a phosphoric-acid doped polymer, and Atanasov teaches that polymers like theirs, which attach the acid group to the polymer, improve upon a known shortcoming of phosphoric-acid-doped polymer membranes (pg 365 left column para 2). The simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., one ion-selective membrane for another) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (i.e., improved retention of acid groups when the membrane is put into service) [MPEP § 2143(B)]. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Regarding claim 10, Hansen in view of Atanasov renders the system of claim 9 obvious. Hansen further discloses that the anode comprises iridium (pg 10994 §2.3 para 1, “anodes ... consisted of IrO2 ... and ... ionomer binder”).
Regarding claim 13, Hansen and Atanasov render the system of claim 12 obvious and Atanasov further teaches the phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrene) comprises a polymer backbone (as illustrated in pg 368 figure 1) that includes
(i) a first styrene monomer that includes benzene functionalized with fluorine at all carbons except the carbon attached to the polymer backbone and the para-carbon, wherein the para-carbon is functionalized with phosphonic acid (pg 368 figure 1, the phosphonated monomer drawn on the left part of the depicted polymer chain), and
(ii) a second styrene monomer includes benzene functionalized with fluorine at all carbons except the carbon attached to the polymer backbone (pg 368 figure 1, the non-phosphonated monomer drawn on the right part of the depicted polymer chain; pg 372 §4 para 1, “we obtained partially phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrenes) with degree of phosphonation varying between 17 and 66%”).
Regarding claim 18, Hansen teaches a system comprising a steam electrolyzer (pg 10992 abstract, “Steam electrolysis test with a phosphoric acid doped AquivionTM membrane was successfully conducted”; pg 10994 §2.5 para 1, “...in an in-house designed test cell”) that includes an anode (pg 10994 §2.3 para 1, “anodes ...”), a cathode (pg 10994, §2.3 para 2, “cathodes ...”), and a polymer electrolyte located between the anode and the cathode (pg 10994 §2.4, “Commercially available AquivionTM ... membranes ... doped in 85 wt% PA” (phosphoric acid); per pg 10993 left column para 4, “Aquivion” is the trade name of a perfluorinated sulfonic acid polymer electrolyte),
a steam source fluidly coupled to the anode of the steam electrolyzer (pg 10994 §2.5 para 3, “Water was fed ... through an evaporator”).
However, Hansen’s polymer electrolyte is a perfluorosulfonic acid membrane doped with phosphoric acid (pg 10994 §2.4). Hansen does not teach wherein the polymer electrolyte comprises a phosphonic acid functionalized polymer.
Atanasov discloses a polymer electrolyte including a repeating plurality of fluorinated styrene monomers with phosphonic acid groups attached thereto (pg 364 abstract, “In this paper we introduce polyelectrolyte membranes based on phosphonated poly(pentafluorostyrene) (PPFS)”). Atanasov teaches, while that prior art polymer electrolyte membranes that are doped with phosphoric acid are effective at temperatures over 100°C, those prior art membranes are prone to the leaching away of phosphoric acid during operation, and that the performance stability of such membranes is improved by attaching the acid group to the polymer as a phosphonic acid group (pg 365 left column para 2). Atanasov teaches that their disclosed membrane material is stable to high temperatures (pg 367 left column para 3 – right column para 2), a good proton conductor at above 100 °C (pg 369 figure 3), and is effective as a PEM fuel cell electrolyte (pg 369-372 §3.3, “fuel cell performances ...”; pg 370 figure 6, pg 371 figure 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hansen’s PEM steam electrolysis system by selecting, as the polymer electrolyte material, the polyelectrolyte of Atanasov which comprises a fluorinated styrene monomer with a phosphonic acid group attached thereto, because Hansen’s disclosed system uses as its electrolyte a phosphoric-acid doped polymer, and Atanasov teaches that polymers like theirs, which attach the acid group to the polymer, improve upon a known shortcoming of phosphoric-acid-doped polymer membranes (pg 365 left column para 2). The simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., one ion-selective membrane for another) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (i.e., improved retention of acid groups when the membrane is put into service) [MPEP § 2143(B)]. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Regarding claim 20, Hansen and Atanasov render the system of claim 9 obvious and Hansen further teaches the cathode comprises Pt (pg 10994 §2.3 paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 22, Hansen and Atanasov render the system of claim 18 obvious and Hansen further teaches the cathode comprises Pt (pg 10994 §2.3 paragraph 2).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen and Atanasov as applied to claims 9 and 18 respectively, and further in view of “Jang” (US 2019/0161868 A1 to Jang et al).
Regarding claim 11, Hansen in view of Atanasov renders the system of claim 9 obvious. Hansen further discloses that the steam electrolyzer further comprises a steam channel for the steam feed (“flow plates” as described at pg 10993 §2.1, pg 10994 §2.5 para 1-3, pg 10994 figure 1, pg 10995 Table 1), and a porous metal mesh positioned between the anode and the steam channel (pg 10993 §2.1, “anode GDL was made from 316L stainless steel felt ... coated with tantalum; pg 10995-10996 §3.1, pg 10996 figure 2).
Hansen does not teach that the porous metal mesh is made of titanium.
Jang discloses an anode for use in a PEM water electrolysis device (para [0065], “layer of a polymer electrolyte membrane water electrolysis apparatus serving as both a diffusion layer and an oxygen electrode”), said anode comprising a titanium mesh with an iridium oxide coating (para [0065], “a porous titanium (Ti) layer; and an electrodeposited iridium oxide (IrO2) layer on the porous Ti layer”; para [0069], “the Ti layer may be a Ti layer in the form of mesh”). Jang teaches that the combination of a titanium mesh layer with iridium oxide OER catalyst coating is particularly suited for a PEM water electrolysis cell operating at temperatures above the boiling point of water, because of titanium’s durability and resistance to corrosion (para [0065]-[0066], [0090], [0115]-[0121]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in assembling the system of modified Hansen, to use, as the anode diffusion layer onto which the IrO2 anode catalyst is deposited, a titanium mesh as taught in Jang, because Hansen is directed to polymer electrolyte membrane electrolysis of water vapor at a temperature of about 130 °C (Hansen at pg 10994 §2.5 para 3), and Jang teaches that a titanium anode mesh coated with IrO2 anode electrocatalyst is suitable for PEM water electrolysis at such elevated temperatures by virtue of titanium’s durability and corrosion resistance under these conditions (Jang at para [0065]-[0066]). The simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., a titanium mesh anode GDL of Jang in place of the tantalum-coated steel felt of Hansen) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (i.e., durability of the GDL mesh toward the reaction conditions employed in the base reference) [MPEP § 2143(B)]. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Regarding claim 19, Hansen in view of Atanasov renders obvious the system of claim 18.
Hansen further discloses that the steam electrolyzer comprises a steam channel for the steam feed (“flow plates” as described at pg 10993 §2.1, pg 10994 §2.5 para 1-3, pg 10994 figure 1, pg 10995 Table 1), and a porous metal mesh positioned between the anode and the steam channel (pg 10993 §2.1, “anode GDL was made from 316L stainless steel felt ... coated with tantalum; pg 10995-10996 §3.1, pg 10996 figure 2).
Hansen does not teach that the porous metal mesh is made of titanium.
Jang discloses an anode for use in a PEM water electrolysis device (para [0065], “layer of a polymer electrolyte membrane water electrolysis apparatus serving as both a diffusion layer and an oxygen electrode”), said anode comprising a titanium mesh with an iridium oxide coating (para [0065], “a porous titanium (Ti) layer; and an electrodeposited iridium oxide (IrO2) layer on the porous Ti layer”; para [0069], “the Ti layer may be a Ti layer in the form of mesh”). Jang teaches that the combination of a titanium mesh layer with iridium oxide OER catalyst coating is particularly suited for a PEM water electrolysis cell operating at temperatures above the boiling point of water, because of titanium’s durability and resistance to corrosion (para [0065]-[0066], [0090], [0115]-[0121]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in assembling the system of modified Hansen, to use, as the anode diffusion layer onto which the IrO2 anode catalyst is deposited, a titanium mesh as taught in Jang, because Hansen is directed to polymer electrolyte membrane electrolysis of water vapor at a temperature of about 130 °C (Hansen at pg 10994 §2.5 para 3), and Jang teaches that a titanium anode mesh coated with IrO2 anode electrocatalyst is suitable for PEM water electrolysis at such elevated temperatures by virtue of titanium’s durability and corrosion resistance under these conditions (Jang at para [0065]-[0066]). The simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., a titanium mesh anode GDL of Jang in place of the tantalum-coated steel felt of Hansen) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (i.e., durability of the GDL mesh toward the reaction conditions employed in the base reference) [MPEP § 2143(B)]. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Claims 15, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of “Lee” (Lee et al, Nature Energy, 1, 16120, pg 1-7 and accompanying Supplemental Information (2016)).
Regarding claim 15, Hansen teaches a system comprising a steam electrolyzer (pg 10992 abstract, “Steam electrolysis test with a phosphoric acid doped AquivionTM membrane was successfully conducted”; pg 10994 §2.5 para 1, “...in an in-house designed test cell”) that includes an anode (pg 10994 §2.3 para 1, “anodes ...”), a cathode (pg 10994, §2.3 para 2, “cathodes ...”), and a stable acid-doped polymer electrolyte located between the anode and the cathode (pg 10994 §2.4, “Commercially available AquivionTM ... membranes ... doped in 85 wt% PA” (phosphoric acid); per pg 10993 left column para 4, “Aquivion” is the trade name of a perfluorinated sulfonic acid polymer electrolyte), wherein the anode comprises iridium (pg 10994 §2.3 para 1, “anodes ... consisted of IrO2 ... and ... ionomer binder”); and
a steam source fluidly coupled to the anode of the steam electrolyzer (pg 10994 §2.5 para 3, “Water was fed ... through an evaporator”).
Hansen teaches that PEM electrolysis devices and PEM fuel cells alike operate more efficiently at temperatures above 100 °C (pg 10992 right column – pg 10993 left column para 2), and that operating temperature is limited by the ability of the proton exchange membrane to function at elevated temperatures (pg 10992 – 10993 §1). To this end Hansen selects, as the polymer electrolyte material for the steam electrolyzer, a polymer which was previously shown to be effective for high temperature operation of an H2 / O2 fuel cell (pg 10993 left column para 4).
However, Hansen does not teach wherein the acid-doped polymer electrolyte comprises a quaternary ammonium functionalized polymer.
Lee discloses PEM fuel cell (pg 1 abstract) comprising an anode, a cathode, and a polymer electrolyte located between the anode and cathode (pg 4 right column para 2, “Membrane electrode assemblies (MEAs) using PA-doped QAPOH membranes were prepared”; pg 6 left column para 6, “MEAs were prepared ... Gas diffusion electrodes (GDEs) were prepared by painting catalyst inks onto GDLs ... GDEs were sandwiched with a PA-doped QAPOH PEM”), wherein the polymer electrolyte comprises a stable acid-doped quaternary ammonium functionalized polymer PEM polymer electrolyte comprising a polyaromatic ammonium polymer doped with phosphoric acid (pg 1 left column para 2-3, “phosphoric acid (PA)-doped ... quaternary ammonium (QA)-biphosphate ion-pair-coordinated polyphenylene (PA-doped QAPOH) PEMs”. Supplementary Information at pg 2 figure 1 provides a chemical structure drawing of Lee’s PA-doped QAPOH polymer, showing more clearly the position of the polyaromatic units, the ammonium units, and the phosphoric acid dopants). Lee further teaches their polymer electrolyte is configured to operate at temperatures above 100°C (pg 2 figure 1c; pg 5 left column para 3, “the excellent thermal and mechanical properties of the ion-pair-coordinated PEMs ... enable fuel cell operation at temperatures up to 180°C”), that it retains its acid dopant effectively (pg 3 figure 2), and that it has has good thermal and mechanical stability (pg 5 left column para 2-3, “120°C ... for 500 h ... no performance degradation due to PA loss or PEM degradation ... excellent thermal and mechanical properties”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hansen’s PEMSE by substituting, in place of Hansen’s polymer electrolyte, the stable acid-coped quaternary-ammonium-functionalized polymer electrolyte of Lee, based on Hansen’s teaching that a suitable PEM electrolyte is one which is stable and retains its conductivity at temperatures above the boiling point of water (pg 10992 – 10993 §1), and Lee’s teaching that their polymer electrolyte has the properties that Hansen’s application desires (pg 2 figure 1c; pg 3 figure 2; pg 5 left column para 2-3, “120°C ... for 500 h ... no performance degradation due to PA loss or PEM degradation ... excellent thermal and mechanical properties”). The simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., one ion-selective membrane for another) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (i.e., effective PEM performance under similar operating conditions) [MPEP § 2143(B)]. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Regarding claim 17, Hansen in view of Lee renders obvious the system of claim 15, and Lee teaches the acid in the stable acid-doped quaternary ammonium functionalized polymer is phosphoric acid (pg 1 left column para 2-3, “phosphoric acid (PA)-doped ... quaternary ammonium (QA)-biphosphate ion-pair-coordinated polyphenylene (PA-doped QAPOH) PEMs”. Supplementary Information at pg 2 figure 1 provides a chemical structure drawing of Lee’s PA-doped QAPOH polymer, showing more clearly the position of the polyaromatic units, the ammonium units, and the phosphoric acid dopants).
Regarding claim 21, Hansen and Lee render the system of claim 18 obvious and Hansen further teaches the cathode comprises Pt (pg 10994 §2.3 paragraph 2).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen and Lee as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Jang.
Regarding claim 16, Hansen in view of Lee renders obvious the system of claim 15. Hansen further discloses that the steam electrolyzer comprises a steam channel for the steam feed (“flow plates” as described at pg 10993 §2.1, pg 10994 §2.5 para 1-3, pg 10994 figure 1, pg 10995 Table 1), and a porous metal mesh positioned between the anode and the steam channel (pg 10993 §2.1, “anode GDL was made from 316L stainless steel felt ... coated with tantalum; pg 10995-10996 §3.1, pg 10996 figure 2).
Hansen does not teach that the porous metal mesh is made of titanium.
Jang discloses an anode for use in a PEM water electrolysis device (para [0065], “layer of a polymer electrolyte membrane water electrolysis apparatus serving as both a diffusion layer and an oxygen electrode”), said anode comprising a titanium mesh with an iridium oxide coating (para [0065], “a porous titanium (Ti) layer; and an electrodeposited iridium oxide (IrO2) layer on the porous Ti layer”; para [0069], “the Ti layer may be a Ti layer in the form of mesh”). Jang teaches that the combination of a titanium mesh layer with iridium oxide OER catalyst coating is particularly suited for a PEM water electrolysis cell operating at temperatures above the boiling point of water, because of titanium’s durability and resistance to corrosion (para [0065]-[0066], [0090], [0115]-[0121]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in assembling the system of modified Hansen, to use, as the anode diffusion layer onto which the IrO2 anode catalyst is deposited, a titanium mesh as taught in Jang, because Hansen is directed to polymer electrolyte membrane electrolysis of water vapor at a temperature of about 130 °C (Hansen at pg 10994 §2.5 para 3), and Jang teaches that a titanium anode mesh coated with IrO2 anode electrocatalyst is suitable for PEM water electrolysis at such elevated temperatures by virtue of titanium’s durability and corrosion resistance under these conditions (Jang at para [0065]-[0066]). The simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., a titanium mesh anode GDL of Jang in place of the tantalum-coated steel felt of Hansen) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (i.e., durability of the GDL mesh toward the reaction conditions employed in the base reference) [MPEP § 2143(B)]. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the §102 rejection over Bahar
Applicant argues that claim 15 is distinguished from the Bahar reference by the feature wherein the claimed quaternary ammonium-functionalized polymer is acid-doped.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Examiner is mandated (MPEP 2111) to adopt the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word “acid” where it appears in the claim. Bahar’s quaternary ammonium group is ion paired with a hydroxide counterion; that is, it is as an acid doped polymer wherein the proton-donating acid is water. Since the claim language merely recites acid, without limiting the scope to strong acids or otherwise limiting it in a way that excludes water from being considered as the acid, Bahar reads on claim 15.
With respect to the §103 rejection over Hansen and Atanasov
Applicant argues that Atanasov’s disclosure of phosphonated pentafluorostyrene as a PEM material in the context of a fuel cell cannot be relied upon to suggest the use of that material in the context of Hansen’s steam electrolyzer. Applicant notes that electrolyzers typically rely on different electrode materials, and operate at different cell voltages, compared to fuel cells. Applicant argues that in view of these differences, there would not be a reasonable expectation of success when substituting Atanasov’s fuel cell electrolyte material into Hansen’s electrolyzer.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The properties that Atanasov’s electrolyte material offers (stability and good proton conductivity at temperatures >100°C) are properties that Hansen specifically says are important for a steam electrolyzer PEM to have (Hansen at pg 10992 – 10993 §1). The Hansen reference also directly states that the polymer electrolyte material they used in their electrolyzer was chosen based on that material’s demonstrated effective performance in a fuel cell (Hansen at pg 10993 left column para 4). Therefore there is at least a reasonable expectation that Atanasov’s electrolyte material would be an effective electrolyte in Hansen’s device.
These grounds of rejections are therefore maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds 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 Andrew R Koltonow whose telephone number is (571)272-7713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 6:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan V Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW KOLTONOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
