DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 9-12, 20-22 and 24-30 are pending, wherein claims 1-2, 11-12 and 24 are amended and claims 10, 20-22, 25 and 27-30 are withdrawn (See below for restriction and withdrawn for claims 28-30). Claims 1-2, 9, 11-12, 24 and 26 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Election/Restriction
Newly submitted claims 28-30 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
A. Claims 1-2, 9, 11-12, 24 and 26, drawn to a positive electrode active material.
B. Claims 28-30, drawn to a positive electrode active material made by a process as claimed.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions A and B are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because Invention A does not require the specific process of making as claimed in Invention B. The subcombination has separate utility such as a positive electrode active material for use in a capacitor.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 28-30 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action. Reference not previously cited can be found per the attached PTO-892 for this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu et al. (Adv. Mater. 2015, 27, 6928-6933, hereafter “Mu”) in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 20170125844 A1, hereafter referred to as “the ‘844 ref.”) or/and Nakagawa et al. (US 20170005363 A1, hereafter referred to as “the ‘363 ref.”), Yamamoto et al. (JP 2017045600 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter “Yamamoto”) and Kuratani et al. (JP 2014086279 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter “Kuratani”).
Regarding claims 1-2, Mu teaches a positive electrode active material satisfying a formula of Na0.9[Cu0.22Fe0.30Mn0.48]O2, (page 6928, right column, line 12 from top) which reads on the formula as claimed when m=0. As to the claimed intended use “for a sodium-ion battery”, note that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Other limitations as claimed are addressed below:
1) As to the claimed “water content”:
i) As to the limitations regarding water contents as claimed in claims 1 and 2, it is general knowledge that a water content included in a material can be affected by many factors, such as humidity in air when measuring the water content, heating temperature and time during its production process, etc. One of ordinary skill in the art would be readily able to arrive at the claimed water contents through routine experimentation by varying one or more factors mentioned above. The limitations are not patentably distinguishable and inventive in the absence of persuasive evidences that the claimed water contents are critical or cause unexpected results; OR
ii) It is general knowledge that the water content present in a positive electrode active material should be kept as little as possible. As two examples of many prior arts, the ‘844 ref. ([0044]) and the ‘363 ref. ([0030]) both disclose that a water content can be desirably adjusted to an appropriate amount, and an amount of 400 ppm or less relative to the weight of a positive electrode active material would suppress gas generation resulted from the decomposition of electrolyte additives. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of the ‘844 and ‘363 references into Mu such that a water content of 400 ppm or less is contained in the positive electrode active material of Mu in order to suppress gas generation in the battery. As a result, the range of 400 ppm or less reads on the ranges as claimed in claims 1-2.
2) As to the claimed “particle size”:
Mu as modified further teaches the positive electrode active material has a distribution of average particle size in the range of 10 µm to 30 µm (p6928, right column, line 15 from bottom, Mu). The upper limit of the range of Dv50 as claimed is close to the lower limit of the range of Mu. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
3) As to the claimed “specific surface area”:
As to the limitation with respect to “specific surface area”. It is submitted that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that a similar particle size distribution would also suggest a similar specific surface area. The specific surface area of from 0.01 m2/g to 25 m2/g as instantly claimed is reasonably expected since Mu teaches the similar particle size to that as claimed.
Also, in the absence of evidence or unexpected results that the claimed specific surface area is significant or critical, it is not patentably distinguishable since the selection of a specific surface area would appear to require no more than routine investigation by those ordinary skilled in the art. Upon review of the entire disclosure as originally filed, there does not appear to be any criticality to the claimed specific surface area. However, the following alternative rejection is provided in order to even better address the limitation as well as Applicant’s related arguments.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamamoto discloses a similar positive electrode active material ([0010]) for a sodium ion battery have a specific surface area of 1 m2/g to 30 m2/g ([0112], [0041]). “When the specific surface area of the positive electrode active material is within this range, the reaction area of the positive electrode active material is ensured, and the internal resistance of the battery is reduced, thereby minimizing the occurrence of polarization during the electrode reaction.” ([0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings into Mu as modified such that the positive active material of Mu as modified has a specific surface area of 1 m2/g to 30 m2/g taught by Yamamoto in order to achieve advantages stated above. As a result, the claimed range of 0.01 m2/g to 25 m2/g overlaps that of 1 m2/g to 30 m2/g. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
4) As to the claimed “tap density”:
It is general knowledge in the art that a specific value of tap density, including the claimed “from 1.5 g/cm3 to 3.0 g/cm3”, can be routinely obtained by adjusting variables or parameters that affect the value of tap density, such as number of tapping operation, etc.
As one of prior arts, Kuratani discloses that a tap density of 1.2 g/ml or higher of a positive electrode active material for a sodium-ion secondary battery will lead to a high volumetric energy density (at least: [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant inventio to have used a tap density of 1.2 g/ml or higher in Mu as modified in order to achieve a high volumetric energy density. Also note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07.
5) As to the claimed “compaction density”:
Mu as modified teaches a loading amount of the positive electrode active material is adjustable (See page 3, Supporting Information of Mu). One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed compaction density through routine experimentations since it involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. In the absence of evidence that the claimed range is critical, the selection of a compaction density of the positive electrode active material would appear to require no more than routine investigation by those ordinary skilled in the art. When the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art it is not inventive to discover the optimum of workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA), consult also In re Kulling, 897 F2d 1147, 14 USPQ 2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F3d. 1465 43 USPQ 2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
6) As to the claimed XRD characteristics:
Mu as modified teaches the positive electrode active material has a hexagonal layered crystal structure (page 6928, right column, second paragraph, lines 10-11). Furthermore, Mu as modified teaches the positive electrode active material comprises a characteristic diffraction peak of (003) crystal plane and a characteristic diffraction peak of (104) crystal plane (Fig. 1a, p6929). Since Mao teaches the same composition and structure of the positive electrode active material as claimed, as addressed above in sections 1-5), the claimed XRD characteristics recited in the last paragraph of claim 1 are reasonably expected. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties or characteristics applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the applicant' s product and that of the prior art are identical or substantially identical, the burden shifts to the applicant to overcome the rejection by providing evidence that the prior art product does not necessarily or inherently possess a relied-upon characteristic of the applicant' s claimed product. See In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977), and MPEP § 2112.
7) As to the claimed “powder resistivity”:
Since Mao teaches the same composition and structure of the positive electrode active material as claimed, as addressed above in sections 1)-5), the claimed “powder resistivity” is reasonably expected. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties or characteristics applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the applicant' s product and that of the prior art are identical or substantially identical, the burden shifts to the applicant to overcome the rejection by providing evidence that the prior art product does not necessarily or inherently possess a relied-upon characteristic of the applicant' s claimed product. See In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977), and MPEP § 2112.
Regarding claim 9, Mu as modified teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein the positive electrode active material has a sphere or globoid shape (Fig. 1d). However, it is noted that absent persuasive evidence showing that a particular configuration is significant, a mere change in shape is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art since the shape itself may be considered as merely a matter of design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claims 11-12, Mu teaches a sodium-ion battery (See, at least, Title), comprising a positive electrode plate (e.g., “Al foil”, see Supporting Information of Mu, page 2, bottom), wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material satisfying a formula of Na0.9[Cu0.22Fe0.30Mn0.48]O2, (page 6928, right column, line 12 from top) which reads on the formula as claimed when m=0.
Other limitations as claimed are addressed below:
1) As to the claimed “water content”:
i) As to the limitations regarding water contents as claimed in claims 1 and 2, it is general knowledge that a water content included in a material can be affected by many factors, such as humidity in air when measuring the water content, heating temperature and time during its production process, etc. One of ordinary skill in the art would be readily able to arrive at the claimed water contents through routine experimentation by varying one or more factors mentioned above. The limitations are not patentably distinguishable and inventive in the absence of persuasive evidences that the claimed water contents are critical or cause unexpected results; OR
ii) It is general knowledge that the water content present in a positive electrode active material should be kept as little as possible. As two examples of many prior arts, the ‘844 ref. ([0044]) and the ‘363 ref. ([0030]) both disclose that a water content can be desirably adjusted to an appropriate amount, and an amount of 400 ppm or less relative to the weight of a positive electrode active material would suppress gas generation resulted from the decomposition of electrolyte additives. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of the ‘844 and ‘363 references into Mu such that a water content of 400 ppm or less is contained in the positive electrode active material of Mu in order to suppress gas generation in the battery. As a result, the range of 400 ppm or less reads on the ranges as claimed in claims 1-2.
2) As to the claimed “particle size”:
Mu as modified further teaches the positive electrode active material has a distribution of average particle size in the range of 10 µm to 30 µm (p6928, right column, line 15 from bottom, Mu). The upper limit of the range of Dv50 as claimed is close to the lower limit of the range of Mu. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
3) As to the claimed “specific surface area”:
As to the limitation with respect to “specific surface area”. It is submitted that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that a similar particle size distribution would also suggest a similar specific surface area. The specific surface area of from 0.01 m2/g to 25 m2/g as instantly claimed is reasonably expected since Mu teaches the similar particle size to that as claimed.
Also, in the absence of evidence or unexpected results that the claimed specific surface area is significant or critical, it is not patentably distinguishable since the selection of a specific surface area would appear to require no more than routine investigation by those ordinary skilled in the art. Upon review of the entire disclosure as originally filed, there does not appear to be any criticality to the claimed specific surface area. However, the following alternative rejection is provided in order to even better address the limitation as well as Applicant’s related arguments.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamamoto discloses a similar positive electrode active material ([0010]) for a sodium ion battery have a specific surface area of 1 m2/g to 30 m2/g ([0112], [0041]). “When the specific surface area of the positive electrode active material is within this range, the reaction area of the positive electrode active material is ensured, and the internal resistance of the battery is reduced, thereby minimizing the occurrence of polarization during the electrode reaction.” ([0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings into Mu as modified such that the positive active material of Mu as modified has a specific surface area of 1 m2/g to 30 m2/g taught by Yamamoto in order to achieve advantages stated above. As a result, the claimed range of 0.01 m2/g to 25 m2/g overlaps that of 1 m2/g to 30 m2/g. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
4) As to the claimed “tap density”:
It is general knowledge in the art that a specific value of tap density, including the claimed “from 1.5 g/cm3 to 3.0 g/cm3”, can be routinely obtained by adjusting variables or parameters that affect the value of tap density, such as number of tapping operation, etc.
As one of prior arts, Kuratani discloses that a tap density of 1.2 g/ml or higher of a positive electrode active material for a sodium-ion secondary battery will lead to a high volumetric energy density (at least: [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant inventio to have used a tap density of 1.2 g/ml or higher in Mu as modified in order to achieve a high volumetric energy density. Also note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07.
5) As to the claimed “compaction density”:
Mu as modified teaches a loading amount of the positive electrode active material is adjustable (See page 3, Supporting Information of Mu). One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed compaction density through routine experimentations since it involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. In the absence of evidence that the claimed range is critical, the selection of a compaction density of the positive electrode active material would appear to require no more than routine investigation by those ordinary skilled in the art. When the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art it is not inventive to discover the optimum of workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA), consult also In re Kulling, 897 F2d 1147, 14 USPQ 2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F3d. 1465 43 USPQ 2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
6) As to the claimed XRD characteristics:
Mu as modified teaches the positive electrode active material has a hexagonal layered crystal structure (page 6928, right column, second paragraph, lines 10-11). Furthermore, Mu as modified teaches the positive electrode active material comprises a characteristic diffraction peak of (003) crystal plane and a characteristic diffraction peak of (104) crystal plane (Fig. 1a, p6929). Since Mao teaches the same composition and structure of the positive electrode active material as claimed, as addressed above in sections 1-5), the claimed XRD characteristics recited in the last paragraph of claim 1 are reasonably expected. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties or characteristics applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the applicant' s product and that of the prior art are identical or substantially identical, the burden shifts to the applicant to overcome the rejection by providing evidence that the prior art product does not necessarily or inherently possess a relied-upon characteristic of the applicant' s claimed product. See In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977), and MPEP § 2112.
7) As to the claimed “powder resistivity”:
Since Mao teaches the same composition and structure of the positive electrode active material as claimed, as addressed above in sections 1)-5), the claimed “powder resistivity” is reasonably expected. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties or characteristics applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the applicant' s product and that of the prior art are identical or substantially identical, the burden shifts to the applicant to overcome the rejection by providing evidence that the prior art product does not necessarily or inherently possess a relied-upon characteristic of the applicant' s claimed product. See In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977), and MPEP § 2112.
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Mu, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 20160293945 A1, hereafter Hu).
Regarding claims 24 and 26, Mu as modified teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1 or claim 11, but is silent as to the formulae as claimed. However, Hu discloses that a positive electrode active material for a sodium ion battery can be represented by either a formula containing Na, Cu, Fe, Mn and O (See, e.g., Embodiments 6, 10, 11, and 15-22) or a formula containing Na, Cu, Fe, Mn, Al or Mg, and O (See, e.g., Embodiments 14 and 23). In other words, the positive electrode active materials for a sodium ion battery represented by the two formulae are functional equivalents. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed a positive electrode active material represented by the formula containing Na, Cu, Fe, Mn, Al or Mg, and O as an alternative to the positive electrode active material of Mu represented by the formula containing Na, Cu, Fe, Mn and O, since the substitution of known equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2144.06. Further combining the formula NaxCuiFejMkMyO2+[Symbol font/0x62] ([0009]-[0011], Hu), one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that a combination of Al and Mg (because M is one or more …, [0010]) can be used as M in the formula. As a result, the formula NaxCuiFejMkMyO2+[Symbol font/0x62], wherein M is the combination of Al and Mg, reads on the formula recited in claims 24 and 26.
Note also that it is well settled that there is no invention in the discovery of a general formula if it covers a composition described in the prior art, In re Cooper and Foley 1943 C.D. 357 O.G. 177; 57 USPQ 117, Taklatwalla v. Marburg, 620 O.G. 685, 1949 C.D. 77, and In re Pilling, 403 O.G. 513, 44 F(2) 878, 1931 C.D. 75. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the selection of the proportions of elements would appear to require no more than routine investigation by those ordinary skilled in the art. In re Austin, et al., 149 USPQ 685, 688.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) Applicant’s arguments presented on page 12 are incorrect, because the claimed properties or/and characteristics are addressed based on not merely the formula. See the rejections above.
2) In response to the argument inherency, etc. (paragraph bridging pages12-13), it is well settled that when a claimed product reasonably appears to be substantially the same as a product disclosed by the prior arts, the burden is on the applicant to prove that the prior art product does not necessarily possess properties or characteristics attributed to the claimed product, and that it is of no moment whether the rejection is based on § 102 or § 103 since the burden is on the applicant is the same. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,708 (Fed Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).
3) In response to applicant's arguments (p13) against the references individually (in this case, the Mu reference), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
4) In response to the argument (p4) with respect to “tap density”, a new reference has been introduced in this office action for the purpose of addressing “tap density” as well as simplifying the response to Applicant’s arguments. The argument is thus moot.
5) As to the arguments presented on pages 14-17, no evidence is provided to support Applicant’s allegation that the Mu as modified (rather than Mu itself) does not posses the claimed XRD characteristics. Again, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
6) In response to the argument that “the examiner has not shown that the disclosures of these lithium-ion battery references are reasonably applicable to Mu’s sodium-ion battery”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
7) The Wang reference in the argument is not a proper information disclosure statement. Unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/
ZHONGQING WEI, Ph.D.Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights