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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
The Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 12/15/2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 4, and 11 are amended; claims 2 and 5-10 and 12-21 stand as originally or previously presented; and claims 2-3 are canceled. Support for the amendments is found in the original filing, and there is no new matter.
Upon considered said amendments and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C.103 rejection set forth in Office Action mailed 09/15/2025 has been maintained (and altered as required by amendment), as set forth below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roumi (US 20150171398 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a separator (Roumi, electrochemical separator, Title) for a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]), comprising:
a first layer having a porosity of 50 vol% to 80 vol% (Roumi, electronically insulating layer 3 comprising one or more porous layers each independently having a porosity from 50% to 70%, and porosity may be expressed as the percentage of the volume of a structure, such as a high mechanical strength layer, that corresponds to pores, relative to the total volume occupied by the structure, [0073, 0080, 0138], Figure 3A; the disclosed porosity range of 50% to 70% falls within the claimed range of 50 vol% to 80%), disposed on a first surface of the separator (Roumi, electronically insulating layer 3 is disposed on a first surface of the separator, Figure 7, [0107]), and
a second layer having a porosity of 25 vol% or more and less than 50 vol% (Roumi, electronically conductive layer can be porous, and the porosity of the layer can be at least 30%, [0169]; the disclosed porosity range of at least 30% overlaps with the claimed range of 25 vol% or more and less than 50 vol%), wherein
the second layer is disposed on a second surface opposite the first surface of the separator (Roumi, electronically conductive layer 4 is disposed on a second surface opposite the first surface of the separator, Figure 7, [0107]), wherein
a thickness of the first layer is 50% or more of 100% of a thickness of the separator (Roumi, the electronically insulating layer, or a first layer, comprises one or more porous layers each independently have a thickness selected over the range 5 μm to 100 μm, and the insulating porous layer, and an electronically conductive layer, or a second layer, may have a thickness of 25 nm to 0.5 mm, or 0.025 μm to 500 μm, [0073]; the Examiner notes that the electronically insulating layer, or first layer, and the electronically conductive layer, or second layer, makes up the separator, so the thickness percentage of the electronically conductive layer overlaps with the claimed range of the first layer. For example, the electronically insulator layer may have a thickness of percentage of 0.01% to 99.9%. 5 μm / (500 μm + 5 μm) = 0.01% and 100 μm / (100 μm + 0.025) = 99.9%. The disclosed range of 0.01% to 99.9% overlaps with the claimed range of 50% or more).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 4, Roumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a separator (Roumi, electrochemical separator, Title) for a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]), wherein the separator comprises the first layer and the second layer, and the first layer and the second layer are stacked in a sequential order (Roumi, the electronically insulating layer 3 and the electronically conductive layer 4 are stacked in sequential order, Figure 7, [0107]).
Regarding Claim 5, Roumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a separator (Roumi, electrochemical separator, Title) for a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]), wherein the first layer is a monolayer or a multilayer comprising at least two unit layers (Roumi, electronically insulating layer 3 comprising one or more porous layers, [0073, 0080], Figure 3A), and
when the first layer comprises the at least two unit layers, each unit layer has a porosity of 50 vol% or more and 80 vol% or less (Roumi, electronically insulating layer 3 comprising one or more porous layers each independently having a porosity from 50% to 70%, [0073, 0080], Figure 3A; the disclosed porosity range of 50% to 70% falls within the claimed range of 50 vol% or more and 80% vol or less).
Regarding Claim 7, Roumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a separator (Roumi, electrochemical separator, Title) for a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]), wherein the second layer is a monolayer or a multilayer comprising at least two unit layers (Roumi, the composite separator further comprises one or more additional electronically conductive layers, [0075]), and
when the second layer comprises the at least two unit layers, each unit layer has a porosity of less than 50 vol% and 25 vol% or more (Roumi, electronically conductive layer can be porous, and the porosity of the layer can be at least 30%, [0169]; the disclosed porosity range of at least 30% overlaps with the claimed range of 25 vol% or more and less than 50 vol%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 9, Roumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a separator (Roumi, electrochemical separator, Title) for a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]), wherein the thickness of the separator is 20 μm to 500 μm (Roumi, the electronically insulating layer, or a first layer, comprises one or more porous layers each independently have a thickness selected over the range 5 μm to 100 μm, and the insulating porous layer, and an electronically conductive layer, or a second layer, may have a thickness of 25 nm to 0.5 mm, or 0.025 μm to 500 μm, [0073]; for example, the separator may have a thickness range from 5.025 μm to 600 μm. 5 μm + 0.025 μm = 5.025 μm, and 500 μm + 100 μm = 600 μm. The disclosed thickness range of 5.025 μm to 600 μm overlaps the claimed range of 20 μm to 500 μm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 10, Roumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a separator (Roumi, electrochemical separator, Title) for a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]), wherein the first layer comprises at least one of a porous polymer film, a porous nonwoven fabric comprising a polymer material, a glass fiber, and a carbon paper (Roumi, the electronically insulating layer comprises a polymer, an oxide, a glass or a combination of these. In embodiments, the electronically insulating is nonwoven, [0073]).
Regarding Claim 11, Roumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a separator (Roumi, electrochemical separator, Title) for a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]), wherein the second layer comprises a porous polymer film (Roumi, the conductive layer comprises an electronically conductive polymer, [0075])
Regarding Claim 12, Roumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]), comprising:
an electrode assembly (Roumi, electrochemical cell, [0085]) and an electrolyte (Roumi, one or more electrolytes positioned between said positive electrode and said negative electrode, [0085]), wherein the electrode assembly comprises
a positive electrode (Roumi, positive electrode, [0085]),
a negative electrode (Roumi, negative electrode, [0085]) and
the separator, disposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode (Roumi, a composite separator positioned between said positive electrode and said negative electrode, [0085]), wherein
the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material layer, and the positive electrode active material layer comprises a sulfur and/or a sulfur compound (Roumi, the active material of the positive electrode is sulfur or sulfur-carbon, [0067]), and wherein the first layer of the separator is in contact with the positive electrode active material layer (Roumi, the electronically insulator layer 3 is in contact with the positive electrode 1, [0084], Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 17, Roumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a separator (Roumi, electrochemical separator, Title) for a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]), wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode active material, the negative electrode active material comprises a lithium metal (Roumi, lithium metal anode, [0238]).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roumi (US 20150171398 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Shinichi et al. (JP 2013016523 A, filed in IDS dated 08/12/2025, hereinafter Shinichi).
Regarding Claim 6, Roumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a separator (Roumi, electrochemical separator, Title) for a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]), wherein when the first layer is the multilayer (Roumi, electronically insulating layer 3 comprising one or more porous layers, [0073, 0080], Figure 3A). Roumi is silent regarding the unit layers are arranged with the porosity increasing towards the first surface on a basis of a thickness-wise direction of the separator.
Shinichi discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Shinichi, Abstract) comprising a separator, in which the porosity gradient increases from the negative electrode side to the positive electrode side can also be used (Shinichi, [0043]; the Examiner notes that the porosity of the separator on the positive electrode side while be greater than the porosity of the separator on the negative electrode side).
Shinichi discloses that a portion of the separator with a large porosity can function as a buffer layer that absorbs changes in cell thickness, a high porosity has excellent cushioning properties, so it becomes possible to absorb changes in cell thickness that accompany expansion and contraction of the electrode, and it becomes possible to effectively prevent the occurrence of voids (Shinichi, [0041]). Shinichi further discloses that by reducing the porosity of the separator, it is possible to impart sufficient strength to prevent short circuits of current when the two electrodes come into contact (Shinichi, [0042]).
The Examiner notes that while Shinichi may teach that the porosity of the separator decreases gradually with increasing distance from the negative electrode side toward the positive electrode side (Shinichi, Abstract), Shinichi also teaches that the porosity gradient increases from the negative electrode side to the positive electrode side can also be used (Shinichi, [0043]), as noted above. The properties imparted by the porosity could be realized by both electrodes, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try to have a separator in which the porosity gradient increases from the negative electrode side to the positive electrode side can also be used.
Roumi and Shinichi are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a separator for a battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the separator of Roumi to have the porosity gradient increases from the negative electrode side to the positive electrode side, as taught by Shinichi, in order to absorb changes in cell thickness that accompany expansion and contraction of the electrode and prevent short circuits of current when the two electrodes come into contact.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Roumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a separator (Roumi, electrochemical separator, Title) for a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]), wherein when the second layer is the multilayer (Roumi, the composite separator further comprises one or more additional electronically conductive layers, and there are two electronically conductive layers, [0075, 0084], Figure 7), the unit layers are arranged with the porosity decreasing towards the second surface on a basis of a thickness-wise direction of the separator (Shinichi, the porosity gradient increases from the negative electrode side to the positive electrode side can also be used, [0043]).
Claim(s) 13 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roumi (US 20150171398 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Ren et al. (US 20190140322 A1, hereinafter Ren).
Regarding Claim 13, Roumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]). Roumi is silent regarding the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt and an organic solvent, and the organic solvent comprises a first organic solvent comprising a fluorinated ether compound and a second organic solvent comprising a glyme-based compound.
Ren discloses a lithium-sulfur battery (Ren, lithium-sulfur batteries, [0163]), wherein the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt (Ren, the electrolyte comprises a lithium-containing active salt, which can be lithium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), [0006]) and
an organic solvent (Ren, the electrolyte comprises an ether-based solvent A and a diluent, and the molar ratio of the active salt to the ether based solvent A is 1:1, and the molar ratio of the active salt to the diluent ranges from 1:0.1 to 1:10, [0006]), and
the organic solvent comprises a first organic solvent comprising a fluorinated ether compound (Ren, the electrolyte comprises a diluent, which can be 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,2,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE), [0006]) and
a second organic solvent comprising a glyme-based compound (Ren, the electrolyte comprises an ether-based solvent A, which can be DME, or Dimethoxyethane, [0006]).
Ren teaches that the relative amounts of the solvent A and the diluent are selected to improve ionic conductivity of the electrolyte and wetting ability of the electrolyte (Ren, [0154]).
Roumi and Ren are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a lithium-sulfur battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the lithium-sulfur battery of Roumi to have the electrolyte comprising a lithium-containing active salt; an ether-based solvent A; and a diluent, as taught by Ren, in order to improve ionic conductivity of the electrolyte and wetting ability of the electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Roumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]), wherein the first and second organic solvents are included in an amount of 90 vol% or more based on 100 vol% of a total organic solvent (Ren, the electrolyte comprises an ether-based solvent A and a diluent, and the molar ratio of the active salt to the ether based solvent A is 1:1, and the molar ratio of the active salt to the diluent ranges from 1:0.1 to 1:10, [0006]; the Examiner notes that the electrolyte only has an ether-based solvent A and a diluent as the organic solvent, so the vol % of the first and second organic solvents based on 100 vol% of a total organic solvent is 100 vol%. The disclosed range of 100 vol% falls within the claimed range of 90 vol% or more).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Roumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]), wherein the first organic solvent comprises at least one of 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) (Ren, the electrolyte comprises a diluent, which can be 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,2,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE), [0006]).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Roumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]), wherein the second organic solvent does not comprise fluorine and comprises at least one of dimethoxyethane (Ren, the electrolyte comprises an ether-based solvent A, which can be DME, or Dimethoxyethane, [0006])
Regarding Claim 21, modified Roumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]), wherein the electrolyte comprises lithium-bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (Ren, the electrolyte comprises a lithium-containing active salt, which can be lithium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), [0006]).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roumi (US 20150171398 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilkening et al. (US 20110059361 A1, hereinafter Wilkening).
Regarding Claim 14, Roumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]). Roumi is silent regarding the sulfur and/or the sulfur compound is included in the positive electrode active material layer in a form of a sulfur-carbon composite, and the sulfur and/or the sulfur compound is included in an amount of 60 wt% or more based on 100 wt% of the positive electrode active material layer.
Wilkening discloses a lithium-sulfur battery (Wilkening, lithium-sulfur batteries, [0027]), wherein the sulfur and/or the sulfur compound is included in the positive electrode active material layer (Wilkening, an electroactive sulfur containing material of a cathode active layer comprises at least about 75 wt% sulfur, [0049]) in a form of a sulfur-carbon composite (Wilkening, sulfur-filled carbon composites, [0158]), and
the sulfur and/or the sulfur compound is included in an amount of 60 wt% or more based on 100 wt% of the positive electrode active material layer (Wilkening, an electroactive sulfur containing material of a cathode active layer comprises at least about 75 wt% sulfur, [0049]; the disclosed range of at least 75 wt% falls within the claimed range of 60 wt% or more).
Wilkening teaches that sulfur as an active material being substantially contained within the electrode support allows for electrical conductivity to be maintained at sufficiently high levels to allow for the effective operation of the cell (Wilkening, Abstract).
Roumi and Wilkening are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a lithium-sulfur battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the positive electrode of Roumi to comprise of at least about 75% sulfur, in order to maintain electrical conductivity at sufficiently high levels to allow for the effective operation of the cell.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Roumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]), the sulfur-carbon composite comprises sulfur and carbon at a weight ratio of 60:40 to 80:20 (Wilkening, the electrode can comprise a weight ratio of sulfur to carbon of at least about 1:1 to less than about 6:1, [0060]; the disclosed weight ratio range of at least about 1:1 to less than about 6:1 overlaps with the claimed range of 60:40 to 80:20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Roumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Roumi discloses the limitations regarding a lithium-sulfur battery (Roumi, rechargeable lithium-sulfur pouch cell, [0238]), wherein the positive electrode comprises a current collector (Roumi, a positive electrode comprising a current collector, [0026]) and
the positive electrode active material layer is disposed on at least one surface of the current collector (Roumi, a current collector in electronic communication with the positive electrode active material, [0026]), wherein
the positive electrode active material layer comprises only a positive electrode active material (Wilkening, binder would not be required to hold together small particles to form the porous support structure, so the electrode can include less than about 1 wt% binder, [0035]), wherein
the positive electrode active material is included in an amount of 99 wt% or more based on 100 wt% of the positive electrode active material layer (Wilkening, the cathode may comprise at least about 75 wt % material comprising electrode active material, [0047]; the disclosed range of at least about 75 wt% overlaps with the claimed range of 99 wt% or more), wherein
the positive electrode active material comprises a sulfur-carbon composite in an amount of 90 wt% or more based on 100 wt% of the positive electrode active material (Wilkening, the cathode may comprise at least about 75 wt % material comprising electrode active material, and the electrode can comprise a weight ratio of sulfur to carbon of at least about 1:1 to less than about 6:1, [0047, 0060]), and
wherein the sulfur-carbon composite comprises the sulfur and/or the sulfur compound (Wilkening, the cathode may comprise at least about 75 wt % material comprising electrode active material, such as the electroactive sulfur-containing materials, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 12/15/2025) with respect to Claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, and 17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Roumi does not teach or suggest that the % porosity of the first layer effects operation of a high-density battery of 400 Wh/kg and 600 Wh/L nor prevention of non-uniform charging of the compacted powder type positive electrode.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that operation of a high-density battery of 400 Wh/kg and 600 Wh/L is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. As claimed, the separator for a lithium-sulfur battery does not have to be operable with a high-density battery of 400 Wh/kg and 600 Wh/L. Further, Roumi does recognize that adjusting porosity percentage may affect overall performance of the conductive layer, e.g., uniform electric field and other aspects such as mechanical integrity, and should be considered (Roumi, [0165]).
Applicant argues there is no reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the claimed invention over Roumi does not recognize that the first layer porosity must be greater than 50% as claimed to prevent the non-uniform charging of a compacted powder type positive electrode.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits Roumi discloses that some electrodes (e.g., lithium battery cathode materials, such as lithium metal oxides) need more electrolyte in their vicinity to keep the surface homogeneously wet (this can be due to dependence of the ionic conductivity of the electrode on the charge state) thus require a very porous interface with the electrolyte (at least 40% porosity on the separator interface) (Roumi, [0274]). Thus, Roumi does acknowledge that a relatively high porosity is required on the layer closest to the cathode, or first layer, and at least 40% porosity overlaps the claimed porosity of 50% - 70%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
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 KEVIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:50 - 7:50 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/K.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752