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
The amendments filed 06/09/2026 have been entered but do not overcome the rejection as previously set forth in non-final office action mailed 03/25/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 15,16, 18, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20210408534-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kim’ in view of (US-20090246625-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Lu’ in further view of ‘Carbon Nanotubes for lithium-ion batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Landi’
Regarding Claim 15,
Kim teaches an anode material, further comprising an aggregate, the aggregate comprises an active material, a carbon material, and a conductive enhancer (Kim, “Provided are a negative electrode for a lithium secondary negative electrode battery including: a current collector; a first negative electrode active material layer disposed on the current collector and including a silicon-based active material, a first graphite-based active material, and a linear conductive material”, see Abstract)
Kim does not teach wherein the conductive enhancer has a tensile strength of 500 MPa.
Landi teaches teach wherein the conductive enhancer has a tensile strength of 500 MPa (Landi, “The tensile strength of typical SWCNT papers are 80–100 MPa, although the synthesis and processing steps can dramatically affect this property. The Young's modulus for SWCNT papers is in the range of 5–10 GPa, which indicates that a large force can be applied to these materials prior to plastic deformation. Visual evidence of this property is illustrated in Fig. 7c where strips of SWCNT paper are bent around a curved surface and twisted without any unintended or irreversible deformation”, see 3.3 Free-Standing electrodes) (It would be a matter of optimization of a result effective variable to raise the tensile strength from 100 to 500MPa, see MPEP 21244.05 (II)(A)).
Landi teaches that this allows for the conductive enhancers to experience a large amount of force and to not be deformed (Landi, “The tensile strength of typical SWCNT papers are 80–100 MPa, although the synthesis and processing steps can dramatically affect this property. The Young's modulus for SWCNT papers is in the range of 5–10 GPa, which indicates that a large force can be applied to these materials prior to plastic deformation. Visual evidence of this property is illustrated in Fig. 7c where strips of SWCNT paper are bent around a curved surface and twisted without any unintended or irreversible deformation”, see 3.3 Free-Standing electrodes).
Kim and Landi are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery materials for lithium-ion batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the CNT or conductive enhancer as taught in Kim to have been prepared in a manner to have a high strength in order to decrease deformation of the overall material.
Kim does not teach a dispersibility N in the anode material of >1; wherein the dispersibility N is obtained by the following test method: dividing a SEM section of an anode material particle into several regions with area of AxB, wherein A and B are both ≤1 micron, counting the distribution of the conductive enhancer within all of the regions of single the anode material particle, setting number of regions having the conductive enhancer with a minimum spacing to each other of <10 nm as Na, setting number of regions having the conductive enhancer with a minimum spacing to each other of 10 nm as Nb, and defining dispersibility C of the conductive enhancer in single the anode material particle as C = Nb/Na, wherein N is the arithmetic average of C values of any 5 of the anode material particles.
Lu teaches that the ideal dispersion of the spacing of carbon nanotubes is greater than 10 nm (Lu, “While not wishing to be bound by any theory, it is believed that aligned or patterned graphene nano-ribbons 134 (due to their well-defined spacing between ribbons) are even more accessible by electrolytes, particularly organic electrolytes, such as ionic liquids. The substantially perpendicularly aligned graphene nano-ribbons 134. In a preferred embodiment, the graphene nano-ribbon spacing 124 ranges from about 10 nm to about 250 nm.”, see [0243])(The examiner notes that Lu does not specific whether the measurement is from the geometric center. However, Lu states the diameter of the carbon nanotubes are 3nm to 50nm, which, if accounted for would still overlap see [0033])
Lu teaches that this allows for the negative electrode materials to be more accessible to the electrolyte (Lu, “While not wishing to be bound by any theory, it is believed that aligned or patterned graphene nano-ribbons 134 (due to their well-defined spacing between ribbons) are even more accessible by electrolytes, particularly organic electrolytes, such as ionic liquids. The substantially perpendicularly aligned graphene nano-ribbons 134 are arranged with a spacing 124 between the graphene nano-ribbons 134 of from about 1 nm to about 1,000 nm. In a preferred embodiment, the graphene nano-ribbon spacing 124 ranges from about 10 nm to about 250 nm.”, see [0243]).
Modified Kim and Lu are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbon nanotube spacing in a given 1 by 1 micron area to be preferably greater than 10 microns, in order to allow the electrolyte to contact the CNT which would be the conductive enhancer. This would, in turn, make the Nb greater than Na, which would then create a N greater than 1.
Regarding Claim 16,
Modified Kim teaches the anode material of claim 15, wherein the aggregate further comprises a metal oxide (Kim, “A negative electrode active material in which the produced non-crystalline carbon-coated first graphite-based active material and silicon oxide (SiOx, 0<x<2, D50:5 μm)”, see [0063]).
Regarding Claim 18,
Modified Kim teaches the anode material of claim 15, comprising at least one of the following features (1) to (6): (1) the conductive enhancer comprises at least one of an alloy material and a conductive carbon (Kim, “The silicon-based active material may be a silicon-based material, for example, Si, SiOx(0<x<2), a Si-Q alloy”, see [0027])(Kim, “The linear conductive material may be carbon nanotubes CNT, for example, MWCNT, SWCNT, TWCNT, and the like”, see [0034]); (2) the conductive enhancer comprises at least one of an alloy material and a conductive carbon, the conductive carbon comprises at least one of carbon nanotube, carbon fiber, and graphite fiber(Kim, “The linear conductive material may be carbon nanotubes CNT, for example, MWCNT, SWCNT, TWCNT, and the like”, see [0034])(Kim, “The silicon-based active material may be a silicon-based material, for example, Si, SiOx(0<x<2), a Si-Q alloy (Q is an element selected from the group consisting of alkali metals, alkali earth metals, Group 13 elements, Group 14 elements, Group elements, Group 16 elements, transition metals, rare earth elements, and combinations thereof, except Si), a Si-Carbon composite, or a mixture of at least one thereof and SiO2.”, see [0027]); (3) a mass ratio of the active material, the carbon material, and the conductive enhancer is (20-70):(10-70):(3-20)(Kim “The silicon-based active material and the first graphite-based active material may be included at a weight ratio of 1:9 to 4:6, preferably at a ratio of 1.5:8.5 to 4:6, and more preferably at a weight ratio of 2:8 to 4:6. At a weight ratio of 1:9”, see [0032])(Kim, “The linear conductive material may be carbon nanotubes CNT, for example, MWCNT, SWCNT, TWCNT, and the like. The conductive material may be included at 0.1 to 1 wt %, preferably 0.1 to 0.7 wt % or 0.1 to 0.5 wt %, and more preferably 0.1 to 0.4 wt % or 0.1 to 0.3 wt % with respect to the total weight of the first negative electrode active material layer.”, see [0034])(The examiner notes that the range of CNT is only up to 1, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to raise it to 3 as a matter of optimization of a result effective variable see MPEP 21244.05 (II)(A)) ; (4) the conductive enhancer is in a form of sheet and/or strip shape (Kim “The linear conductive material may be carbon nanotubes (CNT) and may be included at 0.1 to 1 wt % with respect to a total weight of the first negative electrode active material layer.”, see [0013])(The examiner notes that tubes are strip shaped); (5) the conductive enhancer has an aspect ratio of 2 to 3000 (Lu, “the carbon nanotubes are preferably hollow and have a diameter of about 3 nm to about 50 nm. The preferred carbon nanotube length ranges from about 20 μm to about 1,000 μm.”, see [0033]); and (6) the conductive enhancer has a conductivity of >102 S/m (Lani, “ electrical conductivity of purified SWCNT papers is routinely 5 × 10^5 S m−1”, see 3.3 Free standing electrodes).
Regarding Claim 28,
Modified Kim teaches a lithium-ion battery, comprising an anode material according to claim 15 (Kim, “Another exemplary embodiment provides a lithium secondary battery including: the negative electrode; a positive electrode; a separator; and an electrolyte.”, see [0044]).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20210408534-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kim’ in view of (US-20090246625-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Lu’ in further view of ‘Carbon Nanotubes for lithium-ion batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Landi’ in view of (US-20220041454-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Luz’
Regarding Claim 17,
Modified Kim teaches the anode material of claim 15, further comprising at least one of the following features (1) to (5): (1) the conductive enhancer is distributed in the active material (Kim, “The linear conductive material may be carbon nanotubes (CNT) and may be included at 0.1 to 1 wt % with respect to a total weight of the first negative electrode active material layer”, see [0013]) and the carbon material is filled between the active material and the conductive enhancer (Kim, “By coating the surface of the first graphite-based active material with carbon, adhesive strength of an interface between the electrode current collector and the active material layer may be increased”, see [0031])(Kim, “A negative electrode active material in which the produced non-crystalline carbon-coated first graphite-based active material and silicon oxide (SiOx, 0<x<2, D50:5 μm) were mixed at a weight ratio of 66.5:33.5, a CNT conductive material, and a binder (weight ratio of CMC/SBR=1.2/1.5) were mixed at a weight ratio of 97.1:0.2:2.7 and water was added to produce a first negative electrode slurry.”, see [0063]); (2) there are pores between the carbon material and the conductive enhancer, and the pores are filled with the active material (Kim, “The silicon-based active material and the first graphite-based active material may be included at a weight ratio of 1:9 to 4:6, preferably at a ratio of 1.5:8.5 to 4:6, and more preferably at a weight ratio of 2:8 to 4:6. At a weight ratio of 1:9 or more”, see [0032])(The examiner notes the larger amount of carbon material would surround the smaller amounts of silicon with a smaller particle size creating pores) ; (3) the active material comprises at least one of Li, Na, K, Sn, Ge, Si, SiO, Fe, Mg, Ti, Zn, Al, P, and Cu (Kim, “A negative electrode active material in which the produced non-crystalline carbon-coated first graphite-based active material and silicon oxide (SiOx, 0<x<2, D50:5 μm)”, see [0063]); and (5) the carbon material comprises at least one of amorphous carbon, crystalline carbon, hard carbon, soft carbon, and mesocarbon microbead (Kim, “The graphite-based active material may have a particle size of 8 to 20 μm and may be amorphous, plate-like, flake-like, spherical, or fibrous, but the present invention is not limited thereto”, see [0028]).
Modified Kim does not teach (4) the active material has a median particle diameter of 1 nm to 500 nm.
Luz teaches the active material has a median particle diameter of 1 nm to 500 nm.
(Luz, “In terms of chemical composition, halloysite has a similar SiO2/Al2O3 ratio to kaolinite, dickite, pearlite, etc., but the mineral has a hollow nano-tubular structure, and the inner wall of the tube is an aluminum octahedral layer. The outer wall of the tube is a silicon tetrahedral layer. Halloysite is made of a single or a plurality of aluminosilicate sheets. The tube has an outer diameter of about 10-100 nm, an inner diameter of about 5-20 nm, and a length of about 0.5-50 μm.”, see [0078]);
Luz teaches that nano silicon of this shape can be used to improve battery capacity (Luz, “Advantageously, in embodiments, tunable formulations and tailored nanostructures that can boost the energy capacity of lithium-ion batteries over 50% with low energy fade (<20% energy) for more than 1,000 full charge-discharge cycles can be manufactured using the described methods”, see [0029]).
Kim and Luz are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery materials notably for silicon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught in Modified Kim to the nano tube as taught in Luz in order to improve the capacity.
Regarding Claim 19,
Modified Kim teaches the anode material of claim 16, further comprising at least one of the following features (1) to (4): (1) the metal oxide has a chemical formula of MxOy,0.2≤y≤3, wherein M comprises at least one of Sn, Ge, Si, Fe, Cu, Ti, Na, Mg, AI,Ca, and Zn (Kim, “A negative electrode active material in which the produced non-crystalline carbon-coated first graphite-based active material and silicon oxide (SiOx, 0<x<2, D50:5 μm)”, see [0063]); and (4) a mass ratio of the metal oxide and the active material is (1-20):100 (Kim “The silicon-based active material and the first graphite-based active material may be included at a weight ratio of 1:9 to 4:6, preferably at a ratio of 1.5:8.5 to 4:6, and more preferably at a weight ratio of 2:8 to 4:6. At a weight ratio of 1:9”, see [0032])(The examiner notes that 20:100 or 1:5 is within the range above).
Kim does not teach (2) the metal oxide is in a form of sheet and/or strip shape; (3) the metal oxide has an aspect ratio greater than 2;
Luz teaches (2) the metal oxide is in a form of sheet and/or strip shape; (3) the metal oxide has an aspect ratio greater than 2 (Luz, “In terms of chemical composition, halloysite has a similar SiO2/Al2O3 ratio to kaolinite, dickite, pearlite, etc., but the mineral has a hollow nano-tubular structure, and the inner wall of the tube is an aluminum octahedral layer. The outer wall of the tube is a silicon tetrahedral layer. Halloysite is made of a single or a plurality of aluminosilicate sheets. The tube has an outer diameter of about 10-100 nm, an inner diameter of about 5-20 nm, and a length of about 0.5-50 μm.”, see [0078]).
Luz teaches that nano silicon of this shape can be used to improve battery capacity (Luz, “Advantageously, in embodiments, tunable formulations and tailored nanostructures that can boost the energy capacity of lithium-ion batteries over 50% with low energy fade (<20% energy) for more than 1,000 full charge-discharge cycles can be manufactured using the described methods”, see [0029]).
Kim and Luz are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery materials notably for silicon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught in Modified Kim to the nano tube as taught in Luz in order to improve the capacity.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20210408534-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kim’ in view of (US-20090246625-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Lu’ in further view of ‘Carbon Nanotubes for lithium-ion batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Landi’ in view of (US-20070202410-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Takeuchi’ in further view of (US-20090186276-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Zhamu’
Regarding Claim 20,
Modified Kim teaches The anode material of claim 15, further comprising at least one of the following features (1) to (7): (1) the anode material further comprises a carbon layer coated on at least a portion of surface of the aggregate (Kim, “wherein the first graphite-based active material has a carbon coating layer on at least a part of a surface.”, see [0024]) ; (2) the anode material further comprises a carbon layer coated on at least a portion of surface of the aggregate, and a material of the carbon layer comprises amorphous carbon(Kim, “wherein the first graphite-based active material has a carbon coating layer on at least a part of a surface.”, see [0024]) (Kim, “The first graphite-based active material includes a carbon coating layer, specifically on at least a part of the surface of graphite particles. The carbon coating layer is formed from hard carbon, soft carbon, heavy oil, or pitch and may be a non-crystalline carbon coating layer, and as a non-limiting example”, see [0030]) ;(4) the anode material has a median particle diameter of 0.5 um to 30 um (Kim, “Artificial graphite having a bimodal particle diameter distribution (D50:20 μm)”, see [0064]);(5) the anode material has a specific surface area of 510 m2/g (Kim, “compared with a point-shaped conductive material such as carbon black or a plate-shaped conductive material such as artificial graphite conventionally used and may have a specific surface area twice or more, preferably 10 times or more, for example, a BET specific surface area of 400 m2/g or more, preferably 500 to 700 m2/g. ”, see [0034])
Modified Kim teaches a pressure-resistant hardness of greater than 50 MPa (Landi, “The tensile strength of typical SWCNT papers are 80–100 MPa, although the synthesis and processing steps can dramatically affect this property. The Young's modulus for SWCNT papers is in the range of 5–10 GPa, which indicates that a large force can be applied to these materials prior to plastic deformation. Visual evidence of this property is illustrated in Fig. 7c where strips of SWCNT paper are bent around a curved surface and twisted without any unintended or irreversible deformation”, see 3.3 Free-Standing electrodes)
Modified Kim does not teach the anode material has a porosity of ≤10%, and; and(7) density of the anode material satisfies the following relationship: (p2-p1)/p2 ≤5%, wherein p1 is test density of the anode material, p2 is theoretical density of the anode material, and p2 is a sum of mass percentage of each component in the anode material * theoretical density of each component.
Takeuchi teaches the anode material has a porosity of ≤10% (Takeuchi, “The present invention has been established on the basis of the finding that a high-density (e.g., porosity of 20% or less) electrode can be produced through addition of a specific carbon fiber in a specific amount,” see [0011]), and; and(7) density of the anode material satisfies the following relationship: (p2-p1)/p2 ≤5%, wherein p1 is test density of the anode material, p2 is theoretical density of the anode material, and p2 is a sum of mass percentage of each component in the anode material * theoretical density of each component (Takeuchi. “an existing electrode employing the mixture has an electrode density 3.1 g/cm3 or less. Through incorporation of carbon fiber to the electrode, drop in electrolyte permeability can be prevented even when the electrode density is 3.5 g/cm3.”, see [0054]) (The examiner notes that the equation above results in a 11% 3.5-3.1/3.5).
Takeuchi teaches that it is desirable to increase the density in order to prevent the negative effects of electrolyte breakdown (Takeuchi, “ In addition, retardation of permeation of electrolyte results in a longer time for battery production, thereby increasing production cost. When a highly viscous polymer electrolyte is used (e.g., in a lithium polymer battery), production time is detrimentally prolonged… In order to solve the aforementioned problems, an attempt has been made to reduce the amount of the carbon-based conductivity enhancer added to the positive electrode to as small a level as possible, to thereby increase the mass of active substance in the positive electrode and increase energy density”, see [0007]).
Modified Kim and Takeuchi are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porosity and density as taught in Kim to be denser in order to decrease the degradation due to the electrolyte. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the range of true density to below 5% as a matter of optimization of results effective variables (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Modified Kim does not teach (3) the anode material further comprises a carbon layer coated on at least a portion of surface of the aggregate, and the carbon layer has a thickness of 10 nm to 1500 nm
Zhamu teaches the anode material further comprises a carbon layer coated on at least a portion of surface of the aggregate, and the carbon layer has a thickness of 10 nm to 1500 nm(Zhamu, “active material capable of absorbing and desorbing lithium ions and the coating has a thickness less than 10 μm, preferably less than 1 μm and more preferably less than 500 nm.”, see Abstract).
Zhamu teaches that this thin layer improves the conductivity of the electrode (Zhamu, “readily overlap one another to form a myriad of electron transport paths for improving the electrical conductivity of the anode. Hence, the electrons generated by the anode active material coating during Li insertion can be readily collected.”, see [0045])
Modified Kim and Zhamu are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified thickness of the coating layer to be thin as taught in Zhamu in order to improve the conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/206 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 10, the applicant argues:
“For feature (a), Landi has single-wall carbon nanotube paper of tensile strength of 80-100 MPa, as the Action acknowledges, far lower than the claimed tensile strength of >500 MPa. Likewise, Lu fails to disclose graphene nano-ribbons having a tensile strength of 500 MPa. Hence, neither Landi nor Lu can be used in combination with other references to yield a conductive enhancer having a tensile strength of 500 MPa.”
However, this is not convincing. The MPEP states that, to overcome optimization through routine experimentation, the variable has to be critical in view of the prior art of and that it must not be able to be reached through routine procedure (see MPEP 2144 (II)(A)). Landi does not teach the exact range for the tensile strength, but teaches a CNT strength of up to 100 MPa (Landi, see 3.3). Landi teaches that the synthesis and process can significantly affect the tensile strength of the CNT. Landi also teaches that the tensile strength is an important factor considering both the strength and conductivity of the battery (Landi, see 3.3). Further, it is not an unexpected result that increasing the tensile strength would make a material stronger. Therefore, Landi’s importance of the tensile strength, the high tensile strength of 100 MPa, and routine experimentation of increasing the strength would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ranges through routine changes to synthesis to create a CNT with a tensile strength 500 MPa or greater, in order to improve the mechanical properties of the cell.
On pg. 10, the applicant argues:
“Lu has at least one of the anode and cathode materials having multiple graphene nano- ribbons and a spacing therebetween of from about 1 nm to about 1000 nm. However, the graphene nano-ribbons of Lu are used as an active material of the anode material, and its anode material does not include aggregates having active material, carbon material, and conductive enhancer as recited by claim 15 as amended… In addition, in Lu, the limitation on the spacing of the graphene nano-ribbons is to promote their alignment or patterning, allowing them to more easily be accessed/contacted by electrolytes (particularly organic electrolytes, such as ionic liquids), thereby substantially enhancing accessibility of the electrolyte ([0245] of Lu). In contrast, the dispersibility of the conductive enhancer in claim 15 as amended is limited to enhance uniform dispersion thereof, so as to effectively improve transport of charge carrier inside the aggregate.”
However, this is not convincing. The MPEP recognizes that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have close structural similarity and function (see MPEP 2144.09 (I)). Lu does teach graphene as an active material. However, Lu teaches the graphene nanotubes (which the examiner notes are CNT) have a high conductivity (Lu, see [0034]). Modified Kim teaches SWCNT and Lu teaches a similar carbon nanotube structure with a known conductive benefit. Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the carbon nanotubes with those as taught in Lu.
On pg. 11, the applicant states,
“Further, requiring particular tensile strength and dispersibility for the conductive enhancer in the anode material, the claimed anode material affords the following unexpected advantages: a uniform dispersion of the conductive enhancer enhancing transport of charge carrier inside the aggregate and enhancing conductivity of the aggregate. A conductive material having a tensile strength of >500 MPa is selected as the conductive enhancer, such that the conductive enhancer has excellent mechanical properties, while controlling the dispersibility N of the conductive enhancer to >1 to make the conductive enhancer uniformly distributed in the anode material. The conductive enhancer supports for the material to enhance its stability. The conductive enhancer can be filled with the active material between them, reducing stress change caused by expansion of the active material and strengthening structure strength of the aggregate. The claimed anode material exhibits low expansion rate and good cycling stability ([0011] and [0079] of the corresponding application). In contrast, Kim, Lu, Landi, Luz, Takeuchi, and Zhamu all fail to disclose or suggest the unexpected advantages.”
However, this is not convincing. In order to be unexpected, the results cannot be obvious in the view of the prior art (see MPEP 716.02(C)). The applicant claims that the conductive enhancer has excellent mechanical properties while the high dispersibility makes the enhancer uniformly distributed, and that the claimed anode exhibits low expansion and good cycling stability. However, these results are not unexpected. As established in Landi, high tensile strength would have good mechanical properties (Landi, see 3.3). As established in Lu, high dispersion would allow for things to be put between particles (Lu, see [0243]). Looking at table 1 of the instant application, Coulombic efficiency, which would be correlated with cycling stability, is higher in the comparative example with 55 MPa than Example 1 with 500 MPa. Therefore, the examiner does not find the results unexpected.
Conclusion
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 SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am 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, Nicholas A. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights