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
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claim 1 amended to include the limitations of previously presented claim 12
Claims 11-12 cancelled
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant presents two main arguments for why the rejections should be withdrawn. Examiner does not find either persuasive, and will respond to the arguments in order.
First, applicant argues that the amendment made to claim 1 to specify the ratio of the first and second additive overcomes the previously applied prior art. Applicant argues that Jang fails to teach the inclusion of a cesium salt and that it wouldn’t be obvious to modify with Son to include said cesium salt. Examiner does not find this persuasive, as even in applicant arguments they state that the cesium salt of Son is used as a “high temperature performance and power enhancing additive.” Thus, there is motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to include a cesium salt additive in the composition of Jang. Applicant then describes the specific technical challenge the instant invention is made to address. While Jang and Son are not explicitly used to address the same problem, by modifying Jang with Son to include a cesium salt additive in the taught ratio (which overlaps the claimed ratio), the same composition would be made, regardless of the problem being addressed, and the problem to be solved is not part of the patentable weight of the claims. Additionally, the claimed intended use of “increase of DC resistance in rechargeable lithium batteries after storage at high temperature” is related to the additive of Son, which is used for “high-temperature performance.” In response to applicant's argument that the claimed invention has a different intended use, examiner points to MPEP 07-37-09—"a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention 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.” Lastly, Applicant does not present any arguments as to the weight ratio, despite amending the claim to include this limitation. Therefore, the previously applied claim 12 rejection is brought into claim 1, as examiner maintains that, by substituting the cesium salt of Son into the composition of Jang, the claimed ratio between first and second additives would be overlapped by the teachings of Jang. Thus, based on this argument, the rejections remain in place and unchanged, other than incorporating the rejection of claim 12 into that of amended claim 1.
Secondly, applicant argues regarding the criticality/unexpected results of their composition in regards to the weight ratio. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive for two reasons. First, comparative examples 6 and 7, which are cited to have worse properties than examples 1-3, still fall within the claimed range of ratio between first: second, both being a 1:15 ratio. Thus, the argument that being outside of the claimed range provides worse results is not supported by the data. Secondly, the differences in retention rate and recovery rate between the examples and comparative examples is minute, with a less than 1% difference in retention rate between example 1 and comparative example 6, and a 1.4% difference in recovery rate. These results are not considered to be significant enough to overcome the previously applied prior art.
In view of the above arguments, and given that no further arguments are presented regarding the dependent claims, the previous rejections remain in place and unchanged other than altering the rejection of claim 1 to include the subject matter of previously presented claim 12. There is currently not considered to be any allowable subject matter present in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 13-16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20240097189 A1) in view of Son (US 20240154169 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches the following elements:
An electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive, wherein the additive includes a composition including a first compound and a second compound, (“In accordance with one aspect of the present invention, provided is an electrolyte solution including an organic solvent, a lithium salt, a first additive, and a second additive,” Jang [0010]. In this case, the first additive and second additive comprise the first additive including a first and second compound of the instant application.)
and the second compound is represented by Chemical Formula 1:
[Chemical Formula 1]
PNG
media_image1.png
178
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, A1 is O or C(R1)(R2) A2 is O or C(R3)(R4), B1 is C(R5)(R6) or a carbonyl group, B2 is C(R7)(R8) or a carbonyl group, B3 is C(R9)(R10) or a carbonyl group, B4 is C(R11)(R12) or a carbonyl group, R1 to R12 are each independently hydrogen, a halogen, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C2044 alkenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 alkynyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C20 cycloalkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C20 cycloalkenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C20 cycloalkynyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C30 aryl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C30 heterocyclic group, n1, n2, m1, and m2 are each independently an integer of 0 or 1, n1+m1-1, and n2+ m2 - 1. (Jang formula 7 teaches a compound used as an additive in an electrolyte solution which meets all of the limitations of claim 1 and additionally those of dependent claims 7 and 9.)
PNG
media_image2.png
185
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the composition includes the first compound and the second compound in a weight ratio of 1:1 to 1:20. (“The first and second additives may be included in a weight ratio of 1:0.1 to 1.7 [first additive : second additive].” Jang [0024])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1:0.1 to 1:1.7 for the ratio of first and second additives in an electrolyte solution overlaps the claimed range of 1:1 to 1:20 for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Jang is silent on the following elements of claim 1:
the first compound is a cesium salt compound
However, Son teaches all of the elements of claim 1 that are not found in Jang:
the first compound is a cesium salt compound (“In the present invention, at least one high-temperature performance and power enhancing additive selected from the group consisting of… cesium hexafluorophosphate” Son [0031])
PNG
media_image3.png
112
201
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Son is considered to be analogous to Jang because they are both within the same field of electrolytic solutions for secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolytic solution of Jang to include the cesium hexafluorophosphate additive of Son in order to improve high-temperature performance and enhance power (“As in Examples 29 to 50, when the lifespan prolonging additive, the high-temperature performance enhancing additive, the power enhancing additive, or the high-temperature performance and power enhancing additive was further added, battery performance was further enhanced.” Son [0078]). This would be desirable in an electrolytic solution as it would improve battery characteristics and temperature adaptability without having any negative impacts.
The cesium salt of Son used in the electrolytic solution of Jang would meet all of the additional limitations of claims 2-7, 9-15, 17 without requiring any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 2, Jang is silent on the following elements:
The electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein an anion of the cesium salt compound is an imide-based anion or a phosphate-based anion.
However, Son teaches all of the elements of claim 2 that are not found in Jang:
The electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein an anion of the cesium salt compound is an imide-based anion or a phosphate-based anion. (“In the present invention, at least one high-temperature performance and power enhancing additive selected from the group consisting of… cesium hexafluorophosphate” Son [0031])
PNG
media_image3.png
112
201
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Jang is silent on the following elements:
The electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the cesium salt compound is represented by Chemical Formula 2 or 3: US 202217745783
[Chemical Formula 2] [Chemical Formula 3]
PNG
media_image4.png
126
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formulas 2 and 3,
R13 to R20 are each independently a fluoro group or a C1 to C4 fluoroalkylgroup substituted with one or more fluoro group.
However, Son teaches all of the elements of claim 3 that are not found in Jang:
The electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the cesium salt compound is represented by Chemical Formula 2 or 3: US 202217745783
[Chemical Formula 2] [Chemical Formula 3]
PNG
media_image4.png
126
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formulas 2 and 3,
R13 to R20 are each independently a fluoro group or a C1 to C4 fluoroalkylgroup substituted with one or more fluoro group. . (“In the present invention, at least one high-temperature performance and power enhancing additive selected from the group consisting of… cesium hexafluorophosphate” Son [0031])
PNG
media_image3.png
112
201
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Jang is silent on the following elements:
The electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 3, wherein Chemical Formula 2 is represented by Chemical Formula 2-1 or 2-2:
[Chemical Formula 2-1] [Chemical Formula 2-2]
PNG
media_image5.png
235
644
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Son teaches all of the elements of claim 4 that are not found in Jang:
The electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 3, wherein Chemical Formula 2 is represented by Chemical Formula 2-1 or 2-2:
[Chemical Formula 2-1] [Chemical Formula 2-2]
PNG
media_image5.png
235
644
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(In this case, the limitation is moot because claim 3 only requires one of the two possible cesium salts. In this case, the cesium hexafluoride meets the limitations of chemical formula 3, and therefore further limiting the structure of chemical formula 2 would have no impact on meeting the limitation, as there would still be a salt present that meets the required structure.)
Regarding claim 5, Jang is silent on the following elements:
The electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 3, wherein Chemical Formula 3 is represented by Chemical Formula 3-1:
[Chemical Formula 3-1]
PNG
media_image6.png
109
175
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, Son teaches all of the elements of claim 5 that are not found in Jang:
The electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 3, wherein Chemical Formula 3 is represented by Chemical Formula 3-1:
[Chemical Formula 3-1]
PNG
media_image6.png
109
175
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(“In the present invention, at least one high-temperature performance and power enhancing additive selected from the group consisting of… cesium hexafluorophosphate” Son [0031])
PNG
media_image3.png
112
201
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Jang is silent on the following elements:
The electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the first compound is included in an amount of 0.05 to 3.0 parts by weight 46 based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery.
However, Son teaches all of the elements of claim 6 that are not found in Jang:
The electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the first compound is included in an amount of 0.05 to 3.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery. (Son tables 7-18 show that the high-temperature performance additive was included in a weight ratio of between 0.1-2% by weight, which anticipates the claimed range. “These examples were performed in the same manner as in Example 2, with the exception that a lifespan prolonging additive, a high-temperature performance enhancing additive, a power enhancing additive, or a high-temperature performance and power enhancing additive was further added in the amounts shown in Tables 7 to 14 below.” Son [0043])
Regarding claim 7, Jang teaches the following elements:
The electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the second compound is represented by any one of Chemical Formulas 1-1 to 1-4:
[Chemical Formula 1-1] [Chemical Formula 1-2]
PNG
media_image7.png
124
341
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[Chemical Formula 1-3] [Chemical Formula 1-4]
PNG
media_image8.png
115
334
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formulas 1-1 to 1-4, B1 to B4 and R1 to R4 are the same as defined in claim 1. (Jang formula 7 teaches a compound used as an additive in an electrolyte solution which meets all of the limitations of claim 7. Specifically, Jang formula 7 meets the requirements of chemical formula 1-1 of the instant application.)
PNG
media_image2.png
185
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Jang teaches the following elements:
The electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the second compound is any one selected from compounds listed in Group 1:
[Group 1]
PNG
media_image9.png
319
845
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(Jang formula 7 teaches a compound used as an additive in an electrolyte solution which meets all of the limitations of claim 7. Specifically, Jang formula 7 meets the requirements of the first structure shown in group 1 of the instant application.)
PNG
media_image2.png
185
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Jang teaches the following elements:
The electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the second compound is included in an amount of 0.1 to 10.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery. (“Based on 100% by weight in total of the electrolyte solution, the electrolyte solution of the present invention may include the second additive in an amount of 0.1 to 10% by weight, preferably 0.1 to 5% by weight. Within this range, decomposition of the electrolyte solution may be suppressed, thereby improving the lifespan characteristics and cycle characteristics of the battery.” Jang [0073])
Regarding claim 13, modified Jang teaches the following elements. Specifically, Jang teaches a combination of first and second additives that can be within the claimed range of weight based on the entire electrolyte:
The electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the composition is included in an amount of 0.2 to 10.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery. (“Based on 100% by weight in total of the electrolyte solution, the electrolyte solution of the present invention may include the first additive in an amount of 20% by weight or less, preferably 0.01 to 15% by weight. Within this range, decomposition of the electrolyte solution may be suppressed, thereby improving the lifespan characteristics and cycle characteristics of the battery.” Jang [0057] and “The first and second additives may be included in a weight ratio of 1:0.1 to 1.7 [first additive : second additive].” Jang [0024]. In this case, if the first additive was included anywhere between 0.01 and 3.7% based on the total weight of the electrolyte solution, then the combination of first and second additives would not be above 10% of the total solution, even if there were a 1:1.7 ratio of first to second additives.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of 0.01-15% by weight of first additive and 1:0.1 to 1:1.7 for the ratio of first and second additives in an electrolyte solution, which would correlate to a range of 0.0101-40.5% of total weight of additive in the electrolyte encompasses the claimed range of 0.2-10% for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Jang teaches the following elements.
A rechargeable lithium battery, comprising a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material; a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material; and the electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of any one of claim 1 to claim 13. (“The lithium secondary battery according to the present invention may include a cathode; an anode; a separator disposed between the cathode and the anode; and an electrolyte solution. The electrolyte solution may include the above-described electrolyte solution, and the cathode and the anode may include a cathode active material and an anode active material, respectively.” Jang [0101])
Regarding claim 15, Jang teaches the following elements.
The rechargeable lithium battery of claim 14, wherein the positive electrode active material is represented by Chemical Formula 6:
[Chemical Formula 6] LixM1yM2zM31-y-zO2-aXa wherein, in Chemical Formula 6, 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 1.8, 0 ≤ a ≤ 0.05, 0 < y ≤ 1, 0 ≤ z ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y+z ≤ 1, M1, M2, and M3 each independently include one or more element selected from a metal of Ni, Co, Mn, AI, B, Ba, Ca, Ce, Cr, Fe, Mo, Nb, Si, Sr, Mg, Ti, V, W, Zr, or La, and a combination thereof, and X include one or more element selected from F, S, P, and CI. (“As a specific example, the cathode active material may be a lithium composite metal oxide represented by a chemical formula of Li[NixCo1-x-yMny]O2 (0<x<0.5, 0<y<0.5),” Jang [0104]. In this case, if x were 0.3 and y were 0.3, a compound with the composition Li[Ni0.33Co0.34Mn0.33]O2 could be used, which meets all of the limitations of claim 15.)
Regarding claim 16, Jang is silent on the following elements.
The rechargeable lithium battery of claim 15, wherein in Chemical Formula 6, 0.8 ≤y ≤ 1, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.2, and M1 is Ni.
However, Son teaches all of the elements of claim 16 that are not found in Jang:
The rechargeable lithium battery of claim 15, wherein in Chemical Formula 6, 0.8 ≤y ≤ 1, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.2, and M1 is Ni. (“A cathode slurry was prepared in a manner in which LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 a cathode active material,” Son [0038])
Son and Jang are considered analogous for the reasons provided above in claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode active material of Jang to use that of Son instead because it would be a simple substitution of one known cathode material for another, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 17, Jang teaches the following elements.
The rechargeable lithium battery of claim 14, wherein the negative electrode active material is graphite or includes a Si composite and graphite together. (“For example, the anode active material may include one or more selected from the group consisting of tin, tin compounds, silicon, silicon compounds, lithium titanate, crystalline carbon, amorphous carbon, synthetic graphite, and natural graphite.” Jang [0109])
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20240097189 A1) in view of Son (US 20240154169 A1) and further in view of Fan (US 20230027087 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Jang and Son are silent on the following elements:
The electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the second compound is represented by any one of Chemical Formulas 1A to 1D:
[Chemical Formula 1A] [Chemical Formula 1B]
PNG
media_image10.png
243
685
media_image10.png
Greyscale
[Chemical Formula 1C] [Chemical Formula 1D]
PNG
media_image11.png
231
612
media_image11.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formulas 1A to 1D,R5 to R12 are the same as defined in claim 1.
However, Fan teaches all of the elements of claim 8 that are not found in Jang or Son. Specifically, Fan teaches a compound analogous to chemical formula 1C used in an electrolyte additive:
The electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the second compound is represented by any one of Chemical Formulas 1A to 1D:
[Chemical Formula 1A] [Chemical Formula 1B]
PNG
media_image10.png
243
685
media_image10.png
Greyscale
[Chemical Formula 1C] [Chemical Formula 1D]
PNG
media_image11.png
231
612
media_image11.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formulas 1A to 1D,R5 to R12 are the same as defined in claim 1. (“In the above-mentioned high-temperature lithium secondary battery electrolyte, the bicyclic sulfate compound is at least one selected from Formula 2a to Formula 2h:” Fan [0027]. Fan formula 2b is identical to chemical formula 1C except that the two sulfate compounds are rotated around the central axis. However, the connectivity between atoms is the same and given that the bond is not locked in place, it is the same compound, 1,3,6,8-Tetraoxa-2,7-dithiaspiro[4.4]nonane, 2,2,7,7-tetraoxide.)
PNG
media_image12.png
67
262
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Fan is considered to be analogous to Jang because they are both within the same field of electrolyte solutions for secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bicyclic sulfide additive of Jang with that of Fan because it would be a simple substitution of one known electrolyte additive for another to achieve expected results, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.). In addition to teaching the compound that meets the limitations of claim 8, Fan also teaches the usage of the same compound that is used in Jang, referred to as formula 2c in Fan, as an alternative for formula 2b. Therefore, they are considered to be used for the same purpose even within the work of Fan, making the substitution even more obvious.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20240097189 A1) in view of Son (US 20240154169 A1) and further in view of Lee (US 20180069235 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Jang and Son are silent on the following elements:
The rechargeable lithium battery of claim 17, wherein the Si composite include a core including Si-based particles and an amorphous carbon coating layer.
However, Lee teaches all of the elements of claim 18 that are not found in Jang or Son:
The rechargeable lithium battery of claim 17, wherein the Si composite include a core including Si-based particles and an amorphous carbon coating layer. (“there is provided an anode active material for a secondary battery, comprising: a crystalline carbon particle; silicon-based nanoparticles, which are surface-coated with a first amorphous carbon layer and embedded into the crystalline carbon particle while being dispersed on a surface of the crystalline carbon particle; and a second amorphous carbon layer enclosing a surface of the crystalline carbon particle and the silicon-based nanoparticles.” Lee [0010])
Lee is considered to be analogous to Jang because it is within the same field of lithium secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anode active material of Jang to substitute it with that of Lee, as this would only be a simple substitution of one known anode active material for another, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
By substituting the anode active material of Jang with that of Lee, the additional limitations of claims 19 and 20 would be met without requiring any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 19, Jang and Son are silent on the following elements:
The rechargeable lithium battery of claim 18, wherein the Si-based particle includes a Si-C composite, SiOx (0 <x 2), a Si 51 alloy or a mixture thereof.
However, Lee teaches all of the elements of claim 19 that are not found in Jang or Son.
The rechargeable lithium battery of claim 18, wherein the Si-based particle includes a Si-C composite, SiOx (0 <x 2), a Si 51 alloy or a mixture thereof. (“Non-limited examples of the silicon material that may be used include Si, SiOx (0<x<2), Si—C composites,” Lee [0046])
Regarding claim 20, Jang and Son are silent on the following elements:
The rechargeable lithium battery of claim 19, wherein the Si-C composite includes a core including Si particles and crystalline carbon and an amorphous carbon coating layer on the surface of the core,
and an average particle diameter of the Si particles is 50 nm to 200 nm.
However, Lee teaches all of the elements of claim 20 that are not found in Jang or Son.
The rechargeable lithium battery of claim 19, wherein the Si-C composite includes a core including Si particles and crystalline carbon and an amorphous carbon coating layer on the surface of the core, (“there is provided an anode active material for a secondary battery, comprising: a crystalline carbon particle; silicon-based nanoparticles, which are surface-coated with a first amorphous carbon layer and embedded into the crystalline carbon particle while being dispersed on a surface of the crystalline carbon particle; and a second amorphous carbon layer enclosing a surface of the crystalline carbon particle and the silicon-based nanoparticles.” Lee [0010])
and an average particle diameter of the Si particles is 50 nm to 200 nm. (“In addition, the average particle diameter of the silicon-based nanoparticles 2 may be 10-500 nm, preferably 30-300 nm, and more preferably 50-150 nm.” Lee [0051])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of 10-500nm for the average diameter of silicon particles encompasses the claimed range of 50-200nm for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The following references were discovered in updates search and considered to be relevant, but were not used in rejection:
Xu (US 20200212486 A1)—teaches a cesium salt additive used in combination with two other additives in an electrolyte for a wide-temperature range lithium battery
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 BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights