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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed 02/06/2026. Claim(s) 1 are currently amended. The amendments are supported by the specification and the original claims, and no new matter has been entered. Claim(s) 3-4, 7-8, and 15 are canceled. Claim(s) 2, 5-6, 9-14, and 16-19 stand as originally or as previously presented. Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9-14 and 16-19 are examined in this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected claim 1, but is not otherwise rejected.
Claim Rejections
The 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 9 is withdrawn due to applicant’s arguments/amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 10-11, 14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onozaki (JP 2015069705 A, a machine translation from espacenet provided in the office action of 04/28/2025 is used as an English equivalent) in view of Wessells (US 20180191033 A1) and Yang (US 20190312277 A1), as evidenced by Hirashita (US 20140220476 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Onozaki discloses a negative electrode, a positive electrode [0107], and a non-aqueous electrolyte composition [0001] comprising:
one or more sodium-containing salts selected from NaPf6 ([0016] discloses that the electrolyte contains a lithium salt, but also may contain a sodium salt as well, listing NaPF6 as an option. As a result it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include NaPF6 in the electrolyte of Onozaki, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to obtain a salt capable of functioning as the salt component of Onozaki, in order to obtain the benefits of the electrolyte of Onozaki (such as those mentioned in [0005], [0013], and [0015]); and
a solvent system which comprises:
a first solvent component which comprises one or more organo carbonate-based solvents ([0067] discloses that from a viewpoint of excellent solubility of lithium salts and ionic conductivity, the electrolyte composition preferably contains one or more compounds including a cyclic carbonate compound or non-fluorinated chain carbonate, which [0068] discloses include propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and ethyl methyl carbonate, all of which are organo-carbonate based solvents. [0133] discloses the use of dimethyl carbonate in an embodiment); and
a second solvent which comprises one or more surfactants in an amount of >0.5 to <2% by weight of the solvent system, (Onozaki does not explicitly provide the weight of the surfactant in relation to the solvent system (which according to claim 1 excludes the salt), however [0076] discloses that the mass ratio of the surfactant to the total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte is preferably 0.05-5 mass %. Since 0.05-5 significantly overlaps the claimed range of >0.5 to <2, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would expect the ratio of the weight of the surfactant to just the solvent system would overlap the claimed range, and as a result it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to routinely select a solvent content from amongst the overlapping portion of ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05(1))), wherein the one or more surfactants are selected from the group consisting of:
anionic surfactants,
cationic surfactants, and;
non-ionic surfactants ([0076] discloses anionic, cationic, and non-ionic surfactants, teaching that such surfactants achieve the beneficial effect of aiding in the impregnation of the non-aqueous electrolyte into the electrode mixture and separator).
Onozaki does not, however, disclose specific examples of embodied surfactants, though Onozaki does discloses that anionic surfactants are preferred from the viewpoints of ease of availability and high surface activity [0076]. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention turn towards the known prior art to obtain a specific surfactant material to use in the electrolyte of Onozaki.
For example, Wessells discloses a list of surfactants for use in an electrolyte, including examples of both cationic, anionic surfactants that can be used in electrolytes [0203]. Regarding the anionic surfactants, Wessels discloses a list including ammonium lauryl sulfate, sodium dodecyl sulfate, and sodium myreth sulfate, all of which read on the claimed sulfate anionic surfactant, as well as dioctyl sulfosuccinate, reading on the claimed sulfonate docusate [0203]. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely select one of these disclosed surfactants for use as the anionic surfactant of Onozaki, and doing so would be nothing more than the selection of a known anionic electrolyte surfactant to achieve the predictable result of aiding electrolyte impregnation. One of ordinary skill would further be motivated to do this to obtain the benefits disclosed by Onozaki, including ease of availability and high surface activity [0076].
Onozaki does not disclose that the cell is a sodium-ion cell, although Onozaki does disclose a sodium electrolyte [0016]. However, sodium-ion cells are known in the art as alternatives to lithium-ion cells, with their own benefits and drawbacks compared to traditional lithium-ion cells. For example, Yang discloses that sodium-ion batteries have advantages such as rich starting materials, high specific capacity and efficiency, and low cost [0003]. Other benefits are also generally known in the art, such as faster charging times and improved safety in some situations.
As a result, even though Onozaki does not disclose a sodium-ion battery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the battery of Onozaki as a sodium-ion battery. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so according to the needs of the constructor at the time of making in order to obtain the unique benefits of sodium-ion batteries over lithium-ion batteries.
Further, it is generally known in the art that a sodium-ion battery electrolyte should include a sodium salt, a lithium-ion battery should include a lithium-ion salt, etc. For example, Hirashita evidences this, disclosing a liquid electrolyte for batteries (title), additionally disclosing that the disclosed liquid electrolyte may interchangeably be used in, for example, a lithium battery by using a lithium salt [0051], in a sodium battery by including a sodium salt [0049], in a potassium battery by using a potassium salt [0049], and more [0049]. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood, based on common convention and practice in the art, that utilizing an electrolyte in either a lithium or a sodium battery based on the salt that is included, as well as adapting an electrolyte for a different type of battery by changing the salt that is included, is a known practice in the art. This coupled with the fact that Onozaki discloses sodium salts may be used in the electrolyte disclosed by Onozaki provides evidence that that the combination of Onozaki and Yang to create a sodium-ion battery utilizing the electrolyte of Onozaki would be seen as routine and ordinary to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, modified Onozaki discloses the sodium-ion cell according to claim 1, wherein the solvent system further comprises one or more additional compounds selected from sulfur containing compounds ([0075] discloses the addition of sulfur-containing compounds including ethylene sulfite, 1,3-propate sultone, 1,4-butane sultone, and methanesulfonyl carbonate as property improving assistants used to improve capacity retention characteristics and cycle characteristics after high-temperature storage) and one or more flame-retardant compounds ([0022] discloses the inclusion of a fluorine-containing solvent that has excellent flame retardancy).
Regarding claim 5, modified Onozaki discloses the sodium-ion cell according to claim 1, wherein the organo carbonate-based solvents are straight or cyclic compounds comprising a carbonyl group of the formula R1O(C=O)OR2, wherein R1 and R2 are independently chosen from hydrogen and a C1 to C20--straight or cyclic, branched or unbranched, substituted or unsubstituted alkyl or alkenyl group ([0068] discloses several solvents that fall within the claimed parameters, including propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and ethyl methyl carbonate, all of which are organo-carbonate based solvents according to the claimed limitations. [0133] discloses the use of dimethyl carbonate in an embodiment).
Regarding claim 6, modified Onozaki discloses the sodium-ion cell according to claim 1, wherein the organo carbonate-based solvents are one or more selected from propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and ethyl methyl carbonate ([0068], [0133] of Onozaki discloses the use of dimethyl carbonate in an embodiment).
Regarding claim 10, modified Onozaki discloses sodium-ion cell according to claim 2, wherein the one or more sulfur-based compounds are selected from sultone-containing compounds ([0075] of Onozaki discloses that the sulfur-based compound may be a sultone, for example 1,3-propane sultone or 1,4-butane sultone).
Regarding claim 11, modified Onozaki discloses the sodium-ion cell according to claim 10. Onozaki does not explicitly disclose an embodiment wherein one or more sulfur-based compounds are selected from those disclosed in claim 11, however ([0075] of Onozaki discloses that 1,3-propane sultone may be used, which is one of those listed in claim 11, and [0075] also discloses that the 1,3-propane sultone has the effect of improving the capacity retention characteristics and cycle characteristics after high-temperature storage. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 1,3-propane sultone as the claimed sulfur-based compound. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to obtain the effect of improving the capacity retention characteristics and cycle characteristics after high-temperature storage, as taught by Onozaki.
Regarding claim 14, modified Onozaki discloses the sodium-ion cell according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose an embodiment wherein the first solvent consists of propylene carbonate. Onozaki does however, disclose that the electrolyte includes a compound (y) selected from a group including saturated cyclic carbonate compounds [0067], and that compound (y) is desired because it contributes to excellent salt solubility and ionic conductivity [0067]. Onozaki further discloses propylene carbonate as one of four listed examples of saturated cyclic carbonate compounds [0068]. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use propylene carbonate as the saturated cyclic carbonate compound disclosed by Onozaki, because at the very least it would have been obvious to try using propylene carbonate as the saturated cyclic carbonate compound.
It would have been obvious to try because Onozaki discloses that the saturated cyclic carbonate compound solves the problem of increasing salt solubility and ionic conductivity, [0068] identifies a finite number of appropriate saturated cyclic carbonate compounds, and based on the disclosure of Onozaki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pursue the known potential solutions listed by Onozaki with a reasonable expectation of success, see MPEP 2143 (1)(E) for more details.
Regarding claim 16, modified Onozaki discloses the sodium-ion cell according to claim 15, wherein the negative electrode comprises a non-graphitizable carbon material (Onozaki does not explicitly include an embodiment which uses a non-graphitizable carbon material, however [0120] discloses that the negative electrode active material may include a carbon material, and that the carbon material may be graphite, coke, or hard carbon. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely select a hard carbon material, meeting the claimed limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to obtain a negative-electrode active material capable of being utilized with the battery of Onozaki.
Regarding claim 17, modified Onozaki disclose the sodium-ion cell according to claim 16, wherein the negative electrode comprises hard carbon ([0120] of Onozaki and claim 16 rejection above).
Regarding claim 18, modified Onozaki discloses an energy storage device (title of Onozaki) comprising the sodium-ion battery to claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, modified Onozaki discloses the energy storage device according to claim 18, selected from a battery ([0107], title).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onozaki (JP 2015069705 A, a machine translation from espacenet provided in the office action of 04/28/2025 is used as an English equivalent) in view of Wessells (US 20180191033 A1) and Yang (US 20190312277 A1), as evidenced by Hirashita (US 20140220476 A1), and further in view of Koh (US 20090280414 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Onozaki discloses the sodium-ion cell according to claim 1. Onozaki additionally discloses that the first solvent may include ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and propylene carbonate [0068], both individually or as a composition of two or more [0067], but does not disclose an embodiment that uses the claimed composition, or guidelines for determining appropriate ratios of solvents.
Koh however, discloses an electrolyte including solvents of propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, and diethyl carbonate [0029], and further discloses that the solvents can be used in combination, and that a combination involving propylene carbonate and ethylene carbonate is desirable to solve a problem of degradation of low temperature characteristics of ethylene carbonate [0029]. Additionally, [0050] and table 1 discloses embodiments matching the claimed electrolyte composition of ethylene carbonate (EC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and propylene carbonate (PC) in a ratio of 1:2:1.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same known electrolyte solvent composition in the battery of Onozaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to in order to obtain an electrolyte solvent composition for the battery of Onozaki, and to correct the deficiency of low temperature degradation as disclosed by Koh. Koh is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely electrolytes for secondary batteries.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onozaki (JP 2015069705 A, a machine translation from espacenet provided in the office action of 04/28/2025 is used as an English equivalent) in view of Wessells (US 20180191033 A1) and Yang (US 20190312277 A1), as evidenced by Hirashita (US 20140220476 A1), and further in view of Yamauchi (US 20180166683 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Onozaki discloses the sodium-ion cell according to claim 1. Onozaki additionally discloses that the first solvent may include ethylene carbonate and diethyl carbonate [0068], both individually or as a composition of two or more [0067], but does not disclose an embodiment that uses the claimed composition, or guidelines for determining appropriate ratios of solvents. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to turn to what was known in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for help determining appropriate solvents and ratios of solvents.
Yamauchi discloses sodium-ion secondary battery [0014] using NaPF6 (which Onozaki and the instant application also both disclose) as the sodium-containing salt, and a solvent that consists of ethylene carbonate (EC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) in a 1 to 1 ratio [0088]. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a solvent of ethylene carbonate (EC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) in a 1 to 1 ratio for the electrolyte of the sodium battery of Onozaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to obtain an electrolyte solvent composition for the battery of Onozaki. Yamauchi is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely electrolyte compositions for batteries.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 9 is related to, inter alia, a sodium-ion cell which possesses all of the same limitations as claim 1, but possesses the additional limitation that the one or more surfactants are selected from poloxamer 123, poloxamer 188, poloxamer 407, and F127. Claim 1 has been newly amended to include the limitation that the second solvent comprises one or more surfactants in an amount of >0.5 to <2% by weight of the solvent system. Further, applicant argues in remarks filed 02/06/2026 that experimental evidence disclosed in the specification and drawings shows that this range is critical, and not merely a result-effective variable. Applicant argues that this criticality is shown in figs. 2a and 2b, which applicant correctly notes shows that cells containing approximately 1 wt.% surfactant exhibit markedly improved capacity retention over extended cycling, whereas cells containing 2 wt.% or 0.2 wt.% show a clear degradation in performance compared to cells containing the embodied 1 wt.%. Applicant argues that this shows the claimed upper limit of below 2% is not an arbitrary selection, but defines a narrow window in which improved sodium-ion cycling stability is achieved.
In general, examiner agrees with applicant’s explanation and interpretation of cited data, however, examiner will also note that in order to establish criticality or unexpected results, "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)). In this case, the scope of the claims covers the claimed range of greater than 0.5 to less than 2 wt.%, however the scope of the claims also covers several different possibilities for surfactants, including: anionic surfactants selected from sulfonates selected from docusates, cationic surfactants selected from examples such as cetyl pyridinium chloride or benzalkonium chloride, and non-ionic surfactants selected from polyol esters, polyoxyethylene esters, and poloxamers.
Examiner will note that the data which applicant cites to support criticality for the claimed surfactant wt.% offers examples only of P123 and F127, both poloxamers, and offers no data supporting criticality of the claimed range when a different type of claimed surfactant, such as a claimed anionic or cationic surfactant, is used. As a result, it has been determined that the cited data does not establish criticality or unexpected results for the claimed range that is commensurate in scope with claim 1, and applicant’s arguments to the contrary are not found persuasive. However, applicant’s arguments are found partially persuasive in that examiner agrees that the cited data does demonstrate unexpected results for the claimed range in regard to poloxamers, which are used as surfactants in the cited examples. As a result, the prior rejection of claim 9, which further limits the one or more surfactants to being one of four listed poloxamers, is withdrawn, and examiner indicates that this claim would be allowable if rewritten in independent form (see indication of allowable subject matter above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in remarks filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but are only partially found persuasive. First, regarding applicant’s arguments on pg. 1 of remarks, applicant brings attention to the newly amended range for the content of one or more surfactants, the newly amended range being greater than 0.5% and less than 2% by weights of the solvent system. Applicant argues in remarks that experimental evidence disclosed in the specification and drawings shows that this range is critical, and not merely a result-effective variable. Applicant argues that this criticality is shown in figs. 2a and 2b, which applicant correctly notes shows that cells containing approximately 1 wt.% surfactant exhibit markedly improved capacity retention over extended cycling, whereas cells containing 2 wt.% or 0.2 wt.% show a clear degradation in performance compared to cells containing the embodied 1 wt.%. Applicant argues that this shows the claimed upper limit of below 2% is not an arbitrary selection, but defines a narrow window in which improved sodium-ion cycling stability is achieved.
In general, examiner agrees with applicant’s explanation and interpretation of cited data, however, examiner will also note that in order to establish criticality or unexpected results, "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)). In this case, the scope of the claims covers the claimed range of greater than 0.5 to less than 2 wt.%, however the scope of the claims also covers several different possibilities for surfactants, including: anionic surfactants selected from sulfonates selected from docusates, cationic surfactants selected from examples such as cetyl pyridinium chloride or benzalkonium chloride, and non-ionic surfactants selected from polyol esters, polyoxyethylene esters, and poloxamers.
Examiner will note that the data which applicant cites to support criticality for the claimed surfactant wt.% offers examples only of P123 and F127, both poloxamers, and offers no data supporting criticality of the claimed range when a different type of claimed surfactant, such as a claimed anionic or cationic surfactant, is used. As a result, it has been determined that the cited data does not establish criticality or unexpected results for the claimed range that is commensurate in scope with claim 1, and applicant’s arguments to the contrary are not found persuasive. However, applicant’s arguments are found partially persuasive in that examiner agrees that the cited data does demonstrate unexpected results for the claimed range in regard to poloxamers, which are used as surfactants in the cited examples. As a result, the prior rejection of claim 9, which further limits the one or more surfactants to being one of four listed poloxamers, is withdrawn, and examiner indicates that this claim would be allowable if rewritten in independent form (see indication of allowable subject matter above).
Applicant further argues (pg. 2) that because Onozaki discloses a surfactant range of 0.05-5 mass % relative to the total non-aqueous electrolyte, as opposed to relative to the solvent system excepting the sodium salt as indicated in claim 1, that these quantities are not equivalent. Examiner agrees that these quantities are not equivalent, however because these two numbers are similar and the 0.05-5 range disclosed by Onozaki substantially encompasses the claimed range of greater than 0.5 to less than 2 claimed by the instant claim, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the claimed surfactant content would at least overlap with the claimed range, and would therefore also be obvious to routinely select a surfactant content from amongst the overlapping portions of rangers (see claim 1 rejection above). As a result, this argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant further disagrees (see pgs. 2-3 of remarks) with the office’s position that it would have been obvious to adapt the electrolyte of Onozaki for use in a sodium-ion battery. Applicant points out that the examples and performance data of Onozaki relate to lithium-ion batteries, with no example/embodiment of a sodium-ion cell being provided. Applicant further argues that sodium and lithium-ion cells exhibit fundamentally different behavior due to differences such as ionic radius, solvation structure, and solid-electrolyte interphase formation, differences which applicant argues directly impact the function and effectiveness of surfactants and other electrolyte additives, and that electrodes and electrolytes are not simply interchangeable (see pg. 3 of remarks, see also applicant’s citation of “From Lithium to Sodium and Potassium Batteries”, which claims that suitable active and electrolyte materials are different from sodium to lithium batteries.
However, examiner notes that inclusion of a sodium salt and therefore sodium ions is suggested first by Onozaki itself (see claim 1 rejection above as well as [0016], which discloses that the electrolyte contains a lithium salt, but also may contain a sodium salt as well, listing NaPF6 as an option). Further, Onozaki does not imply that inclusion of the sodium salt warrants a different electrolyte or surfactant composition, which a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood indicates an understanding of compatibility of the disclosed electrolyte of Onozaki with electrolytes including sodium salts. Further, after establishing this understanding, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to utilize the invention of Onozaki in a sodium-ion battery, for the unique benefits and advantages of sodium-ion batteries (see claim 1 rejection above). For these reasons, applicant’s arguments alleging non-obviousness of utilization of a sodium battery alongside the electrolyte of Onozaki are not found persuasive.
Applicant closes remarks (see pg. 3) with a statement arguing that applicant’s experimental data has demonstrated that the claimed poloxamer surfactants, such as P123 and F127, when used within the claimed concentration range, produced improved long-term cycling stability in sodium-ion cells as compared to electrolytes lacking surfactants or containing alternative additives, and that these results could not have been predicted from the cited references. Examiner agrees, and as a result has indicated allowable subject matter concerning claim 9, which is directed to the use of poloxamers as surfactants in the sodium-ion cell provided with the non-aqueous electrolyte composition according to claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZACKARY R COCHENOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1480. The examiner can normally be reached 1-9:00PM ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZACKARY RICHARD COCHENOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights