DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Petition Decision: A petition was granted on 05/02/24 to make this application special under the Expanded Collaborative Search Pilot Program under 37 CFR 1.102(a). The petition under 37 CFR 1.102(a) was filed on 03/25/24.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/06/25 has been entered.
This office action is responsive to the amendment accompanying the foregoing RCE. The applicant’s amendment has overcome the 103 rejection based on WO’194. However, applicant’s amendment has not yet satisfactorily overcome the 103 rejection based on Shing et al. Refer to the aforementioned amendment for substance of applicant's rebuttal arguments and/or remarks. Therefore, the present claims are being non-finally rejected over the same art as composed infra on the written record:
Election/Restriction and Claim Disposition
Claims 4-6 and 17 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-16 and 18-21 are under immediate examination; of which claims 1-3, 7, 9-16 and 18-20 are original, and claim 21 is new.
Claim 8 has been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 11-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: applicant has neither demonstrated nor provided evidence as to how it was arrived at the lower limit/value of the aspect ratio range of 12 to about 20, in particular, the lower limit/value of 12. A detailed examination of the as-filed specification reveals that applicant's disclosure only supports certain magnitudes or base values such as 5, 10, 14, 16, 18, 20 (see paragraphs 0056, 0012, 0171, 0183, 0195, 0198 of the as-filed specification). Furthermore, certain disclosed embodiments appear to show the lower limit of 10 which is not intended by the claimed limitation/range because such lower limit of 10 is disclosed by Shin et al. Therefore, the as-filed specification does not show how applicant is arriving at or how applicant had possession of the above-mentioned amended limitation/range. Thus, the specification as filed lacks reasonable descriptive basis for supporting the above-mentioned limitation/range which was amended in an attempt to further limit the present claims, or to overcome the ground(s) of rejection.
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 21 is 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 21 recites the limitation "the negative electrode" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that the preamble of dependent claim 21 is not consistent with the preamble of independent claim 1 from which claim 21 depends from.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 3, 7, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable or obvious over Shin et al 2019/0312264 in view of: (a) Fukui et al 2007/0054190, and/or (b) Gigler et al 2019/0393493.
As to claims 1, 3:
Shin et al disclose that it is known in the art to make a negative active material for a secondary lithium battery comprising a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material comprising a silicon-carbon composite containing silicon nanoparticles, amorphous carbon, and crystalline carbon such as graphite (i.e., applicant’s undefined graphitized carbon; note that graphitized carbon encompasses graphite) (Abstract; 0006-0011; 0012-0014; 0034; 0062; 0068; 0078-0079; see Preparation EXAMPLES 1-2; see Figures 1-3). Note that graphitized carbon encompass graphite. Additionally, Shin et al teach that the conductive material per se includes a carbon material such as graphitized/crystalline carbon such as natural graphite, artificial graphite (0068), or amorphous carbon such as carbon black, acetylene black, ketjen black, or a carbon fiber, or mixtures thereof (0068). Figures 1-3, infra, depict microscope images of the negative electrode active material.
(Emphasis supplied→) Shin et al disclose the silicon nanoparticles having an aspect ratio of about 4 to about 10 (0038, 0006; 0038; see Table 1: EXAMPLES 1-2); in particular, Shin et al disclose that it is known in the art to make silicon nanoparticles having an aspect ratio of about 10-20 (see Table 1: Comparative Example 4). Examiner’s note: notice that at least the end points constitute a valid data point, and thus, it anticipates the claim as the end point represents a specific disclosure of a discrete embodiment of the invention disclosed by the prior art which amounts to a complete description and, therefore, an anticipation of the claimed range. See Ex Parte Lee 31 USPQ2d 1105. In this case, an end point of the aspect ratio of the silicon nanoparticle is 20. As such, there is disclosed a specific representation of a discrete embodiment for such particular element, characteristic or property. Therefore, the claimed requirement is met.
PNG
media_image1.png
435
441
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
418
409
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
384
419
media_image3.png
Greyscale
1st Examiner's note: 1st interpretation: Shin et al disclose the negative electrode including a negative electrode active material comprising a silicon-carbon composite containing silicon nanoparticles, amorphous carbon, and crystalline carbon such as graphite (i.e., applicant’s undefined graphitized carbon). Note that graphitized carbon encompasses graphite. In this 1st interpretation the conductive material per se is neither considered applicant’s materially undefined amorphous carbon nor the graphitized carbon because Shin et al already include amorphous carbon and crystalline carbon as parts, constituents or components of the electrode active material composite per se (see Abstract; 0006-0011; 0012-0014; 0034; 0062; 0068; 0078-0079; see Preparation EXAMPLES 1-2). 2nd interpretation: Shin et al also teach the conductive material includes a carbon material such as graphitized/crystalline carbon such as natural graphite, artificial graphite (0068), or amorphous carbon such as carbon black, acetylene black, ketjen black, or a carbon fiber (0068). Note that in the 2nd interpretation the conductive material per se can be also taken to represent applicant’s materially undefined graphitized carbon (i.e., graphite) as well as the amorphous carbon because independent claim 1 neither excludes the conductive material as the graphitized carbon/amorphous carbon nor defines the specific composition or constituents of the graphitized carbon/amorphous carbon. Thus, the conductive material itself can also act as the graphitized carbon/amorphous carbon.
2nd Examiner's note: it is noted that the instant claims are being construed as product-by-process claims (i.e. the limitations “graphitized carbon” in independent claim 1 and “the graphitized carbon is converted from a portion of the amorphous carbon, and the graphitized carbon is distributed on a surface of the amorphous carbon, an inside of the amorphous carbon, or both the surface and the inside of the amorphous carbon” in claim 2 have not been given patentable weight) and that the product itself does not depend on the process of making it. Accordingly, in a product-by-process claim, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In that, it is further noted that the product in the instant claims is the same as or obvious over the product of the prior art. In re Thorpe 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed Cir. 1985) and MPEP 2113. As a result, the process steps of a product-by-process claim do not impart any significant property or structure to the claimed end product. And, if there is any difference, the difference would have been minor and obvious. Therefore, the present claims are unpatentable over a reference that satisfies the claimed compositional or physical or property or structural limitations, and/or a reference that discloses a product made by a process that reasonably substantially comprises every limitation of the claimed process. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972) and In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974);See also In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) [prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics] & Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (BPAI 1989) [needs to show that the claimed process imparts unexpected property or structure](Refer to MPEP 2113: Product-by-Process Claims).
As to claims 7:
Shin et al teach the Si-nanoparticles having an average particle diameter (D50) of about 50-150 nm, about 60-100 nm, or about 80-100 nm (0040). Also, EXAMPLES 1-2 show the average particle diameter (D50) is 100 nm or 85 nm, respectively (see EXAMPLES 1-2 & Table 1). Note that at least the end points constitute a valid data point, and thus, it anticipates the claim as the end point represents a specific disclosure of a discrete embodiment of the invention disclosed by the prior art which amounts to a complete description and, therefore, an anticipation of the claimed range. See Ex Parte Lee 31 USPQ2d 1105. In this case, an end point of aspect ratio is 10. As such, there is disclosed a specific representation of a discrete embodiment for such particular element, characteristic or property. Therefore, the claimed requirement is met. Thus, both the average particle diameter (D50) and the aspect ratio have been disclosed with sufficient specificity.
As to claim 11:
Shin et al teach the amorphous carbon may be soft carbon, hard carbon, mesophase pitch carbonized product or fired coke, and the like (0046; 0078, See Preparation Example 1).
As to claims 12-14:
Shin et al teach the negative active material may include 30-50 wt % of crystalline carbon (i.e., graphitized carbon); 10-40 wt % of amorphous carbon and 20-60 wt% of Si nanoparticles (0014; 0025; 0054); more particularly, 35-45 wt % of Si nanoparticles, 35-45 wt % of crystalline carbon (i.e., graphitized carbon), and 10-30 wt % of amorphous carbon (0048). In addition, Shin et al teach that the conductive material includes a carbon material such as graphitized/crystalline carbon such as natural graphite, artificial graphite (0068), or amorphous carbon such as carbon black, acetylene black, ketjen black, or a carbon fiber (0068) and the amount of the conductive material may be about 0.1-30 parts by weight, or about 0.1-10 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the electrode composition (0069). Note that at least the end points constitute a valid data point, and thus, it anticipates the claim as the end point represents a specific disclosure of a discrete embodiment of the invention disclosed by the prior art which amounts to a complete description and, therefore, an anticipation of the claimed range. See Ex Parte Lee 31 USPQ2d 1105. In this case, an end point of weight percent or parts by weight is shown supra. As such, there is disclosed a specific representation of a discrete embodiment for such particular element, characteristic or property. Further, the amount of the crystalline carbon, amorphous carbon and the silicon-nanoparticles is deemed to be mathematically equivalent to applicant’s broadly claimed parts by weight of respective graphitized carbon, amorphous carbon and silicon nanoparticles.
As to claim 15:
Shin et al disclose the negative electrode active material composite having particles with an average particle size D50 ranging from about 5-10 µm (0045).
As to claim 16:
Shin et al disclose the formation of a core-shell structure comprising a core containing silicon-carbon composite and a carbon coating layer including crystalline carbon, amorphous carbon, or combination thereof (i.e., taken to represent applicant’s structurally undefined matrix including silicon nanoparticles inside the carbon and graphitized/crystalline carbon distributed on a surface of the matrix/core) (0013; 0023; 0035 0050-0053).
As to claims 18-20:
Shin et al disclose the secondary lithium battery comprising a positive electrode including a positive active material layer on a current collector, a negative electrode a negative active material layer on a current collector, and an electrolyte, wherein the positive and the negative electrodes contain a conductive material, and a binder (0003; 0006; 0017; 0055-0058; 0061; 0066; 0073; 0083-0084; CLAIMS 12-20; FIGURE 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
620
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Shin et al disclose a lithium-based battery comprising a negative active material composite as described supra. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific weight percent/amount of graphitized carbon.
In this respect:
(a) Fukui et al disclose that it is known in the art to make a lithium-based battery comprising an anode material including from 1 mass % of graphite material (Abstract; 0130; see TABLE 3; see Example-Battery X2); in particular, Fukui et al exemplified in Example-Battery X2 the use of graphite material in the amount of 1 mass % in the negative electrode (0130; see TABLE 3; see Example-Battery X2). Thus, Fukui et al teach with sufficient specificity the amount of graphite in the Li-battery anode.
(b) Gigler et al disclose that it is known in the art to make a lithium-based battery comprising an anode material including from 0-30 % by weight of graphite (Abstract; 0097; 0094);
By compounding the above teaching, it would have been within the ambit of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the anode/negative electrode of Shin et al by having the amount of graphite as instantly claimed because the prior art (Gigler et al and Fukui et al) teaches that the amount of added graphite assists in adequately reducing the internal resistance of the negative electrode and improving binding characteristics of the negative electrode, thereby improving the current collection performance. Moreover, in this case, a prima facie case of obviousness does exist because the prior art teaches adding the specific graphite material in an amount of 1 mass % (Fukui et al) or 0-30 % by weight (Gigler et al), therefore, the disclosed range overlaps or lies inside the claimed range. In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap, touch or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Ranges. Likewise, generally, differences in concentration or amount of material (i.e., content or weight/mass percent %) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such amount of material is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: (a) Shin et al 2019/0312264 in view of: (i) Fukui et al 2007/0054190, and/or (ii) Gigler et al 2019/0393493, or (b) the publication WO 2020/261194 (heretofore WO’194) in view of: (i) Fukui et al 2007/0054190, and/or (ii) Gigler et al 2019/0393493 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the publication CN 114068891 (herein called CN’891).
Shin et al, WO’194, Fukui et al and Gigler et al are all applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons expressed supra. However, the preceding references do not expressly disclose the specific X-ray diffraction angle of the silicon nanoparticles and the specific Raman shift equation/proportion related to the AD/AG integral area/disordered peaks.
As to claim 9:
In the same field of applicant’s endeavor, CN’891 discloses that it is known in the art to make silicon-carbon composite electrode active materials for a Li-ion battery wherein the X-ray diffraction angle (2Ɵ) at the (111) plane/surface of the silicon nanoparticles is greater than or equal to 0.5° (0106; see CLAIM 1). Thus, the teachings of CN’981 readily envision the X-ray diffraction angle of the silicon nanoparticles as instantly claimed and regardless of the intended use and/or polarity of the electrode active material. In this respect, note that the present claims are merely directed to an active material composite per se, and such active material composite is not structurally incorporated and/or installed in the rechargeable lithium battery so as to positively define its functionality and/or intended activity within the rechargeable lithium battery.
As to claim 10:
With respect to the specific Raman shift equation/proportion related to the AD/AG integral area/disordered peaks, it is deemed such limitation is inherently taught by CN’891. MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims establishes the following: I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971); Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F. Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934). Moreover, products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and thus, the claimed characteristics (i.e., the specific Raman shift equation/proportion related to the AD/AG integral area/disordered peaks), are necessarily present in the prior art material. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims. See also In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) “From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.”
By compounding the above teachings, it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the silicon nanoparticles of CN’891 having the specifically disclosed X-ray diffraction angle in the negative active material composite of any one of Shin et al, WO’194, Fukui et al and Gigler et al, as instantly combined supra, because CN’891 teaches that such specifically disclosed X-ray diffraction angle of the silicon nanoparticle assists in effectively reducing or inhibiting the silicon volume expansion, thereby improving the charging/discharging performance and cycle life of the electrode active material. Further, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a detailed search for the prior art failed to reveal or fairly suggest what is instantly claimed, in particular: the negative active material composite comprising all of the claimed components or elements satisfying the specific structural and functional interrelationship as recited in dependent claim 21.
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (i.e., including all the limitations of independent claim 1 comprising the aspect ratio limitation at issue as now presented).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The main contention of applicant’s argument is premised on the assertion that the prior art (i.e., Shin et al) does not teach the silicon nanoparticles having “the aspect ratio of 12 to about 20”. In reply, applicant’s assertion and/or characterization of Shin et al is strenuously but respectfully disagreed with. Concerning this matter, (emphasis supplied→) it is vehemently noted that Shin et al disclose that it is known in the art to make silicon nanoparticles having an aspect ratio of about 10-20 (see Table 1: Comparative Example 4) regardless of the disclosure about silicon nanoparticles having an aspect ratio of about 4 to about 10 (0038, 0006; see Table 1: EXAMPLES 1-2). Such a teaching of Shin et al is a direct teaching of the aspect ratio. Examiner’s note: notice that at least the end points constitute a valid data point, and thus, it anticipates the claim as the end point represents a specific disclosure of a discrete embodiment of the invention disclosed by the prior art which amounts to a complete description and, therefore, an anticipation of the claimed range. See Ex Parte Lee 31 USPQ2d 1105. In this case, an end point of the aspect ratio of the silicon nanoparticle is 20. As such, there is disclosed a specific representation of a discrete embodiment for such particular element, characteristic or property. Therefore, the claimed requirement is met. Thus, 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. Also, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 pm).
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached on (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights