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
The amendments do not overcome the 103 rejection as previously set forth in non-final office action mailed 04/06/2026. Amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection under U.S.C. 103, as seen below.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5,8, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20160260969-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Han’ in view of (US-20140356702-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Hayashi’
Regarding Claim 1,
Han teaches a positive electrode sheet comprising: a current collector and positive film layer provided on at least one surface of the current collector (Han, “Accordingly, when such an aqueous positive active material slurry having strong basicity is coated on a metal current collector,”, see [0008]) the positive film layer comprising a lithium manganese oxide in which a trivalent and tetravalent manganese element coexist (Han, “LiaMn2GbO4 (0.90≦a≦1.8 and 0.001≦b≦0.1.);”, see [0056]) and high-oxidizability additive, and the high-oxidizability additive being used to oxidize Mn2+ to MN3+ and/or Mn4+ (Han, “ since the vanadium pentaoxide (V2O5) is a strong oxidant.”, see [0045])
Han teaches, wherein the structural formula of a lithium manganese oxide is Li8-3a-4b-3c(Mn3+)a(N3+)c(Mn4+)bO4, c>0, a>0 b>0 ,N is selected from one or more of B, Al, Ga, Ti, and Fe, and a ratio of an atom number of the trivalent manganese element to an atom number of tetravalent manganese element is α (Han, “LiaMn2GbO4 (0.90≦a≦1.8 and 0.001≦b≦0.1.);”, see [0056])(Han, “G may be Al, Cr, Mn, Fe, Mg, La, Ce, Sr, V”, see [0073])(The examiner notes that the valence of Mn can be calculated using the valence of the other element Mn3+ would range from a+3b or 0.903 to 2 and Mn4+ would be 1.097 to 0 therefore the ratio would be 0.903/1.097 to 1.99/0.01 0.82 to 199)
(The examiner notes that there is overlap between N which has B,Al, Ga, Ti and Fe and G in Han which is Al, Cr, Mn, Fr, Mg, LA, Ce, Se, and V)
Han teaches a mass content of the high-oxidizability additive in the positive film is β% (Han, “10 g of a V2O5 solution (concentration: 10 wt %, solvent: water), 200 g of Li[Ni0.5Co0.2Mn0.3]O2, and 12 g of ethanol were mixed, and the mixture was agitated at 40° C. to evaporate ethanol.”, see [0115])
Han does not teach where the α and β satisfy the 3 ≤β/ α<10.
Hayashi teaches where the α and β satisfy the 3 ≤β/ α<10 (Hayashi, “The second additive is preferably at least one selected from the group consisting of TiO2, V2O5, Sc2O3, Nb2O5, ZrO2, and ZnO. When such a compound is used, it is easier to obtain the effect that is due to the compound combined with the nickel oxide”, see [0077])(Hayashi, “the total amount of the first and second additives per 100 parts by mass of the nickel oxide may be, for example, 0.1 to 5 parts by mass, or 0.5 to 3 parts by mass, When the amount of the first and second additives is in the above ranges, it is easier to obtain the effect that is due to their combination with the nickel oxide, and thus advantageous in increasing charge efficiency. Moreover, it is further effective in suppressing self-discharge. The mass ratio of the first additive to the second additive can be selected from, for example, 1:0.2-5, and is preferably 1:0.3-3 or 1:0.5-2.”, see [0080]) (The examiner notes that if assumed that the additive are 5 percent of the mass solution [the higher end of the range] and 2/3 of the additives is V2O5 that is a total mass percent of 3.3% for beta, which would lead to a beta/alpha of 4.024 to 0.0165, which overlaps the claimed range)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.0165 to 4.024 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 3 ≤β/ α≤10. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Hayashi teaches that this range allows for high charge efficiency (Hayashi, “Thus, it is easier to achieve high charge efficiency even at a high temperature, and self-discharge can be effectively suppressed.”, see [0080]).
Han and Hayashi are analogous as they are both of the same range of additives to transition metal oxide cathodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concentration of high-oxidizable additive to be within the given range in order to improve the charge efficiency of cell.
Modified Han does not directly teach the β satisfy the 5 ≤β<10 (Hayashi, “the total amount of the first and second additives per 100 parts by mass of the nickel oxide may be, for example, 0.1 to 5 parts by mass, or 0.5 to 3 parts by mass, When the amount of the first and second additives is in the above ranges, it is easier to obtain the effect that is due to their combination with the nickel oxide, and thus advantageous in increasing charge efficiency. Moreover, it is further effective in suppressing self-discharge. The mass ratio of the first additive to the second additive can be selected from, for example, 1:0.2-5, and is preferably 1:0.3-3 or 1:0.5-2.”, see [0080]) (The examiner notes that if assumed that the additive are 5 percent of the mass solution [the higher end of the range] and 2/3 of the additives is V2O5 that is a total mass percent of 3.3% for beta, which would lead to a beta/alpha of 4.024 to 0.0165, which overlaps the claimed range)
It would have been an obvious matter of optimization of a result orientated variable to have adjusted the range from 3% to 5% in order to optimize the suppression of side reaction and self-discharge (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Han teaches the positive electrode sheet of claim 2, wherein α satisfies 0.5≤ α≤ 1.2 (Han, “LiaMn2GbO4 (0.90≦a≦1.8 and 0.001≦b≦0.1.);”, see [0056])(Han, “G may be Al, Cr, Mn, Fe, Mg, La, Ce, Sr, V”, see [0073])(The examiner notes that the valence of Mn can be calculated using the valence of the other element Mn3+ would range from a+3b or 0.903 to 1.99 and Mn4+ would be 1.097 to 0.01 therefore the ratio would be 0.903/1.097 to 1.99/0.01 0.82 to 199)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.82 to 199 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 to 1.2. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Han teaches the positive electrode sheet according to claim 4, wherein the α satisfies 0.6≤ α≤ 1.0 (Han, “LiaMn2GbO4 (0.90≦a≦1.8 and 0.001≦b≦0.1.);”, see [0056])(Han, “G may be Al, Cr, Mn, Fe, Mg, La, Ce, Sr, V”, see [0073])(The examiner notes that the valence of Mn can be calculated using the valence of the other element Mn3+ would range from a+3b or 0.903 to 2 and Mn4+ would be 1.097 to 0)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.82 to 199 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.6 to 1.0. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Han teaches the positive electrode sheet according to claim 1, wherein the high-oxidizability oxide is V2O5 (Han, “positive active material coated with a vanadium pentaoxide (V2O5)”, see Abstract)
Regarding Claim 21,
Modified Han does teaches positive electrode sheet according to claim 1, wherein the a and the β satisfy 3≤β/α≤5. (Hayashi, “The total amount of the first and second additives per 100 parts by mass of the nickel oxide may be, for example, 0.1 to 5 parts by mass, or 0.5 to 3 parts by mass, When the amount of the first and second additives is in the above ranges, it is easier to obtain the effect that is due to their combination with the nickel oxide, and thus advantageous in increasing charge efficiency. Moreover, it is further effective in suppressing self-discharge. The mass ratio of the first additive to the second additive can be selected from, for example, 1:0.2-5, and is preferably 1:0.3-3 or 1:0.5-2.”, see [0080]) (The examiner notes that if assumed that the additive are 5 percent of the mass solution [the higher end of the range] and 2/3 of the additives is V2O5 [from the ratio] that is a total mass percent of 3.3% for beta, which would lead to a beta/alpha of 4.024 to 0.0165, which overlaps the claimed range)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.0165 to 4.024 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 3 ≤β/ α≤5. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20160260969-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Han’ in view of (US-20140356702-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Hayashi’ in view of (US-20230059519-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Yoo’
Regarding Claim 9,
Han does not teach the high-oxidizability additive to be irreversible Li2NiO2 or the high-oxidzability additive to be an irreversible composite metal oxide formed by doping an element M into the L2NiO-2---, M is one or more of Cu, Fe, Co, and Ni, and L is one or more of Li, Na, and L, and the valence of the Ni is +2,; wherein the "irreversible" refers to: in the high-oxidizability additive containing a divalent nickel element, a nickel element whose valence is less than +4 is oxidized to a tetravalent nickel element in a first charging process of a secondary battery prepared from the positive electrode sheet, and the tetravalent nickel element always exists in subsequent charging and discharging processes.
Yoo teaches the high-oxidizability additive to be irreversible Li2NiO2 (Yoo, “Therefore, to improve irreversible capacity, Li2NiO2, Li2CuO4, Li6CoO4, or the like was added as an irreversible positive electrode additive.”, see [0006])(The examiner notes that the Nickel is divalent by valence calculation e.g. Li(1)(2)=+2, O(-2)(2)=-4, therefore nickel is +2)
Yoo teaches that this additive improves the irreversible capacity (Yoo, “Therefore, to improve irreversible capacity, Li2NiO2, Li2CuO4, Li6CoO4, or the like was added as an irreversible positive electrode additive.”, see [0006]).
Han and Yoo are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery compositions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive of Han with the additive of Yoo in order to improve the irreversible capacity of the battery.
Regarding Claim 24,
Modifed Han does not teach the positive electrode sheet according to claim 1, wherein:the high-oxidizability additive is Na202, K202, CrO3, NiOx, in which x>1.5 and a valence of Ni is +4, or an irreversible composite metal oxide formed by doping an element M into the L2NiO2, M is one or more of Cu, Fe, Co and Ni, L is one or more of Li, Na and K, and a valence of the Ni is +2; and the "irreversible" refers to: in the high-oxidizability additive containing a divalent nickel element, a nickel element whose valence is less than +4 is oxidized to a tetravalent nickel element in a first charging process of a secondary battery prepared from the positive electrode sheet, and the tetravalent nickel element always exists in subsequent charging and discharging processes.
Yoo teaches or an irreversible composite metal oxide formed by doping an element M into the L2NiO2, M is one or more of Cu, Fe, Co and Ni, L is one or more of Li, Na and K, and a valence of the Ni is +2 ; and the "irreversible" refers to: in the high-oxidizability additive containing a divalent nickel element (Yoo, “Therefore, to improve irreversible capacity, Li2NiO2, Li2CuO4, Li6CoO4, or the like was added as an irreversible positive electrode additive.”, see [0006])(The examiner notes that the Nickel is divalent by valence calculation e.g. Li(1)(2)=+2, O(-2)(2)=-4, therefore nickel is +2), a nickel element whose valence is less than +4 is oxidized to a tetravalent nickel element in a first charging process of a secondary battery prepared from the positive electrode sheet, and the tetravalent nickel element always exists in subsequent charging and discharging processes (The examiner notes that this is an inherent feature of batteries through oxidation and reduction of the transition metals, see Han, “Herein, the positive and negative electrodes intercalate and deintercalate lithium ions and produce electrical energy through oxidation and reduction reactions.”, see [0005], see MPEP 2163.07(a))
Yoo teaches that this additive improves the irreversible capacity (Yoo, “Therefore, to improve irreversible capacity, Li2NiO2, Li2CuO4, Li6CoO4, or the like was added as an irreversible positive electrode additive.”, see [0006]).
Han and Yoo are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery compositions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive of Han with the additive of Yoo in order to improve the irreversible capacity of the battery.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20160260969-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Han’ in view of (US-20140356702-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Hayashi’, in view of (US-20220278368-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Morinaka’
Regarding Claim 10,
Han teaches a secondary battery, comprising: a negative electrode sheet, a separator, the positive electrode sheet according to claim 1, and an electrolytic solution (Han, “In some embodiments, the electrolyte includes a non-aqueous organic solvent and a lithium salt.”, see [0100]),
Han does not teach wherein the electrolytic solution includes a low- impedance additive and a mass content w% of the low-impedance additive in the electrolytic solution and a mass content β % of the high-oxidizability additive in the positive film layer satisfy 0.1<w/ β <10
Morinaka teaches wherein the electrolytic solution includes a low- impedance additive and a mass content w% of the low-impedance additive in the electrolytic solution and a mass content β % of the high-oxidizability additive in the positive film layer satisfy 0.1<w/ β <10
(Morinaka, “at least one second additive selected from the group consisting of the compounds represented by the following general formulae [2] to [5], difluoro(oxalato)borate, bis(oxalato)borate, tetrafluoro(oxalato)phosphate, difluorobis(oxalato)phosphate, tris(oxalato)phosphate, difluorophosphate and fluorosulfonate”, see [0008])(Morinaka, “The content of the second additive (II) above ranges from preferably 0.005 mass % to 12.0 mass %, more preferably 0.05 mass % to 10.0 mass %, and particularly preferably 0.1 mass % to 5.0 mass % with respect to the total amount of the components (I) to (IV) above.”, see [0052]) (the examiner notes w is 0.005 to 12 and β is 4.5% therefore w/ β is 0.001 to 2.6)
Morinaka teaches that the additive of the additive adds improve low temperature characteristics (Morinaka, “Provided are a nonaqueous electrolyte solution which makes it possible to further improve low temperature characteristics and high temperature storage characteristics”, Abstract)
Han and Morinaka are analogous as they are both of the same field of electrochemical storage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte as taught in Han with the additive taught in Morinaka in order to improve the low temperature performance of the cell.
Regarding Claim 11,
Modified Han teaches the secondary battery according to claim 10, wherein 2<w/ β <5 (the examiner notes w is 0.005 to 12 and β is 4.5% therefore w/ β is 0.001 to 2.6).
Regarding Claim 12,
Modified Han teaches the secondary battery according to Claim 10, wherein 0.01≤w≤10. (Morinaka, “The content of the second additive (II) above ranges from preferably 0.005 mass % to 12.0 mass %, more preferably 0.05 mass % to 10.0 mass %, and particularly preferably 0.1 mass % to 5.0 mass % with respect to the total amount of the components (I) to (IV) above.”, see [0052]) (the examiner notes w is 0.005 to 12 and β is 4.5% therefore w/ β is 0.001 to 2.6)
Regarding Claim 13,
Modified Han teaches the secondary battery according to Claim 10, wherein 0.5≤w≤5. (Morinaka, “The content of the second additive (II) above ranges from preferably 0.005 mass % to 12.0 mass %, more preferably 0.05 mass % to 10.0 mass %, and particularly preferably 0.1 mass % to 5.0 mass % with respect to the total amount of the components (I) to (IV) above.”, see [0052]) (the examiner notes w is 0.005 to 12 and β is 4.5% therefore w/ β is 0.001 to 2.6).
Regarding Claim 14,
Modified Han teaches the secondary battery of Claim 10, wherein the low impedance additive is flurosulfonate and/or difluorophosphate the fluorosulfonate is (FSO3)yM+, and My+ is one or more of Li+, the difluorophosphate is (F2PO2)yMy+, and M is one or more of Li+ (Morinaka, “at least one second additive selected from the group consisting of the compounds represented by the following general formulae [2] to [5], difluoro(oxalato)borate, bis(oxalato)borate, tetrafluoro(oxalato)phosphate, difluorobis(oxalato)phosphate, tris(oxalato)phosphate, difluorophosphate and fluorosulfonate”, see [0008])
Regarding Claim 15,
Modified Han teaches the battery module comprising the secondary battery according to Claim 10 (Han, Battery case, 5, Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 16,
Modified Han does not teach a battery pack comprising a battery module according to Claim 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery module to duplicate it into a battery pack in order to increase the energy. (see MPEP 2144 .04 (VI)(B)).
Regarding Claim 17,
Modified Han does not a battery pack comprising one or more of the secondary battery according to claim 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the secondary battery to duplicate it into a battery pack in order to increase the energy. (see MPEP 2144 .04 (VI)(B)).
Regarding Claim 18,
Modified Han teaches a power consumption apparatus, comprising the battery pack according to claim 16, the battery pack being used as a power source of the power consumption apparatus or an energy storage unit of the power consumption apparatus (Han, “The rechargeable lithium battery cells according to Examples 1 to 3 and Comparative Example 1 were charged at 0.8C and discharged at 1.0C within 3V to 4.2V for 100 times.”, see [0129]).
Regarding Claim 19,
Modified Han teaches a power consumption apparatus, comprising the battery pack according to claim 15, the battery pack being used as a power source of the power consumption apparatus or an energy storage unit of the power consumption apparatus (Han, “The rechargeable lithium battery cells according to Examples 1 to 3 and Comparative Example 1 were charged at 0.8C and discharged at 1.0C within 3V to 4.2V for 100 times.”, see [0129]).
Regarding Claim 20,
Modified Han teaches a power consumption apparatus, comprising the battery pack according to claim 10, the battery pack being used as a power source of the power consumption apparatus or an energy storage unit of the power consumption apparatus (Han, “The rechargeable lithium battery cells according to Examples 1 to 3 and Comparative Example 1 were charged at 0.8C and discharged at 1.0C within 3V to 4.2V for 100 times.”, see [0129]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20160260969-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Han’ in view of (US-20140356702-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Hayashi’ in view of (US-20200044231-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Han II’
Regarding Claim 23,
Modified Han does not teaches wherein: the high-oxidizability additive is Li2O2, Na2O2, K202, CrO3, NiOx, in which x>1.5 and a valence of Ni is +4, or an irreversible composite metal oxide formed by doping an element M into the L2NiO2, M is one or more of Cu, Fe, Co and Ni, L is one or more of Li, Na and K, and a valence of the Ni is +2; and the "irreversible" refers to: in the high-oxidizability additive containing a divalent nickel element, a nickel element whose valence is less than +4 is oxidized to a tetravalent nickel element in a first charging process of a secondary battery prepared from the positive electrode sheet, and the tetravalent nickel element always exists in subsequent charging and discharging processes.
Han II teaches wherein: the high-oxidizability additive is Li2O2, Na2O2, K202, CrO3, NiOx, in which x>1.5 and a valence of Ni is +4 (Han II, “In some examples, the temporary lithium additive is selected from the group consisting of lithium hydroxide (LiOH), lithium oxide (Li.sub.2O.sub.2), and lithium azide (LiN.sub.3).”, see [0008]),
Han II teaches that this additive allows for addition lithium ions that compensate losses (Han II, “Various approaches have been proposed to introduce additional lithium ions into a lithium-ion cell in order to compensate for these losses”, see [0004])(Han II, “Provided are methods of introducing additional lithium ions into lithium-ion electrochemical cells as well as positive electrodes, comprising these additional lithium ions”, see [0006]).
Modified Han and Han II are analogous as they are both of the same field of cathode composite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive as taught in Han to additive as taught in Han II in order to improve the lithium concentration of the cathode.
Response to Arguments
On pg. 9, the applicant argues:
“However, it is respectfully submitted that Hayashi does not make it clear that the beneficial effects would not be achieved, by merely adjusting the ratio of α and β. In particular , paragraph [0080] of Hayashi, which is cited in the outstanding Office action in support of the proposed medication…In other words, Hayashi clearly indicates that the high charge efficiency even at a high temperature, and effective suppression of self-discharge, is the effect that is due to the combining of two additives…In other words, Hayashi makes abundantly clear that the beneficial effects purportedly associated with the ratios of α and β, cannot be said to achieve the beneficial effect. ”
However, this is not convincing. Hayashi states, “This [the additives] presumably causes preferential consumption of electrons in a reaction for converting nickel (II) hydroxide to nickel (III) oxyhydroxide, as well as suppression of a side reaction. Moreover, presumably due to the sulfate ions and crystal structure of the nickel oxide interacting with the first and second additives, a high positive electrode utilization rate can be achieved and thus a high charge efficiency can be secured, even at a high temperature.”, see [0048]. The examiner notes that Hayashi, in particular, considers the reaction effect when in consideration of nickel and nickel oxides. Although, the examiner also highlights the teachings around additives as taught in Han. Han states, “In contrast, a positive active material coated with a vanadium pentaoxide (V2O5) may suppress the reaction according to the Reaction Scheme 3 [ conversion of aluminum oxide] under basic conditions but cause formation of an aluminum oxide film according to the following Reaction Scheme 4, since the vanadium pentaoxide (V2O5) is a strong oxidant.” This teaching from Han makes it clear that additive is reacting with the metal oxide and suppressing side reactions. Therefore, it is clear that the beneficial effects are not limited to nickel oxides, but are extended to metal-oxide oxidation/reduction reactions. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the range as taught in Hayashi when considering both Han and Hayashi, as it would be clear that the benefit stems from metal-oxide combinations and is not limited to nickel electrodes.
On pg. 10, the applicant argues:
“However, it is respectfully submitted that a value for p of 3.3 fails to correspond with the subject matter presently recited in claim 1, viz., in which the β satisfies 5≤ β ≤10.”
However, this is not convincing. The examiner notes that the modification from 3% to 5% would have been an obvious optimization of ranges to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to suppress side reactions (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). The examiner also notes that the β in table 1 is limited to 3% in most examples. The examiner notes that the results, as demonstrated in table 1 of the instant application, do not demonstrate the non-obviousness of claimed range in view of the range as taught by Hayashi. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of the claimed range is maintained.
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 SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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 at (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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights