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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/04/2025 has been entered. Support is found in at least previous claims 4-5 and Fig. 4B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of previous claim(s) 1 and 3-4 under 35 USC 112, 103, and Double Patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the indefiniteness of claim 4 has been addressed in moving subject matter thereof into claim 1. The differences between the Byun reference (namely, thickness and lack of openings), Aota reference (relative thickness at welding locations), and Kim reference (layering order of first and second pieces, and welding opening) versus the instantly amended claim 1 were effectively argued (on remarks pages 6-10). The double patenting rejection has been overcome by the terminal disclaimer and amendment. Therefore, these rejections of record have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the RCE and amendment (filed 02/27/2026 and 03/04/2026, respectively) which necessitated further searching.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the penultimate clause recites “first price”, which is assumed to be a typographical error for “first piece”. Appropriate correction is required. (Claims 2 and 5-11 are similarly objected to for containing subject matter of base claim 1.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 7 recites the limitations "the first regions" and “the first region”, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second regions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 requires “the second piece and the uncoated portion do not come into contact.” However, it is unclear if “contact” is meant to be interpreted as “direct physical contact” or any sort of contact (such as electrical), because while Figs. 4A-4B show 122 intervening between 123 and 111 to prevent direct physical contact therebetween, specification [0046, 0049] provides for welding which would establish electrical contact therebetween. As such, the metes and bounds of “contact” as claimed in claim 11 are indefinite.
Claim interpretations: In an effort to promote compact prosecution, “first regions” in claim 2 are interpreted “welding openings” in order to establish antecedent basis within amended claim 2. Additionally, “first region” in claim 7 is interpreted to correspond to a region of the current collector plate (and/or pieces thereof) which are welded to the uncoated portion (this interpretation is supported by the previous claim set and the 12/28/2022 Specification at [0006]). Further, “second regions” in claim 8 are interpreted to correspond to regions of the current collector plate (and/or pieces thereof) which contact (but are not welded to) the uncoated portion (this interpretation is supported by the previous claim set and the 12/28/2022 Specification at [0006]). Lastly, “contact” in claim 11 is interpreted (as per at least instant Figs. 4A-B) to mean “direct physical contact” (whereby an alternate meaning, such as “electrical contact”, may give rise to a 35 USC 112(a) new matter issue).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (US 2018/0226653 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a secondary battery (secondary battery 100; [0057], Fig. 1) comprising:
a case having an accommodating space therein (main body 41 of case body 40, [0057,0059]; 41 accommodating 10/20/30 as shown in Fig. 1);
an electrode assembly in the case (electrode body 30 made of laminated foils 31P/31N; [0057,0062], Fig. 1) and having an uncoated portion (region of collector foil where active material is not applied is exposed from one end per [0063]; collector foil protrusion sections 32, [0064] and shown in Fig. 1) at one end thereof (plurality of positive-electrode collector foils 31P composing the positive-electrode collector foil protrusion section 32P are gathered so as to converge, a positive-electrode collector foil connection portion 33P is formed at an outer end of the positive-electrode collector foil protrusion section 32P per [0066]; and plurality of negative-electrode collector foils 31N composing the negative-electrode collector foil protrusion section 32N are gathered so as to converge, a negative-electrode collector foil connection portion 33N is formed at an outer end of the negative-electrode collector foil protrusion section 32N per [0067]; see also 32 and 33 at an end of 30/31 in Figs. 1-2);
a current collector plate (first collector terminal 10 and the second collector terminal 20 are arranged inside the case body 40 and electrically connect the electrode body 30, [0069] and Fig. 1; while the first collector terminal 10 and the second collector terminal 20 are formed as separate members, these terminals are united through the four welded joints 38, [0079] and Fig. 5) electrically connected to the uncoated portion of the electrode assembly (positive-electrode collector terminals 10P, 20P electrically connect the positive-electrode collector foil protrusion section 32P [positive-electrode collector foil connection portion 33P], [0070]; negative-electrode collector terminals 10N, 20N electrically connect the negative-electrode collector foil protrusion section 32N [negative-electrode collector foil connection portion 33N], [0071]; see also connection of 10/20 to 33 in Figs. 1-5); and
a cap assembly sealing the case (lid 42; [0059], Fig. 1),
wherein the current collector plate (first collector terminal 10 and second collector terminal 20 are united through welded joints 38, [0079]) comprises:
a first piece (first collector terminal 10, see Figs. 2 and 6) having an inner surface protruding toward (extension parts 11-14 are shaped so as to extend in parallel to one another along a longitudinal direction of the collector foil connection portion 33, [0072-0074]) and welded to the uncoated portion of the electrode assembly (extension parts 11-14 are formed so as to be adjacent to each other across the slit S1 and are each welded to the collector foil connection portion 33 that is arranged so as to pass through the slit S1 in a direction from an inside of the electrode main body 31 toward an outside of the electrode main body 31, [0073] and Figs. 5-6; see convex portion 18 as an inner surface of S1 of each 11-14 abutting each 33, Figs. 5-6; welding joints 38 formed by laser welding per [0077, 0092], Figs. 5 and 11) and
a second piece (second collector terminal 20, see Figs. 2 and 6) welded to an outer surface of the first piece (extension parts 21-24 of 20 are joined by welding to extension parts 11-14 of 10 such that the first collector terminal 10 and the second collector terminal 20 are united through the four welded joints 38 formed by laser welding, [0077-0078, 0092] and Figs. 5 and 11; see also Figs. 1-2 and 4-6 showing 20 on outer surface of 10, opposite from 30; the second collector terminal 20 is laid on an outer side of the first collector terminal 10 per [0086]), the second piece having a welding opening exposing the outer surface of the first [piece] (slit S2 between 21-24, [0076] and Figs. 6 and 8; access for laser beam L shown in Fig. 11 to form weld joints 38 connecting 33/10/20 as cited above, since 18 exposed in S2 – see also Fig. 9), and
wherein the first piece is between the second piece and the electrode assembly (10 is between 20 and 30; as shown in Figs. 1-2, 4-6, 8-11).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein the current collector plate is welded to the uncoated portion at a plurality of the welding openings (at weld joints 38 formed by welding laser L of Fig. 11, [0077-0078, 0092] as cited above; and see Figs. 3-5) arranged adjacent to each other (S2 formed between the adjacent extension parts 21 to 24, [0076]) in a longitudinal direction of the second piece (plurality of slits S2 arranged left-to-right/horizontally within 20; Figs. 5-6, 8-11 – i.e., V-V axis in Fig. 2), the [welding openings] extending in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (S2 extending vertically [i.e., IV-direction in Fig. 2] and in thickness direction [i.e., III-direction of Fig. 2] of 20 per Fig. 6, both of which are perpendicular to the left-right/horizontal direction of 20 cited above [i.e., III-direction and IV-direction are perpendicular to V-V axis as shown in Fig. 2]; see also Figs. 2-3 where 38 formed vertically corresponding to where laser beam L of Fig. 11 penetrates S2).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein in the first piece, an area corresponding to the welding hole in the second piece (18 in 10 corresponding to S2 in 20 so as to be inserted therethrough, Figs. 2, 5-6, and 9-11; see also citations above and below) is configured to be exposed to a welding beam (18 exposed to laser welding beam L through S2, so that 10 and 20 are united by weld joints 38; Figs. 3, 5-6, 11 and [0076-0077, 0091-0092]).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein the current collector plate includes an electrode connection part welded to the uncoated portion of the electrode assembly (as also cited above: extension parts 11-14, 21-24 coupled/welded to 33; [0073-0077] and Figs. 2-3) and a terminal connection part (base parts 16, 26 connected to external terminal 37 via conductive pin inserted into 16; [0072, 0075] and Figs. 2-3, 6) having one end coupled to the electrode connection part (extension parts 11-14 extend in a direction away from the base part 16, and extension parts 21-24 extend in a direction away from the base part 26, thus forming L-shape; [0073, 0075, 0084]) and another end coupled to the cap assembly (16 is laid on the inner surface of the lid 42 through the insulator 35, and 26 is laid on an upper surface of the base part 16; [0072, 0075] and Figs. 1 and 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamamoto et al. (US 2018/0226653 A1), as applied to claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 6 above and wherein the first region of the current collector plate that is welded to the uncoated portion is further recessed inwardly (18 at lower ends of the extension parts 11-13 of first collector terminal 10B embodiment – i.e., where welded to 33 – are located farther on the inside than upper ends thereof, [0119] and Figs. 19-20; the welded zones are thus arranged so as to be buried on the inside of the collector foil connection portions 33 per [0120]) compared to the electrode connection part that is coupled to the terminal connection part (relative to an end of the base part 16 that adjoins the extension parts 11-13, [0119] – i.e., at the location forming the L-shape of 10B; Figs. 19-20).
Although Yamamoto teaches this “farther on the inside” arrangement where “the welded zones are thus arranged so as to be buried on the inside” (Figs. 19-20 as cited above) within an Embodiment 4, this Embodiment 4 still produces effects and advantages similar to those of Embodiment 1 ([0120]), which is the embodiment relied upon in the rejections of claims 1 and 6 (as cited above). Per Yamamoto [0121], the differing embodiments are for illustrative purposes and are equivalently included in the scope of their disclosure. Thus, the full disclosure of Yamamoto (including [0119-0120] and Figs. 19-20, in view of the above-cited paragraphs and figures related to their Embodiment 1) encompasses the subject matter of instant claim 7 and anticipates such.
In the alternative, especially in view of the teachings of Yamamoto [0119-0120] and Figs. 19-20 toward an Embodiment 4 in which the first collector piece 10B is bent to be “farther on the inside” so that “the welded zones are thus arranged so as to be buried on the inside” of the uncoated region produces effects and advantages similar to those of Embodiment 1, changes in shape are a design choice within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed was significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Yamamoto Embodiment 1 in view of Yamamoto Embodiment 4 by changing the shape of the collector pieces to be like 10B and 20B, with the folded shape such that the welded zones were further inside 33, and still expectedly achieve similarly desirable effects and advantages. Thereby, the limitations of instant claim 7 are at least obvious over the teachings of Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 6 above and wherein an inclination angle is formed between a portion of the electrode connection part coupled to the end of the terminal connection part (first collector terminal 10B are each curved at an intermediate portion, [0119] and Figs. 19-20 – i.e. where said curved intermediate portion has forms an inclination angle; in view of [0084] teaching bending a part of the metal sheet corresponding to the base part 16 into an L-shape) and at least one of the second regions of the current collector plate contacting the uncoated portion (where extension parts 21-23 of second collector terminal 20B are curved in the direction from the outside toward the inside of the electrode main body 31, [0120]; and thus contact 33 farther inside as shown in Fig. 20 – even at contact locations beyond weld joints 33, in view of Fig. 3).
Although Yamamoto teaches this “curved at an intermediate portion” (Figs. 19-20 as cited above) being within an Embodiment 4, this Embodiment 4 still produces effects and advantages similar to those of Embodiment 1 (per [0120]), which is the embodiment relied upon in the rejections of claims 1 and 6 (as cited above). Per Yamamoto [0121], the differing embodiments are for illustrative purposes and are equivalently included in the scope of their disclosure. Thus, the full disclosure of Yamamoto (including [0119-0120] and Figs. 19-20, in view of the above-cited paragraphs and figures related to their Embodiment 1) encompasses the subject matter of instant claim 8 and anticipates such.
In the alternative, especially in view of the teachings of Yamamoto [0119-0120] and Figs. 19-20 toward an Embodiment 4, in which 10B and 20B are bent (i.e., forming the above-cited inclination angle curved at an intermediate portion) so that “the welded zones are thus arranged so as to be buried on the inside” of the uncoated region, produces effects and advantages similar to those of Embodiment 1, changes in shape are a design choice within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed was significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Yamamoto Embodiment 1 in view of Yamamoto Embodiment 4 by changing the shape of the collector pieces to be like 10B and 20B to be curved at an intermediate portion, and still expectedly achieve similarly desirable effects and advantages. Thereby, the limitations of instant claim 8 are at least obvious over the teachings of Yamamoto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2018/0226653 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Umeyama et al. (US 2017/0271709 A1, cited as relevant art in the 02/04/2026 rejection of record).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to teach wherein a thickness of the first piece welded to the uncoated portion is in a range of 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm.
Instead, Yamamoto teaches in [0110] that: The positive-electrode collector terminal 10P and the positive-electrode collector terminal 20P were made of aluminum and had a thickness of 0.8 mm. The negative-electrode collector terminal 10N and the negative-electrode collector terminal 20N were made of copper and had a thickness of 0.8 mm.
Umeyama is analogous in the art of current collectors and teaches a current collector terminal 41 having an L-shape (Fig. 5) wherein the current collector plate comprises a first piece (thin-walled part 49, Figs. 7-8) having an inner surface protruding toward and welded to the uncoated portion of the electrode assembly (in this welding step, the plurality of current collector foils 21 disposed in the cutout 44 and the thin-walled part 49 are fused; [0084] and Figs. 9-11) and a second piece (base part 48, Figs. 7-8) welded to an outer surface of the first piece (Fig. 11 in view of Fig. 6, where weld 56 is formed), the second piece having a welding opening exposing the outer surface of the first piece (recessed/stepped structure at end 47 where 49 is exposed from 48, [0081, 0102] and Figs. 7-9). Umeyama teaches an Example 1 in which a 1.0 mm-thick aluminum sheet was used to produce the positive current collector terminal and a 1.0 mm-thick copper sheet was used to produce the negative current collector terminal, and wherein the thickness Tb of the base part 48 was 1.0 mm while the thickness T of the thin-walled part 49 was 0.5 mm ([0115] and Fig. 16).
Per MPEP 2144.04 IV A: the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In view of Umeyama teaching the thickness T of the thin-walled part 49 being 0.5 mm (as cited above) corresponds to “a thickness of the first piece welded to the uncoated portion is in a range of 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm” as instantly claimed (see also MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Yamamoto in view of Umeyama to change the size (thickness dimension) of the current collector first piece to be 0.5 mm (instead of 0.8 mm in the example of Yamamoto) and expect sufficient functionality as the first piece of the current collector which is welded to the uncoated electrode foils, as taught by Umeyama. Such could also conceivably beneficially decrease material costs and overall battery weight by utilizing the slightly thinner aluminum and copper collector pieces.
Thereby, claim 9 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to teach a sum of the thicknesses of the first piece and the second piece is in a range of 0.6 mm to 0.9 mm.
Instead, Yamamoto teaches in [0110] that: The positive-electrode collector terminal 10P and the positive-electrode collector terminal 20P were made of aluminum and had a thickness of 0.8 mm. The negative-electrode collector terminal 10N and the negative-electrode collector terminal 20N were made of copper and had a thickness of 0.8 mm. (As such, the sum of thicknesses of the first piece and the second piece in Yamamoto would be 0.8+0.8=1.6 mm.)
Umeyama is analogous in the art of current collectors and teaches a current collector terminal 41 having an L-shape (Fig. 5) wherein the current collector plate comprises a first piece (thin-walled part 49, Figs. 7-8) having an inner surface protruding toward and welded to the uncoated portion of the electrode assembly (in this welding step, the plurality of current collector foils 21 disposed in the cutout 44 and the thin-walled part 49 are fused; [0084] and Figs. 9-11) and a second piece (base part 48, Figs. 7-8) welded to an outer surface of the first piece (Fig. 11 in view of Fig. 6, where weld 56 is formed), the second piece having a welding opening exposing the outer surface of the first piece (recessed/stepped structure at end 47 where 49 is exposed from 48, [0081, 0102] and Figs. 7-9). Umeyama teaches an Example 1 in which a 1.0 mm-thick aluminum sheet was used to produce the positive current collector terminal and a 1.0 mm-thick copper sheet was used to produce the negative current collector terminal, and wherein the thickness Tb of the base part 48 was 1.0 mm while the thickness T of the thin-walled part 49 was 0.5 mm ([0115] and Fig. 16), such that 1.0 mm corresponds to the total thickness of the first and second pieces (49 and 48, respectively, as cited above). Umeyama further teaches in [0097-0098, 0125-0126] and Fig. 20 toward using routine experimentation to vary a thickness ratio T/t (value of the thickness T of the thin-walled part to the lamination thickness t of the current collector foils) to so that the weld between the current collector foils 21 and the current collector terminal 41 had higher quality. Umeyama teaches the recess/stepped structure from 48 down to 49 so that thin-walled part 49 has a smaller thickness than the base part 48 in the lamination direction of the current collector foils 21 (in FIG. 8, T<Tb; [0081]).
The 1.0 mm Tb, corresponding to the total thickness of the first and second pieces, taught by Umeyama is substantially close to the range (of up to 0.9 mm) as instantly claimed (see MPEP 2144.05 I). Further, Umeyama’s teaching that relative thicknesses can affect the weld quality between the uncoated portion of the electrodes and the current collector provides motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have found it obvious to modify Yamamoto by optimizing the result-effective variable (plate thickness) to achieve optimal weld quality (see MPEP 2144.05 II) as taught toward by Umeyama.
Thereby, claim 10 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to teach the second piece and the uncoated portion do not come into contact.
Instead, Yamamoto teaches in Figs. 3, 5, and 11 the second piece 20 physically and electrically contacting uncoated portions 33 when 33 are welded to 21-24 at joints 38.
Umeyama is analogous in the art of current collectors and teaches a current collector terminal 41 having an L-shape (Fig. 5) wherein the current collector plate comprises a first piece (thin-walled part 49, Figs. 7-8) having an inner surface protruding toward and welded to the uncoated portion of the electrode assembly (in this welding step, the plurality of current collector foils 21 disposed in the cutout 44 and the thin-walled part 49 are fused; [0084] and Figs. 9-11) and a second piece (base part 48, Figs. 7-8) welded to an outer surface of the first piece (Fig. 11 in view of Fig. 6, where weld 56 is formed), the second piece having a welding opening exposing the outer surface of the first piece (recessed/stepped structure at end 47 where 49 is exposed from 48, [0081, 0102] and Figs. 7-9). Umeyama teaches in exemplary Figs. 7-8 that second piece 48 does not come into direct physical contact with uncoated foils 21, due to first piece 49 intervening therebetween (in the 111-direction of Umeyama Fig. 8, and due to the stepped structure formed by 48 to 49 per Umeyama [0081]). Even after welding, as shown in Umeyama Fig. 11, the end 47 of 48 is spatially separated by welding end 46p such that the welding mass physically connects foils 21 to thin-walled/first piece 49 but not to second piece 48 (see also Umeyama [0086-0089]). However, examiner notes that such welding would establish electrical contact therebetween, and through 49 being integral with 48.
Yamamoto does generally teach in [0008] that: the first collector terminal first extension part is welded to the collector foil connection portion, and the second collector terminal is a member separate from the first collector terminal which are united through the welded joint. Instead of further welding the second collector terminal directly to the collector foil connection portion, it could be envisioned – in view of the Umeyama teaching above – that the first piece only is welded to the uncoated portion, then the second piece is only welded to the first piece, such that the second piece and uncoated portion are not in direct physical contact (although still in electrical contact via the welding). Such modification of Yamamoto in view of Umeyama represents a mere rearrangement of parts that is within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 VI C). Also, substituting the structure of 49+48 from Umeyama into the structure of 10+20 of Yamamoto represents simple substitution of one known element for another which can also support conclusion of obviousness (per MPEP 2143 I B).
Thereby, claim 11 is rendered obvious.
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 Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728