DETAILED ACTION
Application 14/890295, “A METAL ACCUMULATION INHIBITING AND PERFORMANCE ENHANCING SUPPLEMENT AND A SYSTEM FOR DELIVERING THE SUPPLEMENT”, is the national stage entry of a PCT application filed on 5/30/14 and claims priority from a provisional application filed on 5/31/13.
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 1/8/26.
First Inventor to File Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/8/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/8/26 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant arguments presented on 1/8/26 substantially repeat those previously presented on 6/9/25, and responded to in the 7/8/25 Final Rejection.
Applicant further argues (paragraph bridging pages 40 and 41 of the remarks) that the foamer and foaming agent of Wimberly are used for elastomeric expansion, not as a supplement or migratory compound for a controlled or time release as in the claimed invention. Applicant further argues that Wimberly does not want any residual foam migrating as the foam would interfere with the performance of the separator in the energy cell.
In response, firstly, the claim as worded does not require a “foaming agent”, and the foaming agent of Wimberly is not relied on in the art rejections. Instead, the foaming property recited in the claims is the result of a test that may be performed as described in the claims. The rejections find that the foaming property recited in the claim would be achieved if the separator of Wimberly were tested in the same manner. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Wimberly’s foaming agent teaching at c7:1-5 is not responsive to the actual basis of the rejection.
Secondly, with respect to the foaming agent, Wimberly c7:1-5 characterizes the amount of residual foaming agent itself as being “sufficiently low” to avoid interfering with performance. This teaching is specific to “foaming agent”, not to foam in a formed product by shaking as claimed. Foaming agent is understood to be a material which promotes foaming of a product, not the foam itself. Applicant’s argument that Wimberly c7:1-5 suggests that Wimberly “does not want any residual foam migrating as the foam migration would interfere with the performance” is not what is stated in the section of the reference and is therefore unpersuasive. Furthermore, even if the teaching were specific to foam, instead of foaming agent, “sufficiently low” does not teach away from the claimed invention which does not quantify a foam amount.
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 41-48, 52-55 and 59-66 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claims 41, 52 and 61, the claims fail to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim and are thus indefinite.
The claims as worded are drawn to a system having at least one performance article [which may take various forms such as a cell container, a negative electrode, a porous insulating sheet, an electrolyte or an encapsulating article] having included therewith a supplement and/or a migratory compound, wherein the quantity of the component is claimed as a critical characteristic, but is characterized by the effect produced by the presence of the system/battery, thereby rendering the quantity to be ambiguous. Moreover, the factor for comparison and evidencing that a sufficient quantity of compound/supplement present includes a broad range of possible improved behaviors of the battery such as reduction in material build-up at the negative electrode, elevated electric potential, reduction in gas evolution, reduction in water consumption, reduction in corrosion, and reduction in self discharge. It is noted that the named properties include those that were known as desirable in the art at the time of invention, such as inhibition of undesirable metal accumulation (see art rejections below). The scope of the structure of the invention not being unambiguously defined, the claims as worded are not found to adequately set forth the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As to the 7/31/24 amendment to claims 41, 52 and 61, the following recitation is unclear, “… the at least one positive electrode and the at least one negative electrode arranged for receiving a flow of an electric current from an electric power source…” is unclear. More specifically, it is unclear if the “an electric power source” is intended to be a positively claimed element of the system, or if the structural requirement is merely that the positive electrode or negative electrode are capable of receiving a flow of electric current due to the passive wording used to refer to the electric power source. For the purposes of the art rejections below, the performance system is interpreted to positively require an electric power source.
Additionally, the following clause of claim 41 is unclear, “the at least one performance article delivered to the rechargeable electrochemical cell and included therewith for use therewith, a portion of the negative electrode surface barrier-forming molecules migrated into the H2SO4 electrolyte of the rechargeable electrochemical cell from the at least one performance article, the rechargeable electrochemical cell is thereby a treated cell, and the electric current is thereby received by the treated cell” [emphasis added]. More specifically, it is unclear how delivering the performance article to the rechargeable electrochemical cell causes a delivery of electric current to happen so as to satisfy the “the electric current is thereby received by the treated cell” clause. No current providing step is presumed to be associated with a delivery step.
As to claim 61, the same ambiguity remains because the presence/quantity of the barrier-forming compound within the “barrier forming article” (e.g. the porous insulating sheet) is ambiguously set forth only by behaviors and properties (e.g. elevated potential upwards of 2.25 volts and gas bubbles on the surface of the negative electrode) observable in the battery under a conditional use described in the claims. Moreover, as to claim 61, it is noted that the structure of the barrier-forming molecules is merely defined by the presence of a hydrophilic head aspect and a hydrophilic gas-attracting tail. This structure describes a broad class of molecules including not only phospholipids, but also including many other lipids and glycerides which may be found in naturally occurring materials such as the rubbers and polymers conventionally used to form separators. Accordingly, a skilled artisan could not determine the metes and bounds of claim 61, with criticality of the claimed invention apparently tied to the molecular identity and amount of the barrier forming molecule, which is unspecified.
In making this determination the Office has considered at least the following factors as suggested by MPEP 2173.05(g): (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim; (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained; and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim.
In this case, there is not a clear-cut indication of the scope of subject matter because boundaries of the invention are largely defined in a qualitative fashion, rather than in quantitative or other well-defined manner and are primarily defined only by results obtained, such as enhancement of performance, inhibition of metal accumulation, generation of foam (as to claim 52) of an electrochemical cell which includes the performance article.
These enhanced properties are conditional limitations dependent on various aspects of a system and it is unclear what other elements of the battery [or electrochemical cell] may play a role in attainment of the properties. A skilled artisan at the time of invention would not have known what structure is set forth because the quantity of the compound/component included in the performance system is defined only by implication, leaving excessive ambiguity.
The Office has attempted to apply the closest prior art, despite a lack of a clear understanding of the metes and bounds of the claim due to the ambiguity of the claims as described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 41-48, 52-55 and 59-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wimberly (USP 6458491).
Supporting evidence for these rejections is provided by Encyclopaedia Britannica: Phospholipid (Article Title: Phospholipid; Website Name: Encyclopaedia Britannica; Publisher: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.; Date Published: 15 January 2009; https://www.britannica.com/science/phospholipid; Access Date: March 10, 2021), Hamill (USP 3080334) and Fellows (USP 3623908).
Regarding claims 41-48, 52-55 and 59-66, Wimberly teaches a performance system which expressly includes the following named components of the claimed system:
An electrochemical cell which is a lead-acid battery and includes the following components: a sulfuric acid electrolyte, a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a container and a porous insulating sheet [a separator] (Wimberley at c2:54-67; “sulfuric acid” at c1:23).
The separator of Wimberley (see abstract, Figure 2; c2:33-43) is a porous insulating sheet, readable on the “performance article” of claims 41 and 52 or the “negative electrode surface barrier-forming article” of claim 61.
As to the porous insulating sheet, Wimberly further teaches that the sheet may comprise a combination of a polymeric material and “natural rubber” or “natural latex rubber” (abstract; “mixture of natural and synthetic elastomeric materials… natural latex rubber” c3:47-c4:28), optionally further including silica (c5:36-37) in a single sheet structure (see Figure 2).
An electric power source for providing a flow of electric current to the electrodes of the electrochemical cell (implied by the teaching of charging the electrochemical cell such as at c1:33-43).
The performance system of Wimberly appears to implicitly include the following claimed feature:
A supplement or migratory compound (or barrier-forming compound as in claim 61) included in the single-sheet separator in a form suitable for controlled and or timed release if submerged in H2SO4 as described, the supplement or migratory compound comprising molecules which include a hydrophilic head-group and/or at least one gas-attracting hydrophobic tail aspect,
More specifically, the Wimberly separator is a single sheet comprising a mixture including a synthetic elastomeric material and a “natural rubber” or a “natural latex rubber” as described above. By including the natural rubber/natural latex rubber, the Wimberly separator appears to contain the claimed supplement or migratory compound.
To clarify, natural rubber and latex conventionally also contain glycolipids, phospholipids, proteins, carbohydrates, ash and other compounds (applicant’s as-filed paragraphs [0022-0023], corresponding to published paragraph [0027-0028]) and that such compounds provide enhanced solubility in H2SO4 electrolyte and provides the claimed desirable migratory effect and other claimed properties (applicant’s as-filed paragraph [0037], corresponding to published paragraph [0043]). Moreover, applicant’s as-filed paragraphs [0021] and [0023-0035] (corresponding to applicant’s published paragraphs [0027] and [0029-0030]) teach that phospholipids and glycolipids are molecules having the claimed head/polar aspect and tail aspect.
For further clarification, phospholipids are defined by including a head aspect which comprises –OCH2-, one or more –CH2O, one or more –OH groups, and a tail aspect which comprises fatty acids having CH3CH2CH2 groups. For supporting evidence, see for example see the Encyclopaedia Britannica: Phospholipid article, the figure of which is copied below. As described in the phospholipid article, phospholipids describe members of a large class of fatlike substances that play important roles in living cells, and include hydrophilic head, hydrophobic tail and molecular aspects among those claimed. See Figure below.
Accordingly, Wimberly teaches the claimed compound/supplement including the claimed molecular aspects by expressly teaching the porous insulating sheet [separator] being formed of a mixture including natural rubber and/or latex, which each contain phospholipids. Wimberly is not required to teach awareness and/or recognition of the implicit features (MPEP 2112 II).
It is noted that Wimberly teaches “natural rubber” and “natural latex rubber” and gives a possible commercial source thereof (c4:14-27), but does not teach natural rubber obtained from an Hevea brasiliensis tree, whereas applicant’ teachings at as-filed paragraphs [0022-0023] (corresponding to published paragraph [0027-0028]) are characterized as specific to natural elastomer from Hevea brasiliensis tree.
However, in some instances the terms “hevea” and “natural rubber” have been used substantially interchangeably in the prior art (consider Hamill -USP 3080334- at c4:41-44; Fellows -USP 3623908- at c3:33-36).
Therefore:
i) the “natural rubber” or “natural latex rubber” of Wimberly may implicitly contain the properties suggested by applicant’s paragraphs [0027-0028] as non-Hevea natural rubber would be chemically similar to Hevea natural rubber and therefore contain phospholipids, with the phospholipids being readable on the claimed supplement or migratory compound. This supports rejection under 35 USC § 102, except for claims 42, 53 and 66 which expressly require Hevea brasiliensis rubber, or
ii) the “natural rubber” of Wimberly may be intended by Wimberly to mean Hevea natural rubber, as these terms have been used interchangeably in the prior art. This supports rejection under 35 USC § 102, for all claims since Hevea natural rubber contains the phospholipid readable on the claimed supplement or migratory compound.
Accordingly, although Wimberly does not expressly characterize the natural rubber/latex as containing phospholipids [including the claimed hydrophilic head-aspect and gas-attracting hydrophobic tail], the presence of phospholipids in the natural rubber/latex of Wimberly is implicitly present in view of i) or ii) above.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claims further include limitations drawn to the process of using the system or testing the system for desirable behavior, such as i) comparing the rechargeable electrochemical energy storage cell of the claimed system to a “substantially equivalent” electrochemical energy storage cell, and ii) soaking the article of the system in an H2SO4 electrolyte to determine the properties, e.g. a foaming property, of the article, which as to claim 52 or 61 includes placing and subsequently processing the article a closeable and shakable-by-hand bottle or enclosure that is also holding a volume of air. However, since the claims are drawn to product, the prior art is not required to teach the same manner of using/testing the device. See MPEP 2114 II for more detail.
Wimberly teaches the porous insulating sheet including natural rubber and/or latex, thereby implicitly teaching inclusion of the claimed barrier forming molecules for reasons described above, but does not expressly teach that the migratory compound/supplement/barrier forming molecules are I) included in an amount that generates a protective gas bubble barrier layer on the surface of the negative electrode confirmable by an elevated electric potential upwards of 2.25 volts compared to a substantially equivalent cell without a performance article, II) included in an amount that is an “effective treatment quantity” and/or “in a quantity or at a concentration that provides at least one performance enhancement” such that the treated cell exhibits at least one of the performance improvements listed in the claims, or III) included in a form suitable for controlled release and/or timed release, as claimed.
However, since Wimberly includes the claimed structural features as described above, in a combination of polymeric material with supplement/migratory compound comprising natural rubber, similar to the claimed invention, the same behaviors and properties I)-III are expected of the Wimberly porous insulating sheet.
The claims further requires that the supplement, migratory compound, or combination thereof, or the barrier-forming compound as in claim 61, is included in the performance article in a quantity which is an “active concentration”, with “the active concentration thereby corresponding to and the quantity thereby being an effective treatment quantity”.
However, the claims as worded do not concretely set forth any difference between the amount of supplement/compound implied by “active concentration” compared to “effective treatment quantity, thus “active concentration” and “effective treatment quantity” are terms having substantially the same scope in the context of the claimed inventions.
Claim 41 further includes limitations which describe the effects of delivering current within the system, i.e. a portion of the negative electrode surface barrier forming molecules migrated to the surface and forming a barrier on the surface of the at least one negative electrode when the electric power source is delivering controlled electric current. However, these limitations appear to describe the consequences of charging the battery having the claimed structure. Since the prior art teaches the same or substantially the same structure as described, the same consequences would be expected to naturally occur due to the similarity of the systems. Recognition of these consequences is not required of the prior art. See MPEP 2112 II, which clarifies that an inherent feature need not be recognized prior art, with MPEP 2112 II including an example where a claimed in situ formed film did not distinguish an applicant’s invention from the prior art because although the in-situ film was naturally formed as a result of the system of the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 41-48, 52-55 and 59-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Wimberly (USP 6458491) in view of Fraley (US 2015/0232583).
Supporting evidence for these rejections is provided by Encyclopaedia Britannica: Phospholipid (Article Title: Phospholipid; Website Name: Encyclopaedia Britannica; Publisher: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.; Date Published: 15 January 2009; https://www.britannica.com/science/phospholipid; Access Date: March 10, 2021).
Regarding claims 41-48, 52-55 and 59-66, Wimberly teaches a performance system which expressly includes the following named components of the claimed system:
An electrochemical cell which is a lead-acid battery and includes the following components: a sulfuric acid electrolyte, a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a container and a porous insulating sheet [a separator] (Wimberley at c2:54-67; “sulfuric acid” at c1:23).
The separator of Wimberley (see abstract, Figure 2; c2:33-43) is a porous insulating sheet, readable on the “performance article” of claims 41 and 52 or the “negative electrode surface barrier-forming article” of claim 61.
As to the porous insulating sheet, Wimberly further teaches that the sheet may comprise a combination of a polymeric material and “natural rubber” or “natural latex rubber” (abstract; “mixture of natural and synthetic elastomeric materials… natural latex rubber” c3:47-c4:28), optionally further including silica (c5:36-37) in a single sheet structure (see Figure 2).
An electric power source for providing a flow of electric current to the electrodes of the electrochemical cell (implied by the teaching of charging the electrochemical cell such as at c1:33-43).
The performance system of Wimberly appears to implicitly include the following claimed feature:
A supplement or migratory compound (or barrier-forming compound as in claim 61) included in the single-sheet separator in a form suitable for controlled and or timed release if submerged in H2SO4 as described, the supplement or migratory compound comprising molecules which include a hydrophilic head-group and/or at least one gas-attracting hydrophobic tail aspect,
More specifically, the Wimberly separator is a single sheet comprising a mixture including a synthetic elastomeric material and a “natural rubber” or a “natural latex rubber” as described above. By including the natural rubber/natural latex rubber, the Wimberly separator appears to contain the claimed supplement or migratory compound.
To clarify, natural rubber and latex conventionally also contain glycolipids, phospholipids, proteins, carbohydrates, ash and other compounds (applicant’s as-filed paragraphs [0022-0023], corresponding to published paragraph [0027-0028]) and that such compounds provide enhanced solubility in H2SO4 electrolyte and provides the claimed desirable migratory effect and other claimed properties (applicant’s as-filed paragraph [0037], corresponding to published paragraph [0043]). Moreover, applicant’s as-filed paragraphs [0021] and [0023-0035] (corresponding to applicant’s published paragraphs [0027] and [0029-0030]) teach that phospholipids and glycolipids are molecules having the claimed head/polar aspect and tail aspect.
For further clarification, phospholipids are defined by including a head aspect which comprises –OCH2-, one or more –CH2O, one or more –OH groups, and a tail aspect which comprises fatty acids having CH3CH2CH2 groups. For supporting evidence, see for example see the Encyclopaedia Britannica: Phospholipid article, the figure of which is copied below. As described in the phospholipid article, phospholipids describe members of a large class of fatlike substances that play important roles in living cells, and include hydrophilic head, hydrophobic tail and molecular aspects among those claimed. See Figure below.
Accordingly, Wimberly teaches the claimed compound/supplement including the claimed molecular aspects by expressly teaching the porous insulating sheet [separator] being formed of a mixture including natural rubber and/or latex, which each contain phospholipids. Wimberly is not required to teach awareness and/or recognition of the implicit features (MPEP 2112 II).
It is noted that Wimberly teaches “natural rubber” and “natural latex rubber” and gives an possible commercial source thereof (c4:14-27), but does not teach natural rubber obtained from an Hevea brasiliensis tree, whereas applicant’ teachings as-filed paragraphs [0022-0023] (corresponding to published paragraph [0027-0028]) are characterized as specific to natural elastomer from Hevea brasiliensis tree.
However, in the rubbers art [which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because a skilled artisan seeking natural rubber to make the invention would look to the rubbers art to find an appropriate source of natural rubber], Fraley teaches that at the time of invention, “[n]atural rubber consumption in the United States was largely derived from the plant Hevea brasiliensis” and was “conventional” (Fraley paragraphs [0003, 0051]).
Therefore:
iii) it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to source the natural rubber/latex of Wimberly as Hevea brasiliensis natural rubber, since Hevea brasiliensis was the conventional and common source of natural rubber at the time of invention in view of Fraley [supporting rejection under 35 USC § 103 for all claims].
Accordingly, although Wimberly does not expressly characterize the natural rubber/latex as containing phospholipids [including the claimed hydrophilic head-aspect and gas-attracting hydrophobic tail], the presence of phospholipids in the natural rubber/latex of Wimberly is obvious in view of iii) above.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claims further include limitations drawn to the process of using the system or testing the system for desirable behavior, such as i) comparing the rechargeable electrochemical energy storage cell of the claimed system to a “substantially equivalent” electrochemical energy storage cell, and ii) soaking the article of the system in an H2SO4 electrolyte to determine the properties, e.g. a foaming property, of the article, which as to claim 52 or 61 includes placing and subsequently processing the article a closeable and shakable-by-hand bottle or enclosure that is also holding a volume of air. However, since the claims are drawn to product, the prior art is not required to teach the same manner of using/testing the device. See MPEP 2114 II for more detail.
Wimberly, modified by Frayley, suggests the porous insulating sheet including Hevea rubber, thereby implicitly teaching inclusion of the claimed barrier forming molecules, but does not expressly teach that the migratory compound/supplement/barrier forming molecules are I) included in an amount that generates a protective gas bubble barrier layer on the surface of the negative electrode confirmable by an elevated electric potential upwards of 2.25 volts compared to a substantially equivalent cell without a performance article, II) included in an amount that is an “effective treatment quantity” and/or “in a quantity or at a concentration that provides at least one performance enhancement” such that the treated cell exhibits at least one of the performance improvements listed in the claims, or III) included in a form suitable for controlled release and/or timed release, as claimed.
However, since Wimberly in view of Fraley includes the claimed structural features as described above, in a combination of polymeric material with supplement/migratory compound comprising Hevea natural rubber, similar to the claimed invention, the same behaviors and properties i)-iii) are expected of the Wimberly porous insulating sheet.
The claims further requires that the supplement, migratory compound, or combination thereof, or the barrier-forming compound as in claim 61, is included in the performance article in a quantity which is an “active concentration”, with “the active concentration thereby corresponding to and the quantity thereby being an effective treatment quantity”.
However, the claims as worded do not concretely set forth any difference between the amount of supplement/compound implied by “active concentration” compared to “effective treatment quantity, thus “active concentration” and “effective treatment quantity” are terms having substantially the same scope in the context of the claimed inventions.
Claim 41 further includes limitations which describe the effects of delivering current within the system, i.e. a portion of the negative electrode surface barrier forming molecules migrated to the surface and forming a barrier on the surface of the at least one negative electrode when the electric power source is delivering controlled electric current. However, these limitations appear to describe the consequences of charging the battery having the claimed structure. Since the prior art teaches the same or substantially the same structure as described, the same consequences would be expected to naturally occur due to the similarity of the systems. Recognition of these consequences is not required of the prior art. See MPEP 2112 II, which clarifies that an inherent feature need not be recognized prior art, with MPEP 2112 II including an example where a claimed in situ formed film did not distinguish an applicant’s invention from the prior art because although the in-situ film was naturally formed as a result of the system of the prior art.
Final Rejection
As described in MPEP 706.07(b), the claims of an application for which a request for continued examination (RCE) has been filed may be finally rejected in the action immediately subsequent to the filing of the RCE (with a submission and fee under 37 CFR 1.114) where all the claims in the application after the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and any entered supplemental amendments (A) are either identical to or patentably indistinct from the claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114, and (B) would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to the filing of the RCE under 37 CFR 1.114.
In this case: (A) there is no difference between the claims as filed on 1/8/26 and the claims filed on 6/9/25, which were considered in the 7/8/25 Final Rejection; and (B), the ground(s) of rejection previously presented in the 7/8/25 Final Rejection are maintained for reasons described above.
Accordingly, conditions A and B are met and this rejection is made Final.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
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, Milton Cano can be reached on 313-446-4937. The fax phone number for the organization where this 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723