DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on March 2, 2026. Claims 48-52 are currently amended. Claims 79-82 are newly added. Claims 48-61, 64-67, 72, 74, 76 and 79-82 are pending review in this action. The previous objection to the claims is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendment.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on March 2, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 48-61, 64-67, 72, 74 and 76 based upon U.S. PG Pub 2012/0070747 (Whear’747) in view of US Patent 5,221,587 (Böhnstedt) and US Patent 4,440,838 (Schmidt) as set forth in the last Office action for the reasons articulated below.
Applicant’s arguments are addressed below in the order presented in the declaration and numbered as presented in the declaration.
8. Applicant argues that the inventors of the present application were looking for an anti-foaming agent and would choose an HLB value from 1 to 3 and not 7 to 9, “which is a wetting and spreading agent”.
It is not immediately clear why applicant is arguing against an HLB value of 7 to 9. The prior art reference (Schmidt) used in the prior and current office actions to address the HLB value limitation teaches surfactants with an HLB value of less than 5 (col. 4, lines 56-68).
9. Applicant argues that 40-70% silica filled membranes are wettable with sulfuric acid and do not require an additional surfactant to impart wettability.
The primary reference Whear ‘747 teaches precisely this type of membrane and explicitly teaches including a wetting agent (paragraph [0042]).
10. Applicant argues that the instantly disclosed separators are 40-70% silica filled membranes and do not need a surfactant with an HLB value of 7 to 9.
As in argument 8 above, it is not immediately clear why applicant is arguing against an HLB value of 7 to 9. The prior art reference (Schmidt) used in the prior and current office actions to address the HLB value limitation teaches surfactants with an HLB value of less than 5 (col. 4, lines 56-68).
11. Applicant argues against the Elé reference. Specifically, applicant argues that Elé is not directed to acid electrolyte, is not accurate, is not enabling, does not list surfactants with an HLB value less than 3.
Elé is not used to select surfactants. The compounds used as surfactants are already taught by the primary reference Whear ‘747 (paragraphs [0119-0166]). The HLB value (less than 5) is taught by Schmidt (col. 4, lines 56-68).
12. Applicant restates claim 48 and argues that surfactant properties are pH dependent.
No argument related to pH is presented in the current or prior office action.
13. Applicant argues again that none of the surfactants listed in the Elé reference have an HLB value of less than 3.
Again, Elé is not used to select surfactants. The compounds used as surfactants are already taught by the primary reference Whear ‘747 (paragraphs [0119-0166]). The HLB value (less than 5) is taught by Schmidt (col. 4, lines 56-68).
14. Applicant argues that silica filled polyethylene membranes do not require a wetting agent for lead acid battery electrolyte and that Elé describes a surfactant with an HLB value of 7 to 9 as a wetting agent and that thus Elé teaches away from the claimed invention.
The primary reference Whear ‘747 teaches precisely this type of membrane and explicitly teaches including a wetting agent (paragraph [0042]).
Elé is not used to modify Whear ‘747. Whear ‘747 already teaches a wetting agent. The HLB value (less than 5) is taught by Schmidt (col. 4, lines 56-68).
15. Applicant argues against the Whear ‘747 reference by asserting that it does not include every limitation of the instant claims.
Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As articulated in the prior and current office actions, Whear ‘747 is the primary reference in an obviousness rejection under 35 USC 103. Whear ‘747 is modified by Böhnstedt (to address the composition of the antimony alloy), Schmidt (to address the HLB value of the surfactant), Natesh (to address the amount of rubber present and latex as a type of rubber).
16. Applicant asserts that the independent claims 48 and 82 are patentable.
As articulated in the current and prior office actions, independent claim 48 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub 2012/0070747 (Whear’747) in view of US Patent 5,221,587 (Böhnstedt) and US Patent 4,440,838 (Schmidt).
As articulated in the current office action, independent claim 82 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub 2012/0070747 (Whear’747) in view of US Patent 5,221,587 (Böhnstedt), US Patent 4,440,838 (Schmidt) and WIPO 2016/134222 (Natesh).
17. Applicant argues that Natesh is non-analogous prior art because it does not teach a silica filled polyethylene membrane and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Natesh to modify Whear ‘747.
Natesh teaches a separator for a lead-acid battery. Natesh teaches including rubber in the separator when an electrode in the battery includes a lead-antimony alloy. The purpose of the rubber is to act as a scavenger for the antimony before it can deposit on the negative electrode (p. 20, lines 21-25). The primary reference Whear ‘747 describes exactly the same problem of antimony poisoning (paragraph [0093]). As such, Natesh provides a direct solution to the problem described in Whear ‘747 and is precisely a reference the ordinarily skilled artist would look to.
18. Applicant argues against the Yaacoub reference because it does not disclose a sulfo-succinate and does not teach an HLB value of less than 5.
Yaacoub is only used as a teaching on the suitable amount of surfactant to be applied to a separator which is analogous to Whear ‘747’s.
19. Applicant argues that Pekala teaches away from using sulfo-succinates.
The primary reference Whear’747 teaches a sulfo-succinate. Pekala is used only as a teaching for the amount of residual oil suitable to be left in the separator after it is extruded and calendered. This teaching is not relevant to the choice of surfactant.
20. Applicant argues that Böhnstedt teaches a separator with a different composition and is therefore non-analogous art.
Böhnstedt teaches a lead-acid battery and specifically that a lead alloy with high antimony content is beneficial for the positive electrode of a lead-acid battery (col. 1, lines 9-21). The primary reference Whear ‘747 is directed to a lead-acid battery with a positive electrode that includes an antimony alloy (paragraphs [0093-0095] and Tables 3-4). As such, Böhnstedt is manifestly analogous art.
21. Applicant argues that the Schmidt reference is non-analogous prior art, because it does not include silica.
Both Whear ‘747 and Schmidt teach a polyethylene-based separator for a lead-acid battery. Both teach using a non-ionic surfactant and specifically one that is based on alkylene oxides. Schmidt provides a clear motivation for the HLB value of the surfactant (less than 5) and given its low hydrophilicity (as indicated by an HLB value in a range that goes to 0), such a surfactant is expected to not be soluble in water.
22. Applicant argues that a skilled artist would not look to Whear ‘747 to modify Böhnstedt
The present and prior office actions do not modify Böhnstedt. Böhnstedt merely motivates forming Whear’747’s antimony alloy as a lead alloy with a high antimony content – see point 21 above.
23. Applicant argues that the inventors of the present application were looking for an anti-foaming agent and would choose an HLB value from 1 to 3 and not 7 to 9, “which is a wetting and spreading agent”.
It is not immediately clear why applicant is arguing against an HLB value of 7 to 9. The prior art reference (Schmidt) used in the prior and current office actions to address the HLB value limitation teaches surfactants with an HLB value of less than 5 (col. 4, lines 56-68).
24. Applicant argues that 40-70% silica filled membranes are wettable with sulfuric acid and do not require an additional surfactant to impart wettability. Applicant further argues that the instantly disclosed separators are 40-70% silica filled membranes and do not need a surfactant with an HLB value of 7 to 9.
The primary reference Whear ‘747 teaches precisely this type of membrane and explicitly teaches including a wetting agent (paragraph [0042]). It is not immediately clear why applicant is arguing against an HLB value of 7 to 9. The prior art reference (Schmidt) used in the prior and current office actions to address the HLB value limitation teaches surfactants with an HLB value of less than 5 (col. 4, lines 56-68).
25. Applicant argues without evidence that Schmidt prefers wetting agents that are water soluble and further argues that Schmidt is non-analogous art and teaches away from a non-ionic surfactant with an HLB of less than 5 and that is not soluble in water.
Schmidt is directed to a polyolefin based separator for a lead-acid battery and a non-ionic surfactant with an HLB value of less than 5. Given its low hydrophilicity (as indicated by an HLB value in a range that goes to 0), such a surfactant is expected to not be soluble in water.
26. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not look to Schmidt to modify a silica filled polymer membrane.
Both Whear ‘747 and Schmidt teach a polyethylene-based separator for a lead-acid battery. Both teach using a non-ionic surfactant and specifically one that is based on alkylene oxides. Schmidt provides a clear motivation for the HLB value of the surfactant (less than 5).
27 and 28. Applicant argues that none of the references teach a sulfo-succinate and a non-ionic surfactant with an HLB of less than 5 and wherein the non-ionic surfactant is not soluble in water.
As articulated in the prior and current office actions, the combination of Whear ‘747 and Schmidt teaches these limitations. Applicant has not successfully argued that the combination of Whear ‘747 and Schmidt is improper.
29. Applicant argues that Schmidt is directed to wetting agents that tend to be soluble in water.
Schmidt does not describe the wetting agents as being soluble in water. It is unclear why applicant makes such a claim. Applicant is welcome to provide examples of non-ionic surfactants taught by Schmidt and having an HLB value of say 1 that are water-soluble.
30. Applicant argues that the Yaacoub reference teaches away from the claimed invention because it does not teach an HLB value of less than 5.
Yaacoub is only used as a teaching on the suitable amount of surfactant to be applied to a separator which is analogous to Whear ‘747’s.
31. Applicant argues unexpected results without providing the requisite data.
Applicant is reminded that a successful showing of unexpected results requires data commensurate with the scope of the claims and showing unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art. See MPEP 716.02(d).
32. Applicant argues that none of the references teach a sulfo-succinate and at least one non-ionic surfactant present at the claimed amounts.
As articulated in the prior and current office actions, the combination of Whear ‘747 and Yaacoub teaches these limitations. Applicant has not successfully argued that the combination of Whear ‘747 and Yaacoub is improper.
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 48, 60, 61, 65, 66, 72 and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0070747, hereinafter Whear‘747 in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,221,587, hereinafter Böhnstedt and U.S. Patent No. 4,440,838, hereinafter Schmidt, with evidence from Elé Corporation and U.S. Patent No. 3,933,525, hereinafter Palmer.
Regarding claim 48, Whear‘747 teaches a lead-acid battery (abstract). The lead-acid battery comprises an antimony-containing positive electrode, an acid electrolyte and a battery separator (paragraphs [0093-0095] and Tables 3-4). The battery separator comprises a porous membrane. The porous membrane comprises a porous material (“base material”), a rubber and a surfactant (paragraphs [0042, 0119-0166]).
The porous material (“base material”) includes polyethylene, silica as a filler and processing oil as a plasticizer (paragraph [0042]).
Whear‘747 teaches that the surfactant comprises a sulfo-succinate and various non-ionic surfactants, including glycols of ethylene oxide or propylene oxide (paragraphs [0119, 0124, 0141-0166]).
Whear‘747 does not: 1) explicitly say that the antimony alloy is a lead alloy having a high antimony content; and 2) specify the HLB value of the non-ionic surfactants.
Regarding 1), it is well-known in the art that lead alloys with antimony content are used in lead-acid battery positive electrodes – see, e.g. Böhnstedt, who teaches a lead alloy with high antimony content for use in a lead-acid battery positive electrode to ensure mechanical stability and good contact between the terminal and active material (col. 1, lines 9-21).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Whear‘747’s antimony alloy is a lead-antimony alloy and that a lead alloy with high antimony content is beneficial for the purpose of ensuring mechanical stability and good contact between the terminal and active material.
Regarding 2), Schmidt teaches a polyolefin separator for a lead-acid battery (abstract). Schmidt teaches applying a surfactant with an HLB (“hydrophilic-lipophilic balance”) value of less than 5, because such surfactants provide some hydrophilicity to the polyolefin and thus allow robust wetting of the separator, while also not being easily washed away by the aqueous electrolyte. Schmidt explicitly describes a non-ionic surfactant which is a block copolymer of alkylene oxides (col. 4, lines 56-68).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an HLB value of less than 5 for the non-ionic surfactant for the purpose of ensuring a robust wetting effect.
In the art, a surfactant with an HLB value of less than 10 is considered not soluble in water – see Elé Corporation. As such, the block copolymer of alkylene oxides having a HLB value of less than 5 is expected to be not soluble in water.
See also Palmer, who describes nonionic surfactants with HLB value of less than 5 as having “a necessary water insolubility” (col. 5, lines 22-42).
Regarding claim 60, Whear‘747 teaches a backweb with a thickness of 6 mils (152 µm) (paragraph [0043]). Whear‘747 further teaches that an optimum range for the backweb thickness is 125 µm to 250 µm (Table 3).
Regarding claim 61, Whear‘747 teaches a variety of ribs, including solid ribs, linear ribs, and sinusoidal ribs (paragraphs [0046, 0047], figures 23, 26 and 27).
Regarding claims 65 and 66, Whear‘747 teaches that the separator includes a mat of glass and/or synthetic fibers (paragraphs [0047, 0106, 0107] and figure 32).
Regarding claim 72, Whear‘747 teaches non-ionic surfactants that are glycols of ethylene oxide or propylene oxide (paragraphs [0154, 0166]). Glycols are compounds from the alcohol family.
Regarding claim 74, Whear‘747 as modified by Schmidt teaches a non-ionic surfactant having an HLB of less than 5.
The HLB value range in the combination of Whear‘747 and Schmidt overlaps the instant application's optimum range of less than 3. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 49-52, 67 and 79-81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0070747, hereinafter Whear‘747, U.S. Patent No. 5,221,587, hereinafter Böhnstedt and U.S. Patent No. 4,440,838, hereinafter Schmidt as applied to claim 48 above and further in view of WIPO Patent Publication No. 2016/134222, hereinafter Natesh.
Regarding claims 49-52, Whear‘747 teaches using rubber in the separator (paragraph [0042]).
Whear‘747 does not specify the concentration or type of the rubber.
Natesh teaches an analogous separator. Natesh further teaches including natural rubber or synthetic rubber as a heavy metal scavenger (p. 20, lines 21-25; p. 22, lines 7-12). In an example Natesh teaches that rubber is present at a concentration of 6 percent by weight (p. 71, lines 21-24).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use natural or synthetic rubber at a concentration of 6 percent by weight for the purpose of assisting with heavy metal sequestration.
Regarding claim 67, Whear‘747 teaches ribs (paragraphs [0228, 0242]).
Whear‘747 fails to teach rubber ribs.
It is well-known in the art to use rubber to form ribs in separators of the type taught by Whear’747 – see, e.g. Natesh (p. 55, 21-33, p. 56, 1-2 and figure 4B).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use rubber to form ribs as taught by Natesh without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 79-81, Whear‘747 teaches using rubber in the separator (paragraph [0042]).
Whear‘747 does not specify the type of the rubber.
Natesh teaches an analogous separator. Natesh further teaches including natural rubber or synthetic rubber as a heavy metal scavenger (p. 20, lines 21-25; p. 22, lines 7-12).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use natural or synthetic rubber for the purpose of assisting with heavy metal sequestration.
Claims 53-56 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0070747, hereinafter Whear‘747, U.S. Patent No. 5,221,587, hereinafter Böhnstedt and U.S. Patent No. 4,440,838, hereinafter Schmidt as applied claim 48 above and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,246,798, hereinafter Yaacoub.
Regarding claims 53-56, Whear‘747 teaches a surfactant (paragraphs [0119-0166]).
Whear‘747 fails to specify the amount of the surfactant.
Yaacoub teaches an analogous separator for a lead-acid battery. The separator is a porous membrane comprising microporous polyolefin and includes a surfactant (abstract). Yaacoub teaches that the surfactant should be applied at a concentration greater than 0.5 g/m2 (col. 5, lines 60-63). In a specific example, Yaacoub teaches a concentration of 2.5 g/m2 (col. 7, lines 58-62).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Whear’747’s surfactant at a concentration of greater than 0.5 g/m2 and specifically at a concentration of 2.5 g/m2 for the purpose of ensuring a sufficient amount of surfactant.
Regarding claim 64, Whear‘747 teaches a silica filler (paragraph [0042]).
Whear‘747 fails to specify the particle size of the silica filler.
Yaacoub teaches an analogous separator for a lead-acid battery. Yaacoub’s separator includes silica filler (col. 3, lines 67-68). In an example, Yaacoub teaches silica with a particle size of 15 µm (col. 6, lines 46-47).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silica with a particle size of 15 µm without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 57-59 and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0070747, hereinafter Whear‘747, U.S. Patent No. 5,221,587, hereinafter Böhnstedt and U.S. Patent No. 4,440,838, hereinafter Schmidt as applied to claim 48 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0028060, hereinafter Pekala.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Whear‘747 teaches processing oil, which is extracted after the separator is extruded and calendered (paragraph [0042]).
Whear‘747 fails to specify the amount of residual processing oil left in the separator.
Pekala teaches an analogous silica-filled polyethylene separator for a lead-acid battery. Pekala’s separator is formed using an analogous process using processing oil which is extracted after extrusion and calendering (paragraphs [0019, 0020]). Pekala teaches that a processed separator typically contains 12-21 wt% processing oil (paragraph [0023]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the separator such that it contains 12-21 wt% processing oil without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 59, Whear‘747 teaches processing oil, which is extracted after the separator is extruded and calendered (paragraph [0042]).
Whear‘747 fails to specify the amount of residual processing oil left in the separator.
Pekala teaches an analogous silica-filled polyethylene separator for a lead-acid battery. Pekala’s separator is formed using an analogous process using processing oil which is extracted after extrusion and calendering (paragraphs [0019, 0020]). Pekala teaches that a processed separator typically contains 12-21 wt% processing oil (paragraph [0023]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the separator such that it contains 12-21 wt% processing oil without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
The optimum range for the residual processing oil in the combination of Whear‘747 and Pekala overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 10-20 wt%. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 76, Whear‘747 as modified by Schmidt teaches a non-ionic surfactant having an HLB of less than 5.
The HLB value range in the combination of Whear‘747 and Schmidt overlaps the instant application's optimum range of less than 3. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 82 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0070747, hereinafter Whear‘747, U.S. Patent No. 5,221,587, hereinafter Böhnstedt, U.S. Patent No. 4,440,838, hereinafter Schmidt and WIPO Patent Publication No. 2016/134222, hereinafter Natesh, with evidence from Elé Corporation and U.S. Patent No. 3,933,525, hereinafter Palmer.
Regarding claim 82, Whear‘747 teaches a lead-acid battery (abstract). The lead-acid battery comprises an antimony-containing positive electrode, an acid electrolyte and a battery separator (paragraphs [0093-0095] and Tables 3-4). The battery separator comprises a porous membrane. The porous membrane comprises a porous material (“base material”), a rubber and a surfactant (paragraphs [0042, 0119-0166]).
The porous material (“base material”) includes polyethylene, silica as a filler and processing oil as a plasticizer (paragraph [0042]).
Whear‘747 teaches that the surfactant comprises a sulfo-succinate and various non-ionic surfactants, including glycols of ethylene oxide or propylene oxide (paragraphs [0119, 0124, 0141-0166]).
Whear‘747 does not: 1) explicitly say that the antimony alloy is a lead alloy having a high antimony content; 2) specify the HLB value of the non-ionic surfactants and 3) teach that the rubber is latex.
Regarding 1), it is well-known in the art that lead alloys with antimony content are used in lead-acid battery positive electrodes – see, e.g. Böhnstedt, who teaches a lead alloy with high antimony content for use in a lead-acid battery positive electrode to ensure mechanical stability and good contact between the terminal and active material (col. 1, lines 9-21).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Whear‘747’s antimony alloy is a lead-antimony alloy and that a lead alloy with high antimony content is beneficial for the purpose of ensuring mechanical stability and good contact between the terminal and active material.
Regarding 2), Schmidt teaches a polyolefin separator for a lead-acid battery (abstract). Schmidt teaches applying a surfactant with an HLB (“hydrophilic-lipophilic balance”) value of less than 5, because such surfactants provide some hydrophilicity to the polyolefin and thus allow robust wetting of the separator, while also not being easily washed away by the aqueous electrolyte. Schmidt explicitly describes a non-ionic surfactant which is a block copolymer of alkylene oxides (col. 4, lines 56-68).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an HLB value of less than 5 for the non-ionic surfactant for the purpose of ensuring a robust wetting effect.
In the art, a surfactant with an HLB value of less than 10 is considered not soluble in water – see Elé Corporation. As such, the block copolymer of alkylene oxides having a HLB value of less than 5 is expected to be not soluble in water.
See also Palmer, who describes nonionic surfactants with HLB value of less than 5 as having “a necessary water insolubility” (col. 5, lines 22-42).
Regarding 3), Natesh teaches an analogous separator. Natesh further teaches including natural rubber or synthetic rubber as a heavy metal scavenger (p. 20, lines 21-25; p. 22, lines 7-12).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use natural or synthetic rubber for the purpose of assisting with heavy metal sequestration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
See section Response to Amendment above.
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 LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights