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 September 3, 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 claim 9 (method) drawn to an invention nonelected without traverse in the reply filed on May 19, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3 and 4 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The rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.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 § 102
Claim(s) 1-6 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goeltz (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0150908 A1).
The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goeltz has been withdraw in view of Applicant amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
I. Claim(s) 7 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goeltz (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0150908 A1) as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Sugimasa et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0000574 A1).
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goeltz as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Sugimasa et al. has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
II. Claim(s) 8 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goeltz (US
Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0150908 A1) as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of de Fátima Palhares et al. (“Hydrogen Production by a Low-Cost Electrolyzer Developed Through the Combination of Alkaline Water Electrolysis and Solar Energy Use,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018 Mar 1), Vol. 43, No. 9, pp. 4265-4275).
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goeltz as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of de Fátima Palhares et al. has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Continued Response
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1
Line 10, please insert the word -- further -- before the word -- has --.
This is an instance where the article should be added to ensure the further limitation of the claim terminology. See claim 1, line 4.
Claim 4
Line 2, please amend the word “the” to the word -- an --.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-8 and 10 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 1
Line 12, “the protons” lack antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,” thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
Line 12, “the anode electrode side” lacks antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,” thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
Lines 12-13, “the cathode electrode side” lacks antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir.
1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,” thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
Claim 10
line 3, “the electrode potential” lacks antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,” thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
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.
I. Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0325422 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Albrecht teaches an electrolysis system (= as shown in FIG. 5, the example system) [page 14, [0237]] comprising:
• an electrolysis cell (= an electrochemical cell 200) [page 14, [0237]]; and
• a mediator reduction tank (= a thermal reactor 220, or a second electrochemical reaction) [pages 14-15, [0239]] that is connected to the electrolysis cell (= at least a portion
of the anode electrolyte 206 is transferred outside the electrochemical cell 200 as an anode electrolyte solution 218 so that it can be subjected to a thermal reaction, e.g., in a thermal reactor 220, or a second electrochemical reaction) [pages 14-15, [0239]],
wherein the electrolysis cell has:
۰ an anode electrode (= an anode 204) [page 14, [0237]] that electrochemically oxidizes a reduced form of a mediator (= wherein the anode is configured to oxidize the metal oxyanion with the metal ion in the lower oxidation state to a metal oxyanion with metal ion in a higher oxidation state) [page 14, [0230]]; and
۰ a cathode electrode (= a cathode 210) [page 14, [0237]] that performs at least
one of generation of hydrogen by electrochemical reduction of protons or water and
generation of an organic hydride by electrochemical reduction of a hydrogenation target substance (= wherein the cathode is configured to reduce water to form hydroxide ions and hydrogen gas) [page 14, [0231]],
۰ the mediator reduction tank non-photochemically reduces an oxidized form of the mediator generated in the electrolysis cell (= at least a portion of the anode electrolyte 206 comprising the metal oxyanion with the metal ion in the higher oxidation state (M(H) oxyanion) or the non-metal oxyanion with the non-metal ion in the higher oxidation state (NM(H) oxyanion), or both, is transferred outside the electrochemical cell 200 as an anode electrolyte solution 218 so that it can be subjected to a thermal reaction, e.g., in a thermal reactor 220, or a second electrochemical reaction) [pages 14-15, [0239]], and
۰ the electrolysis cell has a proton-conductive electrolyte membrane disposed between
the anode electrode and the cathode electrode (= a CEM disposed between the anode electrolyte and the cathode electrolyte, wherein the CEM is configured to transfer cations from the anode electrolyte to the cathode electrolyte) [page 14, [0232]].
Albrecht does not explicitly teach the following:
a. Wherein the electrolyte membrane conducts the protons from the anode electrode side to the cathode electrode side.1
Albrecht teaches that:
In some examples, the corresponding cation e.g. the alkali metal ion or the alkali earth metal ion (represented as A+ in FIG. 5 or K+ in FIG. 6) of the metal oxyanion or the non-metal oxyanion is transferred or migrates through the CEM 214 from the anode electrolyte 206 into the cathode
electrolyte 212 where it combines with a hydroxide ion to form A(OH)n (where n is any integer depending on the valency of A), e.g. alkali metal hydroxide (NaOH, or KOH, or LiOH, etc.) or alkali earth metal hydroxide (Ca(OH)2, Mg(OH)2, Ba(OH)2, etc.) in the cathode electrolyte 212. At least a portion of the anode electrolyte 206 comprising the metal oxyanion with the metal ion in the higher oxidation state (M(H) oxyanion) or the non-metal oxyanion with the non-metal ion in the higher oxidation state (NM(H) oxyanion), or both, is transferred outside the electrochemical cell 200 as an anode electrolyte solution 218 so that it can be subjected to a thermal reaction, e.g., in a thermal reactor 220, or a second electrochemical reaction (pages 14-15, [0239]).
The subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the corresponding cation of the metal oxyanions or the non-metal oxyanions transfers or migrates through the CEM where apparatus claims cover what the device is, not what a device does. An apparatus claim may be
obvious even if it operates in the same way as the prior art, as long as there are structural
differences (MPEP § 2114).
b. Wherein the cathode electrode generates the hydrogen or the organic hydride using the conducted protons.2
Albrecht teaches e.g., a platinum foil cathode (page 26, [0374]).
The subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
Regarding claim 2, Albrecht teaches wherein the mediator reduction tank causes the
oxidized form to react with water or hydroxide ions so as to produce the reduced form and oxygen (= Thermal reaction: MnO4- + OH- → MnO42- + ½H2O + ¼O2) [page 10, [0168]].
Regarding claim 3, Albrecht teaches wherein the mediator is composed of a redox couple having an electrode potential (= in some examples, the metal oxyanion with the metal ion in the lower oxidation state is MnO42− and the metal oxyanion with the metal ion in the higher oxidation state is MnO4-) [page 18, [0284]].
Albrecht does not explicitly teach wherein the electrode potential is more noble than an electrode potential at which oxygen is generated at the anode electrode at an operating temperature of the electrolysis cell.
The subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Albrecht teaches that in some examples, the metal oxyanion with the metal ion in the lower oxidation state is MnO42− and the
metal oxyanion with the metal ion in the higher oxidation state is MnO4- in [0284] where
a compound and all of its properties are inseparable (MPEP § 2141.02(V)).
Regarding claim 4, Albrecht teaches wherein the operating temperature of the mediator reduction tank is adjusted to a temperature (= in some examples, the temperature of the thermal reaction is from about 50° C. to about 500° C.) [page 4, [0073]] higher than an operating temperature of the electrolysis cell (= in some examples, the temperature of the electrochemical cell is from about 50° C. to about 100° C.) [page 4, 0069]].
Regarding claim 5, Albrecht teaches wherein the anode electrode oxidizes the reduced
form by a reaction that does not involve gas generation (= the oxidation of the metal oxyanion
or the non-metal oxyanion at the anode 204 is at a voltage low enough to not evolve gas (e.g., oxygen or chlorine gas)) [page 15, [0242]].
Regarding claim 6, Albrecht teaches wherein the electrolysis cell and the mediator reduction tank are physically separated from each other (= transferred outside the electrochemical cell 200 as an anode electrolyte solution 218 so that it can be subjected to a thermal reaction, e.g., in a thermal reactor 220, or a second electrochemical reaction) [pages 14-15, [0239]].
Regarding claim 8, Albrecht teaches a power supply that supplies power derived from renewable energy to the electrolysis cell (= the same cell 200 can be operated at high current or load gaining during low electricity prices (such as e.g., night time or day time when the power comes from a solar plant (page 15, [0244]); and the voltage may be applied to the electrochemical cell by any means for applying the current across the anode and the cathode of the electrochemical cell. Such means are well known in the art and include, without limitation, devices, such as, electrical power source, fuel cell, device powered by sun light, device powered by wind, and combination thereof (pages 22-23, [0346])).
II. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0325422 A1) as applied to claims 1-6 and 8 above, and further in view of Sugimasa et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0000574 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Albrecht teaches the electrolysis system of at least claims 1-6 as
applied above. Albrecht does not explicitly teach wherein the cathode electrode generates the organic hydride.3
Albrecht teaches e.g., a platinum foil cathode (page 26, [0374]).
The subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
However, like Albrecht, Sugimasa teaches generating hydrogen by water electrolysis (page 1, [0009]).
Recently, as a way of the hydrogen storage superior to other ones from safety, portability and storability of view, a hydrocarbon organic hydride system using hydrocarbons such as
cyclohexane, dekalin has been focused. These hydrocarbons are liquid state at the room temperature and have good transportability (page 1, [0007]).
The organic hydride reactor of the embodiment supplies hydrogen generated by this hydrogen generator to the hydrogenation catalyst and produces the organic hydride by the hydrogenation reaction between the organic compound and hydrogen. While the hydrogenation catalyst is able to be set outside or inside of the hydrogen chamber 1004, from a viewpoint of high efficiency of the system and its miniaturization, it is desirable to put inside the hydrogen chamber 1004. The hydrogen generator part as shown in FIG. 1, it is able to operate at the high temperature over 100 degrees C. by using a high temperature-resistant electrolyte, such as a highly concentrated alkaline solution. While the water electrolysis reaction is prone have a large reaction overvoltage, the overvoltage decreases at the high temperature and the reaction speed as well as the reaction efficiency also becomes high (page 2, [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode electrode taught by Albrecht with wherein the cathode electrode generates the organic hydride. The person with
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because producing an organic hydride by the hydrogenation reaction between an organic compound and hydrogen from water electrolysis would have been a way of hydrogen storage superior to other ones from safety, portability and storability, where these hydrocarbons are liquid state at the room temperature and would have had good transportability as taught by Sugimasa in [0007] and would have decreased the overvoltage of the water electrolysis reaction at a high temperature and the reaction speed as well as the reaction efficiency also becomes high as taught by Sugimasa in [0025].
III. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0325422 A1) as applied to claims 1-6 and 8 above, and further in view of Aziz et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0376195 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Albrecht teaches wherein the mediator is contained in an aqueous solution (= in some examples, the anode electrolyte and/or the cathode electrolyte further comprise water) [page 16, [0271]], and the electrode potential of the aqueous solution is 1.12 V or more (= in some examples, the operating voltage of the electrochemical cell is from about 1.5 V to about 2.5 V) [page 4, [0068]].
Albrecht does not explicitly teach vs. RHE.
Albrecht teaches e.g., an Ag/AgCl reference electrode (page 26, [0374]).
Aziz teaches that:
In one embodiment, the electrochemical cell of claim further comprises a reference electrode in contact with the electrolyte solution. A reference electrode is an electrode which has a stable and well-known electrode potential. The high stability of the electrode potential is usually reached by employing a redox system with constant (buffered or saturated) concentrations of each relevant species of the redox reaction. A reference electrode may enable a potentiostat to deliver a stable voltage to the working electrode or the counter electrode. The reference electrode may be a standard hydrogen electrode (SHE), a normal hydrogen electrode (NHE), a reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE), a saturated calomel electrode (SCE), a copper-copper(II) sulfate electrode (CSE), a silver chloride electrode (Ag/AgCl), a pH-electrode, a palladium-hydrogen electrode, a dynamic hydrogen electrode (DHE), a mercury-mercurous sulfate electrode, or some other type of electrode. In a preferred embodiment, a reference electrode is present and is a silver chloride electrode (Ag/AgCl). However, in some embodiments, the electrochemical cell does not comprise a third electrode (page 9, [0102]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reference electrode taught by Albrecht with a RHE. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a reference electrode would have enabled a potentiostat to deliver a stable voltage to the working electrode or the counter electrode where the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Aziz in [0102] is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one reference electrode for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
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).”
IV. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht et
al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0325422 A1)in view of Sugimasa et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0000574 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Albrecht teaches an electrolysis system (= as shown in FIG. 5, the example system) [page 14, [0237]] comprising:
• an electrolysis cell (= an electrochemical cell 200) [page 14, [0237]]; and
• a mediator reduction tank (= a thermal reactor 220, or a second electrochemical reaction) [pages 14-15, [0239]] that is connected to the electrolysis cell (= at least a portion
of the anode electrolyte 206 is transferred outside the electrochemical cell 200 as an anode electrolyte solution 218 so that it can be subjected to a thermal reaction, e.g., in a thermal reactor 220, or a second electrochemical reaction) [pages 14-15, [0239]],
wherein the electrolysis cell has:
۰ an anode electrode (= an anode 204) [page 14, [0237]] that electrochemically oxidizes a reduced form of a mediator (= wherein the anode is configured to oxidize the metal oxyanion with the metal ion in the lower oxidation state to a metal oxyanion with metal ion in a higher oxidation state) [page 14, [0230]]; and
۰ a cathode electrode (= a cathode 210) [page 14, [0237]] that performs generation of hydrogen (= the cathode 210 reduces water in the cathode chamber 208 to hydroxide ions and hydrogen gas 216) [page 14, [0237]], and
۰ the mediator reduction tank non-photochemically reduces an oxidized form of the
mediator generated in the electrolysis cell (= at least a portion of the anode electrolyte 206
comprising the metal oxyanion with the metal ion in the higher oxidation state (M(H) oxyanion) or the non-metal oxyanion with the non-metal ion in the higher oxidation state (NM(H) oxyanion), or both, is transferred outside the electrochemical cell 200 as an anode electrolyte solution 218 so that it can be subjected to a thermal reaction, e.g., in a thermal reactor 220, or
a second electrochemical reaction) [pages 14-15, [0239]].
Albrecht does not explicitly teach wherein the cathode electrode performs at least one of generation hydrogen by electrochemical reduction of protons and generation of an organic hydride by electrochemical reduction of a hydrogenation target substance.4
Albrecht teaches e.g., a platinum foil cathode (page 26, [0374]).
The subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
However, like Albrecht, Sugimasa teaches generating hydrogen by water electrolysis (page 1, [0009]).
Recently, as a way of the hydrogen storage superior to other ones from safety, portability and storability of view, a hydrocarbon organic hydride system using hydrocarbons such as
cyclohexane, dekalin has been focused. These hydrocarbons are liquid state at the room temperature and have good transportability (page 1, [0007]).
The organic hydride reactor of the embodiment supplies hydrogen generated by this hydrogen generator to the hydrogenation catalyst and produces the organic hydride by the hydrogenation reaction between the organic compound and hydrogen. While the hydrogenation catalyst is able to be set outside or inside of the hydrogen chamber 1004, from a viewpoint of high efficiency of the system
and its miniaturization, it is desirable to put inside the hydrogen chamber 1004. The hydrogen generator part as shown in FIG. 1, it is able to operate at the high temperature over 100 degrees C. by using a high temperature-resistant electrolyte, such as a highly concentrated alkaline solution. While the water electrolysis reaction is prone have a large reaction overvoltage, the overvoltage decreases at the high temperature and the reaction speed as well as the reaction efficiency also becomes high (page 2, [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode electrode taught by Albrecht with a cathode electrode that performs at least one of generation of hydrogen by electrochemical reduction of protons and generation of an organic hydride by electrochemical reduction of a hydrogenation target substance. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because producing an organic hydride by the hydrogenation reaction between an organic compound and hydrogen from water electrolysis would have been a way of hydrogen storage superior to other ones from safety, portability and storability, where these hydrocarbons are liquid state at the room temperature and would have had good transportability as taught by Sugimasa in [0007] and would have decreased the overvoltage of the water electrolysis reaction at a high temperature and the reaction speed as well as the reaction efficiency also becomes high as taught by Sugimasa in [0025].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejections of record for any teaching or matter specifically
challenged in the argument.
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 This is where Applicant claims a system in terms of function and the system of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference.
2 This is where Applicant claims a system in terms of function and the system of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference.
3 This is where Applicant claims a system in terms of function and the system of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference.
4 This is where Applicant claims a system in terms of function and the system of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference.
Prosecution Insights