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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1, 3, 8, 15-16, and 20 are amended, claims 18-19 are cancelled, claims 21-24 are new, and claims 16-17 and 20 remain withdrawn, submitted on 9/18/2025. Claims 23-24 dependent from the withdrawn method claim 16 are treated as being withdrawn based on election by original presentation in the response of 5/28/2025 to the restriction requirement mailed 5/21/2025.
Claims 1-15 and 21-22 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2, 4-11, 14-15 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visco (US 20210098818 A1).
Examiner notes: Claim 1 in Ln 2, recites the limitation “a conductive substrate” which is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a description regarding what subject matter the substrate being capable of conducting. For examination purposes, the term “a conductive substrate” in claim 1 will be interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), such as, including but not limited to electronically conductive, ionically conductive, or thermally conductive, etc., which would be considered as read on the claimed term, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Visco discloses a stacked structure (electrode subassembly 1100A-B, [0304] and FIG. 11A-B) comprising: a conductive substrate (material layer 1101 of metal or semi-metal, [0308-0309]); and a solid electrolyte layer (solid electrolyte sheet 100, [0304]) disposed on one surface of the conductive substrate (FIG. 11A-B), wherein the solid electrolyte layer consists of inorganic solid electrolyte (inorganic Li ion conducting solid electrolyte sheet, [0135]; and completely inorganic [0151]), and wherein the stacked structure is free-standing film (standalone lithium metal electrode assembly [0304]). Visco further discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte sheet 100 is flexible and preferably sufficiently robust when flexed and suitable for roll-processing, or for winding or folding into a battery cell ([0139]), which inherently teaches the stacked structure is flexible ([0035] [0139] and FIG. 1B-C), because the conductive substrate made of metal or semi-metal is commonly known as flexible enough for roll processing.
While Visco has the desire of a standalone lithium ion-conductive solid electrolyte of high performance with a balance in both ion conductivity and resistance to initiation and/or propagation of lithium-dendrites ([0005]), Visco does not explicitly disclose the stack structure has a thickness of about 5 micrometers or less.
However, Visco further discloses using a current collector layer of a thin metal foil , or a coating applied directly onto sheet surface 101A of sheet 100 ([0315]); and the current collector layer is even more preferably ≤5 µm thick with an example of 1 µm thick, and is preferably significantly thinner than solid electrolyte sheet 100, e.g., ≤1/5 the thickness of sheet 100) ([0316]). A skilled artisan would reasonably expect to choose a thin metal foil current collector as the conductive substrate, and the thickness of the current collector falls within the taught range of ≤5 µm, for example, 0.8 µm, and being 1/5 of the thickness of the solid electrolyte sheet 100 as taught, which translates to the thickness of the solid electrolyte sheet 100 would be about 4 µm, thus the stacking structure would have a thickness of about 4.8 µm, falling within the thickness range of about 5 micrometers or less.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a current collector layer of a thin metal foil as the conductive substrate and the thickness of the conductive substrate (current collector) being a value (such as 0.8 µm) that falls within the taught range of ≤5 µm, and also being about 1/5 of the thickness of the solid electrolyte sheet as taught by Visco, thus arriving at the stack structure has a thickness of about 5 micrometers or less, in order to have high performance with a balance in both ion conductivity and resistance to initiation and/or propagation of lithium-dendrites.
Regarding claim 2, modified Visco discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Visco further discloses the sheet having a bending radius even more preferably ≤ 0.1 cm ([0140]) and <0.25 mm ([0365]), which inherently discloses the stacked structure has a curvature radius of about 10 millimeters or less because the conductive substrate made of metal foil would reasonably be adaptive to the bending radius due to its inherent ductility. So as long as the inorganic solid electrolyte sheet 100 satisfies this limitation of bending radius of about 10 millimeters or less, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect the stacked structure would also satisfy the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 4, modified Visco discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Visco further discloses a smooth surface is desirable for achieving lithium metal cycling efficiency >99.0%; and having a surface topography with a controlled uniform surface roughness can be of benefits for bonding material layers, such as a lithium metal layer to the solid electrolyte during fabrication, and in various embodiments the average surface roughness of the major area of the first principal side surface 101A is even more preferably Ra≤0.01 µm ([0217]), encompassing the range of about 5 nm or less as claimed “wherein a root mean square roughness of a surface of the solid electrolyte layer is about 5 nanometers or less”.
A skilled artisan understands that the average surface roughness value Ra and a root mean square roughness value of a surface of the solid electrolyte layer are closely related and used for the same purpose of representing roughness of a surface, but via different calculation methods.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose an average surface roughness value that falls within the overlapping portion of the taught range and the claimed range arriving at the claim limitation “wherein a root mean square roughness of a surface of the solid electrolyte layer is about 5 nanometers or less”, with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving high lithium metal cycling efficiency and benefits of bonding material layers during fabrication, as taught by Visco.
Regarding claim 5, modified Visco discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Visco discloses the solid electrolyte layer is an exfoliated layer (removed from the bed to yield freestanding vitreous sheet 100 ([0301] and FIG. 6E).
Modified Visco further discloses a smooth surface is desirable for achieving lithium metal cycling efficiency >99.0%; and having a surface topography with a controlled uniform surface roughness can be of benefits for bonding material layers, such as a lithium metal layer to the solid electrolyte during fabrication ([0217]), the vitreous monolithic solid electrolyte sheet is essentially free of surface microvoids ([209]) with an exceptionally smooth topography having an average surface roughness Ra< 0.001 µm ([0210]); and in the embodiment of FIG. 13 A, the current collecting layer 1312 has a surface layer of a lithium metal layer 1310 ([0325] and FIG. 13A).
While modified Visco does not explicitly disclose that the solid electrolyte layer has a surface area of about 50 % or less of a surface area of the conductive substrate, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have chosen an exceptionally smooth solid electrolyte sheet with an exceptionally smooth topography having an average surface roughness Ra< 0.001 µm in combination with a lithium metal layer coated current collecting layer 1312 as taught by the embodiment of FIG. 13 A, in order to have high performance associated with ion conductivity and resistance to initiation and/or propagation of lithium-dendrites and high lithium metal cycling efficiency and benefits of bonding material layers during fabrication, thus rendering obvious that the solid electrolyte layer has a surface area of about 50 % or less of a surface area of the conductive substrate, because lithium metal surface is softer and much rougher comparing to the exceptionally smooth solid electrolyte sheet surface, thus the true surface area of the lithium metal layer is likely more than doubled its planar surface area, which closely equates to the surface area of the solid electrolyte layer.
Regarding claim 6, modified Visco discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Visco further discloses solid electrolyte sheet 100 has Li ion conductivity of 10-3 S/cm([0135]), which falls within the range as claimed “the solid electrolyte has an ion conductivity of about 1 x10-8 siemens per centimeter or greater”.
Regarding claim 7, modified Visco discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Visco further discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte is an oxide solid electrolyte (Li ion conducting oxide, [0199]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Visco discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Visco further discloses the oxide solid electrolyte comprises SiO2, Li3PO4, Li2O, or a combination thereof ([0182]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Visco discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Visco has disclosed an example of the current collector layer with 1 µm thick ([0316]), which falls within the range as claimed “the conductive substrate has a thickness of about 4 micrometers or less”.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified Visco discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Visco further discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte comprises lithium phosphorus oxynitride (lithium phosphate or lithium oxynitride glass film ([0157] and [0397]), and a current collector layer may be applied directly onto sheet surface 101A and for example, a thin Cu or Ni foil ([0315]).
While modified Visco does not explicitly discloses lithium phosphorus oxynitride and thin Cu or Ni foil being used together, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a skilled artisan to choose Cu or Ni foil as the conductive substrate and try pairing with the lithium phosphorus oxynitride under routine optimization for achieving a standalone lithium ion-conductive solid electrolyte of high performance with a balance in both ion conductivity and resistance to initiation and/or propagation of lithium-dendrites, thus arriving at the claimed “the inorganic solid electrolyte comprises lithium phosphorus oxynitride and the conductive substrate has a residual stress of about 200 megaPascals or greater” (claim 10), because the instant disclosure in para[0119] provides evidence that the residual stress of the Ni conductive substrate was measured to be 500 megaPascals (MPa); and “the conductive substrate comprises nickel, or copper” (claim 11).
Regarding claim 14, modified Visco discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Visco further discloses a bilayer 1101 is composed of tie-layer 1101a in direct contact with sheet surface 101A of sheet 100, and current collecting layer 1101b in direct contact with the tie-layer ([0313] and FIG. 11B); and the tie-layer is a metal or semi-metal such as Al, Ag, In, Au, Sn, Si, or the like, or an alloy or inter-metallic combination of metals or semi-metals capable of alloying or being alloyed by lithium metal on contact ([0309]), which means the tie-layer 1101a of FIG. 11B functions equivalent to an electrode active material layer capable of alloying with lithium metal on contact which contains an anode active material such as Sn or Si etc. Thus, modified Visco teaches an electrode active material layer disposed between the conductive substrate and the solid electrolyte layer, wherein the electrode active material layer comprises a cathode active material or an anode active material, because the current collecting layer 1101b corresponds to the conductive substrate (metal foil) of the claim.
Regarding claim 15, Visco discloses an electrochemical battery (solid-state battery cell 1600C, [0378] and FIG. 16C) comprising: a first electrode-electrolyte assembly (1601C, FIG. 16C) comprising a first electrode (negative electrode 1640C and solid electrolyte sheet 100, [0382] and FIG. 16C) comprising a first electrode active material layer (negative electroactive layer 1610C, [0382]), and a flexible ([0139] free-standing film (separator sheet/solid electrolyte sheet 100, [0379]/[0382] and FIG. 16C) and a second electrode (positive electrode 1660C, [0380] and FIG. 16C) comprising a second electrode active material layer (positive electroactive layer 1662C, [0380] and FIG. 16C).
The embodiment of FIG. 16C of Visco does not explicitly disclose the flexible free-standing film (standalone solid electrolyte sheet 100 [0382]) comprising a conductive substrate, and a deposited solid electrolyte layer disposed on one surface of the conductive substrate wherein the solid electrolyte layer comprises an inorganic solid electrolyte.
However, Visco further discloses in another embodiment that Li ion conducting solid electrolyte sheet 100 is made by applying a melt of the Li ion conducting glass onto a fluid bed 665; and in various embodiment the fluid bed is itself a solid bed being a polished metal ([0301] and FIG. 6E), which inherently teaches that the obtained flexible free-standing film (standalone solid electrolyte sheet 100 [0382]) comprising a conductive substrate (polished metal 665, FIG. 6E), and a deposited solid electrolyte layer (solidified molten glass sheet 667, [0301] and FIG. 6E) disposed on one surface of the conductive substrate, because the polished metal is normally considered as a conductive substrate and the solid electrolyte layer is deposited on the surface of conductive substrate (polished metal 665).
Visco further discloses the solid electrolyte layer comprises an inorganic solid electrolyte (inorganic Li ion conducting solid electrolyte sheet, [0135]).
Visco does not explicitly disclose wherein the flexible free-standing film has a thickness of about 5 micrometers or less.
However, Visco further discloses using a current collector layer of a thin metal foil , or a coating applied directly onto sheet surface 101A of sheet 100 ([0315]); and the current collector layer is even more preferably ≤5 µm thick with an example of 1 µm thick, and is preferably significantly thinner than solid electrolyte sheet 100, e.g., ≤1/5 the thickness of sheet 100) ([0316]). A skilled artisan would reasonably expect to choose a thin metal foil current collector as the conductive substrate, and the thickness of the current collector within the range of ≤5 µm, for example, 0.8 µm, being 1/5 of the thickness of the solid electrolyte sheet 100 as taught, which translates to the thickness of the solid electrolyte sheet 100 would be about 4 µm, thus the stacking structure would have a thickness of about 4.8 µm, falling within the thickness range of about 5 micrometers or less.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a current collector layer of a thin metal foil as the conductive substrate and the thickness of the conductive substrate (current collector) being a value (such as 0.8 µm) that falls within the taught range of ≤5 µm, and also being about 1/5 of the thickness of the solid electrolyte sheet as taught by Visco, thus arriving at the stack structure has a thickness of about 5 micrometers or less, in order to have high performance with a balance in both ion conductivity and resistance to initiation and/or propagation of lithium-dendrites.
Examiner notes: The new claims 21-22 are drafted in a product-by-process format. Even 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. [MPEP 2113 (I)].
Therefore, claims 21 and 22 are rendered obvious respectively over Visco, because Visco has included the deposited solid electrolyte layer being disposed on the conductive substrate in the embodiment of FIG. 6E as set forth above in claim 15 rejection.
5. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visco (US 20210098818 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Badding (US 20190207252 A1, IDS of 6/5/2023).
Regarding claim 12, modified Visco discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While Modified Visco further discloses desire for acceptable interface resistance between glass sheet 100 and a lithium metal layer ([0185]) and the material layer 1101 is a multilayer (e.g., a bi-layer) devoid of Li metal, composed of tie-layer 1101a and 1101b, such as by applying a current collecting layer 1101b directly onto the tie-layer 1101a ([0313] and FIG. 11B), which corresponds to the claimed an interlayer (tie-layer 1101a) disposed between the conductive substrate (current collecting layer 1101b) and the solid electrolyte layer (sheet 100).
However, modified Visco does not explicitly discloses comprising the interlayer has a thickness of about 100 nanometers or less, and the interlayer comprises titanium, chromium, tungsten, niobium, an alloy thereof, or a combination thereof.
Badding teaches electrolyte for a solid-state battery includes a body having grains of inorganic material sintered to one another and the body is thin with high ionic conductivity (Abstract), and as shown in FIG. 48, metal based layer 1350 may be indirectly joined to sintered article 1000 via a seed layer 1375 to provide a foundation for joining metal-based layer 1350 to sintered article 1000, and seed layer 1375 comprises tin, titanium, tungsten, lead or combinations thereof ([0304]). A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have an interlayer (tie-layer 1101a of Visco) comprising titanium, tungsten or a combination of both as selected from the finite list of Badding disposed between the conductive substrate and the solid electrolyte layer, for acceptable interface resistance as desired by Visco.
Badding further teaches the metal-based layer 1350 includes a thickness from about 0.1 µm to about 1 mm ([0305]), with the lower end value being equivalent to 100 nanometer. A skilled artisan would reasonably expect that the thickness of the seed layer 1375 be less than 100 nanometer for being a transition layer for the base layer 1350, arriving at the claimed thickness range limitation. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify tie layer 1101a of Visco as taught by Badding in order to reduce the interface resistance for higher ion conductivity, arriving at the claimed “an interlayer disposed between the conductive substrate and the solid electrolyte layer, wherein the interlayer has a thickness of about 100 nanometers or less, and the interlayer comprises titanium, tungsten, or a combination thereof” with a reasonable expectation of success without undue experimentation.
6. Claims 1, 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillard (US 20080085439 A1).
Examiner notes: Claim 1 in Ln 2, recites the limitation “a conductive substrate” which is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a description regarding what subject matter the substrate being capable of conducting. For examination purposes, the term “a conductive substrate” in claim 1 will be interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), such as, including but not limited to electronically conductive, ionically conductive, or thermally conductive, etc., which would be considered as read on the claimed term, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Hillard discloses a stacked structure (planar support structure 17, [0081]) comprising: a conductive substrate (bulk alloy structure 1, [0067] and FIG. 6) ; and a solid electrolyte layer (solid oxide electrolyte 20, [0067]) disposed on one surface of the conductive substrate (FIG. 6), wherein the solid electrolyte layer consists of an inorganic solid electrolyte (YSZ and CeO2, [0066]), and wherein the stacked structure is a flexible ([0024]; non-planar convex/concave shape [0072-0073 and FIGs. 6-7) free-standing electrolytic film ([0070]).
Hillard does not explicitly disclose the stacked structure having a thickness of about 5 micrometers or less.
However, Hillard discloses the thickness of the electrolytic film is 100 nm of YSZ plus 1-10 micrometer of CeO2, and another 100 nm of YSZ ([0066]), which translates to the thickness of the electrolyte layer Telectrolyte is between 1.2 µm to 10.2 µm. Hillard further discloses in another embodiment of FIG. 12, T1= Telectrolyte ([0085]), and T1/T2=0.5 ([0086] and FIG. 12), which translates to T0 =3 Telectrolyte because T0=T1+T2 (FIG. 12). Therefore, the thickness of the stacked structure T0 is calculated to be about from 3.6 µm to 30.6 µm, which overlaps the claimed thickness range of the stacked structure of about 5 micrometers or less, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 3, modified Hillard discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Hillard does not explicitly discloses the solid electrolyte layer has a thickness of about 70% or less of a thickness of the conductive substrate, and the solid electrolyte layer has a thickness of about 1 micrometer or less.
However, modified Hillard further discloses the solid electrolyte layer in another embodiment has a thickness of between 100 nm to 10 µm ([0081]), which overlaps the thickness of the solid electrolyte layer as claimed “of about 1 micrometers or less”. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to choose a thickness value for the solid electrolyte layer as taught in another embodiment of Hillard, thus arriving at a thickness value that falls within the overlapping portion (100 nm to 1 µm) between the taught and claimed ranges without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, since the stacked structure has a thickness of 3.6 micrometers to 30.6 micrometers, the conductive substrate has a thickness between 2.6 micrometers to 30.5 micrometers, which means the solid state electrolyte layer has a thickness of about 0.3% to 38% of a thickness of the conductive substrate, falling within the range as claimed “wherein the solid the solid electrolyte layer has a thickness of about 70% or less of a thickness of the conductive substrate”.
Regarding claim 13, modified Hillard discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Hillard further discloses interconnect structure to separate and protect the first layer from the degrading effects ([0006]), which anticipates the claimed comprising a release layer (dual-layer interconnect structure 2, [0067] and FIG. 6) disposed on an other surface of the conductive substrate (FIG. 6).
7. Claims 15 and 21-22 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anandan (US 20150024256 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Anandan discloses an electrochemical battery (solid state battery 100, [0036] and FIG. 5) comprising: a first electrode-electrolyte assembly comprising a first electrode comprising a first electrode active material layer (anode layer 108, [0036] and FIG. 5), and a flexible free-standing film (free standing flexible composite solid electrolyte membrane, [0010]) comprising a conductive substrate (polymer matrix 106 [0036] and FIG. 5; and ionically conductive, [0026]), and a deposited solid electrolyte layer (inorganic solid electrolyte layer 112, [0036] and FIG. 5) disposed on one surface of the conductive substrate (112 and 106 are in surface contact, FIG. 5) wherein the solid electrolyte layer comprises an inorganic solid electrolyte (ISE layer [0036]), and a second electrode comprising a second electrode active material layer (cathode layer 110 [0036] and FIG. 5).
Anandan does not explicitly disclose in the FIG. 5 embodiment that the flexible free-standing film has a thickness of about 5 micrometers or less.
However, Anandan further discloses in another embodiment FIG. 7 the obtained membrane 178 may range between 1-500 microns in thickness ([0050]), which overlaps the thickness range as claimed “the flexible free-standing film has a thickness of about 5 micrometers or less”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose the overlapping portion (1-5 microns) between the taught thickness range and the claimed range as taught by FIG. 7 with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a balance of separation between the anode and the cathode and ion transport resistance, thus arrive at the claimed “the flexible free-standing film has a thickness of about 5 micrometers or less”.
{Examiner notes: The new claims 21-22 are drafted in a product-by-process format. Even 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. [MPEP 2113 (I)]. }
Therefore, claims 21 and 22 are rendered obvious respectively over Anandan as set forth above in claim 15 rejection, because Anandan has included the deposited solid electrolyte layer being disposed on the conductive substrate (112 and 106 are in surface contact, FIG. 5).
For purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner further notes that Anandan discloses the deposited solid electrolyte layer is disposed on the conductive substrate by a dry method (dry process, [0054]) (claim 21); and the ISE material may be deposited using sputting, physical vapor deposition (PVD), chemical vapor deposition (CVD) ([0057]) (claim 22).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claims 1 and 15 filed on 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Examiner notes that claim 15 is an independent claim, which does not require limitations from claim 1.
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30AM -5:00PM 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1292. 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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
12/27/2025
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 12/30/2025
Prosecution Insights