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
1. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 05/07/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-7 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
The amendments and remarks filed are sufficient to cure the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 11/17/2025.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, the recitation “a positive electrode” in claim 7, lines 3-4 should read “the positive electrode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “wherein a capacity ratio of a negative electrode to a positive electrode (N/P ratio) for each pair of active materials formed on adjacent current collectors is independently controlled to be from 1.0 to 1.2” in claim 1, lines 12-14 introduces a method of controlling the capacity ratio of active materials, however in paragraph [0045] of the instant published specification which describes the capacity ratio of a negative electrode to a positive electrode there is no mention or disclosure of how the capacity ratio is controlled much less independently controlling the N/P ratio for each pair of active materials or a specific procedure or method for implementing control.
Further regarding claim 1, the recitation “wherein the 2n-th active material is continuously formed on both sides of a 2n-th current collector” in claim 1, lines 17-18 is attempting to introduce a method of forming the 2n-th active material on the 2n-th current collector. However, paragraph [0054] of the instant published specification gives no specific methods or processes for forming the active material on both sides of the current collector much less a continuous method of forming. The applicant points to a comparison of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, however these figures each show an apparatus so it is unclear how a figure of an apparatus can disclose a method of forming an active material layer.
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 4-7, the claim(s) is/are rejected as they depend from, and therefore incorporate the claimed subject matter from claims rejected under this statute.
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “wherein a capacity ratio of a negative electrode to a positive electrode (N/P ratio) for each pair of active materials formed on adjacent current collectors is independently controlled to be from 1.0 to 1.2” in claim 1, lines 12-14 is indefinite because it appears the applicant is attempting to introduce a method of controlling the capacity ratio of the active materials into an apparatus claim. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation will be interpreted as “wherein a capacity ratio of a negative electrode to a positive electrode (N/P ratio) for each pair of active materials formed on adjacent current collectors is from 1.0 to 1.2.
Further regarding claim 1, the recitation “wherein the 2n-th active material is continuously formed on both sides of a 2n-th current collector” in claim 1, lines 17-18 is indefinite because it appears the applicant is attempting to introduce a method of forming active materials on a current collector in an apparatus claim. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation will be interpreted as “wherein the 2n-th active material is formed on both sides of a 2n-th current collector”.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation “the capacity of a positive electrode” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation will be interpreted as “a capacity of a positive electrode”.
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 4-6, the claim(s) is/are rejected as they depend from, and therefore incorporate the claimed subject matter from claims rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 nonobviousness.
6. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Pub. No. US 20200036070 A1) in view of Kang et al. (Pub. No. KR 20210122995 A) in view of Ionescu et al. (Pub. No. US 20220263082 A1) in view of Kim et al. (Pub. No. US 20220255150 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches an all-solid-state lithium secondary battery (500, Fig. 5, see [0060]), comprising: a first electrode (501, Fig. 5, see [0061]) having a first active material (504, Fig. 5, see [0061]) formed on a side (right side of 502, Fig. 5); a 2n-th electrode (512, Fig. 5, see [0062], note in this instance n=1) having a side (right side of 512, Fig. 5) facing the first active material (504, Fig. 5, see [0061], see left side of 512 is facing 504) and having a 2n-th active material (514/514’, Fig. 5, see [0062] the layers are alike) formed on both sides (right and left sides of 516 have a layer of active material, Fig. 5); and a (2n+1)-th electrode (518, Fig. 5, see [0063]) having a side (left side of 518, Fig. 5) facing an other side (right side of 512, Fig. 5) of the 2n-th electrode (512, Fig. 5, see [0062]) and having a (2n+1)-th active material (522/522”, Fig. 5, see [0063]), note in the figure it is designated as 522”, however in the specification it is designated as 512’ this appears to be a minor typographical error as they are one in the same) formed on a side or both sides (see Fig. 5 where 522 is formed on the left side and 522” on the right side), a first solid electrolyte layer (510, Fig. 5, see [0062]) including a lithium salt (lithium salt, see [0065] where the solid electrolyte is a polymer based SE with a lithium salt), the first solid electrolyte layer (510, Fig. 5, see [0062]) being disposed directly between the first active material (504, Fig. 5, see [0061]) and the 2n-th active material (514/514’, Fig. 5, see [0062], see in Fig. 5 where 510 is directly between 504 and 514/514’), and a second solid electrolyte layer (510’, Fig. 5, see [0063]), a negative electrode (512, Fig. 5, see [0063] where 512 is an anode) and a positive electrode (518, Fig. 5, see [0063] where 518 is a cathode), the second solid electrolyte layer (510’, Fig. 5, see [0063]) being disposed directly between the 2n-th active material (514/514’, Fig. 5, see [0062] the layers are alike) and the (2n+1)-th active material (522/522”, Fig. 5, see [0063], see in Fig. 5 510’ is directly between 514/514’ and 522/522”), wherein the 2n-th active material (514/514’, Fig. 5, see [0062] the layers are alike) is continuously formed on both sides of a 2n-th current collector (516, Fig. 5, see [0062]) without an intervening current collector between the both sides (see Fig. 5 there only current collector between 514 and 514’ is 516), wherein the n is a natural number from 1 to 20 (n=1, Fig. 5, see discussion above), but fails to teach the second solid electrolyte layer includes a cross-linking agent, wherein a capacity ratio of a negative electrode to a positive electrode (N/P ratio) of each pair of active materials formed on adjacent current collectors is independently controlled to be from 1.0 to 1.2, wherein the first electrode, the 2n-th electrode, and the (2n+1)-th electrode are each formed to include polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether as an ion conductive material, and wherein the capacity ratio of the negative electrode to the positive electrode (N/P ratio) satisfies an equation: (A×B)/{(C×D)−(E×B)} wherein: A represents a reversible capacity (mAh/g) per unit weight of the negative electrode, B represents a loading density (g/cm.sup.2) of the negative electrode active material, C represents a reversible capacity per unit weight (mAh/g) of the positive electrode, D represents a loading density (g/cm.sup.2) of the positive electrode active material, E represents an irreversible capacity per unit weight (mAh/g) of the negative electrode. See 112 rejections above for interpretation.
However, Kang teaches a solid electrolyte (second solid polymer electrolyte, see [0094]) including a lithium salt (lithium salt, see [0081]), a cross-linking agent (cross linking agent, see [0081]) and a plasticizer (plasticizer, see [0081]) wherein the plasticizer (plasticizer, see [0081]) comprises an ethylene glycol-based compound (polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether, see [0084] where the plasticizer is polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether) wherein polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether is an ion conductive material (see [0035] and [0066] the plasticizer of polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether is an ion conductive plasticizer).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li such that the solid electrolyte particles are formed of the second solid polymer electrolyte including lithium salt, a cross-linking agent, and a plasticizer of polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether as taught by Kang to improve low charge/discharge capacity and ionic conductivity (see [0006] of Kang). Further Li teaches that modifications can be made (see [0075] of Li) and the solid electrolyte material can be a polymer-based S solid electrolyte (see [0065] of Li).
Therefore Li in view of Kang teaches wherein the second solid electrolyte layer (510’, Fig. 5, see [0063]) includes a cross-linking agent (cross-linking agent, see [0081] of Kang, see modifications above, see Fig. 5 of Li where 510’ is formed of solid electrolyte particles), and wherein the first electrode (504, Fig. 5, see [0061]), the 2n-th electrode (512, Fig. 5, see [0062], note in this instance n=1), and the (2n+1)-th electrode (518, Fig. 5, see [0063]) are each formed to include polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether (polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether, see [0084] where the plasticizer is polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether, see Kang, see modifications above, see Fig. 5 and [0060] of Li where each layer includes solid electrolyte particles) as an ion conductive material (see [0035] and [0066] the plasticizer of polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether is an ion conductive plasticizer).
Li in view of Kang fails to teach wherein a capacity ratio of a negative electrode to a positive electrode (N/P ratio) of each pair of active materials formed on adjacent current collectors is independently controlled to be from 1.0 to 1.2.
However, Ionescu teaches wherein a capacity ratio (N/P ratio, see [0027] where it is based around areal capacities) of a negative electrode (110 anode, see [0014], see [0027]) to a positive electrode (120 cathode, see [0014], see [0027]) (N/P ratio) for each pair of active materials (two active surfaces, see [0029]) formed on adjacent current collectors (see [0024] where each electrode comprises a collector where the collector is a coated material, see Fig. 1, where anode 110, and cathode 120 see [0014] are adjacent) is independently controlled to be from 1.0 to 1.2 (0.5-2, see [0027]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li in view of Kang such that the N/P ratio for active material layers of 512 and 518 is between 0.5 to 2 as taught by Ionescu to enable high energy density and fast recharging (see [0018] of Ionescu) and it would have further been obvious to modify the N/P ratio to stay within the claimed range as Ionescu teaches it is a result effective variable of anode material, cathode material, target stability, target number of cycles and energy density (see [0027] of Ionescu). Further Li in view of Kang teaches that modifications can be made (see [0075] of Li).
Li in view of Kang in view of Ionescu fails to teach wherein the capacity ratio of the negative electrode to the positive electrode (N/P ratio) satisfies an equation: (A×B)/{(C×D)−(E×B)} wherein: A represents a reversible capacity (mAh/g) per unit weight of the negative electrode, B represents a loading density (g/cm.sup.2) of the negative electrode active material, C represents a reversible capacity per unit weight (mAh/g) of the positive electrode, D represents a loading density (g/cm.sup.2) of the positive electrode active material, E represents an irreversible capacity per unit weight (mAh/g) of the negative electrode.
However, Kim teaches wherein the capacity ratio (N/P ratio, see [0079]) of the negative electrode (negative electrode, see [0079]) to the positive electrode (positive electrode, see [0079]) (N/P ratio) satisfies an equation: (see [0079], math detailed below): (A×B)/{(C×D)−(E×B)} (discharge capacity per unit area of negative electrode/discharge capacity per unit area of positive electrode, see [0079], math detailed below) wherein: A represents a reversible capacity per unit weight (mAh/g) of the negative electrode (negative electrode, see [0079], math detailed below); B represents a loading density (g/cm.sup.2) of a negative electrode active material (see [0079], math detailed below); C represents a reversible capacity per unit weight (mAh/g) of the positive electrode (positive electrode, see [0079], math detailed below); D represents a loading density (g/cm.sup.2) of a positive electrode active material (see [0079], math detailed below); and E represents an irreversible capacity per unit weight (mAh/g) of the negative electrode (Kim teaches a pressing process during activation to form a stable SEI layer, see [0013], to prevent continuous formation of the SEI layer see [0007], which is an irreversible capacity of the negative electrode see [0006], therefore this process makes the value of E go to zero in the equation) and wherein the capacity ratio (N/P ratio, see [0079]) of the negative electrode (negative electrode, see [0079]) to the positive electrode (positive electrode, see [0079]) (N/P ratio) is defined as a ratio (discharge capacity per unit area of negative electrode/discharge capacity per unit area of positive electrode, see [0079] of Kim, see modification above) of a capacity of the negative electrode (discharge capacity per unit area of negative electrode, see [0079]) to a capacity of the positive electrode (discharge capacity per unit area of positive electrode, see [0079]) consumed by an irreversible reaction (see [0081] and [0082] of Kim where the discharge capacity per unit area of the positive and negative electrode are measured from a half-cell after cycling, therefore during cycling an irreversible reaction would occur and the discharge capacity per unit area would be decreased by the irreversible reaction and therefore consumed by the irreversible reaction) based on a combined electrode (see [0081]-[0082] of Kim where the half-cells each have a positive and negative electrode, therefore a combined electrode).
The examiner would like to note that Kim teaches N/P = discharge capacity per unit area of negative electrode/discharge capacity per unit area of positive electrode (see [0079]). Looking at Equation 1 above (A x B) = (mAh/g)(g/cm2) = (mAh/cm2) which is equivalent to discharge capacity (mAh) per unit area of negative electrode (cm2). In equation 1 above, (C x D) = (mAh/g)(g/cm2) = (mAh/cm2) which is equivalent to discharge capacity (mAh) per unit area of positive electrode (cm2). Further for (E x B), see explanation of E above, therefore E in equation 1 above goes to zero and (A x B)/{(C x D) – (E x B)} = (A x B)/{(C x D) – (0 x B)} = (A x B)/{(C x D) – (0)} = (A x B)/(C x D) = discharge capacity per unit area of negative electrode (mAh/cm2)/discharge capacity per unit are of positive electrode (mAh/cm2) = N/P ratio equation taught by Kim (see [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li in view of Kang and further in view of Ionescu such that the N/P ratio as taught by Li in view of Kang and further in view of Ionescu satisfies the equation above and measure the reversible capacity per unit area of the negative electrode to positive electrode from half-cells having combined electrode as taught by Kim as a decrease in electrical conductivity, deterioration of lifespan characteristics, and a decrease in energy density, may be prevented (see [0080] of Kim). Further Li in view of Kang and further in view of Ionescu teaches that modifications can be made (see [0075] of Li).
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Kang in view of Ionescu and further in view of Kim teaches wherein polarities of the first active material (504, Fig. 5, see [0061]) and the (2n+1)-th active material (522/522”, Fig. 5, see [0063]) are the same (see [0061] where 501 is a cathode, see [0063] where 518 is a cathode), and wherein polarities of the 2n-th active material (514/514’, Fig. 5, see [0062] the layers are alike) and the (2n+1)-th active material (522/522”, Fig. 5, see [0063]) are different from each other (see [0062] where 512 is an anode, see [0063] where 518 is a cathode).
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Kang in view of Ionescu and further in view of Kim teaches wherein each of the solid electrolytes (510, Fig. 5, see [0062], and 510’, Fig. 5, see [0063]) comprises a plasticizer (plasticizer, see [0081] of Kang, see modifications above).
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Kang in view of Ionescu and further in view of Kim teaches wherein the plasticizer (plasticizer, see [0081] of Kang, see modifications above) comprises an ethylene glycol-based compound (polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether, see [0084] where the plasticizer is polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether, see Kang, see modifications above).
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Kang in view of Ionescu and further in view of Kim teaches wherein the capacity ratio (N/P ratio, see [0027] of Ionescu, see modification above) of the negative electrode (512, Fig. 5, see [0063] where 512 is an anode) to the positive electrode (518, Fig. 5, see [0063] where 518 is a cathode) (N/P ratio) is defined as a ratio (discharge capacity per unit area of negative electrode/discharge capacity per unit area of positive electrode, see [0079] of Kim, see modification above) of a capacity of the negative electrode (512, Fig. 5, see [0063] where 512 is an anode, see Kim where discharge capacity per unit area of negative electrode, see [0079] of Kim, see modification above) to the capacity of a positive electrode (518, Fig. 5, see [0063] where 518 is a cathode, see Kim where discharge capacity per unit area of positive electrode, see [0079] of Kim, see modification above) consumed by an irreversible reaction (see [0081] and [0082] of Kim where the discharge capacity per unit area of the positive and negative electrode are measured from a half-cell after cycling, therefore during cycling an irreversible reaction would occur and the discharge capacity per unit area would be decreased by an irreversible reaction and therefore consumed by the irreversible reaction, see modification above) based on a combined electrode (see [0081]-[0082] of Kim where the half-cells each have a positive and negative electrode, therefore a combined electrode, see modification above). See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
7. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Pub. No. US 20200036070 A1) in view of Kang et al. (Pub. No. KR 20210122995 A) in view of Ionescu et al. (Pub. No. US 20220263082 A1) in view of Kim et al. (Pub. No. US 20220255150 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nagase et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0197800 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Li in view of Kang in view of Ionescu and further in view of Kim fails to teach wherein the all-solid-state lithium secondary battery is configured to be connected in series and in parallel.
However, Nagase teaches a solid-state lithium secondary battery (10, Fig. 1, [0033], Nagase) configured to be connected in series and in parallel (see [0108] of Nagase).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li in view of Kang in view of Ionescu and further in view of Kim such that the solid-state lithium secondary battery is configured to be connected in series and parallel as taught by Nagase as this structure helps restore the decrease of output characteristics without deteriorating an anode (see [0011] of Nagase). Further Li in view of Kang in view of Ionescu and further in view of Kim teaches that modifications can be made (see [0075] of Li).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants’ argument that Yoon fails to teach the active material continuously formed on both sides or suggest the volumetric efficiency of a both-sides coating structure that is continuously formed. This argument is moot as the current rejection of record does not rely on the same combination of references previously applied. Further see 112 rejections above, the limitation of continuously formed is not clearly supported in the specification and the benefit of volumetric efficiency of a both-sides coating structure is not required to be taught by the prior art as the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding applicant’s argument that Yoon and Kang fails to teach a solid electrolyte disposed directly between active materials. This argument is moot as the current rejection of record does not rely on the same combination of references previously applied.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Ionescu fails to teach wherein the N/P ratio is independently controlled for each active material layer. This argument is moot as the claimed limitation of independently controlling is not only unsupported by the specification as seen in the 112a rejections above, but also introduces a method step in an apparatus claim and therefore not required to be taught by the prior art of record. Further the applicant states the claimed limitation represents the design concept of individually controlling the capacity of each layer in a multi-layer structure, and the N/P ratio is independently controlled for each pair of active materials, however it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., individually controlling the capacity of each layer in a multi-layer structure, and the N/P ratio is independently controlled for each pair of active materials) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicants’ argument that the prior art fails to teach a plurality of solid electrolyte layers and each solid electrolyte layer is disposed at a different location. This argument is moot as the current rejection of record does not rely on the same combination of references previously applied.
Regarding applicants’ argument that the combination of Yoon and Kang does not arrive at the claimed invention, as the prior art references do not disclose or suggest this specific structural combination. This argument is moot as the current rejection of record does not rely on the same combination of references previously applied.
Regarding applicant’s argument there is no motivation to dispose the solid electrolyte layer directly between active materials and to independently control the capacity of each layer to 1.0 to 1.2. This argument is moot as the current rejection of record does not rely on the same combination of references previously applied.
Regarding applicants’ argument that Ionescu discloses a broad range of 0.5 to 2 and there is no reason to control each layer to the narrow range of 1.0 to 1.2. The examiner respectfully disagrees as Ionescu teaches in [0027] that the N/P ratio as a result effective variable of anode material, cathode material, target stability, target number of cycles and energy density giving someone of ordinary skill in the art ample motivation to modify the range to stay within the claimed range. Further, Ionescu specifically mentions values within the range in [0027] of 1, 1.05, 1.1, 1.15, and 1.2 and that the values can be ranged within or therebetween these values.
Regarding applicants’ argument that the structural combination of the claimed invention produces the unpredictable synergistic effects of volume reduction, improved energy density, stable interface and reduced resistance, maximized interfacial stability, prevention of electrodeposition, and improved cycle life the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
9. 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 DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights