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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but were not found persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record for the reasons set forth below. See claims 1, 5-8, 11, 13-14 and 16 rejections below.
Applicant argues that “the cited prior art (Miki, Yamamoto, Hiroi, and Kubo) fails to teach or suggest the claimed fluoride ion battery comprising an ApBqOr infinite-layer structure with p/q = 1 and the associated compositional limitations” (see e.g. page 5 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Miki discloses a fluoride ion battery comprising a cathode, anode, and electrolyte layer as claimed. Yamamoto further discloses infinite-layer AFeO2-type structures in which the A-site composition is explicitly varied among alkali earth elements (Ca, Sr, Ba) while maintaining q = 1 for the transition metal site. The substitution of multiple A-site species summing to p = 1 (e.g. Sr0.8Ba0.2FeO2) demonstrates that p/q = 1 is explicitly taught. Accordingly, the claimed ratio p/q = 1 is not structurally distinguishing over Yamamoto, and represents a predictable compositional selection within a known infinite-layer system. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Yamamoto fails to disclose or suggest the claimed compositional relationships because it does not expressly describe the ApBqOr system as recited, and therefore does not anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention” (see e.g. page 5 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Anticipation and obviousness are not limited to identical claim language but extend to disclosures that are structurally and compositionally equivalent. Yamamoto explicitly discloses AFeO2-type infinite-layer compounds where A consists of combinations of alkaline earth metals whose total stoichiometry sums to unity (p = 1) and where the transition metal site occupancy is q = 1. Thus, Yamamoto inherently and explicitly teaches the claimed p/q = 1 relationship. Applicant’s argument improperly relies on formal claim language distinctions rather than substantive structural identity. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “unexpected results are demonstrated by improved charge and discharge capacity at p/q = 1 and that such improvement would not have been expected in view of the prior art” (see e.g. pages 5-6 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged unexpected results are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention and lack a proper nexus to the claimed p/q = 1 limitation. The comparative data relies on internal examples that differ in multiple variables, including processing conditions and material preparation (e.g. use or omission of CaH2 reduction), thereby confounding attribution of performance improvements solely to the claimed stoichiometric ratio. Additionally, applicant does not provide comparative data against the closest prior art compositions disclosed in Miki or Yamamoto. Without isolating p/q = 1 as the sole causative factor and without comparison to the closest prior art, the evidence is insufficient to establish unexpected results. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Miki in view of Yamamoto to arrive at the claimed invention” (see e.g. pages 5-6 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yamamoto explicitly teaches that A-site cation substitution in infinite-layer AFeO2 compounds predictably modifies structural and electrochemical properties while maintaining the same underlying crystal framework. This constitutes a recognized result-effective variable in the art. Where a parameter is recognized as result-effective, routine optimization thereof, including selection of endpoint compositions such as p/q = 1, is considered to be within the ordinary skill in the art and does not require a reasonable expectation of unpredictability. Applicant has provided no evidence of unexpected technical barriers or unpredictability associated with achieving the claimed composition. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Hiroi is not applicable because it discloses different compositions (p/q < 1 systems) and therefore cannot be combined with Miki or Yamamoto” (see e.g. page 6 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The test for obviousness does not require identical compositions but rather whether the prior art is in the same field of endeavor and whether it would have been obvious to modify one reference in view of another. Hiroi, Yamamoto, and Miki all relate to infinite-layer oxide systems with closely related ApBqOr structures. Differences in stoichiometric ratios do not constitute teaching away, particularly where the underlying crystal framework and substitutional chemistry are shared. Therefore, Hiroi remains properly combinable as it demonstrates that similar infinite-layer structures exhibit predictable changes in diffraction characteristics and properties upon compositional modification. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the XRD peaks recited in claims 5 and 14 are not suggested by the prior art and that such features are not inherent to the cited structures” (see e.g. pages 6-7 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hiroi explicitly discloses infinite-layer ApBqOr structures and provides XRD characterization of such materials, including peak positions corresponding to the claimed ranges. Where the same crystal structure is disclosed, the associated XRD pattern is an inherent property of that structure and its compositional variants. Applicant has not provided evidence that the claimed peak positions arise from a structurally distinct phase rather than predictable variation of the same infinite-layer framework. Accordingly, the claimed XRD features do not distinguish over the prior art. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In conclusion, the arguments and amendments filed were not found to be persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record. The rejections of the claims have been updated to reflect the amendments where appropriate. See claims 1, 5-8, 11, 13-14 and 16 rejections below.
Summary
This is a continued examination non-final office action for application 17/689,591 in response to the amendments filed on 03/26/2026. Claims 1, 5-8, 11, 13-14 and 16 are under examination.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed in parent Application Nos. JP2021-042171 filed on 03/16/2021 and JP2021-193515 filed on 11/29/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 03/08/2022, 09/02/2022 and 02/07/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Regarding Claim 16, claim 16 is dependent upon claim 11 which is dependent upon claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a crystal phase including an infinite layer structure, and represented by ApBqOr, provided that A is at least one of an alkali earth metal element and a rare earth element, B is a transition metal element, p satisfies 0.8 ≤ p ≤ 1, q satisfies 0.8 ≤ q ≤ 1, and r satisfies 1.5 ≤ r ≤ 2.5, a ratio p/q, which is the ratio of the p with respect to the q, is equal to 1” claim 11 builds off this reciting the limitation “the crystal phase is represented by CapCuO2, provided that p satisfies 0.8 ≤ p ≤ 1”. Claim 16 then recites the limitation “wherein the p satisfies 0.8 ≤ p ≤ 0.9”.
However, claim 1 requires that p/q = 1, which requires that p and q be equal. Accordingly, any reduction of p below 1 in claim 11 and claim 16 necessarily requires q to be reduced to maintain p/q = 1. Claim 16, however, further narrows p independently to 0.8–0.9 without correspondingly defining q, resulting in an internal inconsistency in the scope of the ratio limitation recited in claim 1 as incorporated into claims 11 and 16.
Therefore, it is unclear whether claim 16 is intended to maintain the p/q = 1 relationship of claim 1, or whether claim 16 is intended to redefine the stoichiometric relationship between p and q. As a result, the metes and bounds of claim 16 are unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 6-8, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki et al. (US-20170237067-A1) and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (Synthesis and Thermal Stability of the Solid Solution AFeO2 (A= Ba, Sr, Ca), 8 March 2010, Inorganic Chemistry, Volume 49).
Regarding Claim 1, Miki discloses a fluoride ion battery (see e.g. "fluoride ion battery" in paragraph [0013]) comprising:
a cathode layer containing a cathode active material (see e.g. "a cathode active material layer containing a cathode active material" in paragraph [0013]),
an anode layer containing an anode active material (see e.g. "an anode active material layer containing an anode active material" in paragraph [0013]), and
an electrolyte layer formed between the cathode layer and the anode layer (see e.g. " an electrolyte layer formed between the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer" in paragraph [0013] of Miki).
Miki further discloses an active material with similar structure to the instant application represented by An+1BnO3n+1-αFx where n is 1 or 2, 0 ≤ α ≤ 2 and 0, and 0 ≤ x ≤ 2.2 to be used in a fluoride ion battery (see e.g. paragraph [0010] of Miki), however, Miki does not disclose that the cathode active material or the anode active material comprises: a crystal phase including an infinite layer structure, and represented by ApBqOr, provided that A is at least one of an alkali earth metal element and a rare earth element, B is a transition metal element, p satisfies 0.8 ≤ p ≤ 1, q satisfies 0.8 ≤ q ≤ 1, and r satisfies 1.5 ≤ r ≤ 2.5, a ratio p/q, which is the ratio of the p with respect to the q, is equal to 1, and the ratio of p/q is a ratio of the total alkali earth metal elements and rare earth elements represented by "A" in the ApBqOr formula over the total transition metal elements represented by "B" in the ApBqOr formula.
Yamamoto, however, in the same field of endeavor, active material for fluoride ion batteries, discloses an active material to be used in a fluoride ion battery, the active material comprising: a crystal phase including an infinity layer structure (see e.g. "infinite layer iron oxide AFeO2 (A= alkali-earth elements)" in Abstract), and represented by ApBqOr, provided that A is at least one of an alkali earth metal element and a rare earth element, B is a transition metal element (see e.g. "Sr0.8Ba0.2FeO2 (y=0.2)" in Experimental Section paragraph beginning with "Powder neutron diffraction" on page 5958), p satisfies p = 1(see e.g. " Sr0.8Ba0.2FeO2 (y=0.2)" in Experimental Section paragraph beginning with "Powder neutron diffraction" on page 5958; Sr am Ba are both alkali earth metals and thus represent A therefore p = 0.8 + 0.2 = 1), q satisfies q = 1 (see e.g. " Sr0.8Ba0.2FeO2 (y=0.2)" in Experimental Section paragraph beginning with "Powder neutron diffraction" on page 5958; Fe is a transition metal element and represents B and thus q = 1), and r satisfies r = 2 (see e.g. " Sr0.8Ba0.2FeO2 (y=0.2)" in Experimental Section paragraph beginning with "Powder neutron diffraction" on page 5958; O2.. r = 2),
a ratio p/q, which is the ratio of the p with respect to the q, is equal to 1 (see e.g. " Sr0.8Ba0.2FeO2 (y=0.2)" in Experimental Section paragraph beginning with "Powder neutron diffraction" on page 5958; as explained above p = 1 and q = 1 thus p/q = 1).
Yamamoto discloses specific points that lie within the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Yamamoto further teaches that controlling the A-site cation size (like substituting Ba or Ca into SrFeO2) allows for tuning of oxidation behavior and structural properties, which can help design better oxide materials to be used in batteries (see e.g. Conclusion of Yamamoto on page 5962). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the active material of Miki et al. such that it comprises a crystal phase including an infinite layer structure, and represented by ApBqOr, provided that A is at least one of an alkali earth metal element and a rare earth element, B is a transition metal element, p satisfies p = 1, q satisfies q = 1, and r satisfies r = 2, and a ratio p/q, which is the ratio of the p with respect to the q, is equal to 1, as taught by Yamamoto et al. in order to allow for tunable properties of battery active materials as suggested by Yamamoto.
Regarding Claim 6, Miki in view of Yamamoto discloses the fluoride ion battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Miki does not disclose that the A is at least one kind of Ca, Sr, Ba, La and Ce.
Yamamoto, however, discloses that the A is at last one kind of Ca, Sr and Ba (see e.g., “CaFeO2, SrFeO2, BaFeO2” in Section 3.1. Crystal Structure, paragraph starting with “Figure 2” on page 5959 of Yamamoto ).
Yamamoto further teaches that controlling the A-site cation size (like substituting Ba or Ca into SrFeO2) allows for tuning of oxidation behavior and structural properties, which can help design better oxide materials to be used in batteries (see e.g. Conclusion on page 5962 of Yamamoto ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the active material of Miki et al. such that A is at last one kind of Ca, Sr and Ba as taught by Yamamoto et al. in order to allow for tunable properties of battery active materials as suggested by Yamamoto.
Regarding Claim 7, Miki in view of Yamamoto discloses the fluoride ion battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Miki does not disclose that the B is at least one kind of Fe, Ni and Cu.
Yamamoto, however, discloses that the B is at least one kind of Fe and Cu (see e.g. “SrFeO2” and “SrCuO2” in Introduction, paragraph starting with “An unprecedented” on page 5957 of Yamamoto).
Yamamoto further teaches that controlling the A-site cation size (like substituting Ba or Ca into SrFeO2) allows for tuning of oxidation behavior and structural properties, which can help design better oxide materials to be used in batteries (see e.g. Conclusion on page 5962 of Yamamoto ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the active material of Miki et al. such that the B is at least one kind of Fe and Cu as taught by Yamamoto et al. in order to allow for tunable properties of battery active materials as suggested by Yamamoto. Regarding Claim 8, Miki in view of Yamamoto discloses the fluoride ion battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Miki does not disclose that the B is Fe.
Yamamoto, however, discloses that the B is a Fe (see e.g. “SrFeO2” in Introduction, paragraph starting with “An unprecedented” on page 5957 of Yamamoto).
Yamamoto further teaches that controlling the A-site cation size (like substituting Ba or Ca into SrFeO2) allows for tuning of oxidation behavior and structural properties, which can help design better oxide materials to be used in batteries (see e.g. Conclusion on page 5962 of Yamamoto ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the active material of Miki et al. such that the B is Fe as taught by Yamamoto et al. in order to allow for tunable properties of battery active materials as suggested by Yamamoto.
Regarding Claim 11, Miki in view of Yamamoto discloses the fluoride ion battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Miki does not disclose that the crystal phase is represented by CapCuO2, provided that p satisfies 0.8 ≤ p ≤ 1.
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose that the crystal phase is represented by CapCuO2, provided that p satisfies 0.8 ≤ p ≤ 1. However, Yamamoto does disclose that the crystal phase can be ACuO2, where A is described as any alkali earth element (see e.g. “ACuO2” in Section 3.1. Crystal Structure, paragraph starting with “To get more” on page 5959 of Yamamoto). Calcium is a well-known alkaline earth metal, and Yamamoto explicitly states that A may be any alkaline earth element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Yamamoto’s disclosure, to substitute calcium for A, yielding the compound CaCuO₂. Furthermore, the formula CaCuO₂ corresponds to p = 1 in the claimed range of 0.8 ≤ p ≤ 1. Since Yamamoto enables the formation of ACuO₂-type structures using any alkaline earth element, and no unexpected results are associated with the use of calcium or with values of p within the claimed range, particularly at p = 1, it would have been obvious to prepare CaₚCuO₂ with p = 1.
Yamamoto further teaches that controlling the A-site cation size (like substituting Ba or Ca into SrFeO2) allows for tuning of oxidation behavior and structural properties, which can help design better oxide materials to be used in batteries (see e.g. Conclusion on page 5962 of Yamamoto ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the active material of Miki et al. such that the crystal phase is represented by CapCuO2, provided that p satisfies p = 1 as taught by Yamamoto et al. in order to allow for tunable properties of battery active materials as suggested by Yamamoto.
Regarding Claim 13, Miki in view of Yamamoto discloses the fluoride ion battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Miki does not disclose that r satisfies r=2.0.
Yamamoto, however, discloses that r satisfies r=2.0 (see e.g., “SrFeO2” in Introduction, paragraph starting with “An unprecedented” on page 5957 of Yamamoto; O2.. r =2).
Yamamoto further teaches that controlling the A-site cation size (like substituting Ba or Ca into SrFeO2) allows for tuning of oxidation behavior and structural properties, which can help design better oxide materials to be used in batteries (see e.g. Conclusion on page 5962 of Yamamoto ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the active material of Miki et al. such that r satisfies r = 2.0 as taught by Yamamoto et al. in order to allow for tunable properties of battery active materials as suggested by Yamamoto.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki et al. (US-20170237067-A1) in view of Yamamoto et al. (Synthesis and Thermal Stability of the Solid Solution AFeO2 (A= Ba, Sr, Ca), 8 March 2010, Inorganic Chemistry, Volume 49) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiroi et al. (Structure and superconductivity of the infinite-layer compound (Ca1-ySry)1-xCuO2-z, 12 February 1993, Physical C, Volume 208").
Regarding Claim 5, Miki in view of Yamamoto discloses the fluoride ion battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Miki in view of Yamamoto does not disclose that the crystal phase includes a peak at a position of 2θ = 32.90° ± 1.00°, 2θ = 36.0° ± 0.5°, 2θ = 43.60° ± 1.00°, and 2θ = 56.4° ± 1.00° in an X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα-ray.
Hiroi, however, in the same field of endeavor, infinity layer structures in the ApBqOr configuration, discloses an infinite layer structure represented by (Ca0.30.3Sr0.7)0.94CuO2-z (see e.g. FIG. 3 of Hiroi) and that this includes a peak at a position of 2θ = 32.90° ± 1.00°, 2θ = 36.0° ± 0.5°, 2θ = 43.60° ± 1.00°, and 2θ = 56.4° ± 1.00° in an X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα-ray (see e.g. annotated figure below and FIG. 3 and "X-ray diffraction (XRD) measurements using Cu Ka radiation" in Section 2.2. Characterization in the paragraph beginning with "The average" on page 288 of Hiroi).
Hiroi discloses points that lie within the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Hiroi also teaches that in using these type of compound superconductivity can occur even only within a few CuO2 sheets adjacent to the charge-controlling layers trapping electron carriers which is ideal superconductive compounds (see e.g. Section 4.2 Structure and Superconductivity beginning on page 294 of Hiroi). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the crystal phase of Miki et al. in view of Yamamoto et al. such that it includes a peak at a position of 2θ = 32.90° ± 1.00°, 2θ = 36.0° ± 0.5°, 2θ = 43.60° ± 1.00°, and 2θ = 56.4° ± 1.00° in an X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα-ray as taught by Hiroi et al. in order to have an ideal superconductive compound as suggested by Hiroi.
PNG
media_image1.png
607
1106
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Hiroi, figure 3, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 14, Miki in view of Yamamoto and further in view of Hiroi disclose the fluoride ion battery of claim 5 (see e.g. claim 5 rejection above).
Miki in view of Yamamoto does not disclose that the peak at 36.0° +/- 0.5° is the peak with the greatest intensity.
Hiroi, however, discloses that the peak at 36.0° ± 0.5° is the peak with the greatest intensity (see e.g. annotated figure above and FIG. 3 of Hiroi).
Hiroi also teaches that in using these type of compound superconductivity can occur even only within a few CuO2 sheets adjacent to the charge-controlling layers trapping electron carriers which is ideal superconductive compounds (see e.g. Section 4.2 Structure and Superconductivity beginning on page 294 of Hiroi). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the crystal phase of Miki et al. in view of Yamamoto et al. such that the peak at 36.0° +/- 0.5° is the peak with the greatest intensity as taught by Hiroi et al. in order to have an ideal superconductive compound as suggested by Hiroi.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki et al. (US-20170237067-A1) in view of Yamamoto et al. (Synthesis and Thermal Stability of the Solid Solution AFeO2 (A= Ba, Sr, Ca), 8 March 2010, Inorganic Chemistry, Volume 49) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kubo et al. (Synthesis of the infinite-layer compounds Ca1-xLixCuO2 (0.15 ≤ x ≤ 0.45) doped with p-type carriers, 1 March 1994, Physical Review B, Volume 49).
Regarding Claim 16, Miki in view of Yamamoto discloses the fluoride ion battery of claim 11 (see e.g. claim 11 rejection above).
Miki in view of Yamamoto does not disclose that the p satisfies 0.8 ≤ p ≤ 0.9.
Kubo, however, in the same field of endeavor, infinite layer structures for use as active material in fluoride ion batteries, discloses that p satisfies 0.8 or 0.85 (see e.g. "Ca1-xLixCuO2 with x in the range 0.15-0.45" on page 6921 paragraph starting with "We obtained"; when x = 0.15 or 0.2, p = 0.85 or 0.8).
Kubo discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Kubo further teaches that the infinite-layer structure enables dense stacking of electronically active CuO₂ planes without interlayer oxygen atoms, minimizing structural complexity while maximizing electronic conductivity and facilitating efficient carrier mobility which are all benefits in active materials (see e.g. Abstract, page 6920 Col 1 and page 6921 col 2 of Kubo). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the crystal phase of Miki et al. in view of Yamamoto et al. such that p = 0.85 or 0.8 as taught by Kubo et al. in order to maximize electronic conductivity and facilitate efficient carrier mobility as suggested by Kubo.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights