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 13 February 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 18 November 2025. Claims 5, 8–10, 17, 19, and 20 have been canceled. Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 11–16, and 18 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because “1,3-propanesultone” should instead read “1,3-propanesulfonate” as recited throughout the instant specification; it is noted that the Examiner has interpreted both terms above to refer to the same compound.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: “R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6” should instead read “R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6” to match the drawn structure. “R7” and “R8” in the claim should also be corrected to “R7” and “R8”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (CN 109964348 A; US 2020/0403246 A1 used herein for translation and citation purposes; art already of record) in view of DuBois et al. (US 2017/0084951 A1), and further in view of Matsuoka et al. (US 2014/0255796 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, Takeda discloses an electrochemical apparatus (see an electrical storage device, [0117]), comprising an electrode (see positive or negative electrode, [0117]) and an electrolyte (see electrolyte, [0125]), wherein the electrode comprises a current collector (see current collector, [0068]), an intermediate layer (see coating layer, [0074]) disposed on the current collector, and an active material layer (see positive electrode active material, [0118], or negative electrode active material, [0121]) disposed on the intermediate layer ([0124]).
Takeda does not explicitly disclose wherein an area ratio A of the intermediate layer to the active material layer ranges from 0.9 to 1.1. However, Takeda does disclose ([0075]) that the purpose of the intermediate layer is to enhance conduction between the current collector and the active material layer. One of ordinary skill in the art will therefore understand from the disclosure of Takeda that when the area ratio A of the intermediate layer to the active material layer is 1, conduction can be maximally enhanced between the current collector and the active material layer without excess areas of intermediate layer being present (which one of ordinary skill in the art will understand would result in non-optimal apparatus weight and manufacturing costs).
Takeda is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of electrochemical apparatuses capable of cycling lithium. 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 electrochemical apparatus of Takeda such that the area ratio A of the intermediate layer to the active material layer is 1, for the purpose of maximally enhancing conduction between the current collector and active material layer without having excess areas of intermediate layer present.
Takeda does not disclose wherein the electrolyte comprises a sulfur-oxygen double bond-containing compound, wherein the sulfur-oxygen double bond-containing compound comprises 1,3-propanesultone, and based on a weight of the electrolyte, a percentage of the sulfur-oxygen double bond-containing compound is Y%, 0.01 ≤ Y ≤ 10.
DuBois teaches an electrochemical apparatus (see electrochemical cell, [0075]), comprising an electrode (see anode and cathode, [0075]) and an electrolyte (see electrolyte composition, [0025], [0075]). DuBois further teaches ([0072]–[0073]) that inclusion of a gas-reduction additive such as 1,3-propanesultone in an amount of 0.05% to 5% based on a weight of the electrolyte is useful for reducing the amount of gas generated during charging and discharging of lithium ion batteries, and that such a practice is conventionally known.
DuBois is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of electrochemical apparatuses capable of cycling lithium. 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 electrochemical apparatus of modified Takeda such that the electrolyte comprises 1,3-propanesultone in an amount of 0.05% to 5% based on a weight of the electrolyte, as taught by DuBois, for the purpose of reducing the amount of gas generated during charging and discharging of lithium ion batteries.
It can therefore be understood that the value of A and range of Y disclosed by modified Takeda of A = 1 and 0.05 ≤ Y ≤ 5 will result in a product A × Y that ranges from 0.05 (this being the product of the minimum possible values of A and Y) to 5 (this being the product of the maximum possible values of A and Y), i.e. 0.05 ≤ A × Y ≤ 5.
Modified Takeda does not disclose wherein the electrolyte comprises an organic compound having a cyano group, and the organic compound having the cyano group comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of butanedinitrile, adiponitrile, ethylene glycol di(2-cyanoethyl) ether, 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile, and 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane.
Matsuoka teaches an electrochemical apparatus (see lithium-ion secondary battery 100, [0057], FIG. 1), comprising an electrode (see positive electrode and negative electrode, [0057]) and an electrolyte (see electrolyte solution, [0057]), wherein the electrode comprises a current collector (see positive electrode current collector 140 and negative electrode current collector 150, [0057], FIG. 1), an intermediate layer disposed on the current collector (see conductive layer, [0149]), and an active material layer disposed on the intermediate layer (see positive-electrode active material layer 120 and negative-electrode active material layer 130, [0057], [0149], FIG. 1), the electrolyte comprises a sulfur-oxygen double bond-containing compound comprising 1,3-propanesultone (see compound (1), [0082], which can be 1,3-propanesultone, [0089]). Matsuoka further teaches ([0096]–[0097]) that inclusion of a dinitrile additive such as adiponitrile has an effect of reducing corrosion of the metal parts, such as the battery can and the electrodes, via formation of a protective film on their surfaces.
Matsuoka is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of electrochemical apparatuses capable of cycling lithium. 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 electrochemical apparatus of modified Takeda such that the electrolyte comprises adiponitrile, as taught by Matsuoka, for the purpose of reducing corrosion of the metal parts, such as the battery can and the electrodes, via formation of a protective film on their surfaces.
Further regarding Claim 16, Takeda further discloses an electronic apparatus (see laptop computers, mobile phones, power tools, electronic communication devices, and the like, [0003]) comprising the electrochemical apparatus as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Takeda discloses the electrochemical apparatus as set forth above. Takeda further discloses wherein the intermediate layer comprises a conductive material (see powdery carbon material, [0074]), and an average particle size of the conductive material is 10 to 100 nm ([0079]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Takeda discloses the electrochemical apparatus as set forth above. Takeda further discloses wherein the conductive material comprises at least one of carbon black (see carbon blacks, [0077]), carbon fiber (see carbon fibers, [0077]), or carbon nanotube (see carbon nanotubes, [0077]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Takeda discloses the electrochemical apparatus as set forth above, but does not disclose wherein a specific surface area of the conductive material is X m2/g, and 20 ≤ X ≤ 300. Instead, Takeda discloses ([0078]) wherein a specific surface area of the conductive material is X m2/g, and 0 < X ≤ 75. Takeda further discloses ([0078]) that when the specific surface area of the conductive material is within the range of 75 m2/g or less, the conductive material exhibits good dispersibility in the coating liquid, the coating liquid can form a uniform coating layer on the current collector, and the adhesion among particles and between the current collector and the intermediate layer can be maintained.
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 conductive material with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a conductive material which exhibits good dispersibility in the coating liquid, wherein the coating liquid can form a uniform coating layer on the current collector, and wherein adhesion among particles and between the current collector and the intermediate layer can be maintained.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Takeda discloses the electrochemical apparatus as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein, based on a weight of the electrolyte, 1 ≤ Y ≤ 6. Instead, as set forth in the rejections of Claims 1 and 16 above, modified Takeda discloses wherein, based on a weight of the electrolyte, 0.05 ≤ Y ≤ 5, and DuBois teaches ([0072]–[0073]) that inclusion of a gas-reduction additive such as 1,3-propanesultone in an amount of 0.05% to 5% based on a weight of the electrolyte is useful for reducing the amount of gas generated during charging and discharging of lithium ion batteries, and that such a practice is conventionally known.
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 percentage by weight of 1,3-propanesultone with a reasonable expectation that such selection would result in a reduced amount of gas generated during charging and discharging of lithium ion batteries.
Modified Takeda does not disclose wherein 1 ≤ A × Y ≤ 6, and instead it can be understood that the value of A and range of Y disclosed by modified Takeda of A = 1 and 0.05 ≤ Y ≤ 5 will result in a product A × Y that ranges from 0.05 (this being the product of the minimum possible values of A and Y) to 5 (this being the product of the maximum possible values of A and Y), i.e. 0.05 ≤ A × Y ≤ 5.
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 value of A × Y with a reasonable expectation that such selection would result in a functional electrochemical apparatus which exhibits maximally enhanced conduction between the current collector and active material layer without having excess areas of intermediate layer present and a reduced amount of gas generated during charging and discharging.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Takeda discloses the electrochemical apparatus as set forth above. Modified Takeda does not disclose wherein based on a weight of the electrolyte, 0.2 ≤ X × Y ≤ 200, and instead it can be understood that the ranges of X and Y disclosed by modified Takeda of 0 < X ≤ 75 and 0.05 ≤ Y ≤ 5 will result in a product X × Y that ranges from greater than 0 (this being the product of the minimum possible values of X and Y) to 375 (this being the product of the maximum possible values of X and Y), i.e. 0 < X × Y ≤ 375.
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 value of X × Y with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a functional electrochemical apparatus having a conductive material which exhibits good dispersibility in the coating liquid, wherein the coating liquid can form a uniform coating layer on the current collector, and wherein adhesion among particles and between the current collector and the intermediate layer can be maintained, and which exhibits a reduced amount of gas generated during charging and discharging.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Takeda discloses the electronic apparatus as set forth above. Takeda further discloses wherein the intermediate layer comprises a conductive material (see powdery carbon material, [0074]), and an average particle size of the conductive material is 10 to 100 nm ([0079]).
Takeda does not disclose wherein a specific surface area of the conductive material is X m2/g, and 20 ≤ X ≤ 300. Instead, Takeda discloses ([0078]) wherein a specific surface area of the conductive material is X m2/g, and 0 < X ≤ 75. Takeda further discloses ([0078]) that when the specific surface area of the conductive material is within the range of 75 m2/g or less, the conductive material exhibits good dispersibility in the coating liquid, the coating liquid can form a uniform coating layer on the current collector, and the adhesion among particles and between the current collector and the intermediate layer can be maintained.
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 conductive material with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a conductive material which exhibits good dispersibility in the coating liquid, wherein the coating liquid can form a uniform coating layer on the current collector, and wherein adhesion among particles and between the current collector and the intermediate layer can be maintained.
Modified Takeda does not disclose wherein 0.2 ≤ X × Y ≤ 200, and instead it can be understood that the ranges of X and Y disclosed by modified Takeda of 0 < X ≤ 75 and 0.05 ≤ Y ≤ 5 will result in a product X × Y that ranges from greater than 0 (this being the product of the minimum possible values of X and Y) to 375 (this being the product of the maximum possible values of X and Y), i.e. 0 < X × Y ≤ 375.
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 value of X × Y with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a functional electronic apparatus having a conductive material which exhibits good dispersibility in the coating liquid, wherein the coating liquid can form a uniform coating layer on the current collector, and wherein adhesion among particles and between the current collector and the intermediate layer can be maintained, and which exhibits a reduced amount of gas generated during charging and discharging.
Claims 11–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (CN 109964348 A; US 2020/0403246 A1 used herein for translation and citation purposes) in view of DuBois et al. (US 2017/0084951 A1), and further in view of Matsuoka et al. (US 2014/0255796 A1), as applied to Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 16, and 18 above, further in view of Wang (CN 109301322 A; US 2020/0099103 A1 used herein for translation and citation purposes; art already of record), further in view of Uematsu et al. (US 2016/0248121 A1), and further in view of Oh et al. (US 2020/0127333 A1; art already of record).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Takeda discloses the electrochemical apparatus as set forth above, but does not disclose wherein the electrolyte further comprises at least one of the following compounds:
a propionate;
lithium difluorophosphate; or
a compound of formula 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
297
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
formula 2,
wherein
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6 each are independently hydrogen or C1–C10 alkyl group; and
L1 and L2 each are independently –(CR7R8)n–;
R7 and R8 each are independently hydrogen or C1–C10 alkyl group; and
n is 1, 2, or 3.
Wang teaches an electrochemical apparatus (see electrochemical device, [0124]), comprising an electrode (see cathode and anode, [0124]) and an electrolyte (see electrolyte, [0053]), wherein the electrolyte can comprise a propionate (see ethyl propionate and propyl propionate, [0122]–[0123]). Wang teaches ([0123]) that including a chain carboxylate such as ethyl propionate or propyl propionate in the electrolyte results in formation of a passivated film on the surface of the electrode, thereby improving the capacity retention after the intermittent charge cycles of the electrochemical apparatus.
Wang is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of electrochemical apparatuses capable of cycling lithium. 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 electrochemical apparatus of modified Takeda such that the electrolyte further comprises a propionate, as taught by Wang, specifically ethyl propionate or propyl propionate, for the purpose of forming a passivated film on the surface of the electrode, thereby improving the capacity retention after the intermittent charge cycles of the electrochemical apparatus.
Uematsu teaches an electrochemical apparatus (see non-aqueous storage battery device, [0220]), comprising an electrode (see positive electrode and negative electrode, [0221]) and an electrolyte (see electrolytic solution, [0200]). Uematsu further teaches ([0216]–[0218]) that inclusion of a fluorophosphate in the electrolyte such as lithium difluorophosphate enhances cycle lifetime and ion conductivity of the electrochemical apparatus.
Uematsu is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of electrochemical apparatuses capable of cycling lithium. 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 electrochemical apparatus of modified Takeda such that the electrolyte further comprises difluorophosphate, as taught by Uematsu, for the purpose of enhancing cycle lifetime and ion conductivity of the electrochemical apparatus.
Oh teaches an electrochemical apparatus (see a lithium secondary battery, [0115]), comprising an electrode (see cathode and anode, [0117]) and an electrolyte (see electrolyte, [0050]), wherein the electrolyte can comprise a compound of formula 2 (see cyclic phosphate compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and [Chemical Formula 1], [0050]–[0058]). Oh teaches ([0057]–[0058]) that including the compound of formula 2 in the electrolyte increases the stability of the positive electrode, lowers resistance of the electrochemical apparatus, minimizes the thickness increase rate at high temperature, and improves cycle life characteristics.
Oh is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of electrochemical apparatuses capable of cycling lithium. 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 electrochemical apparatus of modified Takeda such that the electrolyte further comprises a compound of formula 2, as taught by Oh, for the purpose of improving the stability of the positive electrode, lowering resistance of the electrochemical apparatus, minimizing the thickness increase rate at high temperature, and improving cycle life characteristics.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Takeda discloses the electrochemical apparatus as set forth above. Modified Takeda further discloses wherein the compound of formula 2 comprises one of:
PNG
media_image2.png
302
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(see first six compounds listed in Oh [0034], which correspond to formulas 2-1 through 2-6 above, respectively).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Takeda discloses the electrochemical apparatus as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein based on a weight of the electrolyte, a percentage of the propionate is in a range of 10% to 60%.
Wang teaches ([0213]) that based on weight of the electrolyte, a percentage of the propionate is in a range of 1% to 60%, and, as set forth above, that including a propionate in the electrolyte results in formation of a passivated film on the surface of the electrode, thereby improving the capacity retention rate after the intermittent charge cycles of the electrochemical device. One of ordinary skill in the art will therefore understand that the disclosure of Wang appears to suggest that such effects can be observed when the propionate is included, based on a weight of the electrolyte, in a range of 1% to 60%.
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 percentage of propionate based on weight of the electrolyte with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in an electrolyte which forms a passivated film on the surface of the electrode, thereby improving the capacity retention after the intermittent charge cycles of the electrochemical apparatus.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Takeda discloses the electrochemical apparatus as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein based on the weight of the electrolyte, a percentage of the lithium difluorophosphate is b%, and 0.01 ≤ b ≤ 2.
Uematsu teaches that when, based on weight of the electrolyte, the difluorophosphate is preferably included in an amount of 0.02% to 3%, which allows for cycle lifetime and ion conductivity of the electrochemical apparatus to be enhanced.
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 percentage of lithium difluorophosphate based on weight of the electrolyte with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in enhanced cycle lifetime and ion conductivity for the electrochemical apparatus.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Takeda discloses the electrochemical apparatus as set forth above, but does not disclose wherein 0.01 ≤ Y/b ≤ 100. Instead, it can be understood that the ranges of Y and b disclosed by modified Takeda of 0.05 ≤ Y ≤ 5 and 0.02 ≤ b ≤ 3 will result in a quotient Y/b that ranges from 0.017 (this being the result of dividing the minimum possible value of Y by the maximum possible value of b) to 250 (this being the result of dividing the maximum possible value of Y by the minimum possible value of b), i.e. 0.017 ≤ Y/b ≤ 250.
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 value of Y/b with a reasonable expectation that such selection will successfully result in a functional electrochemical apparatus that exhibits a reduced amount of gas generated during charging and discharging and enhanced cycle lifetime and ion conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 13 February 2026 with regards to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections in the office action mailed 18 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons (note that while Applicant’s argument is partially directed to the teaching reference Kim which is not relied upon in the new ground of rejection presented in this office action, because Applicant’s argument would generally apply also to the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action, it is still being addressed here):
Applicant argues on p. 11 of Remarks that the office action does not identify any disclosure in Takeda or Kim that teaches or suggests the amended requirement 0.009 ≤ A × Y ≤ 6 as a constraint that quantitatively ties the electrode-side area ratio A to the electrolyte-side sulfur-oxygen double bond-containing compound content Y, and that because amended claim 1 requires coordinated control of A and Y through their product, and because neither Takeda nor Kim describe that coordinated relationship, the cited combination fails to teach or suggest the amended claim 1 coupling limitation.
This argument is not persuasive. As set forth in the rejection above, the combination of primary reference Takeda and teaching reference DuBois renders obvious a value of A and range of Y of A = 1 and 0.05 ≤ Y ≤ 5, resulting in a range of 0.05 ≤ A × Y ≤ 5. As such, modified Takeda can be understood as satisfying the limitations of amended claim 1, regardless of whether either Takeda and DuBois explicitly recognize a coordinated relationship between A and Y.
Applicant argues on p. 11 of Remarks that the present specification further supports the non-arbitrary nature of the claimed A × Y relationship, specifically pointing to a comparison of Example 1-3 and Example 1-11 shown in Table 1, and stating that the data indicate that the electrochemical performance is not explained by selecting Y in isolation, but is instead consistent with coordinated control reflected in the claimed A × Y constraint.
This argument is not persuasive. The Applicant’s statement that there is a non-arbitrary nature to the claimed A × Y relationship appears to be a conclusory statement without any supporting evidence (see MPEP 716.01(c)). For instance, evidence relied upon by the Applicant regarding the non-arbitrary, i.e. unobviousness, nature of the relationship should establish “that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.” Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). In the instant case, Applicant has not provided a statistical analysis showing that the A × Y relationship is indeed non-arbitrary. Applicant has also, for example, not demonstrated criticality of the entire claimed range; to establish advantageous results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 716.02(d).II). It is noted that e.g. Example 1-13 appears to have an A × Y value outside of the claimed range of 7.2, however this example exhibits a lower thickness swelling rate than e.g. Example 1-11 which lies within the claimed range.
Applicant argues on p. 11 of Remarks that even assuming arguendo that certain prior-art ranges may overlap portions of Applicant’s claimed Y range, the combined limitations of claim 1 are not satisfied solely by overlap of Y alone, and the office action does not point to any disclosure in Takeda or Kim that teaches these limitations in combination, and the rejection therefore appears to rest on piecemeal selection and reconstruction rather than a teaching or suggestion of the claimed coordinated limitations.
This argument is not persuasive. As set forth in the rejection above, it is respectfully submitted that the combined limitations of amended Claim 1 are rendered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention by primary reference Takeda in view of teaching references DuBois and Matsuoka.
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