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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-20 are currently pending;
Claims 10 and 13 are withdrawn;
Claims 2 and 6-7 are canceled;
Claims 1, 8, and 14-17 are amended.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of 10/21/2025
The drawings objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 103 rejections are withdrawn and replaced with new 103 rejections in view of Applicant’s amendment and argument.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Inoue in view of Odani and Kim et al. (US-20150004493-A1), hereinafter Kim, Inoue in view of Odani, Kim, and Ueba, and Inoue in view of Odani, Kim, and Ikuta.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9, 11-12, and 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (US-20070190408-A1), hereinafter Inoue, in view of Odani et al. (US-20120316716-A1), hereinafter Odani, and in view of Kim et al. (US-20150004493-A1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Inoue teaches a lithium ion secondary battery ([0002], comprising: a positive electrode having a current collector, a positive electrode active material layer ([0007]), and a porous insulating layer (fig. 5; [0007], [0026] heat resistant porous layer 25), a negative electrode, and a separator ([0007]), wherein the positive electrode and the negative electrode are stacked alternately via the separator ([0007] separator is disposed between a negative electrode and a positive electrode), wherein the separator is a single layer (figs. 3-5 porous sheet 21 or 25), wherein the porous insulating layer contains inorganic particles ([0027] inorganic oxide particles 24) and a binder ([0028] binder such as PVdF and rubber particles having acryl units), and is formed on an entire of a surface of the positive electrode, the surface facing to the separator (figs. 3 and 5; heat-resistant porous layer 25 of fig. 5 would be formed on the surface of the positive electrode 5 as seen in fig. 3, also facing the separator 21; [0014]), wherein the porous insulating layer has a uniform thickness of the entire porous insulating layer that includes pores, and a thickness of the porous insulating layer is 1 µm or more and less than 10µm ([0042] 5 µm thick), wherein the inorganic particles are aluminum oxide ([0027] aluminum oxide), wherein the binder is polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) ([0028] PVdF), and wherein the positive electrode active material layer includes a lithium nickel composite oxide as a positive electrode active material, and the lithium nickel composite oxide is represented by formula (A),
LiyNi(1-x)MxO2 (A)
Wherein, in formula (A), 0<x<0.5, 0<y≤1.2, and M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Co, Al, Mn, Fe, Ti and B ([0020] examples of the positive active material include LiNixCoyO2 (x+y=1), which fits within formula A with M as Co for example, the claim limitation of 0<y≤1.2 with y as 1.0, and overlaps the claim limitation of 0<x<0.5 with Inoue’s x+y=1, which means x must be between 0 and 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Inoue fails to teach that wherein the positive electrode is obtained by applying a porous insulating layer composition containing the inorganic particles and the binder directly onto the surface of the positive electrode, and the porous insulating layer composition is not applied on a surface of the separator.
Odani is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of insulating layers for batteries([0120]). Odani does teach that wherein the positive electrode is obtained by applying a porous insulating layer composition containing the inorganic particles and the binder directly onto the surface of the positive electrode, and the porous insulating layer composition is not applied on a surface of the separator, and the porous insulating layer composition is not applied on a surface of the separator ([0120] applied to the surface of the lithium composite oxide; [0176]; [0199] the insulating layer may be formed on the surface of the cathode and/or anode, or on both surfaces of the separator; [0178]-[0179] shows that the insulating layer may be applied to an electrode or separator in a similar manner).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inoue such that the insulating film was formed directly on an electrode such as the cathode and not apply the insulating film to the surface of the separator. Doing so achieves the same predictable result of an insulating layer between the electrode and separator.
Modified Inoue fails to explicitly disclose that the separator is made of polyimide.
Kim is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of secondary batteries with lithium nickel composite oxides as a cathode active material ([0022]-[0029]). Kim teaches that the separator is made of polyimide ([0016] separator can be one or more of polyimide, aramid, polypropylene, polyethylene).
Considering that Inoue teaches that the separator is a polyolefin such as polyethylene and polypropylene (Inoue [0026]), and Kim teaches that polyimide is interchangeable with polypropylene and polyethylene as a separator, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the polyimide of Kim is an art recognized equivalent of the polypropylene and polyethylene of Inoue. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inoue such as to replace the polypropylene or polyethylene separator with the art recognized equivalent of a polyimide separator to achieve the same function.
Regarding claim 4, modified Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Inoue also teaches that the porous insulating layer is formed directly on the surface of the positive electrode (Inoue figs. 3 and 5; [0014]; [0033]; the porous insulating layer 25 would be on the positive electrode 5).
Regarding claim 5, modified Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Inoue also teaches wherein the inorganic particles and the binder are dispersed in the porous insulating layer (Inoue [0042] alumina and PVDF are mixed into a slurry with NMP to form the insulating layer, therefore the inorganic particles and binder are dispersed in the porous insulating layer).
Regarding claim 9, modified Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Inoue also teaches wherein the lithium nickel composite oxide is LiαNiβCoγMnδO2, wherein 1≤α≤1.2, β+γ+δ=1, β≥0.7, and γ≤0.2 ([0020] LiNixMnyCozO2 wherein (x+y+z=1), meaning each of x, y, and z must be between 0 and 1, overlapping ranges with β, γ, and δ as claimed; the claim α would be 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Regarding claim 11, modified Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Inoue also teaches that wherein the lithium nickel composite oxide is LiNiβCoγMnδO2, wherein 0.75≤β≤0.85, 0.05≤ γ ≤0.15, and 0.10< δ ≤0.2 ([0020] LiNixMnyCozO2 wherein (x+y+z=1), meaning each of x, y, and z must be between 0 and 1, overlapping ranges with β, γ, and δ as claimed). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Regarding claim 12, modified Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Inoue also teaches that wherein the lithium nickel composite oxide is LiαNiβCoγMnδO2 wherein 1≤α≤1.2, β+γ+δ=1, β≥0.7, and 0<γ≤0.2 ([0020] LiNixMnyCozO2 wherein (x+y+z=1), meaning each of x, y, and z must be between 0 and 1, overlapping ranges with β, γ, and δ as claimed; the claim α would be 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Regarding claim 14, Inoue teaches a method for manufacturing a lithium ion secondary battery ([0002]), the method comprising: preparing a positive electrode, which has a current collector, a positive electrode active material layer ([0019] and a porous insulating layer (fig. 5 layer 25 [0033] would be on the side of the positive active material), a negative electrode ([0015]), and a separator (separator 21 [0031]), producing a stacked assembly by arranging the positive and negative electrodes to face each other with the separator interposed therebetween (figs. 3 and 5; insulating layer 25 would be disposed between positive electrode 5 and separator 21), placing the stacked assembly into an outer package ([0014]; fig. 2 electrode group 1 is in case 6), and injecting an electrolyte solution so that the positive and negative electrodes can be impregnated with the electrolyte solution ([0025] after insertion of electrode group 1 into case 6, a non-aqueous electrolyte may be poured into the case), and sealing an opening of the outer package is ([0014] sealing plate 3 of case 6), wherein the separator is a single layer (fig. 5 separator layer 21), wherein the porous insulating layer contains inorganic particles ([0027] inorganic oxide particles 24) and a binder ([0028] binder such as PVdF and rubber particles having acryl units), and is formed on an entire of a surface of the positive electrode, the surface facing to the separator (figs. 3 and 5; heat-resistant porous layer 25 of fig. 5 would be formed on the surface of the positive electrode 5 as seen in fig. 3, also facing the separator 21; [0014]), wherein the porous insulating layer has a uniform thickness of the entire porous insulating layer that includes pores (figs. 3-5; [0033] porous layer 25), and a thickness of the porous insulating layer is 1 µm or more and less than 10 µm ([0042] 5 µm thick), wherein the inorganic particles are aluminum oxide ([0027] aluminum oxide), wherein the binder is polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) ([0028] PVdF) and wherein the positive electrode active material layer includes a lithium nickel composite oxide as a positive electrode active material, and the lithium nickel composite oxide is represented by formula (A),
LiyNi(1-x)MxO2 (A)
Wherein, in formula (A), 0<x<0.5, 0<y≤1.2, and M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Co, Al, Mn, Fe, Ti and B ([0020] examples of the positive active material include LiNixCoyO2 (x+y=1), which fits within formula A with M as Co, the claim limitation of 0<y≤1.2 with y as 1.0, and overlaps the claim limitation of 0<x<0.5 with Inoue’s x+y=1, which means x must be between 0 and 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Inoue fails to teach that wherein the positive electrode is obtained by applying a porous insulating layer composition containing the inorganic particles and the binder directly onto the surface of the positive electrode, and the porous insulating layer composition is not applied on a surface of the separator, and the porous insulating layer composition is not applied on a surface of the separator.
Odani is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of insulating layers for batteries([0120]). Odani does teach that wherein the positive electrode is obtained by applying a porous insulating layer composition containing the inorganic particles and the binder directly onto the surface of the positive electrode, and the porous insulating layer composition is not applied on a surface of the separator, and the porous insulating layer composition is not applied on a surface of the separator ([0120] applied to the surface of the lithium composite oxide; [0176]; [0199] the insulating layer may be formed on the surface of the cathode and/or anode, or on both surfaces of the separator; [0178]-[0179] shows that the insulating layer may be applied to an electrode or separator in a similar manner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inoue such that the insulating film was formed directly on an electrode such as the cathode and not apply the insulating film to the surface of the separator. Doing so achieves the same predictable result of an insulating layer between the electrode and separator.
Modified Inoue fails to explicitly disclose that the separator is made of polyimide.
Kim is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of secondary batteries with lithium nickel composite oxides as a cathode active material ([0022]-[0029]). Kim teaches that the separator is made of polyimide ([0016] separator can be one or more of polyimide, aramid, polypropylene, polyethylene).
Considering that Inoue teaches that the separator is a polyolefin such as polyethylene and polypropylene (Inoue [0026]), and Kim teaches that polyimide is interchangeable with polypropylene and polyethylene as a separator, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the polyimide of Kim is an art recognized equivalent of the polypropylene and polyethylene of Inoue. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inoue such as to replace the polypropylene or polyethylene separator with the art recognized equivalent of a polyimide separator to achieve the same function.
Regarding claim 18, modified Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 14. Inoue also teaches that the lithium nickel composite oxide is LiαNiβCoγMnδO2, wherein 1≤α≤1.2, β+γ+δ=1, β≥0.7, and γ≤0.2 ([0020] LiNixMnyCozO2 wherein (x+y+z=1), meaning each of x, y, and z must be between 0 and 1, overlapping ranges with β, γ, and δ as claimed; the claim α would be 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Inoue fails to teach that the separator is made of a material containing aramid.
Kim is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of secondary batteries ([0002]). Inoue ‘102 teaches that the separator is made of a material containing aramid, polyimide, or polyphenylene sulfide ([0087] separator can be aramid resin, polypropylene, polyethylene).
Considering that Inoue teaches that the separator is a polyolefin such as polyethylene and polypropylene (Inoue [0026]), and Inoue ‘102 teaches that an aramid resin is interchangeable with polypropylene and polyethylene as a separator, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the aramid resin of Inoue ‘102 is an art recognized equivalent of the aramid resin of Inoue. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inoue such as to replace the polypropylene or polyethylene separator with the art recognized equivalent of an aramid resin separator to achieve the same function.
Regarding claim 19, modified Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 14. Inoue also teaches that the lithium nickel composite oxide is LiNiβCoγMnδO2, wherein 0.75≤β≤0.85, 0.05≤ γ ≤0.15, and 0.10≤ δ ≤0.2 ([0020] LiNixMnyCozO2 wherein (x+y+z=1), meaning each of x, y, and z must be between 0 and 1, overlapping ranges with β, γ, and δ as claimed). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Inoue fails to teach that the separator is made of a material containing aramid.
Kim is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of secondary batteries with lithium nickel composite oxides as a cathode active material ([0022]-[0029]). Kim teaches that the separator is made of a material containing aramid ([0016] separator can be one or more of polyimide, aramid, polypropylene, polyethylene).
Considering that Inoue teaches that the separator is a polyolefin such as polyethylene and polypropylene (Inoue [0026]), and Kim teaches that one or more of aramid and polyimide is interchangeable with polypropylene and polyethylene as a separator, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the aramid of Kim, either alone or in combination with polyimide, is an art recognized equivalent of the polypropylene and polyethylene of Inoue. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inoue such as to replace the polypropylene or polyethylene separator with the art recognized equivalent of separator made of one or more of an aramid and polyimide to achieve the same function.
Regarding claim 20, modified Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 14. Inoue also teaches that the lithium nickel composite oxide is LiαNiβCoγMnδO2 wherein 1≤α≤1.2, β+γ+δ=1, β≥0.7, and 0<γ≤0.2 ([0020] LiNixMnyCozO2 wherein (x+y+z=1), meaning each of x, y, and z must be between 0 and 1, overlapping ranges with β, γ, and δ as claimed; the claim α would be 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Inoue fails to teach that the separator is made of a material containing aramid.
Kim is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of secondary batteries with lithium nickel composite oxides as a cathode active material ([0022]-[0029]). Kim teaches that the separator is made of a material containing aramid ([0016] separator can be one or more of polyimide, aramid, polypropylene, polyethylene).
Considering that Inoue teaches that the separator is a polyolefin such as polyethylene and polypropylene (Inoue [0026]), and Kim teaches that one or more of aramid and polyimide is interchangeable with polypropylene and polyethylene as a separator, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the aramid of Kim, either alone or in combination with polyimide, is an art recognized equivalent of the polypropylene and polyethylene of Inoue. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inoue such as to replace the polypropylene or polyethylene separator with the art recognized equivalent of separator made of one or more of an aramid and polyimide to achieve the same function.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Odani and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ueba et al. (WO-2013100023-A1), hereinafter Ueba.
Regarding claim 3, modified Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Inoue does not explicitly specify that the binder has a HOMO value of -12 or less.
However, polyvinylidene fluoride, the binder of Inoue (Inoue [0028]), would inherently have a HOMO value of -12 or less as evidenced by Ueba. Ueba teaches that polyvinylidene fluoride has a HOMO value of -12 or less (Table 1 polyvinylidene fluoride has a HOMO value of -13.62). Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the binder of Inoue would inherently have a HOMO value of -12 or less as evidenced by Ueba.
Claims 8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Odani and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikuta et al. (US-20070072083-A1), hereinafter Ikuta.
Regarding claim 8, modified Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Inoue does not explicitly teach that the thickness of the porous insulating layer is 3 µm.
Ikuta is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of porous insulating layers for lithium ion batteries ([0009]). Ikuta teaches that the thickness of the porous insulating layer is 3 µm ([0050] preferable thickness of the porous insulating layer is 0.5 to 20 µm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Inoue such that the porous insulating layer is 3 µm such as is possible in Ikuta. Doing so maintains the battery characteristics of safety and ion permeability (Ikuta [0050]).
Inoue also fails to teach that the separator is made of aramid or polyphenylene sulfide.
Inoue ‘102 is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of secondary batteries ([0002]). Inoue ‘102 teaches that the separator is made of aramid or polyphenylene sulfide ([0087] separator can be aramid resin, polypropylene, polyethylene).
Considering that Inoue teaches that the separator is a polyolefin such as polyethylene and polypropylene (Inoue [0026]), and Inoue ‘102 teaches that an aramid resin is interchangeable with polypropylene and polyethylene as a separator, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the aramid resin of Inoue ‘102 is an art recognized equivalent of the aramid resin of Inoue. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inoue such as to replace the polypropylene or polyethylene separator with the art recognized equivalent of an aramid resin separator to achieve the same function.
Regarding claim 15, modified Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Inoue also teaches that the lithium nickel composite oxide is LiαNiβCoγMnδO2, wherein 1≤α≤1.2, β+γ+δ=1, β≥0.7, and γ≤0.2 ([0020] LiNixMnyCozO2 wherein (x+y+z=1), meaning each of x, y, and z must be between 0 and 1, overlapping ranges with β, γ, and δ as claimed; the claim α would be 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Regarding claim 16, modified Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Inoue also teaches that the lithium nickel composite oxide is LiNiβCoγMnδO2, wherein 0.75≤β≤0.85, 0.05≤ γ ≤0.15, and 0.10≤ δ ≤0.2 ([0020] LiNixMnyCozO2 wherein (x+y+z=1), meaning each of x, y, and z must be between 0 and 1, overlapping ranges with β, γ, and δ as claimed). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Regarding claim 17, modified Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Inoue also teaches that the lithium nickel composite oxide is LiαNiβCoγMnδO2 wherein 1≤α≤1.2, β+γ+δ=1, β≥0.7, and 0<γ≤0.2 ([0020] LiNixMnyCozO2 wherein (x+y+z=1), meaning each of x, y, and z must be between 0 and 1, overlapping ranges with β, γ, and δ as claimed; the claim α would be 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722