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 .
This is in response to the Amendment dated June 18, 2026. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims 1-5 (method) and 14-20 (apparatus) drawn to an invention nonelected without traverse in the reply filed on November 4, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 7 and 9-11 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The rejection of claims 7 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
I. Claim(s) 6, 8 and 12 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0056596 A1) [Li-1] in view of van Bavel et al. (“Integrating CO2 Electrolysis into the Gas-to-Liquids-Power-to-Liquids Process,” ACS Energy
Letters (2020 Jul 24), Vol. 5, No. 8, pp. 2597-2601).
The rejection of claims 6, 8 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. [Li-1] in view of van Bavel et al. has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
II. Claim(s) 7 and 9-11 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0056596 A1) [Li-1] in view of van Bavel et al. (“Integrating CO2 Electrolysis into the Gas-to-Liquids-Power-to-Liquids Process,” ACS Energy Letters (2020 Jul 24), Vol. 5, No. 8, pp. 2597-2601) as applied to claims 6, 8 and 12 above, and further in view of Li et al. (“Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy Efficiency, and Cost of Synthetic Fuel Production Using Electrochemical CO2 Conversion and the Fischer-Tropsch Process,” Energy & Fuels (2016 Jul 21), Vol. 30, No. 7, pp. 5980-5989) [Li-2].
The rejection of claims 7 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. [Li-1] in view of van Bavel et al. as applied to claims 6, 8 and 12 above, and further in view of Li et al. [Li-2] has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
III. Claim(s) 13 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0056596 A1) [Li-1] in view of van Bavel et al. (“Integrating CO2 Electrolysis into the Gas-to-Liquids-Power-to-Liquids Process,” ACS Energy
Letters (2020 Jul 24), Vol. 5, No. 8, pp. 2597-2601) as applied to claims 6, 8 and 12 above, and further in view of Kashi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0381116 A1).
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. [Li-1] in view of van Bavel et al. as applied to claims 6, 8 and 12 above, and further in view of Kashi et al. has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Continued Response
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
I. Claim(s) 6, 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0056596 A1) [Li-1] in view of Eastman et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0283411 A1) and van Bavel et al. (“Integrating CO2 Electrolysis into the Gas-to-Liquids-Power-to-Liquids Process,” ACS Energy Letters (2020 Jul 24), Vol. 5, No. 8, pp. 2597-2601).
Regarding claim 6, Li-1 teaches a method for producing liquid hydrocarbons from carbon dioxide (CO2),1 the method comprising:
• providing a CO2 electrolyzer (= at least one electrochemical apparatus 276) [page 11, [0098]], the CO2 electrolyzer comprising an anode (= a positive electrode 280 (e.g., anode)) [page 11, [0098]], a cathode (= a negative electrode 284 (e.g., cathode)) [page 11, [0098]], and a membrane (= the electrolyte 264) [page 10, [0092]) disposed between and conductively
connecting the anode and the cathode (= an electrolyte 282 between the positive electrode
280 and the negative electrode 284) [page 11, [0098]];
• feeding hydrogen (H2) to the anode of the CO2 electrolyzer to undergo hydrogen
oxidation reaction at the anode (= the H2 stream 292 (e.g., a gaseous H2 stream) from the H2 source 272 into the electrochemical apparatus 276 to interact with the positive electrode 280 of the electrochemical cell 278) [page 11, [0099]]; and
• feeding CO2 to the cathode of the CO2 electrolyzer to undergo a reduction reaction, thereby producing carbon monoxide (CO) [= the formation of CO in the carbon dioxide
hydrogenation system (page 4, [0059]); and page 8, [0079]:
PNG
media_image1.png
56
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
] at the cathode (= at the negative electrode 284, the generated H+ exiting the electrolyte 282 reacts with CO2 delivered into the electrochemical apparatus 276 from the CO2 stream 296
directed from the CO2 source 274) [page 11, [0099]];
The method of Li-1 differs from the instant invention because Li-1 does not disclose the following:
a. Wherein the CO2 electrolyzer is operated at a temperature of less than 100 °C.
Li-1 teaches that:
The CO2 stream 296 entering the electrochemical apparatus 276 may be formed of and include CO2. The CO2 may be present in the CO2 stream 296 in one or more of gaseous phase and a liquid phase. The phase(s) of the CO2 (and, hence, a temperature and a pressure of the CO2 stream 296) may at least partially depend on the operating temperature of the electrochemical cell 278 of the electrochemical apparatus 276. For example, at operating temperatures less than or equal to about 250° C. (e.g., within a range of from about 150° C. to about 250° C.), the CO2 may be present in the CO2 stream 296 in a liquid phase (e.g., CO2 dissolved in an ionic liquid), a gaseous phase, or combination thereof. As another example, at operating temperatures greater than about 250° C. (e.g., greater than about 250° C. and less than or equal to about 650°), the CO2
may be present in the CO2 stream 296 in a gaseous phase. The CO stream 296 may only include CO2, or may include CO2 and one or more other materials (e.g., inert materials, materials to be reacted with CO2 hydrogenation products to form desired products, etc.). In some embodiments, the CO2 stream 296 is substantially free of materials other than CO2. One or more apparatuses (e.g., heat exchangers, pumps, compressors, expanders, mass flow control devices, etc.) may be employed within the CO2 hydrogenation system 270 to adjust one or more of the temperature, pressure, and flow rate of the CO2 stream 296 delivered into the electrochemical apparatus 276 (page 12, [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the CO2 electrolyzer described by Li-1 with wherein the CO2 electrolyzer is operated at a temperature of less than 100 °C. because Li-1 teaches that the operating temperature of the electrochemical cell of the electrochemical apparatus includes operating temperatures less than or equal to about 250° C. in [0106].
MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Eastman teaches suitable protonic conductors as electrolytes for low temperature (e.g., about 80o C. to about 300o C.) operation of an electro-hydrocarbon device (pages 8-9, [0179] to 0227]) for the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide (page 2, [0012]).
b. Reacting at least a portion of the CO produced by the CO2 electrolyzer in one or more downstream systems to produce a chemical product.
Li-1 teaches producing CO by the CO2 electrolyzer (= the formation of CO in the carbon dioxide hydrogenation system (page 4, [0059]); and page 8, [0079]:
PNG
media_image1.png
56
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
van Bavel teaches that:
The current GTL process consists of the following steps: (1) converting natural gas into synthesis gas, i.e., mixture of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2); (2) Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, i.e., conversion of synthesis gas into highly paraffinic wax; and (3) upgrading of Fischer-Tropsch wax into final hydrocarbon products in a hydroprocessing step or steps, which can include hydrocracking, hydro-isomerization, and/or hydrogenation (page 2597, left column, lines 11-18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method described by Li-1 by reacting at least a portion of the CO produced by the CO2 electrolyzer in one or more downstream systems to produce a chemical product because mixing electrolytically produced carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2) would have produced synthesis gas where conversion of the synthesis gas by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis would have produced paraffinic wax for upgrading into final hydrocarbon products as taught by van Bavel on page 2597, left column, lines 14-17.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known
methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, the method of Li-1 differs from the instant invention because Li-1 does not disclose wherein at least a portion of the H2 fed to the anode of the CO2 electrolyzer is produced by one or more water electrolyzers.
Li-1 teaches that:
As shown in FIG. 20, the CO2 hydrogenation system 270 may include at least one H2 source 272 (e.g., containment vessel), at least one CO2 source 274 (e.g., containment vessel), and at least one electrochemical apparatus 276 in fluid communication with each of the H2 source 272 (e.g., containment vessel) [page 11, [0098]].
Various hydrogen sources may be used, such as a substantially pure H2 stream, a diluted H2 stream, water, or a hydrocarbon stream (page 11, [0099]).
van Bavel teaches producing H2 from a H2O electrolyzer (=
PNG
media_image2.png
65
260
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
[page 2598, Fig. 2(a)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least a portion of the H2 fed to the anode of the CO2 electrolyzer described by Li-1 with wherein at least a portion of the H2 fed to
the anode of the CO2 electrolyzer is produced by one or more water electrolyzers because Li-1 teaches that various hydrogen sources may be used such as water in [0099] where electrolyzing
water in a water electrolyzer would have produced H2 as taught by van Bavel on page 2598, Fig. 2(a).
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known
methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing
more than predictable results. Furthermore, MPEP § 2144.07 states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).”
Regarding claim 12, Li-1 teaches wherein the CO2 fed to the cathode of the CO2 electrolyzer is gaseous CO2 (= the CO2 may be present in the CO2 stream 296 in one or more of gaseous phase and a liquid phase) [page 12, [0106]].
II. Claim(s) 7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0056596 A1) [Li-1] in view of Eastman et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0283411 A1) and van Bavel et al. (“Integrating CO2 Electrolysis into the Gas-to-Liquids-Power-to-Liquids Process,” ACS Energy Letters (2020 Jul 24), Vol. 5, No. 8, pp. 2597-2601) as applied to claims 6, 8 and 12 above, and further in view of Li et al. (“Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy Efficiency, and Cost of Synthetic Fuel Production Using Electrochemical CO2 Conversion and the Fischer-Tropsch Process,” Energy & Fuels (2016 Jul 21), Vol. 30, No. 7, pp. 5980-5989) [Li-2].
Li-1, Eastman and van Bavel are as applied above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 7, van Bavel teaches wherein the one or more downstream systems comprise a liquid hydrocarbon synthesis reactor, and wherein the reacting comprises reacting at least a portion of the CO produced by the CO2 electrolyzer and H2 in the liquid hydrocarbon synthesis reactor (=
PNG
media_image3.png
153
347
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
[page 2598, Fig. 2(a)].
The method of modified Li-1 differs from the instant invention because modified Li-1
does not disclose thereby producing a liquid hydrocarbon mixture, wherein the chemical product comprises the liquid hydrocarbon mixture.
van Bavel teaches Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis (page 2598, Fig. 2(a)).
Li-2 teaches that:
The FT process produces hydrocarbons of varying lengths using CO and H2 as feed stock. The raw product from the FT process includes naphtha, middle distillate, wax, and a gas stream of unreacted syngas, CO2, and light hydrocarbons (page 5983, left column, lines 44-47).
Proposed integrated system for liquid fuel production using CO2 electrolysis coupled with the Fischer-Tropsch process (page 5981, Fig. 1).
The invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the FT process produces a liquid fuel of hydrocarbons of varying lengths using CO and H2 as feed stock as taught by Li-2 on page 5983, left column, lines 44-47.
Regarding claim 9, van Bavel teaches wherein at least a portion of the H2 reacted in the
liquid hydrocarbon synthesis reactor is produced by one or more water electrolyzers (=
PNG
media_image4.png
206
577
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
[page 2598, Fig. 2(a)].
Li-2 teaches that the H2 for the FT process is produced onsite by water electrolysis (page
5983, right column, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified at least a portion of the H2 reacted in the liquid hydrocarbon synthesis reactor described by modified Li-1 with wherein at least a portion of the H2 reacted in the liquid hydrocarbon synthesis reactor is produced by one or more water electrolyzers because H2 for the FT process would have been produced onsite by water electrolysis as taught by Li-2 on page 5983, right column, line 3.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known
methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing
more than predictable results. Furthermore, MPEP § 2144.07 states that “the selection of a
known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).”
Regarding claim 10, the method of Li-1 differs from the instant invention because Li-1 does not disclose transporting at least a portion of the liquid hydrocarbon mixture from the liquid hydrocarbon synthesis reactor to a hydrocarbon cracking reactor.
van Bavel teaches that:
The current GTL process consists of the following steps: (1) converting natural gas into synthesis gas, i.e., mixture of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2); (2) Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, i.e., conversion of synthesis gas into highly paraffinic wax; and (3) upgrading of Fischer-Tropsch wax into final hydrocarbon products in a hydroprocessing step or steps, which can include hydrocracking, hydro-isomerization, and/or hydrogenation (page 2597, left column, lines 11-18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method described by modified Li-1 by transporting at least a portion of the liquid hydrocarbon mixture from the liquid hydrocarbon synthesis reactor to a hydrocarbon cracking reactor because hydrocracking the Fischer-Tropsch wax would have upgraded it into final hydrocarbon products as taught by van Bavel on page 2597, left column, lines 15-17.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing
more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, van Bavel teaches wherein the liquid hydrocarbon synthesis reactor
is configured to perform a Fischer-Tropsch process (= Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, i.e., conversion
of synthesis gas into highly paraffinic wax) [page 2597, left column, lines 14-15].
III. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0056596 A1) [Li-1] in view of Eastman et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0283411 A1) and van Bavel et al. (“Integrating CO2 Electrolysis into the Gas-to-Liquids-Power-to-Liquids Process,” ACS Energy Letters (2020 Jul 24), Vol. 5, No. 8, pp. 2597-2601) as applied to claims 6, 8 and 12 above, and further in view of Kashi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0381116 A1).
Li-1, Eastman and van Bavel are as applied above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 13, the method of modified Li-1 differs from the instant invention because modified Li-1 does not disclose wherein the CO2 and/or the H2 fed to the CO2 electrolyzer is humidified CO2 and/or humidified H2.
Li-1 teaches that the carbon dioxide and hydrogen may be provided from various sources (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, hydrocarbon fuels, etc.) [page 10, [0090]].
Kashi teaches that:
For example, an optional humidifier 704 may be provided on the path and configured to humidify the carbon oxide feed stream. Humidified carbon oxide may moisten one or more polymer layers of an MEA and thereby avoid drying such layers (pages 11-12, [0194]).
CO2 (e.g., humidified or dry gaseous CO2) as a reactant at a cathode 1005 and expel CO as a product (page 17, [0254]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the CO2 and/or the H2 fed to the CO2
electrolyzer described by modified Li-1 with wherein the CO2 and/or the H2 fed to the CO2
electrolyzer is humidified CO2 and/or humidified H2 because Li-1 teaches that the carbon dioxide may be provided from various sources in [0090] where humidified CO2 would have moistened one or more polymer layers of an MEA and thereby avoid drying such layers, and also would have been a reactant at a cathode which expels CO as a product.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known
methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing
more than predictable results. Furthermore, MPEP § 2144.07 states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
• Applicant states that neither reference, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests a CO2 electrolyzer that is both operated at less than 100 °C and fed hydrogen at its anode to undergo a hydrogen oxidation reaction.
In response, Li-1 teaches that the operating temperature of the electrochemical cell of
the electrochemical apparatus include operating temperatures less than or equal to about 250° C. in [0106].
MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
• Applicant state that the only way to arrive at the claimed electrolyzer by modifying Li-1 would be to operate Li-I’s cell below 100 which would require abandoning Li-1’s elevated-
temperature proton-conducting membrane (the very component that defines Li-1’s electrolyzer) in favor of a different, low-temperature membrane. Such a modification would render Li-1’s electrolyzer unsuitable for its intended purpose and would change Li-1's principle of operation.
In response, Li-1 teaches that:
The electrolyte 264 may be formed of and include at least one electrolyte material exhibiting an ionic conductivity (e.g., H+ conductivity) greater than or equal to about 10−2 S/cm (e.g., within a range of from about 10−2 S/cm to about 1 S/cm) at one or more temperatures within a range of from about 150° C. to about 650° C. (e.g., from about 300° C. to about 500° C.). In addition, the electrolyte material may be formulated to remain substantially adhered (e.g., laminated) to the positive electrode 260 and the negative electrode 268 at relatively high current densities, such as at current densities greater than or equal to about 0.1 amperes per square centimeter (A/cm2) (e.g., greater than or equal to about 0.5 A/cm2, greater than or equal to about 1.0 A/cm2, greater than or equal to about 2.0 A/cm2, etc.). For example, the electrolyte 264 may comprise one or more of a perovskite material, a solid acid material, a polybenzimidazole (PBI) material, and a BZCYYb material (e.g., BaZr0.1Ce0.7Y0.1Yb0.1O3−δ). The material composition of the electrolyte 264 may provide the electrolyte 264 with enhanced ionic conductivity at a temperature within the range of from about 150° C. to about 650° C. as compared to conventional electrolytes (e.g., membranes employing conventional electrolyte materials, such as yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ)) of
conventional electrochemical cells (page 10, [0092]).
The CO2 stream 296 entering the electrochemical apparatus 276 may be formed of and include CO2. The CO2 may be present in the CO2 stream 296 in one or more of gaseous phase and a liquid phase. The phase(s) of the CO2 (and, hence, a temperature and a pressure of the CO2 stream 296) may at least partially depend on the operating temperature of the electrochemical
cell 278 of the electrochemical apparatus 276. For example, at operating temperatures less than or equal to about 250° C. (e.g., within a range of from about 150° C. to about 250° C.), the CO2 may be present in the CO2 stream 296 in a liquid phase (e.g., CO2 dissolved in an ionic liquid), a gaseous phase, or combination thereof. As another example, at operating temperatures greater than about 250° C. (e.g., greater than about 250° C. and less than or equal to about 650°), the CO2 may be present in the CO2 stream 296 in a gaseous phase. The CO2 stream 296 may only include CO2, or may include CO2 and one or more other materials (e.g., inert materials, materials to be reacted with CO2 hydrogenation products to form desired products, etc.). In some embodiments, the CO2 stream 296 is substantially free of materials other than CO2. One or more apparatuses (e.g., heat exchangers, pumps, compressors, expanders, mass flow control devices, etc.) may be employed within the CO2 hydrogenation system 270 to adjust one or more of the temperature, pressure, and flow rate of the CO2 stream 296 delivered into the electrochemical apparatus 276 (page 12, [0106]).
Li-1 teaches that the operating temperature of the electrochemical cell of the electrochemical apparatus includes operating temperatures less than or equal to about 250° C. in [0106] and that the electrolyte may be formed of and include2 at least one electrolyte material exhibiting an ionic conductivity (e.g., H+ conductivity) greater than or equal to about 10−2 S/cm (e.g., within a range of from about 10−2 S/cm to about 1 S/cm) at one or more temperatures within a range of from about 150° C. to about 650° C. (e.g., from about 300° C. to about 500° C.) in [0092], which makes this a possibility, where Eastman teaches suitable protonic conductors as electrolytes for low temperature (e.g., about 80o C. to about 300o C.) operation of an electro-hydrocarbon device (pages 8-9, [0179] to 0227]) for the hydrogenation
of carbon dioxide (page 2, [0012]).
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 EDNA WONG whose telephone number is (571) 272-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM- 3:30 PM.
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 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.
/EDNA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
1 MPEP § 2111.02(II) states that "where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”. See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2 “May be” is a two-word verb phrase used to express possibility, meaning “might be” or “could be.”
Prosecution Insights