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 amendment filed October 22, 2025 has been entered but does not place the application in condition for allowance. The examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 2-3, and 5. Accordingly, claims 1, 4, 6-9 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 overcomes the 103 rejection over Sasaki in view of Kang and Tuschel for the original claim. The 103 rejection to claim 1 over Kang in view of Sasaki and Tuschel is maintained. New rejections are provided 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.
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, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20200287238 A1) in view of Sasaki (US 20180366777 A1) and Tuschel “Why Are The Raman Spectra of Crystalline and Amorphous Solids Different?”
Kang teaches an all solid state battery (1) comprising a cathode active material layer (12), an anode active material layer (22), and a solid electrolyte layer (30) arranged between the cathode active material layer (12) and the anode active material layer (22) (Fig. 9; [0073] - [0074]), wherein the anode active material layer (22) includes a Si-based active material ([0077], [0079] - [0081]). Kang further teaches an average particle size D50 of the Si-based active material is 10 nm to 900 nm ([0076]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Kang also discloses that the anode active material layer of the all-solid secondary battery (1) may further include any suitable additive such as an ionic conducting agent ([0088]), and additionally teaches an ionic conductor Li3PS4 for use as in a sulfide solid electrolyte ([0057] lines 1-4), which would contain at least Li, P, and S. Per Kang’s teaching, Li3PS4 is a solid material that conducts ions and contains a sulfide unit; therefore, Li3PS4 itself is a sulfide solid electrolyte material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Li3PS4 as an additive ionic conductor in the active material layer of Kang’s all solid state battery, because Kang teaches an ionic conducting agent as a suitable additive and also teaches Li3PS4 as an option for an ionic conducting agent. Kang also discloses that the PS43- solid structure is associated with a peak in a position of about 425 cm-1 in a Raman spectroscopy spectrum (Fig. 1; [0162]), which is within the claimed range and thereby reads on the claimed limitation and which would also teach the sulfide solid electrolyte contains at least a PS43- structure. Kang further teaches the lithium ion conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte to be greater than 1.6 mS/cm to about 2 mS/cm ([0069]), which is within the claimed range.
Kang does not teach the half-value width of the peak or a volume ratio of the active material to additives in the active material layer.
However, Tuschel teaches that peak widths from amorphous solids have broader Raman spectra peaks than crystalline solids of the same chemical composition (p3 para 2); in other words, the half-value width of a peak represents the degree of crystallinity of the solid. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore presume that the half-value width of the peak within the claimed range represents the degree of crystallinity of PS4. Kang teaches that increased crystallinity of a sulfide-based solid electrolyte improves its stability upon reaction with lithium metal during charge and discharge of an all-solid secondary battery ([0008]- [0009]), therefore, degree of crystallinity is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to adjust the crystallinity of the PS4-comprising solid electrolyte, and consequently, adjusted the half-value width of its PS43- -Raman peak to within the claimed range, to optimize the material’s stability with lithium metal during operation of the battery.
Sasaki is relied upon to teach an all solid state battery with a negative active material layer (25) containing a silicon-based active material ([0060]) and a sulfide solid electrolyte (10) with a chemical composition of Li3PS4 ([0042], [0020] lines 6-12; Fig. 1) and teaches a volume ratio of the Si-based active material with respect to a total of the Si-based active material and the sulfide solid electrolyte is 30% or more and 95% or less, which overlaps with the claimed 1 vol% or more and 65 vol% or less, and further teaches a volume ratio of the sulfide solid electrolyte with respect to the total of the Si-based active material and the sulfide solid electrolyte is 5% or more and 70% or less, which overlaps with the claimed 35 vol% or more and 99 vol% or less ([0062]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see MPEP 2144.05 I. Sasaki teaches that a particulate negative electrode active material 25 and a sulfide solid electrolyte material 10 present in appropriate proportions give the battery 20 a sufficiently high energy density and enables high-power operation of the battery ([0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the negative (anode) active material layer within the solid state battery of Kang to use the volume ratios of active material and sulfide solid electrolyte as taught by Sasaki for the advantages of a sufficiently high energy density and high-power operation of the battery.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination above teaches the all solid state battery of claim 1 and Kang further teaches that a sulfide-based solid electrolyte material comprising a lithium compound containing a halogen has excellent ionic conductivity and improved stability with respect to lithium metal ([0186]). Accordingly, it would have been presented as a reasonable option for the sulfide solid electrolyte used in the anode active material layer.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination above teaches the all solid state battery of claim 1, and as previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Tuschel teaches that peak widths from amorphous solids have broader Raman spectra peaks than crystalline solids of the same chemical composition (p3 para 2); in other words, the half-value width of a peak represents the degree of crystallinity of the solid. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore presume that the half-value width of the peak within the claimed range represents the degree of crystallinity of PS4. Kang teaches that increased crystallinity of a sulfide-based solid electrolyte improves its stability upon reaction with lithium metal during charge and discharge of an all-solid secondary battery ([0008]- [0009]), therefore, degree of crystallinity is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to adjust the crystallinity of the PS4-comprising solid electrolyte, and consequently, adjusted the half-value width of its PS43- -Raman peak to within the claimed range, to optimize the material’s stability with lithium metal during operation of the battery.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada et al (US 20160149259 A1) in view of Kang (US 20200287238 A1) and Tuschel “Why Are The Raman Spectra of Crystalline and Amorphous Solids Different?”
Regarding Claim 1, Osada teaches an all solid state lithium battery ([0069], Fig. 1) comprising a cathode active material layer ([0072]), an anode active material layer ([0077]), and a solid electrolyte layer arranged between the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer ([0080]), wherein:
The anode active material layer includes a Si-based active material and a sulfide solid electrolyte (Osada teaches the anode active material layer can contain at least an anode active material a solid electrolyte material ([0077]), and further teaches Si as an example of the anode active material ([0079]));
The sulfide solid electrolyte contains at least Li, P, and S, and a PS43- structure
(Osada teaches the sulfide solid electrolyte comprises an ion conductor having Li, P, and S and at least one of LiI, LiBr, and LiCl ([0078], [0050]); Osada teaches the ion conductor preferably has an ortho composition which would correspond to a composition in which PS43- structure is included as a main component for a Li2S-P2S5 system ([0052]-[0053]), which is stated in [0056]. Kang as an evidentiary reference teaches a similar sulfide solid electrolyte material and discloses that the PS43- solid structure is associated with a peak in a position of about 425 cm-1 in a Raman spectroscopy spectrum (Fig. 1; [0162]), which is within the claimed range and thereby reads on the claimed limitation.
);
A lithium ion conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte at 25°C is 2.0 mS/cm or more and 3.5 mS/cm or less (Osada teaches the Li ion conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte preferably 1 mS/cm or more [0065], which overlaps the claimed range);
A volume ratio of the Si-based active material with respect to a total of the Si-based active material and the sulfide solid electrolyte is 50 volume% or more and 65 volume% or less; and
A volume ratio of the sulfide solid electrolyte with respect to the total of the Si-based active material and the sulfide solid electrolyte is 35 volume% or more and 50 volume% or less
(Osada teaches the content of the sulfide solid electrolyte material in the anode active material layer is in the range of 10% by volume to 50% by volume and further discloses that the anode active material layer can contain at least one of a solid electrolyte material, a conductive material, and a binder in addition to the anode active material ([0078]); therefore it would have been obvious to use an anode active material layer with the anode active material and a solid electrolyte material based on the direct suggestion. In this configuration, the volume ratio of the sulfide solid electrolyte with respect to the total of the Si-based active material and the sulfide solid electrolyte would be 10% to 50%, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Furthermore, within the configuration, the sulfide solid electrolyte would form the balance of the anode active material layer and thus would correspond to a volume ratio of 50% to 90% which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Osada does not teach an average particle size D50 of the Si-based active material is 400 nm or more and 700 nm or less, nor that a Raman spectroscopy peak in a position of 415 cm-1 or more and 425 cm-1 or less has a half-value width of the peak that is 15.5 cm-1 or more and 18.0 cm-1 or less.
However, Tuschel teaches that peak widths from amorphous solids have broader Raman spectra peaks than crystalline solids of the same chemical composition (p3 para 2); in other words, the half-value width of a peak represents the degree of crystallinity of the solid. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore presume that the half-value width of the peak within the claimed range represents the degree of crystallinity of PS4. In the same field of endeavor, Kang teaches that increased crystallinity of a sulfide-based solid electrolyte improves its stability upon reaction with lithium metal during charge and discharge of an all-solid secondary battery ([0008]- [0009]), therefore, degree of crystallinity is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to adjust the crystallinity of the PS4-comprising solid electrolyte, and consequently, adjusted the half-value width of its PS43- -Raman peak to within the claimed range, to optimize the material’s stability with lithium metal during operation of the battery.
Kang further teaches an average particle size D50 of the Si-based active material is 10 nm to 900 nm ([0076]), which substantially overlaps with the claimed range. Kang discloses that when the anode active material has an average particle diameter within these ranges, reversible absorption and/or desorption of lithium during charge and discharge may be further facilitated. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to use the Si-based active material D50 size of 10 nm to 900 nm within the battery of Osada as taught by Kang for the benefit of facilitating reversible absorption and/or desorption of lithium during charge and discharge.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination above teaches the all solid state battery of claim 1, and Osada further teaches the sulfide solid electrolyte preferably comprises an ion conductor having Li, P, and S, and at least one of LiI, LiBr, and LiCl to take advantage of high Li ion conductivity ([0050]-[0051]); therefore, Osada teaches the sulfide solid electrolyte contains a halogen.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination above teaches the all solid state battery of claim 1. Osada does not teach wherein the half-value width of the peak is 16.5 cm-1 or more and 17.1 cm-1 or less.
However, as previously pointed out in teaching the limitations of claim 1, Tuschel teaches that peak widths from amorphous solids have broader Raman spectra peaks than crystalline solids of the same chemical composition (p3 para 2); in other words, the half-value width of a peak represents the degree of crystallinity of the solid. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore presume that the half-value width of the peak within the claimed range represents the degree of crystallinity of PS4. In the same field of endeavor, Kang teaches that increased crystallinity of a sulfide-based solid electrolyte improves its stability upon reaction with lithium metal during charge and discharge of an all-solid secondary battery ([0008]- [0009]), therefore, degree of crystallinity is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to adjust the crystallinity of the PS4-comprising solid electrolyte, and consequently, adjusted the half-value width of its PS43- -Raman peak to within the claimed range, to optimize the material’s stability with lithium metal during operation of the battery.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination above teaches the all solid state battery of claim 1, and Osada further teaches the sulfide solid electrolyte has a composition represented by aLiX.(1-a)(bLi2S.(1-b)P2S5) wherein “a” corresponds to the ratio of LiX and “b” corresponds to the Li2S ratio ([0057]). Osada also teaches that LiX indicates the ratio of plural LiX in total and can contain plural LiX such as LiI and LiBr ([0057]), that the total LiX mol % in the sulfide solid electrolyte material is preferably 10 mol% to 30 mol% ([0057]), that in the case in which LiX contains LiI and LiBr, the LiBr mole ratio out of total moles LiI+LiBr can be 25 mol% to 60 mol% ([0062]), and the LiI mole ratio out of total moles LiI+LiBr can be 15 to 50 mol% ([0063]), indicating the mole ratio of each LiI and LiBr would respectively be greater than 0 and less than 100 as claimed. Furthermore, the coefficient on LiX and on the bLi2S.(1-b)P2S5 sum to unity, which would be 100 mol%, thereby teaching x + y + z = 100. Osada also teaches that the mole ratio of Li2S relative to the total of Li2S and P2S5 is 76 mol% to 78 mol%, or 0.76-0.78, which is within the claimed range of α, the variable representing mole ratio of Li2S relative to the total of Li2S and P2S5 in the formula of claim 9.
Additionally, as previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Osada teaches the ion conductor preferably has an ortho composition which would correspond to a composition in which PS43- structure is included as a main component for a Li2S-P2S5 system ([0052]-[0053]). Osada discloses that the ratio of the anion structure of an ortho composition is preferably 90 mol% or more relative to the entire anion structure of an ion conductor ([0053]), which includes 100%, and therefore the remainder of species would be negligible or about zero.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada et al (US 20160149259 A1) in view of Kang (US 20200287238 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kim et al (KR 101558775 B1) and Okuhata (JP 2019186008 A).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination above teaches the battery of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the volume ratio of the Si-based active material with respect to a total of the Si-based active material and the sulfide solid electrolyte is 50 volume % or more and 60 volume % or less; and
a volume ratio of the sulfide solid electrolyte with respect to the total of the Si-based active material and the sulfide solid electrolyte is 40 volume % or more and 50 volume % or less.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches a method of forming a solid-state electrode structure for either a positive or negative electrode structure having a continuous concentration gradient (machine translation [0009], [0021], [0023]-[0024]). Kim also teaches examples wherein the volume ratio of the active material in the entire electrode for an electrode layer formed of an active material/solid electrolyte can be 50% (Ex. 1; [0028]), 60% (Ex. 2; [0030]), 55% (Ex. 3; [0032]) with the solid electrolyte as a similar Li2S-P2S5 sulfide solid electrolyte ([0032]) and would be expected to be applicable to a negative electrode mixture of negative active material and sulfide solid electrolyte based on Kim’s direct suggestion. Additionally, Kim teaches that their invention enables increased output performance and high battery capacity ([0009]). Within the art at the time of filing, Okuhata also teaches an anode active material to solid electrolyte composition of 55%:45% utilizing a sulfide-based solid electrolyte and a Si-based active material is a known configuration (machine translation: [0102]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have thus been motivated to incorporate Kim’s method and electrode composition in Osada’s battery given that the composition is a known configuration and for the associated benefits of increased output performance and high battery capacity. The combination teaches volume ratios of the negative active material within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
For a negative electrode mixture layer formed of the negative active material and sulfide solid electrolyte, per Osada’s teaching (Osada: [0078]) and per Kim’s teaching in Examples 1-3 (Kim: [0028], [0030], [0032]), the volume ratio of the sulfide solid electrolyte with respect to the total of the Si-based active material and the sulfide solid electrolyte would necessarily be the remainder of the mixture, and thus correspond to 50% (Ex. 1), 40% (Ex. 2), and 45% (Ex. 3). Thus, the combination of prior art also teaches volume ratios of the sulfide solid electrolyte within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination above teaches the all solid state battery of claim 6. Osada does not teach wherein the half-value width of the peak is 16.5 cm-1 or more and 17.1 cm-1 or less.
However, as previously pointed out in teaching the limitations of claim 1, Tuschel teaches that peak widths from amorphous solids have broader Raman spectra peaks than crystalline solids of the same chemical composition (p3 para 2); in other words, the half-value width of a peak represents the degree of crystallinity of the solid. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore presume that the half-value width of the peak within the claimed range represents the degree of crystallinity of PS4. In the same field of endeavor, Kang teaches that increased crystallinity of a sulfide-based solid electrolyte improves its stability upon reaction with lithium metal during charge and discharge of an all-solid secondary battery ([0008]- [0009]), therefore, degree of crystallinity is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to adjust the crystallinity of the PS4-comprising solid electrolyte, and consequently, adjusted the half-value width of its PS43- -Raman peak to within the claimed range, to optimize the material’s stability with lithium metal during operation of the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for addressing the amendments to claim 1. Applicant argues (Remarks p5 para 2-3, p6 para 1-2) unexpected results arising from use of the “nano Si-based material” and “a low crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte.”
According to MPEP 716.02(d), “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).” However, Table 3 of the instant specification shows that the only tests conducted outside the claimed range for Si particle size use a Si particle size that is significantly higher (2700 nm) than the claimed range and do not include any particle sizes lower than 400 nm or intermediate between the claimed upper bound of 700 nm and 2700 nm of the comparative examples, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to extrapolate a trend in change in restraining pressure to the lower particle sizes or intermediate particle sizes based on the data disclosed. Therefore, argument of unexpected results regarding Si particle size is unpersuasive.
Furthermore, Applicant does not provide results for active material volume ratios outside of the claimed range of 50 volume% or more and 65 volume% or less, nor provides results for solid electrolyte volume ratio outside the claimed range of 35 volume% or more and 50 volume% or less that establish unexpected results for the criticality of range of a volume ratio of the Si-based active material as 50 volume% or more and 65 volume% or less, nor for the criticality of range of a volume ratio of the sulfide solid electrolyte as 35 volume% or more and 50 volume% or less. That is, Applicant does not compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range; see MPEP 716.02(d), II. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Additionally, the results of Table 2 do not provide a persuasive case of unexpected results arising from use of a sulfide solid electrolyte with a half-value width peak of 15.5 cm-1 or more and 18.0 cm-1 or less (per amended claim 1), or of the narrowed range 16.5 cm-1 or more and 17.1 cm-1 or less (per new claims 6-7), for a peak in a position of 415 cm-1 or more and 425 cm-1 or less. Per Table 1 and Table 2, and examination of Examples 2 (with electrolyte with half-value width 17.1 cm-1) to Example 3 (with electrolyte with half-value width 17.9 cm-1), there is not a demonstration of consistent improvement in the change in restraining pressure as Applicant had asserted (Remarks: p6 para 3). Furthermore, the Si particle size, which is a separate variable, changes with the type of sulfide solid electrolyte respectively within Examples 1 to 3, Examples 4 to 6, Examples 7 to 8, Examples 10 to12, wherein in each example set the active material: solid electrolyte volume ratios are kept constant in each set; therefore, the disclosure fails to demonstrate objective evidence of nonobviousness that is commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.
Per Applicant’s arguments regarding unexpected results of the claimed ranges of volume ratio in new claim 6 (Remarks p6 para 4-5), as applied to Sasaki in view of Kang and Tuschel and as applied to Kang in view of Sasaki and Tuschel are persuasive but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to new claim 9 (Remarks p6 para 6) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ghidiu et al, “Solution-based synthesis of lithium thiophosphate superionic conductors for solid-state batteries: a chemistry perspective,” J. Mater. Chem. A, 2019, 7, 17735.
Ghidiu et al suggests equilibria for transformations between various thiophosphates in sulfide solid electrolytes that include P2S64- structure and P2S74- structure may be possible with redox processes involving the oxidation of S2- to S0 (p17737 right col para 2; Fig. 3)
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 GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 01/12/2026