www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/108,008
`
`12/01/2020
`
`HIDENOBU WAKITA
`
`083710-3225
`
`5862
`
`McDermott Will and Emery LLP
`The McDermott Building
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`CONTRERAS,CIEL P
`
`1794
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/16/2021
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`mweipdocket@mwe.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-19 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 15-19 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`() Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)___is/are objected to.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)() The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)M The drawing(s)filed on 12/1/20 is/are: a) accepted or b)C) objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[¥] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)() None ofthe:
`b)( Some**
`a) All
`1.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.4 Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 12/1/20.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20210911
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/108,008
`WAKITAetal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`CIEL P Contreras
`1794
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 7/23/21.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)L) This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/108,008
`Art Unit: 1794
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
`
`inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`Applicant’s election without traverse of Group |, Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 17 June 2021 is
`
`Election/Restrictions
`
`acknowledged.
`
`3.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or moreclaims 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-AlA), second paragraph:
`The specification shall conclude with one or moreclaims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards
`
`as the invention.
`
`5.
`
`As to claims 6 and 7, the claims recite the limitation "the liquid discharged from the first
`
`eliminator". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`6.
`
`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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/108,008
`Art Unit: 1794
`
`Page 3
`
`basis 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 eitherstatus.
`
`7.
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`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 contentsofthe 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.
`
`9.
`
`This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the
`
`examiner presumesthat the subject matter of the various claims was commonly ownedas of the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised
`
`of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effectivefiling dates of each claim that
`
`was not commonly ownedas of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner
`
`to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art
`
`against the later invention.
`
`10.
`
`Claims 1-9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent
`
`No. 6,168,705 to Molter et al. (Molter) in view of US Patent No. 5,259,869 to Auvil et al. (Auvil).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/108,008
`Art Unit: 1794
`
`Page 4
`
`11.
`
`As to claims 1, 3 and 5, Molter teaches a hydrogen system comprising a compressor, hydrogen
`
`purifier (101), in which protons (105) extracted from an anode fluid, contaminated hydrogen stream
`
`(102), supplied to an anode (103) moveto a cathode (107) through an electrolyte membrane (108) and
`
`compressed hydrogen is generated as part of a cathode gas stream comprising water which is then
`
`removed from the cathode gas stream via conventional means, a first eliminator (Column 2, Lines 7-26;
`
`Figure 1). However, Molterfails to specifically contemplate a first eliminator comprising a water
`
`permeable membraneasclaimed.
`
`12.
`
`However, Auvil also discusses the removal of water from hydrogen gas and teachesthat a
`
`particularly effective water removal device, eliminator, configuration comprises a water-permeable
`
`membrane (12) receiving the water containing gas inafirst flow path (13) on one surface of the
`
`membrane (12), wherein water passes through the membrane (12) to a second flow path (14) formed
`
`on the other surface of the water-permeable membrane (11), thus a second flow path (14) (an
`
`accommodation portion) at least partially filled with liquid water, wherein the first flow path is
`
`operating at a higher pressure than the second flow path (the gas filling the second flow path is pressure
`
`reduced througha valve (26)) (Column 4,Lines 29-66; Figure 1).
`
`13.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art at the time of invention
`
`to modify the apparatus of Molter with the use of a water eliminator configuration as in Auvil, thus
`
`receiving the cathode gas in the first flow path and removing water therefrom, with the expectation of
`
`removing the water from the hydrogen gas of Molter in a particularly effective manner as taught by
`
`Auvil.
`
`14.
`
`As to claims 2 and 6, the combination of Molter and Auvil teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
`
`Auvil further teaches that the second flow path (14), the accommodation portion, comprises a discharge
`
`path (16) which dischargesliquid that is recycled back to the eliminator in a recycle path (Column 4,
`
`Lines 41-51; Figure 1).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/108,008
`Art Unit: 1794
`
`Page 5
`
`15.
`
`As to claim 4, the combination of Molter and Auvil teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Auvil fails
`
`to specifically teach that the temperatureof the liquid is lower than the temperature of the cathode gas
`
`flowing into the first eliminator; however, this is a functional limitation. Functional limitations do not
`
`serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the apparatus be capable of
`
`performing the claimed function (MPEP 2114). The apparatus of Auvil is capable of operating at this
`
`temperaturegradient, particularly in view of a temperature choice of an inlet sweep gas (Column 4,
`
`Lines 52-63).
`
`16.
`
`As to claim 7, the combination of Molter and Auvil teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As
`
`discussed above, the combination teachesthat the liquid includes water and the anode fluid is a
`
`hydrogen containing gas. However, the combination fails to specifically teach that the system comprises
`
`a supply path supplying the liquid discharge from the first eliminator to the hydrogen containing gas to
`
`be supplied to the anode. However, Molter specifically teaches that the electrolyte membrane requires
`
`water/hydration for proper operation, which is supplied to the anode side (Column 2, Lines 28-37;
`
`Column 3, Lines 18-24); therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize
`
`the available water from Auvil for a water supply source for Molter.
`
`17.
`
`As to claim 8, the combination of Molter and Auvil teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Auvil
`
`teaches that the membrane comprises polysulfone, a polymer having a sulfonate group (Column 4,Line
`
`1).
`
`18.
`
`As to claim 9, the combination of Molter and Auvil teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The
`
`membraneof Auvil is not energized.
`
`19.
`
`As to claim 13, the combination of Molter and Auvil teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Auvil
`
`teaches that the accommodation space of the eliminator, second flow path, comprises gas from the first
`
`flow path and dry sweep gas, thus comprises a gas which starts with less water vapor than the moisture
`
`laden gas in the first flow path (Column 4, Lines 29-66; Figure 1). Auvil teaches this configuration only in
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/108,008
`Art Unit: 1794
`
`Page 6
`
`a first eliminator and fails to teach the use of a second eliminator. However, the duplication of partsis
`
`not patentably significant (MPEP 2144.04 VIB).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to locate these eliminators in series to ensure maximum water removal from the hydrogen
`
`stream.
`
`20.
`
`As to claim 14, the combination of Molter and Auvil teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However,
`
`the combination fails to further teach a third eliminator including an adsorbent that removes moisture
`
`in the cathode gas passed through the first eliminator. However, Auvil does teach thatit is known in the
`
`art that adsorbents can remove water from gasesto a very low levels, but that they require
`
`regeneration and loss.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art at the time offiling
`
`that the known adsorbents would have been useful to remove anylow levels of water downstream from
`
`the membrane eliminator due to the capability to remove water to very low levels with less issues with
`
`regeneration as less water would be required to be removed after an upstream removal process.
`
`21.
`
`Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination
`
`of Molter and Auvil as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of US Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2012/0118155to Claridgeet al. (Claridge).
`
`22.
`
`As to claim 10, the combination of Molter and Auvil teaches the apparatus of claim 3. However,
`
`Auvil fails to further teach that the first flow path comprises a first porous structure. However, Claridge
`
`also discusses membranesfor the separation of water vapor from a gaseous stream and teachesthat
`
`the membrane should be supported with a porous metal sheet in order to allow the membraneto
`
`withstand pressure gradients (Paragraph 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinaryskill in the art at the time offiling to provide a porous metal supportin the first flow path of
`
`Auvil in order to ensure that the membranecan withstand pressure gradients on the first flow path side,
`
`as taughtby Claridge.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/108,008
`Art Unit: 1794
`
`Page 7
`
`23.
`
`As to claim 11, the combination of Molter and Auvil teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However,
`
`Auvil fails to further teach that the second flow path comprises a second porous structure. However,
`
`Claridge also discusses membranesfor the separation of water vapor from a gaseous stream and
`
`teaches that the membrane should be supported with a porous metal sheet in order to allow the
`
`membraneto withstand pressure gradients (Paragraph 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a porous metal supportin the first flow
`
`path of Auvil in order to ensure that the membrane can withstand pressure gradients on the second
`
`flow pathside, as taught by Claridge.
`
`24.
`
`Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Molter
`
`and Auvil as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2003/0159663 to Zagaja et al. (Zagaja).
`
`25.
`
`As to claim 12, the combination of Molter and Auvil teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Molter
`
`teaches that the compressor is a stacked product with a cell that includes the cathode, electrolyte
`
`membrane and the anode (Claim 2). However, the combination fails to further teach that the eliminator
`
`is integrally stacked with the compressor. However, Zagaja also discusses electrolytic hydrogen
`
`generation with hydrogen water separation and teaches that the separating unit can be integrally
`
`formed with the cell stack or formed at a separate location depending on the needs of the application
`
`(Paragraph 0026). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of invention to provide the eliminator of the combination integral with the stack of Molter if it would
`
`benefit the application as taught by Zagaja.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/108,008
`Art Unit: 1794
`
`Page 8
`
`Double Patenting
`
`26.
`
`The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded
`
`in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise
`
`extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple
`
`assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not
`
`identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference
`
`claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious
`
`over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re
`
`Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164
`
`USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
`
`27.
`
`A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to
`
`overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the
`
`reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application,
`
`or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research
`
`agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination underthe first inventor tofile
`
`provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146et seq. for applications not subject
`
`to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be
`
`signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
`
`28.
`
`The USPTOInternet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Pleasevisit
`
`www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed
`
`determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A
`
`web-based eTerminal Disclaimer maybefilled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal
`
`Disclaimer that meetsall requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/108,008
`Art Unit: 1794
`
`Page 9
`
`For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
`
`
`
`29.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of
`
`nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 7 and 10 of copending
`
`Application No. 16/926,794 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they
`
`are not patentably distinct from each other.
`
`30.
`
`The limitations of present claims 1, 2, 3,5, 7 and 9 are claimed in copending claim 1 with the
`
`exception of the limitations regarding pressure; however, the pressurelimitations are functional
`
`limitations which do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the
`
`apparatus be capable of performing the claimed function (MPEP 2114).
`
`31.
`
`The limitations of present claim 4, are claimed in copending claim 1 with the exception of the
`
`limitations regarding temperature; however, the temperaturelimitations are functional limitations
`
`which do notserve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the apparatus
`
`be capable of performing the claimed function (MPEP 2114).
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`The limitations of present claim 10 are claimed in copending claim 4.
`
`The limitations of present claim 11 are claimed in copending claim 7.
`
`The limitations of present claim 13, are claimed in copending claim 1 with the exception of the
`
`provision of a second elimination; however, duplication of parts is not patentably significant (MPEP
`
`2144.04 VIB).
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`The limitations of present claim 14 are claimed in copending claim 10.
`
`This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct
`
`claims have notin fact been patented.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/108,008
`Art Unit: 1794
`
`Page 10
`
`37.
`
`Claims 6 and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
`
`being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 16/926,794 in view of Auvil.
`
`38.
`
`The limitations of present claim 6 are claimed in copending claim 1 with the exception of the
`
`recycle limitations, which are rendered obvious by Auvil as discussed above.
`
`39.
`
`The limitations of present claim 8 are claimed in copending claim 1 with the exception of the
`
`membrane material limitations, which are rendered obvious by Auvil as discussed above.
`
`40.
`
`This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
`
`41.
`
`Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
`
`unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 16/926,794 in view of Molter and Zagaja.
`
`42.
`
`The limitations of present claim 12 are claimed in copending claim 1 with the exception of the
`
`stacked limitations, which are rendered obvious by Molter and Zagaja.
`
`43.
`
`This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
`
`44.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
`
`double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3 and 11 of copending Application No.
`
`17/199,502 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not
`
`patentably distinct from each other.
`
`A5.
`
`The limitations of present claims 1, 2, 3,5, 7 and 9 are claimed in copending claim 1 with the
`
`exception of the limitations regarding pressure; however, the pressurelimitations are functional
`
`limitations which do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the
`
`apparatus be capable of performing the claimed function (MPEP 2114).
`
`46.
`
`The limitations of present claim 4, are claimed in copending claim 1 with the exception of the
`
`limitations regarding temperature; however, the temperaturelimitations are functional limitations
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/108,008
`Art Unit: 1794
`
`Page 11
`
`which do notserve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the apparatus
`
`be capable of performing the claimed function (MPEP 2114).
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`The limitations of present claim 10 are claimed in copending claim 2.
`
`The limitations of present claim 11 are claimed in copending claim 3.
`
`The limitations of present claim 12 are claimed in copending claim 11.
`
`The limitations of present claim 13, are claimed in copending claim 1 with the exception of the
`
`provision of a second elimination; however, duplication of parts is not patentably significant (MPEP
`
`2144.04 VIB).
`
`51.
`
`This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct
`
`claims have notin fact been patented.
`
`52.
`
`Claims 6, 8 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
`
`being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/199,502 in view of Auvil.
`
`53.
`
`The limitations of present claim 6 are claimed in copending claim 1 with the exception of the
`
`recycle limitations, which are rendered obvious by Auvil as discussed above.
`
`54.
`
`The limitations of present claim 8 are claimed in copending claim 1 with the exception of the
`
`membrane material limitations, which are rendered obvious by Auvil as discussed above.
`
`55.
`
`The limitations of present claim 14 are claimed in copending claim 1 with the exception of the
`
`third eliminator, which are rendered obvious by Auvil as discussed above.
`
`56.
`
`This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/108,008
`Art Unit: 1794
`
`Page 12
`
`Conclusion
`
`57.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can
`
`normally be reached on M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
`
`Examiner interviewsare 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,
`
`James Lin can be reached on 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization wherethis
`
`application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
`
`Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
`
`from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
`
`through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-
`
`my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on accessto the Private PAIR system, contact
`
`the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197(toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-
`
`9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or 571-272-1000.
`
`/CIEL P Contreras/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
`
`