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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-14 are pending in this application. Claims 2 and 9 have been canceled by Applicant.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 3/20/2026 have been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the specification overcome each and every objection to the specification. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome each and every objection to the claims, and each and every 112(b) rejection to the claims. The objections and 112(b) rejections are therefore withdrawn by the Examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 106910959 A) in view of Hailey (US 20160049700 A1), Friedrich et al. Methods for Alkaline Recovery of Aluminum from Bauxite Residue, J. Sustain. Metall. (2016) 2:353–364; Cai et al. Process Development for the Recycle of Spent Lithium Ion Batteries by Chemical Precipitation, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53, 47, 18245–18259; and Fang (CN 108929956 A), referred to herein as Zhang, Hailey, Friedrich, Cai, and Fang, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method for selective recovery of lithium from the lithium iron phosphate material (LiFePO4) (abstract). Example 2 teaches subjecting the lithium iron phosphate waste to dissembling, crushing and screening to obtain a lithium iron phosphate powder (discharging, crushing, weighing 1000 g (comprising 289 g) adding lithium iron phosphate powder [p. 3, Example 2]), stirring and introducing air and performing a reaction in a water bath (adding lithium iron phosphate powder in the water and then introducing oxygen in an aqueous solution, and the mechanical stirring, controlling reaction [p. 3, Example 2]), and filtering to obtain a leachate and a lithium phosphate slag (filtering to obtain aqueous solution containing lithium and phosphate solid [p. 3, Example 2]), and drying (p. 3, Example 2).
Zhang does not teach diluting an ionic membrane liquid alkali and then adding it to the LFP powder. However, Hailey teaches an analogous method of treating an electrode material with a solution (0025) wherein the solution comprises a base such as LiOH, NaOH or KOH (0007) at a molarity of 1 M (Example 1), which meets the instant limitation of an ionic membrane liquid alkali at a mass percent that would overlap with the claimed range of 3-10% (1 M LiOH yields a mass percent of 2.3%, 1 M KOH yields a mass percent of 5.6%). Hailey teaches that the electrode material to be treated includes LiFePO4 (0013). Hailey teaches that air is introduced (aerating with oxygen, 0046) to allow a reaction in a water bath (deionized water, 0046) then filtered (0047) and dried (in a vacuum oven, 0047). It would be obvious to combine the teachings of Hailey with Zhang, to treat the material with an alkali as taught by Hailey at the conditions specified (20 to 90 degrees Celsius, for 0.5 to 100 hours, 0012); one would be motivated to do so in order to remove aluminum from the material, as Hailey teaches (0034, 0038) in order to avoid contaminating the rest of the product which would adversely affect the cycling performance and energy density, as Hailey teaches (0003). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Hailey does not disclose a step of diluting a liquid alkali from a mass concentration of 30% to a mass concentration of 3-10%. However, Hailey teaches that the aqueous solution is corrosive to the aluminum and copper while preserving the chemical and physical state of the electrode active material (0019). Further, Friedrich teaches the use of up to 30 wt% NaOH for aluminum leaching (Figure 5b) and teaches that leaching is complete at 100 g/L (10 wt%) of NaOH in 60 minutes (p. 359 col. 2, bottom half). Cai teaches that too much NaOH is disadvantageous because it leads to the precipitation of Fe(OH3) (Conclusions). It would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to dilute a highly concentrated liquid alkali from 30 wt% as Friedrich teaches to within the range suggested by Hailey; one would be motivated to do so in order to preserve the structure of the electrode active material as Hailey teaches (0019) and to avoid too much Fe(OH)3 precpitation, as Cai teaches (Conclusions).
Zhang, Hailey, Friedrich, and Cai do not teach the addition of ammonia aqueous solution and stirring to perform a reaction, filtering to obtain a filter slag and an ammonia solution containing lithium phosphate; wherein step (3) further comprises subjecting the filter slag to a magnetic separation to obtain Fe3O4, and (4) evaporating the ammonia solution containing lithium phosphate to obtain lithium phosphate.
However, Fang discloses the addition of ammonia water, for the purpose of adjusting the pH of the solution to 8-8.5 (26). Fang further teaches stirring and reacting (the reaction is stirred, 26), filtering to obtain ferroferric oxide slag and a phosphorus-containing filtrate (27), and a magnetic separation to obtain Fe3O4 (electromagnetic sorting to obtain electromagnetic sorting material, 27). Fang further teaches drying by evaporating the ammonia solution (evaporation and crystallization, 29) to obtain phosphate.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the invention, of modified Example 2 of Zhang, with the addition of ammonia water, stirring, reacting, filtering, electromagnetic sorting, and evaporating as taught by Fang, and arrive at the claimed invention. One skilled in the art would be motivated to do so in order to control the pH of the solution, as disclosed by Fang (26), so as to avoid the condition of peracid leaching iron and under alkali condition to generate lithium phosphate, taught by Zhang (p. 2, pp. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang, Hailey, Friedrich, and Cai teach the invention as applied to claim 1. They do not teach a mass-to-volume ratio as required in the instant claim. However, Hailey, Friedrich, and Cai teach that the alkali is a result effective variable as discussed for claim 1 above; influencing the extent of aluminum leaching as well as the extent of Fe(OH)3 precipitation. It would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the ratio of LFP powder to ionic membrane liquid alkali through routine optimization, and arrive at the claimed invention. The courts have generally held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang, Hailey, Friedrich, and Cai teach the invention as applied to claim 1. Hailey teaches that the reaction temperature is between 20° C. to 90° C., and the reaction time is between 0.5 hour and 100 hours (0012). These ranges overlap with the instant claimed ranges of “the reaction in the water bath is carried out at 600C-900C; wherein in step (2), the reaction in the water bath is carried out for 0.5-2 h.” As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range "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. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the method as suggested by Hailey where the temperature and duration is in any workable or optimum range overlapping with the ranges as taught by Hailey including the claimed range in order to obtain a temperature and duration suitable for the reaction.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang, Hailey, Friedrich, and Cai teach the invention as applied to claim 1. They do not teach the concentration of ammonia aqueous solution having a mass concentration of 8-10%.
However, Fang teaches that ammonia water is added to adjust the pH (26), and it necessarily follows that the concentration of the ammonia would affect the pH. As the pH of the solution is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the concentration of aqueous ammonia, with pH both increasing/decreasing as the concentration is increased/decreased, the precise concentration of ammonia would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed concentration cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the concentration of aqueous ammonia in the invention taught by Zhang to obtain the desired pH as taught by Fang (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang, Hailey, Friedrich, and Cai teach the invention as applied to claim 1. Zhang further teaches that LiFePO4 batteries are widely used in electric vehicles, and the development of the method in the disclosed invention for the application of high-efficiency processing of waste lithium iron phosphate battery “has important operation significance” (p. 2, pp. 1). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the method taught by modified Zhang in a battery recycling method, and arrive at the claimed battery recycling method. One skilled in the art would be motivated to do so in order to recycle the LiFePO4 waste which is generated from lithium-ion batteries.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang, Hailey, Friedrich, and Cai teach the invention as applied to claim 1. Zhang further teaches that LiFePO4 batteries are widely used in electric vehicles, and the development of the method in the disclosed invention for the application of high-efficiency processing of waste lithium iron phosphate battery “has important operation significance” (p. 2, pp. 1). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the method taught by modified Zhang in a battery recycling method, and arrive at the claimed battery recycling method. One skilled in the art would be motivated to do so in order to recycle the LiFePO4 waste which is generated from lithium-ion batteries.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang, Hailey, Friedrich, and Cai teach the invention as applied to claim 1. Zhang further teaches that LiFePO4 batteries are widely used in electric vehicles, and the development of the method in the disclosed invention for the application of high-efficiency processing of waste lithium iron phosphate battery “has important operation significance” (p. 2, pp. 1). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the method taught by modified Zhang in a battery recycling method, and arrive at the claimed battery recycling method. One skilled in the art would be motivated to do so in order to recycle the LiFePO4 waste which is generated from lithium-ion batteries.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang, Hailey, Friedrich, and Cai teach the invention as applied to claim 6. Zhang further teaches that LiFePO4 batteries are widely used in electric vehicles, and the development of the method in the disclosed invention for the application of high-efficiency processing of waste lithium iron phosphate battery “has important operation significance” (p. 2, pp. 1). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the method taught by modified Zhang in a battery recycling method, and arrive at the claimed battery recycling method. One skilled in the art would be motivated to do so in order to recycle the LiFePO4 waste which is generated from lithium-ion batteries.
Claims 5, 7, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Hailey, Friedrich, Cai, and Fang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mascolo et al., Room temperature co-precipitation synthesis of magnetite nanoparticles in large pH window with different bases., 2013, herein referred to as Mascolo.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang modified by Fang does not disclose the reaction of step (3) of the instant claim being carried out in a nitrogen or argon atmosphere at 30-38 degrees Celsius for 40-80 minutes. Hailey teaches that the reaction is carried out while “purging the solution of other undesired dissolved gasses” (0029).
However, Mascolo discloses the use of an inert atmosphere, N2 or Ar, in the precipitation of magnetite, Fe3O4 (p. 4, line 8).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the method taught by Zhang and modified by Fang with the use of an inert atmosphere of N2 or Ar, as taught by Mascolo, and arrive at the claimed invention. One would be motivated to do so to purge the environment of unwanted gasses as Hailey teaches (0029).
Mascolo also discloses the temperature range of 20-30 degrees Celsius being ideal to achieve a ratio of Fe2+ to Fe3+ of 1:2 (p. 6, lines 3, 10), where 20-30 degrees Celsius overlaps with the claimed range of 30°C-38°C.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang, and modified by Hailey, Friedrich, Cai, Fang and Mascolo, with this temperature range for the precipitation step as further taught by Mascolo, since the ratio of 1:2 is the proper composition of magnetite and this temperature range keeps the ratio close to perfect (p. 6, lines 3-6, 10-11). Therefore, one motivated to obtain an increase in the purity of the magnetite would reasonably carry the precipitation of step (3) out with inert atmosphere and in a range near 20-30 degrees Celsius. It is further noted that in the case where the claimed range “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). It therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to conduct the precipitation step as taught by modified Zhang at a temperature in a range overlapping the disclosed range, of 20-30, and the instant claimed range, of 30-80, to arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable predictability.
Lastly, Mascolo further teaches that a faster addition (reaction time) of the alkali would result in a smaller particle size obtained in the product (p. 15, line 10). As the particle size is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the reaction time, with particle size both increasing/decreasing as the reaction time is increased/decreased, the precise reaction time would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed range of reaction duration cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the reaction time in the invention as taught by Zhang, and modified by Fang, to obtain the desired balance between the particle size as taught by Mascolo (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang, Hailey, Friedrich, Cai, and Fang do not teach the stirring of step 3 being carried out at a rotational speed of 300-500 rpm.
However, Mascolo discloses the reaction being stirred at 500 rpm (p. 8, line 6), which falls within the claimed range of 300-500 r/min.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the method taught by modified Zhang by stirring the reaction at 500 rotations per minute as taught by Mascolo, and arrive at the claimed invention. One would be motivated to do so to control the effect of the stirring rate on particle size, morphology, and resulting magnetic properties, motivation taught by Mascolo (p. 4, lines 13-15).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang, Hailey, Friedrich, Cai, Fang, and Mascolo teach the invention as discussed above in claim 5. Zhang further teaches that LiFePO4 batteries are widely used in electric vehicles, and the development of the method in the disclosed invention for the application of high-efficiency processing of waste lithium iron phosphate battery “has important operation significance” (p. 2, pp. 1). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the method taught by modified Zhang in a battery recycling method, and arrive at the claimed battery recycling method. One skilled in the art would be motivated to do so in order to recycle the LiFePO4 waste which is generated from lithium-ion batteries.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang, Hailey, Friedrich, Cai, Fang, and Mascolo teach the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Zhang further teaches that LiFePO4 batteries are widely used in electric vehicles, and the development of the method in the disclosed invention for the application of high-efficiency processing of waste lithium iron phosphate battery “has important operation significance” (p. 2, pp. 1). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the method taught by modified Zhang in a battery recycling method, and arrive at the claimed battery recycling method. One skilled in the art would be motivated to do so in order to recycle the LiFePO4 waste which is generated from lithium-ion batteries.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The response to rejections under U.S.C. 103 contains 23 paragraphs, which are cited herein.
Regarding paragraph 4, the term “ionic membrane liquid alkali” is discussed. The Examiner respectfully notes that this term was not defined in the instant specification, and remains undefined with amendments considered; paragraphs [0014]-[0016] merely recite concentrated NaOH as an example but this does not constitute a limiting definition. The definition of the “ionic membrane liquid alkali” as being critical for the selective dissolution of aluminum is not in the claim language. Applicant notes that sodium hypochlorite exhibits alkalinity but is fundamentally a hypochlorite oxidizing agent, and therefore sodium hypochlorite does not fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “ionic membrane liquid alkali.” However, given that the term is not defined in the disclosure as explicitly not including the structure of an alkali such as sodium hypochlorite, the Examiner maintains that the strongly alkaline nature of sodium hypochlorite renders it reasonably meeting the plain language interpretation of the phrase. It is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claim; see MPEP 2111.01(II).
In paragraph 4 Applicant also states that the oxidizing nature of sodium hypochlorite would interfere with the objective of the present invention which is to preserve the primary structure of LiFePO4; however the present invention seeks to remove iron from this structure, precisely by obtaining the oxidized iron in Fe3O4, containing trivalent iron. It therefore would appear to not maintain the original LFP structure. It would be reasonable for an ordinary artisan to use sodium hypochlorite as Zhang teaches, and not expect an interference in the oxidation process, given the nature of NaOCl as an oxidant.
In paragraph 5, Applicant submits that it is illogical to combine two substances that serve an oxidizing function in Zhang to evaluate two substances that serve distinct and separate functions in the present invention. However, the combination of Example 2 of Zhang with Example 4 of Zhang is based upon the obviousness of combining elements that serve the same purpose; see MPEP 2143(A) and 2144.06.I. Applicant’s argument is therefore not found persuasive.
In paragraph 6, Applicant discusses the fact that Zhang does not discuss aluminum removal nor a controlling of the concentration of the alkali. However, Zhang teaches a concentration of NaOCl that is 10.67%, falling reasonably within the claimed range of 3-10%. Additionally, the purpose of adding alkali for selective aluminum leaching is not claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding paragraphs 9-11, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case Applicant argues that Fang does not contain waste LFP material with impurities, and argues that the ammonia treatment is applied to a material substantially devoid of lithium. However, the rejection relies on the combination of Zhang in view of Fang, and it is based on the teaching of Zhang which teaches the method applied to waste LFP material (Example 2). The ammonia step of Fang modifies the step of Zhang that contains lithium. Furthermore, Zhang teaches that lithium phosphate slag would be formed in more alkaline conditions (p. 2 pp. 8). Therefore, the combination of teachings of Zhang and Fang leads one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the invention, and applicant has only asserted that Fang does not teach lithium phosphate but has not provided evidence to support the argument that the combination of teachings does not contain lithium phosphate. This argument is therefore not persuasive.
In paragraph 12, Applicant asserts that Fang does not perform a selective aluminum leaching. However, the purpose of aluminum leaching is not claimed in the instant application; it is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claim; see MPEP 2111.01(II). Furthermore one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore the argument of paragraph 13 is found unpersuasive.
In paragraph 15, Applicant asserts that the dilution is not a routine physical operation. This argument is found persuasive, and new grounds of rejection have been set forth in this Office action.
In paragraph 20, Applicant asserts that Mascolo is directed to a homogeneous reaction system, as opposed to the instant application which involves solid-liquid interfacial reaction kinetics and mass transfer limitations, and asserts that therefore Mascolo does not teach technical guidance on how to apply the atmosphere to a solid-phase ammonia leaching system. However, the teaching of Mascolo discloses precipitation of iron in alkaline solutions including ammonia (ammonium hydroxide, p. 4) and provides technical guidance of using degassed solutions (p. 4) to perform a reaction under the inert atmosphere taught (p. 4). Further, Mascolo teaches that the inert atmosphere is to avoid uncontrollable oxidizing of the iron, which provides motivation to combine the teaching of Mascolo with the teaching of Zhang and Fang, as discussed.
Regarding paragraph 21, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was filed, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, Mascolo teaches the use of a faster addition (reaction time) resulting in a smaller particle size; therefore meeting the requirement of taking into account knowledge that was available at the time of the application date. One skilled in the art would therefore have reason to vary the reaction time to obtain a shorter duration that falls within the claimed range.
Regarding paragraph 22, in response to applicant's argument that Mascolo is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Mascolo discloses conditions that are pertinent to the problem of precipitating Fe3O4 as sought in Fang. Therefore this argument is found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's arguments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE NONFINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/Eileen Moudou/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights