DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In Applicant’s response dated October 16, 2025, Claims 7-13 are amended. Claims 14-23 are added. Claims 1-6 were previously withdrawn. Claims 7-23 are pending and examined.
Status of Application
The rejections in the Office Action dated July 16, 2025 have been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification are accepted, and the previous objections in the recited Office Action are withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings are accepted, and the previous objections in the recited Office Action are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 7-23 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 7 recites the limitation "the outside of the bottom plate" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; therefore, the claim is indefinite. Claims 8-23 depend on Claim 7, and, thus, are thus also indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted as “an outside of the bottom plate”. Correction is required.
As provided in the Office Action dated July 16, 2025, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claim 8 is maintained. Claim 8 recites “the inner region” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends amending to “an inner region”. Claims 9-11 depend on Claim 8 and are therefore also indefinite. Correction is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the outside of the top plate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; therefore, the claim is indefinite. Claim 16 depends on Claim 15, and, thus, are thus also indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted as “an outside of the top plate”. Correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the lower edge of the cap-up" in line 2, ”the upper direction of the cap-up parallel to the longitudinal central axis” in lines 2-3, and “the upper edge of the cap-up” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim; therefore, the claim is indefinite. Claims 8-23 depend on Claim 7, and, thus, are thus also indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted as "a lower edge of the cap-up" in line 2, ”an upper direction of the cap-up parallel to the longitudinal central axis” in lines 2-3, and “an upper edge of the cap-up” in lines 3-4. Correction is required.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the sum of the diameter of the contact portion" in lines 1-2, “the width of the support member” in line 2, and “the diameter of the bottom of the top plate” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim; therefore, the claim is indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted as "a sum of a diameter of the contact portion" in lines 1-2, “a width of the support member” in line 2, and “a diameter of a bottom of the top plate” in line 3. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 7-10, 12-16, 17-18, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. [KR20180018280A, dated February 21, 2018, machine translation relied upon previously provided], hereinafter Hwang.
Regarding Claim 7, Hwang discloses a secondary battery [Hwang title, abstract, throughout] comprising:
a cylindrical can [Hwang 0007, 0037, and throughout, Figs. 1-3];
an electrode assembly accommodated in the cylindrical can [Hwang 0008, 0057, Fig. 3, JR (jelly roll) and throughout] ; and
a cap assembly [Hwang 0037 and throughout, Figs. 1-3, cap assembly 120] comprising a top plate having at least one notch formed thereon [Hwang 0008, 0043, 0054 and throughout, Figs. 1-3, circular metal plate with central portion 200 and peripheral portion 300 with notch 310], a bottom plate arranged under the top plate [Hwang 0044, 0058 and throughout, Figs. 2-3, subplate 400] and having a contact portion in which a portion of the bottom plate surface protrudes toward the top plate and comes into contact with the top plate, the top plate disposed on an outside of the bottom plate, [Hwang 0044-0048, Fig. 2-3, Protrusion 420 contacts central region 200 of top plate 200/300, and top plate 200/300 is not within the bottom plate 400 and wraps around the bottom plate. Further, with the cap assembly applied to a battery, the top plate would be considered on an outside, whereas the bottom plate would be considered on an inside. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Hwang is top plate 200/300 is disposed on an outside of bottom plate 400.], and
an insulation plate arranged between the top plate and the bottom plate to insulate the top plate and the bottom plate from each other except for the contact portion [Hwang 0043, 0058-0061, and throughout, Figs. 2-3, insulation plate 600], wherein the cap assembly further comprises a support member inserted between the top plate and the insulation plate to support the top plate [Hwang 0043, 0047 and throughout, Figs. 2-3, support 500]
wherein either the insulation plate or the support member is disposed in an inner region facing the longitudinal central axis of the can based on the notch [Hwang Figs. 2-3, inner region and outer region of support member are shown in modified Fig. below. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Hwang Fig. 2 is the support member 500 has an inner region facing the longitudinal central axis of the can based on the notch as does the insulation plate 600.].
PNG
media_image1.png
420
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the support member is arranged on the inner region facing the longitudinal central axis of the can, based on the notch [Hwang Figs. 2-3, Support 500 is on an inner region facing the longitudinal central axis of the can relative to the notch as shown in the modified Fig. above.].
Regarding Claim 9, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 8, wherein the insulation plate and the support member have a circular ring shape[Hwang 0043-0044, 0049, and throughout, Figs. 1-3, 6, Hwang discloses a cylindrical battery and the top plate 200-300 [Fig. 1] and insulation plate 600 [Fig. 6] are circular. Further, Hwang discloses a central hole 510 surrounded by the support portion 500 that is in close contact with circular peripheral portion of plate 200/300. Further, Figs 2-3 show support portion 500 goes all the way to the bent portion 1221 of the top plate 200/300, which requires circularity an ring shape due to the holes 530 and 510.], and the contact portion of the bottom plate penetrates the insulation plate and the support member to be in contact with the top plate [Hwang 0018, 0045, Figs. 2-3 and throughout, The broadest reasonable interpretation of Hwang is contact portion 420 of bottom plate 400 protrudes through the central hole in insulation plate 600 and the central hole 510 in the support member 500 to be in contact with the join area 220.].
Regarding Claim 10, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 9, wherein the support member is arranged between the notch and the contact portion [Hwang Figs. 2-3 show the support member 500 extends between the notch 310 and the contact portion 220 (see below), and the top plate is shaped to surround an edge of the support member [Hwang Figs. 2-3, top plate 200/300 has bent portion 1221 shaped around support 500 (see below)].
PNG
media_image2.png
348
545
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein in the support member, a portion of a surface thereof being in contact with the notch is spaced apart from the notch [Hwang 0049-0054, Fig. 4].
PNG
media_image3.png
235
583
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the support member has a plurality of through-holes formed therethrough at positions corresponding to the positions of the notch [Hwang 0049-0054, 0059, Figs. 1-2, 4, 6 Hwang discloses ventilation hole 530. As shown in Fig. 4, the ventilation hole 530 is located near notch 310. Hwang teaches the location of ventilation hole 530 supports the rupture of the notch, which reads on the throughhole 530 corresponding to the notch [0049-0054, 0059]. Further, Hwang teaches a ring shaped notch 310 as shown in Fig. 1 and multiple throughholes 610 as shown in Fig. 6 and further discloses the ventilation hole 610 is arrange opposite to ventilation hole 530. The skilled artisan would therefore expect that ventilation hole 530 is multiple ventilation holes corresponding to throughholes 610 to support rupturing notch 310 at any region of notch 310. Otherwise, there the plurality of throughholes in 610 would be unnecessary and notch 310 would not need to be circular.].
Regarding Claim 14, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein at least one surface of the insulation plate is in contact with the bottom plate [Hwang Fig. 2, The bottom surface of insulation plate 600 is in contact with the top of bottom plate 400.]
Regarding Claim 15, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the cap assembly further comprising a cap-up disposed on an outside of the top plate [Hwang 0008, Hwang discloses a cap-up portion 124 which is the terminal on the battery top covering the cap assembly.].
Regarding Claim 16, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 15, wherein the top plate is in contact with the lower edge of the cap-up, and is bent in the upper direction of the cap-up parallel to the longitudinal central axis of the can and is in contact with the upper edge of the cap-up [Hwang 0008, Hwang discloses two options for how the cap-up 124 attaches to the top plate including one where the top plate 200/300 (also described as the safety band 122, see Figs. 1-2) is folded over to cover the cap portion 124. For such configuration, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Hwang is that the top plate 200/300 is bent in the upper direction parallel to the longitudinal central axis and contacts both the lower edge and upper edge of the cap up portion. See modified Fig. 2 for broadest reasonable interpretation of Hwang [0008].
PNG
media_image4.png
459
799
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the contact portion is electrically connected to the bottom plate by welding [Hwang 0044-0047].
Regarding Claim 18, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein a sum of a diameter of the contact portion and a width of the support member is 60% of more of a diameter of a bottom of the top plate provided with the contact portion [Hwang Fig. 2, The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a diameter of a bottom of the top plate provided with the contact portion” is the diameter of the top plate where it touches the contact portion, which is the same as the diameter of the contact portion. Further, the width of the support member 500 is the same as the inside diameter of the top plate 200/300. Therefore, the sum of the diameter of the contact portion 220 and the interior width of the top plate 200/300 is inherently larger than 200% of the diameter of the contact portion 220 (a diameter of the top plate provided with the contact portion 220). Thus, Hwang anticipates the claim limitation. See below.].
PNG
media_image5.png
336
545
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein an edge of the top plate is bent parallel to the longitudinal central axis of the can in a direction toward above the electrode assembly, and wrapping around an edge of the support member [Hwang Fig. 2, see below, where the electrode assembly is below the cap assembly].
PNG
media_image6.png
323
545
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the support member has a ring-shape having a width greater than that of the insulation plate [Hwang 0043, 0046, 0058, Hwang discloses a cylindrical battery and the broadest reasonable interpretation of Hwang 0043 and throughout and Figs. 1-8 is the cap assembly top plate 200/300, support plate 500, insulation plate 600, and bottom plate 400 are all circular. Support member 500 has a central hole 510, making it ring shaped. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Fig. 2 is the diameter of support plate 500 is the same as the internal diameter of the top plate. The diameter of the insulation plate 600 is only required to be the same width as the bottom plate 400 but it can go up to the end of portion 126 of support member 500 facing the longitudinal axis [0058]. Thus, Hwang anticipates the limitation. See modified Fig. below.
PNG
media_image7.png
336
545
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 11, 13, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, as applied to claims 7-10.
Regarding Claim 11, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 10 but is silent to wherein the support member is welded to the insulation plate[The limitation welded is treated as a product by process limitation per MPEP 2113. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."]. The broadest reasonable interpretation of welded per Merriam Webster online dictionary is to unite, such as a forming a joint between parts. Hwang teaches two separate parts (500 and 600) and therefore does not teach the structure required, joined parts. However, the uniting of Hwang’s support member 500 and insulating member 600 would read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of welded since the structure of the final product would be the same whether it was welded or joined by another process.
Hwang does not disclose welding or integrating the support member 500 to the insulating member 600; however, making the support member 500 and insulating member 600 integral by joining would be an obvious modification to Hwang per MPEP 2144.04 V B, making integral. It would be expected by the skilled artisan that the support member and insulating member would still provide the same functions of supporting and insulating if they are made integral by welding or joined by some other method. Hwang discloses ventilation hole 530 in the support member serves as a passage for internal gas or liquid/fluid electrolyte separate from central hole 510 which is for the contact portion [Hwang 0049-0051, 0059]. Further, the skilled artisan would expect that joining the insulating member 600 and support member 500 to make them integral would prevent gas or electrolyte from entering the contact portion during normal operation. Further, joining the two parts such that they are integral could simplify the manufacturing of the battery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to weld/join Hwang’s adjacent support member 500 and insulation plate 600 to make them integral for the expected benefit of more efficient manufacturing and to prevent gas or electrolyte from entering the contact portion in the event of a separation between the insulating member 600 and support member 500 due to expulsion of gas or electrolyte [Hwang 0049-0051]. See MPEP 2143 (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
For purposes of compact prosecution, an alternative rejection of Claim 13 is provided.
Regarding Claim 13, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the support member has a plurality of through-holes formed therethrough at positions corresponding to the positions of the notch [Hwang 0049-0054, 0059, Figs. 1-2, 4, 6 Hwang discloses ventilation hole 530. As shown in Fig. 4, the ventilation hole 530 is located near notch 310. Hwang teaches the location of ventilation hole 530 supports the rupture of the notch, which reads on the throughhole 530 corresponding to the notch [0049-0054, 0059]. Further, Hwang teaches a ring shaped notch 310 as shown in Fig. 1 and multiple throughholes 610 as shown in Fig. 6 and further discloses the ventilation hole 610 is arrange opposite to ventilation hole 530. The skilled artisan would therefore expect that ventilation hole 530 is multiple ventilation holes corresponding to throughholes 610 to support rupturing notch 310 at any region of notch 310 instead of only one throughhole region. Otherwise, there the plurality of throughholes in 610 would be unnecessary and notch 310 would not need to be circular. If Hwang’s throughhole is taken to be only one throughhole (such that a basis under 35USC102 is not present), one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that modifying Hwang to have a plurality of through holes is obvious per MPEP 2144.04 VI B, duplication of parts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that modifying Hwang to have a plurality of throughholes 530 in support member 500 distributed over a circumference of the cap assembly to predicably rupture circular notch 310 to reduce the risk of explosion of the battery [Hwang 0005, 0049, 0055].
Regarding Claim 23, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7. Hwang does not explicitly teach the thickness of the support member and the insulation plate. In relying on what Hwang Fig. 2 reasonably teaches one of ordinary skill in the art, given that the support member has to be thicker than, thinner than, or equal to the thickness of the insulation plate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try an end cap assembly where the support member 500 is thicker than the insulation member 600 with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Alternatively, it would be obvious that the thickness of the support member and the thickness of the insulation plates are both result effective variables dependent on the design of the cap assembly, such as the thickness of the other parts of the cap assembly, and the materials used. For example, if the support member 500 is too thin or too thick, it cannot provide a support function for supporting the structure of the cap assembly. Likewise, if the insulating plate 600 is too thin it cannot provide sufficient insulation between the top plate and bottom plate to prevent short circuiting [Hwang 0058-0061and throughout]. If the insulating plate is too thick it could apply too much stress to the connection tab [Fig. 9]. Further, the thickness of the insulation plate depends on the insulation properties of the material used for the insulation plate. A material with poor insulative properties requires more thickness than an insulation plate made with a highly insulative material. Determining the workable thickness relationship between the insulating plate and the support member can be determined through routine experimentation by balancing the needed insulation in consideration of the spacing and thickness of each of the components of the cap assembly, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II, routine optimization.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, as applied to claim 7, and in further view of Sato et al. US20060078787A1, hereinafter Sato.
Regarding Claim 19, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7 but is silent to the material for the support member. Sato discloses a cap assembly for a secondary battery including a support plate 16 [Sato 0041-0044, Figs. 1-2]. Sato teaches the support plate 16 is made of stainless steel or aluminum [0044]. Sato’s teachings demonstrate that aluminum is an art recognized material for use as a support plate in a secondary battery per MPEP 2144.07. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Sato’s teachings of a support member made from aluminum with Hwang’s battery with the predictable success of a secondary battery with sufficient support of a rupture plate [Sato abstract, 0043, and throughout; Hwang 0043 and throughout]. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, as applied to claim 7, and in further view of Harada et al. US5821008A, hereinafter Harada.
Regarding Claim 20, Hwang discloses the secondary battery of claim 7 but is silent to the material for the support member. Harada discloses a cap assembly for a secondary battery including a support plate 6 [Harada column 5 and throughout, Fig. 2]. Harada teaches an example with a polypropylene support plate [Harada column 9-10, Table 2]. Further, Harada teaches polypropylene has high cut-off pressure, resistant to breaking as compared to the other materials tested [Harada Table 2]. Harada’s teachings demonstrate that polypropylene is an art recognized material for use as a support plate in a secondary battery per MPEP 2144.07. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Harada’s teachings of a support member made from polypropylene with Hwang’s battery with the predictable success of a secondary battery with sufficient support of a rupture plate [Harada column 6 and throughout, Hwang 0043 and throughout]. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments are persuasive in overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13. The rejection of claim 8 and dependent claims 9-11 is maintained as provided above. Further, additional 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are provided above.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pgs. 13-14 that Hwang does not disclose the insulating layer 600 or support portion 500 are in an inner region facing the longitudinal central axis of the can based on the break notch 310, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and has described Hwang’s anticipation of the claim limitation “wherein either the insulation plate or the support member is disposed in an inner region facing the longitudinal central axis of the can based on the notch” for both Hwang’s insulation plate and support member.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pg. 15 regarding distinction of claim 11 over the prior art of Hwang due to the limitation “welded”, the Examiner does not find the arguments presented persuasive and respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Applicant argues the claimed welded limitation provides a structural distinction of a continuous annular bond line that is gas-tight and structurally integral. The Examiner has referenced the specification in light of the Applicant’s arguments. First, there is no evidence in the specification that the instant invention embodies the claimed distinction. Secondly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a continuous annular bond line that is gas-tight and structurally integral) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thirdly, the Applicant’s argument against the Examiner’s rejection by predicting that making Hwang’s support and insulation members integral would alter gas venting and rupture performance is without evidence. In contrast, as provided in the Office Action dated July 16, 2025, the Examiner recites MPEP 2144.04 V, B as justification for the obviousness of making Hwang’s support member 500 and insulating member 600 integral for the benefit of preventing gas or electrolyte from entering the contact portion during normal operation and simplifying the manufacturing of the battery. Further, Hwang discloses thermal compression of the insulating layer with the cap-down portion 126 [Hwang 0061 and throughout], which includes support part 500 [Hwang 0047 and throughout], for purpose of adhesion and sealing of the cap assembly, which demonstrates evidence of the advantage making support 500 and insulation plate 600 integral. Even further, one of ordinary skill the art would know that for the rupture mechanism break notch 310 to function as disclosed, the other portions of the cap assembly would have to remain sealed to control the movement of gas through the holes provided in the cap-down portion 126 (support part 500) and the holes provided in the insulation member [Hwang 0059 and throughout] to produce the required pressure against the notch to rupture the break notch as required [Hwang 0054 and throughout]. For the reasons provided, evidence of obviousness outweighs evidence of distinction of the claimed invention and the obviousness rejection of claim 11 is maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pg. 15 regarding the rejection of claim 13, the Examiner does not find the arguments presented persuasive and respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the Applicant argues the Examiner’s anticipation rational relies on inference. Firstly, as provided in the Office Action dated July 16, 2025, Hwang teaches the location of ventilation hole 530 supports the rupture of the notch [0049-0054, 0059], which reads on the support through-hole “corresponding to positions of the notch”. Secondly, the Examiner recited Fig. 2 in the Office Action, and at minimum there are two throughholes 530 shown in Fig. 2 and throughout, which reads on the claimed “plurality of through-holes”. Thirdly, as provided in the recited Office Action, since notch 310 is ring-shaped and Fig. 6 shows the insulation plate 600 has multiple throughholes 610, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Hwang is that there is a through-hole 530 in support plate 500 corresponding to each through-hole 610. Therefore, the Examiner provided sufficient evidence of anticipation of claim 13.
Regarding the obviousness rejection of claim 13, the Examiner provided an obviousness rejection in addition to the anticipation rejection for purpose of compact prosecution. As provided in the Office Action dated July 16, 2025, if Hwang’s invention as described above (see “Thirdly” in the Response to Arguments above) does not have a through-hole 530 in support plate 500 at each of the multiple through-holes 610 in the insulation plate, as described in the recited previous Office Action, it would be obvious to provide through-holes 530 distributed circumferentially for the purpose of providing a path through both insulation plate and the support plate to pressurize the notch 310 for controlled rupture. The Examiner recited MPEP 2144.04 VI, B, duplication of parts, for the purpose of providing a predictable rupturing of the battery. Therefore, in the recited Office Action, the Examiner factually supported a prima facie conclusion of obviousness in addition to the anticipation rejection. Thus, the Applicant’s argument against a final rejection on the grounds that adequate reasoning would be presented for the first time on the record are not persuasive. For the reasons provided above, both rejections are proper and are maintained over the prior art.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724