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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 10/28/2025:
Claims 1-5 and 8-22 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 8, 9, and 12 have been amended, Claims 6-7 have been canceled, Claims 12-20 remain withdrawn, and Claims 21-22 have been newly added.
The objection to the abstract is overcome in light of the amendment.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112b has been overcome in light of the amendment.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been maintained in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim 22 states the limitation of “wherein the W-containing high-nickel ternary cathode material is obtained by mixing a W-free precursor A and a W-containing precursor B with a lithium source, and subjecting the mixture to a one-time sintering step under an oxygen atmosphere at the same temperature and atmospheric conditions.” This limitation is a product-by-process limitation and therefore only the structure implied by the steps holds patentable weight (see MPEP 2113 regarding product-by-process claims).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Arguments directed at amended Claim 1
Applicant argues that none of the prior art teaches the limitations of Claim 1 because the prior art does not teach controlling oxygen flow or sintering time to direct the diffusion of W ions from inside the secondary particles outward during sintering.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments are not commensurate with the claim language as the claim does not require controlling oxygen flow or sintering time. Further, Sun’s disclosure of sintering a W-containing material would diffuse the W ions outward as it is a substantially identical process (see MPEP 2112.01). Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record and evidence has not been submitted showing that the sintering of Sun would not diffuse the W ions (see MPEP 2145, I).
Applicant further argues that neither Shang nor Sun teach the synergistic effect resulting from the combination of W-doped spherical secondary particles and W-free single-crystal particles because Shang only combines two morphologies without any W element and Sun teaches W doping in a single morphology.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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). Shang discloses a ternary cathode material comprising both spherical secondary particles and single-crystal particles (see paragraphs [0006], [0008]-[0011], and [0075]-[0077]). Sun discloses a cathode material comprising secondary particles containing W to achieve a cathode active material having a high capacity, long life span, improved thermal stability, and high reliability (see paragraphs [0005]-[0008], [0019], [0093]-[0094], [0096], [0189], [0200], and [0218]). When combined (to achieve the effects disclosed by Sun), a skilled artisan would modify the secondary particles of Shang to be W containing secondary particles as taught by Sun to arrive at a combination of W-doped spherical secondary particles and W-free single-crystal particles, and thus achieve the synergistic effect.
Applicant further argues that Uchiyama relates to a lithium tungstate surface layer in sulfide-based all-solid-state batteries, whereas the instant application relates to liquid electrolyte systems and therefore does not render claim 1 obvious.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim language, as there is no liquid electrolyte system in the claims. Further, Uchiyama is combinable with Shang and Sun as Shang and Sun do not specify the type of electrolyte used with the cathode material.
Arguments directed at amended Claims 10 and 21
Applicant argues that Shang’s disclosure of chemical formula of the precursor materials being the same are permissive and general and thus does not teach the compositional and structural relationships of Claims 10 and 21.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Patents are relevant for all they contain and thus the disclosure of Shang where the chemical formulas of the precursor materials are the same in paragraphs [0075]-[0077] is a valid teaching of this limitation in claim 10 even if the reasons are not the same as the instant application (see MPEP 2123). The applicant also argues that achieving the same crystal structure and lattice parameters results from the same compositional ratio and same sintering conditions. Shang discloses the chemical formulas of the precursor materials are the same and the sintering conditions are same in paragraphs [0075]-[0077], so the resulting particles would inherently have the same crystal structure and lattice parameters. As such, this would be a valid teaching for the limitation of claim 21.
Further, the applicant claims maintaining consistent ratios results in unexpectedly better synergy. However, there does not appear to be enough data to show unexpected results for maintaining consistent ratios.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shang et al. CN-103811744-A (hereinafter “Shang”) in view of Sun et al. KR-20170115939-A (hereinafter “Sun”) (US-20190044142-A1 cited in PTO-892 and used as English translation), and Nagai et al. US-20130288121-A1 (hereinafter “Nagai”), and Uchiyama EP-2717364-A1 (hereinafter “Uchiyama”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Shang discloses a high-nickel ternary cathode material (a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide positive electrode ternary composite material with more nickel than cobalt and manganese) comprising both spherical secondary particles (agglomerate material A) and single-crystal particles (material B); and there is basically no W inside the single-crystal particles (no W is used in forming the single-crystal particles) in Figs. 1-4 (see paragraphs [0006], [0008]-[0011], and [0075]-[0077]). Shang also discloses physical blending and sintering to form the spherical secondary particles and single-crystal particles (see paragraphs [0006], [0008]-[0012], and [0075]-[0077]).
Shang is silent on the high-nickel ternary cathode material containing spherical secondary particles being doped with W and having a chemical formula of LiaNixCoyMn1-x-yWbMcO2, wherein 1.00≤a≤1.16, 0.7<x<1, 0<y<0.3, 0.002<b+c<0.01, the M is one or more from the group consisting of Zr, Mg, Ti, Al, Si, La, Ba, Sr, Nb, Cr, Mo, Ca, Y, In, Sn, and F, and wherein W ions diffuse from inside the spherical secondary particles outward during sintering.
However, in the same field of endeavor of positive (cathode) active materials (see abstract), Sun discloses a ternary cathode material that may comprise nickel, cobalt, and manganese with an additive metal such as W (tungsten) comprising secondary particles with the formula LiNi0.795Co0.05Mn0.15W0.005O2 or LiNi0.945Co0.025Mn0.025W0.005O2 (see paragraphs [0019], [0096], [0189], and [0200]), which substantially overlaps with and therefore renders obvious the claimed general formula of LiaNixCoyMn1-x-yWbMcO2, wherein 1.00≤a≤1.16, 0.7<x<1, 0<y<0.3, 0.002<b+c<0.01, and the M is one or more from the group consisting of Zr, Mg, Ti, Al, Si, La, Ba, Sr, Nb, Cr, Mo, Ca, Y, In, Sn, and F (meeting Claim 8). Sun also discloses the additive metal, such as W (tungsten), should be included in amount less than 2 mol % in order to avoid deterioration of the capacity and life characteristics of the cathode active material (see paragraph [0072]), so a skilled artisan would be capable of properly incorporating W into the secondary particles of Shang. Sun also discloses sintering the W-containing material (see paragraph [0122]).
Sun additionally discloses the cathode material containing an additive metal such as W would result in a cathode active material having a high capacity, long life span, improved thermal stability, and high reliability as well as improve the charge/discharge characteristics of the secondary battery in which it is used (see paragraphs [0005]-[0008], [0093]-[0094], and [0218]). As such, a skilled artisan would recognize the W-containing material taught by Sun is an appropriate cathode material. Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the cathode material disclosed by Shang wherein the spherical secondary particles are doped with W and have a chemical formula of LiaNixCoyMn1-x-yWbMcO2, as disclosed by Sun, as it is an appropriate cathode material that would impart improved charge/discharge characteristics to the secondary battery.
Regarding the limitation of wherein W ions diffuse from inside the spherical secondary particles outward during sintering, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01). Since Sun discloses sintering a W-containing material containing secondary particles and Shang discloses sintering the spherical secondary particles, a skilled artisan would be capable of sintering the W-containing spherical secondary particles, which is the same process as claimed and would as such lead to the W ions diffusing from inside the spherical secondary particles outward.
Shang further discloses using agglomerates of different particle sizes and single crystals can allow the single crystal particles to effectively fill between the particles of the agglomerates, so that the specific surface area of the material can be adjusted to a better range (i.e. optimized), while improving the thermal stability of the material and enhancing the safety of the battery (see paragraphs [0031] and [0033]-[0034]), and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
However, if Shang is found to not be sufficiently specific on the high-nickel ternary cathode material having a specific surface area (SSA) of 0.8±0.3 m2/g, in the same field of endeavor of cathode (positive electrode) active materials (see abstract), Nagai discloses a cathode active material that may comprise a ternary material (lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese complex oxide) having a specific surface area of 0.5-1.9 m2/g (see paragraphs [0037], [0187], and [0178]-[0179]), which substantially overlaps with and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of the cathode material having a specific surface area (SSA) of 0.8±0.3 m2/g (meeting Claim 8).
Nagai further discloses if the specific surface area is excessively small, effects of improving battery performance tend to decrease and if the specific surface area is excessively large, the effect of inhibiting deterioration attributable to charge-discharge cycling tends to decrease (see paragraphs [0178]-[0179]). As such, combined the teaching of Shang above, the specific surface area is viewed as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the high-nickel ternary cathode material disclosed by Shang wherein the high-nickel ternary cathode material has a specific surface area (SSA) of 0.8±0.3 m2/g, as disclosed by Nagai, in order to improve the thermal stability of the material and enhance the safety of the battery as well as avoid a decrease in the effects of improving battery performance and in the effect of inhibiting deterioration attributable to charge-discharge cycling.
Shang, Sun, and Nagai are silent on a surface of the high-nickel ternary cathode material being at least partly or completely coated with a lithium tungstate layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cathode materials, Uchiyama discloses a ternary cathode material (LiCo1/3Ni1/3Mn1/3O2) doped with W and further coating the surface of the W-containing ternary material with a lithium conductive oxide such as lithium tungstate (Li2WO4) (see paragraphs [0032] and [0059]-[0060]).
Uchiyama further discloses this coating can suppress a reaction between the active material and electrolyte while also ensuring lithium conductivity (see paragraphs [0032]-[0033]). Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the W-containing high-nickel ternary cathode material disclosed by Shang and Sun wherein the material is coated with a lithium tungstate layer, as disclosed by Uchiyama, as it would function as an appropriate material to suppress a reaction between the active material and electrolyte while also ensuring lithium conductivity.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Shang discloses the W-containing high-nickel ternary cathode material according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Shang further discloses the median particle size of the spherical secondary particles may be 8-25 μm, the median particle size of the single crystal particles may be 1-7 μm, and the median diameter of the high-nickel ternary cathode material may be 5-20 μm (see paragraphs [0008]-[0011]). Shang also discloses an embodiment wherein the median particle size of the single crystal particles is 1 μm, and the median diameter of the high-nickel ternary cathode material is 5 μm (see paragraphs [0052]-[0053]). These values fall within and therefore anticipate the claimed ranges of the single-crystal particles having a particle size of 1.0 μm to 5.5 μm and the high-nickel ternary cathode material having a median diameter of 3.0 μm to 5.5 μm.
Shang further discloses that the particle sizes of the spherical secondary particles and single crystal particles allow the single crystal particles to effectively fill between the spherical secondary particles and directly affect the space utilization rate and compaction density, thereby increasing volume energy density of the materials (see paragraphs [0030]-[0034]). As such, the particle sizes of the secondary particles and single-crystal particles are viewed as result effective variables and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to optimize the particle sizes of Shang such that the spherical secondary particles have a particle size of 2.4 μm to 5.5 μm; the single-crystal particles have a particle size of 1.0 μm to 5.5 μm; and the high-nickel ternary cathode material has a median diameter of 3.0 μm to 5.5 μm in order to allow the single crystal particles to effectively fill between the spherical secondary particles and directly affect the space utilization rate and compaction density, thereby increasing volume energy density of the materials.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Shang discloses the W-containing high-nickel ternary cathode material according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Shang further discloses a mass ratio of the spherical secondary particles to the single-crystal particles in the high-nickel ternary cathode material is determined by a ratio of a precursor B (agglomerate material A in Shang) to a W-free precursor A (single crystal material B in Shang) in a raw material (see paragraphs [0008]-[0011]).
Shang is silent on precursor B being W-containing.
However, in the combined invention of Claim 1 (see claim 1 above), the secondary particles have W included in them, as disclosed by Sun, and therefore a skilled artisan would include W in the spherical secondary particles precursor of Shang to achieve W-containing secondary particles. Furthermore, Sun discloses forming W-containing secondary particles by including W in the raw materials (see paragraphs [0019], [0104]-[0105], [0187]-[0189], and [0197]-[0199]). It is within ambit of a skilled artisan to include W in the raw material of precursor B in order to achieve W-containing particles.
Sun also discloses including a metal additive such as W results in a cathode active material having a high capacity, long life span, improved thermal stability, and high reliability as well as improve the charge/discharge characteristics of the secondary battery in which it is used (see paragraphs [0005]-[0008], [0093]-[0094], and [0218]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the high-nickel ternary cathode material disclosed by Shang wherein precursor B is W-containing, as disclosed by Sun, in order to achieve W-containing spherical secondary particles having a high capacity, long life span, improved thermal stability, and high reliability as well as improve the charge/discharge characteristics of the secondary battery in which it is used.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Shang discloses the W-containing high-nickel ternary cathode material according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above). Shang further discloses a mass ratio of a W-containing precursor B (agglomerate material A in Shang) to the W-free precursor A (single crystal material B) may be mixed in a ratio of 1:1 (see paragraphs [0011] and [0046]-[0048]). This ratio falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of a mass ratio of the precursor B to the precursor A being (0.05-19):1.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Shang discloses the W-containing high-nickel ternary cathode material according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above). Shang further discloses a mass ratio of a W-containing precursor B (agglomerate material A in Shang) to the W-free precursor A (single crystal material B) may be mixed in a ratio of 1:1 (see paragraphs [0011] and [0046]-[0048]). This ratio falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of a mass ratio of the precursor B to the precursor A being (0.4-1.5):1.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Shang discloses the W-containing high-nickel ternary cathode material according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above).
Shang is silent on the high-nickel ternary cathode material containing spherical secondary particles being doped with W and having a chemical formula of LiaNixCoyMn1-x-yWbMcO2, wherein 1.00≤a≤1.16, 0.7<x<1, 0<y<0.3, 0.002<b+c<0.01, and the M is one or more from the group consisting of Zr, Mg, Ti, Al, Si, La, Ba, Sr, Nb, Cr, Mo, Ca, Y, In, Sn, and F.
However, in the same field of endeavor of positive (cathode) active materials (see abstract), Sun discloses a ternary cathode material that may comprise nickel, cobalt, manganese, and aluminum with an additive metal such as W (tungsten) comprising secondary particles with the formula LiNi0.795Co0.05Mn0.15W0.005O2 or LiNi0.945Co0.025Mn0.025W0.005O2 (see paragraphs [0019], [0096], [0189], and [0200]), which substantially overlaps with and therefore renders obvious the claimed general formula of LiaNixCoyMn1-x-yWbMcO2, wherein 1.00≤a≤1.16, 0.7<x<1, 0<y<0.3, 0.002<b+c<0.01, and the M is one or more from the group consisting of Zr, Mg, Ti, Al, Si, La, Ba, Sr, Nb, Cr, Mo, Ca, Y, In, Sn, and F. Sun also discloses the additive metal, such as W, should be included in amount less than 2 mol % in order to avoid deterioration of the capacity and life characteristics of the cathode active material (see paragraph [0072]), so a skilled artisan would be capable of properly incorporating W into the secondary particles of Shang.
Sun additionally discloses the cathode material containing an additive metal such as W would result in a cathode active material having a high capacity, long life span, improved thermal stability, and high reliability as well as improve the charge/discharge characteristics of the secondary battery in which it is used (see paragraphs [0005]-[0008], [0093]-[0094], and [0218]). As such, a skilled artisan would recognize the W-containing material taught by Sun is an appropriate cathode material. Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the cathode material disclosed by Shang wherein the spherical secondary particles are doped with W and have a chemical formula of LiaNixCoyMn1-x-yWbMcO2, as disclosed by Sun, as it is an appropriate cathode material that would impart improved charge/discharge characteristics to the secondary battery.
Shang further discloses using agglomerates of different particle sizes and single crystals can allow the single crystal particles to effectively fill between the particles of the agglomerates, so that the specific surface area of the material can be adjusted to a better range (i.e. optimized), while improving the thermal stability of the material and enhancing the safety of the battery (see paragraphs [0031] and [0033]-[0034]), and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
However, if Shang is found to not be sufficiently specific on the high-nickel ternary cathode material having a specific surface area (SSA) of 0.8±0.3 m2/g, in the same field of endeavor of cathode (positive electrode) active materials (see abstract), Nagai discloses a cathode active material that may comprise a ternary material (lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese complex oxide) having a specific surface area of 0.5-1.9 m2/g (see paragraphs [0037], [0187], and [0178]-[0179]), which substantially overlaps with and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of the cathode material having a specific surface area (SSA) of 0.8±0.3 m2/g.
Nagai further discloses if the specific surface area is excessively small, effects of improving battery performance tend to decrease and if the specific surface area is excessively large, the effect of inhibiting deterioration attributable to charge-discharge cycling tends to decrease (see paragraphs [0178]-[0179]). As such, combined with the teaching of Shang above, the specific surface area is viewed as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the high-nickel ternary cathode material disclosed by Shang wherein the high-nickel ternary cathode material has a specific surface area (SSA) of 0.8±0.3 m2/g, as disclosed by Nagai, in order to improve the thermal stability of the material and enhance the safety of the battery as well as avoid a decrease in the effects of improving battery performance and in the effect of inhibiting deterioration attributable to charge-discharge cycling.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, modified Shang discloses the W-containing high-nickel ternary cathode material according to claims 1 and 2 (see rejections of claims 1 and 2 above). Shang further discloses the chemical formula of the precursor materials may be the same based on the chemical composition of the lithium source and metal oxide/metal hydroxide used to form the precursor materials (see paragraph [0028]). Shang further discloses an embodiment wherein secondary spherical particles (agglomerate material A) contain Ni-Co-Mn in a molar ratio of 0.5:0.2:0.3 and the single crystal particles (material B) contain Ni-Co-Mn in a molar ratio of 0.5:0.2:0.3 (see paragraphs [0075]-[0077]). As such, a skilled artisan would capable of using this teaching wherein, on the premise of ignoring element loss during a preparation process, a Ni—Co—Mn molar ratio in the spherical secondary particles is consistent with a Ni—Co—Mn molar ratio in the single-crystal particles.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Shang discloses the W-containing high-nickel ternary cathode material according to claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above). Shang further discloses the chemical formulas of the precursor materials are the same and the sintering conditions are same (see paragraphs [0075]-[0077]).
Regarding the limitation of the spherical secondary particles and the single-crystal particles have substantially the same crystal structure and lattice parameters, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01). As applicant states in the remarks filed 10/28/2025, achieving the same crystal structure and lattice parameters results from the same compositional ratio and same sintering conditions, which is the same process disclosed by Shang. So, using the teachings of Shang, a skilled artisan would arrive at the spherical secondary particles and the single-crystal particles having substantially the same crystal structure and lattice parameters.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Shang discloses the W-containing high-nickel ternary cathode material according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Shang further discloses the chemical formulas of the precursor materials are the same and the sintering conditions are same (see paragraphs [0075]-[0077]).
The limitation of “wherein the W-containing high-nickel ternary cathode material is obtained by mixing a W-free precursor A and a W-containing precursor B with a lithium source, and subjecting the mixture to a one-time sintering step under an oxygen atmosphere at the same temperature and atmospheric conditions” is a product-by-process limitation and therefore only the structure implied by the steps holds patentable weight (see MPEP 2113 regarding product-by-process claims).
In the modified invention of Shang discussed in claim 1 above, the claimed W-containing high-nickel ternary cathode material comprising both spherical secondary particles and single-crystal particles where there is basically no W inside the single-crystal particles and the spherical secondary particles are doped with W is achieved and thus the aforementioned limitations of claim 22 are met.
Regarding the limitation of the spherical secondary particles and the single-crystal particles have substantially the same crystal structure and lattice parameters, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01). As applicant states in the remarks filed 10/28/2025, achieving the same crystal structure and lattice parameters results from the same compositional ratio and same sintering conditions, which is the same process disclosed by Shang. So, using the teachings of Shang, a skilled artisan would arrive at the spherical secondary particles and the single-crystal particles having substantially the same crystal structure and lattice parameters.
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 SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights