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 .
Claim Status
Claim 12 is withdrawn.
Claim 5 is canceled.
Claims 1 and 4 have been amended; support for the amendment can be found in original claim 4, Fig. 1 and [0051] of the specification.
Claims 1-4, 6-11 and 13 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5-6, reason 1, filed 02/10/2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejections of claim 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claims 6-10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments see, pg. 6-8, reason 2-3, filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the process steps of claim 6 impart distinctive and predictable structural features to the resulting product, namely pores formed predominantly within the amorphous carbon phase, a non-uniform pore distribution where at least a portion of the pores reside mainly inside the amorphous carbon regions and not inside the graphite particles, and interstitial amorphous carbon pores (pg. 7-8, section 3.).
This argument is not found persuasive because the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record (MPEP 716.01(c)), and presently there is no evidence on the record that the claimed process steps necessarily result in the structural features that applicant has pointed to. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., pores formed predominantly within the amorphous carbon phase, a non-uniform pore distribution where at least a portion of the pores reside mainly inside the amorphous carbon regions and not inside the graphite particles, and interstitial amorphous carbon pores) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The examiner notes that the determination of the patentability of the claimed invention is dependent upon the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product, absent evidence that the claimed process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (see MPEP § 2113).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, see pg. 8-12, section II., filed 02/10/2026 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.
The pores of Kato are no longer relied on in the rejection of record. The pores of Shim are now relied in the rejection of Lee in view of Shim and Kato, and Kato is relied on to teach the claimed range of porosity. Further, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 10, “7.91 %” should read ---7.91%--- and “10 %” should read ---10%---
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20110195313 A1) in view of Umeno (US 20130309578 A1) and Lee’536 (US-20200083536-A1, cited on 08/07/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a negative active material (Fig. 1; 1; [0009]) comprising:
an amorphous carbon material (Fig. 1; 20; “amorphous or semi-crystalline carbon”; [0056]),
graphite particles (Fig. 1; 10; “earthy graphite”; [0048]) derived from amorphous graphite (“earthy graphite”; [0048] aka “microcrystalline graphite”; [0049] may be amorphous [0053]), and
wherein,
the amorphous carbon material ([0009]; see Fig. 1 illustrating 20 around 10) is around ([0047]; Fig. 1) the graphite particles ([0009]; Fig. 1; 10).
Lee fails to disclose pores and wherein, at least a portion of the pores are inside the amorphous carbon material and not inside the graphite particles, and a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the pores relative to a cross-sectional area of the negative active material is about 7.91 % to about 10%, and the cross-sectional areas are measured by taking an SEM image which is treated by a cross-section polishing of the negative active material.
Umeno discloses a negative active material ([0023]) comprising:
an amorphous carbon material (Fig. 1; 10),
graphite particles (Fig. 1; 2, 4, 6),
pores (Fig. 1; 7, 8, 20),
wherein, at least a portion (Fig. 1; 20) of the pores (7, 8, 20) are inside (Fig. 1) the amorphous carbon material (10) and not inside the graphite particles (2, 4, 6), and
a ratio of a cross-sectional area (“total volume of the volume of pores 7 and 8 and the volume of gap 20” [0052]; may be converted to cross-sectional area by a PHOSITA) of the pores (7, 8, 20) relative to a cross-sectional area (“ the volume of the present negative electrode material” [0052]; may be converted to cross-sectional area by a PHOSITA) of the negative active material is about 7.91 % to about 10% (“0.5 to 4.1% by volume”; [0052] converts to a cross-sectional porosity encompassing the claimed range based on the instant specification disclosing that a porosity of 0.8 to 3.16 vol.% converts to a range of 4 to 10% cross-sectional porosity [0029]), and the cross-sectional areas (see above) are measured by taking an SEM image (“electron micrograph”; [0073]).
Lee’536 discloses “by reducing the internal pore volume and reducing side reactions with electrolyte, expansion of the negative active material may be suppressed or reduced, and cycle-life characteristics may be improved” ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee by adding the porosity of Umeno to the negative active material of Lee such that a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the pores relative to a cross-sectional area of the negative active material is about 7.91 % to about 10% in order to reduce side reactions with electrolyte, suppress expansion of the material and improve cycle-life characteristics as taught by Lee’536 ([0026]).
The examiner notes that the range of porosities taught by Lee in view of Umeno converts to a cross-sectional porosity range that encompasses the instantly claimed range when the active material and pores are spherical based on the disclosure of the instant specification ([0029]). Further, even assuming that the material and pores of modified Lee are not spherical, a PHOSITA would have found that Umeno’s porosity ratio is at least close to and renders the claimed range obvious because even though the method of measuring the porosity of the negative electrode active material is different (a difference of measuring by volume vs. cross-section) between Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 and the instantly claimed invention, the principle of low but not absent internal porosity is the same.
Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 fails to disclose “which is treated by a cross-section polishing of the negative active material”. However, The limitation “by taking an SEM image which is treated by a cross-section polishing of the negative active material” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 fails to disclose wherein the negative active material has a peak intensity ratio, I(002)/I(110) measured by an X-ray diffraction analysis method of about 120 or less.
Lee’536 discloses a negative active material comprising an amorphous carbon material ([0010]), graphite particles ([0010]) and pores ([0012]), wherein the negative active material has a peak intensity ratio, I(002)/I(110) measured by an X-ray diffraction analysis method of about 120 or less ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have further modified Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 by employing the peak intensity ratio, I(002)/I(110) measured by an X-ray diffraction analysis method of about 120 or less taught by Lee’536 in the negative active material of Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 in order to improve cycle-life characteristics of the battery as taught by Lee’536 ([0052]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 fails to disclose wherein the negative active material has a peak intensity ratio, I(002)/I(110) measured by an X-ray diffraction analysis method of about 70 to about 120.
Lee’536 discloses a negative active material comprising an amorphous carbon material ([0010]), graphite particles ([0010]) and pores ([0012]), wherein the negative active material has a peak intensity ratio, I(002)/I(110) measured by an X-ray diffraction analysis method of about 100 to 120 ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have further modified Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 by employing the peak intensity ratio, I(002)/I(110) measured by an X-ray diffraction analysis method of 100 to 120 taught by Lee’536 in the negative active material of Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 in order to improve cycle-life characteristics of the battery as taught by Lee’536 ([0052]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 discloses wherein the negative active material ([0009]) is a form of particles (“composite particle”; [0059]) having an average particle size 10 to 25 microns (“4 to 40 μm” [0059]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 discloses wherein the negative active material ([0009]) is prepared by: pulverizing ([0048]) amorphous graphite ([0048]) to prepare graphite particulates (Fig. 1; 10; [0048]); agglomerating ([0066]) the graphite particulates (10) by utilizing amorphous carbon ([0066]) to prepare an agglomerated product (“composite particles”; [0066]; Fig. 1; 1).
Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 fails to disclose mixing the agglomerated product with a pore-forming agent to form the pores.
The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP § 2113). In the instant case, Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 renders all positively recited features of claim 1 obvious as set forth above. Therefore, Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 renders the instant claim obvious as the product of the instant claim is obvious from the product of Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536.
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 discloses wherein the graphite particulates ([0054]) have an average particle size of about 5 microns or less ([0054]).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 discloses all limitations of claim 6 as set forth above and further discloses wherein the graphite particulates ([0054]) have an average particle size of 5 microns or less ([0054]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 fails to disclose wherein the pore-forming agent is an alkali-based activator.
However, the limitation “the pore-forming agent is an alkali-based activator” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In the instant case, Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 discloses all positively recited features of claim 1 as set forth above. Therefore, Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 renders the instant claim obvious as the product of the instant claim is obvious from the product of Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536.
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 fails to disclose wherein the pore-forming agent is about 1 wt% to about 5 wt% in amount based on 100 wt% of the agglomerated product.
However, the limitation “wherein the pore-forming agent is about 1 wt% to about 5 wt% in amount based on 100 wt% of the agglomerated product” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In the instant case, Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 discloses all positively recited features of claim 1 as set forth above. Therefore, Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 renders the instant claim obvious as the product of the instant claim is obvious from the product of Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536.
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 discloses a rechargeable lithium battery ([0021]), comprising: a negative electrode ([0021]) comprising the negative active material ([0021]) of claim 1; a positive electrode ([0021]); and an electrolyte ([0021]).
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Umeno and Lee’536 discloses wherein all the pores Umeno 7, 8, 20) are inside (Umeno Fig. 1) the amorphous carbon material (20).
Claims 1, 4, 6-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20110195313 A1) in view of Shim (US 20170162869 A1) and Kato (US20210249658A1, cited 08/07/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a negative active material (Fig. 1; 1; [0009]) comprising:
an amorphous carbon material (Fig. 1; 20; “amorphous or semi-crystalline carbon”; [0056]),
graphite particles (Fig. 1; 10; “earthy graphite”; [0048]) derived from amorphous graphite (“earthy graphite”; [0048] aka “microcrystalline graphite”; [0049] may be amorphous [0053]), and
wherein,
the amorphous carbon material ([0009]; see Fig. 1 illustrating 20 around 10) is around ([0047]; Fig. 1) the graphite particles ([0009]; Fig. 1; 10).
Lee fails to disclose pores and wherein, at least a portion of the pores are inside the amorphous carbon material and not inside the graphite particles, and a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the pores relative to a cross-sectional area of the negative active material is about 7.91 % to about 10%, and the cross-sectional areas are measured by taking an SEM image which is treated by a cross-section polishing of the negative active material.
Shim discloses a negative active material (“carbonaceous material”; [0043]; Fig. 1; 1) comprising: an amorphous carbon material ([0048]), graphite ([0048]), and pores ([0049]; Fig. 1; spaces at arrows), wherein, the amorphous carbon material ([0048]) is around ([0048]) the graphite particles ([0048]), and at least a portion (portion of pores at the “surface” of the negative material [0049]) of the pores ([0049]) are inside (core-shell structure indicates the amorphous material makes up the surface of the negative material, ergo all pores are inside the amorphous carbon) the amorphous carbon material ([0048]) and not inside (a core-shell structure indicates that the graphite particle is not at the surface of the negative material but the center, ergo the pore is only inside the amorphous carbon material at the surface portion) the graphite particles ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee’s negative material by adding the pores taught by Shim in the negative material of Lee such that at least a portion of the pores are inside the amorphous carbon material and not inside the graphite particles. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to achieve a lithium battery having improved capacity and charge/discharge characteristics as taught by Shim ([0100]).
Lee in view of Shim still fails to disclose wherein a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the pores relative to a cross-sectional area of the negative active material is about 7.91 % to about 10%, and the cross-sectional areas are measured by taking an SEM image which is treated by a cross-section polishing of the negative active material.
Kato discloses a negative active material comprising carbon material (“coal”; “pitch”; [0037]; “tar or pitch”; [0041]),
graphite particles ([0039]; Fig. 3; graphite particle) and
pores ([0039]; Fig. 3; pores),
wherein the carbon material ([0037]; [0041]) is around the graphite particles (“coating surfaces of the graphite particles”; [0037]; [0041]), at least a portion of the pores ([0039]) are inside (pores are inside the graphite which is inside the carbon material per [0037]) the carbon material ([0037]), and
a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the pores relative to a cross-sectional area of the negative active material is about 7.91% to about 10 % (“0.08 or less”; [0039]), and the cross-sectional areas are measured by taking an SEM image which is treated by a cross-section polishing of the negative active material ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified Lee in view of Shim by adding Kato’s ratio of a cross-sectional area of the pores relative to a cross-sectional area of the negative active material of 7.91% to 8%, to the invention of Lee in view of Shim in order to minimize the volume change and suppress a deterioration of the characteristics of the negative active material as suggested by Kato ([0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Shim and Kato discloses wherein the negative active material ([0009]) is a form of particles (“composite particle”; [0059]) having an average particle size 10 to 25 microns (“4 to 40 μm” [0059]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Shim and Kato discloses the negative active material ([0009]) wherein the negative active material ([0009]) is prepared by: pulverizing ([0048]) amorphous graphite ([0048]) to prepare graphite particulates (Fig. 1; 10; [0048]); agglomerating ([0066]) the graphite particulates (10) by utilizing amorphous carbon ([0066]) to prepare an agglomerated product (“composite particles”; [0066]; Fig. 1; 1);
Lee in view of Shim and Kato fails to disclose mixing the agglomerated product with a pore-forming agent to form the pores.
Shim discloses mixing an agglomerated product (“Graphite” which is a “single body including a graphite core and an amorphous carbonaceous material shell”; [0103]) with a pore-forming agent (“potassium hydroxide”; [0103]) to form pores ([0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee in view of Shim and Kato by adding the method of Shim such that the negative active material is prepared by mixing the agglomerated product with a pore-forming agent to form the pores in order to achieve a lithium battery having improved capacity and charge/discharge characteristics as taught by Shim ([0100]).
The examiner notes that the limitation “wherein the negative active material is prepared by: pulverizing amorphous graphite to prepare graphite particulates; agglomerating the graphite particulates by utilizing amorphous carbon to prepare an agglomerated product; and mixing the agglomerated product with a pore-forming agent to form the pores” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In the instant case, Lee in view of Shim and Kato discloses all positively recited features of claim 1 as set forth above. Therefore, Lee in view of Shim and Kato renders the instant claim obvious as the product of the instant claim is obvious from the product of Lee in view of Shim and Kato.
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Shim and Kato discloses wherein the graphite particulates ([0054]) have an average particle size of about 5 microns or less ([0054]).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Shim and Kato discloses wherein the graphite particulates ([0054]) have an average particle size of 5 microns or less ([0054]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Shim and Kato discloses wherein the pore-forming agent (“potassium hydroxide”; [0103]) is an alkali-based activator (“potassium hydroxide”; [0103]).
The examiner notes that the limitation “the pore-forming agent is an alkali-based activator” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In the instant case, Lee in view of Shim and Kato discloses all positively recited features of claim 1 as set forth above. Therefore, Lee in view of Shim and Kato renders the instant claim obvious as the product of the instant claim is obvious from the product of Lee in view of Shim and Kato.
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Shim and Kato fails to disclose wherein the pore-forming agent is about 1 wt% to about 5 wt% in amount based on 100 wt% of the agglomerated product.
However, the limitation “wherein the pore-forming agent is about 1 wt% to about 5 wt% in amount based on 100 wt% of the agglomerated product” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In the instant case, Lee in view of Shim and Kato discloses all positively recited features of claim 1 as set forth above. Therefore, Lee in view of Shim and Kato renders the instant claim obvious as the product of the instant claim is obvious from the product of Lee in view of Shim and Kato.
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Shim and Kato discloses a rechargeable lithium battery ([0021]), comprising: a negative electrode ([0021]) comprising the negative active material ([0021]) of claim 1; a positive electrode ([0021]); and an electrolyte ([0021]).
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Shim and Kato discloses wherein all the pores (Shim [0049]) are inside (Shim “the micropores may extend from a surface of the carbonaceous material 1 toward an inner region of the carbonaceous material 1”; [0049], the amorphous carbon is at the surface of the material 1 per [0048]) the amorphous carbon material (20).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20110195313 A1) in view of Shim (US 20170162869 A1) and Kato (US20210249658A1, cited 08/07/2024), as applied to claim above, and further in view of Lee’536 (US-20200083536-A1, cited on 08/07/2024)..
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Shim and Kato fails to disclose wherein the negative active material has a peak intensity ratio, I(002)/I(110) measured by an X-ray diffraction analysis method of about 120 or less.
Lee’536 discloses a negative active material comprising an amorphous carbon material ([0010]), graphite particles ([0010]) and pores ([0012]), wherein the negative active material has a peak intensity ratio, I(002)/I(110) measured by an X-ray diffraction analysis method of about 120 or less ([0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified Lee in view of Shim and Kato by employing the peak intensity ratio, I(002)/I(110) measured by an X-ray diffraction analysis method of about 120 or less taught by Lee’536 in the negative active material of Lee in view of Shim and Kato in order to improve cycle-life characteristics of the battery as taught by Lee’536 ([0052]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Shim and Kato fails to disclose wherein the negative active material has a peak intensity ratio, I(002)/I(110) measured by an X-ray diffraction analysis method of about 70 to about 120.
Lee’536 discloses a negative active material comprising an amorphous carbon material ([0010]), graphite particles ([0010]) and pores ([0012]), wherein the negative active material has a peak intensity ratio, I(002)/I(110) measured by an X-ray diffraction analysis method of about 100 to 120 ([0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified Lee in view of Shim and Kato by adding the peak intensity ratio, I(002)/I(110) measured by an X-ray diffraction analysis method of 100 to 120 taught by Lee’536 to the negative active material of Lee in view of Shim and Kato in order to improve cycle-life characteristics as taught by Lee’536 ([0052]).
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 GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights