DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-A/A or A/A Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 4 has been cancelled. Claim 15 is newly added. Claims 2-3 and 5-8 are as previously presented. Claims 9-14 are withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 15 are presently examined.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicant’s claimed amendments.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman,
11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Langi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in
which the form is filed determines what form ( e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/ AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely on line using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www .uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 4 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12002962B2, hereinafter Kang in view of
Yun (US20190074537A1), Bogenstahl (US 2020/0227722 A1), and Seol (US20180219212A1), received in the information disclosure statement on 6/9/2022). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from
each other because:
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a dry method of manufacturing a positive electrode for
a lithium secondary battery (claim 4), comprising: laminating a mixture film (claim 13) comprising a positive electrode active material, a conductive material and a binder (claim 4) on one or both surfaces of a current collector (claim 13).
Kang does not disclose 1) the ratio of conductive material to binder material in a weight ratio of 1:10 to 9:10. 2) during the lamination, the mixture film satisfies a compression ratio percentage of Equation 1: 30~Tp/T1x100~50 wherein, Tp indicates a pressing thickness of the mixture film in the lamination, wherein the pressing thickness is defined as a thickness of the mixture film to be pressed when pressed by a press roll during the lamination, and T1 indicates a thickness of the mixture film before the lamination.
In regards to 1) Yun discloses using a primer layer between a current collector and an active material and in an embodiment depicts it covering a single surface of the current collector [0011, fig. 1, Yun]. The primer layer of Yun contains a conductor (“conductive material”) and a binder in a ratio of 1:10 to 10:1 [0047, Yun]. A specific embodiment is disclosed in which the conductor (denka black) and binder (PVDF) are used in a ratio of 1:5 [0086, Yun]. Yun further discloses that the coating method may be used by any common method, including dry coating methods [0048, Yun].
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to use a primer with a ratio of conductive material to binder of 1:5 as this has been shown to provide a primer layer that balances bonding strength and conduction between the active material layer and current collector [0047, Yun].
In regards to 2) Bogenstahl teaches a process for manufacturing a dry electrode [0031, Bogenstahl] including calendaring a film to a desired thickness [0035, Bogenstahl] where a force is applied [0035, Bogenstahl]. The calendaring system decreases the film thickness to a desired thickness [0033, Bogenstahl]. Therefore Bogenstahl teaches that both the pressing thickness, in this case pressing force, and the initial film thickness are taught to be result-effective variables, controlling the final film thickness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to optimize these parameters and in doing so optimize the compression ratio percentage to satisfy
equation 1; in order to control the final film thickness as taught by Bogenstahl, see M.P.E.P. §
2144.05 II.
Additionally, Seol teaches of a positive electrode for a lithium ion battery (0013), where the positive electrode contains a positive active material layer (“mixture film”) comprising a positive electrode active material, conductive agent, binder, and optionally a solvent mixed into a conductive material dispersion and coated onto a current collector (0120, 0123). Seol notes that the active material layer (“mixture film”) is pressed and that the pressing process may be performed using any general method that allows for one to achieve a desired packing density (0131). This may for instance be accomplished a roll press method in which pressing is performed while maintain a uniform thickness of the positive electrode (0131).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Westphal such that during the pressing process, pressing is performed while maintaining a uniform thickness of the mixture film. Doing so is a known method for pressing an mixture film/electrode active material layer (0130-0131). One of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that if a uniform thickness is maintained during the pressing process then the final product would have a uniform thickness.
For clarity of the record, Westphal is modified such that the thickness of the mixture film during pressing is the same as the desired final thickness.
Regarding claim 3, Kang does not disclose in the lamination, a rolling rate of the mixture
film is 20% or less, wherein the rolling rate is a ratio of a thickness of the mixture film after the
lamination to the thickness of the mixture film before the lamination ((T2-T1)/T1x100), and T2
indicates a thickness of the mixture film after the lamination. Bogenstahl teaches a process for
manufacturing a dry electrode [0031] including calendaring a film to a desired thickness [0035].
The calendaring system decreases the film thickness to a desired thickness [0033]. Therefore,
Bogenstahl teaches both the initial and final thicknesses are taught to be result-effective
variables, demonstrating the efficacy of the calendaring process. Therefore, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to optimize these parameters
and in doing so optimize the rolling rate of the mixture film to be 20% or less; in order to
quantify the efficacy of the calendaring process taught by Bogenstahl, see M.P.E.P. § 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 5, Kang teaches obtaining a powder mixture by dry mixing the positive
electrode active material, the conductive material and the binder (claim 4); and a forming the
mixture film by calendaring the powder mixture (claim 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1-3, 5-8, and 15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the current collector" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3, 5-8, and 15 are rejected as they are dependents of claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
As noted in the instant specification on page 19 lines 1-7 a dry manufacturing method of manifesting a positive electrode may include using a solvent to forming the primer layer.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westphal (US
2022/0399539 A1) in view of Yun (US20190074537A1), Bogenstahl (US 2020/0227722 A1), and Seol (US20180219212A1).
Regarding claim 1, Westphal teaches a dry method of manufacturing [0002] a positive
electrode for a lithium secondary battery [0054], comprising: laminating ([0020], by calendar rolls [0023]) a mixture film comprising a positive electrode active material ([0033], [0036]), a first conductive material [0043] and a first binder [0033] on one or both surfaces of a current collector (foil substrate [0017]).
Westphal does not disclose 1) the ratio of conductive material to binder material in a weight ratio of 1:10 to 9:10. 2) during the lamination, the mixture film satisfies a compression ratio percentage of Equation 1: 30~Tp/T1x100~50 wherein, 3) Tp indicates a pressing thickness of the mixture film in the lamination, wherein the pressing thickness is defined as a thickness of the mixture film to be pressed when pressed by a press roll during the lamination, and T1 indicates a thickness of the mixture film before the lamination.
In regards to 1) Yun discloses using a primer layer between a current collector and an active material and in an embodiment depicts it covering a single surface of the current collector [0011, fig. 1, Yun]. The primer layer of Yun contains a conductor (“conductive material”) and a binder in a ratio of 1:10 to 10:1 [0047, Yun]. A specific embodiment is disclosed in which the conductor (denka black) and binder (PVDF) are used in a ratio of 1:5 [0086, Yun]. Yun further discloses that the coating method may be used by any common method, including dry coating methods [0048, Yun].
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to use a primer with a ratio of conductive material to binder of 1:5 as this has been shown to provide a primer layer that balances bonding strength and conduction between the active material layer and current collector [0047, Yun].
In regards to 2) Bogenstahl teaches a process for manufacturing a dry electrode [0031] including calendaring a film to a desired thickness/density [0033, 0035] where a force is applied [0035]. The calendaring system decreases the film thickness to a desired thickness/density [0033]. Therefore Bogenstahl teaches that both the pressing thickness, obtained through the pressing force, and the initial film thickness are taught to be result-effective variables, controlling the final film thickness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to
optimize these parameters and in doing so optimize the compression ratio percentage to satisfy equation 1; in order to control the final film thickness as taught by Bogenstahl, see M.P.E.P. § 2144.05 II.
In regards to 3), Seol teaches of a positive electrode for a lithium ion battery (0013), where the positive electrode contains a positive active material layer (“mixture film”) comprising a positive electrode active material, conductive agent, binder, and optionally a solvent mixed into a conductive material dispersion and coated onto a current collector (0120, 0123). Seol notes that the active material layer (“mixture film”) is pressed and that the pressing process may be performed using any general method that allows for one to achieve a desired packing density (0131). This may for instance be accomplished a roll press method in which pressing is performed while maintain a uniform thickness of the positive electrode (0131).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Westphal such that during the pressing process, pressing is performed while maintaining a uniform thickness of the mixture film. Doing so is a known method for pressing a mixture film/electrode active material layer (0130-0131, Seol). One of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that if a uniform thickness is maintained during the pressing process then the final product would have a uniform thickness.
For clarity of the record, Westphal is modified such that the thickness of the mixture film during pressing is the same as the desired final thickness.
Regarding claim 2, Westphal does not disclose in the lamination, a density increase rate (%) of the mixture film satisfies Equation 2: 8~(D2-D1)/D1x100~15 wherein D1 indicates a density of the mixture film before the lamination, and D2 indicates a density of the mixture film after the lamination. Westphal teaches achieving an optimal electrode material layer density by calendaring the layer [0050], and preferred values for the obtained density [0050]. Therefore, Westphal teaches the initial and obtained densities are result-effective variables, demonstrating the efficacy of the calendaring process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to optimize these parameters and in doing so optimize the density increase rate of the mixture film to satisfy equation 2; in order to quantify the efficacy of the calendaring process as taught by Westphal, see M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. II.
Regarding claim 3, Westphal does not disclose in the lamination, a rolling rate of the
mixture film is 20% or less, wherein the rolling rate is a ratio of a thickness of the mixture film after the lamination to the thickness of the mixture film before the lamination ((T1-T2)/T1x100), and T2 indicates a thickness of the mixture film after the lamination. Bogenstahl teaches a process for manufacturing a dry electrode [0031] including calendaring a film to a desired thickness [0035]. The calendaring system decreases the film thickness to a desired thickness [0033]. Therefore, Bogenstahl teaches both the initial and final thicknesses are taught to be result-effective variables, demonstrating the efficacy of the calendaring process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to optimize these parameters and in doing so optimize the rolling rate of the mixture film to be 20% or less; in order to quantify the efficacy of the calendaring process taught by Bogenstahl, see M.P.E.P. § 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 4, Westphal further teaches before the lamination, forming a primer
layer [0023] comprising the conductive material and the binder [0030] on the one or both surfaces of the current collector (foil substrate [0017]).
Regarding claim 5, Westphal further teaches forming the mixture film by calendaring
[0023]. Westphal does not disclose obtaining a powder mixture by dry mixing the positive electrode active material, the conductive material and the binder. However, Bogenstahl teaches a process for manufacturing a dry electrode including dry blending dry active material particles, dry conductive particles and dry binder particles to form a dry mixture before calendaring [0031]; in order to improve characteristics such as film strength, cohesiveness, adhesiveness, and electrical performance [0032]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to include a dry blending step before calendaring wherein a powder mixture is obtained by dry mixing the positive electrode active material, the conductive material and the binder in order to improve characteristics such as film strength, cohesiveness, adhesiveness, and electrical performance, as taught by Bogenstahl
[0031-32].
Regarding claim 6, Westphal does not disclose the obtaining of the powder mixture
comprises obtaining a mixture by mixing the positive electrode active material, the conductive material and the binder; forming a bulk mixture in the form of a lump by fiberizing the binder by applying shear stress to the mixture; and obtaining the powder mixture by pulverizing the bulk mixture. However, Bogenstahl teaches a process for manufacturing a dry electrode by dry blending dry active material particles, dry conductive particles and dry binder particles to form a dry mixture, blending, and fibrilizing by applying high shear forces with a jet-mill before compacting and calendaring [0031]; in order to improve characteristics such as film strength, cohesiveness, adhesiveness, and electrical performance [0032]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to obtain the powder mixture by mixing the positive electrode active material, the conductive material and the binder; forming a bulk mixture in the form of a lump by fiberizing the binder by applying shear stress to the mixture; and obtaining the powder mixture by pulverizing the bulk mixture; in order to improve
characteristics such as film strength, cohesiveness, adhesiveness, and electrical performance, as taught by Bogenstahl [0031-32].
Regarding claim 7, Westphal further teaches the lamination is performed by a press roll [0047].
Regarding claim 8, Westphal further teaches a temperature of the press roll [0046].
Westphal does not disclose the temperature of the press roll ranges from 40 to 200 °C on average. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the temperature of the press roll. Westphal teaches the use of temperature to attach the electrode material [0049] by rolling with calendar rolls or a counter-pressure roll [0046]. In this case, the temperature of the roll is result-effective, attaching the electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to optimize the press roll temperature to range from 40 to 200 degrees Celsius on average; in order to attach the electrode as taught by Westphal, see M.P.E.P. § 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 15, Westphal teaches in their background that slurry/wet coating processes for primer layers comprising a conductive material, binder, and solvent are known in the literature [0004, Westphal].
The examiner notes that Yun additionally teaches of dispensing of a primer layer comprising a conductive material and binder on to a current collector either via wet (solvent) or dry coating methods [0048, Yun].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Westphal such that a primer layer is supplied as a slurry with a conductive material, binder, and solvent. As this is a known method for producing a primer layer [0004, Westphal; 0048, Yun].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not
persuasive.
In regards to the telephonic interview that took place on 05/19/20206. Applicant stated that “the Examiner agreed that the possible claim amendments provided a clearer distinction over the prior art”. For clarity of the record, the presently amended claim 1 is different than that presented during the interview. During the interview the examiner noted the four different thickness in the active material layer presented in figure 1 of the present applicant and noted that describing Tp in relation to these thickness would provide clearer distinctions over the prior art.
The examiner has withdrawn the specification objection but maintains the double patenting rejection.
In regards to the arguments without amendments. The applicant alleges that the action alleges that a pressing force corresponds to a pressing thickness. The examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion, however, in an effort to expedite prosecution, the examiner clarifies in claim 1 that the “Bogenstahl teaches that both the pressing thickness, obtained through the pressing force, and the initial film thickness are taught to be result-effective variables, controlling the final film thickness.”
Applicant then argues the “other variables” taught by Bogenstahl. The examiner does not find this to be persuasive as the applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims or office action. The variables such as “shear rate and rotation speed” only appear in the applicant’s arguments where they argue that these properties are used to influence the desired thickness of the material. The examiner notes that office action points to the a desired final thickness, one may then choose to adjust “shear rate or rotation speed” as needed, so long as they obtain the desired final thickness.
Applicant then argues hindsight reasoning. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
All information provided by the examiner was derived from the art, as such no improper hindsight reasoning is present and the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Additionally, the examiner notes that the applicant alleges there is no motivation to arrive at the recited “compression ratio”.
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is known that during the pressing process, pressing may be performed while maintaining a uniform thickness of the mixture film/electrode active material layer (0130-0131, Seol). One of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that if a uniform thickness is maintained during the pressing process then the final product would have a uniform thickness.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant in regards to Bogenstahl teaching a calendaring step and not a lamination. The examiner notes that calendaring is a type of lamination, furthermore Bogenstahl teaches of a calender/laminator system [0038]. Applicant then argues that Bogenstahl does not recognize the teachings of the present invention. To which the examiner notes that the prior art is not required to explicitly teach the same teachings of the instant application.
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003), see MPEP 2112.II.
Applicant then alleges that the teachings of Bogenstahl are broad. However, as noted above, as presently defined the “compression ratio” is broadly defined and the applicant fails to clearly point to why the cited prior art is structurally different than that of the claim.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Next, applicant alleges criticality of their data. However, the scope of claim 1 is not commensurate with the data. Claim 1 recites that the “compression ratio” takes into account T1 and Tp where Tp is the pressing thickness defined as “wherein the pressing thickness is defined as a thickness of the mixture film to be pressed when pressed by a press roll during the lamination.” As presently written, multiple points may read on Tp as presently written. Additionally, the breath of claim 1 (e.g. “first conductive material”, “first binder”, “weight ratio of 1:10 to 9:10”, etc.) is not reflected within Table 2.
The examiner notes that “compression ratio” as presently defined is still broad and includes multiple points as depicted below. As such, any one of these points may be used for Tp.
PNG
media_image1.png
353
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1 of instant application showing various thickness in Tp as written in claim 1.
Finally applicant tries to argue “pressing thickness” by citing the specification.
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.", see MPEP 2111.01.II
"Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.", see MPEP 2145.VI.
The examiner maintains their rejection.
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 QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights