DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 11, 2026 has been submitted for consideration by the Office. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “….the CNT being a molecular structure consisting of carbon atoms”, does not reasonably provide enablement for “….the nanoscale carbon particles consisting of carbon”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most-nearly connected, to manufacture the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Specifically, while the specification states that “A CNT is a molecular scale structure consisting of carbon (C) atoms arranged in one or more cylindrical layers (e.g. single walled, multi-walled) joined by covalent bonds in a hexagonal tiling or other geometric pattern within each layer, so as to form a hollow tube having a diameter of up to a few hundred nanometers.”, the specification, based on the methods disclosed, doesn’t necessarily disclose how to manufacture such an material consisting of just carbon material excluding metal catalysts, functional groups, adsorbed molecules, impurities and other carbon species. The statement stated above explains that the CNT is an allotrope of carbon atoms, meaning it is formed of a single material atom, which is carbon atom. However, allotrope of carbons, while being formed of a single material carbon atoms, may have various forms and have different chemical properties and makeups. For instance, diamonds and graphite are both allotropes of carbon, which means they both are formed of a single material atom, i.e. carbon atom, however their makeup and properties, are extremely different, and while made of a single carbon atom do not exclude metal catalysts, functional groups, adsorbed molecules, impurities and other carbon species. Therefore, while being enabled for CNT consisting of carbon atoms, meaning being allotropes of carbon atoms, the specification doesn’t provide support for forming nanoparticles of materials consisting of carbon, i.e. meaning without metal catalysts, functional groups, adsorbed molecules, impurities and other carbon species. Based on the above, the applicant should remove such language from the claims and/or specify that the nanoparticles carbon particles consists of carbon atoms.
Claims 2-17 and 19-21 are depended upon rejected claims 1 & 18, and therefore are also rejected.
Treatment of Claims
The examiner assumes that the applicant intends to claim that the nanoscale carbon particles consist of carbon atoms, i.e. are allotropes as described in the specification, therefore formed of a single element atom, carbon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasushi (JP Pat Num 2017/082309A) in view of Uchida et al (Pub Num 2018/0233247, herein referred to as Uchida). Yasushi discloses a busbar (Fig 1-5) that inhibits stress relaxation even under high temperature environments, while also maintaining strength (abstract). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Yasushi discloses a busbar (21, Fig 5) configured for an electrical power distribution application (Paragraph 54), wherein the busbar (21) comprising an aluminum (Al) metal matrix composite (MMC, Paragraph 56) comprising nanoscale carbon particles in a concentration of 0.01 to 2 percent by weight (wt.%, i.e. 0.1-2.0 mass %, Paragraph 27), wherein the nanoscale carbon particles are evenly distributed throughout an entirety of the Al-MMC (Paragraph 31). With respect to claim 2, Yasushi discloses that the concentration of the nanoscale carbon particles is in a range of 0.1 to 1 wt.% (i.e. 0.1-2.0 mass %, Paragraph 27). With respect to claim 3, Yasushi discloses that the concentration of the nanoscale carbon particles is in a range of 0.2 to 0.8 wt.%( i.e. 0.1-2.0 mass %, Paragraph 27). With respect to claim 8, Yasushi discloses that the nanoscale carbon particles are selected from the group consisting of: carbon nanotubes (i.e. CNTs, Paragraph 32). With respect to claim 9, Yasushi discloses that the busbar (21) has an electrical conductivity greater than 50% International Annealed Copper Standard (IACS, i.e. 57% IACS, Paragraph 91, Example 6), an ultimate tensile strength (UTS) greater than 80 MPa (i.e. 200 MPa, Paragraph 91, Example 6), and an elongation greater than 10% (i.e. 9-36.9 %, Table 1). With respect to claim 10, Yasushi discloses that the busbar (21) may have an electrical conductivity greater than 50% IACS (i.e. 57% IACS, Paragraph 91, Example 6), a UTS greater than 120 MPa (i.e. 200 MPa, Paragraph 91, Example 6), and an elongation greater than 30% (i.e. 9-36.9 %, Table 1). With respect to claim 11, Yasushi discloses that the busbar has an electrical conductivity greater than 50% IACS (i.e. 57% IACS, Paragraph 91, Example 6, a UTS greater than 200 MPa (i.e. 217 MPa, Paragraph 91, Example 6), and an elongation greater than 1 % (i.e. 9-36.9 %, Table 1). With respect to claim 12, Yasushi discloses that the busbar (21) may have an electrical conductivity greater than 50% IACS (i.e. 57% IACS, Paragraph 91, Example 6), a UTS greater than 120 MPa (i.e. 200 MPa, Paragraph 91, Example 6), and an elongation greater than 3% (i.e. 9-36.9 %, Table 1). With respect to claim 16, Yasushi discloses that the busbar (21), wherein the electrical power distribution application (i.e. battery termination 22) is an automotive application (i.e. fuse unit 20, Paragraph 54).
While Yasushi discloses that the nanoscale particles being carbon nanotubes (Paragraph 32), Yasushi doesn’t necessarily disclose the aluminum metal matrix composite consisting essentially of aluminum or aluminum alloy and nanoscale particles, wherein the nanoscale particles consists of carbon atoms (claim 1), nor the nanoscale carbon particles include single- walled carbon nanotubes (CNTs) (claim 4), nor the nanoscale carbon particles include multi- walled CNTs (claim 5).
Uchida teaches a cable (Figs 1-13) configured for an electrical power distribution application (Paragraph 2), while exhibiting an electrical conductivity and tensile strength higher than that of pure aluminum (Paragraphs 9-10). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Uchida teaches a cable (1, Fig 1) consisting essentially of an aluminum (Al) metal matrix composite (10, Paragraph 33) comprising nanoscale carbon particles (20), which consist of carbon atoms (i.e. CNT being an allotrope of carbon, Paragraph 40) in a concentration of 0.01 to 2 percent by weight (wt.%, i.e. 0.1-1.25 mass %, Paragraph 12), wherein the nanoscale carbon particles (20) are evenly distributed to cover the surface of the Al-MMC (Paragraph 63). With respect to claims 4-5, Uchida discloses that the nanoscale carbon particles (20) may be any carbon nanotubes such as single- walled carbon nanotubes (CNTs) or multi-wall carbon nanotubes (Paragraph 40).
With respect to claim 1 & 4-5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the busbar of Yasushi to comprise the Al-MMC consisting essentially of aluminum metal matrix composite consisting essentially of aluminum or aluminum alloy and nanoscale particles configuration as taught by Uchida because Uchida teaches that such a configuration provides a cable (Figs 1-13) configured for an electrical power distribution application (Paragraph 2), while exhibiting an electrical conductivity and tensile strength higher than that of pure aluminum (Paragraphs 9-10).
Yasushi also doesn’t necessarily disclose the busbar having a UTS greater than 300 MPa (claim 12), nor the busbar, wherein after heating the busbar either at 4000C for 1 hour or at 3100C for 400 hours, the UTS of the busbar is at least 90% of its UTS prior to heating (claim 13), nor the busbar, wherein after creep testing for 100 hours at 1500C with an applied load of 80% of its room-temperature yield strength, the busbar shows a total displacement of less than 5% (claim 14), nor the busbar, wherein after creep testing for 500 hours at 1500C with an applied load of 80% of its room-temperature yield strength, the busbar shows a total displacement of less than 5% (claim 15), nor the busbar, wherein the busbar has a total carbon content of up to about 0.5 wt.% and an even distribution of carbon, in which the total area fraction of carbon particles larger than about 1 µm is less than about 0.38% (claim 17).
With respect to claims 12-15 and 17, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the busbar of Yasushi to comprise the busbar having an UTS of the busbar greater than 300%, wherein after heating the busbar either at 4000C for 1 hour or at 3100C for 400 hours, the UTS of the busbar is at least 90% of its UTS prior to heating, or the busbar, wherein after creep testing for 100 hours at 1500C with an applied load of 80% of its room-temperature yield strength, the busbar shows a total displacement of less than 5%, or the busbar, wherein after creep testing for 500 hours at 1500C with an applied load of 80% of its room-temperature yield strength, the busbar shows a total displacement of less than 5%, or the busbar, wherein the busbar has a total carbon content of up to about 0.5 wt.% and an even distribution of carbon, in which the total area fraction of carbon particles larger than about 1 µm is less than about 0.38%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a 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 233.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasushi (JP Pat Num 2017/082309A) in view of Uchida (Pub Num 2018/0233247), as applied to claim 1 above (herein referred to as modified Yasushi), further in view of Schmidt et al (Pub Num 2011/0203831, herein referred to as Schmidt). Modified Yasushi discloses a busbar (Fig 1-5) that inhibits stress relaxation even under high temperature environments, while also maintaining strength (abstract), as applied to claim 1.
While modified Yasushi discloses that the nanoscale particles being carbon nanotubes (Paragraph 32), modified Yasushi doesn’t necessarily disclose the wherein the nanoscale carbon particles including graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs), fullerenes, nano-diamonds, or any combination thereof (claim 6), nor the nanoscale carbon particles include nanoparticles with predominantly sp2 or sp3 carbon (claim 7).
Schmidt teaches a composition for metal strips having improves friction coefficient, good contact resistance, good friction corrosion resistance, good wear resistance, and good formability (abstract). Specifically, with respect to claims 6-7, Schmidt teaches a composition that may be utilized with aluminum/aluminum alloy metal strips, wherein the composition may comprise single wall or multi-wall carbon nanotubes (Paragraph 13), fullerenes (Paragraph 13), and graphene of sp2 carbon (Paragraph 14-15) and combinations herein (Paragraph 17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the busbar of modified Yasushi to comprise the nanotubes being single or multi-walled nanotubes, fullerenes, or graphene configuration as taught by Schmidt because Schmidt teaches that such a configuration provides a composition for aluminum metal strips that has improved friction coefficient, good contact resistance, good friction corrosion resistance, good wear resistance, and good formability (abstract) and since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasushi (JP Pat Num 2017/082309A) in view of Hassan et al (NPL Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Carbon Nanotubes reinforced aluminum matrix composites synthesized via equal channel angular pressing, 6/2016, herein referred to as Hassan). Yasushi discloses a busbar (Fig 1-5) that inhibits stress relaxation even under high temperature environments, while also maintaining strength (abstract). Specifically, with respect to claim 18, Yasushi discloses a process for achieving even distribution of nanoscale carbon particles throughout an entirety of a metal matrix composite (MMC) component (Paragraph 31), the process comprising obtaining a metal matrix composite (MMC) feedstock material comprising a metal matrix consisting essentially of metal or metal alloy and nanoscale carbon particles (Paragraph 56) and processing the MMC feedstock material through a solid-state deformation process to form the MMC component with even distribution of the nanoscale carbon particles throughout an entirety of the MMC component (Paragraph 32-35). With respect to claim 19, Yasushi discloses a process wherein the solid-state deformation process comprises an extrusion process (Paragraph 39-40). With respect to claim 21, Yasushi discloses a process, wherein the MMC feedstock material is an aluminum (Al) MMC feedstock material (Paragraph 39).
While Yasushi discloses that the nanoscale particles being carbon nanotubes (Paragraph 32), Yasushi doesn’t necessarily disclose the aluminum metal matrix composite consisting essentially of aluminum or aluminum alloy and nanoscale particles consisting of carbon atoms (claim 18), the process, wherein the solid-state deformation process comprises an ECAP process (claim 20).
Hassan teaches an aluminum (Al) MMC feedstock material, for usage in automobile and aerospace industries, that is excellent mechanical and electrical properties, as well as being light weight, of high strength, and stiffness (Page 205, See Introduction, 1st and 2nd paragraphs). Specifically, with respect to claim 18, Hassan teaches that process for achieving even distribution of nanoscale carbon particles throughout an entirety of a metal matrix composite (MMC) component (Page 205, abstract), the process comprising obtaining a metal matrix composite (MMC) feedstock material comprising a metal matrix consisting essentially of metal or metal alloy and nanoscale carbon particles (Table 1, Page 207) and nanoscale carbon particles consisting of carbon atoms (i.e. CNT, Page 205, abstract) and processing the MMC feedstock material through a solid-state deformation process to form the MMC component with even distribution of the nanoscale carbon particles throughout an entirety of the MMC component (Abstract), wherein the aluminum metal matrix composite consisting essentially of aluminum or aluminum alloy and nanoscale particles (Table 1, Page 207). With respect to claim 20, Hassan teaches that the solid state deformation process, may be an ECAP process (Page 205, abstract).
With respect to claims 18 & 20, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the busbar of Yasushi to be made of a metal matrix consisting essentially of metal or metal alloy and nanoscale carbon particles and by the ECAP process as taught by Hassan because Hassan teaches that such an aluminum (Al) MMC feedstock material, for usage in automobile and aerospace industries, that is excellent mechanical and electrical properties, as well as being light weight, of high strength, and stiffness (Page 205, See Introduction, 1st and 2nd paragraphs) and since it is well known in the art of cables (i.e. metal bodies) that the ECAP (equal channel angular pressing) process uses a heated mold to form metallic bodies from fine metal pieces in order the enhance the strength or ductility of the metallic material after it is bend and shaped (examiner takes official notice).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant argues the following
A) None of the references disclose the claim limitations of “nanoscale carbon particles consisting of carbon and being evenly distributed throughout the entirely of the AL-MMC.
B) Yasushi and Uchida fail to disclose the “aluminum metal matrix composite consisting essentially of aluminum or aluminum alloy and nanoscale carbon particles in a concentration of 0.01-2% by weight, wherein the nanoscale particles are evenly distributed throughout the entirety of the Al-MMC
C) Uchida doesn’t teach or suggest the carbon nanotubes being uniformly distributed throughout an entirely of the Al-MMC as claimed.
D) Uchida teaches away from the carbon nanotubes being uniformly distributed throughout an entirely of the Al-MMC as claimed.
E) Combining Yasushi and Uchida in the manner proposed by the examiner would require abandoning the core mechanism of whichever reference is being modified fundamentally changing its principle of operation and rendering it unsatisfactory for its stated purpose.
With respect to argument A, the examiner respectfully traverses. As detailed above, all of the references teach the nanoscale material being formed as CNT, which inherently suggest consisting of a carbon atom. Specifically, CNT are one type of allotropes of carbon, and therefore consist of carbon atoms. While the examiner believes that such known analysis meets the claimed invention, the examiner would also state that Uchida also teaches the nanocomposite carbon particles, specifically, the CNT consisting of carbon also. Uchida teaches in Paragraph 57, that the CNT are washed in acid in order to remove metal catalyst such as platinum or amorphous carbon in order to form CNT that are highly purified (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
96
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The applicant argues that Uchida doesn’t necessarily disclose that purification of the CNT is optional, not mandatory, however, the fact that Uchida discloses that purification is possible suggest that forming CNT consisting of just carbon is known. It is not improper to consider all the embodiments of a claimed invention, when determining whether a claimed invention is obvious. Specifically, the courts have been consistent that patents are relevant for all they disclose. In this case, Uchida not only teaches the CNT, which consist of carbon atoms, but also the CNT being purified to consist of carbon, minus other impurities and therefore in both cases, meets the claimed invention. In light of the above, the examiner respectfully submits that the 35 USC 103(a) rejections of claims 1 & 18 are proper and just.
With respect to arguments B-D, the examiner respectfully traverses. Yasushi discloses a busbar (21) comprising an aluminum (Al) metal matrix composite (MMC, Paragraph 56) comprising nanoscale carbon particles in a concentration of 0.01 to 2 percent by weight (wt.%, i.e. 0.1-2.0 mass %, Paragraph 27), wherein the nanoscale carbon particles are evenly distributed throughout an entirety of the Al-MMC (Paragraph 31). Paragraph 31 states “The dispersion reacts with the parent phase, ensuring the uniformity of the material, making it possible to suppress the elongation of the material and the decrease in electrical conductivity. Therefore, Yasushi discloses all of the claimed invention, except the aluminum (Al) metal matrix composite (MMC, Paragraph 56) consisting essentially of nanoscale carbon particles in a concentration of 0.01 to 2 percent by weight (wt.%, i.e. 0.1-2.0 mass %, Paragraph 27). Uchida is relied upon for its teachings of a cable (Figs 1-13) configured for an electrical power distribution application (Paragraph 2), while exhibiting an electrical conductivity and tensile strength higher than that of pure aluminum (Paragraphs 9-10), wherein Uchida teaches a cable (1, Fig 1) consisting essentially of an aluminum (Al) metal matrix composite (10, Paragraph 33) comprising nanoscale carbon particles (20) in a concentration of 0.01 to 2 percent by weight (wt.%, i.e. 0.1-1.25 mass %, Paragraph 12).
Based on the teaching of Uchida, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the busbar of Yasushi to comprise the Al-MMC consisting essentially of aluminum metal matrix composite consisting essentially of aluminum or aluminum alloy and nanoscale particles configuration as taught by Uchida because Uchida teaches that such a configuration provides a cable (Figs 1-13) configured for an electrical power distribution application (Paragraph 2), while exhibiting an electrical conductivity and tensile strength higher than that of pure aluminum (Paragraphs 9-10).
It is improper to argue that Uchida doesn’t teach the carbon nanotubes being uniformly distributed throughout an entirely of the Al-MMC, when it was relied upon for its teaching of the Al-MMC consisting essentially of aluminum metal matrix composite consisting essentially of aluminum or aluminum alloy and nanoscale particles. Specifically, 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).
In light of the above comments, the examiner respectfully submits that the 35 USC 103(a) rejection is proper and just.
With respect to argument E, the examiner respectfully traverses. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the prior art references cited on the record and the specification, all disclose the problem with copper being utilized as a conductor based on the weight of copper. Specifically, it is known in the art that copper is superior when it comes to tensile strength and conductivity in the art of conductors. However, it is also known that copper is heavy which makes some applications, such as utilization in automobiles, impractical. In an attempt to make the conductors lighter, aluminum is commonly utilized because of its conductivity and reduced weight when compared to copper, but lacks durable and tensile strength when compared to copper and therefore is easily damaged. In order to address the durability issues with pure aluminum, other metals are commonly combined with aluminum to give is more durability while also not compromising its conductivity. However, it is known in the art of conductors, that there exist complications with attempting to make aluminum more durable, thereby resulting in better tensile strength, while maintaining the conductivity of regular aluminum or copper. However, it is also known in the art, that combining aluminum with other materials to increase the tensile strength results in lower conductivity. So, there exist a need to balance increasing the tensile strength of aluminum, while also maintaining the conductivity of aluminum. Uchida teaches an aluminum composite material that addresses such a concern. Specifically, Uchida is relied upon for its teachings of a cable (Figs 1-13) configured for an electrical power distribution application (Paragraph 2), while exhibiting an electrical conductivity and tensile strength higher than that of pure aluminum (Paragraphs 9-10). Therefore, there clearly exist a proper prima facie case of obviousness for combining the teachings of Uchida with the teachings of Yasushi. Based on the teachings of Uchida, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the busbar of Yasushi to comprise the Al-MMC consisting essentially of aluminum metal matrix composite consisting essentially of aluminum or aluminum alloy and nanoscale particles configuration as taught by Uchida because Uchida teaches that such a configuration provides a cable (Figs 1-13) configured for an electrical power distribution application (Paragraph 2), while exhibiting an electrical conductivity and tensile strength higher than that of pure aluminum (Paragraphs 9-10).
In light of the above comments, the examiner respectfully submits that the 35 USC 103(a) rejection is proper and just.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MAYO III whose telephone number is (571)272-1978. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thurs (5:30a-3:00p) Fri 5:30a-2p (w/alternating Fridays off).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani Hayman can be reached on (571) 270-5528. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/William H. Mayo III/
William H. Mayo III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
WHM III
August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights