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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-30 are pending in the application and are presently examined. Claims 1-21 were rejected in the 12/19/2025 office action. Applicant added new claims 22-30.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The amendment filed 3/19/2026, in response to the 12/19/2025 office action, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments overcame the 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 102, & 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections; nevertheless, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 due to additional prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-5, 13-15, 19, & 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111129498A machine translation (Wang) in view of US20210167423A1 (Ji).
Wang teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
An electrolyte solution (claim 6, page 2), comprising an organic solvent and an additive…
the additive comprises a first additive selected from one or more of compounds represented by Formula 2A and Formula 2B,
PNG
media_image1.png
150
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
142
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Formula 2A, and Formula 2B,
in Formula 2A, R21, R22, R23 and R24 are each independently one of a single bond and methylene,
in Formula 2B, R31, R32, R33 and R34 are each independently one of a single bond and methylene, and
R4 is one of a single bond, -O-, C1-C3 alkylene, C1-C3 haloalkylene, and C1-C3 oxaalkylene.
(claim 7, page 2: Wang 1-4, R21-R24 are single bonds)
PNG
media_image3.png
75
211
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 also states:
the organic solvent comprises a first organic solvent shown in Formula 1,
PNG
media_image4.png
146
458
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in Formula 1, R1 is selected from one of C1 or C3 alkyl and C1 or C3 haloalkyl, R2 is selected from one of C1-C3 alkyl and C1-C3 haloalkyl
Wang teaches methyl propionate (claim 8, pages 2-3), which would have R1=C2 and R2=C1 in presently-claimed Formula 1. Thus, Wang fails to meet the claimed requirement that R1 is C1 or C3.
Ji is directed to electrolytes for energy storage devices (abstract) with a stable, ionically conducting SEI layer on anodes, stable CEI layers on cathodes, and stable batteries (paragraph 42). Ji teaches methyl acetate as an electrolyte solvent (paragraph 12), which is the same as presently-claimed Formula 1 with R1=C1 and R2=C1.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to replace methyl propionate in Wang’s electrolyte with methyl acetate, as taught by Ji, as part of a stable battery with a stable, ionically conducting SEI layer on the anode and/or a stable CEI layers on the cathode.
Furthermore, Ji teaches methyl acetate and methyl propanoate (same as methyl propionate) as optional electrolyte solvents (paragraph 12). Ji thus recognizes the equivalency of methyl acetate and methyl propanoate for an electrolyte solvent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the methyl propionate of Wang with methyl acetate of Ji. This replacement is merely the selection of functionally equivalent electrolyte solvents recognized in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in making this replacement.
With regard to claim 2, modified Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Wang fails to teach the following claim 2 limitation, which is taught by Ji:
R1 is selected from one of methyl, propyl, fluoromethyl, and fluoropropyl, R2 is selected from one of methyl, ethyl, propyl, fluoromethyl, fluoroethyl, and fluoropropyl (paragraph 12: methyl acetate, R1=methyl, R2=methyl)
With regard to claim 3, modified Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Claim 3 further defines Formula 2B, which is an alternative to Formula 2A. Wang teaches Formula 2A, so Wang doesn’t need to teach Formula 2B.
With regard to claim 4, modified Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Wang fails to teach the following claim 4 limitation, which is taught by Ji:
the first organic solvent is selected from one or more of the following compounds…
PNG
media_image5.png
138
360
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Compound 1-2…
(paragraph 12: methyl acetate)
With regard to claim 5, modified Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Wang also teaches the following claim 4 limitation:
the first additive is selected from one or more of the following compounds:
PNG
media_image6.png
193
339
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Compound 2-1…
(claim 7, page 2: Wang 1-4, R21-R24 are single bonds)
PNG
media_image3.png
75
211
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 13, modified Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Wang also teaches the following claim 13 limitation:
the electrolyte solution further comprises a lithium salt, and the lithium salt comprises one or more of… LiPF6 (paragraph 229)
With regard to claim 14, modified Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Wang also teaches the following claim 14 limitation:
a conductivity of the electrolyte solution satisfies ≥ 12mS/cm
Wang fails to teach a conductivity value; however, Wang teaches the claimed electrolyte, so Wang’s electrolyte is expected to have the claimed conductivity value.
With regard to claim 15, modified Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Wang also teaches the following claim 14 limitation:
A secondary battery (paragraph 312), comprising the electrolyte solution according to claim 1 (see discussion under claim 1).
With regard to claim 19, modified Wang teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 15 as noted above. Wang also teaches the following claim 19 limitations:
the secondary battery comprises a positive electrode sheet, the positive electrode sheet comprises a positive electrode active material, and the positive electrode active material comprises one or more of lithium transition metal oxides (paragraphs 237 & 240)…
With regard to claim 23, modified Wang teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 2 as noted above. Wang fails to teach the following claim 23 limitation, which is taught by Ji:
R1 of Formula I is… methyl… (paragraph 12: methyl acetate, R1=methyl)
Claims 6 & 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111129498A machine translation (Wang) in view of US20210167423A1 (Ji), with regard to claim 1, and further in view of US20210119261A1 (Sakata). Wang fails to teach the following limitations of claims 6 & 10-12, which are taught by Sakata:
Claim 6
based on a total mass of the organic solvent, a mass percentage w1 of the first organic solvent is in a range of 20% to 80% (page 7, Table 2, paragraph 87: A26 has 70 wt% g-butyrolactone (GBL) & 30 wt% methyl propionate (MP))
Claim 10
the organic solvent further comprises a second organic solvent, the second organic solvent comprises one or more of a cyclic carbonate compound and a chain carbonate compound (page 7, Table 2, paragraph 87: A22 ethylene carbonate (EC) & methyl propionate (MP))
Claim 11
the organic solvent further comprises a second organic solvent, and the second organic solvent comprises one or more of ethylene carbonate… (page 7, Table 2, paragraph 87: A22 ethylene carbonate (EC) & methyl propionate (MP))
Claim 12
based on a total mass of the organic solvent, a mass percentage w4 of the cyclic carbonate compound is in a range of 20% to 80% (page 7, Table 2, paragraph 87: A22 has 70 wt% g-butyrolactone (GBL), 20 wt% ethylene carbonate (EC), & 5 wt% methyl propionate (MP))
Sakata is directed to an electrochemical device with suppressed decline in a float property and low direct current resistance (DCR) (paragraphs 6 & 17). Trials A22 & A26 have improved DCR and float property (paragraphs 96). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Wang’s organic solvent to have 30 wt% methyl propionate (A26), or 20 wt% ethylene carbonate and 5 wt% methyl propionate (A22), as taught by Sakata, as part of an electrochemical device with improved DCR and float property.
Sakata teaches methyl propionate, but Ji teaches methyl acetate, as discussed under claim 1 above. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to substitute methyl acetate for Sakata’s methyl propionate for the reasons discussed under claim 1.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111129498A machine translation (Wang) in view of US20210167423A1 (Ji), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of KR20180119842A machine translation (Bang). Wang fails to teach the following limitations of claims 7-9, which are taught by Bang:
Claim 7
based on a total mass of the electrolyte solution, a mass percentage w2 of the first additive is in a range of 0.1 % to 10% (claim 1: formula 1; claim 5: 0.1 to 10 wt% formula 1)
Claim 8
the additive further comprises a second additive, and the second additive comprises one or more of… sulfate compounds (claim 1: formula 2)
Claim 9
based on a total mass of the electrolyte solution, a mass percentage w3 of the second additive is ≤ 10% (claim 5: 0.05 to 10 wt% formula 2)
Bang’s formula 1 is the same as Wang’s formula 1-4, and is equivalent to the claimed first additive. Bang’s formulas 1 & 2 are the following:
formula 1 formula 2
PNG
media_image7.png
96
404
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Bang is directed to a secondary battery electrolyte with stable high temperature characteristics (abstract). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Wang’s electrolyte to include 0.1 to 10 wt% formula 1 and 0.05 to 10 wt% formula 2, as taught by Bang, for a secondary battery electrolyte with stable high temperature characteristics.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111129498A machine translation (Wang) in view of US20210167423A1 (Ji), as applied to claims 1 & 15, and further in view of US20210203006A1 (Omori). Wang fails to teach the following limitations of claims 16-17, which are taught by Omori.
Claim 16 recites:
the secondary battery comprises a negative electrode sheet, and the negative electrode sheet comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode film layer provided on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector and comprising a negative electrode active material, a ratio H/Dv50 of a thickness H of a single-sided negative electrode film layer to a volume average particle size Dv50 of the negative electrode active material satisfies ≥3
Omori teaches 10 nm (0.01 μm) anode active material average particle size (paragraph 33) and 0.3 μm to 1000 μm anode active material layer thickness (paragraph 52). 0.3/0.01=30 & 1000/0.01=100,000, both of which are > 3.
Claim 17 recites:
a thickness H of a single-sided negative electrode film layer satisfies ≥60μm; a volume average particle size Dv50 of the negative electrode active material satisfies ≤18μm
Omori teaches 0.3 μm to 1000 μm anode active material layer thickness (paragraph 52). Omori’s 0.3 μm to 1000 μm range overlaps the claimed ≥60μm range. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Given that Omori’s range is similar to and substantially overlaps the claimed range, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the thickness range in claim 17 is an obvious variant of Omori’s range.
Omori also teaches 10 nm (0.01 μm) anode active material average particle size (paragraph 33), which falls within the claimed ≤18μm range.
Omori is directed to a battery capable of reducing a confining pressure (abstract). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Wang’s battery to have a negative electrode with the size and thickness ranges taught by Omori, for a secondary battery capable of reducing a confining pressure.
Claims 18 & 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111129498A machine translation (Wang) in view of US20210167423A1 (Ji), & US20210203006A1 (Omori) as applied to claims 1 & 16, and further in view of US20210210763A1 (Li). Wang fails to teach the following limitations of claim 18 & 20-21, which are taught by Li.
Li teaches the following claim 18 limitation:
a compaction density of the negative electrode film layer is 1.4g/cm3 to 1.85g/cm3 (paragraph 198: negative electrode plate compaction density is 1.6 g/cm3)
Li is directed to an electrochemical device with increased energy density (paragraphs 6-8 & 10). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Wang’s battery to have a negative electrode with 1.6 g/cm3 compaction density, as taught by Li, for an electrochemical device with increased energy density.
Li teaches the following limitations of claims 20-21 (paragraph 156)
20. A battery module, comprising the secondary battery according to claim 15.
21. A powered device, comprising at least one of the secondary batteries according to claim 15.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use Wang’s battery in a module, in a pack, and for powering a device, in order to find a practical use for the battery.
Claims 22 & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over CN111129498A machine translation (Wang) in view of US20210167423A1 (Ji), with regard to claim 1, and further in view of US20200313237A1 (Hu). Wang fails to teach the following limitations of claims 22 & 24, which are taught by Hu:
Claim 22
the first additive comprises a compound represented by Formula 2B, in Formula 2B, R4 is… C1-C3 oxaalkylene
Claim 24
first additive selected from…
PNG
media_image8.png
78
432
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Hu is directed to an electrolyte for battery high-temperature storage & cycle performance (abstract). Hu’s electrolyte can include the following Compound 13 (paragraph 41), which is equivalent to the first additive of claims 22 & 24:
PNG
media_image9.png
132
640
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Wang’s electrolyte to include Hu’s Compound 13, for an electrolyte for battery high-temperature storage & cycle performance.
Claims 25 & 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111129498A machine translation (Wang) in view of US20210167423A1 (Ji), US20210119261A1 (Sakata), and KR20180119842A machine translation (Bang).
Wang teaches the following claim 25 limitations:
An electrolyte solution (claim 6, page 2), comprising…
a first additive selected from…
PNG
media_image10.png
120
355
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(claim 6, page 2: In the formula below, L at the top can be single bonds, L at the bottom can be methylene, and W is shown below with p=0)
PNG
media_image11.png
238
696
media_image11.png
Greyscale
W=
PNG
media_image12.png
193
370
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Wang fails to teach the following claim 25 limitation, which is taught by Bang:
based on a total mass of the electrolyte solution, a mass percentage w2 of the first additive is in a range of 0.1% to 10% (claim 1: formula 1; claim 5: 0.1 to 10 wt% formula 1)
Bang’s formula 1 is similar Wang’s claim 6 formula and claimed Compound 2-4. Bang is directed to a secondary battery electrolyte with stable high temperature characteristics (abstract). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Wang’s electrolyte to include Wang’s claim 6 chemical at a 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% concentration as taught by Bang, for a secondary battery electrolyte with stable high temperature characteristics.
Claim 25 also states:
the first organic solvent is…
PNG
media_image13.png
110
368
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Wang teaches methyl propionate (claim 8, pages 2-3), which is different from Compound 1-2.
Ji is directed to electrolytes for energy storage devices (abstract) with a stable, ionically conducting SEI layer on anodes, stable CEI layers on cathodes, and stable batteries (paragraph 42). Ji teaches methyl acetate as an electrolyte solvent (paragraph 12), which is the same as presently-claimed Compound 1-2.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to replace Wang’s methyl propionate with methyl acetate, as taught by Ji, as part of a stable battery with a stable, ionically conducting SEI layer on the anode and/or a stable CEI layers on the cathode.
Furthermore, Ji teaches methyl acetate and methyl propanoate (same as methyl propionate) as optional electrolyte solvents (paragraph 12). Ji thus recognizes the equivalency of methyl acetate and methyl propanoate for an electrolyte solvent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the methyl propionate of Wang with methyl acetate of Ji. This replacement is merely the selection of functionally equivalent electrolyte solvents recognized in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in making this replacement.
Wang fails to teach the following limitations of claim 25, which are taught by Sakata:
the second organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate compound, the cyclic carbonate compound comprises… ethylene carbonate… a mass percentage w4 of the cyclic carbonate compound is in a range of 20% to 80% (page 7, Table 2, paragraph 87: A22 has 20 wt% ethylene carbonate (EC))
Wang also fails to teach the following limitation of claim 25, which is taught by Sakata:
a mass percentage w1 of the first organic solvent is in a range of 20% to 80% (page 7, Table 2, paragraph 87: A26 has 70 wt% g-butyrolactone (GBL) & 30 wt% methyl propionate (MP))
Sakata teaches methyl propionate, but Ji teaches methyl acetate, as discussed above. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to substitute methyl acetate for Sakata’s methyl propionate for the reasons discussed above.
Sakata is directed to an electrochemical device with suppressed decline in a float property and low direct current resistance (DCR) (paragraphs 6 & 17). Trials A22 & A26 have improved DCR and float property (paragraphs 96). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Wang’s organic solvent to have 30 wt% methyl propionate (A26) and 20 wt% ethylene carbonate, as taught by Sakata, as part of an electrochemical device with improved DCR and float property.
With regard to claim 28, modified Wang teaches the limitations of claim 25 as noted above.
Wang also teaches the following claim 28 limitation (Claim 6, page 2: See details under claim 25 above.):
the first additive comprises Compound 2-4
PNG
media_image14.png
118
352
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Wang fails to teach the following claim 28 limitation, which is taught by Ji (paragraph 12), as discussed under claim 25 above:
the first organic solvent comprises Compound 1-2
PNG
media_image15.png
94
362
media_image15.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 29, modified Wang teaches the limitations of claim 25 as noted above. Wang also teaches the following claim 29 limitation:
the additive further comprises a second additive, and the second additive comprises… sultone compounds (paragraph 235: propane sultone, propene sultone) based on a total mass of the electrolyte solution, a mass percentage w3 of the second additive is ≤10% (paragraph 235: less than 5 wt%)
With regard to claim 30, modified Wang teaches the limitations of claims 25 & 29 as noted above. Wang also teaches the following claim 30 limitations:
the first additive comprises:
PNG
media_image16.png
38
347
media_image16.png
Greyscale
(claim 6, page 2)
the second additive comprises:
PNG
media_image17.png
117
225
media_image17.png
Greyscale
(paragraph 235: vinylene carbonate)
Wang fails to teach the following claim 30 limitation, which is taught by Ji:
the first organic solvent comprises:
PNG
media_image16.png
38
347
media_image16.png
Greyscale
(Ji paragraph 12: methyl acetate)
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111129498A machine translation (Wang) in view of US20210167423A1 (Ji), US20210119261A1 (Sakata), and KR20180119842A machine translation (Bang), with regard to claim 25, and further in view of US20150171476A1 (Onozaki).
Wang teaches the following claim 26 limitation (Claim 6, page 2: See details under claim 25 above.):
the second organic solvent further comprises a chain carbonate compound, the chain carbonate compound comprises… diethyl carbonate… (paragraphs 198-201: diethyl carbonate)
Claim 26 also states:
the mass percentage w4 of the cyclic carbonate compound is in a range of 20% to 30%, a mass percentage of the chain carbonate compound is in a range of 10% to 50%
Wang teaches 1 wt% to 60 wt% chained carboxylic acid ester and cyclic carboxylic acid esters (paragraph 210). Wang fails to teach a relative amount of the different types of solvent.
Onozaki provides added guidance. Onozaki is directed to an electrolyte with a chain carbonate compound and a cyclic carboxylic acid ester for excellent battery stability and to prevent thermal runaway (abstract). Onozaki teaches 4 to 60 mass% cyclic carboxylic acid ester and ≤ 30 mass% chain carboxylic acid ester (paragraph 9). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Wang’s solvent to have 4 to 60 mass% cyclic carboxylic acid ester and ≤ 30 mass% chain carboxylic acid ester, as taught by Onozaki, for excellent battery stability and to prevent thermal runaway.
Wang’s 4% to 60% and ≤ 30% ranges overlap the claimed 20% to 30% and 10% to 50%, respectively. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Given that Onozaki’s ranges are similar to and substantially overlap the claimed ranges, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed ranges, the range in claim 26 are obvious variants of Onozaki’s ranges.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over CN111129498A machine translation (Wang) in view of US20210167423A1 (Ji), US20210119261A1 (Sakata), and KR20180119842A machine translation (Bang), with regard to claim 25, and further in view of US20200313237A1 (Hu). Wang fails to teach the following limitation of claim 27, which is taught by Hu:
the first additive selected from…
PNG
media_image18.png
80
425
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Hu is directed to an electrolyte for battery high-temperature storage & cycle performance (abstract). Hu’s electrolyte can include the following Compound 13 (paragraph 41), which is equivalent to Compound 2-6 of claim 27:
PNG
media_image9.png
132
640
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Wang’s electrolyte to include Hu’s Compound 13, for an electrolyte for battery high-temperature storage & cycle performance.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights