DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on September 8, 2026:
Claims 1-8 are pending;
The 102 and rejections to Kim et al. set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in light of the amendment in favor of the new grounds of rejection to Kim necessitated by the amendment;
The 103 rejections to Nakai et al. set forth in the previous Office Action stand in light of the amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed July 9, 2026 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
With respect to foreign language references and foreign language patent office communications with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii).
Claim Interpretation
The claimed plurality of substrate current collectors in claim 1 have been interpreted in light of the specification to refer to elements 192 of the second electrode current collector plate 190 (see annotated Fig. 3 below) which is electrically connected to the cap assembly 150 (See Fig. 1). Element 8 of Nakai below is held to read on the plurality of substrate current collectors and the term protrusions in Nakai are applied to the claimed plurality of substrate current collectors as reasoned below.
PNG
media_image1.png
354
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0260489) in view of Ryu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0186477).
As to claim 1, Kim discloses a cylindrical secondary battery comprising:
a cylindrical can 20;
an electrode assembly 10 accommodated in the can and formed by stacking a first electrode plate 12, a separator 13, and a second electrode plate 11 and winding in a cylindrical shape, wherein a first electrode uncoated portion 12a of the first electrode plate 12 protruding at one end in a longitudinal direction and a second electrode uncoated portion 11a of the second electrode plate 11 protruding at another end in the longitudinal direction;
a cap assembly 30 coupled to one side of the can 20 in a state in which the electrode assembly 10 is accommodated in the can 20;
a first electrode current collector plate 50 which is located between the first electrode uncoated portion 12a and the can 20 and electrically connected to the first electrode un-coated portion 12a and the can 20, wherein the first electrode current collector plate comprises a plurality of substrate current collectors 52 that protrude in a direction away from a bottom surface of the can 20;
a second electrode current collector plate 40 which is located between the second electrode uncoated portion 11a and the cap assembly 30 and electrically connected to the second electrode uncoated portion 11a and the cap assembly 30, wherein the second electrode current collector plate 40 comprises a plurality of substrate current collectors 42 that protrude in a direction toward a bottom surface of the can 20, each substrate current collector 42 of the plurality of substrate current collectors comprising a flat lower welding surface;
a first auxiliary plate 70 which is located between the first electrode uncoated portion 12a and the first electrode current collector plate 50 and electrically connected to the first electrode uncoated portion 12a and the first electrode current collector plate 50; and
a second auxiliary plate 60 which is located between the second electrode uncoated 11a portion and the second electrode current collector plate 40 and electrically connected to the second electrode uncoated portion 11a and the second electrode current collector plate 40 (see Figs. 3a, 3b and annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
830
914
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
382
298
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
361
261
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, the first electrode current collector 50 and the second electrode current collector 40 have the same shape (circular) and are disposed to be symmetrical to each other (see Figs. 3a, 3b, and 4; paras. [0013], [0038], [0050]).
As to claim 3, the first auxiliary plate 70 and the second auxiliary plate 60 have the same size as the first electrode collector plate 50 and the second electrode collector plate 40 (Figs. 3a, 3b and 4; paras. [0013], [0038], [0050]).
As to claim 4, the first auxiliary plate 70 is formed of the same material as the first electrode current collector 50, and the second auxiliary plate 60 is formed of the same material as the second electrode current collector 40 (paras. [0014], [0038]).
As to claim 5, the first auxiliary plate and the second auxiliary plate are metal copper or aluminum and given the standard cell design of Kim would be understood to be thin films (further noting that the term thin is not explicitly defined in the claim).
As to claim 6, the auxiliary plates can be made of copper or aluminum (para. [0038]) and the first auxiliary plate 70, connected to the negative electrode 12 which employs copper as the collector material and the second auxiliary plate 60, connected to the positive electrode 11 which employs aluminum as the collector material would expectedly appreciate that the second auxiliary plate 60 is made of aluminum. Further a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized and appreciated copper for the negative (low-potential, high-stability) and aluminum as the positive (high-potential, corrosion resistance) as standard practice or default material designs in the art.
As to claim 8, each of the first electrode collector plate 50 and the second electrode collector plate 40 is welded to the first electrode uncoated portion 12a and the second electrode uncoated portion 11a, respectively, in a state in which the first auxiliary plate and the second auxiliary plate are disposed.
As to claim 1, Kim does not teach that the electrode uncoated portions extend in a vertical direction and are not compacted. But Kim did identify bending of uncoated electrode regions as a manufacturing issue (improper or irregular bending during crushing).
Providing for vertical uncompacted or straight electrode portions extending from the electrode assembly and connected to a corresponding current collector has been a conventional design choice well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, Ryu is drawn to the same field of endeavor to cylindrical battery designs having a wound electrode assembly therein. Ryu further disclosed that it was known in the art to prevent the uncoated portion 23 and 25 of the electrodes from being bent to provide improved physical properties (preventing bending/warping during assembly, improved stability and reliability) and electrochemical performance as needed (paras. [0006], [0015], [0017] Fig. 1). Both Kim and Ryu share an overlapping concern pertaining to deformation associated with an electrode’s uncoated region which can compromise manufacturing quality. Ryu gives further support and reasonable guidance for a known technique to prevent or reduce undesired problems with the uncoated portions by rendering them mechanically robust for reasons discussed above. There is a high level of teaching and predictability in the art to modify the crushed uncoated electrode tabs of Kim to be vertical and not compacted as taught by Ryu with the understanding that such a design would have improved the physical properties, such as preventing bending/warping during assembly, improved stability and reliability and electrochemical performance without departing from the ability to conduct electrical power through the battery cell.
PNG
media_image5.png
736
492
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the uncoated portions of each electrode of cylindrical battery cell design of Kim extending in a vertical direction to not be crushed or compacted as taught by Ryu since it would have provided an alternative electrode design whereby improved physical properties, such as preventing bending/warping during assembly, improved stability and reliability and electrochemical performance without departing from the core ability of the battery of Kim to conduct electrical power through the battery cell.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai et al. (JP2009-123440A) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0260489).
As to claim 1, Nakai discloses a cylindrical secondary battery (Figs. 1-6, for example para. [0001]) comprising:
A cylindrical can 10; an electrode assembly (electrode group 6) accommodated in the can 10 and formed by stacking a first electrode plate 4, a separator 5, and a second electrode plate 2 and winding in a cylindrical shape (Figs. 1-4), wherein a first electrode uncoated portion 3 of the first electrode plate 4 protruding at one end in the longitudinal direction (Figs. 1, 3 and 4) and a second electrode uncoated portion 1 of the second electrode plate 2 protruding at the other end thereof (Figs. 1, 2 and 4):
a cap assembly coupled to one side of the can 10 in a state in which the electrode assembly 6 is accommodated in the can 10;
a first electrode current collector plate 7 which is located between the first electrode uncoated portion 3 and the can 10 and electrically connected to the first electrode uncoated portion 3 and the can 10;
a second electrode current collector plate 7 which is located between the second electrode uncoated portion 1 and the cap assembly and electrically connected to the second electrode uncoated portion and the can;
a first auxiliary plate 18 which is located between the first electrode uncoated portion 3 and the first electrode current collector plate 7 and electrically connected to the first electrode uncoated portion 3 and the first electrode current collector plate 7;
and a second auxiliary plate 18 which is located between the second electrode uncoated portion 1 and the second electrode current collector plate 7 and electrically connected to the second electrode uncoated portion 1 and the second electrode current collector plate 7 (Figs. 1-6).
See para. [0018] where Nakai teaches “As shown in FIG. 5 , a foil or plate 18 (foil or plate 18) having a predetermined thickness and made of the same material as the foil-shaped current collector (aluminum on the positive electrode side and copper on the negative electrode side) was placed on each end face of the electrode group 6, and a current collecting disk 7.”
As seen in Fig. 1 below, the uncoated extending portions of the electrodes extend vertically outward from the core of the electrode assembly of Nakai and are not bent or folded, thus taught by Nakai to be in a non-compacted state.
PNG
media_image6.png
717
518
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
269
471
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
259
467
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
279
410
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
520
727
media_image10.png
Greyscale
As to the first electrode current collector plate electrically connected to the can, the first electrode current collector plate comprising plurality of substrate current collectors that protrude in a direction away from the bottom and the second electrode current collector plate, electrically connected to the cap assembly, comprises a plurality of substrate current collectors that protrude in a direction toward a bottom surface of the can, each substrate current collector of the plurality of substrate current collectors comprising a flat lower welding surface, such a design is held to be obvious over the secondary teachings of Kim as reasoned below.
Note, the specification teaches at para. [0023] that
Spatially relative terms, such as “beneath,” “below,” “lower,” “above,” “upper,” and the like, may be used herein for ease of description to describe one element or feature's relationship to another element(s) or feature(s) as illustrated in the figures. It will be understood that the spatially relative terms are intended to encompass different orientations of the device in use or operation in addition to the orientation depicted in the figures. For example, if the element or feature in the figures is turned over, elements described as “below” or “beneath” other elements or features would then be oriented “on” or “above” the other elements or features. Thus, the exemplary term “below” can encompass both an orientation of above and below.
Kim is drawn to the same field of endeavor, cylindrical cell battery designs and electrical component configurations wherein, it was well known in the art to design current collector plates whereby the first electrode current collector plate (lower) comprises a plurality of substrate current collectors that protrude upward towards the electrode assembly and thus in a direction away from the can. Kim also teaches that the same current collector design can be provided for the second electrode current collector (upper) where the collector plate further includes each substrate current collector 42 comprising a flat lower welding surface (Figs. 3a, 3b and 4). The design was shown to have provided effective welding of the components while preventing fracture of the separator of the electrode during welding, thereby preventing a short circuit.
As shown below, Kim, similar to Nakai above, provides for a first electrode current collector and auxiliary plate and a second electrode current collector an auxiliary plate to be provided between the can and the electrode assembly and the cap and the electrode assembly, respectively. It would have been of routine skill in the art to modify the current collectors and auxiliary plates of Nakai to other conventionally known designs in the art including that of Kim. For example, as discussed above, Kim recognized that providing for a first electrode current collector and auxiliary plate and a second electrode current collector an auxiliary plate t between the can and the electrode assembly and the cap and the electrode assembly, respectively was shown to improve welding of the components while preventing fracture of the separator of the electrode during welding, thereby preventing a short circuit.
PNG
media_image2.png
830
914
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
382
298
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
361
261
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the current collector plates of Nakai to have the design of Kim whereby the first (lower) current collector plate plurality of substrate current collectors protrudes away from the can to and whereby the second (upper) current collector plate plurality of substrate current collectors comprise a flat lower welding surface since the comprehensive design would have predictably provided effective welding of the components while preventing fracture of the separator of the electrode during welding, thereby preventing a short circuit.
As seen in Fig. 1 above, the uncoated extending portions of the electrodes of Nakia extend vertically outward from the core of the electrode assembly of Nakai and are not bent or folded, thus taught by Nakai to be in a non-compacted state.
Even though the vertical portions of Kim are slightly bent when attached, it would have been of routine and predictable skill in the art for the uncoated portions extending in the vertical direction to be slightly bent (Kim) or straight (Nakai) as suitable equivalent designs for effectively coupling the electrodes of the electrode assembly to corresponding current collector plates. There is no apparent criticality to the non-compacted design of Kim and it would have been reasonably apparent to retain the non-compacted design of Nakai when modified by Kim to provide a suitable coupling of the current collector plate as needed.
As to claim 2, as shown in annotated modified Fig. 5 of Nakai below, each electrode current collector 7 has the same circular shape and as the collector plate 7 and auxiliary plate 18 feature of claim 5 is provided on each end of the electrode assembly 6, the current collector plates 7 on opposite ends of the assembly 6 would be disposed to be symmetrical to each other along the center axis of the assembly 6.
PNG
media_image11.png
945
720
media_image11.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, the first auxiliary plate 18 and the second auxiliary plate 18 of Nakai have the same circular shape and size as adjacent first and second current collector plates 7 (see annotated copy and arrangement of Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image12.png
945
751
media_image12.png
Greyscale
As to claim 4, the first auxiliary plate 18 is formed of the same material as each adjacent current collector 7 (see para. [0018]) as Nakai teaches “As shown in FIG. 5 , a foil or plate 18 (foil or plate 18) having a predetermined thickness and made of the same material as the foil-shaped current collector (aluminum on the positive electrode side and copper on the negative electrode side) was placed on each end face of the electrode group 6, and a current collecting disk 7.”
As to claim 5, the first and second auxiliary plates 18 of Nakai are a metal foil or metal thin film (see para. [0018] for example).
As to claim 6, Nakai teaches that the first auxiliary plate 18 on the negative side is formed of copper and the second auxiliary plate 18 on the positive side is formed of aluminum (see para. [0018], for example).
As to claim 8, Nakai teaches each electrode collector plate 7 is welded to corresponding first electrode uncoated portion 3 of the first electrode plate 4 and second electrode uncoated portion 1 of the second electrode plate 2 (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0009], [0010], [0012] for example).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0260489) in view of Ryu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0186477) as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Nakai et al. (JP 2009-123440A).
Kim does not teach of the specific plate thickness of the first auxiliary plate having a thickness of 8+1 mm with the second auxiliary plate having a thickness of 12+1 mm.
Nakai is drawn to the same field of endeavor directed to cylindrical battery designs and corresponding electrical and mechanical coupling of elements therein. Nakai further teaches of remarkably similar thicknesses in at least certain examples. See para. [0029] wherein Nakai teaches that auxiliary plate 18 on the positive electrode side (applied to the second auxiliary plate of the claims) has a thickness of 8mm and auxiliary plate 18 on the negative electrode side (applied to the first auxiliary plate of the claims) has a thickness of 8mm. Thus the first auxiliary plate thickness 8mm taught by Nakai falls in the range of claim 7, while the second auxiliary plate thickness is held to be a minor difference (8mm in Nakai is only 3-5mm difference from the thickness of claim 7). Similarly, see para. [0030] wherein Nakai teaches that auxiliary plate 18 on the positive electrode side (applied to the second auxiliary plate of the claims) has a thickness of 10mm and auxiliary plate 18 on the negative electrode side (applied to the first auxiliary plate of the claims) has a thickness of 10mm. Thus the second auxiliary plate thickness of 10mm taught by Nakai falls in the range of claim 7, while the first auxiliary plate thickness of 10mm is held to be a minor difference (10mm in Nakai is only 1-3mm difference from the thickness of the first auxiliary plate of claim 7).
In both examples 1 and 2 of Nakai the thickness of one plate falls expressly in the range of one plate thickness of claim 7 while the other plate thickness is only nominally different from the range of the other plate thickness of claim 7. In general, Nakai teaches and recognized that auxiliary plate thicknesses were on the same order thickness as that of the instant invention with sufficient specificity. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Both Kim and Nakai are drawn to the same general cylindrical cell designs, whereby battery cells of similar designs were conventionally recognized in the art to have similar dimensions, designs as to standardizations associated with conventional cells (e.g., 18650 a highly conventional standard size for cylindrical cells). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected component shapes and thicknesses in relation to the cell design to correspond to conventional cell standard sizes for commercial use.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of Kim to be about 8-10 mm as taught by Nakai since it would have provided substantially similar and equivalent thicknesses on the same order as Nakai’s examples for standard cylindrical cell size and types with a reasonable expectation that minor differences in thicknesses would have achieved the same battery design. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 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 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai et al. (JP 2009-123440A) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0260489) as applied to claim 5 above.
Nakai does not teach of the specific plate thickness of the first auxiliary plate having a thickness of 8+1 mm with the second auxiliary plate having a thickness of 12+1 mm.
Nakai does teach of remarkably similar thicknesses in at least certain examples. See para. [0029] wherein Nakai teaches that auxiliary plate 18 on the positive electrode side (applied to the second auxiliary plate of the claims) has a thickness of 8mm and auxiliary plate 18 on the negative electrode side (applied to the first auxiliary plate of the claims) has a thickness of 8mm. Thus the first auxiliary plate thickness 8mm taught by Nakai falls in the range of claim 7, while the second auxiliary plate thickness is held to be a minor difference (8mm in Nakai is only 3-5mm difference from the thickness of claim 7). Similarly, see para. [0030] wherein Nakai teaches that auxiliary plate 18 on the positive electrode side (applied to the second auxiliary plate of the claims) has a thickness of 10mm and auxiliary plate 18 on the negative electrode side (applied to the first auxiliary plate of the claims) has a thickness of 10mm. Thus the second auxiliary plate thickness of 10mm taught by Nakai falls in the range of claim 7, while the first auxiliary plate thickness of 10mm is held to be a minor difference (10mm in Nakai is only 1-3mm difference from the thickness of the first auxiliary plate of claim 7).
In both examples 1 and 2 of Nakai the thickness of one plate falls expressly in the range of one plate thickness of claim 7 while the other plate thickness is only nominally different from the range of the other plate thickness of claim 7. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness to be about 8-10 mm as taught by Nakai since it would have provided substantially similar and equivalent thicknesses on the same order as Nakai’s examples with a reasonable expectation that minor differences in thicknesses would have achieved the same battery design. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 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 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7 of the remarks, filed September 8, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 and 8 under Kim have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the additional teachings of Ryu as applied to Kim above.
In general, the concept of designing the uncoated portions of each electrode extending from a wound electrode assembly to be vertical and uncompacted is not a novel contribution to the art. As shown above Ryu is explicit on a teaching for keeping the uncoated vertical portions straight (not bent or compacted) for mechanical properties and improved performance. Further, while not relied upon in the rejection Nakai also teaches of the uncoated vertical portions of the electrodes to be straight as well (not bent or compacted). In general, the record shows that uncoated electrode portions extending vertically from the electrode assembly and coupled to respective current collectors in a non-compacted state, was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, such a modification to Kim would have been held to be of routine skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art for at least those reasons specified in the rejections to Kim in view of Ryu as applied to at least claim 1 above.
Applicant further argues that Nakai does not remedy the deficiencies (relating to the uncoated portions extending in the vertical direction not being compacted) of Kim . This argument is not persuasive as Nakai is not applied to remedy the relating to the uncoated portions extending in the vertical direction being compacted in Kim. This feature is being relied upon by Ryu as discussed above.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the additional 103 rejections to Nakai as the primary reference, Applicant fails to provide any clear argument to Nakai as the primary reference and to the 103 rejections to Nakai.
Even though the vertical portions of Kim are slightly bent when attached, it would have been of routine and predictable skill in the art for the uncoated portions extending in the vertical direction to be slightly bent (Kim) or straight (Nakai) as suitable equivalent designs for effectively coupling the electrodes of the electrode assembly to corresponding current collector plates. There is no apparent unexpected result or unobvious criticality to the non-compacted design of claim 1 and it would have been reasonably apparent to retain the non-compacted design of Nakai when modified by Kim to provide a suitable and well-known coupling of the uncoated vertical portions to respective current collector plates as needed.
Therefore, the prior art rejections to Nakai stand.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2006/0068276 and 2022/0344749 recognized that it was conventionally recognized in the art for uncoated electrode ends to be coupled to a collector plate without being compacted at all (vertically straight).
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 GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights