DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 are presented for examination, wherein claims 1, 9, and 11 are currently amended; plus, claims 9-11 are withdrawn. Claims 12-14 are cancelled.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 18, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eto et al (JP 2000/226206).
Regarding newly amended independent claim 1, Eto teaches a graphite particle composition that may be used as a negative electrode material for a lithium secondary battery, wherein said graphite particle composition, when incorporated within a slurry to apply as said negative electrode material, is significantly improved applicability, which increases a discharge capacity at a large discharge current value of said battery,
wherein said composition includes (i) spheroidal graphite particles (A) having a circularity of 0.86 or more plus (ii) non- or low-sphericity graphite particles (B) having a circularity of less than 0.86;
wherein said spherical particles (A) and non-spherical or low spherical particles (B) are blended in a weight ratio of from 55:45 to 99.9:0.1, preferably a range of 55:45 to 99.5:0.5, including examples of 80:20 and 90:10;
wherein said spheroidal graphite particles (A) have an average particle size of 5 to 50 μm, particularly 10 to 30 μm, with examples having average particle sizes of example A-1: 17 µm; example A-2: 10µm; example A-3: 25µm; and, example A-4: 20µm, further noting said particle size affects slurry viscosity, which in turn affects battery discharge characteristics;
wherein said non- or low-sphericity graphite particles (B) have an average particle size of 1 to 50 μm, particularly 2 to 25 μm in average particle size, with examples A-1 through A-4 severably have an average particle size of 5 µm, further noting if the particle size is extremely large, said particle size affects slurry viscosity, which in turn affects battery discharge characteristics;
wherein said battery may include an organic electrolyte comprising an electrolyte salt, such as LiPF6, LiBF4, LiClO4, and LiCF3SO3 dissolved in an organic solvent, such as e.g. ethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, 1,2-dimethoxyethane, 1,2-diethoxymethane, and ethoxymethoxyethane; and,
wherein Eto teaches at least the following:
[Problem to be solved by the invention]
[0011] However, when the spherical, scale-like modified natural graphite particles are mixed with a binder and a medium (solvent) to form a slurry and applied to an object such as copper foil, the viscosity decreases immediately after application, resulting in dripping. This may cause splatter or repellency. Therefore, if the viscosity of the slurry is increased to avoid such troubles, the smoothness of coating tends to be impaired because the slurry is a dilatant fluid. Furthermore, it has been found that when the slurry is applied to copper foil, dried, and pressed to be used as a negative electrode of a secondary battery, there is a problem in that there is a limit to the discharge capacity at a large discharge current value.
[0012] Against this background, the present invention is capable of significantly improving the applicability of a slurry to a target object in a system using particles made of spherical flaky natural graphite, and also enables To provide a graphite particle composition capable of increasing discharge capacity at a large discharge current value when producing a negative electrode of a secondary battery, and to provide a method for manufacturing a coated body using the graphite particle composition. The purpose is to
[Means for Solving the Problems]
[0013] The graphite particle composition of the present invention comprises spherical particles (A) having a circularity of 0.86 or more, which are obtained by modifying flaky natural graphite particles so that they approach a spherical shape, and scales. and non- to low spherical particles (B) of natural graphite particles having a circularity of less than 0.86.
…
[0018] Regarding the circularity (1), the spherical particles (A) have a circularity of 0.86 or more, preferably 0.88 or more. Incidentally, the circularity of flaky natural graphite particles available on the market is, for example, about 0.84. Since circularity is an index when particles are projected onto a two-dimensional plane, it appears that the raw material flaky natural graphite particles and the spheroidized particles (A) of the present invention are numerically close; As the circularity increases, sphericity actually progresses considerably more than expected from the numerical value.
…
<Operation>
[0042] In the present invention, spherical particles (A) having a circularity of 0.86 or more, which are obtained by modifying flaky natural graphite particles so as to approach a spherical shape, are used, and the spherical particles (A) are made into scaly particles. Since we have devised a method to use natural graphite particles mixed with non- or low-sphericity particles (B) whose circularity is less than 0.86, when applying the mixture in the form of a slurry to the object (O), The slurry changes into a Newtonian fluid and has a yield value when the shearing speed (coating speed) is low, and the viscosity becomes high, so there is no dripping or splashing, and even if the shearing speed is increased, the viscosity does not change, so the target The applicability to objects can be significantly improved, and the desired coated body can be manufactured smoothly.
[0043] In addition, when the coated body obtained in this way is used as an electrode for a secondary battery, for example, since the spherical particles (A) are used as the main material, its performance is excellent, such as a large discharge current value. The discharge capacity can be increased.
…
[Effects of the Invention]
[0063] As described in the operation section, according to the present invention, in a system using particles made of spherical flaky natural graphite, the applicability of the slurry to the object is significantly improved. Moreover, when a negative electrode of a secondary battery is produced from the slurry, the discharge capacity at a large discharge current value can be increased.
…
Table 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
308
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
235
525
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(e.g. ¶¶ 0011-13, 18, 32, 34-35, 38-39, 42-43, 54-56, 59, and 63 plus translated Tables 1-2, emphasis added), reading on “negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery;” alternatively, the preamble limitations “negative electrode…” and “for a lithium-ion secondary battery” are severably interpreted as merely intended use, and to do not patentably distinguish the instant invention, see e.g. MPEP § 2111.02, said graphite particle composition comprising:
(1) said spheroidal graphite particles (A) obtained by modifying flaky natural graphite particles so that they approach a spherical shape (e.g. ¶¶ 0012-13 and 16-29), reading on “…graphitic particles…,”
wherein said modification includes e.g. grinding said flaky natural graphite particles while adjusting the conditions to remove corners, etc. until said circularity is obtained, wherein said natural flaky graphite has high crystallinity and high purity, of e.g. over 99%, wherein purity may be further increased (e.g. ¶¶ 0023-32 and 45-49).
Regarding the newly added product-by-process limitation “graphitic particles that are synthetic graphite particles produced by a process including burning a raw material comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of a resin material and a pitch-based material” (emphasis added), Eto teaches said spheroidal graphite particles (A) are obtained by modifying flaky natural graphite particles so that they approach said spherical shape, wherein said natural flaky graphite has high crystallinity and high purity, of e.g. over 99%, wherein purity may be further increased (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach said newly added limitation.
However, said product-by-process limitation does not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art, see e.g. MPEP § 2113. See further the instant specification, some relevant portions reproduced below.
[0061] For the graphitic particles, graphitic particles obtained by grinding a lump of natural graphite may be used. It is preferable that the natural graphite be purified by a refining treatment, since the graphitic particles obtained by grinding a lump natural graphite may include impurities.[0062] The refining treatment is not particularly limited, and may be selected as appropriate from commonly used refining treatment methods. Examples thereof include ore floatation, electrochemical treatment, and chemical treatment.[0063] The purity of the natural graphite is preferably 99.8% by mass or more (ash content of 0.2% or less), and more preferably 99.9% by mass or more (ash content of 0.1% or less). The purity of 99.8% or more tends to further improve battery performance and the safety of the battery. The purity of natural graphite can be calculated by, for example, disposing 100 g of graphite in a furnace set at 800° C. in air atmosphere for 48 hours or longer, and measuring the amount of the remnant resulting from the ash content.[0064] Examples of the graphitic particles also include those obtained by grinding synthetic graphite obtained by burning, for example, a resin-based material such as an epoxy resin or a phenolic resin, or a pitch-based material obtained from petroleum, coal or the like.
(Instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0061-64, emphasis added.)
(1a) Regarding the previously amended limitation “graphitic particles having an average degree of circularity of 0.85 or more…in a range in which a cumulative frequency of degree of circularity from a lower degree of circularity is from 10% by particle to 90% by particle in a cumulative frequency distribution with respect to a degree of circularity obtained using a flow-type particle analyzer,” Eto teaches said spheroidal graphite particles (A) having a circularity of 0.86 or more, preferably 0.88 or more, and further examples A1-A4 provide circularities of 0.88, 0.90, and 0.91 (e.g. ¶¶ 0016-18, Table 1, see translated copy, infra)
Table 1
PNG
media_image1.png
308
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the circularity values provided are an average of particles throughout the distribution of the particle population, including within at least the claimed cumulative frequency, further noting that Eto describes a method of measuring circularity and suggests it is on a plurality of “particles” (e.g. ¶0049); a first alternative, a person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the importance of measuring particles throughout the distribution of the particle population and averaging said measurements within at least the claimed cumulative frequency in order to provide a statistically accurate value; a second alternative, if the circularity is “0.86 or more” or “0.88 or more,” then the average degree of circularity of said particles (A) throughout the distribution of the particle population, including within at least the claimed cumulative frequency, is within said taught range(s); and/or, a third alternative, Eto teaches a substantially identical precursor (e.g. see supra, high purity natural graphite particles, including e.g. 99% or more purity, compared with the instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0061-63) processed by a substantially identical process (e.g. see infra, grinding, compared with the instant specification, at e.g. Id), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of said previously amended limitation, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01,
severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), severably reading on said previously amended limitation,
alternatively regarding the method of obtaining a property measurement, “obtained using a flow-type particle analyzer,” does not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art, noting the claimed subject matter is for a product, see e.g. MPEP § 2113.
(1b) Regarding the limitation “graphitic particles having…a standard deviation of degree of circularity of from 0.05 to 0.10 in a range in which a cumulative frequency of degree of circularity from a lower degree of circularity is from 10% by particle to 90% by particle in a cumulative frequency distribution with respect to a degree of circularity obtained using a flow-type particle analyzer,” Eto teaches said flaky natural graphite particles are modified so that they approach a spherical shape, wherein said modification includes e.g. grinding said flaky natural graphite particles while adjusting the conditions to remove corners, etc. until said circularity is obtained, wherein said natural flaky graphite has high crystallinity and high purity, of e.g. over 99%, wherein purity may be further increased (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach said limitation.
However, Eto teaches a substantially identical precursor (e.g. supra, high purity natural graphite particles, including e.g. 99% or more purity, compared with the instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0061-63) processed by a substantially identical process (e.g. supra, grinding, compared with the instant specification, at e.g. Id), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of said limitation, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01,
alternatively regarding the method of obtaining a property measurement, “obtained using a flow-type particle analyzer,” does not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art, noting the claimed subject matter is for a product, see e.g. MPEP § 2113.
(2) said non- or low-sphericity graphite particles (B) having a circularity of less than 0.86 (e.g. supra), reading on “carbon particles….”
Regarding the previously amended, previously amended limitation “carbon particles having an average degree of circularity of from 0.90 to 0.94, the average degree of circularity being obtained using a flow-type particle analyzer,” Eto teaches said non- or low-sphericity graphite particles (B) having a circularity of less than 0.86 degree of circularity obtained using a flow-type particle analyzer,” Eto teaches said non- or low-sphericity graphite particles (B) having a circularity of less than 0.86, usually 0.85 or less; further, wherein said non- or low-sphericity graphite particles (B) may be said flaky natural graphite particles used as raw materials for producing the spherical particles (A) and/or particles obtained by insufficient modification when obtaining said spherical graphite particles (A) (e.g. ¶0033 plus e.g. supra); and/or, alternatively, said particles obtained by insufficient modification when obtaining said spherical graphite particles (A) (see supra) would have a circularity of less than 0.86, preferably less than 0.88, since Eto teaches said spheroidal graphite particles (A) having a circularity of 0.86 or more, preferably 0.88 or more (e.g. supra),
wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the circularity values provided are an average of particles throughout the distribution of the particle population, including within at least the claimed cumulative frequency, further noting that Eto describes a method of measuring circularity and suggests it is on a plurality of “particles” (e.g. ¶0049); a first alternative, a person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the importance of measuring particles throughout the distribution of the particle population and averaging said measurements within at least the claimed cumulative frequency in order to provide a statistically accurate value; a second alternative, if the circularity is “less than 0.86” or “0.85 or less,” then the average degree of circularity of said particles (B) throughout the distribution of the particle population, including within at least the claimed cumulative frequency, is within said taught range(s); and/or, a fourth alternative, said flaky natural graphite particles are identical or substantially identical (e.g. supra, e.g. flaky natural graphite particles and/or particles obtained by insufficient modification when obtaining said spherical graphite particles (A), compared with instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0071-73), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01,
which is sufficiently close to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), severably reading on said previously amended, previously amended limitation, see further Table 1, noting that while examples 1 and 4-7 have carbon particles with an average degree of circularity of 0.90, example 3 has carbon particles with an average degree of circularity of 0.85, and furthermore comparative examples 3-4 have carbon particles with an average degree of circularity of 0.90, Table 1 reproduced below for ease of reference:
PNG
media_image3.png
844
1034
media_image3.png
Greyscale
alternatively regarding the method of obtaining a property measurement, “obtained using a flow-type particle analyzer,” does not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art, noting the claimed subject matter is for a product, see e.g. MPEP § 2113.
In an alternative rejection regarding the previously amended limitation of (2), referred to within the instant Office action infra as “alternative rejection of (2),” said previously amended, previously amended limitation “carbon particles having an average degree of circularity of from 0.90 to 0.94 or less, the average degree of circularity being obtained using a flow-type particle analyzer,” the discussion supra regarding said spheroidal graphite particles (A) is incorporated herein by reference,
wherein a portion of said spheroidal graphite particles (A) reads on said limitation of (2), wherein it establishes a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), further said discussion incorporated herein by reference severably reading on said previously amended limitation, as claimed,
alternatively regarding the method of obtaining a property measurement, “obtained using a flow-type particle analyzer,” does not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art, noting the claimed subject matter is for a product, see e.g. MPEP § 2113.
Regarding previously amended claim 2, Eto teaches the graphite particle composition of claim 1, wherein Eto teaches said spheroidal graphite particles (A) have said circularity of 0.86 or more, preferably 0.88 or more, and further examples A1-A4 provide circularities of 0.88, 0.90, and 0.91,
wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the circularity values provided are throughout the distribution of the particle population, including within at least the claimed cumulative frequency, further noting that Eto describes said method of measuring circularity and suggests it is on a plurality of “particles;” said first alternative, a person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the importance of measuring particles throughout the distribution of the particle population, including within at least the claimed cumulative frequency, in order to provide said statistically accurate value; said second alternative, if the circularity is “0.86 or more” or “0.88 or more,” then the degree of circularity of said particles (A) throughout the distribution of the particle population, including at least the claimed cumulative frequency, is within said taught range(s); and, said third alternative, Eto teaches said substantially identical precursor (e.g. see infra, high purity natural graphite particles, including e.g. 99% or more purity, compared with the instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0061-63) processed by said substantially identical process (e.g. see infra, grinding, compared with the instant specification, at e.g. Id), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the instantly claimed limitation, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the previously amended limitation, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01,
severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), severably reading on the previously amended limitation “the graphitic particles have a degree of circularity of from 0.70 to 0.91 at the cumulative frequency of 10% by particle.”
Regarding claims 3-6, Eto teaches the graphite particle composition of claim 1, wherein said spheroidal graphite particles (A) have said average particle size of 5 to 50 μm, particularly 10 to 30 μm, with examples having average particle sizes of example A-1: 17 µm; example A-2: 10µm; example A-3: 25µm; and, example A-4: 20µm, further noting said particle size affects slurry viscosity, which in turn affects battery discharge characteristics (e.g. supra), wherein said average may be interpreted as being a “volume” average particle size, severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the graphitic particles have a volume average particle diameter of from 2 to 30 μm” (Claim 3);
said non- or low-sphericity graphite particles (B) have said average particle size of 1 to 50 μm, particularly 2 to 25 μm in average particle size, with examples A-1 through A-4 severably have said average particle size of 5 µm, further noting if the particle size is extremely large, said particle size affects slurry viscosity, which in turn affects battery discharge characteristics (e.g. supra), wherein said average may be interpreted as being a “volume” average particle size, severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the carbon particles have a volume average particle diameter of from 0.5 to 15 μm” (claim 4); and,
wherein said general teachings and alternatively said examples severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed relative range relationships, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the carbon particles have a smaller volume average particle diameter than a volume average particle diameter of the graphitic particles” (claim 5) and “a ratio of volume average particle diameters between the graphitic particles and the carbon particles (graphitic particles:carbon particles) is from 10:0.5 to 10:5” (claim 6).
In the alternative, regarding claims 3-6, differences in size and/or relative differences in size severably do not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art in the absence of persuasive evidence of it results in a different performance than that of the art, see e.g. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), further noting that the claimed ranges are severably a preference and further regarding claims 3-4 are “not particularly limited,” see instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0046, 77, and 84-85.
In the alternative, regarding claims 4-5, in said alternative rejection of (2), said spheroidal graphite particles (A) have said average particle size of 5 to 50 μm, particularly 10 to 30 μm, with examples having average particle sizes of example A-1: 17 µm; example A-2: 10µm; example A-3: 25µm; and, example A-4: 20µm, further noting said particle size affects slurry viscosity, which in turn affects battery discharge characteristics (e.g. supra), wherein said average may be interpreted as being a “volume” average particle size, severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the carbon particles have a volume average particle diameter of from 0.5 to 15 μm” (claim 4), as claimed, and a ratio of said particle sizes may be interpreted as 1, which is sufficiently close to the claimed relative range relationships, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the carbon particles have a smaller volume average particle diameter than a volume average particle diameter of the graphitic particles” (claim 5), as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Eto teaches the graphite particle composition of claim 1, wherein said spherical particles (A) are formed by modifying said flaky natural graphite particles so that they approach said spherical shape, wherein said modification includes e.g. grinding said flaky natural graphite particles while adjusting the conditions to remove corners, etc. until said circularity is obtained, wherein said natural flaky graphite has high crystallinity and high purity, of e.g. over 99%, wherein purity may be further increased (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach the limitation “the graphitic particles have a Raman R value of from 0.10 to 0.60, the R value representing a ratio (ID/IG) of a peak intensity observed in a range of from 1300 cm−1 to 1400 cm−1 (ID) to a peak intensity observed in a range of from 1580 cm−1 to 1620 cm−1 (IG) in Raman spectrometry, the graphitic particles being irradiated with a laser light at 532 nm.”
However, Eto teaches a substantially identical precursor (e.g. supra, high purity natural graphite particles, including e.g. 99% or more purity, compared with the instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0061-63 and 68-69) processed by a substantially identical process (e.g. supra, grinding, compared with the instant specification, at e.g. Id), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of said limitation, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claim 8, Eto teaches the graphite particle composition of claim 1, wherein said spherical particles (A) and non-spherical or low spherical particles (B) are blended in said weight ratio of from 55:45 to 99.9:0.1, preferably a range of 55:45 to 99.5:0.5, including examples of 80:20 and 90:10 (e.g. supra), establishing a prima facie case of the claimed ratio range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “a mass ratio between the graphitic particles and the carbon particles (graphitic particles : carbon particles) is from 51:49 to 99:1.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant alleges the following.
As indicated in paragraph [0013] of Eto, particles A and particles B of Eto are natural graphite particles. As a result, particles A and B of Eto are not “graphite particles produced by a process including burning a raw material comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of a resin material and a pitch-based material” as required by the present claims. Eto does not teach or suggest this newly added feature.
(Remarks, at 6:4-7:1.)
In response, the examiner respectfully refers supra.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsuo et al (US 2022/0293943);
Chen et al (CN 112038610, published 2020);
Hoshi et al (WO 2020/012586), noting this application shares an inventor with the instant application;
Hoshi et al (US 2019/0348679);
Takeda et al (US 2017/0179487); and,
Nishihara et al (US 2014/0093781).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TIFFANY LEGETTE-THOMPSON can be reached at (571)270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723