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 Claims
Claims 1,3, 4, 6-10, 12, 14, 16-20, 22-24, 26, and 29 are pending.
Claims 2, 5, 11, 13, 15, 21, 25, 27, 28, and 30-34 were cancelled.
Claim 29 is withdrawn.
Claim 1 was amended.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on June 8th, 2026 has been fully considered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of March 9th, 2026
The 102 rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 14, and 16 over Hosseni (WO 2019/166999 A1) are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
The 102 rejections of claims 1, 3, and 7 over Vandenborre (US 2015/0200401 A1) are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
The 102 rejections of claims 1 and 17 over Martirosyan (US 2015/0200431 A1) are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s Amendment.
The 103 rejections of claims 8, 9, and 12 over Hosseni are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s Amendment.
The 103 rejections of claims 20, 24, and 26 over Martirosyan are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 14, 16-20, 22-24, and 26 are maintained.
All rejections of claims 2, 5, 11, 13, 15, 21, 25, 27, 28, and 30-34 are rendered moot because those claims were cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 8th, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final action on March 9th, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 14, 16-20, 22-24, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “but under otherwise identical conditions”. Although the Applicant’s specification includes examples of potential conditions in which a gas-generating reaction may occur, the claim language still does not definitively and distinctly outline conditions in which the claimed textured surface will generate bubbles that are smaller than the bubbles that the textured surface may generate. See the “Response to Arguments” section for further analysis.
Claim 1 contains the term “reduced relative to” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reduced relative to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the context of this claim, “Object A” is reduced relative to “Object B”. In order to clearly define the metes and bounds of how “Object A” is reduced relative to “Object B”, both objects must be themselves clearly defined.
In this claim, Object A comprises the limitations before the term “reduced relative to”, which is “the median size of bubbles produced during the reaction and/or the total surface area of the electroactive surface covered by bubbles produced during the reaction”. Object B comprises the limitations of “the median size of bubbles produced on an electrode lacking the surface texture but under otherwise identical conditions and/or the total surface area of the electroactive surface covered by bubbles produced on an electrode lacking the surface texture but under otherwise identical conditions”. Object B comprises the indefinite limitation of “but under otherwise identical conditions”. Therefore, Object B is indefinite. Since Object B is indefinite, the claimed concept of “Object A is reduced relative to Object B” is also indefinite. This rationale will be similarly applied in the 112(b) rejections of claims 8, 9, 18, 19, 22, and 23 below.
Claim 8 requires that “a median smallest cross-sectional dimension” be less than or equal to “the median bubble size produced during use in an otherwise identical system without the microscale protrusions”. In other words, Object A must be less than or equal to Object B. Object B contains the indefinite limitation of “in an otherwise identical system”. Therefore, the comparison is rendered indefinite and so is the limitation of “wherein the microscale protrusions have a median smallest cross-sectional dimension of less than or equal to the median bubble size produced during use in an otherwise identical system without the microscale protrusions”.
Claim 9 requires that “a median smallest cross-sectional dimension” be greater than or equal to “0.1 times the median bubble size produced during use in an otherwise identical system without the microscale protrusions” and also be less than or equal to “the median bubble size produced during use in an otherwise identical system without the microscale protrusions”. In other words, Object A must be greater than or equal to Object B1 as well as be less than or equal to Object B2. Both Object B1 and Object B2 include the indefinite limitation of “in an otherwise identical system without the microscale protrusions”. Therefore, the comparison between Objects A, B-1, and B2 is indefinite and so is the limitation of “wherein the microscale protrusions have a median smallest cross-sectional dimension of greater than or equal to 0.1 times the median bubble size produced during use in an otherwise identical system without the microscale protrusions and less than or equal to the median bubble size produced during use in an otherwise identical system without the microscale protrusions”.
Claim 18 requires that “a median spacing” be less than or equal to “the median bubble size produced during use in an otherwise identical system without the microscale indentations”. In other words, Object A must be less than or equal to Object B. Object B includes the indefinite limitation of “in an otherwise identical system without the microscale indentations”. Therefore, the comparison between Objects A and B is indefinite and so is the limitation of “wherein the microscale indentations have a median spacing of less than or equal to the median bubble size produced during use in an otherwise identical system without the microscale indentations”.
Claim 19 requires that “a median spacing” be greater than or equal to “0.1 times the median bubble size produced during use in an otherwise identical system without the microscale indentations” and be less than or equal to “the median bubble size produced during use in an otherwise identical system without the microscale indentations”. In other words, Object A must be greater than or equal to Object B1 and less than or equal to Object B-2. Objects B1 and B2 include the indefinite limitation of “in an otherwise identical system without the microscale indentations”. Therefore, the comparison between Objects A, B1, and B2 is indefinite and so is the limitation of “wherein the microscale indentations have a median spacing of greater than or equal to 0.1 times the median bubble size produced during use in an otherwise identical system without the microscale indentations and less than or equal to the media bubble size produced during use in an otherwise identical system without the microscale indentations”.
Claim 22 requires that “a median smallest cross-sectional dimension” be less than or equal to “the median bubble size produced during use in an otherwise identical system without the microscale indentations”. In other words, Object A must be less than or equal to Object B. Object B contains the indefinite limitation of “in an otherwise identical system without the microscale indentations.” Therefore, the comparison between Objects A and B is indefinite and so is the limitation of “wherein the microscale indentations have a median smallest cross-sectional dimension of less than or equal to the median bubble size produced during use in an otherwise identical system without the microscale indentations.
Claim 23 requires that “a median smallest cross-sectional dimension” must be greater than or equal to “0.1 times the median bubble size produced during use in an otherwise identical system without the microscale indentations” and be less than or equal to “the median bubble size produced during use in an otherwise identical system without the microscale indentations”. In other words, Object A must be greater than or equal to Object B1 and less than or equal to Object B-2. Objects B1 and B2 include the indefinite limitation of “in an otherwise identical system without the microscale indentations”. Therefore, the comparison between Objects A, B1, and B2 is indefinite and so is the limitation of “wherein the microscale indentations have a median smallest cross-sectional dimension of greater than or equal to 0.1 times the median bubble size produced during use in an otherwise identical system without the microscale indentations and less than or equal to the median bubble size produced during use in an otherwise identical system without the microscale indentations.”
Claims 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 14, 16-20, 22-24, and 26 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini (WO 2019166999 A1, but citations will be drawn to US 2020/0407857 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 12, Hosseini discloses an electrode comprised of a surface comprised of a surface texture characterized by micro-pyramidal structures [0414]. Although the limitation of “wherein the surface texture is configured such that, during a gas-generating reaction in a liquid medium adjacent to the electroactive surface, the median size of bubbles produced during the reaction and/or the total surface area of the electroactive surface covered by bubbles produced during the reaction are reduced relative to the median size of bubbles produced on an electrode lacking the surface texture but under otherwise identical conditions” is indefinite, it is also a functional limitation. While intended use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). See also MPEP § 2114.
Since Hosseini’s micro-pyramidal structures render the claimed microscale protrusions obvious, their structures are capable of reducing the overall bubble size and/or the total surface area of the electroactive surface that is covered by bubbles depending on how the electroactive surface is used.
Hosseini discloses that the apices of the surface structures (i.e., the tops of the micro-pyramidal structures mentioned above) may comprise between 0.1% to 50% of the surface area of the surface upon which the structures are located [0103]. This overlaps with the claimed solid fraction range of zero to 0.5 (as required by claims 1 and 12). 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).
Regarding claims 4, 6, 7, and 10, the smallest cross-sectional dimension is the width of the base of the pyramidal structures, 50 µm [0414]. This is within the range of 1 µm to 1000 µm as recited in claim 10. The distance from the tip of one pyramidal structure to the next pyramidal structure is 70 µm. This distance is the summation of the distances between the tip and one edge of a first structure, the distance between the first structure and a second structure, and the distance between the edge of the second structure and the tip of the second structure. The distance between the tip of a structure and the edge of the same structure is half the length of the length/width of the base, which is 25 µm. Two of those distances is equal to 50 µm. Therefore, the distance/spacing between the first structure and the second structure is 20 µm (70 µm – 50 µm = 20 µm, as required by claim 7), which is greater than 0.05 times the smallest cross-sectional dimension (50 µm * 0.05 = 2.5 µm; as required by claim 4) and less than 10 times the smallest cross-sectional dimension (50 µm * 10 = 500 µm; as required by claim 6).
Regarding claim 14, the height of the pyramidal structures is 35 µm [0414], which is greater than 0.1 times the smallest cross-section (50 µm * 0.1 = 5 µm) and less than 10 times the smallest cross-section (50 * 10 = 500 µm).
Regarding claim 16, the height of the pyramidal structures is 35 µm [0414], which is within the claimed range of 1 µm to 1000 µm.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, since Hosseini’s disclosure renders the other dependent claims obvious (4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 16) that refer to microscale protrusions and are dependent upon the same claim, it reasonably follows that they would be able to achieve the functions described in claims 8 and 9 despite their indefinite limitations.
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandenborre (US 2015/0200401 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 12, Vandenborre discloses an electrode comprised of protrusions that may have a height/depth of 600 µm [0057]. Although the limitation of “wherein the surface texture is configured such that, during a gas-generating reaction in a liquid medium adjacent to the electroactive surface, the median size of bubbles produced during the reaction and/or the total surface area of the electroactive surface covered by bubbles produced during the reaction are reduced relative to the median size of bubbles produced on an electrode lacking the surface texture but under otherwise identical conditions” is indefinite, it is also a functional limitation. While intended use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). See also MPEP § 2114.
Since Vandenborre’s micro-pyramidal structures render the claimed microscale protrusions obvious, their structures are capable of reducing the overall bubble size and/or the total surface area of the electroactive surface that is covered by bubbles depending on how the electroactive surface is used.
Vandenborre discloses that their protrusions preferably cover 20% to 80% of the surface of the active zone, referring to the base of the protrusions [0058]. Vandenborre continues to disclose that the area of the top side of the protrusions are at least 25%, 50%, or 67% of the area of the base of the protrusions [0068]. Assuming that the top area of the protrusions is 50% the area of their respective bases, that means that the area of the top of the protrusions may cover 10% to 40% of the surface of the active zone. This corresponds with a range of solid fraction between 0.1 and 0.4, which is within the claimed range of greater than zero and less than or equal to 0.5 (as required by claims 1 and 12). 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).
Regarding claim 7, Vandenborre discloses that the channels between the protrusions may either be 2600 µm or 3000 µm wide.
Claims 1, 17, 20, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martirosyan (US 2015/0200431 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 26, Martirosyan discloses an electrode with hollow spaces [0041] that comprise a surface texture. The hollow spaces may have a width of 100 µm [0149], rendering them microscale indentations (as required by claims 1, 17, and 26). See Fig. 2 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
350
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, as mentioned above, claim 1 includes a functional limitation. While intended use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). See also MPEP § 2114. Therefore, it reasonably follows that Martirosyan’s microscale indentations are capable of reducing the size of bubbles produced during a reaction and/or the total surface area of the electroactive surface that is covered by bubbles depending on how the electroactive surface is used.
Martirosyan fails to explicitly teach the range of the claimed solid fraction. They do, however, teach that the surface area of the hollow spaces should be between 0.04 mm2 to 50 mm2 [0043] or even more preferably 0.25 mm2 to 16 mm2. Martirosyan also teaches that the width of the hollow spaces should be between 100 µm and 5000 µm [0149]. They continue to teach that if the hollow spaces are too wide (i.e., a width greater than 5000 µm), then the ratio of “active surface of active layer / active layer area” would be lower [0150]. Martirosyan’s ratio is analogous to the claimed solid fraction because both ratios account for the surface area of the microscale indentations relative to the rest of surface area of the surface on which the indentations are located. Martirosyan’s disclosure of preferred surface areas of their microscale indentations as well as a motivation for optimizing the size (and indirectly the surface area) of the microscale indentations to ensure an appropriately sized surface area ratio renders the claimed range of solid fraction routine optimization (as required by claims 1 and 26). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Martirosyan’s surface area benchmarks as a starting point to optimize the surface area covered by the microscale indentations to achieve the claimed solid fraction ratio.
Regarding claim 20, Martirosyan discloses that the walls of the hollow spaces may have a thickness between 50 µm to 500 µm. Since the walls are the only separation between the hollow spaces, it follows that their thickness is equivalent to the claimed spacing. 50 µm to 500 µm overlaps with the claimed range of 1 µm to 1000 µm. 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).
Regarding claim 24, Martirosyan discloses that the widths (the smallest cross-sectional diameter) of the hollow spaces may be between 100 µm and 5000 µm. This range overlaps with the claimed range of 1 µm to 1000 µm. 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(b) rejections, Applicant argues that the term “on an electrode lacking the surface texture but under otherwise identical conditions” is clear and definite. They continue to say that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the scope of the claims and that it would be clear to determine infringement based on whether or not the electrode without the claimed texture surface creates bubbles that are larger than those created by an electrode with the claimed surface texture during a chemical reaction. The Examiner agrees that would be clear to determine this difference and that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the overall concept. There are still issues, however, with respect to patentability for several reasons.
The Examiner partially concedes the point that the Applicant does not outline the scope of these identical conditions. The Applicant include several sets of conditions in the specification such as the composition of the electrolyte (see page 22), examples of the electroactive surface (see page 23), and gases produced during such a reaction (see page 24). Furthermore, the Applicant cannot be expected to list every potential condition aspect of a gas-generating reaction, such as the chemical composition of the electrode or the volume of the location in which the reaction takes. However, some of the conditions that are not listed would unequivocally affect the size of the bubbles generated by these reactions. A notable example would be the operating temperature of the battery. The Ideal Gas Law (valid at the temperatures and pressures present during battery operation) states that the volume of a gas is proportional to the temperature of said gas. In other words, at a relatively constant pressure, the volume of a gas (and thereby the size of the bubbles) changes at increased temperatures. The size of bubbles generated at one operating temperature may be the same on a non-textured electrode and a textured electrode but different at another operating temperature.
Therefore, it is at least likely that different sets of operating conditions outside of the scope of the Applicant’s claims as written (and arguably outside of the scope of the Applicant’s disclosure) affect the size of bubbles. This would result in situations where the claimed surface may create bubbles larger than a non-textured surface under certain operating conditions and the claimed surface may create bubbles smaller than a non-textured surface under different operating conditions. The patentability of a product is based on the product’s structure itself. The claims, as currently written with the disputed limitation of “but under otherwise identical conditions”, seek patentability for a structure that may be simultaneously patentable and unpatentable depending on critical conditions that are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Therefore, said limitation of “but under otherwise identical conditions” is indefinite and any claims that include that limitation are indefinite. Claims that contain the same idea (namely claims 8, 9, 18, 19, 22, and 23) using similar language such as “in an otherwise identical system with the microscale protrusions” or “in an otherwise identical system without the microscale indentations” are also indefinite for the reasons provided above.
The Applicant continues to contest the Examiner’s position that all claims with the term “reduced relative to” where one of the limitations/elements being compared involve the terms “under otherwise identical conditions”, “in an otherwise identical system”, or any limitation that contains that concept are indefinite. The Applicant states that since those sorts of limitations are definite, the comparison is definite. The Examiner’s position, based on the reasoning above, is that those limitations are indefinite. Therefore, the Examiner’s position is that the claims are still rendered indefinite.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the Applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s position regarding “intended use”. They allege that the feature of producing smaller bubbles is not an intended use feature; it is a feature that more clearly defines the claimed structure. They then argue that the claimed surface is configured such that it has a specified effect. Since the prior art does not disclose or make obvious that their structures are configured to have this effect, the claimed structures would be novel over said prior art. The Examiner disagrees with this position.
As mentioned above, the patentability of a product is based on the structure itself. The Examiner accepts and agrees with the validity of a functional limitation further defining a claimed structure. However, as discussed above, the capacity of a structure to create a desired bubble size depends on certain conditions. Conducting a gas-generating reaction specified conditions using a textured surface to create a certain bubble size is an example of the intended use of the textured surface. Therefore, since the prior art teaches the claimed structures, one of ordinary skill in the art could determine the appropriate conditions (such as temperature, an easily controlled parameter) which result in the desired bubble sizes.
In the previous Office Action, the Examiner stated that “[a]ny condition that may be part of the environment of a functioning electrode may be interpreted as a ‘condition’ for the sake of prior art rejections.” For the sake of argument, let a specific temperature be the “identical condition” of claim 1. If the temperature is sufficiently high, the volume and size of the bubbles may reach a large asymptotic value such that the median size of the bubbles produced by any electroactive surface would be the same. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument that such a structure is not disclosed or suggested by Vandenborre, Hosseini, and Martirosyan is unpersuasive.
The Applicant provides an analogy of a car and its engine to demonstrate the merits of claim 1. They explain that the present claim is analogous to a claim that recites a car comprising an engine capable of accelerating from 0 mph to 100 mph. Prior art that teaches a car comprising an engine would not be enough, because not every engine is capable of such an acceleration. Therefore, it would be improper to assert that the prior art renders the claims obvious simply because the prior art contains the same element.
While the Examiner appreciates the clarity of such an analogy, the Examiner believes that it fails to capture certain nuances of the present claim. The present claim discusses non-specified conditions present during this reaction in a liquid adjacent to the electroactive surface. There are no routine or obvious conditions/modifications that can be applied to the engine or its environment that may significantly change the car’s ability to achieve said acceleration. On the other hand, there are several conditions that can be modified or specified to adjust the size of bubbles generated by a reaction in a liquid medium adjacent to an electroactive surface. Temperature, as mentioned above, is a good example of such a condition. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kashiwagi (US 2009/0311601 A1) discloses a textured negative electrode with protrusions having a height between 1 µm – 20 µm [0042].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights