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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups I and II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 24th, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III in the reply filed on July 24th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 4, Fig. 7, Fig. 8 include separate partial views labeled as “Fig. 4 CON’T”, “Fig. 7 CON’T”, and “Fig. 8 CON’T”, the Examiner recommends relabeling these views as “Fig. 4A” and “Fig. 4B”, for example. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 6: “the compressor stages” should read “the plurality of compressor stages”
Claim 8, line 8: “at least two of the plurality of valves” should read “at least two valves of the plurality of valves”
Claim 8, lines 12-13: “the H2 storage banks” should read “the plurality of H2 storage banks”
Claim 10, line 2: “the H2 storage banks” should read “the plurality of H2 storage banks”
Claim 13, line 1: “sensor positioned” should read “sensor is positioned”
Claim 13, line 2: “of H2” should read “of the H2”
Claim 14, line 2: “the three H2 storage banks” should read “the at least three H2 storage banks”
Claim 16, line 1: “the H2 storage banks” should read “the plurality of H2 storage banks”
Claim 16, line 1: “the H2 storage banks” should read “the plurality of H2 storage banks”
Claim 17, lines 1-2: “the compressor system and booster compression stage” should read “the compressor system and the booster compression stage”
Claim 18, line 6: “the compressor stages” should read “the plurality of compressor stages”
Claim 18, line 9: “at least two of the plurality of valves” should read “at least two valves of the plurality of valves”
Claim 18, line 13: “the H2 storage banks” should read “the plurality of H2 storage banks”
Claim 20, line 2: “the H2 storage banks” should read “the plurality of H2 storage banks”
Claim 24, line 2: “the three H2 storage banks” should read “the at least three H2 storage banks”
Claim 26, line 1: “the H2 storage banks” should read “the plurality of H2 storage banks”
Claim 27, lines 1-2: “the compressor system and booster compression stage” should read “the compressor system and the booster compression stage”
Claims 9-17 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 8.
Claims 19-28 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 18.
Claim 29 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 28.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 8-29 are 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the booster compressor stage" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing "the booster compressor stage" in lines 9-10 to “the booster compression stage” which is given proper antecedent basis in line 7 of claim 8. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the booster compressor stage and the booster compression stage to be the same components. The Examiner recommends using like terminology when referring to the same component throughout the claims.
Claim 8, lines 13-14 recite, “upon a decrease of the H2 in one or more of the H2 storage banks from the working pressure” which is unclear to the Examiner what parameter of the H2 the decrease is referring to (i.e., pressure, volume, temperature, etc.). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “upon a decrease of a pressure of the H2 in one or more of the H2 storage banks from the working pressure”. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to read as interpreted herein.
The term “substantially” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which the plurality of H2 storage banks are sized to carry 1000kg of H2 is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “wherein the plurality of H2 storage banks are sized to carry 1000kg of H2”.
The term “substantially” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which the H2 received at the manifold is 20 bar is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “wherein the H2 received at the manifold is 20 bar”.
The term “substantially” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which a pressure of the H2 in the compressor system is 400 bar is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “wherein a pressure of the H2 in the compressor system is 400 bar”.
The term “substantially” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which the pressure of the H2 in the booster compression stage is 720 bar is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “the pressure of the H2 in the booster compression stage is 720 bar”.
Claim 14, line 3 recites, “one of the H2 storage banks” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the one of the H2 storage banks of claim 14 relates to the previously claimed plurality of H2 storage banks. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the one of the H2 storage banks to be an H2 storage bank of the plurality of H2 storage banks. The Examiner recommends amending the claim as interpreted herein.
Claim 14, lines 3-4 recite, “a swing bank providing intermediate pressure” which is unclear to the Examiner as to what the intermediate pressure is relative to (i.e., an intermediate pressure between the pressure received at the manifold and the pressure of the booster compression stage, an intermediate pressure between pressures of other H2 storage banks of the plurality of H2 storage banks, etc.). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the intermediate pressure to be relative to pressures of other H2 storage banks of the plurality of H2 storage banks. The Examiner recommends making clarifying amendments to specify what the intermediate pressure is relative to.
Claim 17, line 2 recites, “a particular compressor stage” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the particular compressor stage of claim 17 relates to the previously claimed plurality of compressor stages of claim 8 from which claim 17 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the particular compressor stage to be a particular compressor stage of the plurality of compressor stages. The Examiner recommends amending the claim as interpreted herein.
Claim 17, lines 1-3 recite, “wherein the manifold optimizes energy usage of the compressor system and booster compression stage by routing inlet H2 gas to a particular compressor stage or the booster compression stage, thereby minimizing a pressure letdown across a pressure regulator” which is unclear to the Examiner as to if a pressure regulator is being claimed as it appears to be a statement of intent rather than a positively claimed structural feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to not require a pressure regulator and therefore the claim only requires minimizing a pressure letdown across a pressure regulator if one were present. The Examiner recommends amending the claims to clarify whether or not a pressure regulator is a required feature of the claims.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the booster compressor stage" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing "the booster compressor stage" in line 12 to “the booster compression stage” which is given proper antecedent basis in lines 7-8 of claim 18. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the booster compressor stage and the booster compression stage to be the same components. The Examiner recommends using like terminology when referring to the same component throughout the claims.
Claim 18, lines 13-14 recite, “upon a decrease of the H2 in one or more of the H2 storage banks from the working pressure” which is unclear to the Examiner what parameter of the H2 the decrease is referring to (i.e., pressure, volume, temperature, etc.). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “upon a decrease of a pressure of the H2 in one or more of the H2 storage banks from the working pressure”. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to read as interpreted herein.
The term “substantially” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which the plurality of H2 storage banks are sized to carry 1000kg of H2 is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “wherein the plurality of H2 storage banks are sized to carry 1000kg of H2”.
The term “substantially” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which the H2 received at the manifold is 20 bar is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “wherein the H2 received at the manifold is 20 bar”.
The term “substantially” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which a pressure of the H2 in the compressor system is 400 bar is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “wherein a pressure of the H2 in the compressor system is 400 bar”.
The term “substantially” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which the pressure of the H2 in the booster compression stage is 720 bar is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “the pressure of the H2 in the booster compression stage is 720 bar”.
Claim 24, line 3 recites, “one of the H2 storage banks” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the one of the H2 storage banks of claim 24 relates to the previously claimed plurality of H2 storage banks. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the one of the H2 storage banks to be an H2 storage bank of the plurality of H2 storage banks. The Examiner recommends amending the claim as interpreted herein.
Claim 24, lines 3-4 recite, “a swing bank providing intermediate pressure” which is unclear to the Examiner as to what the intermediate pressure is relative to (i.e., an intermediate pressure between the pressure received at the manifold and the pressure of the booster compression stage, an intermediate pressure between pressures of other H2 storage banks of the plurality of H2 storage banks, etc.). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the intermediate pressure to be relative to pressures of other H2 storage banks of the plurality of H2 storage banks. The Examiner recommends making clarifying amendments to specify what the intermediate pressure is relative to.
Claim 27, lines 2-3 recite, “a particular compressor stage” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the particular compressor stage of claim 27 relates to the previously claimed plurality of compressor stages of claim 18 from which claim 27 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the particular compressor stage to be a particular compressor stage of the plurality of compressor stages. The Examiner recommends amending the claim as interpreted herein.
Claim 27, lines 1-3 recite, “wherein the manifold optimizes energy usage of the compressor system and booster compression stage by routing inlet H2 gas to a particular compressor stage or the booster compression stage, thereby minimizing a pressure letdown across a pressure regulator” which is unclear to the Examiner as to if a pressure regulator is being claimed as it appears to be a statement of intent rather than a positively claimed structural feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to not require a pressure regulator and therefore the claim only requires minimizing a pressure letdown across a pressure regulator if one were present. The Examiner recommends amending the claims to clarify whether or not a pressure regulator is a required feature of the claims.
Claim 29, lines 1-2 recites, “wherein the flying vehicle is selected from the group consisting of a winged airplane, a helicopter or a rocket” which is unclear to the Examiner so to how the limitations of claim 29 further limit the claims if the land base vehicle or the water based vehicle of claim 28 from which claim 29 depends are selected in the rejection of claim 28. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will only interpret the limitations of claim 29 to be required if the vehicle of claim 28 is selected to be a flying vehicle.
Claims 9-17 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 8.
Claims 19-28 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 18.
Claim 29 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 10, 13-15, 17-18, 20, 23-25, 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kötter (WO 2024/211112), hereinafter Kötter.
Regarding claim 8, Kötter discloses a mobile storage and dispensing system for refueling hydrogen (H2)-powered vehicles (Fig. 8, compression system 800), the system comprising:
a manifold configured to receive H2, wherein the manifold has a plurality of valves (the Manifold of Fig. 8 of Kötter is being interpreted as all of the lines and connections between components of the compression system 800; Fig. 8 of Kötter depicts a plurality of valves identified by the “bow-tie” symbol commonly used for valves; Fig. 8, source 304; Pg. 4, paragraph 18, In certain embodiments, the source of hydrogen are tanks holding the hydrogen at a relatively low pressure, e.g., around 100 bar, compared to the desired delivery pressure, e.g., 600-900 bar. In certain embodiments, the source of hydrogen is a hydrogen generator providing hydrogen gas at near ambient pressure);
a compressor system having a plurality of compressor stages, wherein the compressor system is in fluid communication with at least a portion of the plurality of valves of the manifold in locations between the compressor stages (Fig. 8, compressor 320, compressor 322; Pg. 10, paragraph 44, This configuration enables additional flexibility in incremental compression, also referred to as "staged compression." The valves can be configured to connect an inlet or an outlet of any compressor 320, 322, 324 to one of the tanks of either group 33x or group 34x. In certain embodiments, additional pipes may be provided in parallel with the pipes shown in FIG. 8 so as to provide additional options for connection configurations; Further, Fig. 8 of Kötter depicts the inlets and outlets of compressors 320 and 322 to connect to lines of the manifold between at least a portion of the plurality of valves);
a booster compression stage positioned downstream of the compressor system and in fluid communication between at least two of the plurality of valves of the manifold (Fig. 8, compressor 324; Pg. 10, paragraph 44, This configuration enables additional flexibility in incremental compression, also referred to as "staged compression." The valves can be configured to connect an inlet or an outlet of any compressor 320, 322, 324 to one of the tanks of either group 33x or group 34x. In certain embodiments, additional pipes may be provided in parallel with the pipes shown in FIG. 8 so as to provide additional options for connection configurations; Further, Fig. 8 of Kötter depicts the inlets and outlets of compressor 324 to be in fluid communication with at least two valves of the plurality of valves of the manifold); and
a plurality of H2 storage banks positioned downstream of the compressor system and the booster compressor stage (Fig. 8, group 34x, additional gas buffer tanks 340, 342, 344, buffer tank 370; Fig. 8 of Kötter depicts the group 34x including additional gas buffer tanks 340, 342, 344 and buffer tank 370 to be connected downstream of compressors 322-324),
wherein low-pressure H2 is pressurized by at least one of the compressor system or the booster compressor stage to a working pressure and stored within one or more of the H2 storage banks, and wherein, upon a decrease of the H2 in one or more of the H2 storage banks from the working pressure, the H2 is repressurized by the booster compressor stage (Fig. 9; Pg. 11, paragraph 46-48, In a first mode, the buffer tank 370, which presently contains at a pressure of 900 bar, being within the delivery pressure range, is filling a fuel tank of a vehicle (not shown in FIG. 9) coupled to the dispenser 302. At the same time, compressor 322 is extracting gas at 200 bar from buffer tank 340 and compressing it to 550 bar, a pressure within the inlet pressure range of compressor 324, in buffer tank 342. In certain embodiments, the inlet of compressor 324 could simultaneously be connected to tank 342 (through lines and valves not shown in FIG. 9) and compress gas to 1100 bar and refill tank 370. Also at the same time, compressor 320 is drawing 140 bar gas from tank 332 and compressing it to 320 bar in tank 334. By using one of the tanks in group 33x, the higher pressure gas is available to compressor 322; Further, the teachings of simultaneously refilling the buffer tank 370 via compressor 324 as the buffer tank 370 fills the vehicle tank at least implies upon a decrease of the H2 in one or more of the H2 storage banks from the working pressure, the H2 is repressurized by the booster compressor stage since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01); As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 10, Kötter discloses the system of claim 8 (see the rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the H2 is repressurized by the booster compressor stage and consolidated into one or more of the H2 storage banks (Fig. 9; Pg. 11, paragraph 46-48, In a first mode, the buffer tank 370, which presently contains at a pressure of 900 bar, being within the delivery pressure range, is filling a fuel tank of a vehicle (not shown in FIG. 9) coupled to the dispenser 302. At the same time, compressor 322 is extracting gas at 200 bar from buffer tank 340 and compressing it to 550 bar, a pressure within the inlet pressure range of compressor 324, in buffer tank 342. In certain embodiments, the inlet of compressor 324 could simultaneously be connected to tank 342 (through lines and valves not shown in FIG. 9) and compress gas to 1100 bar and refill tank 370. Also at the same time, compressor 320 is drawing 140 bar gas from tank 332 and compressing it to 320 bar in tank 334. By using one of the tanks in group 33x, the higher pressure gas is available to compressor 322; Further, the teachings of repressurizing of the buffer tank 370 via compressor 324 as the buffer tank 370 fills the vehicle tank at least implies wherein the H2 is repressurized by the booster compressor stage and consolidated into one or more of the H2 storage banks since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Regarding claim 13, Kötter discloses the system of claim 8 (see the rejection of claim 8 above), wherein at least one pressure sensor positioned to sense a pressure of H2 in the plurality of H2 storage banks (Fig. 8, sensor 314, sensor 316; Pg. 6, paragraph 26, In certain embodiments, the compression system 300 includes one or more sensors coupled to one or more of the tanks, e.g., sensor 314 coupled to tank 370 and sensor 316 coupled to tank 344. Other sensors that are coupled to the remaining tanks have been omitted for clarity. In certain embodiments, a sensor reports one or more parameters associated with the respective tank, e.g., a temperature or a pressure of the gas in the tank).
Regarding claim 14, Kötter discloses the system of claim 8 (see the rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the plurality of H2 storage banks further comprises at least three H2 storage banks, wherein the three H2 storage banks are operated to distribute charge-discharge cycles with one of the H2 storage banks being a swing bank providing intermediate pressure (Fig. 8, group 34x, additional gas buffer tanks 340, 342, 344, buffer tank 370; Fig. 9; Pg. 11, paragraph 46-48, In a first mode, the buffer tank 370, which presently contains at a pressure of 900 bar, being within the delivery pressure range, is filling a fuel tank of a vehicle (not shown in FIG. 9) coupled to the dispenser 302. At the same time, compressor 322 is extracting gas at 200 bar from buffer tank 340 and compressing it to 550 bar, a pressure within the inlet pressure range of compressor 324, in buffer tank 342. In certain embodiments, the inlet of compressor 324 could simultaneously be connected to tank 342 (through lines and valves not shown in FIG. 9) and compress gas to 1100 bar and refill tank 370. Also at the same time, compressor 320 is drawing 140 bar gas from tank 332 and compressing it to 320 bar in tank 334. By using one of the tanks in group 33x, the higher pressure gas is available to compressor 322; Further, the teachings of Kötter at least imply wherein the three H2 storage banks are operated to distribute charge-discharge cycles with one of the H2 storage banks being a swing bank providing intermediate pressure since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01); Further, Fig. 9 of Kötter depicts tank 342 to have a pressure of 550 bar which is intermediate relative to tanks 344 and 340; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 15, Kötter discloses the system of claim 8 (see the rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the manifold is inlet pressure agnostic (Pg. 4, paragraph 18, In certain embodiments, the source of hydrogen are tanks holding the hydrogen at a relatively low pressure, e.g., around 100 bar, compared to the desired delivery pressure, e.g., 600-900 bar. In certain embodiments, the source of hydrogen is a hydrogen generator providing hydrogen gas at near ambient pressure; Further, the teachings of the ability to use a wide range of inlet pressures at least imply wherein the manifold is inlet pressure agnostic since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Regarding claim 17, Kötter discloses the system of claim 8 (see the rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the manifold optimizes energy usage of the compressor system and booster compression stage by routing inlet H2 gas to a particular compressor stage or the booster compression stage, thereby minimizing a pressure letdown across a pressure regulator (Fig. 9; Pg. 11, paragraph 46-48, In a first mode, the buffer tank 370, which presently contains at a pressure of 900 bar, being within the delivery pressure range, is filling a fuel tank of a vehicle (not shown in FIG. 9) coupled to the dispenser 302. At the same time, compressor 322 is extracting gas at 200 bar from buffer tank 340 and compressing it to 550 bar, a pressure within the inlet pressure range of compressor 324, in buffer tank 342. In certain embodiments, the inlet of compressor 324 could simultaneously be connected to tank 342 (through lines and valves not shown in FIG. 9) and compress gas to 1100 bar and refill tank 370. Also at the same time, compressor 320 is drawing 140 bar gas from tank 332 and compressing it to 320 bar in tank 334. By using one of the tanks in group 33x, the higher pressure gas is available to compressor 322; Pg. 11-12, paragraph 50, In summary, the disclosed system uses multiple compressors to incrementally compress low-pressure source gas to a high delivery pressure. The compressors each have a relative low compression ratio, compared to conventional hydrogen compression systems, that inherently provides greater efficiency, i.e., lower cost of power to run the compressor, and reduced wear, thereby reducing the amount, or frequency, of maintenance and repair. A plurality of valves and pipes are provided to enable flexible connection of the compressors to multiple buffer tanks, thereby enabling flexible operation to maximize the utilization of the highly efficient compressors to meet a specified delivery requirement. A processor is connected to the compressors, sensors, and tanks to operate the compressors as needed to provide adequate amounts of hydrogen at incremental pressures; Further, the teachings of Kötter at least imply a pressure letdown would be minimized across a pressure regulator if one were included since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01); As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 18, Kötter discloses a method of refueling hydrogen (H2)-powered vehicles with a mobile storage and dispensing system (Fig. 8, compression system 800; Fig. 9), the method comprising:
receiving low-pressure H2 at a manifold, wherein the manifold has a plurality of valves (the Manifold of Fig. 8 of Kötter is being interpreted as all of the lines and connections between components of the compression system 800; Fig. 8 of Kötter depicts a plurality of valves identified by the “bow-tie” symbol commonly used for valves; Fig. 8, source 304; Pg. 4, paragraph 18, In certain embodiments, the source of hydrogen are tanks holding the hydrogen at a relatively low pressure, e.g., around 100 bar, compared to the desired delivery pressure, e.g., 600-900 bar. In certain embodiments, the source of hydrogen is a hydrogen generator providing hydrogen gas at near ambient pressure);
increasing a pressure of the received H2 in a compressor system having a plurality of compressor stages, wherein the compressor system is in fluid communication with at least a portion of the plurality of valves of the manifold in locations between the compressor stages (Fig. 8, compressor 320, compressor 322; Pg. 10, paragraph 44, This configuration enables additional flexibility in incremental compression, also referred to as "staged compression." The valves can be configured to connect an inlet or an outlet of any compressor 320, 322, 324 to one of the tanks of either group 33x or group 34x. In certain embodiments, additional pipes may be provided in parallel with the pipes shown in FIG. 8 so as to provide additional options for connection configurations; Further, Fig. 8 of Kötter depicts the inlets and outlets of compressors 320 and 322 to connect to lines of the manifold between at least a portion of the plurality of valves);
increasing the pressure of the received H2 from the compressor system in a booster compression stage positioned downstream of the compressor system, wherein the booster compression stage is in fluid communication between at least two of the plurality of valves of the manifold (Fig. 8, compressor 324; Pg. 10, paragraph 44, This configuration enables additional flexibility in incremental compression, also referred to as "staged compression." The valves can be configured to connect an inlet or an outlet of any compressor 320, 322, 324 to one of the tanks of either group 33x or group 34x. In certain embodiments, additional pipes may be provided in parallel with the pipes shown in FIG. 8 so as to provide additional options for connection configurations; Further, Fig. 8 of Kötter depicts the inlets and outlets of compressor 324 to be in fluid communication with at least two valves of the plurality of valves of the manifold); and
storing H2 pressurized to a working pressure within a plurality of H2 storage banks positioned downstream of the compressor system and the booster compressor stage (Fig. 8, group 34x, additional gas buffer tanks 340, 342, 344, buffer tank 370; Fig. 8 of Kötter depicts the group 34x including additional gas buffer tanks 340, 342, 344 and buffer tank 370 to be connected downstream of compressors 322-324),
whereby, upon a decrease of the H2 in one or more of the H2 storage banks from the working pressure, the H2 is repressurized by the booster compressor stage (Fig. 9; Pg. 11, paragraph 46-48, In a first mode, the buffer tank 370, which presently contains at a pressure of 900 bar, being within the delivery pressure range, is filling a fuel tank of a vehicle (not shown in FIG. 9) coupled to the dispenser 302. At the same time, compressor 322 is extracting gas at 200 bar from buffer tank 340 and compressing it to 550 bar, a pressure within the inlet pressure range of compressor 324, in buffer tank 342. In certain embodiments, the inlet of compressor 324 could simultaneously be connected to tank 342 (through lines and valves not shown in FIG. 9) and compress gas to 1100 bar and refill tank 370. Also at the same time, compressor 320 is drawing 140 bar gas from tank 332 and compressing it to 320 bar in tank 334. By using one of the tanks in group 33x, the higher pressure gas is available to compressor 322; Further, the teachings of simultaneously refilling the buffer tank 370 via compressor 324 as the buffer tank 370 fills the vehicle tank at least implies upon a decrease of the H2 in one or more of the H2 storage banks from the working pressure, the H2 is repressurized by the booster compressor stage since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01); As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 20, Kötter discloses the method of claim 18 (see the rejection of claim 18 above), wherein repressurization of the H2 by the booster compressor stage further comprises consolidation of the H2 into one or more of the H2 storage banks (Fig. 9; Pg. 11, paragraph 46-48, In a first mode, the buffer tank 370, which presently contains at a pressure of 900 bar, being within the delivery pressure range, is filling a fuel tank of a vehicle (not shown in FIG. 9) coupled to the dispenser 302. At the same time, compressor 322 is extracting gas at 200 bar from buffer tank 340 and compressing it to 550 bar, a pressure within the inlet pressure range of compressor 324, in buffer tank 342. In certain embodiments, the inlet of compressor 324 could simultaneously be connected to tank 342 (through lines and valves not shown in FIG. 9) and compress gas to 1100 bar and refill tank 370. Also at the same time, compressor 320 is drawing 140 bar gas from tank 332 and compressing it to 320 bar in tank 334. By using one of the tanks in group 33x, the higher pressure gas is available to compressor 322; Further, the teachings of repressurizing of the buffer tank 370 via compressor 324 as the buffer tank 370 fills the vehicle tank at least implies wherein repressurization of the H2 by the booster compressor stage further comprises consolidation of the H2 into one or more of the H2 storage banks since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Regarding claim 23, Kötter discloses the method of claim 18 (see the rejection of claim 18 above), further comprising sensing the pressure of H2 in the plurality of H2 storage banks with at least one pressure sensor (Fig. 8, sensor 314, sensor 316; Pg. 6, paragraph 26, In certain embodiments, the compression system 300 includes one or more sensors coupled to one or more of the tanks, e.g., sensor 314 coupled to tank 370 and sensor 316 coupled to tank 344. Other sensors that are coupled to the remaining tanks have been omitted for clarity. In certain embodiments, a sensor reports one or more parameters associated with the respective tank, e.g., a temperature or a pressure of the gas in the tank).
Regarding claim 24, Kötter discloses the method of claim 18 (see the rejection of claim 18 above), wherein the plurality of H2 storage banks further comprises at least three H2 storage banks, further comprising operating the three H2 storage banks to distribute charge-discharge cycles with one of the H2 storage banks being a swing bank providing intermediate pressure (Fig. 8, group 34x, additional gas buffer tanks 340, 342, 344, buffer tank 370; Fig. 9; Pg. 11, paragraph 46-48, In a first mode, the buffer tank 370, which presently contains at a pressure of 900 bar, being within the delivery pressure range, is filling a fuel tank of a vehicle (not shown in FIG. 9) coupled to the dispenser 302. At the same time, compressor 322 is extracting gas at 200 bar from buffer tank 340 and compressing it to 550 bar, a pressure within the inlet pressure range of compressor 324, in buffer tank 342. In certain embodiments, the inlet of compressor 324 could simultaneously be connected to tank 342 (through lines and valves not shown in FIG. 9) and compress gas to 1100 bar and refill tank 370. Also at the same time, compressor 320 is drawing 140 bar gas from tank 332 and compressing it to 320 bar in tank 334. By using one of the tanks in group 33x, the higher pressure gas is available to compressor 322; Further, the teachings of Kötter at least imply operating the three H2 storage banks to distribute charge-discharge cycles with one of the H2 storage banks being a swing bank providing intermediate pressure since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01); Further, Fig. 9 of Kötter depicts tank 342 to have a pressure of 550 bar which is intermediate relative to tanks 344 and 340; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 25, Kötter discloses the method of claim 18 (see the rejection of claim 18 above), wherein the manifold is inlet pressure agnostic (Pg. 4, paragraph 18, In certain embodiments, the source of hydrogen are tanks holding the hydrogen at a relatively low pressure, e.g., around 100 bar, compared to the desired delivery pressure, e.g., 600-900 bar. In certain embodiments, the source of hydrogen is a hydrogen generator providing hydrogen gas at near ambient pressure; Further, the teachings of the ability to use a wide range of inlet pressures at least imply wherein the manifold is inlet pressure agnostic since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Regarding claim 27, Kötter discloses the method of claim 18 (see the rejection of claim 18 above), further comprising optimizing energy usage of the compressor system and booster compression stage, by the manifold, by routing inlet H2 gas to a particular compressor stage or the booster compression stage, thereby minimizing a pressure letdown across a pressure regulator (Fig. 9; Pg. 11, paragraph 46-48, In a first mode, the buffer tank 370, which presently contains at a pressure of 900 bar, being within the delivery pressure range, is filling a fuel tank of a vehicle (not shown in FIG. 9) coupled to the dispenser 302. At the same time, compressor 322 is extracting gas at 200 bar from buffer tank 340 and compressing it to 550 bar, a pressure within the inlet pressure range of compressor 324, in buffer tank 342. In certain embodiments, the inlet of compressor 324 could simultaneously be connected to tank 342 (through lines and valves not shown in FIG. 9) and compress gas to 1100 bar and refill tank 370. Also at the same time, compressor 320 is drawing 140 bar gas from tank 332 and compressing it to 320 bar in tank 334. By using one of the tanks in group 33x, the higher pressure gas is available to compressor 322; Pg. 11-12, paragraph 50, In summary, the disclosed system uses multiple compressors to incrementally compress low-pressure source gas to a high delivery pressure. The compressors each have a relative low compression ratio, compared to conventional hydrogen compression systems, that inherently provides greater efficiency, i.e., lower cost of power to run the compressor, and reduced wear, thereby reducing the amount, or frequency, of maintenance and repair. A plurality of valves and pipes are provided to enable flexible connection of the compressors to multiple buffer tanks, thereby enabling flexible operation to maximize the utilization of the highly efficient compressors to meet a specified delivery requirement. A processor is connected to the compressors, sensors, and tanks to operate the compressors as needed to provide adequate amounts of hydrogen at incremental pressures; Further, the teachings of Kötter at least imply a pressure letdown would be minimized across a pressure regulator if one were included since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01); As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 28, Kötter discloses the method of claim 18 (see the rejection of claim 18 above), wherein the vehicle is selected from the group consisting of a land based vehicle (Fig. 1A, vehicle 120; Pg. 4, paragraph 17, While example hydrogen filling station 100A is described with respect to vehicle 120 (e.g., a car)).
Regarding claim 29, Kötter discloses the method of claim 28 (see the rejection of claim 28 above), wherein the flying vehicle is selected from the group consisting of a winged airplane, a helicopter or a rocket (The limitations of claim 29 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on rejected claim 28 and further are not required limitations of the claims; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
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 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 9, 11-12, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kötter (WO 2024/211112), hereinafter Kötter.
Regarding claim 9, Kötter discloses the system of claim 8 (see the rejection of claim 8 above).
Kötter teaches the claimed invention except for “wherein the plurality of H2 storage banks are sized to carry substantially 1000kg of H2”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the plurality of H2 storage banks are sized to carry substantially 1000kg of H2”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of “wherein the plurality of H2 storage banks are sized to carry substantially 1000kg of H2”, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Kötter discloses the system of claim 8 (see the rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the working pressure of the H2 is greater than 350 bar (Fig. 8 of Kötter depicts the working pressure of the buffer tank 370 to be between 800-950 bar; Further, it has been held 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I).
Moreover, Kötter teaches the claimed invention except for “wherein the H2 received at the manifold is substantially 20 bar”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the H2 received at the manifold is substantially 20 bar”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Additionally, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of “wherein the H2 received at the manifold is substantially 20 bar”, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Kötter discloses the system of claim 8 (see the rejection of claim 8 above), wherein a pressure of the H2 in the compressor system is substantially 400 bar, and the pressure of the H2 in the booster compression stage is substantially 720 bar (Fig. 8 of Kötter depicts an outlet pressure of compressor 322 to range from 380-650 and an outlet pressure of compressor 324 to range from 650-950; Further, it has been held 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I).
Regarding claim 19, Kötter discloses the method of claim 18 (see the rejection of claim 18 above).
Kötter teaches the claimed invention except for “wherein the plurality of H2 storage banks are sized to carry substantially 1000kg of H2”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the plurality of H2 storage banks are sized to carry substantially 1000kg of H2”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of “wherein the plurality of H2 storage banks are sized to carry substantially 1000kg of H2”, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 21, Kötter discloses the method of claim 18 (see the rejection of claim 18 above), wherein the working pressure of the H2 is greater than 350 bar (Fig. 8 of Kötter depicts the working pressure of the buffer tank 370 to be between 800-950 bar; Further, it has been held 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I).
Moreover, Kötter teaches the claimed invention except for “wherein the H2 received at the manifold is substantially 20 bar”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the H2 received at the manifold is substantially 20 bar”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Additionally, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of “wherein the H2 received at the manifold is substantially 20 bar”, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 22, Kötter discloses the method of claim 18 (see the rejection of claim 18 above), wherein a pressure of the H2 in the compressor system is substantially 400 bar, and the pressure of the H2 in the booster compression stage is substantially 720 bar (Fig. 8 of Kötter depicts an outlet pressure of compressor 322 to range from 380-650 and an outlet pressure of compressor 324 to range from 650-950; Further, it has been held 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I).
Claims 16 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kötter (WO 2024/211112), hereinafter Kötter in view of Balasubramanian et al. (US 20090151809), hereinafter Balasubramanian.
Regarding claim 16, Kötter discloses the system of claim 8 (see the rejection of claim 8 above).
However, Kötter does not disclose wherein the H2 storage banks further comprise different H2 tank sizes.
Balasubramanian teaches wherein the H2 storage banks further comprise different H2 tank sizes (Fig. 1, cascade storage system 101, gaseous hydrogen storage tanks 102, 103, 104; Pg. 2, paragraph 18; The first, second, and third gaseous hydrogen storage tanks 102, 103, 104 respectively are typically different sizes. For example, the first, second, and third gaseous hydrogen storage tanks 102, 103, 104 respectively may have a size ratio of 3:2:1 respectively)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the H2 storage banks of Kötter wherein the H2 storage banks further comprise different H2 tank sizes as taught by Balasubramanian. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide efficient refilling of the gaseous hydrogen storage tanks and the efficient dispensing of gaseous hydrogen to hydrogen vehicles (Balasubramanian, Pg. 1, paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 26, Kötter discloses the method of claim 18 (see the rejection of claim 18 above).
However, Kötter does not disclose wherein the H2 storage banks further comprise different H2 tank sizes.
Balasubramanian teaches wherein the H2 storage banks further comprise different H2 tank sizes (Fig. 1, cascade storage system 101, gaseous hydrogen storage tanks 102, 103, 104; Pg. 2, paragraph 18; The first, second, and third gaseous hydrogen storage tanks 102, 103, 104 respectively are typically different sizes. For example, the first, second, and third gaseous hydrogen storage tanks 102, 103, 104 respectively may have a size ratio of 3:2:1 respectively)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the H2 storage banks of Kötter wherein the H2 storage banks further comprise different H2 tank sizes as taught by Balasubramanian. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide efficient refilling of the gaseous hydrogen storage tanks and the efficient dispensing of gaseous hydrogen to hydrogen vehicles (Balasubramanian, Pg. 1, paragraph 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mrowzinski (US Patent No. 9,772,068) discloses a similar mobile storage and dispensing system for refueling hydrogen (H2)-powered vehicles.
Fukunaga (US Patent No. 11,916,266) discloses a similar mobile storage and dispensing system for refueling hydrogen (H2)-powered vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 August 26th, 2026
Prosecution Insights