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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-22 are currently pending;
Claims 5 and 15 are canceled;
Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 13, 16, 18, and 20 are currently amended;
Claims 21-22 are new.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of 08/11/2025
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the Specification;
The objections of claim 20 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 112(b) rejections of claim 20 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 112(d) rejections of claims 6 and 16 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 103 rejections of claims 1-20 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and argument and replaced with new 103 rejections in view of Lee in view of Arai, Lee in view of Arai and Kim, and Lee in view of Kim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 25 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee in view of Arai, Lee in view of Arai and Kim, and Lee in view of Kim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-12, 16-17 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20200274147-A1), hereinafter Lee, in view of Arai et al. (US-20180347073-A1), hereinafter Arai.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, the electrode comprising: a silicon-containing electroactive material ([0028] doped silicon oxide); a first carbon additive ([0058] conductive material; [0063] carbon black included in 0.1 to 20 wt% based on the total weight of the negative electrode slurry); a second carbon additive different from the first carbon additive (graphene ([0017]) and having a second aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 3 to less than or equal to about 500 ([0037]-[0038] 50 to 500), and a third carbon additive different from the second carbon additive ([0017] carbon nanotube) and having a third aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 150 to less than or equal to about 10,000 ([0037]-[0038] 50 to 500). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Lee does not explicitly disclose one embodiment wherein the linear conductive material includes both the graphene (second carbon additive) and a carbon nanotube (third carbon additive) ([0017]). However, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use them in combination because they are taught for the same purpose, Lee teaches that the linear conductive material can comprise one or more of carbon nanotube, graphene, and carbon black (see Lee claim 8), and that the examples may be modified in many different forms ([0079]). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.)
Lee is silent as to the first carbon additive having a first aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 1 to less than or equal to about 3.
Arai is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon for battery electrodes ([0038]). Arai teaches the first carbon additive having a first aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 1 to less than or equal to about 3 ([0039] particulate carbon has an aspect ratio of 1 to 10; [0038] particulate carbon such as carbon black). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the first additive, carbon black, of Lee to have a first aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 1 to less than or equal to about 3. Doing so allows for good dispersibility in the conductive carbon mixture ([0002]; Arai [0038]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the first carbon additive comprises carbon black (Lee [0058] conductive material; Lee [0063] carbon black included in 0.1 to 20 wt% based on the total weight of the negative electrode slurry). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the third carbon additive is selected from the group consisting of: carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, and combinations thereof (Lee [0017] carbon nanotube).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the electrode comprises: greater than or equal to about 80 wt.% to less than or equal to about 97 wt.% of the silicon-containing electroactive material (Lee [0061] 80 to 99 wt%); greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt.% to less than or equal to about 15 wt.% of the first carbon additive (Lee [0018] 1 to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the doped silicon oxide; 1 to 50 wt% of the metal in the silicon oxide is doped; Lee [0061] active material present in an amount of 80 to 99 wt% of the negative electrode slurry composition); greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 15 wt.% of the second carbon additive (Lee [0018] 1 to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the doped silicon oxide; 1 to 50 wt% of the metal in the silicon oxide is doped; Lee [0061] active material present in an amount of 80 to 99 wt% of the negative electrode slurry composition); and greater than or equal to about 0.01 wt.% to less than or equal to about 5 wt.% of the third carbon additive (Lee [0063] carbon black included in 0.1 to 20 wt% based on the total weight of the negative electrode slurry). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the electrode further comprises a polymeric binder (Lee [0062] component that aids bonding, such as PVDF).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the electrode comprises greater than or equal to 0.5 wt.% to less than or equal to about 20 wt.% of the polymeric binder (Lee [0062] 0.1 to 20 wt%). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the electrode comprises: about 95 wt.% of the silicon-containing electroactive material (Lee [0061] 80 to 99 wt%); about 0.5 wt.% of the first carbon additive (Lee [0063] carbon black included in 0.1 to 20 wt% based on the total weight of the negative electrode slurry); about 0.5 wt.% of a second carbon additive (Lee [0018] 1 to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the doped silicon oxide; 1 to 50 wt% of the metal in the silicon oxide is doped; Lee [0061] active material present in an amount of 80 to 99 wt% of the negative electrode slurry composition); about 0.1 wt.% of the third carbon additive (Lee [0018] 1 to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the doped silicon oxide; 1 to 50 wt% of the metal in the silicon oxide is doped; Lee[0061] active material present in an amount of 80 to 99 wt% of the negative electrode slurry composition); and about 3.9 wt.% of the polymeric binder (Lee [0062] 0.1 to 20 wt%). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches an electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, the electrode comprising: greater than or equal to about 80 wt.% to less than or equal to about 97 wt.% of a silicon-containing electroactive material ([0028] doped silicon oxide; [0061] 80 to 99 wt%); greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt.% to less than or equal to about 15 wt.% of a first carbon additive ([0058] conductive material; [0063] carbon black included in 0.1 to 20 wt% based on the total weight of the negative electrode slurry); greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 15 wt.% of a second carbon additive different from the first carbon additive ([0017] graphene; [0018] 1 to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the doped silicon oxide; 1 to 50 wt% of the metal in the silicon oxide is doped; [0061] active material present in an amount of 80 to 99 wt% of the negative electrode slurry composition) and having a second aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 3 to less than or equal to about 500 ([0037]-[0038] 50 to 500), and greater than or equal to about 0.01 wt.% to less than or equal to about 5 wt.% of a third carbon additive different from the second carbon additive ([0017] carbon nanotube) and having a third aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 150 to less than or equal to about 10,000 ([0037]-[0038] 50 to 500). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
However, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use them in combination because they are taught for the same purpose, Lee teaches that the linear conductive material can comprise one or more of carbon nanotube, graphene, and carbon black (see Lee claim 8), and that the examples may be modified in many different forms ([0079]). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.)
Lee is silent as to the first carbon additive having a first aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 1 to less than or equal to about 3.
Arai is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon for battery electrodes ([0038]). Arai teaches the first carbon additive having a first aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 1 to less than or equal to about 3 ([0039] particulate carbon has an aspect ratio of 1 to 10; [0038] particulate carbon such as carbon black). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the first additive, carbon black, of Lee to have a first aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 1 to less than or equal to about 3. Doing so allows for good dispersibility in the conductive carbon mixture ([0002]; Arai [0038]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the first carbon additive comprises carbon black (Lee [0058] conductive material; Lee [0063] carbon black included in 0.1 to 20 wt% based on the total weight of the negative electrode slurry).
Regarding claim 16, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the third carbon additive is selected from the group consisting of: carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, and combinations thereof (Lee [0017] carbon nanotube).
Regarding claim 17, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the electrode further comprises greater than or equal to 0.5 wt.% to less than or equal to about 20 wt.% of a polymeric binder (Lee [0062] component that aids bonding, such as PVDF; Lee [0062] 0.1 to 20 wt%). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 21, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the first aspect ratio is greater than or equal to 2 to less than or equal to 3 (Arai [0039] particulate carbon has an aspect ratio of 1 to 10; [0038] particulate carbon such as carbon black). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 22, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the electrode comprises: greater than or equal to about 10 wt.% to less than or equal to about 15 wt.% of the first carbon additive (Lee [0063] carbon black included in 0.1 to 20 wt% based on the total weight of the negative electrode slurry); greater than or equal to about 10 wt.% to less than or equal to about 15 wt.% of the second carbon additive (Lee [0018] 1 to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the doped silicon oxide; 1 to 50 wt% of the metal in the silicon oxide is doped; Lee [0061] active material present in an amount of 80 to 99 wt% of the negative electrode slurry composition); and greater than or equal to about 0.01 wt.% to less than or equal to about 5 wt.% of the third carbon additive (Lee [0018] 1 to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the doped silicon oxide; 1 to 50 wt% of the metal in the silicon oxide is doped; Lee [0061] active material present in an amount of 80 to 99 wt% of the negative electrode slurry composition). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Arai as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US-20240222632-A1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the second carbon additive having an average particle diameter greater than or equal to about 2 micrometers to less than or equal to about 25 micrometers (Lee [0037] 100 nm to 5 micrometers) and an average thickness less than or equal to about 100 nanometers (Lee [0037] 1 to 200 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Lee fails to teach wherein the second carbon additive comprises platelets.
Kim is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon additives for silicon containing electrodes ([0014]). Kim teaches wherein the second carbon additive comprises platelets ([0093] plate-like conductive material such as plate-like graphene or graphene oxide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and replaced the graphene of Lee with the graphene platelets of Kim. Doing so increases the surface contact between the silicon particles in the electrode to improve conductivity and suppress disconnection of the conductive path due to volume expansion (Kim [0092]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the second carbon additive is selected from the group consisting of: graphene nanoplatelets, conductive graphite particles, exfoliated graphite sheets, and combinations thereof (Lee [0017] graphene replaced with graphene platelets Kim [0093]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the second carbon additive having an average particle diameter greater than or equal to about 2 micrometers to less than or equal to about 25 micrometers (Lee [0037] 100 nm to 5 micrometers) and an average thickness less than or equal to about 100 nanometers (Lee [0037] 1 to 200 nm)
Lee fails to teach wherein the second carbon additive comprises platelets.
Kim is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon additives for silicon containing electrodes ([0014]). Kim teaches wherein the second carbon additive comprises platelets ([0093] plate-like conductive material such as plate-like graphene or graphene oxide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and replaced the graphene of Lee with the graphene platelets of Kim. Doing so increases the surface contact between the silicon particles in the electrode to improve conductivity and suppress disconnection of the conductive path due to volume expansion (Kim [0092]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 13. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the second carbon additive is selected from the group consisting of: graphene nanoplatelets, conductive graphite particles, exfoliated graphite sheets, and combinations thereof (Lee [0017] graphene replaced with graphene platelets Kim [0093]).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20200274147-A1), hereinafter Lee, in view of Kim et al. (US-20240222632-A1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches an electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, the electrode comprising: greater than or equal to about 80 wt.% to less than or equal to about 97 wt.% of a silicon-containing electroactive material ([0028] doped silicon oxide [0061] 80 to 99 wt%); greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt.% to less than or equal to about 15 wt.% of carbon black ([0058] conductive material; [0063] carbon black included in 0.1 to 20 wt% based on the total weight of the negative electrode slurry); greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 15 wt.% of graphene ([0017] graphene; [0018] 1 to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the doped silicon oxide; 1 to 50 wt% of the metal in the silicon oxide is doped; [0061] active material present in an amount of 80 to 99 wt% of the negative electrode slurry composition), and greater than or equal to about 0.01 wt.% to less than or equal to about 5 wt.% of carbon nanotubes or nanofibers ([0017] carbon nanotube) having an aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 150 to less than or equal to about 10,000 ([0037]-[0038] 50 to 500). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Lee does not explicitly disclose one embodiment wherein the linear conductive material includes both the graphene (second carbon additive) and a carbon nanotube (third carbon additive) ([0017]). However, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use them in combination because they are taught for the same purpose, Lee teaches that the linear conductive material can comprise one or more of carbon nanotube, graphene, and carbon black (see Lee claim 8), and that the examples may be modified in many different forms ([0079]). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.)
Lee fails to teach that the 0.1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 15 wt.% of graphene is graphene nanoplatelets.
Kim is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon additives for silicon containing electrodes ([0014]). Kim teaches wherein the second carbon additive comprises platelets ([0093] plate-like conductive material such as plate-like graphene or graphene oxide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and replaced the graphene of Lee with the graphene platelets of Kim. Doing so increases the surface contact between the silicon particles in the electrode to improve conductivity and suppress disconnection of the conductive path due to volume expansion (Kim [0092]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 18. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the electrode further comprises: greater than or equal to 0.5 wt.% to less than or equal to about 20 wt.% of a polymeric binder (Lee [0062] component that aids bonding, such as PVDF; Lee [0062] 0.1 to 20 wt%). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 20, modified Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 19. Modified Lee also teaches wherein the electrode comprises: about 95 wt.% of the silicon-containing electroactive material (Lee [0061] 80 to 99 wt%); about 0.5 wt.% of the carbon black (Lee [0063] carbon black included in 0.1 to 20 wt% based on the total weight of the negative electrode slurry) about 0.5 wt.% of the graphene nanoplatelets (Lee [0017] graphene; Lee [0018] 1 to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the doped silicon oxide; 1 to 50 wt% of the metal in the silicon oxide is doped; Lee [0061] active material present in an amount of 80 to 99 wt% of the negative electrode slurry composition; graphene of Lee [0017] is replaced with graphene nanoplatelets of Kim [0093]) about 0.1 wt.% of the carbon nanotubes or nanofibers ([0017] carbon nanotube; [0018] 1 to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the doped silicon oxide; 1 to 50 wt% of the metal in the silicon oxide is doped; [0061] active material present in an amount of 80 to 99 wt% of the negative electrode slurry composition) and about 3.9 wt.% of the polymeric binder ([0062] component that aids bonding, such as PVDF; [0062] 0.1 to 20 wt%). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722