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 November 7, 2025:
Claims 1 and 4-7 are pending. Claims 2-3 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The previous claim objection has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment in view of Honda et al. (US 2018/0166672). All changes to the rejection are necessitated by 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 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aihara et al. (US 2015/0093652) in view of Yoshida (US 2015/0353780) and Honda et al. (US 2018/0166672).
Regarding Claim 1, Aihara et al. teaches a solid state battery (i.e. an all solid state battery) (Para. [0013]) wherein the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material allowing reversible intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions (Para. [0104]) (i.e. wherein the all solid state battery utilizes a deposition and dissolution reaction of metal Li as an anode reaction), wherein the solid state battery comprises (i.e. the all solid state battery comprises) a negative electrode and its current collector (i.e. an anode current collector), an adhesive layer disposed between the negative electrode layer and its current collector comprising binder resin (Para. [0112]) (i.e. a layer comprising a resin), a sulfide solid electrolyte layer interposed between a positive electrode layer and a negative electrode layer (i.e. a solid electrolyte layer, the solid electrolyte layer includes a sulfide electrolyte material) (Para. [0035]), the positive electrode includes positive electrode active material (Para. [0099]) (i.e. a cathode active material layer), and an adhesive layer disposed between the positive electrode layer and its current collector (i.e. a cathode current collector, in this order) (Para. [0112]) and the negative active material may be a Li metal sheet (Para. [0109]).
Aihara et al. does not teach the adhesive layer is porous, a thickness of the adhesive layer, nor the resin contains PVDF.
However, Yoshida teaches an electroconductive adhesive composition for an electrochemical device electrode (Para. [0011]) applied on a current collector (Para. [0044]) and an electrode active material applied on the electroconductive adhesive layer (Para. [0051]) wherein the electrode active material may be a negative electrode active material (Para. [0053]) (i.e. between a current collector and an active material layer) and the electroconductive adhesive composition comprises polyvinylidene fluoride (i.e. a layer comprising a resin, the resin contains PVDF) (Para. [0030]) and the thickness of the electroconductive adhesive layer is 0.5 to 3 micrometers (Para. [0048]) (i.e. a thickness of the porous layer is 14 micrometers or less).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive layer of Aihara et al. to incorporate the teaching of PVDF and the thickness of 0.5 to 3 micrometers as taught by Yoshida, as such an adhesive layer would provide good adhesion with an electrode active material layer [such as metal lithium, see para. 0057] and an electrode having low resistance (Para. [0048]).
Aihara et al. does not teach the adhesive layer is porous and a void of the porous layer is more than 60% and 74.4% or less.
However, Honda et al. teaches an adhesive porous layer comprising an adhesive resin (Para. [0043]) wherein the adhesive resin is polyvinylidene fluoride resin (Para. [0228], [0229]) (i.e. the resin is PVDF) wherein the porosity is from 30% to 70% (Para. [0249]), overlapping with the claimed range of more than 60% and 74.4% or less.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive layer of Aihara et al. to incorporate the teaching of the porosity as taught by Honda et al., as such a porosity provides a layer with mechanical strength which the adhesive layer can withstand applied pressure or heat during manufacture, and favorable adherence to an electrode (Para. [0249]), with a reasonable expectation of success achieving a function of an adhesive layer. 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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding the limitation “deposition Li”, deposition is describing the lithium by the manner in which it is produced. Product by process limitations do not impart structural features to the claim and thus as long as the structure is the same as that claimed, the claimed structure is met.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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 re Thorpe, 777 F.2d, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(citations omitted).
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP section 2113.
As the structure of modified Aihara et al. teaches lithium (i.e. the lithium metal negative electrode layer) present between the adhesive layer (i.e. porous layer in modified Aihara et al.) and the solid electrolyte layer, the limitation (of deposition Li is present between the porous layer and the solid electrolyte) is met.
Regarding Claim 5, Aihara et al. as modified by Yoshida and Honda et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Regarding the electric resistance of the porous layer, modified Aihara et al. teaches a porous layer comprising a resin containing PVDF (i.e. the same composition). Accordingly, the porous layer of modified Aihara et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy an electric resistance of 153 ohms or less, or (b) differences in the electric resistance set forth in the instant claim, having an electric resistance of 153 ohms or less would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition is identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the porous layer of modified Aihara et al. would satisfy these conditions. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the electric resistance) would be small and obvious. 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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 6, Aihara et al. as modified by Yoshida and Honda et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Aihara et al. further teaches the adhesive layer (i.e. the porous layer of modified Aihara) may include a conductive material (Para. [0112]) (i.e. contains an electron conductive material).
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aihara et al. (US 2015/0093652) in view of Yoshida (US 2015/0353780) and Honda et al. (US 2018/0166672) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oku et al. (US 2015/0318555).
Regarding Claim 4, Aihara et al. as modified by Yoshida and Honda et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Aihara et al. does not teach a thickness of the porous layer is 4 micrometers or less.
However, Yoshida teaches an electroconductive adhesive composition for an electrochemical device electrode (Para. [0011]) applied on a current collector (Para. [0044]) and an electrode active material applied on the electroconductive adhesive layer (Para. [0051]) wherein the electrode active material may be a negative electrode active material (Para. [0053]) (i.e. between a current collector and an active material layer) and the electroconductive adhesive composition comprises polyvinylidene fluoride (i.e. a layer comprising a resin, the resin contains PVDF) (Para. [0030]) and the thickness of the electroconductive adhesive layer is 0.5 to 3 micrometers (Para. [0048]) (i.e. a thickness of the porous layer is 4 micrometers or less).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive layer of Aihara et al. to incorporate the teaching of the thickness of 0.5 to 3 micrometers as taught by Yoshida, as such an adhesive layer would provide good adhesion with an electrode active material layer [such as metal lithium, see para. 0057] and an electrode having low resistance (Para. [0048]).
Aihara et al. does not teach a content of the resin in the porous layer is 25 weight% or more.
However, Oku et al. teaches a resin layer (Para. [0262]) for a battery comprising known adhesive polymer resin wherein a blending ratio of electrically conductive particles based on 100 parts by weight of the adhesive resin is preferably 0 to 100 parts by weight (i.e. a content of the adhesive resin polymer overlapping with a range of 25 weight% or more e.g. if the electrically conductive particles is 0 parts by weight and thus, the adhesive resin would be 100 weight%) (Para. [0266]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified adhesive layer of Aihara et al. to incorporate the teaching of wherein a blending ratio of electrically conductive particles based on 100 parts by weight of the resin is preferably 0 to 100 parts by weight as taught by Oku et al., as such a ratio would secure strength of the resin layer and provide easy handling (Para. [0266]). 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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 7, Aihara et al. as modified by Yoshida and Honda et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Aihara et al. does not teach the adhesive layer (i.e. porous layer) contains just the resin.
However, Oku et al. teaches an adhesive resin for a battery comprising known adhesive polymer wherein a blending ratio of electrically conductive particles based on 100 parts by weight of the adhesive resin is preferably 0 to 100 parts by weight (i.e. may be 0, or the layer may contain just the resin) (Para. [0266]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive layer (i.e. porous layer) of modified Aihara et al. to incorporate the teaching of the resin layer including just the resin as taught by Oku et al., as it would secure strength of the resin layer and provide easy handling (Para. [0266]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/389,946 in view of Yoshida (US 2015/0353780).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/389,946 teaches all of the elements of the instant claim 1 and 4 (except for the resin of the porous layer contains PVDF).
Yoshida teaches an electroconductive adhesive composition for an electrochemical device electrode (Para. [0011]) and the electroconductive adhesive composition comprises polyvinylidene fluoride (i.e. a layer comprising a resin, the resin contains PVDF) (Para. [0030]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porous layer to incorporate the teaching of PVDF, as such an adhesive layer would provide good adhesion with an electrode active material layer [such as metal lithium, see para. 0057] and an electrode having low resistance (Para. [0048]).
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/389,946 as modified by Yoshida et al. teaches all of the elements of the instant claim 1 as explained above and further teaches the range of 1 to 690 ohms, overlapping with the claimed range 156 ohms or less. 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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 6 and 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/389,946 in view of Yoshida (US 2015/0353780) and Oku et al. (US 2015/0318555).
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/389,946 as modified by Yoshida teaches all of the elements of the instant claim 1 as explained above, but does not teach the porous layer contains an electron conductive material.
However, Oku et al. teaches an adhesive resin for a battery comprising known adhesive polymer wherein a blending ratio of electrically conductive particles based on 100 parts by weight of the adhesive resin is preferably 0 to 100 parts by weight (i.e. the porous layer contains an electron conductive material) (Para. [0266]).
t would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porous layer claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/389,946 to incorporate the teaching of the resin layer including electron conductive material as taught by Oku et al., as it would secure strength of the resin layer and provide easy handling (Para. [0266]). 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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/389,946 as modified by Yoshida teaches all of the elements of the instant claim 1 as explained above, but does not teach the porous layer contains just the resin.
However, Oku et al. teaches an adhesive resin for a battery comprising known adhesive polymer wherein a blending ratio of electrically conductive particles based on 100 parts by weight of the adhesive resin is preferably 0 to 100 parts by weight (i.e. may be 0, or the layer may contain just the resin) (Para. [0266]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porous layer claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/389,946 to incorporate the teaching of the resin layer including just the resin as taught by Oku et al., as it would secure strength of the resin layer and provide easy handling (Para. [0266]). 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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 5-6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,888,110 in view of Yoshida (US 2015/0353780) and Honda et al. (US 2018/0166672).
Regarding claim 1, Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,888,110 teaches all of the elements of the instant claim 1 (except for the resin of the porous layer contains PVDF and a void of the porous layer is more than 60% and 74.4% or less).
Yoshida teaches an electroconductive adhesive composition for an electrochemical device electrode (Para. [0011]) and the electroconductive adhesive composition comprises polyvinylidene fluoride (i.e. a layer comprising a resin, the resin contains PVDF) (Para. [0030]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porous layer of claim 16 of U.S. Patent 11,888,110 to incorporate the teaching of PVDF, as it would achieve a mechanical strength and a heat resistance against a pressure or heat occurred in battery reaction (Para. [0361]) and provide ion permeability (Para. [0380]).
Honda et al. teaches an adhesive porous layer comprising an adhesive resin (Para. [0043]) wherein the adhesive resin is polyvinylidene fluoride resin (Para. [0228], [0229]) (i.e. the resin is PVDF) wherein the porosity is from 30% to 70% (Para. [0249]), overlapping with the claimed range of more than 60% and 74.4% or less.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porous layer of claim 16 of U.S. Patent 11,888,110, as such a porosity provides a layer with mechanical strength which the adhesive layer can withstand applied pressure or heat during manufacture, and favorable adherence to an electrode (Para. [0249]). 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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,888,110 as modified by Yoshida and Honda et al. as explained above teaches all of the elements of the instant claim 5 including an overlapping electric resistance of the porous layer of 1 Ω or more to 690 Ω or less. 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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,888,110 as modified by Yoshida and Honda et al. as explained above teaches all of the elements of the instant claim 6 wherein the porous layer contains an electron conductive material.
Claim 4 and 7 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,888,110 in view of Yoshida (US 2015/0353780), Honda et al. (US 2018/0166672) and Oku et al. (US 2015/0318555).
Regarding claim 4, Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,888,110 as modified by Yoshida and Honda et al. as explained above teaches all of the elements of the instant claim 4 including an overlapping thickness of the porous layer of 14 micrometers or less (except for a content of the resin in the porous layer is 25 weight% or more).
However, Oku et al. teaches an adhesive resin for a battery comprising known adhesive polymer wherein a blending ratio of electrically conductive particles based on 100 parts by weight of the adhesive resin is preferably 0 to 100 parts by weight (i.e. a content of the resin in the porous layer is 25 weight% or more) (Para. [0266]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porous layer claim 16 of U.S. Patent 11,888,110 as modified above to incorporate the teaching of a blending ratio of electrically conductive particles based on 100 parts by weight of the is preferably 0 to 100 parts by weight as taught by Oku et al. (i.e. overlapping with 25 weight% or more), as it would secure strength of the resin layer and provide easy handling (Para. [0266]). 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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,888,110 as modified by Yoshida and Honda et al. as explained above teaches all of the elements of the instant claim 1 as explained above, but does not teach the porous layer contains just the resin.
However, Oku et al. teaches an adhesive resin for a battery comprising known adhesive polymer wherein a blending ratio of electrically conductive particles based on 100 parts by weight of the adhesive resin is preferably 0 to 100 parts by weight (i.e. may be 0, or the layer may contain just the resin) (Para. [0266]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porous layer claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,888,110 as modified by Yoshida and Honda as explained above to incorporate the teaching of the resin layer including just the resin as taught by Oku et al., as it would secure strength of the resin layer and provide easy handling (Para. [0266]). 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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous prior art rejection with respect to claims 1 and 4-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729