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 and Claim Status
The amendment filed 16 March 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 16 December 2025. Claims 1–15 are pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 6–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen et al. (US 2018/0040880 A1; art already of record) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2019/108039 A2; US 2020/0243848 A1 used herein for citation and translation purposes; art already of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Andersen discloses a negative electrode (see composite anode, [0068]) comprising:
a negative electrode current collector (see current collector metal foil, [0097]; see also current collector, claim 7); and
a negative electrode active material layer (see Si–C composite material layer, [0042]; see also Si–C composite anode material, [0068]; see also silicon-carbon composite material layer, claim 8) disposed on the negative electrode current collector ([0042], claim 8),
wherein the negative electrode active material layer includes a silicon-based active material (see silicon particles, [0071]), a first conductive material including graphite (see graphite, [0072]), and a binder (see binder, [0073]), wherein:
the binder includes a cellulose-based compound (see carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), [0073]) and a rubber-based compound (see styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), [0073]).
Andersen does not disclose wherein the negative electrode active material layer includes a second conductive material including single-walled carbon nanotube, wherein the second conductive material is included in the negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 0.15 wt% to 2.5 wt%. Finally, Andersen discloses that the negative electrode active material layer includes carbon black as a second conductive material (see carbon black, [0072]), and therefore does not satisfy the limitation wherein the negative electrode active material layer does not include carbon black as a conductive material.
Kim teaches a negative electrode (see negative electrode, [0031]) comprising: a negative electrode current collector (see current collector for a negative electrode, [0031]); and a negative electrode active material layer (see second negative electrode active material layer, [0031]), wherein the negative electrode active material layer includes a silicon-based active material (see silicon-based active material, [0031]), a conductive material including a single-walled carbon nanotube (see carbon nanotubes, [0031], which can be single walled carbon nanotubes, [0043]–[0044]), and a binder (see binder, [0070]). Kim teaches ([0036]–[0038]) that when the negative electrode active material layer is a silicon-based active material, utilizing carbon black as a conductive material is problematic because spherical aggregates of carbon black forming a conductive path in a simple spot contact mode in the silicon-based active material particles are separated and detached due to the cracking of the silicon-based active material during repetition of charge-discharge cycles. Kim therefore teaches ([0038]) the application of carbon nanotubes having a desired length as a conductive material instead of spherical carbon black, and that ([0041]–[0042]) carbon nanotubes can be positioned sufficiently throughout the surface of the silicon-based active material in a line contact mode, not a spot contact mode, with the silicon-based active material, thereby forming a conductive path that can be stably retained even in the event of cracked silicon-based active material particles. Further, Kim teaches ([0044]) that single-walled carbon nanotubes particularly have excellent electrical properties derived from a one-dimensional structure, and that ([0052], [0054]) when the carbon nanotubes are included in the negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 0.2 to 1 wt%, it is possible to retain conductivity between the silicon-based active materials during shrinking of the silicon-based active materials and improve the binding ability of the negative electrode active material, improving cycle characteristics.
Andersen and Kim are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of negative electrodes for lithium-cycling secondary batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode of Andersen such that, instead of carbon black, the second conductive material includes carbon nanotubes, as taught by Kim, for the purpose of avoiding the problematic aspects of utilizing carbon black as a conductive material with silicon-based active material, namely separation and detachment of carbon black which occurs due to the cracking of silicon-based active materials during repetition of charge-discharge cycles due to the carbon black’s spherical shape and formation of simple spot contact mode conductive paths, and further for the purpose of reaping the benefits of utilizing carbon nanotubes as a conductive material with silicon-based active materials, namely retaining stable conductive paths even in the event of cracked silicon-based active material particles, due to the carbon nanotubes being positioned sufficiently throughout the surface of the silicon-based active material in a line contact mode. Note that such a modification will result in the negative electrode active material layer of modified Andersen not including carbon black as a conductive material.
It would furthermore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode of modified Andersen as set forth above to utilize the second conductive material in the form of carbon nanotubes that are single-walled, as Kim teaches that single-walled carbon nanotubes specifically have excellent electrical properties derived from a one-dimensional structure.
Finally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode of modified Andersen as set forth above to include the second conductive material in the form of single-walled carbon nanotubes in an amount of 0.2 to 1 wt%, as taught by Kim, for the purpose of retaining conductivity between the silicon-based active materials during shrinking of the silicon-based active materials and improving the binding ability of the negative electrode active material, improving cycle characteristics.
Andersen does not disclose wherein the first conductive material is included in the negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 15 wt% to 25 wt%. Instead, Andersen discloses ([0085]) that the first conductive material is included in the negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 8.5 to 30 wt%, and ([0084]) that graphite provides long-range backbone conductivity in the negative electrode.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the ranges for the amount of first conductive material included in the negative electrode active material layer with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a negative electrode with long-range backbone conductivity resulting from graphite.
Modified Andersen does not disclose wherein the second conductive material and the binder are included in the negative electrode active material layer at a weight ratio of 1.5:99:5 to 20.0:80.0. However, as set forth above, modified Andersen discloses that the second conductive material is included in the negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 0.2 to 1 wt%. Furthermore, Andersen discloses ([0091]) that binder is included in the negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 7.5 to 17.5 wt%. It can therefore be understood that for modified Andersen, the weight ratio of second conductive material and binder included in the negative electrode active material layer ranges from 1.1:98.9 (this being the ratio of the minimum wt% of second conductive material to the maximum wt% of binder, calculated as follows):
m
i
n
.
w
t
%
s
e
c
o
n
d
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
(
C
M
)
m
i
n
.
w
t
%
s
e
c
o
n
d
C
M
+
m
a
x
.
w
t
%
b
i
n
d
e
r
:
m
a
x
.
w
t
%
b
i
n
d
e
r
m
i
n
.
w
t
%
s
e
c
o
n
d
C
M
+
m
a
x
.
w
t
%
b
i
n
d
e
r
=
0.2
w
t
%
17.7
w
t
%
:
17.5
w
t
%
17.7
w
t
%
=
0.011
:
0.989
=
1.1
:
98.9
to 11.8:88.2 (this being the ratio of the maximum wt% of second conductive material to the minimum wt% of binder, calculated in an analogous manner as above). This calculated range overlaps with the claimed range of 1.5:99.5 to 20.0:80.0.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the ranges for the weight ratio of the second conductive material and binder included in the negative electrode active material layer with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a functional negative electrode.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Andersen discloses the negative electrode as set forth above. Andersen further discloses wherein the average particle diameter (D50) of the first conductive material is 15–18 µm (see particle diameter of Timrex SLP30 (potato), Table 3).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Andersen discloses the negative electrode as set forth above, but does not disclose wherein the specific surface area of the second conductive material is 400 m2/g to 1000 m2/g. Instead, modified Andersen (Kim [0051]) discloses wherein the specific surface area of the second conductive material is 120 m2/g to 1000 m2/g. Kim teaches ([0051]) that when the specific surface area lies within this range, carbon nanotubes efficiently form crosslinking between the silicon-based active material or between the silicon-based active material and the negative electrode current collector during shrinking, making it possible to retain conductivity and improve cycle characteristics.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the ranges for the specific surface area of the second conductive material, with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a negative electrode with retained conductivity and improved cycle characteristics due to the efficient crosslinking of the second conductive material between the silicon-based active material or the silicon-based active material and the negative electrode current collector during shrinking.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Andersen discloses the negative electrode as set forth above, but does not disclose wherein the second conductive material has an average length of 5 µm to 30 µm. Instead, modified Andersen (Kim [0046]) discloses wherein the second conductive material has an average length of 1 µm to 20 µm. Kim teaches ([0049]) that when the average length lies within this range, the carbon nanotubes efficiently form crosslinking between the silicon-based active material or between the silicon-based active material and the negative electrode current collector during shrinking, making it possible to retain conductivity and improve cycle characteristics.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the ranges for the average length of the second conductive material with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a negative electrode with retained conductivity and improved cycle characteristics due to efficient crosslinking of the second conductive material between the silicon-based active material or the silicon-based active material and negative electrode current collector during shrinking.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Andersen discloses the negative electrode as set forth above, but does not disclose wherein the aspect ratio of the second conductive material is 5000 to 15000. Instead, modified Andersen discloses (Kim [0045]) wherein the aspect ratio of the second conductive material is 40 to 6000. Kim teaches ([0045]) that when the aspect ratio lies within this range, it is possible to realize the properties (e.g. electrical conductivity) unique to carbon nanotubes, and the carbon nanotubes can be applied more homogeneously to the negative electrode current collector during manufacturing.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the ranges for the aspect ratio of the second conductive material, with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a negative electrode where it is possible to realize the properties (e.g. electrical conductivity) unique to carbon nanotubes, and the carbon nanotubes can be applied more homogeneously to the negative electrode current collector during manufacturing.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Andersen discloses the negative electrode as set forth above, but does not disclose wherein the second conductive material and the first conductive material are included in the negative electrode active material layer at a weight ratio of 0.7:99.3 to 1.5:99.5. However, as set forth above, modified Andersen does disclose that the second conductive material is included in the negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 0.2 to 1 wt%, and the first conductive material is included in the negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 8.5 to 30 wt%. It can therefore be understood that for modified Andersen, the weight ratio of second conductive material and first conductive material included in the negative electrode active material layer ranges from 0.7:99.3 (this being the ratio of the minimum wt% of second conductive material to the maximum wt% of first conductive material, calculated as follows):
m
i
n
.
w
t
%
s
e
c
o
n
d
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
(
C
M
)
m
i
n
.
w
t
%
s
e
c
o
n
d
C
M
+
m
a
x
.
w
t
%
f
i
r
s
t
C
M
:
m
a
x
.
w
t
%
f
i
r
s
t
C
M
m
i
n
.
w
t
%
s
e
c
o
n
d
C
M
+
m
a
x
.
w
t
%
f
i
r
s
t
C
M
=
0.2
w
t
%
30.2
w
t
%
:
30
w
t
%
30.2
w
t
%
=
0.007
:
0.993
=
0.7
:
99.3
to 10.5:89.5 (this being the ratio of maximum wt% of second conductive material to the minimum wt% of the first conductive material, calculated in an analogous manner as above).
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the weight ratio of the second conductive material and the first conductive material included in the negative electrode active material layer with a reasonable expectation that such selection will result in a functional negative electrode.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Andersen discloses the negative electrode as set forth above. Andersen further discloses ([0082]) wherein the silicon-based active material is included in the negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 60 wt%.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Andersen discloses the negative electrode as set forth above. Andersen further discloses ([0091]) wherein the binder comprises the cellulose-based compound and the rubber-based compound at a weight ratio of 0.8:1 to 1:0.8, (equivalent to 44:56 to 56:44).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Andersen discloses the negative electrode as set forth above. Andersen further discloses ([0073]) wherein the cellulose-based compound comprises carboxymethyl cellulose.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Andersen discloses the negative electrode as set forth above. Andersen further discloses ([0073]) wherein the rubber-based compound comprises styrene-butadiene rubber.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Andersen discloses the negative electrode as set forth above. As already set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Andersen discloses ([0091]) wherein the binder is included in the negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 7.5 wt% to 17.5 wt%.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Andersen discloses the negative electrode as set forth above. Modified Andersen further discloses a secondary battery (see lithium-ion battery, [0052]) comprising:
the negative electrode (see anode, [0052]) according to Claim 1;
a positive electrode (see cathode, [0052]) opposing the negative electrode (FIG. 1a, 1b);
a separator (see separator, [0052]) interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (FIG. 1a, 1b); and
an electrolyte (see non-aqueous liquid electrolyte, [0052]).
Claims 2, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen et al. (US 2018/0040880 A1) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2019/108039 A2; US 2020/0243848 A1 used herein for citation and translation purposes) as applied to Claims 1, 4, and 6–15 above, further in view of Azami (US 2014/0227601 A1; art already of record).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Andersen discloses the negative electrode as set forth above, but does not disclose wherein the graphite is plate-shaped.
Azami teaches a negative electrode (see negative electrode 1, [0029], FIG. 1) comprising: a negative electrode current collector (see negative electrode collector 4, [0029], FIG. 1); and a negative electrode active material layer (see negative electrode active material 3, [0029], FIG. 1) disposed on the negative electrode current collector ([0029], FIG. 1), wherein the negative electrode active material layer includes a carbon-based active material ([0030]), a conductive material including graphite (see platy graphite conductive additives 2, [0029], FIG. 1), and a binder (see binder 11, [0038], FIG. 1). Azami teaches ([0039], [0041]) that the graphite is plate-shaped (see platy shape, [0034]), which allows for excellent homogeneous dispersibility, reduced resistance rise and capacity reduction due to scarce disconnection of conductive networks during the charge and discharge cycle, and easier formation of electrolyte solution flow paths.
Azami is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of negative electrodes for lithium-cycling secondary batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode of modified Andersen such that the graphite is plate-shaped, as taught by Azami, for the purpose of achieving excellent homogeneous dispersibility, reduced resistance rise and capacity reduction due to scarce disconnection of conductive networks during the charge and discharge cycle, and easier formation of electrolyte solution flow paths.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Andersen discloses the negative electrode as set forth above, but does not disclose wherein a specific surface area of the first conductive material is 5 m2/g to 40 m2/g.
Azami teaches a negative electrode (see negative electrode 1, [0029], FIG. 1) comprising: a negative electrode current collector (see negative electrode collector 4, [0029], FIG. 1); and a negative electrode active material layer (see negative electrode active material 3, [0029], FIG. 1) disposed on the negative electrode current collector ([0029], FIG. 1), wherein the negative electrode active material layer includes a carbon-based active material ([0030]), a conductive material including graphite (see platy graphite conductive additives 2, [0029], FIG. 1), and a binder (see binder 11, [0038], FIG. 1). Azami teaches ([0045]) that when the specific surface area of graphite ranges from 10 m2/g to 40 m2/g, extensive side reactions with the electrolyte which generate gas and degrade life properties of the battery can be avoided, while efficient contact in gaps among the negative electrode active materials can be made.
Azami is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of negative electrodes for lithium-cycling secondary batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode of modified Andersen such that the specific surface area of the first conductive material is 10 m2/g to 40 m2/g as taught by Azami, for the purpose of avoiding extensive side reactions with the electrolyte which generate gas and degrade life properties of the battery, and making efficient contact in gaps among the negative electrode active materials.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Andersen discloses the negative electrode as set forth above, but does not disclose wherein an aspect ratio of the first conductive material is 1.1 to 30.0.
Azami teaches a negative electrode (see negative electrode 1, [0029], FIG. 1) comprising: a negative electrode current collector (see negative electrode collector 4, [0029], FIG. 1); and a negative electrode active material layer (see negative electrode active material 3, [0029], FIG. 1) disposed on the negative electrode current collector ([0029], FIG. 1), wherein the negative electrode active material layer includes a carbon-based active material ([0030]), a conductive material including graphite (see platy graphite conductive additives 2, [0029], FIG. 1), and a binder (see binder 11, [0038], FIG. 1). Azami teaches ([0039], [0041]) that when the graphite is plate-shaped (see platy shape, [0034]), it provides the advantages of excellent homogeneous dispersibility, reduced resistance rise and capacity reduction due to scarce disconnection of conductive networks during the charge and discharge cycle, and easier formation of electrolyte solution flow paths. Azami further teaches ([0034]) that the conductive material is considered plate-shaped when a ratio of the minor axis length to the major axis length, i.e. the inverse of the aspect ratio, is 0.2 or lower; put another way, Azami teaches that the conductive material is considered plate-shaped when the aspect ratio (i.e. a ratio of the major axis length to the minor axis length) is 5 or higher.
Azami is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of negative electrodes for lithium-cycling secondary batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode of modified Andersen such that the aspect ratio of the first conductive material is 5 or higher, as taught by Azami, for the purpose of ensuring that the first conductive material is plate-shaped graphite which provides the advantages of excellent homogeneous dispersibility, reduced resistance rise and capacity reduction due to scarce disconnection of conductive networks during the charge and discharge cycle, and easier formation of electrolyte solution flow paths.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the ranges for the aspect ratio of the first conductive material with a reasonably expectation that such selection would successfully result in plate-shaped graphite which provides the advantages of excellent homogeneous dispersibility, reduced resistance rise and capacity reduction due to scarce disconnection of conductive networks during the charge and discharge cycle, and easier formation of electrolyte solution flow paths.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 16 March 2026 with respect to amended Claim 1 in regards to the references Andersen and Kim have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues on p. 7 of Remarks that excluding carbon black from the conductive materials in the negative electrode active material layer of Claim 1 would contradict the technical teaching of Andersen, and that even if a person skilled in the art were to combine Andersen and Kim, it would not be obvious to derive the configuration of the claimed invention in which carbon black is excluded. This argument is not persuasive. While Andersen does disclose utilization of carbon black as a conductive material in the negative electrode active material layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have still found it obvious to replace the carbon black with single-walled carbon nanotubes as the second conductive material in light of the teachings of Kim ([0036]–[0038], [0041], [0042], [0052], [0054]), as set forth in detail in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Applicant argues on p. 7–8 of Remarks that e.g. Comparative Example 2 of the instant specification demonstrates that performance is inferior when carbon black is included, and that it proves that the inclusion of carbon black acts disadvantageously in terms of maintaining the conductive network and addressing the volume expansion of the silicon-based active material. This argument is not persuasive. It is respectfully submitted that the evidence presented in the instant specification is not sufficient to prove that performance is inferior because carbon black has been included in the negative electrode active material layer. While Comparative Example 1 and Comparative Example 2, which are the only examples including carbon black, do appear to exhibit inferior performance compared to inventive Examples 1–3, it is noted that there are other aspects of Comparative Examples 1 and 2 which are different from Examples 1–3; i.e. both Comparative Examples 1 and 2 include 9.8 wt% graphite, which is an amount less than Examples 1–3 and outside the claimed range of 15 to 25 wt.%, and further Comparative Example includes a different binder composition from Examples 1–3 and the presently claimed binder composition. Thus it cannot be proved definitively based on the evidence in the instant specification that is the presence of carbon black specifically that causes the inferior performance of Comparative Examples 1 and 2.
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 JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights