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
1. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 01/21/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-17 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
The amendments and remarks filed are sufficient to cure the previous claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 10/21/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
3. Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki et al. (Pub. No. US 20130108922 A1) in view of Tang et al. (Pub. No. CN 114908386 A).
Regarding claim 1, Shinozaki teaches an electrolytic copper foil (electrolytic copper foil, see [0050]) having an electrolyte surface (M surface, see [0054] where the M surface is used to designate a side in relation to the untreated copper foil, from here it will also designate an outer surface of the electrolytic copper foil) and a drum surface (S surface, see [0054] where the S surface is used to designate a side in relation to the untreated copper foil, from here it will also designate an outer surface of the electrolytic copper foil), the electrolytic copper foil (electrolytic copper foil, see [0050]) comprising: at least one surface area (roughened surface on M surface side, see [0054] where the M surface is treated with roughening particles to create a roughened surface) adjacent to the electrolyte surface or the drum surface (M surface, see [0054] where the roughened surface is formed on the M surface side of untreated copper foil and is therefore adjacent) and comprising first grains (roughening particles, see [0054]); a center area (untreated copper foil, see [0054]) adjacent to the surface area (roughened surface on M surface side, see [0054] where the roughened particles are formed on the untreated copper foil therefore being adjacent) and comprising second grains (crystal grain, see [0050]) having an average cross-sectional grain size larger than an average cross-sectional grain size of the first grains (roughening particles, see [0054] where particle size is 0.1 to 3 microns, further see [0050] the crystal grain size is 5 microns or less, see Table 2 where the crystal grain size is 4 or 5 microns and in Table 3 all particles in working examples exhibit particle sizes less than 4 microns); but fails to teach wherein the electrolytic copper foil having different average cross-sectional grain sizes in the surface area and the center area is formed through a single electroplating process, and wherein the average cross-sectional grain size of the first grains satisfies the following Equation 1:
G.sub.1<G.sub.T×0.5, [Equation 1] in the above equation, G.sub.1 is the average cross-sectional grain size of the first grains, and G.sub.T is an average cross-sectional grain size of an entire area of the electrolytic copper foil comprising the surface area and the center area.
However, Tang teaches wherein the surface area (fine-grained layers, see [34]) is an area corresponding to a depth of 1-4 µm (1-4 µm, see [34]) in a thickness direction (thickness of layer on either side, see [34]) of the electrolytic copper foil (copper foil, see [17] where the copper foil has nano-twin layer with fine grain layer on both sides) from the electrolyte surface (top surface of nano-twin layer, see [17] for stacking) or the drum surface (bottom surface of nano-twin layer, see [17] for stacking of layers) of the electrolytic copper foil (copper foil, see [17]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shinozaki to such that the roughening particles are on the surface of the untreated copper foil in a thickness of 1-4 µm as taught by Tang to achieve high tensile strength, and high elongation (see [9] of Tang). Further Shinozaki teaches that modifications can be made (see [0086] of Shinozaki).
Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches wherein the average cross-sectional grain size of the first grains (roughening particles, see [0054]) satisfies the following Equation 1:
G.sub.1<G.sub.T×0.5, [Equation 1] (see math calculation below) in the above equation, G.sub.1 is the average cross-sectional grain size of the first grains (roughening particles, see [0054]), and G.sub.T is an average cross-sectional grain size of an entire area of the electrolytic copper foil (electrolytic copper foil, see [0050]) comprising the surface area (roughened surface on M surface side, see [0054]) and the center area (untreated copper foil, see [0054]).
Math Calculations: See Table 3, Work Ex. 3, Roughening particles size on S surface: 0.8, Roughening particles size on M surface side: 0.7, Thickness of Roughening surface on either side: 1 to 4 µm, Thickness of center area: 10 µm (see Table 2 A1), Grain size of center particles: 4 µm (Table 3, A1). Based on thickness of roughening particles deposited on each side being between 1 to 4 µm, the percentage of the thickness of each layer is calculated, then multiplied by average grain size of each layer, then added together to get approximate total Grain size, example below:
Thickness of 1 µm of roughening particles on each side, 1+1+10 = 12. (1/12)*100 = 8.3%, (10/12)*100 = 83.3%, 0.8*0.083 = 0.0664, 0.7*0.083 = 0.0581, 4*0.833 = 3.332, 3.332+0.0664+0.0581 = 3.457 = G.sub.T. For width of 1 to 4 µm for this example, G.sub.T = 3.457 to 2.556.
G.sub.1 < G.sub.T *0.5 = 0.7 < 1.728 or 0.7 < 1.278.
Shinozaki in view of Tang is silent in regards to wherein the electrolytic copper foil having different average cross-sectional grain sizes in the surface area and the center area is formed through a single electroplating process. However, it should be noted that in a product-by-process claim it is the patentability of the product and not of the recited process steps which must be established (see MPEP 2113.I). Further, it is the examiner’s position that Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches the product limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Shinozaki in view of Tang fails to teach wherein the surface area is in a range from 1 to 10% of a total thickness of the electrolytic copper foil from at least one surface of the electrolytic copper foil.
However, Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches wherein the surface area (roughened surface on M surface side, see [0054]) is in a range from 6.7% to 26.7% (see Table 2, thickness of untreated foils is 10 µm, thickness of roughening particles on either side is 1 to 4 µm (see modification above), maximum possible thicknesses are 1/15 = 6.3%, and 4/15 = 26.7%) of a total thickness (Thickness of roughening particles on each side and center area, see Table 2, thickness of untreated foil is 10 µm, thickness of roughening particles on each side are 1 to 4 µm, so total thickness is 12 to 18 µm) of the electrolytic copper foil (electrolytic copper foil, see [0050]) from at least one surface (M surface, see [0054]) of the electrolytic copper foil (electrolytic copper foil, see [0050]) which overlaps the claimed range in at least the range of 6.7% to 10%.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shinozaki in view of Tang such that the thickness of the roughening particles on the M surface is between within the claimed range a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I), Further Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches that modifications can be made (see [0086] of Shinozaki).
Regarding claim 3, Shinozaki in view of Tang fails to teach wherein the surface area is an area corresponding to a depth up to 2 μm in a thickness direction of the electrolytic copper foil from the electrolyte surface or the drum surface of the electrolytic copper foil.
However, Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches wherein the surface area (roughened surface on M surface side, see [0054]) is an area corresponding to a depth of 1 to 4 μm (1-4 µm, see [34] of Tang, see modification above) in a thickness direction (direction of layers stacking, see [0054] where untreated copper foil has roughening particles on each side) of the electrolytic copper foil (untreated copper foil, see [0054]) from the electrolyte surface or the drum surface (M surface, see [0054] where the M surface side is the outer side of foil, and particles are deposited on this side of untreated copper foil, so depth is 1 to 4 µm from the M surface) of the electrolytic copper foil (electrolytic copper foil, see [0050]).
Regarding claim 4, Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches wherein a thickness of the electrolytic copper foil (electrolytic copper foil, see [0050]) is in a range from 3 to 20 μm (10 µm, see Table 2).
Regarding claim 5, Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches wherein the average cross-sectional grain size of the first grains (roughening particles, see [0054] where particle size is 0.1 to 3 microns) is 50% or less of the average cross-sectional grain size of the second grains (crystal grain, see [0050] where the crystal grain size is 5 microns or less, see Table 2 where the crystal grain size is 4 or 5 microns so roughening particles are 2% to 75% of the size of crystal grains, which overlaps the range, see Table 3, Work Ex. 3, 0.7 is 17.5% of crystal grain size which lies inside the range).
Regarding claim 6, Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches the average cross-sectional grain size of the first grains (roughening particles, see [0054]) is in a range from 0.5 to 2 μm (see [0054], 0.1 to 3 microns, which overlaps the range, see Table 3, Work Ex. 2 the grain size is 0.7 µm which lies inside the claimed range), the average cross-sectional grain size of the second grains (crystal grain, see [0050]) is in a range from 3 to 9 μm (see [0050], 5 µm or less, see Table 2, A1 a specific example of crystal grain size of 4 µm is within claimed range), and the average cross-sectional grain size of the entire area(G.sub.T) is in a range from 1.8 to 6.5 μm (see Table 3, Work Ex. 3, and calculations above in claim 1, G.sub.T = 3.457 to 2.556 µm in specific example).
Regarding claim 7, Shinozaki in view of Tang is silent to wherein a maximum cross-sectional width of the first grains is 70% or less of a maximum cross-sectional width of the second grains.
However, Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and teaches similar characteristics of surface roughness (Rz) (1.0 to 5 µm, see [0054]), tensile strength (300 N/mm.sup.2 (equivalent to 300 MPa, or 30.59 kgf/mm.sub.2) or more, see [0051], *see discussion of range below), and elongation (4.0% or more, see [0051], *see discussion of range below) in the ranges described in the presently published application (surface roughness, see [0065] of presently published application, tensile strength and elongation, see [0062] of presently published application).
*The examiner would like to note the ranges for elongation and tensile strength of Shinozaki are for the untreated copper foil, however, as seen in Table 2, and see [0050] the tensile strength is 250 N/mm.sup.2 or more after 150oC for 15 hours, and elongation increases, and during the process used by Shinozaki, the temperature of the plating solution is 30 to 60OC (see [0097] and [0103]) therefore the elongation would be expected to stay the same or increase, while the tensile strength is expected to stay the same or decrease slightly. However, since the range of tensile strength is 300 N/mm.sup.2 or more, it is the examiner’s position the tensile strength taught by Shinozaki treatment would overlap the range taught in the presently published application.
Therefore, if the maximum cross-sectional width of the first grains and second grains were measured in the same way, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the maximum cross-sectional width of the first grains and second grains of Shinozaki in view of Tang to be within the claimed range, or alternatively close to the claimed range that the difference is not a patentable distinction, as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated with the difference, noting that both materials are taught to have the same or similar advantageous properties as described above.
Regarding claim 8, Shinozaki in view of Tang is silent to wherein the maximum cross-sectional width of the first grains is in a range from 1 to 5 μm, and the maximum cross-sectional width of the second grains is in a range from 3 to 13 μm.
However, Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and teaches similar characteristics of surface roughness (Rz) (1.0 to 5 µm, see [0054]), tensile strength (300 N/mm.sup.2 (equivalent to 300 MPa, or 30.59 kgf/mm.sub.2) or more, see [0051]), and elongation (4.0% or more, see [0051]) in the ranges described in the presently published application (surface roughness, see [0065] of presently published application, tensile strength and elongation, see [0062] of presently published application).
*The examiner would like to note the ranges for elongation and tensile strength of Shinozaki are for the untreated copper foil, however, as seen in Table 2, and see [0050] the tensile strength is 250 N/mm.sup.2 or more after 150oC for 15 hours, and elongation increases, and during the process used by Shinozaki, the temperature of the plating solution is 30 to 60OC (see [0097] and [0103]) therefore the elongation would be expected to stay the same or increase, while the tensile strength is expected to stay the same or decrease slightly. However, since the range of tensile strength is 300 N/mm.sup.2 or more, it is the examiner’s position the tensile strength taught by Shinozaki treatment would overlap the range taught in the presently published application.
Therefore, if the maximum cross-sectional width of the first grains and second grains were measured in the same way, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the maximum cross-sectional width of the first grains and second grains of Shinozaki in view of Tang to be within the claimed range, or alternatively close to the claimed range that the difference is not a patentable distinction, as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated with the difference, noting that both materials are taught to have the same or similar advantageous properties as described above.
Regarding claim 9, Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches wherein an area ratio (ratio of roughened particles on M surface side cross sectional area to untreated copper foil cross sectional area, see [0054]) of the surface area (roughened surface on M surface side, see [0054]) and the center area (untreated copper foil, see [0054]) is in a range from 5:95 to 30:70 (9:91 to 29:71, both sections are the same width of the total foil width, therefore the ratio of thicknesses will be the same as ratio of areas as width cancels out, see Table 2, thickness of untreated copper foil is 10 µm, see [34] of Tang in modification above, thickness of surface are is 1 to 4 µm, therefore the ratio is 1:10 to 4:10 or adjusted 9:91 to 29:71).
Regarding claim 10, Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches wherein the surface area (roughened surface on M surface side, see [0054]) is adjacent to the electrolyte surface, the drum surface (M surface, see [0054] where the roughened surface is formed on the M surface and is therefore adjacent), or both surfaces.
Regarding claim 11, Shinozaki in view of Tang fails to teach having a tensile strength of 30 kgf/mm.sup.2 or more; and an elongation of 3.5% or more.
However, Shinozaki teaches wherein the center area (untreated copper foil, see [0054]) has a tensile strength of 30 kgf/mm.sup.2 or more (300 N/mm.sup.2, see [0050]); and an elongation of 3.5% or more (4.0% or more, see [0050]). Further, Shinozaki teaches wherein the tensile strength of the center area (untreated copper foil, see [0054]) is 250 N/mm.sup.2 or more after heat treatment at 150OC or for 15 hours (see [0050]) while the process temperature is 30-60OC (see [0098] and [0103]). Further as seen in Table 2, as temperature increases elongation increases. Therefore it is the examiner’s position the range of tensile strength and elongation overlap the claimed range.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shinozaki in view of Tang such that the tensile strength of the electrolytic copper foil is 30 kgf/mm.sup.2 or more as tensile strength is a result effective variable of temperature (see effect of temperature on tensile strength described above) and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches that modifications can be made (see [0086] of Shinozaki).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shinozaki in view of Tang such that the elongation of the electrolytic copper foil is 4.0% or more as elongation is a result effective variable of temperature (see effect of temperature on tensile strength described above) and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches that modifications can be made (see [0086] of Shinozaki).
Regarding claim 12, Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches wherein a surface roughness (Rz) of each of the electrolyte surface (M surface, see [0054]) and the drum surface (S surface, see [0054]) of the electrolytic copper foil (electrolytic copper foil, see [0050]) is in a range from 0.5 to 5.0 μm (1.0 to 5 µm, see [0054]), and a difference in surface roughness (Rz) between the electrolyte surface (M surface, see [0054] one the surfaces is the M surface) and the drum surface (S surface, see [0054] is the opposite surface to the M surface therefore is the same as an opposite surface) is 2.0 μm or less (3 µm or less, see [0035] which overlaps the claimed range and see Table 3, Work Ex. 3 shows a specific example of roughness difference of 0.99 which lies within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 14, Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches wherein the electrolytic copper foil (electrolytic copper foil, see [0050]) is formed through electrodepositing a plating layer (see [0059], the untreated copper foil is a plating layer on the cathode drum) by applying a current between an electrode plate (anode, see [0059]) and a rotating drum (cathode drum, see [0059] where a DC current is run between the two) spaced apart from each other in an electrolyte (electrolytic solution, see [0059] where the solution is between the anode and cathode drum), but is silent to wherein a current density applied during electrodepositing of the plating layer in the surface area is different from a current density applied during electrodepositing of the plating layer in the center area. However, it should be noted that in a product by process claim it is the patentability of the product and not of the recited process steps which much be established (see MPEP 2113.I). Further it is the examiner’s position that Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches the product limitations of claim 14 (see rejection above).
Regarding claim 15, Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches the electrolytic copper foil (electrolytic copper foil, see [0050]) of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above), applied as a current collector (collector, see [0074] the copper foil of the invention is coated with active material, see [0076] for coating to make a negative electrode) for a lithium secondary battery (lithium ion secondary battery, see [0079] where the lithium ion secondary battery has a negative electrode of the invention which uses the collector or copper foil described above).
Regarding claim 16, Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches an electrode (negative electrode, see Fig. 1, see [0075]) for a secondary battery (lithium ion secondary battery, see [0079] where the lithium ion secondary battery has a negative electrode of the invention which uses the collector or copper foil described above), comprising: the electrolytic copper foil (electrolytic copper foil, see [0054], see [0075]) of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and an active material layer (20, see Fig. 1, see [0075]) disposed on the electrolytic copper foil (electrolytic copper foil, see [0054], see [0075]).
Regarding claim 17, Shinozaki teaches a secondary battery (lithium ion secondary battery, see [0079] where the lithium ion secondary battery has a negative electrode of the invention which uses the collector or copper foil described above) comprising the electrode (negative electrode, see Fig. 1, see [0075]) of claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above).
4. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki et al. (Pub. No. US 20130108922 A1) in view of Tang et al. (Pub. No. CN 114908386 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (Pub. No. US 20180123135 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Shinozaki in view of Tang fails to teach further comprising an anti-corrosion layer formed on a surface of the electrolytic copper foil, wherein the anti-corrosion layer comprises at least one of chromium (Cr), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), a silane compound, and a nitrogen compound.
However, Kim teaches an anti-corrosion layer (2, Fig. 2, see [0033]) formed on a surface (top surface of 1, see Fig. 2, see [0033]) of the electrolytic copper foil (1, Fig. 2, see [0033]), wherein the anti-corrosion layer (2, Fig. 2, see [0033]) comprises at least one of chromium (Cr) (chrome (Cr), see [0036]), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), a silane compound, and a nitrogen compound.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shinozaki in view of Tang to add an anti-corrosion layer on the S surface and M surface as taught by Kim to prevent the copper foil from being wrinkled or overlapped (see [0019] of Kim). Further Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches that modifications can be made (see [0086] of Shinozaki).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the newly amended recitation of claim 1 of the electrolytic copper foil formed through a single electroplating process and therefore the surface area and center area are formed continuously without a distinct layer boundary resulting in an integral structure in which the grain size changes gradually. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as this limitation is a product by process limitation, and therefore as Shinozaki in view of Tang teaches the structure, the process is not required to be taught. Further, the applicant appears to be arguing structural differences of no distinct layer boundary resulting in an integral structure in which the grain size changes gradually which is a limitation not recited in the claims and further not clear where this specific structural difference is disclosed within the specification. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicant’s argument that the roughening particles taught by Shinozaki are not grains of the copper foil itself. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the electrolytic copper foil as taught by Shinozaki includes both the crystal grains of the untreated copper foil and the roughening particles and therefore are properly mapped. Further, the applicant proceeds to argue the particles are not mapped properly because a different process is used, however as stated above in a product by process claim limitation it is not the method that determines patentability.
The applicant’s argument that the electrolytic copper foil is formed in a single process no distinct layer boundary exists between the surface area and the center area and the structure is integral with a continuous change in grain size and is therefore different from the multistep process disclosed by Shinozaki. This argument is moot, as the applicant is appearing to argue structural limitations that are not disclosed in the claims, in a product by process claim limitation it is not the method that determines patentability. Further, the Examiner is not sure what the applicant means by no distinct boundary exists, as there are claim limitations pointing to separate distinct portions of the electrolytic copper foil, so if there is no distinct layer boundary it is unclear how separate areas with separate compositions and sizes can be claimed.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments that Tang fails to teach the structure and process of the present claims, and Tang’s grain sizes do not overlap. This argument is moot as the Examiner utilized Tang to teach a specific thickness of a fine-grained layer and did not utilize Tang to teach a process or grain sizes.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the roughening particles of Shinozaki and the fine-grained layer of Tang do not correspond to the first grains of the surface area which are formed within the copper foil itself by controlling process conditions during a single electroplating process. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as detailed above in a product by process claim limitation it is not the method that determines patentability. Further, the roughening particles are an integral part of the electrolytic copper foil taught by Shinozaki, therefore they do correspond to the first grains of the surface area.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the calculation of GT is improper because the roughening particles and crystal grains are separate layers and therefore has a different technical meaning from GT as defined in the present claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as GT is an average cross-sectional grain size of an entire area of the electrolytic copper foil comprising the surface are and the center area, therefore as the roughening particles are part of the overall electrolytic copper foil disclosed in Shinozaki, they correctly correspond to the first grains and the crystal gains correctly correspond to the grains of the center area and the entire area of the electrolytic copper foil includes the crystal grains and roughening particles.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Tang is used to modify Shinozaki to achieve high tensile strength and high elongation.
Conclusion
6. 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 DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723