DETAILED ACTION
1. The Amendment filed 01/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10, 14-16 & 19-24 in the application remain pending. Claims 1 & 19 were amended. Claims 11-13 & 17-18 are cancelled. Claims 3, 9-10, 14-16 &19 remain withdrawn from consideration.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
4. The amendment filed 01/09/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the “to be pressed between the second roller of the first pair of rollers and the first roller of the second pair of rollers; and the active material layer is fed from between the second roller of the first pair of rollers and the first roller of the second pair of rollers to be pressed between the first roller of the second pair of rollers and the second roller of the second pair of rollers” of claim 23, lines 6-10; and “to be pressed between the second roller of the second pair of rollers and the first roller of the third pair of rollers; and the active material layer is fed from between the second roller of the second pair of rollers and the first roller of the third pair of rollers to be pressed between the first roller of the third pair of rollers and the second roller of the third pair of rollers” of claim 24, lines 4-8.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Currently, the original specification recites (see [0041]-[0046]) regarding claim 23: the active material layer is fed from between the first roller of the first pair of rollers and the second roller of the first pair of rollers to be pressed between the second roller of the first pair of rollers and the first roller of the first pair of rollers; and the active material layer is fed from between the second roller of the second pair of rollers and the first roller of the second pair of rollers to be pressed between the first roller of the second pair of rollers and the second roller of the second pair of rollers; and
regarding claim 24: the active material layer is fed from between the first roller of the second pair of rollers and the second roller of the second pair of rollers to be pressed between the second roller of the second pair of rollers and the first roller of the second pair of rollers; and the active material layer is fed from between the second roller of the third pair of rollers and the first roller of the third pair of rollers to be pressed between the first roller of the third pair of rollers and the second roller of the third pair of rollers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
6. Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment to claim 23, lines 6-10 which recites “to be pressed between the second roller of the first pair of rollers and the first roller of the second pair of rollers; and the active material layer is fed from between the second roller of the first pair of rollers and the first roller of the second pair of rollers to be pressed between the first roller of the second pair of rollers and the second roller of the second pair of rollers” is not supported by the original specification or claims and therefore considered new matter.
The amendment to claim 24, lines 4-8 which recites “to be pressed between the second roller of the second pair of rollers and the first roller of the third pair of rollers; and the active material layer is fed from between the second roller of the second pair of rollers and the first roller of the third pair of rollers to be pressed between the first roller of the third pair of rollers and the second roller of the third pair of rollers” is not supported by the original specification or claims and therefore considered new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
8. Claims 1-2, 4-8 & 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 1, line 8 recites the limitation “the same”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the same” as “a same”. To correct this problem, amend line 8 to recite “a same”.
Claims 2, 4-8 & 20-24 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. Claims 1-2, 4-8 & 20-24 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gulde et al. (EP 4411848 A1) (cited in 01/31/2025 IDS) hereinafter Gulde.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “dry mixing materials to form an active material layer of the electrode,… wherein the dry mixing materials include an active material, a conductive filler, and a binder;…the active material layer to a current collector… first roller operating at a first line speed and a second roller operating at a second line speed different than the first line speed… third roller operating at a third line speed and a fourth roller operating at a fourth line speed that is the same as the third line speed to laminate the active material layer to a current collector”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Gulde since Gulde meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of using dry mixing materials to form an active material layer of the electrode, wherein the dry mixing materials include an active material, a conductive filler, and a binder and laminating the active material layer to a current collector with the first roller operating at a first line speed and a second roller operating at a second line speed different than the first line speed and a third roller operating at a third line speed and a fourth roller operating at a fourth line speed that is the same as the third line speed to laminate the active material layer to a current collector, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 1, Gulde discloses a system for manufacturing an electrode for a battery cell (abs; fig 1-16), comprising:
N−1 pairs of rollers 4+5 (both sides 4+5) & 6+7 (left side 6+7) & 8+8 capable of pressing and calendaring dry mixing materials to form an active material layer of the electrode, where N is an integer greater than two, wherein the dry mixing materials can include an active material, a conductive filler, and a binder ([0020]-[0023]; [0093]-[0097]; [0115]-[0119]; [0168]-[0170]; [0175]-[0182]; fig 4),
wherein the N-1 pairs of rollers 4+5 (both sides 4+5) & 6+7 (left side 6+7) & 8+8 are arranged in succession (see fig 4, 6+7 arranged after 4+5) such that each of the second (see fig 4, rollers 6+7) to the N-1th pairs of rollers 4+5 (both sides 4+5) & 6+7 (left side 6+7) & 8+8 receives a same material pressed by a previous one (see fig 4, rollers 4+5) of the N-1 pairs of rollers 4+5 (both sides 4+5) & 6+7 (left side 6+7) & 8+8 ([0020]-[0023]; [0093]-[0097]; [0115]-[0119]; [0168]-[0170]; [0175]-[0182]; fig 4),
wherein each of at least two of the N−1 pairs of rollers 4+5 & 4+5 includes a first roller 4 capable of operating at a first line speed and a second roller 5 capable of operating at a second line speed different than the first line speed ([0020]-[0023]; [0116]-[0119]; [0168]-[0170]; [0175]-[0182]; fig 4); and
an Nth pair of rollers 6+7 -> (right side 6+7) including a third roller 6 capable of operating at a third line speed and a fourth roller 7 capable of operating at a fourth line speed that is the same as the third line speed capable of laminating the active material layer to a current collector ([0020]-[0023]; [0093]-[0097]; [0115]-[0119]; [0168]-[0170]; [0175]-[0182]; fig 4).
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “the binder comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Gulde since Gulde meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the binder comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 2, Gulde discloses a system (abs; fig 1-16), wherein the binder is capable of comprising polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) ([0093]-[0097]; [0115]-[0119]).
As regards to claim 4, Gulde discloses a system (abs; fig 1-16), wherein the first roller 4 has a larger diameter than the second roller 5 ([0202]-[0203]; fig 4).
As regards to claim 5, Gulde discloses a system (abs; fig 1-16), wherein a ratio of the first line speed to the second line speed is in a range from 1.02 to 2.0 (speed ratio between the first rollers 4 and second rollers 5 is between 1:1.1 and 1:10) ([0021]; [0116]; [0168]; fig 4).
As regards to claim 6, Gulde discloses a system (abs; fig 1-16), wherein a ratio of the first line speed to the second line speed is in a range from 1.05 to 1.5 (speed ratio between the first rollers 4 and second rollers 5 is between 1:1.1 and 1:10) ([0021]; [0116]; [0168]; fig 4).
As regards to claim 7, Gulde discloses a system (abs; fig 1-16), wherein the first roller 4 and the second roller 5 are heated to a temperature in a range from 80°C to 200°C ([0138]; fig 4).
Regarding claim 8, the recitation “the electrode comprises a cathode electrode”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Gulde since Gulde meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the electrode comprise a cathode electrode, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 8, Gulde discloses a system (abs; fig 1-16), wherein the electrode is capable of comprising a cathode electrode ([0020]-[0023]; [0093]-[0097]; [0115]-[0119]; [0168]-[0170]; [0175]-[0182]; fig 4).
As regards to claim 20, Gulde discloses a system (abs; fig 1-16), wherein thickness of the material pressed by each of the second (see fig 4, rollers 6+7) to the N-1th pairs of rollers 4+5 (both sides 4+5) & 6+7 (left side 6+7) & 8+8 is less than (adjustable speeds and gaps) thickness of the material pressed by a previous one (see fig 4, rollers 4+5) of the N-1 pairs of rollers 4+5 (both sides 4+5) & 6+7 (left side 6+7) & 8+8 ([0020]-[0023]; [0093]-[0097]; [0115]-[0119]; [0168]-[0170]; [0175]-[0182]; fig 4).
Regarding claim 21, the recitation “the dry mixing materials including the active material, the conductive filler and the binder”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Gulde since Gulde meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the dry mixing materials including the active material, the conductive filler and the binder, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 21, Gulde discloses a system (abs; fig 1-16), further comprising the dry mixing materials capable of including the active material, the conductive filler and the binder ([0020]-[0023]; [0093]-[0097]; [0115]-[0119]; [0168]-[0170]; [0175]-[0182]; fig 4).
Regarding claim 22, the recitation “first roller operating at a first line speed and a second roller operating at a second line speed”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Gulde since Gulde meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the first roller operating at a first line speed and a second roller operating at a second line speed, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 22, Gulde discloses a system (abs; fig 1-16), wherein each of at least three of the N-1 pairs of rollers 4+5 (both sides 4+5) & 6+7 (left side 6+7) & 8+8 includes a first roller capable of operating at the first line speed and a second roller capable of operating at the second line speed ([0020]-[0023]; [0093]-[0097]; [0115]-[0119]; [0168]-[0170]; [0175]-[0182]; fig 4).
As regards to claim 23, Gulde discloses a system (abs; fig 1-16), wherein: the at least two of the N-1 pairs of rollers 4+5 (both sides 4+5) & 6+7 (left side 6+7) & 8+8 comprise a first pair of rollers 4+5, and a second pair of rollers 6+7 (left side 6+7); the active material layer is fed from between the first roller 4 of the first pair of rollers 4+5 and the second roller 5 of the first pair of rollers 4+5 to be pressed between the second roller 5 of the first pair of rollers 4+5 and the first roller 4 of the first pair of rollers 4+5; and the active material layer is fed from between the second roller 7 of the second pair of rollers 6+7 (left side 6+7) and the first roller 6 of the second pair of rollers 6+7 (left side 6+7) to be pressed between the first roller 6 of the second pair of rollers 6+7 (left side 6+7) and the second roller 7 of the second pair of rollers 6+7 (left side 6+7) ([0020]-[0023]; [0093]-[0097]; [0115]-[0119]; [0168]-[0170]; [0175]-[0182]; fig 4).
As regards to claim 24, Gulde discloses a system (abs; fig 1-16), wherein: the at least two of the N-1 pairs of rollers 4+5 (both sides 4+5) & 6+7 (left side 6+7) & 8+8 comprise a third pair of rollers 8+8; the active material layer is fed from between the first roller 6 of the second pair of rollers 6+7 (left side 6+7) and the second roller 7 of the second pair of rollers 6+7 (left side 6+7) to be pressed between the second roller 7 of the second pair of rollers 6+7 (left side 6+7) and the first roller 6 of the second pair of rollers 6+7 (left side 6+7); and the active material layer is fed from between the second roller 8 of the third pair of rollers 8+8 and the first roller 8 of the third pair of rollers 8+8 to be pressed between the first roller 8 of the third pair of rollers 8+8 and the second roller 8 of the third pair of rollers 8+8 ([0020]-[0023]; [0093]-[0097]; [0115]-[0119]; [0168]-[0170]; [0175]-[0182]; fig 4).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 01/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
(a) Gulde fails to disclose the claim 1 limitations of "N-1 pairs of rollers configured to press and calendar dry mixing materials to form an active material layer of the electrode, where N is an integer greater than two", "wherein the N-1 pairs of rollers are arranged in succession such that each of the second to the N-1th pairs of rollers receives the same material pressed by a previous one of the N-1 pairs of rollers", and "each of at least two of the N-1 pairs of rollers includes a first roller operating at a first line speed and a second roller operating at a second line speed different than the first line speed."
(b) Thus, Gulde fails to disclose all limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 is allowable for at least these reasons. Claims 2-9 and 20-24 ultimately depend from claim 1 and thus are allowable for at least similar reasons as claim 1.
11. In response to applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments.
(a) In view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 and various claims depending therefrom, Examiner has reevaluated the teachings of Gulde as a whole for what they disclose or fairly suggest.
As already discussed above in detail in regards to claim 1, Gulde discloses N−1 pairs of rollers 4+5 (both sides 4+5) & 6+7 (left side 6+7) & 8+8 capable of pressing and calendaring dry mixing materials to form an active material layer of the electrode, where N is an integer greater than two, wherein the dry mixing materials can include an active material, a conductive filler, and a binder ([0020]-[0023]; [0093]-[0097]; [0115]-[0119]; [0168]-[0170]; [0175]-[0182]; fig 4), wherein the N-1 pairs of rollers 4+5 (both sides 4+5) & 6+7 (left side 6+7) & 8+8 are arranged in succession (see fig 4, 6+7 arranged after 4+5) such that each of the second (see fig 4, rollers 6+7) to the N-1th pairs of rollers 4+5 (both sides 4+5) & 6+7 (left side 6+7) & 8+8 receives the same material pressed by a previous one (see fig 4, rollers 4+5) of the N-1 pairs of rollers 4+5 (both sides 4+5) & 6+7 (left side 6+7) & 8+8 ([0020]-[0023]; [0093]-[0097]; [0115]-[0119]; [0168]-[0170]; [0175]-[0182]; fig 4), wherein each of at least two of the N−1 pairs of rollers 4+5 & 4+5 includes a first roller 4 capable of operating at a first line speed and a second roller 5 capable of operating at a second line speed different than the first line speed ([0020]-[0023]; [0116]-[0119]; [0168]-[0170]; [0175]-[0182]; fig 4); and an Nth pair of rollers 6+7 -> (right side 6+7) including a third roller 6 capable of operating at a third line speed and a fourth roller 7 capable of operating at a fourth line speed that is the same as the third line speed capable of laminating the active material layer to a current collector ([0020]-[0023]; [0093]-[0097]; [0115]-[0119]; [0168]-[0170]; [0175]-[0182]; fig 4).
Examiner recommends further clarifying claim 1 to recite “wherein the N-1 pairs of rollers are arranged in succession such that each of the second to the N-1th pairs of rollers receives the electrode with the active material layer pressed by a previous one of the N-1 pairs of rollers”, to clarify the electrode with the active material layer is being successively pressed by each subsequent pair of rollers and not just requiring the material be pressed by each subsequent pair of rollers.
(b) In view of the foregoing, Examiner respectfully contends the limitations of claim 1 are indeed satisfied. Claims 2, 4-8 & 20-24 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1, as well as for their own rejections on the merits, respectively.
Conclusion
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.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, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717