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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 20150140423 A1, published 21 May 2015) in view of Jung et al. (US 20150236340 A1, published 20 Aug 2015).
Regarding claim 1, Brown et al. discloses a negative electrode material, comprising: silicon-based particles (composite particles); wherein the silicon-based particles comprise a silicon-containing substrate (first particle component), a polymer layer (first polymeric coating) is provided on at least a part of a surface of the silicon-containing substrate ([0020-0022]), and the polymer layer comprises carbon nanotubes ([0060]). Brown does not clearly disclose the content of alkali metal ions.
However, Brown discloses that the electrode material is 0.05 to 0.5% by weight of sodium polyacrylate ([0081]). Brown further teaches that the composite particle preferably comprises a silicon particle having a sodium polyacrylate coating with a degree of neutralization in the range 60 to 100% ([0065, 0081]). The degree of neutralization is defined as the extent to which an acid has been neutralized by a base, indicating how much of the acid's hydrogen ions have been reacted with hydroxide ions from the base. Thus, the degree of neutralization is inverse of the ion content of the silicon-based particles, and Brown identifies the degree of neutralization and thus the ion content (its inverse) as results effective. Further, Brown generally teaches that relative amounts of the first particle component, second particle component, first polymer coating, polymer binder and optionally conductive material has been found to influence both the capacity and cycle life of a device ([0081]), thus a relative amount of the sodium polyacrylate component (as the polymer coating per [0068]) is a variable which affects capacity and cycle life of the resultant device utilizing the electrode (see also [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Brown to provide a content in the claimed range, as 50 – 3500 ppm ion content of sodium-metal ions (Na+) falls within the range of 60% to 100% neutralization of the sodium polyacrylate polymer coating. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the relative amount of sodium polyacrylate (and thus content of sodium-metal ions) to optimize the capacity and cycle life imparted by the electrode, as taught toward by Brown [0081]. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Jung et al. discloses a composite silicon-based particle for use in anode active material wherein the silicon-based particles comprise a silicon-containing substrate (SiOx) and a polymer layer (carboxylmethyl cellulose - CMC), wherein the polymer layer comprises carbon nanotubes (CNT, [0028-0030]). Jung further discloses that based on the total mass of the silicon-comprising composite as 100 wt%, a weight ratio of SiOx:CMC:CNT may be in the range of 98:1:1 to 94:3:3, and teaches that more preferably, the ratio of CMC:CNT is 1:1 ([0032]). Thus, the weight ratio of polymer to the carbon nanotubes in the polymer layer is 1:1, which is within the claimed range of 0.52 – 2.01 based on the total weight of the silicon-based particles. Furthermore, Jung teaches that such a weight ratio range allows the CMC to maintain a secure binding between the silicon particles and CNT, and thus the composite has improved life characteristics ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the content of the polymer layer of Brown to fall within the 1:1 ratio disclosed by Jung, to maintain a secure binding between the silicon-based particles and carbon nanotubes, thereby improving life characteristics as taught by Jung. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP § 2143.02). Furthermore, Jung identifies that the ratio of polymer to carbon nanotubes is results effective, as it impacts how well the polymer binds to the silicon-based particles, and thus the life characteristics of the battery. 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 MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Brown et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Brown further discloses that the polymeric coating may comprise sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC-Na), sodium polyacrylic acid (PAA-Na), or sodium alginate (ALG-Na), or any combination thereof ([0051, 0064]). Therefore, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, modified Brown et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Brown further discloses silicon-based particles (composite particles); wherein the silicon-based particles comprise a silicon-containing substrate (first particle component) which is either silicon, a silicon alloy, or an oxide thereof ([0053]). Brown does not explicitly disclose a silicon-containing substrate comprises SiOx, wherein 0.6 < x < 1.5. However, Jung et al. further discloses composite silicon-based particles comprising SiOx, wherein 0 < x ≤ 1 ([0029]).
This range overlaps the claimed range wherein 0.6 < x < 1.5. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a silicon oxide substrate comprising SiOx, wherein 0.6 < x ≤ 1, as taught by Jung, for the composite particles of Brown. 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.). Therefore, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, modified Brown et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Brown discloses silicon-based particles (composite particles); wherein the silicon-based particles comprise a silicon-containing substrate (first particle component) which is either silicon, a silicon alloy, or an oxide thereof ([0053]). Since Brown teaches elemental silicon for the silicon-containing substrate, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, modified Brown et al. meets the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above. Brown further discloses that in a first embodiment, the electrode comprises a first particle component comprising silicon fibers having a diameter in the range 10 to 1000 nm ([0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select silicon particles with a particle size of 10 to less than approximately 100 nm for the composite material of Brown. The range of 10 to 1000 nm taught by Brown over laps the claimed range of less than 100 nm. 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). Therefore, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, modified Brown et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Brown further discloses carbon nanotubes as a conductive component of the polymeric coating ([0060]). Brown further discloses that the composite material contains 0 to 3% of conductive carbon ([0081]), and teaches that the relative amounts of the first particle component, second particle component, first polymer coating, polymer binder and conductive material has been found to influence both the capacity and cycle life of a device including an electrode according to the first aspect of the invention, particularly an electrode for a battery.
While the content of the conductive carbon is taught based on the total weight of the composite material, rather than based on the weight of the silicon particles, Brown teaches that the relative amounts of the material components influence the capacity and cycle life of a battery. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the content of the carbon nanotubes relative to the content of the silicon particles. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, modified Brown et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Brown further discloses that a thickness of the polymer layer may be between 5 and 40 nm ([0067]). This range is entirely within the claimed range of approximately 5 – 200 nm. Therefore, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim modified 9.
Regarding claim 10, modified Brown et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Brown further discloses that the first particle component suitably has a principal diameter in the range 100 nm to 100 µm, and teaches that these values are D50 values ([0055]). D50 values are generally understood to be an average. Thus, Brown teaches an average particle size range which fully encompasses the claimed particle range of approximately 500 nm – 30 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an average particle size within the claimed range of 500 nm – 30 µm. 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). Therefore, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Brown et al. discloses a negative electrode ([0113]), comprising: a negative electrode material, the negative electrode material comprises silicon-based particles (composite particles), wherein the silicon-based particles comprise a silicon-containing substrate (first particle component), a polymer layer (first polymeric coating) is provided on at least a part of a surface of the silicon-containing substrate ([0020-0022]), the polymer layer comprises carbon nanotubes ([0060]). Brown does not clearly disclose the content of alkali metal ions.
However, Brown discloses that the electrode material is 0.05 to 0.5% by weight of sodium polyacrylate ([0081]). Brown further discloses that the composite particle preferably comprises a silicon particle having a sodium polyacrylate coating with a degree of neutralization in the range 60 to 100% ([0065, 0081]). The degree of neutralization is defined as the extent to which an acid has been neutralized by a base, indicating how much of the acid's hydrogen ions have been reacted with hydroxide ions from the base. Thus, the degree of neutralization is inverse of the ion content of the silicon-based particles, and Brown identifies the degree of neutralization and thus the ion content (its inverse) as results effective. Further, Brown generally teaches that relative amounts of the first particle component, second particle component, first polymer coating, polymer binder and optionally conductive material has been found to influence both the capacity and cycle life of a device ([0081]), thus a relative amount of the sodium polyacrylate component (as the polymer coating per [0068]) is a variable which affects capacity and cycle life of the resultant device utilizing the electrode (see also [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize the content of sodium-metal ions (Na+), to within the claimed range of 50 – 3500 ppm, to increase the degree of neutralization of the sodium polyacrylate polymer coating. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the relative amount of sodium polyacrylate (and thus content of sodium-metal ions) to optimize the capacity and cycle life imparted by the electrode, as taught toward by Brown [0081]. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Jung et al. discloses a composite silicon-based particle for use in anode active material wherein the silicon-based particles comprise a silicon-containing substrate (SiOx) and a polymer layer (carboxylmethyl cellulose - CMC), wherein the polymer layer comprises carbon nanotubes (CNT, [0028-0030]). Jung further discloses that based on the total mass of the silicon-comprising composite as 100 wt%, a weight ratio of SiOx:CMC:CNT may be in the range of 98:1:1 to 94:3:3, and teaches that more preferably, the ratio of CMC:CNT is 1:1 ([0032]). Thus, the weight ratio of polymer to the carbon nanotubes in the polymer layer is 1:1, which is within the claimed range of 0.52 – 2.01 based on the total weight of the silicon-based particles. Furthermore, Jung teaches that such a weight ratio range allows the CMC to maintain a secure binding between the silicon particles and CNT, and thus the composite has improved life characteristics ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the content of the polymer layer of Brown to fall within the 1:1 ratio disclosed by Jung, to maintain a secure binding between the silicon-based particles and carbon nanotubes, thereby improving life characteristics as taught by Jung. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP § 2143.02). Furthermore, Jung identifies that the ratio of polymer to carbon nanotubes is results effective, as it impacts how well the polymer binds to the silicon-based particles, and thus the life characteristics of the battery. 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 MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, modified Brown et al. meets the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Brown further discloses that a thickness of the polymer layer may be between 5 and 40 nm ([0067]). This range is entirely within the claimed range of approximately 5 – 200 nm. Therefore, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, modified Brown et al. meets the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Brown further discloses that the negative electrode may be used as a cell or battery electrode, or included as a component in an electrochemical device such as a lithium-ion battery or a lithium air battery ([0113]). Therefore, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, modified Brown et al. meets the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above. Brown further discloses that the battery (as discussed above regarding claim 16) can be used to drive devices such as mobile phones, laptop computers, GPS devices, or motor vehicles ([0121]). Therefore, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim 17.
Regarding claim 21, modified Brown et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. While Brown discloses a particle to coating polymer ratio in the range 9:0.5 to 9:0.05, preferably 9:0.3 to 9:0.1 ([0100]), and further teaches a silicon loading in the range 2 to 20 wt% ([0097]), modified Brown does not clearly disclose the content of the polymer layer based on the total weight of the silicon-based particles. However, Brown further teaches that the relative amounts of the first particle component (silicon particles) and the first polymer coating, among other components of the electroactive material, influence the capacity and life cycle of an electrode for a battery ([0081]).
Therefore, while Brown teaches a preferred example in the ranges cited by applicant, but outside of the claimed range, this is only a preferred example. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select amounts of the first particle (silicon) and the first polymer coating in Brown (which requires a large amount of core particles relative to the coating) to a coating (polymer layer) content between 12 and 15 wt%, based on the total weight of the silicon-based particles, in order to optimize the capacity and cycle life of the battery. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim 21.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 20150140423 A1) in view of Jung et al. (US 20150236340 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 16-17, and 21 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. (CN109301184A, published 1 Feb 2019, paragraphs cited from provided English translation).
Regarding claim 6, modified Brown et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. While Brown teaches a particle to coating polymer ratio in the range 9:0.5 to 9:0.05, preferably 9:0.3 to 9:0.1 ([0100]), Brown does not clearly disclose the content of the polymer layer based on the total weight of the silicon-based particles. Jiang et al. discloses a composite material wherein, based on the total mass of the electrode material (composite material) as 100 wt%, the mass percentage of the polymer layer (modified layer) is 0.5 wt% to 10 wt% ([0015]). This range is entirely within the claimed range of 0.05 - 15 wt%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the content of the polymer layer of Brown to between 0.5 wt% and 10 wt% as taught by Jiang. 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.). Therefore, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 13, modified Brown et al. meets the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Brown does not clearly disclose the content of the polymer layer based on the total weight of the silicon-based particles. Jiang et al. discloses a composite material wherein, based on the total mass of the electrode material (composite material) as 100 wt%, the mass percentage of the polymer layer (modified layer) is 0.5 wt% to 10 wt% ([0015]). This range is entirely within the claimed range of 0.05 - 15 wt%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the content of the polymer layer of Brown to between 0.5 wt% and 10 wt% as taught by Jiang. 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.). Therefore, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 20, modified Brown et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Brown discloses that a thickness of the polymer layer may be between 5 and 40 nm ([0067]), which is outside the claimed thickness range of 50 nm to 200 nm. Jiang et al. discloses a similar composite material with a thickness of 5 nm to 100 nm. Jiang further teaches that if the thickness is less than 5nm, there may be an incomplete and uneven coating, while if the thickness is greater than 100nm, the thickness will affect the mass transfer of the negative electrode material ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to thicken the polymer layer of Brown to within a range of 50 nm to 100 nm, as disclosed by Jiang, to prevent an incomplete and uneven coating without impacting mass transfer of the negative electrode material, as taught by Jiang. Furthermore, 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). Therefore, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 20150140423 A1) in view of Jung et al. (US 20150236340 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 16-17, and 21 above, and further in view of Usui et al. (US 20160181601 A1, published 23 Jun 2016).
Regarding claim 11, modified Brown et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Brown does not disclose the specific surface area of the silicon-based particles. Usui et al. discloses a composite particle with a silicon phase and a binder portion, wherein the binder portion contains carbon ([0012]). Usui further discloses that the specific surface area value of the composite particle according to the present invention is preferably in the range from 1 m2/g to 11 m2/g. Usui further discloses that a smaller specific surface area suppresses the degradation reactions of the electrolyte solution that arise during the initial charging, and improving the initial efficiency as a negative electrode material ([0066])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the silicon-based particle of Brown to have a specific surface area of 1 m2/g to 11 m2/g as taught by Usui, to suppress degradation and improve efficiency. This range for specific surface lies within the claimed range of approximately 1 m2/g to 50 m2/g. Furthermore, the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, modified Brown et al. meets the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Brown does not disclose the specific surface area of the silicon-based particles. Usui et al. discloses a composite particle with a silicon phase and a binder portion, wherein the binder portion contains carbon ([0012]). Usui further discloses that the specific surface area value of the composite particle according to the present invention is preferably in the range from 1 m2/g to 11 m2/g. Usui further discloses that a smaller specific surface area suppresses the degradation reactions of the electrolyte solution that arise during the initial charging, and improving the initial efficiency as a negative electrode material ([0066])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the silicon-based particle of Brown to have a specific surface area of 1 m2/g to 11 m2/g as taught by Usui, to suppress degradation and improve efficiency. This range for specific surface lies within the claimed range of approximately 1 m2/g to 50 m2/g. Furthermore, the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim 15.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 20150140423 A1) in view of Jung et al. (US 20150236340 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 16-17, and 21 above, and further in view of Sakshaug et al. (US 20170170477 A1, published 15 Jun 2017).
Regarding claim 22, modified Brown et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Brown discloses that a thickness of the polymer layer may be between 5 and 40 nm ([0067]), which is outside the claimed thickness range of 120nm to 200 nm.
Sakshaug et al. discloses a silicon composite material (used in electrodes, per Sakshaug abstract) covered by an ionically conductive polymer with a thickness between 1 nm and 10 microns ([0273]), along with an embodiment with a narrower thickness range of between 1 nm and 1 micron ([0280]). Sakshaug further teaches that the thickness of the coating can alter the performance of the composite material and may be directly linked to the physical properties of the coating ([0280]). Thus, Sakshaug identifies the thickness of the polymer layer as a results effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to thicken the polymer layer of Brown to within a range of 120 nm to 200 nm, as disclosed by Sakshaug, to alter and optimize the performance of the composite material, as taught by Sakshaug; where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Furthermore, 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). Therefore, modified Brown meets the limitations of claim 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 Nov 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Brown and the present invention pursue fundamentally different objectives, and thus there is no rationale that adjustments in Brown’s degree of neutralization would lead to an ion concentration within the claimed range, 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).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended ranges in claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Jung et al. has been added to the rejection of claims 1 and 12 to meets this limitation.
Applicant’s arguments with respect claim 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Loveridge et al. has been removed from the rejection and Brown has been cited as obvious to optimize. Brown teaches that the relative amounts of the first particle component (silicon particles) and the first polymer coating, among other components of the electroactive material, influence the capacity and life cycle of an electrode for a battery, and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a content of polymer layer between 12 and 15 wt% as claimed to optimize the capacity and life cycle of the battery.
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 ALEXANDRA J SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-3036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30a - 6p.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached on (571) 270-7871. 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.
/A.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights