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
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks filed October 28th, 2025:
Claims 1-16 are currently pending, claims 1 and 9-12 have been amended and claims 15 and 16 are new.
Claim 1 has been amended to narrow the porosity range, and now recites “60% to 90%”.
Claim 9 has amended to correct the notation of the electron resistivity and now recites “2.00x10-10 Ω·cm to 2.00x10-4 Ω·cm”.
Claim 10 has amended to correct the notation of the electron resistivity and now recites “2.00x10-10 Ω·cm to 2.00x10-6 Ω·cm”.
Claim 11 has amended to correct the notation of the electron resistivity and now recites “2.00x10-10 Ω·cm to 2.00x10-8 Ω·cm”.
Claim 12 has been amended to narrow the porosity range, and now recites “60% to 90%”.
Claim 15 is new.
Claim 16 is new.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending from the Office Action of July 29th, 2025:
The previous claim objections regarding claims 9, 10 and 11 have been overcome in view of the amendments received in the Remarks filed October 28th, 2025.
The previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 have been overcome in view of the amendments received in the Remarks filed October 28th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed October 28th, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 12 under Li et al, CN 109994740 A, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Tang et al, CN 109216703 A (as cited in the IDS and English translation provided for citation).
Tang teaches a flexible porous current collector in which a porous substrate has an ultra-thin conductive metal layer plated onto the surface [Tang, 0011], wherein the porous substrate has a porosity of 0.01 to about 80% [Tang, 0020].
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tang et al, CN 109216703 A (as cited in the IDS and English translation provided for citation).
Regarding Claim 1, Tang teaches a flexible porous current collector comprising a flexible porous conductive substrate and an ultra-thin conductive metal layer plated onto the surface of the substrate [Tang, 0011], wherein example 3 depicts a layer of metallic silver on the surface of the upper surface, corresponding to the first metal M, of the substrate, and a layer of metallic silver on the lower surface, corresponding to the second metal N, of the substrate and also within the pore of the porous substrate [Tang, 0032]. The porous conductive substrate has a porosity of 0.01 to about 80% [Tang, 0020] and the porous substrate is a porous membrane formed of a polymer material [Tang, 0019].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 2, Tang teaches the bipolar current collector of claim 1, wherein the porous substrate comprises a conductive powder material [Tang, 0019], and the conductive powder material includes carbon black, carbon nanotubes, graphene, and carbon fiber [Tang, 0021].
Regarding Claim 3, Tang teaches the bipolar current collector of claim 1, wherein the porous substrate comprises a polymer material [Tang, 0019], and the polymer includes polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyethylene terephthalate, or polycarbonate [Tang, 0023].
Regarding Claim 5, Tang teaches the bipolar current collector of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the conductive metal layer, corresponding to the first metal M formed on the lower surface of the substrate and second metal N formed on the upper surface of the substrate [Tang, 0032], is between 0.01 μm to 3 μm [Tang, 0024].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 6, Tang teaches the bipolar current collector of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the thickness of the porous substrate is 1 to 100 μm [Tange, 0020] and the thickness of the metal layers is between 0.01 μm to 3 μm [Tang, 0024], therefore, the thickness of the current collector is between 1.02 μm (1 μm to 0.01 μm + 0.01 μm) and 106 μm (100 μm + 3 μm + 3 μm), which falls between the claimed range of 2 μm to 1000 μm.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 8, Tange teaches the bipolar current collector of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the conductive metal layer, corresponding to the first metal M formed on the lower surface of the substrate and second metal N formed on the upper surface of the substrate [Tang, 0032], is between 0.01 μm to 3 μm [Tang, 0024], therefore the thickness ratio between a layer formed by the first metal M and the second metal N is between 0.003 (0.01/3, if M is 0.01 and N is 3) to 300 (3/0.01, if M is 3 and N is 0.01).
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 15, Tang teaches the bipolar current collector of claim 1, but is silent to teach on the electron resistivity of the bipolar current collector in a Z direction is 2.00x10-10 Ω·cm to 2.00x10-8 Ω·cm.
While Tang does not explicitly teach the electron resistivity of the bipolar current collector in a Z direction to be 2.00x10-10 Ω·cm to 2.00x10-8 Ω·cm, Tang teaches on current collector comprising including a porous substrate comprises a polymer material [Tang, 0019], and has a porosity of 0.01 to about 80% [Tang, 0020] and the polymer includes polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyethylene terephthalate, or polycarbonate [Tang, 0023]. According to the instant specification, the porous substrate includes at least one of a polymer material [instant specification, 0007], with a porosity of 20% to 90% [instant specification, 0008] wherein the polymer material includes at least one of: polyethylene terephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, polyethylene naphthalate, polyether ether ketone, polyimide, polyamide, polyethylene glycol, polyamide imide, polycarbonate, cyclic polyolefin, polyphenylene sulfide, polyvinyl acetate, polytetrafluoroethylene, polymethylene naphthalene, polyvinylidene difluoride, polyethylene naphthalate, polypropylene carbonate, poly(vinylidene difluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene), poly(vinylidene difluoride-co -chlorotrifluoroethylene), organosilicon, vinylon, polypropylene, polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, polyether nitrile, polyurethane, polyphenylene ether, polyester, polysulfone, or a derivative thereof [instant specification, 0010]. Further, Tang teaches a conductive metal layer plated onto the surface of the substrate [Tang, 0011], wherein example 3 depicts a layer of metallic silver on the surface of the upper surface, corresponding to the first metal M, of the substrate, and a layer of metallic silver on the lower surface, corresponding to the second metal N, of the substrate and also within the pore of the porous substrate [Tang, 0032], but also the metal layer can include one or more of Cu, Al, In, Ni, Au, Ag, Zn or Fe [Tang, 0024]. According to the instant specification, the first metal M and the second metal N each include at least of one Cu, Al, Ni, Ti, Ag, Au, Pt, stainless steel, or an alloy thereof [instant specification, 0011].
Therefore, based on MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Thus the current collector of Tang, comprising the porous substrate with the metallic layers, would inherently have an electron resistivity in a Z direction to be 2.00x10-10 Ω·cm to 2.00x10-8 Ω·cm.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al, CN 109216703 A (as cited in the IDS and English translation provided for citation), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Zhao et al, CN 108365227 A (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 4, Tang teaches the bipolar current collector of claim 1, wherein the metal layers, corresponding to the first and second metal layers of the claim, is one or more of Cu, Al, In, Ni, Au, Ag, Zn or Fe [Tang, 0024] but is silent to teach on a third metal layer.
Zhao teaches a multi-dimensional conductive composite current collector [Zhao, 0002], with a porous metal foil substrate [Zhao, 0017], wherein the metal foil substrate, corresponding to the third metal, is selected from one of “aluminum foil, copper foil, stainless steel foil, foam copper, foam nickel, stainless steel mesh, porous stainless steel, porous aluminum foil, and porous copper foil, or a plurality of them are stacked” [Zhao, 0020].
Zhao and Li are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Tang to include the metal foil substrate, comprising of aluminum foil, copper foil, stainless steel foil, foam copper, foam nickel, stainless steel mesh, porous stainless steel, porous aluminum foil, and porous copper foil, or a plurality of them are stacked [Zhao, 0020], as taught by Zhao because such modification would create a composite current collector with electrical properties of high conductivity and low resistance, ensuring the high conductivity effect of the battery electrode [Zhao, 0040].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al, CN 109216703 A (as cited in the IDS and English translation provided for citation), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Miyuki et al, JP 2013101919 A (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 7, Tang teaches the bipolar current collector of claim 1, but is silent to teach on the surface roughness.
Miyuki teaches a current collector comprising a metal foil made of “titanium, chromium, zirconium, hafnium, tantalum, niobium, tungsten, or an alloy thereof, or a nickel-based alloy containing at least one of them, an iron-nickel alloy, an iron-chromium alloy, an iron-chromium-nickel alloy, a chromium-molybdenum-nickel alloy, or a nickel-copper alloy” [Miyuki, 0036], wherein the metal foil has a surface roughness of 0.5 μm to 5.0 μm [Miyuki, 0038]. Furthermore, Miyuki teaches the roughness of the metal surface may be adjusted by adjusting the material of the metal foil [Miyuki, 0077], and that by adjusting the surface roughness to be within the optimum range, the adhesion between the active material and the current collector to resist peeling during charging/discharging, and reduce deterioration of battery performance [Miyuki, 0076].
Miyuki and Tang are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Tang to include the surface roughness range taught by Miyuki to reduce peeling of the active material during charging/discharge due to insufficient adhesion of the active material layer and the current collector and the deterioration of the battery performance [Miyuki, 0076].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al, CN 109216703 A (as cited in the IDS and English translation provided for citation), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Matsuyama, JP 2010067580 A (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 9, Tang teaches the bipolar current collector of claim 1, but is silent to teach on the electron resistivity of the bipolar current collector.
Matsuyama teaches bipolar secondary battery comprising a current collector made of a polymer material and conductive particles [Matsuyama, 0021], wherein in order to maintain a good relationship between current collector conductivity and battery internal resistance, a current collector comprised of a polymer material, ideally wants a volume resistivity in the thickness (Z) direction, corresponding to the claimed electron resistivity, of preferably 1x10-7 Ω·cm to 1x102 Ω·cm [Matsuyama, 0020].
Matsuyama and Tang are considered analogous arts in the area batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Tang to include the volume resistivity taught by Matsuyama because such modification would result in a good relationship between current collector conductivity and battery internal resistance [Matsuyama, 0020].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Tang et al, CN 109216703 A (as cited in the IDS and English translation provided for citation), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Miyuki et al, JP 2013101919 A (already on the record) and Matsuyama, JP 2010067580 A (already on the record).
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Tang teaches the bipolar current collector of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the thickness of the porous substrate is 1 to 100 μm [Tange, 0020] and the thickness of the metal layers is between 0.01 μm to 3 μm [Tang, 0024], therefore, the thickness of the current collector is between 1.02 μm (1 μm to 0.01 μm + 0.01 μm) and 106 μm (100 μm + 3 μm + 3 μm), which falls between the claimed range of 5 μm to 50 μm and 5 μm to 20 μm, and the thickness ratio between a layer formed by the first metal M and the second metal N is between 0.003 (0.01/3, if M is 0.01 and N is 3) to 300 (3/0.01, if M is 3 and N is 0.01), and the porous substrate has a porosity of 0.01 to about 80% [Tang, 0020]. However, Tang is silent to teach on the surface roughness of the current collector of the electron resistivity.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Miyuki teaches a current collector comprising a metal foil made of “titanium, chromium, zirconium, hafnium, tantalum, niobium, tungsten, or an alloy thereof, or a nickel-based alloy containing at least one of them, an iron-nickel alloy, an iron-chromium alloy, an iron-chromium-nickel alloy, a chromium-molybdenum-nickel alloy, or a nickel-copper alloy” [Miyuki, 0036], wherein the metal foil has a surface roughness of 0.5 μm to 5.0 μm [Miyuki, 0038]. Furthermore, Miyuki teaches the roughness of the metal surface may be adjusted by adjusting the material of the metal foil [Miyuki, 0077], and that by adjusting the surface roughness to be within the optimum range, the adhesion between the active material and the current collector to resist peeling during charging/discharging, and reduce deterioration of battery performance [Miyuki, 0076].
Miyuki and Tang are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Tang to include the surface roughness range taught by Miyuki to reduce peeling of the active material during charging/discharge due to insufficient adhesion of the active material layer and the current collector and the deterioration of the battery performance [Miyuki, 0076].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Matsuyama teaches bipolar secondary battery comprising a current collector made of a polymer material and conductive particles [Matsuyama, 0021], wherein in order to maintain a good relationship between current collector conductivity and battery internal resistance, a current collector comprised of a polymer material, ideally wants a volume resistivity in the thickness (Z) direction, corresponding to the claimed electron resistivity, of preferably 1x10-7 Ω·cm to 1x102 Ω·cm [Matsuyama, 0020].
Matsuyama and Tang are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Tang to include the volume resistivity taught by Matsuyama because such modification would result in a good relationship between current collector conductivity and battery internal resistance [Matsuyama, 0020].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al, CN 109216703 A (as cited in the IDS and English translation provided for citation) and Matsuyama, JP 2010067580 A (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 12, Tang teaches a flexible porous current collector comprising a flexible porous conductive substrate and an ultra-thin conductive metal layer plated onto the surface of the substrate [Tang, 0011], wherein example 3 depicts a layer of metallic silver on the surface of the upper surface, corresponding to the first metal M, of the substrate, and a layer of metallic silver on the lower surface, corresponding to the second metal N, of the substrate and also within the pore of the porous substrate [Tang, 0032]. The porous conductive substrate has a porosity of 0.01 to about 80% [Tang, 0020] and the porous substrate is a porous membrane formed of a polymer material [Tang, 0019]. However, Tang is silent to teach on an electrochemical device comprising at least two electrode assemblies or the bipolar current collector being located between the two electrode assemblies.
Matsuyama teaches a bipolar battery (Matsuyama, 30; figure 1), corresponding to the electrochemical device of the claim, wherein an electrolyte layer (Matsuyama 35; figure 1) is sandwiched between one or more bipolar electrodes, as shown in figure 1, wherein a current collecot (Matsuyama, 31; figure 1) is shown between two electrode assemblies.
Matsuyama and Tang are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to implement the current collectors of Tang into the bipolar battery taught by Matsuyama because it is well-known in the art to use current collectors in batteries. Further, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, B).
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Tang teaches the electrochemical device of claim 12, wherein the the thickness of the thickness of the porous substrate is 1 to 100 μm [Tange, 0020] and the thickness of the metal layers is between 0.01 μm to 3 μm [Tang, 0024], therefore, the thickness of the current collector is between 1.02 μm (1 μm to 0.01 μm + 0.01 μm) and 106 μm (100 μm + 3 μm + 3 μm), which falls between the claimed range of 2 μm to 1000 μm.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Tang teaches the electrochemical device of claim 12, but is silent to teach on an electronic device comprising the electrochemical device.
Matsuyama teaches a plurality of batteries may be electrically connected to form a battery pack [Matsuyama, 0065], and the battery pack may be suitable for use in a vehicle [Matsuyama, 0068] as shown in figure 4 of Matsuyama.
Matsuyama and Tang are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to implement electrochemical device of modified Tang into a vehicle as taught by Matsuyama because it is well-known in the art to use batteries in vehicles. Further, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, B).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al, CN 109216703 A (as cited in the IDS and English translation provided for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Ahn, US 20120237819 A1 (as cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 16, Tang teaches the bipolar current collector of claim 1, but is silent to teach on a thickness of a layer formed by the first metal M on the surface of the porous substrate is 13.33 μm to 900 μm; and the thickness of a layer formed by the second metal N on the other surface of the porous substrate is 13.33 μm to 900 μm.
Ahn teaches an electrode assembly comprising an electrode material coated onto a porous polymer layer (Ahn, 10; figure 2) having a first and second conductive layers (Ahn, 11a & 11b; figure 2) on the respective first and second surfaces (Ahn, 10a & 10b; figure 2) of the porous substrate [Ahn, 0039], the conductive layer may include aluminum [Ahn, 0009], and the first and second conductive layers may have a thickness about about 10 μm to about 50 μm.
Ahn and Tang are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Tang to include the thickness of the conductive layers as taught by Ahn because such modification would result in a simpler implementation process with no increased resistance [Ahn, 0048].
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 LILIAN ALICE ODOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM 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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/LILIAN ALICE ODOM/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722