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
The amendment filed 03/23/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11-17, and 19-20 is/are pending in this application, of which claims 1-4, 6-14, 17, and 19-20 are examined herein. Claim(s) 15-16 is/are withdrawn. Claim(s) 1 is/are amended. Claim(s) 5, 10, and 18 is/are cancelled.
The rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(b) to claim(s) 1-4, -14, and 17-20 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 1.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cathode active material mixture or the preliminary precursor mixture rising to the upper portion of the fluidized bed reactor" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "as a flow rate decreases" in lines 16-17. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if the flow rate decreasing is being claimed as positively occurring (i.e., the claim further limits the claim to require that the flow rate decreases); or if the claim merely sets forth an effect (the cathode active material or preliminary precursor mixture descending into the reactor body), should the flow rate decrease, which may or may not actually occur. The limitation is further indefinite as it is unclear with respect to what the flow rate decreases (e.g., over time, with respect to position in the reactor, etc.)
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a flow rate" in line 17. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear as to what the flow rate is of (e.g., the cathode active material mixture or preliminary precursor mixture at a certain point in the reactor, its average velocity, the fluid in the reactor at a certain point, its average velocity, etc.).
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20150094412 A, original document supplied with IDS filed 10/09/2020, Examiner-provided machine translation provided with Office Action dated 12/28/2023) in view of Lee et al. (US 5762681 A, cited in Office Action dated 03/22/2024) and Sunil et al. (“Industrial Catalytic Processes for Fine and Specialty Chemicals”, supplied with Office Action dated 12/28/2023), and further in view of Nauta (US 3598374 A, cited in Office Action dated 09/12/2024) and Miyashita et al. (US 5837031 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a method for recovering valuable metals from cathodic active material of used lithium batteries, where lithium, nickel, cobalt, and magnesium (i.e., active metals) are recovered from cathode material of spent lithium-ion secondary battery [0009]. As Kim teaches lithium-ion batteries to comprise anodes, cathodes, electrolytes, and a separator in a cell or casing [0004], but teaches only processing the cathode (ex. Title, [0009]), Kim inherently involves separating a used cathode from a lithium secondary battery. Kim teaches preparing a cathode active material mixture obtained from a used cathode of a lithium secondary battery by grinding [0065].
Kim teaches reacting the cathode active material mixture in a reduction device (i.e., a reactor) [0015, 0082], to form a separated lithium compound and metal compounds including nickel, cobalt, and manganese (i.e., a preliminary precursor mixture; [0030, 0040-0043]). Kim teaches the lithium compound is separated from the remainder of the cathode materials, where the compound may include lithium metal and lithium oxide, which may be converted to lithium carbonate [0044, 0046, 0050] which are recovered [0016-0018]. As the lithium metal and oxides are precursors for conversion to lithium carbonate, Kim teaches selectively recovering a lithium precursor from the preliminary precursor mixture.
Kim does not teach reacting the cathode active material mixture in a fluidized bed reactor.
Lee teaches a fluidized bed type reduction apparatus for iron ores, where ore is preheated and dried in a first fluidized bed furnace (Col. 4 line 51 – Col. 5 line 44), then fed to a primary reduction fluidized bed furnace for prereduction of the ore (Col. 5 line 45 – Col. 6 line 34). Lee teaches the ore is further reduced in a secondary high gas velocity furnace, where coarse ore is reduced in a bubbling fluidized bed and the finer fraction of the ore is sent to a secondary low gas velocity furnace (Col. 6 lines 35 – 65); thus, Kim and Lee are analogous as both are directed to reduction of metal-containing materials to recover metal. Lee teaches the fluidized bed reactor 40 comprises a reactor body 403, a lower portion below gas distributor 42, and an upper portion 401 (Col. 6 line 66 – Col. 7 line 19, Fig. 2), the upper portion 401 having a width greater than that of the reactor body 403 (Col. 7 lines 2-6, Fig. 2). Lee teaches the ore (analogous to “cathode active material”) is introduced into the reactor body 403 (Col. 14 lines 54-58, Fig. 2) and a reductive reaction gas is injected into the lower portion of the fluidized bed reactor 40 below gas distributor 42 via gas supply line 41 (Col. 7 lines 7-14, Fig. 2). Lee teaches wherein a flow rate in the reactor body (Lee: Col. 8 lines 57-62) is greater than in the upper portion (i.e., a flow rate decreases going from the reactor body to the upper portion of the fluidized bed reactor) (Col. 8 lines 62-65). Lee teaches the gas velocity of the upper portion is lower than the terminal velocity of the iron ores (analogous to cathode active material mixture or preliminary precursor mixture), which would result in the mixture descending into the reactor body upon reaching the upper portion, as the gas velocity is lower than the terminal velocity of the material (i.e., the mixture experiences an overall downward velocity). Lee teaches this system produces reduced metal of a relatively uniform reduction degree regardless of the grain size of the feed, and obtains excellent segregation between coarse and medium/fine particles (Col. 23 lines 9-12).
Sunil teaches fluidized bed reactors have advantages of rapid phase mixing, uniform product quality, excellent heat and mass transfer rates, and relatively simple operation (pg. 303, paragraph 1), and that fluidized bed reactors are useful for a wide variety of processes such as mineral processing and waste treatment, such as treatment of ores (pg. 303: paragraph 1, Table 7.7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the fluidized bed reactor of Lee as the reduction device of Kim, as doing so would improve phase mixing, product quality, heat and mass transfer rates, and benefit from simple operation, predictably improving the speed and efficiency of the reduction operation, improving the economics of the process as taught by Sunil. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of success as Sunil teaches using fluidizing bed reactors for treating ores and processing minerals broadly, and therefore would be applicable to the process of reducing cathode material of Kim (where the cathode materials are analogous to an ore). Doing so would have been further obvious as doing so would maintain material in the fluidized bed as any ascending particles are returned to the fluidized bed, and as the system produces a uniform degree of reduction regardless of grain size of the feed and obtains excellent segregation of particles by size as taught by Lee.
Kim does not teach a support unit between the reactor body and the lower portion to allow the cathode active material to be landed as recited in claim 1 as amended. Nauta teaches a fluidized bed reactor for oxidizing materials (title, abstract) such as ores (Col. 1 lines 43-47); thus, Nauta and Lee are analogous to the claimed invention as both are directed to treating ores in fluidized beds to perform chemical reactions. Nauta teaches a support unit 16 between the reactor body 17 and the lower portion 18 (Col. 3 lines 26-29, Fig. 1) designed to prevent bed material from gravitating down into the lower portion 18 in case of shutdown when the gas pressure in the lower portion ceases (Col. 3 lines 33-36), which would result in the ore (analogous to cathode active material) being landed on the support unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the gas distributor of Lee with a support unit designed to prevent bed material from gravitating down into the lower portion as taught by Nauta, as doing so would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to prevent bed material from becoming lodged in the lower portion of the reactor or leaving the boundary of the reactor, which would interfere with efficient reactor operation.
Lee teaches the cathode active material mixture is directly introduced into the reactor body, but Kim in view of Lee does not teach wherein the cathode active material mixture is directly introduced into the upper portion.
Miyashita teaches a dry collection of metallized fines (Title), comprising reducing an iron-containing raw material containing iron oxides (analogous to cathode active material mixture) (Abstract) in a fluidized bed (Col. 20 lines 43-65, Fig. 1), thus Miyashita and Kim in view of Lee are analogous to the instant application as all are directed to reducing metallic compounds in reducing fluidized beds. Miyashita teaches the iron oxide feed is introduced from lock hopper 6 into an upper portion of fluidized bed reactor 1 (Fig. 1, Col. 20 lines 59-62).
It has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 (I). As in the instant case Kim in view of Lee and others only differs from claim 1 in that the instant claim introduces cathode active material mixture directly into both the upper portion and the reactor body, while Kim in view of Lee only introduces cathode active material mixture directly into the reactor body, and Miyashita introduces iron ore to be reduced (analogous to cathode active material mixture) directly into an upper portion, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have supplemented the introduction of cathode active material mixture into the reactor body of Kim in view of Lee, with the introduction into the upper portion taught by Miyashita.
Further, it has long been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced and that rearrangement of parts of a device known in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP §2144.04 (VI) B-C. As Kim in view of Lee teaches an inlet for introducing cathode active material mixture into the reactor, and only differs from claim 1 in that an additional inlet in the upper portion is used to introduce cathode active material mixture into the upper portion; adding another inlet for the same purpose would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as doing so would not produce a new or unexpected result, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have added a second inlet in the upper portion and additionally introduce cathode active material mixture into the upper portion of the reactor.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the products from reduction include nickel, cobalt, and manganese (all of which are transition metals) (wherein the preliminary precursor mixture comprises preliminary lithium precursor particles and transition metal-containing particles; [0030]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the lithium compound separated by reduction may be lithium oxide, lithium hydroxide, lithium carbonate, or a mixture of two or more thereof (wherein the preliminary lithium precursor particles comprise at least one of lithium hydroxide, lithium oxide or lithium carbonate; [0042]).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the products from reduction include nickel, cobalt, and manganese (wherein the transition metal-containing particles comprise nickel, cobalt, manganese; [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the reduction of cathodic active material of used lithium battery (analogous to cathode active material mixture) is done under hydrogen reducing gas (i.e., wherein the reductive reaction gas comprises hydrogen) [0043-0047].
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Lee teaches the use of a fluidized bed reactor 40 (Lee: Col. 6 line 66 – Col. 7 line 19, Fig. 2) and that the cathodic material has a D50 particle size of 1-20 microns (Kim: [0040]). Lee teaches the fluidized bed reactor 40 operates as a bubbling fluidized bed and reduces the medium/fine ore that is supplied (Col. 6 line 35 – Col. 8 line 11). As a bubbling fluidized bed inherently requires a fluidizing gas velocity sufficient to form bubbles in the fluidized bed, Lee teaches wherein an injection flow rate of the reductive reaction gas is greater than or equal to a bubble-formation fluidizing rate. Lee teaches the particle size of the medium/fine fraction includes particles <0.05 mm (<50 microns) (Col. 19 lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches the superficial velocity of the gas in the lower portion of the low-velocity furnace (analogous to a fluidized bed) to be 0.32 m/s (32 cm/s) (i.e., wherein the injection flow rate of the reductive reaction gas is 10 cm/s or more) (Col. 18 lines 56-57).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches that all of the finally reduced material from the secondary low-gas-velocity reduction furnace (analogous to a fluidized bed reactor) is collected via fine ore outlet 44 (collecting particles from the reactor body of the fluidized bed reactor; Lee: Col. 7 lines 20-28). As Kim in view of Lee reduces cathodic active material to produce both preliminary precursor mixture comprising preliminary lithium precursor particles and transition metal-containing particles as one residue, Kim in view of Lee teaches collecting the preliminary lithium precursor particles and the transition metal-containing particles commonly from the reactor body of the fluidized bed reactor.
Regarding claims 13-14, Kim teaches the hydrogen reduced powder is washed with water (i.e., wherein the recovering the lithium precursor comprises washing the preliminary lithium precursor particles with water) [0089], where lithium hydroxide is obtained in the washing step (i.e., wherein the lithium precursor in a form of lithium hydroxide is obtained by washing with water) [0068-0071].
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches after washing with water [0088-0091], the remaining hydrogen reduced powder is leached with acid to recover nickel, cobalt, and manganese (selectively treating the transition metal-containing particles with an acidic solution; [0010, 0092-0094]). Kim teaches the leaching is performed with strong acids such as H2SO4, HNO3, or mixtures thereof [0031], where as leaching with acids inherently operates by replacement of H+ in the acid with the metal cations (Ni2+, Co2+, Mn2+), would inherently produce acid salts, reading on recovering a transition metal precursor in a form of an acid salt.
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches the fluidized bed reactor has a first outlet to inner cyclone 80 formed in the upper portion 401 (Col. 2 lines 35-40, Fig. 2), and a second outlet 44 formed in the reactor body 403 (Col. 7 lines 45-48, Fig. 2). Lee teaches product from the fluidized bed reactor is collected both from the inner cyclone 80 (analogous to a first outlet) via third cyclone 70, and discharges product (analogous to preliminary precursor mixture) to duct line 44a (i.e., preliminary precursor mixture is collected through the first outlet) (Col. 7 lines 50-54), and that product is collected through the second outlet 44 through duct line 44a (Fig. 2, Col. 7 lines 45-48).
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches ore (analogous to the cathode active material mixture) is introduced into both the upper portion 401 via inner cyclone 80 (i.e., a supply path to the upper portion) (Col. 2, lines 38-44, Fig. 2), and the reactor body 403 via inlet 45 (i.e., a supply path to the reactor body) (Col. 14 lines 54-58, Fig. 2).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee, Sunil, and Miyashita as applied to claim 1 above, with evidence from Dechsiri (“Particle Transport in Fluidized Beds”, supplied with Office Action dated 03/22/2024).
Lee teaches that the fluidized bed reducing cathode material operates as a bubbling fluidized bed (Col. 6 line 35 – Col. 8 line 11), but is silent to wherein the injection flow rate of the reductive reaction gas is less than or equal to a terminal velocity of the cathode active material mixture.
Dechsiri teaches that if the gas flow rate of a fluidized bed exceeds the terminal velocity of the particles, the behavior of particles in the bed no longer forms bubbles (i.e., bubbling fluidized bed), and instead becomes turbulent. As Kim in view of others above teaches operating as a bubbling fluidized bed, the velocity of the fluidizing gas stream must be less than that of the cathode material in Kim in view of others, thus Kim in view of others teaches the claimed injection flow rate of the reductive reaction gas.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee, Sunil, and Miyashita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xavier et al. (US 3251678 A, cited in Office Action dated 03/22/2024).
Kim teaches that hydrogen is fed along with nitrogen gas (i.e., a carrier gas) during the reduction of the cathode material [0052, 0082, 0084-0085], teaching wherein forming the preliminary precursor mixture further comprises injecting a carrier gas mixed with the reductive reaction gas. Lee teaches using a fluidized bed reactor for reduction, but does not teach injecting carrier gas mixed with reductive reaction gas from a lower portion of a fluidized bed reactor.
Xavier teaches a fluid bed process for reducing ore using direct contact with hydrogen or mixtures with other gases (Title, Col. 1 lines 11-17). Xavier teaches that reducing gas is fed to the fluidized beds where reduction of ore occurs via lines 10 and 13, which feed into the bottom of fluidized beds 5 and 3 respectively (i.e., injecting from a lower portion of the fluidized bed reactor) (Fig. 1, Col. 5 lines 40-44, 64-68). Xavier teaches the reducing gas may comprise other gases such as nitrogen (i.e., a carrier gas) (Example 1), and that when hydrogen is not the major portion of the reducing gas, temperatures can range as high as about 1500 F without significant loss of gas efficiency or utilization (Col. 4 lines 12-15), as opposed to when hydrogen is employed as a major portion of the gas (Col. 4 lines 6-12), and gas containing major quantities of hydrogen results in more rapid bogging of the fluidized bed (Col. 7 lines 5-9), which disrupts the reduction process (Col. 2 lines 1-9).
As Xavier teaches the reducing gas is injected from the bottom of each fluidized bed, and the reducing gas comprises both carrier gas such as nitrogen, and the actual reductive gas performing reduction (hydrogen), Xavier reads on wherein forming the preliminary precursor mixture further comprises injecting a carrier gas mixed with the reductive reaction gas
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added nitrogen gas a hydrogen reducing gas stream fed from the bottom of the fluidized bed as taught by Xavier to the fluidized bed of Lee as doing so would reduce bogging and disruption to the reduction process, and improve gas efficiency and utilization at higher temperatures as taught by Xavier. Lee and Xavier are analogous as both are directed to reducing metal-containing particulate materials with reducing gases including hydrogen at elevated temperatures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claimed configuration of the instant claims is not merely a duplication of parts, and instead requires a fundamentally different solids-handling architecture (see pg. 8-9 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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., that the instant invention does not use internal recirculation-based distribution or uses independent zone feeding) 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).
While as Applicant notes, such features or advantages might form the underlying rationale for directly feeding to both the upper portion and reactor body of the reactor in the instant invention, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See MPEP 2145 (II) and Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As the method as claimed only requires that the cathode active material mixture is directly introduced into both the upper portion and reactor body, and the prior art of record teaches or suggests that additions of material into fluidized bed reactors may occur at either position, and it is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents known for the same purpose or to duplicate parts, the instant claims are unpatentable over Lee in view of Miyashita as noted above.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine in the claimed manner (see pg. 9-10 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted above, in the case where equivalents are taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, a prima facie case of obviousness exists; and where the instant claims comprise a mere duplication of parts relative to the prior art, the duplication and rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance lacking a new and unexpected result. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists regardless of if an advantage is expected by such a modification.
Further, it is not the Examiner’s position that feeding is simply additionally performed at a second location (in the upper portion), not that e.g., the recirculation system is removed as suggested by Applicant. The Examiner’s position is instead that in addition to the direct introduction of cathode active material suggested by Lee, to also directly introduce cathode active material into the upper portion of the reactor as suggested by Miyashita, which would result in an additional inlet and flow of material into the upper portion of the fluidized bed reactor of Lee, where the material would then follow the behavior of the analogous material as described by Lee, with no other direct modifications being made in combining the references.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claimed dual direct feed produces unexpected results (see pg. 10-11 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While as Applicant notes, the instant invention appears to be associated with improvements in enhanced reduction efficiency and improved preliminary precursor yields, nothing in the instant claims or specification correlates these results with the claimed method of introducing cathode active material mixture in both the upper portion and the reactor body. The instant specification discloses enhanced reduction efficiency to be the result of the arrangement of outlets from the reactor (instant specification: [0062]) and as a result of a dry consecutive process and selective recovery (instant specification: [0071-0072]) respectively, while improved precursor yields are discussed only generally as advantages of the process not tied to any specific component(s) (instant specification: [0008, 0027]). Thermal management does not appear to be discussed at all in the instant claims or instant specification, let alone with respect to the claimed method of introducing cathode active material mixture.
Therefore, while the claimed features may present unexpected results or advantages from aspects of the method of the instant application, nothing in the instant claims or specification demonstrates such results to be the result of the claimed method of introducing cathode active material mixture, and does not overcome the rejection based on the established ground of rejection that duplication of the inlets used for such a purpose would have been prima facie obviousness.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claimed flow-rate dependent circulation behavior is not disclosed (see pg. 11 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Lee teaches wherein a flow rate in the reactor body (Lee: Col. 8 lines 57-62) is greater than in the upper portion (i.e., a flow rate decreases going from the reactor body to the upper portion of the fluidized bed reactor) (Col. 8 lines 62-65). Lee teaches the gas velocity of the upper portion is lower than the terminal velocity of the iron ores (analogous to cathode active material mixture or preliminary precursor mixture), which would result in the mixture descending into the reactor body upon reaching the upper portion, as the gas velocity is lower than the terminal velocity of the material (i.e., the mixture experiences an overall downward velocity).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights