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 .
Response to Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 02/05/2026.
Status of Rejections
All previous rejections are maintained.
Claims 1-25 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 10, 12, 16, 18-19 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marshall et al. (“Nanoparticles of IrO2 or Sb–SnO2 increase the performance of iridium oxide DSA electrodes”, J Mater Sci, 2011); claims 22-25 evidenced by Franks et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,917,518).
Regarding claim 1, Marshall discloses an apparatus (see e.g. Page 1136, Col. 2, last full paragraph, lines 4-5, three-electrode cell) comprising:
an electrode having a core substrate (see e.g. Page 1136, Col. 1, under “Experimental”, lines 1-4, electrode with titanium substrate) wherein the electrode is in an aqueous solution and producing a product via an electrochemical process (see e.g. Abstract and Page 1136, Col. 2, last full paragraph, lines 1-7, working electrode in 0.5 M H2SO4 performing oxygen evolution); and
a coating from a coating solution on the substrate, wherein the coating includes insoluble nanomaterial and is substantially free of a polymeric substance (see e.g. Page 1136, Col. 1, under “Experimental”, lines 1-8 and 15-19, oxide layer formed on titanium substrate from solution including suspended, i.e. insoluble, nanoparticles and no polymer), wherein the amount of nanomaterial is 5% by volume of dry solids content of the coating solution (see e.g. Abstract and Table 1, 5 wt% IrO2 nanoparticles in IrO2 coating, equal to 5% by volume since the compound is the same).
Regarding claim 2, Marshall discloses the core substrate including titanium (see e.g. Page 1136, Col. 1, under “Experimental”, lines 1-4).
Regarding claims 3-4, Marshall discloses the electrode being a gas-evolving electrode (see e.g. Abstract, anode for oxygen evolution).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Marshall discloses the coating including a precious metal oxide of iridium (see e.g. Abstract and Table 1, 5 wt% IrO2 nanoparticles in IrO2 coating).
Regarding claim 16, Marshall discloses the coating including an amount of nanomaterial of 5% dry weight of the coating (see e.g. Abstract and Table 1, 5 wt% IrO2 nanoparticles in IrO2 coating).
Regarding claims 18-19, Marshal discloses the nanomaterial including nanoparticles (see e.g. Page 1136, Col. 1, under “Experimental”, lines 3-6, IrO2 nanoparticles).
Regarding claims 22-23, the limitation of “the electrode and aqueous solution are producing a salt” is a statement of intended use. MPEP § 2114 states “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."…A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”. Marshall discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus as stated above and would therefore be capable of use to produce a salt. Furthermore, Marshall additionally discloses that the electrode may be used for electrochemical processes to promote chlorine evolution (see e.g. Page 1135, Col. 2, lines 1-3), which are evidenced by Franks to be capable of producing salts such as sodium hypochlorite (see e.g. Franks Col. 2, lines 10-13, and Col. 5, lines 2-9, chlorine produced by electrolysis in cell leading to formation of hypochlorite, e.g. sodium hypochlorite).
Regarding claims 24-25, the limitation of “the electrode and aqueous solution are producing a salt” is a statement of intended use. MPEP § 2114 states “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."…A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”. Marshall discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus as stated above and would therefore be capable of use to produce a sodium hypochlorite. Furthermore, Marshall additionally discloses that the electrode may be used for electrochemical processes to promote chlorine evolution (see e.g. Page 1135, Col. 2, lines 1-3), which are evidenced by Franks to be capable of producing sodium hypochlorite (see e.g. Franks Col. 2, lines 10-13, and Col. 5, lines 2-9, chlorine produced by electrolysis in cell leading to formation of hypochlorite, e.g. sodium hypochlorite).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Hesketh et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,234,405), and further in view of Kintrup et al. (U.S. 2014/0224666).
Regarding claims 5-7, Marshall teaches all the elements of the apparatuses of claims 4 and 1-2 as stated above. Marshall does not teach the nanomaterial including glass microfibers, but does teach that the electrode may be used for chlorine evolution (see e.g. Page 1135, Col. 2, lines 1-3).
Hesketh teaches an electrode suitable for use as an anode for chlorine production (see e.g. Col. 1, lines 29-31, and Col. 6, line 25-29), comprising a coating including electrocatalytic materials in addition to micron-scale fibrous refractory materials such as glass (see e.g. Abstract, Col. 1, lines 51-55, Col. 3, lines 3-6, 32-33 and 65-66, and Col. 4, lines 5-8), the inclusion of these refractory materials increasing the shorting resistance of the electrode (see e.g. Col. 1, line 41-46, and Col. 4, lines 13-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating of Marshall to further comprise a micron-scale fibrous refractory material such as glass as taught by Hesketh to increase the shorting resistance of the electrode when used in chlorine evolution processes.
Marshall as modified by Hesketh above does not explicitly teach the glass microfibers being a nanomaterial, but does teach the microfibers preferably having no dimensions exceeding 1 mm (see e.g. Hesketh Col. 3, lines 32-33), with lengths on the order of more or less than 50 microns (see e.g. Hesketh Col. 3, lines 65-66, and Col. 4, lines 5-8), as well as the glass microfibers being an oxide material (see e.g. Hesketh Col. 3, lines 3-6).
Kintrup teaches an electrode coating for preparing chlorine (see e.g. Abstract), wherein the electrode coating incorporates, in addition to a catalyst, a finely divided metal oxide powder (see e.g. Paragraph 0023, lines 1-4) at least partially in the form of fibrous particles with lengths on the order of up to 100 or 50 microns and diameters of less than 1 micron, preferably 5 to 800 nm (se e.g. Paragraph 0027, lines 1-8, and Paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the glass microfibers of modified Marshall to be a nanomaterial with diameters less than 1 micron, preferably 5 to 800 nm, as taught by Kintrup as suitable dimensions for additive oxide microfibers in an electrode coating for chlorine evolution. 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.
Claims 8 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Martinsons et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,105,516).
Regarding claim 8, Marshall teaches all the elements of the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Marshall does not explicitly teach the aqueous solution including sodium chloride or potassium chloride, but does teach that the electrode may be used for chlorine evolution (see e.g. Page 1135, Col. 2, lines 1-3).
Martinsons teaches a process of evolving chlorine by electrolyzing an alkali metal chloride (see e.g. Abstract) which utilizes an aqueous solution of sodium chloride or potassium chloride (see e.g. Col.1, 5-7, and Col. 2, lines 11-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aqueous solution of Marshall to comprise sodium chloride or potassium chloride as taught by Martinsons as a suitable aqueous solution for use in chlorine evolution processes. 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. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “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 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Regarding claims 20-21, Marshall teaches all the elements of the apparatuses of claims 1-2 as stated above. Marshall does not explicitly teach the apparatus further comprising a chlor-alkali membrane-cell or a diaphragm cell, but does teach that the electrode may be used in electrochemical processes for chlorine evolution (see e.g. Page 1135, Col. 2, lines 1-3).
Martinsons teaches a process of evolving chlorine by electrolyzing an alkali metal chloride (see e.g. Abstract) which is carried out in a diaphragm cell (see e.g. Col. 2, lines 30-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Marshall to comprise a diaphragm cell as taught by Martinsons as a suitable apparatus configuration for carrying out electrochemical chlorine evolution processes. 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Martinsons, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hesketh and Kintrup.
Regarding claim 9, modified Marshall teaches all the elements of the apparatus of claim 8 as stated above. Modified Marshall does not teach the nanomaterial including glass microfibers, but does teach that the electrode may be used for chlorine evolution (see e.g. Marshall Page 1135, Col. 2, lines 1-3).
Hesketh teaches an electrode suitable for use as an anode for chlorine production (see e.g. Col. 1, lines 29-31, and Col. 6, line 25-29), comprising a coating including electrocatalytic materials in addition to micron-scale fibrous refractory materials such as glass (see e.g. Abstract, Col. 1, lines 51-55, Col. 3, lines 3-6, 32-33 and 65-66, and Col. 4, lines 5-8), the inclusion of these refractory materials increasing the shorting resistance of the electrode (see e.g. Col. 1, line 41-46, and Col. 4, lines 13-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating of Marshall to further comprise a micron-scale fibrous refractory material such as glass as taught by Hesketh to increase the shorting resistance of the electrode when used in chlorine evolution processes.
Marshall as modified by Hesketh above does not explicitly teach the glass microfibers being a nanomaterial, but does teach the microfibers preferably having no dimensions exceeding 1 mm (see e.g. Hesketh Col. 3, lines 32-33), with lengths on the order of more or less than 50 microns (see e.g. Hesketh Col. 3, lines 65-66, and Col. 4, lines 5-8), as well as the glass microfibers being an oxide material (see e.g. Hesketh Col. 3, lines 3-6).
Kintrup teaches an electrode coating for preparing chlorine (see e.g. Abstract), wherein the electrode coating incorporates, in addition to a catalyst, a finely divided metal oxide powder (see e.g. Paragraph 0023, lines 1-4) at least partially in the form of fibrous particles with lengths on the order of up to 100 or 50 microns and diameters of less than 1 micron, preferably 5 to 800 nm (se e.g. Paragraph 0027, lines 1-8, and Paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the glass microfibers of modified Marshall to be a nanomaterial with diameters less than 1 micron, preferably 5 to 800 nm, as taught by Kintrup as suitable dimensions for additive oxide microfibers in an electrode coating for chlorine evolution. 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.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Marshall teaches all the elements of the apparatus of claims 10 and 12 as stated above. Marshall does not explicitly teach the coating further including oxides of one or more of titanium, tantalum, zirconium, niobium, hafnium, lanthanides, actinides, and tin, instead only exemplifying it including iridium oxide (see e.g. Abstract and Table 1, IrO2 DSAs).
Marshall does however further teach that additional oxides such as TiO2, SnO2 and Ta2O5 may be added to electrocatalytic coatings including IrO2 to increase corrosion resistance and performance as well as reducing the cost (see e.g. Page 1135, Col. 2, lines 6-8, and Page 1141, Col. 1, lines 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the IrO2 coating of Marshall to further include additional oxides such as TiO2, SnO2 and Ta2O5 to increase corrosion resistance and performance as well as reducing the cost.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Kintrup.
Regarding claims 14-15, Marshall teaches all the elements of the apparatus of claims 1-2 as stated above. Marshall does not teach the nanomaterial including microfibers having a thickness or diameter of less than about 1 micron and a length of at least 10 times the thickness or diameter, but does teach the electrode being used for chlorine evolution (see e.g. Page 1135, Col. 2, lines 1-3) as well as that the inclusion of additional oxides such as TiO2, SnO2 and Ta2O5 in the coating may increase corrosion resistance and performance while reducing the cost (see e.g. Page 1135, Col. 2, lines 6-8).
Kintrup teaches an electrode coating for preparing chlorine (see e.g. Abstract), wherein the electrode coating incorporates, in addition to a catalyst, a finely divided base metal oxide powder such as titanium oxide, tin oxide and/or tantalum oxide (see e.g. Paragraph 0023, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0020), which may comprise spherical particles along with fibrous particles with lengths of up to 100 microns and diameters of less than 1 micron (se e.g. Paragraph 0027, lines 1-8, and Paragraph 0024), i.e. lengths on the order of 100 times the diameter, this finely divided base metal oxide powder enabling reduction of the noble metal content of the electrode and reducing electrolysis voltage (see e.g. Paragraph 0023, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nanomaterial of Marshall to further comprise fibrous base metal oxide particles with diameters of less than 1 micron and lengths up to 100 microns as taught by Kintrup as a suitable form of additive non-noble metal oxide particles in an electrode coating for chlorine evolution that assists in enabling reduction of the noble metal content of the electrode and reducing electrolysis voltage. 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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Hesketh; as evidenced by Ilerisoy et al. (“DISCOVERY OF INNOVATIVE MATERIALS IN STRUCTURAL SYSTEM DESIGN: GLASS STRUCTURES” in THE MOST RECENT STUDIES IN SCIENCE AND ART, 2018).
Regarding claim 17, Marshall teaches all the elements of the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Marshall does not teach the coating including an amount of glass microfibers of from between about 2% to about 20% dry weight of the coating, but does teach that the electrode may be used for chlorine evolution (see e.g. Page 1135, Col. 2, lines 1-3).
Hesketh teaches an electrode suitable for use as an anode for chlorine production (see e.g. Col. 1, lines 29-31, and Col. 6, line 25-29, comprising a coating including electrocatalytic materials in addition to micron-scale fibrous refractory materials such as glass (see e.g. Abstract, Col. 1, lines 51-55, Col. 3, lines 3-6, 32-33 and 65-66, and Col. 4, lines 5-8), the inclusion of these refractory materials increasing the shorting resistance of the electrode (see e.g. Col. 1, line 41-46, and Col. 4, lines 13-23), wherein the refractory materials may be present in an amount of 5 to 95 volume% of the coating (see e.g. Col. 4, lines 13-17).
In combination with the coating of Marshall, which comprises IrO2 with a density of 11.67 g/cm3 (see e.g. Marshall Abstract and Table 1, IrO2 DSAs), glass as the refractory material, which is evidenced by Ilerisoy to have a density of 2.2 to 3.2 g/cm3 (see e.g. Ilerisoy Page 1227, paragraph above Table 3), would be present in amounts of about 0.98 to 83.9 weight% of the coating, encompassing the claimed range of the present invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating of Marshall to further comprise a micron-scale fibrous refractory material such as glass in an amount of 5 to 95 volume%, equivalent to about 0.98 to 83.9 weight%, of the coating as taught by Hesketh to increase the shorting resistance of the electrode when used in chlorine evolution processes. MPEP § 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”.
Affidavit/Declaration
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 02/05/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1 based upon 35 USC 102 as set forth in the last Office action because: As point (6) of the declaration states, there are multiple reasonable interpretations for determining the % by volume of the nanomaterial. As such, the examiner has based their interpretation on paragraph 0020 of the instant specification, which describes the nanomaterial forming a particular volumetric ratio of the dry coating, and can therefore be understood to fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation. Such an interpretation does not necessarily require specific disclosure of the mass information of components in a coating solution. Marshall discloses the coating consisting only of the IrO2 nanoparticles in the described amount, e.g. 5 wt%, in an IrO2 layer (see e.g. Marshall Abstract, Table 1, and Page 1135, Col. 2, 2nd paragraph, lines 13-15), and thus 5wt% IrO2 nanoparticles in the dry solids forming the coating from the solution. The conclusion that this 5 wt% would be equal to 5 vol% was because the IrO2 in the bulk nanoparticles and film, being the same compound, would presumably have the same density. Kariman et al. (“Improving the Stability of DSA Electrodes by the Addition of TiO2 Nanoparticles”, J. Electrochem. Soc., 2019), previously cited, similarly discloses metal oxide nanoparticles incorporated into an IrO2 layer of an electrode (see e.g. Kariman Abstract and Page E248, Col. 1, 3rd paragraph, lines 1-3), wherein the vol% of the nanoparticles in the layer may be approximated based on the wt% of the nanoparticles and the densities of the two materials (see e.g. Kariman Page E250, Col. 2, lines 7-10), providing evidentiary support for this conversion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 2-3, Applicant argues that Marshall does not expressly or inherently disclose the claimed nanomaterial % by volume of the dry solids of the coating solution. This is not considered persuasive. As stated above in regards to the declaration, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the % by volume of dry solids encompasses the volumetric ratio of the dry coating, as described in paragraph 0020 of the instant specification. Marshall discloses the coating consisting only of the IrO2 nanoparticles in the described amount, e.g. 5 wt%, in an IrO2 layer (see e.g. Marshall Abstract, Table 1, and Page 1135, Col. 2, 2nd paragraph, lines 13-15), and thus 5wt% IrO2 nanoparticles in the dry solids forming the coating from the solution. The conclusion that this 5 wt% would be equal to 5 vol% was because the IrO2 in the bulk nanoparticles and film layer, being the same compound, would presumably have the same density, which can be used to approximately convert wt% of nanoparticles in a film to vol%, as evidenced by Kariman above (see e.g. Kariman Page E250, Col. 2, lines 7-10).
On pages 3-4, Applicant argues that neither Hesketh nor Kintrup recognize the problem solved by the invention of achieving improved durability and crack resistance, and the modification of Marshall with these references relies on hindsight reconstruction using Applicant’s disclosure. This is not considered persuasive. The motivation for combination of references does not need to be the same as Applicant’s disclosed motivation. The rationale for modification in the obviousness was based on Hesketh’s teaching of increasing the shorting resistance of the electrode (see e.g. Hesketh Col. 1, line 41-46, and Col. 4, lines 13-23), as well as Kintrup’s teaching of suitable dimensions for fibrous oxide particles in an electrode coating for chlorine evolution, as supported by MPEP § 2143(I)(A). The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As per the rationales described above, the references were combined based on teachings of the art and supported by the KSR rationale.
On pages 6-7, Applicant argues that the disclosure of Hesketh does not overlap with or suggest the claimed low level microfiber additions selected to achieve durability and crack-mitigation benefits as described in the instant specification, and further that Hesketh is directed to volume percentages in the fired coating, not the solids content of the dry coating solution. This is not considered persuasive. Hesketh teaches the refractory materials, such as glass, may be present in an amount of 5 to 95 volume% of the coating (see e.g. Hesketh Col. 4, lines 13-17), which, in combination with the IrO2 coating of Marshall with a density of 11.67 g/cm3 would be present in amounts of about 0.98 to 83.9 weight% of the coating, encompassing the claimed range of the present invention (see MPEP § 2144.05 I as cited above). The limitation of claim 17 is directed towards the weight% of glass microfibers in the coating, i.e. the fired coating itself, not dry solids content of the coating solution. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Therefore, neither Hesketh is not required to explicitly teach the benefits addressed in the instant disclosure.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights