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
In response to the amendment received on March 27, 2026:
Claims 1-6, 9-20 and 23-24 are pending. Claims 7-8 and 21-22 have been canceled as per Applicant’s request;
The claim objection set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in light of the amendment;
The 112 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in light of the amendment;
The 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action stand as modified in light of the amendment.
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, 9-10, 12-17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Roy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0212281) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0014065) and Zeng et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0161630).
As to claims 1 and 2, Roy discloses a secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode plate; and
a non-aqueous electrolyte;
wherein:
the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode collector (aluminum foil in Example 2) and a positive active material layer (lithium transition metal oxide in Example 2) disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode collector;
the non-aqueous electrolyte comprises a compound shown in Formula 1, in which one of X and Y represents a fluorine atom and another one of X and Y represents at least selected from the group consisting of partially fluorinated or perfluorinated group selected fromC2-C10 alkenyl group, C2-C10 alkynyl group, C6-C8 aryl group, C1-C10 alkoxy group, C2-C10 alkenoxy group, C2- C10 alkynloxy group, and C6-C8 aryloxy group;
PNG
media_image1.png
162
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Notably, the electrolyte in example 2 is LiDFOB (difluoro(oxalate)borate) which reads on the general formula 1 above and specific disclosed formula H4 of the instant invention.
PNG
media_image2.png
313
313
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
112
252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
LiDFOB (Roy) Formula H4 of the instant invention (LiDFOB)
based on a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte, the compound shown in Formula 1 is present in an amount of A1% by mass, the positive electrode collector has a thickness of H mm, the positive active material layer has an elongation at break of Q%, the positive active material layer has a compaction density of P g/cm3, and the secondary battery satisfies: H of Roy is 12mm which falls in the range from 4 to 14, A1 of Example 2 is 1%, thus A1/H is 1/12 or 0.083 which falls in the range from 0.0015 to 0.20, Q+A1 is from 1 to 4, and P/A1 is 3.6g/cc (3.6g/cm3)/1 which is 3.6 which falls in the range from 2 to 340.
As to claim 23, Roy discloses a secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode plate; and
a non-aqueous electrolyte;
wherein:
the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode collector (aluminum foil in Example 2) and a positive active material layer (lithium transition metal oxide in Example 2) disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode collector;
X and Y satisfy one of following conditions: one of X and Y represents a fluorine atom and the other represents at least one selected from a group consisting of partially fluorinated or perfluorinated groups of: C2-C5 alkenyl, C2-C5 alkynyl, phenyl, phenoxy, C1-C5 alkoxy, C2- C5 alkenoxy and C2-C5 alkynyloxy; and
one of X and Y represents a fluorine atom and the other represents at least one selected from a group consisting of partially fluorinated or perfluorinated groups of: vinyl, propyl, allyl, butadienyl, ethynyl, propynyl, phenyl, methoxy, ethoxy, propoxy, ethylenoxy, propenyloxy, ethynyloxy, propynyloxy, and phenoxy
PNG
media_image1.png
162
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Notably, the electrolyte in example 2 is LiDFOB (difluoro(oxalate)borate) which reads on the general formula 1 above and specific disclosed formula H4 of the instant invention.
PNG
media_image2.png
313
313
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
112
252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
LiDFOB (Roy) Formula H4 of the instant invention (LiDFOB)
based on a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte, the compound shown in Formula 1 is present in an amount of A1% by mass, the positive electrode collector has a thickness of H mm, the positive active material layer has an elongation at break of Q%, the positive active material layer has a compaction density of P g/cm3, and the secondary battery satisfies: H of Roy is 12mm which falls in the range from 4 to 14, A1 of Example 2 is 1%, thus A1/H is 1/12 or 0.083 which falls in the range from 0.0015 to 0.20, Q+A1 is from 1 to 4, and P/A1 is 3.6g/cc (3.6g/cm3)/1 which is 3.6 which falls in the range from 2 to 340.
Roy does not explicitly teach of the modified narrower genus of claims 1 and 23 where the additive can be other fluorinated boron oxalates such as pentafluorophenylboron oxalate (formula H8), the elongation at break of the current collector (Q) and relationship of Q+A1 in (see claims 1 and 23) or Q+A1 ranging from 1.5 to 3.5 (see claim 2).
As to the additive being other fluorinated boron oxalates such as pentafluorophenylboron oxalate (formula H8, claims 1 and 23);
Liu is drawn to the same field of endeavor, modifying electrolytes with additive to improve battery performance. Liu specifically teaches that lithium fluoro-oxalate borate (D); the general structural formula of the lithium fluoro-oxalate borate (D) is (I). The electrolyte can form stable CEI and SEI films on the surfaces of a cathode and an anode to protect the cathode and anode interfaces, thus improving acidic environment of the electrolyte of the lithium ion battery, alleviating damage of HF to the cathode and anode interfaces, reducing the low temperature resistance of the lithium ion battery, and improving the cycle performance, high-temperature storage performance, safety performance and power performance of the lithium ion battery (abstract).
Liu further teaches of the additive having a general formula of:
PNG
media_image4.png
132
106
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With specific examples as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
512
576
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
598
554
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Where certain examples above, such as D22 read on the genus of claims 1 and 23 (D22 reads on H8 of claim 13 which falls under the broader formulae of claims 1 and 23).
Liu teaches in D3 of
PNG
media_image2.png
313
313
media_image2.png
Greyscale
And teaches in D22 of
PNG
media_image7.png
230
208
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would be of routine skill in the art to substitute
PNG
media_image2.png
313
313
media_image2.png
Greyscale
of Roy with
PNG
media_image7.png
230
208
media_image7.png
Greyscale
of Liu with a reasonable expectation that both specific compounds would provide the same benefits noted in Liu, including
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Roy by using an electrolyte additive with such as
PNG
media_image7.png
230
208
media_image7.png
Greyscale
as taught by Liu since it would have expectedly provided the same benefits for both compounds noted in Liu, including but not limited to forming a stable CEI and SEI films on the surfaces of a cathode and an anode to protect the cathode and anode interfaces, improving acidic environment of the electrolyte of the lithium ion battery, alleviating damage of HF to the cathode and anode interfaces, reducing the low temperature resistance of the lithium ion battery, and improving the cycle performance, high-temperature storage performance, safety performance and power performance of the lithium ion battery.
As to the elongation of break of the positive electrode current collector (Q) and the relationship of Q+A1 is from 1 to 4, Roy teaches of the same aluminum foil current collector having the same relative thickness as in the instant invention, 12mm (claims 1 and 23).
Zeng is drawn to the same field of endeavor, improving battery structure, performance and safety. Zhen particularly teaches of a positive electrode wherein the positive electrode current collector foil of the same thickness (para. [0089] with specific examples of 12mm and was noted to have an elongation at break ranging from 0.8-4% (para. [0091]) with specific example at para. [0112] of a 12mm thick aluminum foil having an elongation at break of 3%.
Zeng teaches that elongation of break has a great influence on battery safety. If this parameter is too large, safety is decreased. If this parameter is too small, the collector is prone to breaking and also reduces the quality or safety of the battery. In order to improve safety of the battery, the elongation at break of the aluminum foil positive current collector should be in a range from 0.8-4%.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aluminum foil current collector of Roy to further have a an elongation at break ranging from 0.8-4%, including specific values in this range as taught by Zeng since it would have provided the predictable benefit of improved battery safety. In doing such, the last parameter of claim 1, Q% and Q+A1 ranging from 1 to 4 would have been obviated noting that Roy teaches of A1 being 2% or less, such as 1% in Example 2 as discussed above and Zeng teaches of Q being 0.8-4, with 3% specifically. Thus the range of Q+A1 would be (0.8-4)+2 at a maximum or 2.8-6 when LiDFOB is 2% and 1.8-5 when LiDFOB is 1% as in Example 2. As can be seen the amount of LiDFOB of 1% in Example 2 of Roy, and Liu electrolyte additive identical to H8 of the instant invention range from 0.1-8%, preferably 0.1-3%, would still effectively satisfy the claimed relationship(s).
In addition, the combination of Roy with suitable elongation at break taught by Zeng (0.8-4%) defines a range from 1.8-5 which significantly overlaps with the ranges of claims 1, 2 and 23 as it pertains to Q+A1. 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); In re Woodruff, 919, F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
As to claim 3, P is 3.6 para. [0114] of Example 2.
As to claim 4, the electrolyte comprises LiPF6 (Example 2, para. [0116]).
As to claim 9, the electrolyte comprises a cyclic carbonate such as EC (ethylene carbonate, Example 2, para. [0116]).
As to claim 10, the electrolyte comprises FEC (fluoroethylene carbonate, Example 2, para. [0116]).
As to claims 12 and 13, as discussed above, the electrolyte additive of Liu above reads as an specific example falling under the scope of claim 12 and H8 of claim 13.
As to claim 14, as discussed above the positive electrode current collector is aluminum foil (para. [0114]).
As to claim 15, the batteries of Roy are further employed in a battery module (para. [0102]).
As to claim 16, the batteries of Roy are further employed in a battery pack (para. [0103]).
As to claim 17, the battery of Roy is included in a device (para. [0104]).
As to claim 18, the amount of LiDFOB of Roy in example 2 is 1wt%. The electrolyte is 1.15 M LiPF6 in EC/FEC/EMC/DMC (7/7/46/40). For an electrolyte solution, the approximate mass per liter of LiPF6 is ~170g in a 1.15M LiPF6 electrolyte mixture in Example 2. Thus for the electrolyte solution where LiDFOB at 1%wt in the electrolyte solution to a significantly higher amount of LiPF6 (~170g in a 1.15M electrolyte solution or about 14-15%) would expectedly fall in the range from 5 to 650. Furthermore, Liu teaches that similar electrolyte additives range from 0.1-8%, preferably 0.1-3%, further keeping the LiPF6 salt in the range from 5-650.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0212281) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0014065) and Zeng et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0161630) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Lim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0356021).
Roy teaches in Example 2 of the main lithium salt being LiPF6 (para. [0116]).
Roy does not teach of the electrolyte comprising a combination of lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) and lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI, claim 5) or when LiPF6 and LiFSI are present in addition to the electrolyte additive, the ratio of the amount of LiPF6 to the electrolyte additive is from 5 to 650 (claim 19).
Roy teaches that the lithium salt can be LiPF6 as well as other electrolytes including (FSO2)2NLi which is also understood as lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI).
As to an electrolyte wherein LiPF6 also includes LiFSI together, Roy teaches that the lithium salt can include both (FSO2)2NLi (LiFSI) and LiPF6 together (para. 0036]).
In addition Lim teaches that LiFSI along with LiPF6 and the electrolyte additive can effectively be mixed together to provide an electrolyte having improved charge and discharge characteristics, high-temperature storage and life characteristics and increased reversible capacity. Lim is drawn to the same field of endeavor, modifying electrolytes with additive to improve battery performance.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by providing the electrolyte or Roy wherein the salts include a mixture of LiFSI along with LiPF6 and the electrolyte additive as taught by Lim since it would have provided for an electrolyte having improved charge and discharge characteristics, high-temperature storage and life characteristics and increased reversible capacity. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.07.
As to claim 19, modified Roy in view of Lim teaches of an electrolyte wherein LiPF6 also includes LiFSI together, Roy teaches that the lithium salt can include both (FSO2)2NLi (LiFSI) and LiPF6 together (para. 0036]). In addition Lim teaches that LiFSI along with LiPF6 and the electrolyte additive can effectively be mixed together to provide an electrolyte having improved charge and discharge characteristics, high-temperature storage and life characteristics and increased reversible capacity. Thus the electrolyte of modified Roy includes LiPF6 (A2), LiDFOB (A1) and LiFSI (A3).
The amount of the electrolyte additive in example 2 is 1wt%. The electrolyte is 1.15 M LiPF6 in EC/FEC/EMC/DMC (7/7/46/40). For an electrolyte solution, the approximate mass per liter of LiPF6 is ~170g in a 1.15M LiPF6 electrolyte mixture in Example 2. Thus for the electrolyte solution where LiDFOB at 1%wt in the electrolyte solution to a significantly higher amount of LiPF6 (~170g in a 1.15M electrolyte solution or about 14-15%) would expectedly fall in the range from 5 to 650. Thus satisfying A2/A1 from 5 to 650 as recited in one of the relationships of claim 19. Furthermore, Liu teaches that similar electrolyte additives range from 0.1-8%, preferably 0.1-3%, further keeping the LiPF6 salt in the range from 5-650.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0212281) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0014065) and Zeng et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0161630) as applied to claim 5 above in view of Tamura et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0312306).
Roy teaches in Example 2 of the main lithium salt being LiPF6 (para. [0116]).
Roy does not teach of a second electrolyte salt including lithium difluorophosphate (claim 6) or where this salt is present in a total amount of A4% by mass and A4 is 5 or less (claim 20).
As to claim 6, Tamura teaches of an electrolyte mixture comprising LiPF6, Li[(FSO2)2N] and LiPO2F2 (lithium difluorophosphate; abstract, examples). Tamura teaches that the addition of LiPO2F2 was shown to improve battery performance including improved energy density, charging rate characteristics. As to claim 20, the amount of LiPO2F2 is in a preferable amount from 0.0005-7 mass%, preferably 0.5 to 5 mass% (para. [0038]) with specific examples in Table 1 of 1 mass%. Tamura is drawn to the same field of endeavor, modifying electrolytes with additive to improve battery performance.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte to include an additional salt of LiPO2F2 in a preferably range from 0.5 to 5 mass% as taught by Tamura since it would have improved battery performance including, but not limited to, improved energy density, charging rate characteristics.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0212281) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0014065) and Zeng et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0161630) as applied to claim 1 above in view of CN ‘563 (CN102324563A) or Saruwatari et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0112011).
Roy does not teach of the electrolyte further including a moisture scavenger comprising at least one of hexamethyldisilazane and tris(trimethyl)phosphate.
Adding a moisture scavenger such as hexamethyldisilazane to an electrolyte having LiPF6, was known in the art as a moisture scavenger (CN ‘563, abstract and examples). Similarly, other moisture scavengers, such as tris(trimethyl)phosphate (Saruwatari, para, [0019]) can be used for the same purpose. Both CN ‘563 and Saruwatari are drawn to the same field of endeavor, modifying electrolytes with additive to improve battery performance and safety.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Roy by further including a moisture scavenger comprising at least one of hexamethyldisilazane and tris(trimethyl)phosphate as taught by either CN ‘563 or Saruwatari since it would have predictably provided good moisture scavenging to the LiPF6 based electrolyte of Roy.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Roy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0212281) in view of Fukunaga et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0134558) and Zeng et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0161630).
As to claim 24, Roy discloses a secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode plate; and
a non-aqueous electrolyte;
wherein:
the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode collector (aluminum foil in Example 2) and a positive active material layer (lithium transition metal oxide in Example 2) disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode collector;
the non-aqueous electrolyte comprises a compound shown in Formula ! in which X and Y each independently represent partially fluorinated or perfluorinated groups selected from C1-C10 alkyl group, C2-C10 alkenyl group, C2-C10 alkynyl group, C6-C8 aryl group, C1-C10 alkoxy group, C2-C10 alkenoxy and C6-C8 alkynyloxy; and
PNG
media_image1.png
162
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Notably, the electrolyte in example 2 is LiDFOB (difluoro(oxalate)borate) which reads on the general formula 1 above and specific disclosed formula H4 of the instant invention.
PNG
media_image2.png
313
313
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
112
252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
LiDFOB (Roy) Formula H4 of the instant invention (LiDFOB)
based on a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte, the compound shown in Formula 1 is present in an amount of A1% by mass, the positive electrode collector has a thickness of H mm, the positive active material layer has an elongation at break of Q%, the positive active material layer has a compaction density of P g/cm3, and the secondary battery satisfies: H of Roy is 12mm which falls in the range from 4 to 14, A1 of Example 2 is 1%, thus A1/H is 1/12 or 0.083 which falls in the range from 0.0015 to 0.20, Q+A1 is from 1 to 4, and P/A1 is 3.6g/cc (3.6g/cm3)/1 which is 3.6 which falls in the range from 2 to 340.
Roy does not explicitly teach of the specific additive of claim 24 where the additive can be X and Y each independently represent partially fluorinated or perfluorinated groups selected from C1-C10 alkyl group, C2-C10 alkenyl group, C2-C10 alkynyl group, C6-C8 aryl group, C1-C10 alkoxy group, C2-C10 alkenoxy and C6-C8 alkynyloxy), the elongation at break of the current collector (Q) and relationship of Q+A1.
As to the additive, where the additive can be X and Y each independently represent partially fluorinated or perfluorinated groups selected from C1-C10 alkyl group, C2-C10 alkenyl group, C2-C10 alkynyl group, C6-C8 aryl group, C1-C10 alkoxy group, C2-C10 alkenoxy and C6-C8 alkynyloxy)
Fukunaga teaches of a similar additive Chemical Formula 1, where B has two X groups where X can be any combination of F or CF3 (para. ]0046]).
PNG
media_image8.png
138
278
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Thus the prior art reasonably teaches that X can be F, F/CF3 or CF3/CF3 as equivalent homologs of the same chemical. Substituting each F of Roy with CF3 (fluorinated C1 alkyl group) would therefore have been reasonably appreciated by Roy in view of Fukunaga. Fukunaga is drawn to the same field of endeavor, modifying electrolytes with additive to improve battery performance and safety.
It would be of routine skill in the art to substitute both F atoms of Roy with CF3 (fluorinated C1 alkyl groups) with a reasonable expectation that both specific compounds would provide the same benefits noted in Roy and Fukunaga, including
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Roy by substituting both F atoms of Roy with CF3 (fluorinated C1 alkyl groups) as taught by Fukunaga with a reasonable expectation that both specific compounds would have expectedly provided the same benefits for both compounds noted in Roy and Fukunaga, including good safety performance and power performance of the lithium ion battery.
As to the elongation of break of the positive electrode current collector (Q) and the relationship of Q+A1 is from 1 to 4, Roy teaches of the same aluminum foil current collector having the same relative thickness as in the instant invention, 12mm.
Zeng is drawn to the same field of endeavor, improving battery structure, performance and safety. Zhen particularly teaches of a positive electrode wherein the positive electrode current collector foil of the same thickness (para. [0089] with specific examples of 12mm and was noted to have an elongation at break ranging from 0.8-4% (para. [0091]) with specific example at para. [0112] of a 12mm thick aluminum foil having an elongation at break of 3%.
Zeng teaches that elongation of break has a great influence on battery safety. If this parameter is too large, safety is decreased. If this parameter is too small, the collector is prone to breaking and also reduces the quality or safety of the battery. In order to improve safety of the battery, the elongation at break of the aluminum foil positive current collector should be in a range from 0.8-4%.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aluminum foil current collector of Roy to further have a an elongation at break ranging from 0.8-4%, including specific values in this range as taught by Zeng since it would have provided the predictable benefit of improved battery safety. In doing such, the last parameter of claim 1, Q% and Q+A1 ranging from 1 to 4 would have been obviated noting that Roy teaches of A1 being 2% or less, such as 1% in Example 2 as discussed above and Zeng teaches of Q being 0.8-4, with 3% specifically. Thus the range of Q+A1 would be (0.8-4)+2 at a maximum or 2.8-6 when LiDFOB is 2% and 1.8-5 when LiDFOB is 1% as in Example 2. As can be seen the amount of LiDFOB of 1% in Example 2 of Roy, and Fukunaga teaches the additive at 1% as well, both of which would still effectively satisfy the claimed relationship(s).
In addition, Roy, in combination with suitable elongation at break taught by Zeng (0.8-4%) defines a range from 1.8-5 which significantly overlaps with the ranges of claim 24 as it pertains to Q+A1. 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); In re Woodruff, 919, F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 9-20 and 23-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights