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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received May 18, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 4, 10, and 13 are amended; claims 3 and 12 are cancelled; and claim 19 is new; resulting in claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-19 pending for examination.
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, 4-6, 10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, et al. (US 2022/0200053 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4-5, 10, and 13-14, Sun teaches a lithium ion battery (electrochemical apparatus) which may be used as a power source for electric and hybrid electric vehicles (electronic apparatus) (¶ [0003], Ln. 1-3). Sun teaches that the lithium ion battery includes a cathode (positive electrode plate) and an anode (negative electrode plate) with a separator interposed between the cathode and anode, immersed in an electrolyte (¶ [0013], Ln. 1-7). The anode includes an anode active material included in a slurry, which is cast, dried, and calendered (negative electrode active material layer) on an anode current collector (¶ [0017], Ln. 6-8). Sun teaches that the electrolyte includes an ion conducting salt and at least four additives, teaching LiFSI (lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide) as the salt and VC (vinylene carbonate), FEC (fluoroethylene carbonate), PS (1,3-propane sultone) (sulfur-oxygen double bond-containing compound), and ES (ethylene sulfite) as the four additives (¶ [0019], Ln. 1-6). In the example electrolyte composition provided, each of the four additives is included at 0.5-1.5 wt% (¶ [0033], Ln. 1-7). Sun teaches that the conducting salts and additives are dissolved in a non-aqueous electrolyte including one or more cyclic carbonate solvents and one or more linear carbonate solvents (¶ [0031], Ln. 1-5), specifically providing a composition including 30-50 wt% ethyl methyl carbonate, 20-30 wt% ethylene carbonate, 0-10 wt% propylene carbonate, and 0-10 wt% diethyl carbonate (¶ [0033], Ln. 7-10).
In this case, the amount of ethylene carbonate is represented by the variable b%, and is included in a mass percentage of 20-30 wt%, overlapping the claimed range of 1-25%; the amount of vinylene carbonate is represented by the variable m%, and is included in a mass percentage of 0.5-1.5%, within the claimed range of greater than 0% and less than 2% (satisfying formula (i)); and the amount of fluoroethylene carbonate is represented by the variable n%, and is included in a mass percentage of 0.5-1.5%, within the claimed range of greater than 0% and less than 2% (satisfying formula (ii)). Additionally, the sum of the mass percentage of vinylene carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate ranges from 1-3%, overlapping the claimed range of 0.01-2%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Sun teaches that the additives (VC, FEC, PS, and ES) are included in small (e.g., 0.5-1.5 wt %), substantially equivalent amounts (¶ [0035], Ln. 5-10). Sun does not expressly teach that the amount of vinylene carbonate is less than the amount of fluoroethylene carbonate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the amount of each additive such that vinylene carbonate is added at an amount less than the fluoroethylene carbonate added, based on the teachings of Sun. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the narrow range provided by Sun (0.5-1.5 wt %) covers small, substantially equivalent amounts. As Sun teaches including each of the four additives in an amount within this range, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include a small amount of fluoroethylene carbonate and a similar but slightly smaller amount of vinylene carbonate. For example, using the teachings of Sun, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include fluoroethylene carbonate at 1 wt% and vinylene carbonate at 0.9 wt%, or fluoroethylene carbonate at 0.6 wt% and vinylene carbonate at 0.5 wt%, as the amounts are substantially equivalent and within the ranges taught in the reference. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Sun does not expressly teach the mass of anode active material included in the anode, and therefore does not expressly teach that the ratio of the mass percentage of ethylene carbonate included in the electrolyte to the mass of negative electrode active material included in the negative electrode is 1.6-6.4 or that the ratio of the sum of the mass percentage of vinylene carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate included in the electrolyte to the mass of negative electrode active material included in the negative electrode is 0.001-0.36.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mass of anode active material included in the anode in the battery of Sun. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the mass of anode active material may be adjusted based on the capacity requirements of the battery. In general, the anode active material accounts for approximately 20 wt% of a lithium ion battery and the mass of commonly used lithium ion cells for electric vehicles ranges from about 45-70 grams, resulting in a mass of anode active material ranging from 9-14 grams. Using this estimated range for commonly used lithium ion cells, the ratio of the mass percentage of ethylene carbonate included in the electrolyte to the mass of anode active material included in the anode in the battery of Sun ranges from 1.4-3.3, overlapping the claimed range of 1.6-6.4. Additionally, using the estimated range, the ratio of the sum of the mass percentage of vinylene carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate included in the electrolyte to the mass of anode active material included in the anode in the battery of Sun ranges from 0.07-0.33, within the claimed range of 0.001-0.36. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include active material within the typical ranges. Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amount of active material, as adjusting mass is common in optimizing a battery cell. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase the amount of anode active material in a cell in order to increase the capacity or to decrease the amount of anode active material in a cell in order to decrease the total weight or size of the anode, and in doing so, would arrive at a ratio of the mass percentage of ethylene carbonate included in the electrolyte to the mass of anode active material included in the anode within the claimed range of 1.6-6.4 and a ratio of the sum of the mass percentage of vinylene carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate included in the electrolyte to the mass of anode active material included in the anode within the claimed range of 0.001-0.36.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Sun teaches all of the limitations of claims 5 and 14 above and further teaches that the amount of 1,3-propane sultone included in the electrolyte is 0.5-1.5 wt% (¶ [0033], Ln. 6). Sun further teaches that the cathode includes a cathode active material included in a slurry, which is cast, dried, and calendered (positive electrode active material layer) on a cathode current collector (¶ [0016], Ln. 13-17). Sun does not expressly teach the mass of cathode active material included in the cathode, and therefore does not expressly teach that the ratio of the mass percentage of 1,3-propane sultone included in the electrolyte to the mass of positive electrode active material included in the positive electrode is 0.1-0.6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mass of cathode active material included in the cathode in the battery of Sun. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the mass of cathode active material may be adjusted based on the capacity requirements of the battery. In general, the cathode active material accounts for approximately 20-25 wt% of a lithium ion battery and the mass of commonly used lithium ion cells for electric vehicles ranges from about 45-70 grams, resulting in a mass of cathode active material ranging from 9-17.5 grams. Using this estimated range, the ratio of the mass percentage of 1,3-propane sultone included in the electrolyte to the mass of cathode active material included in the cathode in the battery of Sun ranges from 0.03-0.17, overlapping the claimed range of 0.1-0.6. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the active material within the typical ranges. Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amount of active material, as adjusting mass is common in optimizing a battery cell. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase the amount of cathode active material in a cell in order to increase the capacity, or to decrease the amount of cathode active material in a cell in order to decrease the total weight or size of the cathode, and in doing so, would arrive at a ratio of the mass percentage of 1,3-propane sultone included in the electrolyte to the mass of cathode active material included in the cathode within the claimed range of 0.1-0.6.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, et al. (US 2022/0200053 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Lee, et al. (US 2019/0267614 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Sun teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above. Sun does not expressly teach that the mass percentage of ethylene carbonate included in the electrolyte is within 1-10%.
Lee teaches a lithium secondary battery including a positive electrode, negative electrode, and separator disposed between the positive electrode and negative electrode (¶ [0010], Ln. 1-5), and including an electrolyte including an organic solvent and a lithium salt (¶ [0057], Ln. 1-2). Lee teaches that the organic solvent is not particularly limited so long as it allows ions involved in the electrochemical reaction to move (¶ [0058], Ln. 1-4). Lee teaches that carbonate-based solvents are preferred, specifically teaching that a mixture of a cyclic carbonate (such as ethylene carbonate or propylene carbonate) and a low-viscosity linear carbonate-based compound (such as ethyl methyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, or diethyl carbonate) is more preferably used (¶ [0058], Ln. 20-27). The cyclic carbonate has high ionic conductivity and high dielectric constant, which increases charge/discharge performance of the battery (¶ [0058], Ln. 20-24). Lee teaches that when the cyclic carbonate and chain carbonate are mixed in a volume ratio of about 1:1 to about 1:9, the performance of the electrolyte is excellent (¶ [0058], Ln. 27-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrolyte solution of Sun to include less ethylene carbonate and more ethyl methyl carbonate and diethyl carbonate, such that the ratio of the cyclic carbonate (ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate) to the chain carbonates (ethyl methyl carbonate and diethyl carbonate) is closer to 1:9. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that that the ratio of each solvent can be adjusted so long as it allows ions involved in the electrochemical reaction to move. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adjust the ratios and increase the amount of chain carbonate in order to lower the viscosity of the electrolyte solution. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a volume ratio of ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate to the combined ethyl methyl carbonate and diethyl carbonate closer to 1:9, based on the teachings of Lee, resulting in a mass content of ethylene carbonate of 10% or less in the electrolyte.
Claims 7-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, et al. (US 2022/0200053 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6, 10, and 15 above, and further in view of Zhu, et al. (US 2022/0115694 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Sun teaches all of the limitations of claims 6 and 15 above. Sun teaches that the cathode active material includes a lithium intercalating compound, providing lithium iron phosphate as an example, and further teaching that other cathode active materials may be used (¶ [0015], Ln. 1-9). Sun does not expressly teach that the cathode comprises cobalt.
Zhu teaches a lithium ion battery including a cathode, anode, and electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte includes a lithium salt, solvent, and additives (¶ [0003], Ln. 1-4). In one example, Zhu teaches an electrolyte including LiPF6, ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, vinylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, and a phosphorous-containing additive (¶ [0046], Ln. 1-13). Zhu teaches that the electrolyte solution can be used in a variety of batteries, and specifically teaches the use of lithium ion batteries containing LCO cathodes (comprising cobalt) (¶ [0027], Ln. 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include an LCO cathode material in the battery of Sun, based on the teachings of Zhu. As Zhu teaches a similar electrolytic solution, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include an LCO cathode material with reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that LCO is a very common cathode active material for lithium ion cells used for electric vehicles.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Sun teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above. Sun does not expressly teach that the electrolyte comprises one of the lithium salts included in claims 8 and 17 in a mass percentage of 0.01-3%.
Zhu teaches a lithium ion battery including a cathode, anode, and electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte includes a lithium salt, solvent, and additives (¶ [0003], Ln. 1-4). Zhu teaches the addition of an SEI formation additive, which improves the properties of the SEI by contributing to the formation of robust layers that restrict oxidation of the electrolyte without increasing the electrical resistance of the electrodes (¶ [0019], Ln. 17-21). Zhu teaches that the anode SEI formation additive can include one or more of fluoroethylene carbonate, lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, and lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate (¶ [0019], Ln. 21-28). Zhu teaches that the additives may be added to the electrolyte in the range of 0.01-10 wt%, or more specifically 0.2-0.7 wt% (¶ [0030], Ln. 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrolyte of Sun to include an SEI formation additive, such as lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide or lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate in an amount of 0.2-0.7 wt%, within the claimed range of 0.01-3%, based on the teachings of Zhu. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include the additive in order to form a more robust SEI and restrict oxidation of the electrolyte without increasing the electrical resistance of the electrodes.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Sun teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above. Sun does not expressly teach that the electrolyte comprises one of the polynitrile compounds included in claims 9 and 18 in a mass percentage of 0.01-6%.
Zhu teaches a lithium ion battery including a cathode, anode, and electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte includes a lithium salt, solvent, and additives (¶ [0003], Ln. 1-4). Zhu teaches the addition of an additive that reduces gas generation in the battery (¶ [0019], Ln. 1-7). Zhu teaches that the gas reduction additive may include at least one of 1,3-propane sultone, succinonitrile, and 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile (¶ [0019], Ln. 28-34). Zhu teaches that the additives may be added to the electrolyte in the range of 0.01-10 wt%, or more specifically 0.2-0.7 wt% (¶ [0030], Ln. 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrolyte of Sun to include a gas reduction additive, such as succinonitrile or 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile in an amount of 0.2-0.7 wt%, within the claimed range of 0.01-6%, based on the teachings of Zhu. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include the additive in order to reduce gas generation in the battery.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, et al. (US 2022/0200053 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fan, et al. (US 2009/0106970 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Sun teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Sun does not expressly teach that the mass of the anode active material is within 4 and 8.5 grams.
Fan teaches a method for preparing a lithium-ion rechargeable battery (¶ [0004], Ln. 1-2). The battery includes an electrolyte solution including ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and ethyl methyl carbonate, LiPF6 at 1 molar concentration, and approximately 1% by mass lithium bis(oxalate)borate (¶ [0020]-[0021]). Fan teaches that the battery includes a cathode with approximately 8 grams of LiCoO2 as the cathode active material (¶ [0015], Ln. 1-10) and an anode with approximately 4 grams of graphite as the anode active material of graphite (¶ [0017], Ln. 1-7). Fan teaches that the battery produced is a LP053450 type lithium-ion battery (¶ [0021], Ln. 4-6) which is commonly used small and portable devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery of Sun to include approximately 4 grams of anode active material based on the teachings of Fan. While it is acknowledged that Sun teaches that lithium ion batteries are commonly used in electric vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that lithium ion batteries are commonly used for a variety of applications. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use the lithium ion battery of Sun in a small or portable device, and would be motivated to use the teachings of Fan regarding amounts of active material. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include approximately 4 grams of anode active material in the battery.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112
The previous rejections of claims 4 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to claims 4 and 13 in the response filed May 18, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
In light of the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 10, the previous rejections of claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sun, et al. (US 2022/0200053 A1) are modified above. Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to modify the electrolyte of Sun such that the mass percentage of vinylene carbonate is less than the mass percentage of fluoroethylene carbonate and that it would not be obvious to modify the content of ethylene carbonate in the electrolyte of Sun based on the teachings of Lee, et al. (US 2019/0267614 A1). The Applicant further argues that the approximated weights provided in the rejection of claim 1 appear to be speculative.
With respect to the argument, see pages 10-11 of the remarks, that it would not be obvious to modify the electrolyte of Sun such that the mass percentage of vinylene carbonate is less than the mass percentage of fluoroethylene carbonate, this argument is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that because Sun teaches that the additives are included in the electrolyte in substantially equivalent amounts, including vinylene carbonate at a mass percentage less than that of fluoroethylene carbonate would undermine the performance advantages of the electrolyte taught by Sun, however, it is noted that the teaching “substantially equivalent” allows the mass percentages of the additives to be different. Therefore, as Sun teaches that the additives (VC, FEC, PS, and ES) are included in small (e.g., 0.5-1.5 wt %), substantially equivalent amounts (¶ [0035], Ln. 5-10), one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that vinylene carbonate may be included in an amount similar to, but slightly less than the amount of fluoroethylene carbonate, provided both additives are included at a content within 0.5-1.5 wt %.
With respect to the argument, see pages 11-13 of the remarks, that it would not be obvious to modify the content of ethylene carbonate in the electrolyte of Sun based on the teachings of Lee, this argument is not persuasive. While it is acknowledged that Sun teaches an example electrolyte including 20-30 wt% ethylene carbonate (¶ [0033], Ln. 7-10), the reference does not provide specific teachings regarding the lower or upper limits of ethylene carbonate content, nor does the reference teach away from including less than 20 wt% ethylene carbonate. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to apply the teachings of additional references to the solvent composition of Sun. Lee similarly teaches a lithium ion battery, teaching that carbonate-based solvents are preferred and specifically teaching that a mixture of a cyclic carbonate (such as ethylene carbonate or propylene carbonate) and a low-viscosity linear carbonate-based compound (such as ethyl methyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, or diethyl carbonate) is more preferably used (¶ [0058], Ln. 20-27). The cyclic carbonate has high ionic conductivity and high dielectric constant, which increases charge/discharge performance of the battery (¶ [0058], Ln. 20-24). Lee teaches that when the cyclic carbonate and chain carbonate are mixed in a volume ratio of about 1:1 to about 1:9, the performance of the electrolyte is excellent (¶ [0058], Ln. 27-30). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the electrolyte solution of Sun to include less ethylene carbonate and more ethyl methyl carbonate and diethyl carbonate, such that the ratio of the cyclic carbonate (ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate) to the chain carbonates (ethyl methyl carbonate and diethyl carbonate) is closer to 1:9, based on the teachings of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adjust the ratios and increase the amount of chain carbonate in order to lower the viscosity of the electrolyte solution. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a volume ratio of ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate to the combined ethyl methyl carbonate and diethyl carbonate closer to 1:9, based on the teachings of Lee, resulting in a mass content of ethylene carbonate of 10% or less in the electrolyte.
With respect to the argument, see pages 13-14 of the remarks, that the approximated weights provided in the rejection of claim 1 appear to be speculative, this argument is not persuasive. While it is acknowledged that Sun does not expressly teach the mass of anode active material included in the anode, Sun does teach that lithium ion batteries are commonly used as a power source for electric and hybrid electric vehicles (electronic apparatus) (¶ [0003], Ln. 1-3). Thus, in looking to the most commonly used lithium ion batteries in electric vehicles, 18650 cells (with weights of approximately 45 grams) and 21700 cells (with weights of approximately 60-70 grams) are very popular. Further, an estimate of 20% anode active material is provided by Schiavi, et al. Aqueous electrochemical delithiation of cathode materials as a strategy to selectively recover lithium from waste lithium-ion batteries, Journal of Energy Chemistry, Vol. 88 (Oct. 2023), pp. 144-153, in the introduction to lithium-ion batteries. It is acknowledged that the values used are approximations, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use the approximated values of commonly used lithium ion batteries. Using this estimated range for commonly used lithium ion cells, the ratio of the mass percentage of ethylene carbonate included in the electrolyte to the mass of anode active material included in the anode in the battery of Sun ranges from 1.4-3.3, overlapping the claimed range of 1.6-6.4. Further, as noted above, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amount of active material, as adjusting mass is common in optimizing a battery cell. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase the amount of anode active material in a cell in order to increase the capacity or to decrease the amount of anode active material in a cell in order to decrease the total weight or size of the anode.
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 SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights