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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application No. 63/438,882, filed on 01/13/2023, under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 06/28/2024 and 09/10/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 01/16/2024 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0002], line 1, “visa-versa” should read “vice versa”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20210043955 A1; hereinafter “Johnson”), in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20130177833 A1; hereinafter “Yamamoto”), and in further view of Uensal et al. (US 20050181254 A1; hereinafter “Uensal”).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a method for bonding together two or more acid-doped polybenzimidazole films [Abstract], the method comprising:
attaching first substrates to a surface of a first acid-doped polybenzimidazole film to form a first film/substrate assembly (the first acid-doped PBI membrane is placed on a first substrate to form a first membrane/substrate assembly [0031]), herein a portion of the first acid-doped polybenzimidazole film is uncovered by the first substrates (an exposed surface of each softened first and second acid-doped PBI membrane; [0035]), and attaching a second substrate to a surface of a second acid-doped polybenzimidazole film to form a second film/substrate assembly (the second acid-doped PBI membrane is placed on a second substrate 16 to form a second membrane/substrate assembly; [0031]), wherein a portion of the second acid-doped polybenzimidazole film is uncovered by the second substrates (an exposed surface of each softened first and second acid-doped PBI membrane; [0035]);
submerging at least the uncovered portions of the first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole films in a solvent (the first and second acid-doped PBI membranes of each assembly are re-hydrolyzed. For example, each of the first and second membrane/substrate assemblies may be placed in either an acid bath or a deionized water bath; [0036]);
coating on at least one section of each of the uncovered portions of the first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole films (a coating of a polymer solvent is applied to an exposed surface of each softened first and second acid-doped PBI membrane which is to be bonded to another material or membrane surface; [0035]);
positioning the second film/substrate assembly atop the first film/substrate assembly (the second membrane/substrate assembly is positioned atop the first membrane/substrate assembly; [0035]) and bringing the spray coated sections of the uncovered portions of the first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole films into contact with each other (such that the first acid-doped PBI film (and more particularly the surface of the first membrane to which the polyphosphoric acid has been applied) is in contact with the second acid-doped PBI film (and more particularly the surface of the second membrane 12 to which the polyphosphoric acid has been applied); [0035]);
and applying at least one of pressure or heat to the contacted sections of the uncovered portions of the first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole films (pressure is applied to the first and second membrane/substrate assemblies when they are positioned atop one another (e.g., by a weight 22 placed atop the second membrane/substrate assembly), in order to ensure full contact of the first and second acid-doped PBI membranes; [0035]).
Johnson fails to disclose attaching a pair of first substrates and second substrates to opposing surfaces of a first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole film to form a first and second film/substrate assembly, respectively; spraying a fluoroelastomer coating on at least one section of each of the uncovered portions of the first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole films; and that the submersion in a solvent is to remove acid from at least the uncovered portions of the first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole films.
Yamamoto teaches, directed to polymer electrolyte membranes [0069], that these include polyazoles [0071] , and the polyazoles include polybenzimidazoles [0105]. Further, Yamamoto teaches that the formation of the gasket can be performed by the spray-application of thermoplastic elastomers or cross-linkable rubbers or the application [0272]; wherein the gasket is generated directly on the circumferential edge of the gas diffusion layer towards the bipolar plate [0272]. The elastomers include fluoropolymers, preferably poly(tetrafluoroethylene-co-hexafluoropropylene) FEP, polyvinylidene fluoride PVDF, perfluoroalkoxy polymer PFA and poly(tetrafluoroethylene-co-perfluoro(methylvinyl ether) MFA [0275].
Yamamoto further teaches a membrane electrode assembly comprising [0019] at least two electrochemically active electrodes [0020], wherein said electrodes being separated by at least one polymer electrolyte membrane or electrolyte matrices [0021]. The disclosed limitation reads on the claimed pair of substrates attached to opposing surfaces of the acid-doped polybenzimidazole film.
Johnson and Yamamoto are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cells.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Johnson to include spraying a fluoroelastomer coating on at least one section of each of the uncovered portions of the first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole films; and attaching a pair of first substrates and second substrates to opposing surfaces of a first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole film to form a first and second film/substrate assembly, respectively, as taught by Yamamoto, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would provide a sufficient mechanical stability and/or integrity such that in a subsequent compression step, for example, the gas diffusion layer and/or the membrane/electrolyte matrix will not be damaged [0271], as suggested by Yamamoto.
Uensal discloses that the polymer is treated in a known manner with acid, with excess acid being removed by washing. The sulphonated polymer is firstly treated for 2 hours in boiling water [0148].
Johnson and Uensal are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely electrolyte membranes.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to submerge the assemblies in a solvent to remove acid from at least the uncovered portions of the first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole films, as taught by Uensal, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would remove the excess acid [0148].
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Johnson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Johnson further discloses that the solvent is deionized water (each of the first and second membrane/substrate assemblies may be placed in either an acid bath or a deionized water bath 24 in order to allow them to re-hydrolyze, and more particularly to allow the first and second acid-doped PBI membranes 10, 12 to re-hydrolyze; [0036]) and that the deionized water is at room temperature and the submerging step is performed (the acid bath or deionized water bath 24 is preferably maintained at a temperature in the range from room temperature to a temperature below the boiling point of the acid or deionized water; [0036]).
Johnson fails to disclose that the submersion is performed for at least forty seconds.
Uensal discloses that the polymer is treated in a known manner with acid, with excess acid being removed by washing. The sulphonated polymer is firstly treated for 2 hours in boiling water [0148].
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Johnson to include that the submerging step is performed for at least about forty seconds, as taught by Uensal, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would remove the excess acid [0148].
Regarding claim 4, Johnson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Johnson further discloses that pressure is applied to the first and second membrane/substrate assemblies when they are positioned atop one another (e.g., by a weight placed atop the second membrane/substrate assembly) [0035].
However, Johnson does not disclose applying pressure to the contacted sections for a period of about 24-48 hours. As the amount of time of pressure application is a variable that can be modified by adjusting said amount of time, the precise amount of time of pressure application would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of time for applying pressure, and the motivation to do so would have been to ensure full contact of the first and second acid-doped PBI membranes [0035], since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Johnson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Johnson further discloses that after the attaching step but before the submerging step, heating the first and second film/substrate assemblies at a temperature of approximately 220 °C [0033], for approximately 5 to 15 minutes [0034].
However, Johnson does not disclose heating the first and second film/substrate assemblies at a temperature of about 180 C for about forty-five minutes. As the time and temperature are variables that can be modified by adjusting said amounts of heat and length of heating the first and second substrate assemblies, the precise temperature and time would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, the variables of time and temperature, and the motivation to do so would have been to effectively soften the acid-doped PBI membranes [0034] to facilitate bonding, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Johnson discloses a method [Abstract] of preparing a first film/substrate assembly for bonding to another film/substrate assembly (to carry out the bonding method, first and second acid-doped PBI films or membranes are formed; [0030]), the method comprising:
attaching substrates to a surface of a first acid-doped polybenzimidazole film to form a first film/substrate assembly (the first acid-doped PBI membrane is placed on a first substrate to form a first membrane/substrate assembly; [0031]), wherein a portion of the first acid-doped polybenzimidazole film is uncovered by the first substrates (an exposed surface of each softened first and second acid-doped PBI membrane; [0035]);
submerging at least the uncovered portions of the first acid-doped polybenzimidazole film in a solvent (the first and second acid-doped PBI membranes of each assembly are re-hydrolyzed. For example, each of the first and second membrane/substrate assemblies may be placed in either an acid bath or a deionized water bath; [0036]); and
coating on at least one section of each of the uncovered portions of the first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole films (a coating of a polymer solvent is applied to an exposed surface of each softened first and second acid-doped PBI membrane which is to be bonded to another material or membrane surface; [0035]);
Johnson fails to disclose attaching a pair of substrates to opposing surfaces of a first acid-doped polybenzimidazole film to form a first film/substrate assembly; spraying a fluoroelastomer coating on at least one section of each of the uncovered portions of the first acid-doped polybenzimidazole film; and that the submersion in a solvent is to remove acid from at least the uncovered portions of the first acid-doped polybenzimidazole film.
Yamamoto teaches, directed to polymer electrolyte membranes [0069], that these include polyazoles [0071] , and the polyazoles include polybenzimidazoles[0105]. Further, Yamamoto teaches that the formation of the gasket can be performed by the spray-application of thermoplastic elastomers or cross-linkable rubbers or the application [0272]; wherein the gasket is generated directly on the circumferential edge of the gas diffusion layer towards the bipolar plate [0272]. The elastomers include fluoropolymers, preferably poly(tetrafluoroethylene-co-hexafluoropropylene) FEP, polyvinylidene fluoride PVDF, perfluoroalkoxy polymer PFA and poly(tetrafluoroethylene-co-perfluoro(methylvinyl ether) MFA [0275].
Yamamoto further teaches a membrane electrode assembly comprising [0019] at least two electrochemically active electrodes [0020], wherein said electrodes being separated by at least one polymer electrolyte membrane or electrolyte matrices [0021]. The disclosed limitation reads on the claimed pair of substrates attached to opposing surfaces of the acid-doped polybenzimidazole film.
Johnson and Yamamoto are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cells.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Johnson to include spraying a fluoroelastomer coating on at least one section of each of the uncovered portions of the first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole films; and attaching a pair of first substrates and second substrates to opposing surfaces of a first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole film to form a first and second film/substrate assembly, respectively, as taught by Yamamoto, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would provide a sufficient mechanical stability and/or integrity such that in a subsequent compression step, for example, the gas diffusion layer and/or the membrane/electrolyte matrix will not be damaged [0271], as suggested by Yamamoto.
Uensal discloses that the polymer is treated in a known manner with acid, with excess acid being removed by washing. The sulphonated polymer is firstly treated for 2 hours in boiling water [0148].
Johnson and Uensal are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely electrolyte membranes.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to submerge the assemblies in a solvent to remove acid from at least the uncovered portions of the first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole films, as taught by Uensal, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would remove the excess acid [0148].
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Johnson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Johnson further discloses that the solvent is deionized water (each of the first and second membrane/substrate assemblies may be placed in either an acid bath or a deionized water bath 24 in order to allow them to re-hydrolyze, and more particularly to allow the first and second acid-doped PBI membranes 10, 12 to re-hydrolyze; [0036]) and that the deionized water is at room temperature and the submerging step is performed (the acid bath or deionized water bath 24 is preferably maintained at a temperature in the range from room temperature to a temperature below the boiling point of the acid or deionized water; [0036]).
Johnson fails to disclose that the submersion is performed for at least forty seconds.
Uensal discloses that the polymer is treated in a known manner with acid, with excess acid being removed by washing. The sulphonated polymer is firstly treated for 2 hours in boiling water [0148].
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Johnson to include that the submerging step is performed for at least about forty seconds, as taught by Uensal, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would remove the excess acid [0148].
Regarding claim 12, Johnson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Johnson further discloses that after the attaching step but before the submerging step, heating the first and second film/substrate assemblies at a temperature of approximately 220 °C [0033], for approximately 5 to 15 minutes [0034].
However, Johnson does not disclose heating the first and second film/substrate assemblies at a temperature of about 180 °C for about forty-five minutes. As the time and temperature are variables that can be modified by adjusting said amounts of heat and length of heating the first and second substrate assemblies, the precise temperature and time would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, the variables of time and temperature, and the motivation to do so would have been to effectively soften the acid-doped PBI membranes [0034] to facilitate bonding, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20210043955 A1; hereinafter “Johnson”), in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20130177833 A1; hereinafter “Yamamoto”) and Uensal et al. (US 20050181254 A1; hereinafter “Uensal”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Haque et al. (“Acid doped polybenzimidazoles based membrane electrode assembly for high temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cell: A review;” hereinafter “Haque”).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Johnson further discloses that each membrane/substrate assembly is placed on a hot plate and heated to the predetermined temperature. In one embodiment, the predetermined duration of heating is approximately 5 to 15 minutes, and more preferably approximately 10 minutes of heating [0034].
Johnson fails to disclose that the step of applying at least one of pressure or heat includes applying a hot press at a temperature of about 60 C for about three minutes.
Haque teaches a doped PBI membrane assembled between two GDEs by hot pressing at 60 kgcm-2 force for 7 min under 150 °C [Page 9165, table 5]. The temperature of under 150 °C
Johnson and Haque are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely membrane electrode assemblies.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Johnson to include that the step of applying at least one of pressure or heat includes applying a hot press at a temperature of about 60 °C for about three minutes, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would result in more adhesion between GDL and membrane, and reduction of interfacial resistance [page 9165], as suggested by Haque, and would thus find it obvious to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (7 minutes and under 150 °C overlap about three minutes and about 60 °C) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim(s) 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20210043955 A1; hereinafter “Johnson”), in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20130177833 A1; hereinafter “Yamamoto”) and Uensal et al. (US 20050181254 A1; hereinafter “Uensal”), as applied to claims 1 and 8 respectively above, and in further view of Suzuki et al. (US 20220293989 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Johnson fails to disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising, after the spraying step, drying the first and second film/substrate assemblies in a drying oven.
Suzuki teaches, that a treated microporous polymer structure is placed into an oven to dry and finalize construction of a composite membrane [0082], after a coating step [0083].
Johnson and Suzuki are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely membranes.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Johnson to include drying the first and second film/substrate assemblies in a drying oven after the spraying step, as taught by Suzuki, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would cause the ion exchange material to become securely adhered to the internal membrane surfaces, and optionally the external membrane surfaces [0082], as suggested by Suzuki.
Regarding claim 13, Johnson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Johnson fails to disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising, after the spraying step, drying the first and second film/substrate assemblies in a drying oven.
Suzuki teaches, that a treated microporous polymer structure is placed into an oven to dry and finalize construction of a composite membrane [0082], after a coating step [0083].
Johnson and Suzuki are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely membranes.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Johnson to include drying the first and second film/substrate assemblies in a drying oven after the spraying step, as taught by Suzuki, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would cause the ion exchange material to become securely adhered to the internal membrane surfaces, and optionally the external membrane surfaces [0082], as suggested by Suzuki.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The present invention is related to, inter alia, a method of bonding two or more acid-doped polybenzimidazole films, further comprising;
(claim 8) after the submerging step, placing the first and second film/substrate assemblies on vacuum plates and imprinting first and second meshes respectively to the uncovered portions of the first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole films.
And to a method of preparing a first film/substrate assembly for bonding to another film/substrate assembly, further comprising;
(claim 14) after the submerging step, placing the first and second film/substrate assemblies on vacuum plates and imprinting first and second meshes respectively to the uncovered portions of the first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole films.
Johnson is considered the closest relevant prior art to dependent claims 8 and 14. Johnson discloses a method for bonding together two or more acid-doped polybenzimidazole films [Abstract]. To enable the method, a material must be utilized which interacts with the acid-doped PBI membranes to serve as an intermediary to hold the membranes together, or which temporarily disrupts the polymer bonds to allow the membranes to interact with each other [0029].
However, Johnson does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the recited imprinting first and second meshes respectively to the uncovered portions of the first and second acid doped polybenzimidazole films. To the contrary, Johnson explicitly discloses that the method disrupts the bonds between two acid-doped PBI membranes and subsequently reconstitutes these bonds using a material as intermediary to hold the membranes. Accordingly, there does not appear to be reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to abandon the method of Johnson and be directed towards the recited assemblies being placed on vacuum plates and imprinting first and second meshes respectively to the uncovered portions of the first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole films, because such would defeat the purpose of coating the exposed surfaces with a polymer solvent in order to be bonded to another material or membrane surface [0035], as suggested by Johnson.
Kim et al. (KR 20080008590 A; hereinafter “Kim”, see attached machine translation for reference) is considered close relevant prior art to dependent claims 8 and 14.
Kim discloses a method of preparing a membrane-electrode assembly for a fuel cell [Title], wherein a Nafion 115 (perfluorosulfonic acid) polymer electrolyte membrane was placed on a mesh-type vacuum plate connected to a vacuum pump and having a hot wire formed therein [page 27].
However, Kim does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the recited imprinting of the first and second meshes respectively to the uncovered portions of the first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole films. To the contrary, Kim explicitly discloses that a uniform reaction occurred throughout the entire catalyst layer since the catalyst layer was formed uniformly without any irregularities when the vacuuming step was included. Accordingly, there does not appear to be reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to abandon the method of Kim and be directed towards imprinting first and second meshes respectively to the recited uncovered portions of the first and second acid-doped polybenzimidazole films, because such would defeat the purpose of using a vacuum step in order to improve the performance of the membrane electrode assembly [page 30], as suggested by Kim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gubler et al. (EP 4016680 A1) discloses a composite electrolyte membrane and a method to fabricate it. The composite electrolyte membrane is meant to be used in an electrochemical energy storage or conversion device [abstract].
Yeh et al. (US 2020/0185731) discloses a manufacturing process to form a membrane electrode assembly by hot pressing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA N LIZARAZU whose telephone number is (571)272-9697. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-6:00pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 5712703879. 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.
/J.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights