DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the February 9th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on February 9th, 2026:
Claims 11-20 are pending in the current application. Claims 11-12 are amended. Claims 19 and 20 are newly added.
Claims 11-12 are amended to specify that in a width direction of the positive electrode current collector foil, a distance from an edge of the positive electrode current collector foil exposed portion to a facing edge of the positive electrode active material layers is defined as 100%, and the inclined portion extends in a range of up to 10% of the distance in the width direction of the positive electrode current collector foil.
Claim 19 is newly added to be dependent on Claim 11 and describes that the positive electrode current collector foil is inclined at an inclination guiding portion of the first protection layer at a boundary between the inclined portion and the flat portion.
Claim 20 is newly added to be dependent on Claim 12 and describes that the positive electrode current collector foil is inclined at an inclination guiding portion of the first protection layer at a boundary between the inclined portion and the flat portion.
Support for the amendment is found in the originally filed disclosure including paragraphs [0025] and [0037] of the specification, and Figure 3B. No new matter has been added.
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Status of Claims
Claims 11-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 11-12, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2020181636 A) (Cited in the IDS filed on 12/28/2023) in view of Liang et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2019102426 A), and further in view of Lee et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20110107035 A) and Zhou et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 208507818 U). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2020181636 A) (Cited in the IDS filed on 12/28/2023) in view of Liang et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2019102426 A), Lee et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20110107035 A) and Zhou et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 208507818 U), as further evidenced by Katayama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200274150 A1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2020181636 A) (Cited in the IDS filed on 12/28/2023) in view of Liang et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2019102426 A), Lee et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20110107035 A) and Zhou et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 208507818 U), and further in view of Katayama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200274150 A1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 9th, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 11-18 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Hayashi et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2020181636 A) (“Hayashi et al.”) (Cited in the IDS filed on 12/28/2023)
Previously Cited Liang et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2019102426 A) (“Liang et al.”)
Previously Cited Katayama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200274150 A1) (“Katayama et al.”)
Previously Cited Zhou et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 208507818 U) (“Zhou et al.”)
Previously Cited Lee et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20110107035 A) (“Lee et al.”)
Yoneda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210175510 A1) (“Yoneda et al.”)
Stalder et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140162116 A1) (“Stalder et al.”)
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.
Figures presented in previous office actions may be excluded below.
Claims 11-12, 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2020181636 A) (Cited in the IDS filed on 12/28/2023) in view of Liang et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2019102426 A), Lee et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20110107035 A), and Zhou et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 208507818 U), and further in view of Yoneda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210175510 A1) and Katayama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200274150 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
589
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 2 (Hayashi et al.))][AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image2.png
263
487
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1 (Hayashi et al.))]Regarding Claims 11 and 12 in which are independent Claims, Hayashi et al. further teaches a secondary battery (as required by Claim 12) comprising an electrode body (20) including a positive electrode (50) and a negative electrode (60) (as required by Claims 11 and 12) (para. 14, Fig. 1). The positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector (para. 8) such as a sheet-shaped aluminum current collector analogous to a foil (para. 15, Fig. 1). A positive electrode active material layer (54) is disposed on both sides or surfaces of the positive electrode current collector foil (52) (para. 15, Fig. 1). A first insulating (protection) layer (56) is disposed adjacent to the positive electrode active material layers on one surface of the positive electrode current collector foil wherein an exposed portion (52a) of the positive electrode current collector foil is formed at one end (para. 15, Fig. 1).
The first protection layer is located between the exposed portion of the positive electrode current collector foil and the positive electrode active material layer (Fig. 1). A flat portion extends from the inclined portion toward the positive electrode current collector foil exposed portion (see annotated Fig. 2). The first protection layer (56) has an inclined portion (as indicated in Fig. 1) having a thickness of the first protection layer in which decreases from the positive electrode active material layer (54) toward the exposed portion of the positive electrode current collector foil (52) (para. 20, Fig. 2). Observing Figure 2, the angle of the inclined portion to the surface of the positive electrode current collector foil is constant or decreases toward the exposed portion of the positive electrode current collector foil (Fig. 2).
Hayashi et al. teaches the insulating (protection) layer (56) being formed on one or both sides of the current collector exposed portion (52a) in which the second protection layer is disposed between the positive electrode active material layer (52) and the positive electrode current collector exposed portion on a surface of the positive electrode current collector foil opposite to the surface where the first protection layer is located (para. 20, Fig. 2). Further, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 4 7 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the second protection layer to be a flat shape to ensure the protective layer is evenly distributed providing uniform adhesion and protection across the surface of the current collector. Further, Hayashi et al. teaches the formation of the insulating layer on one or both sides provides improved strength and adhesiveness to the positive electrode current collector; further, the electrode body is prevented from being short-circuited between the positive and negative electrodes (para. 23).
Hayashi et al. does not teach an average thickness of the inclined portion of the first protection layer being larger than an average thickness of a portion of the second protection layer corresponding to a position of the inclined portion.
Liang et al. teaches a current collector comprising an upper (first) protective layer with an average thickness larger than the lower (second) protective layer (para. 48-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the current collector of Hayashi et al. to include varied thickness of the upper and lower (first and second) protection layer in which the first protection layer has an average thickness greater than the thickness of the second protection layer as taught by Liang et al. When performing the described modification, it would be obvious to modify the inclined portion in which is a part of the first protection layer of Hayashi et al. to be larger than an average thickness of a portion of the second protection layer corresponding to a position of the inclined portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification as Liang et al. describes that reducing the thickness of the protective layer at a lower (second) surface allows for the weight energy density to be increased and provides improved battery safety (para. 51-52). Further, Liang et al. teaches the protective layer serving to increase the resistance of the positive electrode current collector and the short circuit resistance of the battery (para. 47).
Hayashi et al. does not teach a plurality of negative electrodes, a plurality of positive electrodes, wherein each of the plurality of positive electrodes and each of the plurality of negative electrodes are stacked alternately to each other.
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 5 (Lee et al.))]
PNG
media_image3.png
659
362
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee et al. teaches a plurality of negative electrodes (first electrode plate (21) or second electrode plate (22)), a plurality of positive electrodes (first electrode plate (21) or second electrode plate (22) (para. 25-27, Fig. 5)), wherein each of the plurality of positive electrodes and each of the plurality of negative electrodes are stacked alternately to each other (the first electrode plate and second electrode plate have opposite polarity and are stacked alternately, (para. 25-27, Fig. 5)). Lee et al. teaches an electrode current collector exposed portion (inactive material region current collectors 21b, 22b) (para. 1, Fig. 5). The current collectors 21b, 22b may be bent to an incline of 30 to 60 degrees (para. 21). As shown in annotated Figure 5 (see circled portions), the positive electrode current collector foil exposed portion on one side of the center along the stacking direction and the positive electrode current collector foil exposed portion on another side of the center opposite to the one side are inclined toward each other (Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode body of Hayashi et al. to include a plurality of negative electrodes and a plurality of positive electrodes, wherein each of the plurality of positive electrodes and each of the plurality of negative electrodes are stacked alternately to each other; and the positive electrode current collector foil exposed portion on one side of the center along the stacking direction and the positive electrode current collector foil exposed portion on another side of the center opposite to the one side are inclined toward each other as taught by Lee et al. When performing the described modification, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify each of the plurality of positive electrodes as modified by Lee et al. to include the positive electrode structure described by Hayashi et al. including the modifications as described above. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification by Lee et al. to reduce power loss and heat generation (para. 8, 46), while further increasing an area in contact with a conductive connection member (Lee et al., para. 29).
Hayashi et al. does not teach the positive electrode current collector foil exposed portion inclined toward the first protection layer.
Zhou et al. teaches a current collector 11 (comprising insulating layer 111 and conductive layer 112) in which is bent (inclined) toward a first protective layer 14 (Fig. 10, para. 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode current collector of Hayashi et al. to be inclined toward the first protection layer as taught by Zhou et al. When performing the described modification, the portion of the current collector in which is inclined as taught by Zhou et al. is an end portion of the current collector following the protection portion and extending from active material layers 12, corresponding to a position of the exposed portion of the current collector foil of Hayashi et al. Therefore, Hayashi et al. as modified by Zhou et al. teaches the positive electrode current collector foil exposed portion inclined toward the first protection layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification as Zhou et al. teaches that bending the electric guiding portion P comprising the exposed current collector provides improved space utilization and improves the energy density of the battery (Fig. 10, para. 18).
Further, when performing the described modification of Hayashi et al. as described by Liang et al., Lee et al., and Zhou et al., it would be an obvious engineering design to apply the protective layer to the positive electrode current collector foil in which the positive electrode current collector foil exposed portion is inclined toward the inclined portion with respect to a portion of the positive electrode current collector foil between the positive electrode active material layers. In support, the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA .1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Applying the protection layer and inclined portion to an upper or lower portion of the current collector as claimed involves a mere rearrangement of parts (protection layer). A motivation in doing so would be to control the bending of the current collector and allow the force applied to the protective layer during winding of the electrode assembly to bend the current collector toward the center of the electrode assembly by pressing against the inclined protection layer to obtain the configuration as modified by Lee et al.
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 2 (Hayashi et al.))]
PNG
media_image4.png
327
552
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Hayashi et al. specifies that dimensional relationships such as length, width, and thickness are design matters of those skilled in the art based on existing prior art (para. 11). Hayashi et al. teaches wherein a width direction of the positive electrode current collector foil, a distance from an edge of the positive electrode current collector foil exposed portion to a facing edge of the positive electrode active material layers that can be defined as 100% (para. 8, see annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
6
8
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Hayashi et al. does not teach that the inclined portion extends in a range of up to 10% of the distance in the width direction of the positive electrode current collector foil.
Yoneda et al. teaches an exposed portion of a current collector foil in which the active material layer is not applied ([0009]). The length of the exposed portion may be larger than the thickness of the electrode body (25 mm or less) ([0015]-[0017]). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the electrode body is 25 mm, the exposed portion would have a length large than 25 mm. "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) (see MPEP 2144.01).
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 6 (Katayama et al.))]
PNG
media_image6.png
239
622
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Katayama et al. teaches a protective layer (12b) comprising a region (d) extending from an edge of the electrode active material layer (12a) at a distance of 2 mm or less; an inclined portion of the protection layer is located within said region ([0024], Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode current collector foil of Hayashi et al. to include an exposed portion that has a length larger than a thickness of the electrode body (25 mm or less) as taught by Yoneda et al.; and to include an inclined portion extending in a range of less than 2 mm of the distance in the width direction of the positive electrode current collector foil as taught by Katayama et al. Therefore, when performing the described modification, an electrode body thickness of 25 mm would correspond to a length of the exposed portion of greater than 25 mm (Yoneda et al.) and an inclined portion of less than 2 mm (Katayama et al.), providing an extension distance of the inclined portion in a range well within the claimed range of up to 10% (For example a ratio within the limits of the prior art such as 1 mm (distance of the inclined portion from the edge of the active material layer)/26 mm (distance of the exposed portion) provides approx. 4%).
As Hayashi et al. states that the dimensional relationships are design matters of those skilled in the art based on the prior art as described above, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Yoneda et al. and Katayama et al. useful in determining suitable dimensions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification based on the teachings of Yoneda et al. to provide a suitable length of a current collector foil exposed portion functioning as a current collector tab to allow electrical connection with the electrode terminals of the battery case without causing excessive strain during bending (Yoneda et al., [0004]-[0006]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification based on the teachings of Katayama et al. to provide a protective layer that prevents active material layers from being short-circuited by a conductive foreign substance, thereby improving safety (Katayama et al., [0002]).
Regarding Claims 14 and 17, Claim 14 is dependent on Claim 11 and Claim 17 is dependent on Claim 12. Hayashi et al. is modified by Liang et al., Lee et al., Zhou et al., Yoneda et al., and Katayama et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 and Claim 12, respectively.
Hayashi et al. is silent to an angle of inclination of the positive electrode current collector foil exposed portion as required by Claims 14 and 17.
Lee et al. teaches inactive material region current collectors 21b, 22b analogous to an electrode current collector exposed portion (a portion in which the current collector is exposed) (para. 1, Fig. 5). The current collectors 21b, 22b may be bent to an incline of 30 to 60 degrees (para. 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode current collector foil exposed portion of Hayashi et al. to include an angle of inclination of 30 to 60 degrees as taught by Lee et al., within and overlapping the claiming range of 5 to 40 degrees. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to increase an area in contact with a conductive connection member (Lee et al., para. 29).
Regarding Claims 15 and 18, Claim 15 is dependent on Claim 11 and Claim 18 is dependent on Claim 12. Hayashi et al. is modified by Liang et al., Lee et al., Zhou et al., Yoneda et al., and Katayama et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 and Claim 12, respectively.
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 6 (Katayama et al.))]
PNG
media_image7.png
292
578
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Hayashi et al. is silent to a thickness of the inclined portion of the protection layer and does not teach a varying thickness of a first protection layer and a second protection layer as required by Claims 15 and 18.
Katayama et al. teaches an average first thickness (thickness of an inclined portion) of an upper (first) protective layer ranging from 5 to 50 micrometers (para. 25, Fig. 6).
Liang et al. teaches a current collector comprising an upper protective layer with a thickness larger than the lower protective layer (para. 48-59). Specifically, Liang et al. teaches the proportional relationship between thickness of the upper protective layer D3 and a lower protective layer D3’ in which satisfies ½ D3 < D3’ < 4/5 D3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode of Claim 6 of Hayashi et al. to include an average thickness of the inclined portion of the first protection layer from 5 to 50 micrometers as taught by Katayama et al., overlapping the claimed range of 15 to 50 micrometers; and to further include the upper (first) protective layer D3 larger than a lower (second) D3’ protective layer with a relationship of ½ D3 < D3’ < 4/5 D3. When performing the described modification and satisfying the expression of Liang et al., the average thickness of the lower protective layer can range from ½ D3 (in which D3 is 5 micrometers, lower limit of Katayama et al.) to 4/5 D3 (in which D3 is 50 micrometers, upper limit of Katayama et al.), teaching an average thickness of the portion of the second protection layer corresponding to the inclined portion of 2.5 to 40 micrometers, within and overlapping the claimed range of 1 to 20 micrometers (see MPEP § 2144.05, I).
As Hayashi et al. is silent to the thickness of the inclined portion of the protective layer, it would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to search existing prior art for an appropriate thickness to achieve the advantageous effects taught by Hayashi et al. such as preventing a short circuit and improving battery safety (Hayashi et al., para. 20). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification as Katayama et al. teaches the configuration allowing the suppression of cracking and detachment of an active material layer (para. 27); in addition, Liang et al. described reducing the thickness of the protective layer at a lower surface allows for the weight energy density to be increased (Liang et al., para. 51). Further, the protective layer serves to increase the resistance of the positive electrode current collector and the short circuit resistance of the battery (Liang et al., para. 47).
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2020181636 A) (Cited in the IDS filed on 12/28/2023) in view of Liang et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2019102426 A), Lee et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20110107035 A), Zhou et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 208507818 U), Yoneda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210175510 A1), and further in view of and evidence by Katayama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200274150 A1).
Regarding Claims 13 and 16, Claim 13 is dependent on Claim 11 and Claim 16 is dependent on Claim 12. Hayashi et al. is modified by Liang et al., Lee et al., Zhou et al., Yoneda et al., and Katayama et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 and Claim 12, respectively. As required by Claims 13 and 16, Hayashi et al. further teaches a cross section of the first protection layer along an inclination direction of the inclined portion includes a maximum thickness of the inclined portion in which is visibly at least two times or more larger than a minimum thickness of the inclined portion of the first protection layer (see annotated Fig. 2). As further evidence, Katayama et al. teaches an average first thickness (maximum thickness) of an inclined portion of the protective layer in which is 1.7 or more times larger than a minimum thickness of the inclined portion in an electrode protective layer (first protection later) to suppress detachment of the active material layer (para. 7-8).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2020181636 A) (Cited in the IDS filed on 12/28/2023) in view of Liang et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2019102426 A), Lee et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20110107035 A), Zhou et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 208507818 U), Yoneda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210175510 A1) (also evidenced by), and Katayama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200274150 A1), and further evidenced by Stalder et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140162116 A1).
Regarding Claims 19-20, Claim 19 is dependent on Claim 11 and Claim 20 is dependent on Claim 12. Hayashi et al. is modified by Liang et al., Lee et al., Zhou et al., Yoneda et al., and Katayama et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 and Claim 12, respectively. As applied to Claims 11 and 12, the positive electrode current collector of Hayashi is modified by Zhou et al. to include an inclination toward the first protection layer.
Hayashi et al. does not teach that the positive electrode current collector foil is inclined at an inclination guiding portion of the first protection layer at a boundary between the inclined portion and the flat portion.
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 10 (Zhou et al.))]
PNG
media_image8.png
358
484
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Zhou et al. further teaches the current collector (111, 112) is inclined at an analogous inclination guiding portion of the first protective layer (14) (see annotated Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode current collector of Hayashi et al. to be inclined at an inclination guiding portion of the first protection layer as taught by Zhou et al. The first protection layer has elasticity and prevents the current collector from breaking during bending (para. 53); bending is necessary to save space and provide improved energy density of the secondary battery (para. 5). Further, prior art recognizes a design need to solve a problem related to strain and stress of the current collector during bending or flexing processes. As evidence, Yoneda et al. teaches bending a suitable length of a current collector foil exposed portion functioning as a current collector tab to allow electrical connection with the electrode terminals of the battery case without causing excessive strain during bending ([0004]-[0006]). Stalder et al. recognizes elastic properties of current collectors that allow repeated bending or flexing without deteriorating the surface or structure of the respective current collector ([0028]).
As the first protection layer of Hayashi et al. is modified by Zhou et al. to include an inclination guiding portion, it would be obvious to try placing the inclination guiding portion at any distance there between the protection layer in which would include a boundary between the inclined portion and flat portion to minimize stress and strain on the current collector, while optimizing space utilization and energy density:
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 , E.).
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 CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729