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 Amendment
The amendments filed on February 25, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on November 28, 2025 have been received and entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 15 and 20 have been amended. Claims 2, 4, 12 and 14 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13 and 15-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 108258312 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 1 rejection, the applicant argues (see page 19 and 20) that Wang '312 fails to disclose, expressly or inherently, an electrolyte, with the recited limitations in amended claim. Specifically, Wang '312 discloses an electrolyte including an metaborate salt such as lithium metaborate, which is excluded from amended claim 1. That is, Wang '312 fails to disclose, expressly or inherently, that the electrolyte includes a non-fluorinated lithium borate compound comprising at least one of a compound I-1 or a compound I-2.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 19 and 20, filed on February 25, 2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Because of the direct or indirect dependency of claims 3 and 5-10 on claim 1, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 rejections applied to these claims have been withdrawn.
Claim 11 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 108258312 A, see machine translation for citation) as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Kinoshita et al. (WO 2014103211 A1, see machine translation for citation).
Claim 20 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 108258312 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Kinoshita et al. (WO 2014103211 A1, see machine translation for citation) as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Wang et al. (WO 2018068547 A1, see machine translation for citation).
Because claims 11 and 20 have been amended to be independent claims and recite the same limitations of claim 1, Wang '312 fail to disclose its teachings as discussed above. Further applied references do not cure the teaching deficiencies of Wang ‘312.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 19 and 20, filed on February 25, 2025, with respect to independent claims 11 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 of independent claims 11 and 20 have been withdrawn.
Because of the direct or indirect dependency of claims 13, 15 and 16-19 on claim 11, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections applied to these claims have been withdrawn.
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fujiyama et al. (WO 2019039346 A1, see machine translation for citation).
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites “wherein the additive A comprises a non-fluorinated lithium borate compound; the non-fluorinated lithium borate compound comprises at least one of a compound I-1 or a compound I-2” in lines 4-7. Structures for compound I-1 or compound I-2 are not provided in this claim, therefore it is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyama et al. (WO 2019039346 A1, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Fujiyama teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte for batteries containing an additive A and an additive B [0015]. Additive A is represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
wherein n represents an integer of 1-5 and Ｍ＋ is Li＋ Ion or H+. If n is an integer of 2-5, then multiple M＋ can be identical or different [0022-0024]. From the previous description, if n=2, compound I-1 is obtained.
Additive B consists of compounds with a lower reduction decomposition potential than additive A. Additive B contained in the non-aqueous electrolyte may be only one or two or more [0028]. Among possible materials, additive B may comprise carbonate compounds, sultone and cyclic sulfate ester compounds (“additive C”) and dinitrile compounds (“additive D”) [0031]. Among the carbonate compounds, vinylene carbonate is mentioned (“additive B”) [0032].
The content of additive A relative to the total amount of non-aqueous electrolyte is preferably 0.001-10 mass% [0027]. The content of additive B per total amount of the non-aqueous electrolyte is preferably 0.001-10 mass% [0046].
Fujiyama is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrolyte comprising an additive A represented by compound I-1 and an additive B which may comprise a vinylene carbonate, a compound comprising S=O and a compound having 2 cyano groups.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the additive A and B content ranges disclosed by Fujiyama because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Fujiyama teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fujiyama further teaches that in the non-aqueous electrolyte of the present disclosure, the mass ratio of additive B to additive A is preferably 1 to 20 (B:A = 1:1 to 20:1) or less [0047]. From the previous description, the claimed “weight ratio of the additive A to the additive B” is overlapped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the mass ratio of additive B to additive A ranges disclosed by Fujiyama because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Fujiyama teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fujiyama further teaches that its additive B can comprise lithium difluorophosphate [0031 and 0035]. As discussed for claim 1 above, the content of additive B per total amount of the non-aqueous electrolyte is preferably 0.001-10 mass% [0046], from which the claimed “lithium difluorophosphate weight range” is overlapped. Additionally, Fujiyama further teaches that in the non-aqueous electrolyte of the present disclosure, the mass ratio of additive B to additive A is preferably 1 to 20 (B:A = 1:1 to 20:1) or less [0047]. From the previous description, the claimed “weight ratio of the additive A to the lithium difluorophosphate” is overlapped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the content of additive B per total amount of the non-aqueous electrolyte and the mass ratio of additive B to additive A ranges disclosed Fujiyama because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Fujiyama teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fujiyama further teaches that as part of its additive B compounds, 1,3-propane sultone can be comprised [0031 and 0033]. 1,3-propane sultone can be obtained from formula II-B if R13 is selected as a C3 alkenylene group.
Regarding claim 7, Fujiyama teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fujiyama further teaches that as part of its additive B compounds, dinitrile compounds can be included [0031]. As examples of the dinitrile compounds, succinonitrile is mentioned [0039], which is obtained from formula III-A if R2 is selected as a C2 alkenylene group.
Regarding claim 8, Fujiyama teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fujiyama further teaches that as part of its additive B compounds, sultone and dinitrile compounds can be included [0031]. As a sultone compound, 1,3-propane sultone (additive C) is mentioned and as a dinitrile compound 3,3'-oxydipropionitrile (additive D) is mentioned [0033 and 0039]. These compounds correspond to the following claimed structures, respectively:
PNG
media_image2.png
67
93
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
51
158
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyama et al. (WO 2019039346 A1, see machine translation for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kawakami et al. (JP 2018120854 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Fujiyama teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except the limitations recited on claims 9 and 10.
Kawakami teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising compounds represented by formula 1 [0012 and 0026]:
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The non-aqueous electrolyte may further comprise a vinylene carbonate (additive B) [claim 5], a borate and a silicon-containing compound [0017 and claim 9]. It is taught that borates are not particularly restricted as long as they contain at least one boron atom in the molecule [0272]. Regarding the silicon-containing compound, it is taught that they can be represented by formula 2-6 [0177]:
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In this formula R61-63 can be each one independently for example a methyl group [0179]. X61 is an organic group composed of one or more atoms selected from the group consisting of carbon atoms, hydrogen atoms, nitrogen atoms, oxygen atoms, silicon atoms, sulfur atoms, phosphorus atoms and halogen atoms [0180]. From this description a compound with structure:
PNG
media_image6.png
77
151
media_image6.png
Greyscale
as recited on claim 10 is achievable. Because claim 10 structures are examples of the general formulas recited on claim 9, these limitations would be met. It is taught that the durability properties of the non-aqueous electrolyte can be improved by the employment of the described silicon-containing compound [0176].
Kawakami is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrolyte comprising a vinylene carbonate (additive B), a borate and a silicon-containing compound. Because the borate is not particularly restricted as long as they contain at least one boron atom in the molecule it can met the limitation of the claimed additive A.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-aqueous electrolyte of Fujiyama to include the recited features of claims 9 and 10, because Kawakami teaches that a silicon-containing compound, from which the first recited structure on claim 10 can be obtained, can improve the durability properties of the non-aqueous electrolyte when it is employed.
Claims 11, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyama et al. (WO 2019039346 A1, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 11, Fujiyama teaches lithium secondary battery including a cathode, an anode and a non-aqueous electrolyte for batteries containing an additive A and an additive B [0015]. Additive A is represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
wherein n represents an integer of 1-5 and Ｍ＋ is Li＋ Ion or H+. If n is an integer of 2-5, then multiple M＋ can be identical or different [0022-0024]. From the previous description, if n=2, compound I-1 is obtained.
Additive B consists of compounds with a lower reduction decomposition potential than additive A. Additive B contained in the non-aqueous electrolyte may be only one or two or more [0028]. Among possible materials, additive B may comprise carbonate compounds, sultone and cyclic sulfate ester compounds (“additive C”) and dinitrile compounds (“additive D”) [0031]. Among the carbonate compounds, vinylene carbonate is mentioned (“additive B”) [0032].
The content of additive A relative to the total amount of non-aqueous electrolyte is preferably 0.001-10 mass% [0027]. The content of additive B per total amount of the non-aqueous electrolyte is preferably 0.001-10 mass% [0046].
Fujiyama is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrochemical apparatus including a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a electrolyte comprising an additive A represented by compound I-1 and an additive B which may comprise a vinylene carbonate, a compound comprising S=O and a compound having 2 cyano groups.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the additive A and B content ranges disclosed by Fujiyama because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Fujiyama teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 11. Fujiyama further teaches that in the non-aqueous electrolyte of the present disclosure, the mass ratio of additive B to additive A is preferably 1 to 20 (B:A = 1:1 to 20:1) or less [0047]. From the previous description, the claimed “weight ratio of the additive A to the additive B” is overlapped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the mass ratio of additive B to additive A ranges disclosed by Fujiyama because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Fujiyama teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 11. Fujiyama further teaches that its additive B can comprise lithium difluorophosphate [0031 and 0035]. As discussed for claim 11 above, the content of additive B per total amount of the non-aqueous electrolyte is preferably 0.001-10 mass% [0046], from which the claimed “lithium difluorophosphate weight range” is overlapped. Additionally, Fujiyama further teaches that in the non-aqueous electrolyte of the present disclosure, the mass ratio of additive B to additive A is preferably 1 to 20 (B:A = 1:1 to 20:1) or less [0047]. From the previous description, the claimed “weight ratio of the additive A to the lithium difluorophosphate” is overlapped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the content of additive B per total amount of the non-aqueous electrolyte and the mass ratio of additive B to additive A ranges disclosed Fujiyama because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Fujiyama teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 11. Fujiyama further teaches that as part of its additive B compounds, dinitrile compounds can be included [0031]. As examples of the dinitrile compounds, succinonitrile is mentioned [0039], which is obtained from formula III-A if R2 is selected as a C2 alkenylene group.
Regarding claim 17, Fujiyama teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 11. Fujiyama further teaches that as part of its additive B compounds, sultone and dinitrile compounds can be included [0031]. As a sultone compound, 1,3-propane sultone (additive C) is mentioned and as a dinitrile compound 3,3'-oxydipropionitrile (additive D) is mentioned [0033 and 0039]. These compounds correspond to the following claimed structures, respectively:
PNG
media_image2.png
67
93
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
51
158
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyama et al. (WO 2019039346 A1, see machine translation for citation) as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Kawakami et al. (JP 2018120854 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 18, Fujiyama teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 11, except “wherein the electrolyte comprises the additive E; and the silicon-containing carbonate compound comprises at least one of a compound represented by a formula IV-A or a compound represented by a formula IV-B”.
Kawakami teaches an energy storage device comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising compounds represented by formula 1 [0012 and 0026]:
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The non-aqueous electrolyte may further comprise a vinylene carbonate (additive B) [claim 5], a borate and a silicon-containing compound [0017 and claim 9]. It is taught that borates are not particularly restricted as long as they contain at least one boron atom in the molecule [0272]. Regarding the silicon-containing compound, it is taught that they can be represented by formula 2-6 [0177]:
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In this formula R61-63 can be each one independently for example a methyl group [0179]. X61 is an organic group composed of one or more atoms selected from the group consisting of carbon atoms, hydrogen atoms, nitrogen atoms, oxygen atoms, silicon atoms, sulfur atoms, phosphorus atoms and halogen atoms [0180]. From this description, if X61 is selected to be CH3-O-(C=O)-O, formula IV-A would be met if from claim 18 possibilities R61 is selected as CH3 (unsubstituted C1 alkyl group) and R62 is selected to be
PNG
media_image7.png
82
88
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein Rx to Rz are selected as CH3 (unsubstituted C1 alkyl group). It is taught that the durability properties of the non-aqueous electrolyte can be improved by the employment of the described silicon-containing compound [0176].
Kawakami is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an energy storage device including a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising a vinylene carbonate (additive B), a borate and a silicon-containing compound. Because the borate is not particularly restricted as long as they contain at least one boron atom in the molecule it can met the limitation of the claimed additive A.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-aqueous electrolyte of Fujiyama to include a “silicon-containing carbonate compound comprises at least one of a compound represented by a formula IV-A”, because Kawakami teaches that a silicon-containing compound, from which the first recited structure can be obtained, can improve the durability properties of the non-aqueous electrolyte when it is employed.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyama et al. (WO 2019039346 A1, see machine translation for citation) as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Kawakami et al. (JP 2018120854 A, see machine translation for citation) and evidenced by Horiba (Understanding and Interpreting Particle Size Distribution Calculations, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 19, Fujiyama teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 11, except “wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material, and particles of the positive electrode active material satisfy at least one of criteria (a) to (c): (a) 0.4 microns ≤ Dv50 ≤ 20 microns; (b) 2 microns ≤ Dv90 ≤ 40 microns.
and (c) the positive electrode active material comprises an element A, wherein the element A is selected from at least one of Al, Mg, Ti, Cr, B, Fe, Zr, Y, Na, or S, and the element A is less than 0.5% by weight with respect to the total weight of the positive electrode active material”.
Kawakami teaches an energy storage device comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising compounds represented by formula 1 [0012 and 0026]:
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The non-aqueous electrolyte may further comprise a vinylene carbonate (additive B) [claim 5], a borate and a silicon-containing compound [0017 and claim 9]. It is taught that borates are not particularly restricted as long as they contain at least one boron atom in the molecule [0272]. The positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material having a median diameter D50 preferably between 0.3-30 µm [0403 and 0415]. It is taught that the D50 is measured with a well-known laser diffraction/scattering particle size distribution measuring device, which can be a Horiba LA-920 [0415].
Horiba evidence that since the primary result from laser diffraction is a volume distribution, the default D50 cited is the volume median and D50 typically refers to the Dv50 without including the v [p. 3; Median].
Kawakami is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an energy storage device including a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising a vinylene carbonate (additive B), a borate and a silicon-containing compound. Because the borate is not particularly restricted as long as they contain at least one boron atom in the molecule it can met the limitation of the claimed additive A.
With the above teachings the criteria (a) is overlapped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the positive electrode active material median diameter D50 range disclosed by Kawakami because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyama et al. (WO 2019039346 A1, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 20, Fujiyama teaches lithium secondary battery including a cathode, an anode and a non-aqueous electrolyte for batteries containing an additive A and an additive B [0015]. Additive A is represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
wherein n represents an integer of 1-5 and Ｍ＋ is Li＋ Ion or H+. If n is an integer of 2-5, then multiple M＋ can be identical or different [0022-0024]. From the previous description, if n=2, compound I-1 is obtained (as shown for independent claim 1 and 11).
Additive B consists of compounds with a lower reduction decomposition potential than additive A. Additive B contained in the non-aqueous electrolyte may be only one or two or more [0028]. Among possible materials, additive B may comprise carbonate compounds, sultone and cyclic sulfate ester compounds (“additive C”) and dinitrile compounds (“additive D”) [0031]. Among the carbonate compounds, vinylene carbonate is mentioned (“additive B”) [0032].
The content of additive A relative to the total amount of non-aqueous electrolyte is preferably 0.001-10 mass% [0027]. The content of additive B per total amount of the non-aqueous electrolyte is preferably 0.001-10 mass% [0046].
It is further taught that the lithium secondary batteries in this disclosure can be employed on a variety of electronic devices [0086].
Fujiyama is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electronic apparatus, comprising a electrochemical apparatus, wherein the electrochemical apparatus comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and the electrolyte comprises an additive A represented by compound I-1 and an additive B which may comprise a vinylene carbonate, a compound comprising S=O and a compound having 2 cyano groups.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the additive A and B content ranges disclosed by Fujiyama because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
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 GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571) 272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights