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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 3 is/are amended; claim(s) 12-23, 26-29 and 31 remain withdrawn. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 09/18/2025 has/have been withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection are presented hereinbelow.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Althues et al. (WO-2016202969-A1; cited with machine translation, 04/24/2025 Office action) in view of Kim et al. (Sodium Polysulfides during Charge/Discharge of the Room-Temperature Na/S Battery Using TEGDME Electrolyte; copy in 09/18/2025 Office action)
Regarding claims 1-3 and 11, Althues discloses a metal (M)-sulfur battery (“sodium-sulfur battery”; [0016]) comprising a complex of phosphorus polysulfide and sodium sulfide (i.e., a mP2S5-nM2Sx complex) as an additive ([0029]). The mP2S5-nM2Sx complex may be provided in either the electrolyte, electrolyte and anode, or all three of the electrolyte, anode, and cathode ([0031]). These comprise a finite number of configurations such it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely explore providing the mP2S5-nM2Sx complex in the electrolyte, anode, and cathode from the finite identified, predictable solutions to provide the additive (MPEP 2143 I. E).
In doing so, a skilled artisan would produce Althues’ battery wherein the cathode comprises an mP2S5-nM2Sx complex as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Althues further discloses an anode comprising the metal (sodium; [0021]), wherein the complexed additive forms a SEI layer on the anode preventing self-discharge reactions (i.e., passivating the anode) ([0027]), and thus discloses the “an anode comprising the metal, wherein the metal is passivated using an anode passivation solution comprising an aP2S5-bM2Sy complex” claimed in claim 1; and an electrolyte in contact with the cathode and anode ([0008]) as claimed in claim 1.
Althues discloses the metal (M) is sodium ([0016]), thus rendering obvious “wherein the metal (M) is lithium or sodium” claimed in claim 1 and “wherein M is sodium” claimed in claim 2.
Modified Althues provides the P2S5 and M2Sx additive to efficiently complex, i.e., solubilize sodium polysulfide, where mP2S5 and nM2Sx are provided in a ratio of “1:5 to 5:1, preferably 1:3 to 3:1, particularly preferably 1:2 to 2:1, in particular 1:1” ([0029]). Althues fails to expressly describe a battery where the ratio of P2S5 to M2Sx (m:n) in the cathode is exactly 2:3 or 3:2 as claimed in claim 1; however, 2:3 and 3:2 are encompassed within the particularly preferable range of “1:2 to 2:1, in particular 1:1” such that it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to select 2:3 or 3:2 in seeking to suitably complex the sodium polysulfide in the cathode in Althues’ battery (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Modified Althues further discloses that the complexed additive forms an SEI layer on the anode during the normal voltage range of the battery, i.e., during charging ([0027]), thus passivating the anode layer. The complexed additive is provided with a ratio of aP2S5 to bM2Sy in the range of “1:5 to 5:1, preferably 1:3 to 3:1, particularly preferably 1:2 to 2:1, in particular 1:1” ([0029]), the particularly preferable range of 1:2 to 2:1 encompassing the claimed “wherein the ratio of P2S5 to M2Sy (a:b) in the anode passivation solution is between 1:2 and 2:1, optionally the ratio of P2S5 to M2Sy (a:b) in the anode passivation solution is 1:2, 2:3, 1:1, 3:2, or 2:1” of claim 1. As such, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have routinely selected within the encompassed claimed range with the reasonable expectation of successfully forming the SEI layer during charging to passivate Althues’ anode (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Modified Althues further discloses that the additive comprised by the cathode and used to passivate the anode includes P2S5 and sodium monosulfide (i.e., Na2Sx, x=1) and/or sodium polysulfide (i.e., Na2Sx, x>1) ([0041]); the inclusion of sodium monosulfide renders obvious x=1 in mP2S5-nM2Sx in the cathode and y=1 in aP2S5-bM2Sy in the anode passivation solution; however, Althues fails to further indicate the amount of sulfur (i.e., x and y) in the sodium polysulfide species and thus disclose an upper limit of x and y.
Kim, directed to cycling studies of sodium-sulfur batteries (Kim, abstract), evidences during cycling an analogous battery that Na2Sn in the electrolyte changes from Na2Sn (6 ≤ n ≤ 8) to Na2S4 to Na2S during discharge of the battery and the reverse during charging (Kim, abstract). Na2Sn (“sodium polysulfides”) dissolved in electrolyte confined within the cathode also undergoes this change (p. A615 col. 2 ¶1; pp. A615 col. 2 ¶4-A616 col. 1 ¶1), this corresponding to the mP2S5-nM2Sx complex in modified Althues’ cathode, as would M2Sy in the aP2S5-bM2Sy complex in Althues’ electrolyte solution, understood to contact the anode to form the passivating SEI during charge/discharge (Althues [0008-0009], [0027]).
Thus, in Althues’ battery, x in mP2S5-nM2Sx in the cathode and y in aP2S5-bM2Sy in the solution passivating the anode both inherently range from 1 to 8 depending on the charge/discharge stage of the battery, x and y being integers corresponding to the order of the polysulfide M2Sx/y. This range falls within and renders obvious the claimed range of 1 to 12 for x and y in claim 1.
Additionally, during charge, Kim evidences that charging the battery inherently forms higher-order polysulfides such as Na2S8 (i.e., nM2Sx where x=8) at modified Althues’ cathode comprising the mP2S5-nM2Sx complex (p. A615 col. 2 ¶1; pp. A615 col. 2 ¶4-A616 col. 1 ¶1), thus inherently producing a battery wherein x is 8 as claimed in claim 3. Furthermore, at this charging stage, where higher-order polysulfides (i.e., those, with a longer Sx chain) are formed existing in a liquid form, modified Althues’ cathode is recognized as a liquid phase cathode according to the instant specification p. 9 ln. 13-18 which reads on “wherein the cathode is a liquid-phase cathode” claimed in claim 11.
Regarding claim 7, modified Althues discloses the formation of a SEI on the anode (Althues [0027]). Althues does not explicitly disclose the composition of the SEI on the anode to comprise mainly Na4P2S7, Na4P2S6, Na2P2S6, Na3PS4 and NaPS3. However, both Althues and the instant specification recite the use of a passivation solution comprising a P2S5-Na-2S complex as a defining feature (Althues FIG. 1B, [0027], instant specification pp. 12 ln. 12-16); as such, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect the SEI disclosed by Althues to inherently comprise mainly Na4P2S7, Na4P2S6, Na2P2S6, Na3PS4 and NaPS3; see MPEP 2112 III.
Regarding claim 9, modified Althues discloses the battery of claim 1, further comprising a separator (Althues [0035]). Althues does not explicitly recite the separator as keeping the cathode and anode apart; however, as Althues discloses a function of the separator to suppress in part the migration of polysulfides from the cathode to the anode, it would be understood in the art that the separator would necessarily keep the cathode and anode apart to prevent such a migration (Althues [0009], [0035]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Althues discloses the battery of claim 1, wherein the battery undergoes cycling (Althues [0043]); the battery is therefore rechargeable as claimed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Althues (WO-2016202969-A1) and Kim (Sodium Polysulfides during Charge/Discharge […]) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Seh et al. (A Highly Reversible Room-Temperature Sodium Metal Anode; copy in 04/24/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 8, modified Althues discloses the battery of claim 1. Althues further discloses that the electrolyte comprises a sodium-containing conducting salt (Althues [0035]) in an ether, tetraglyme (tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether) disclosed as a non-limiting example ([0033]), but does not explicitly disclose the use of NaPF6 in diglyme as the electrolyte.
Seh ([…] Room-Temperature Sodium Metal Anode), directed to an electrolyte comprising NaPF6 in diglyme in a Na-O2 sodium metal battery, Na-O2 being noted as an analogous system applicable to a NaS sodium metal battery (Seh abstract, pp. 453 highlighted citation 1), teaches that a NaPF6 and diglyme electrolyte advantageously forms a uniform, inorganic SEI on the Na metal surface which is more effective to prevent reactions between the Na metal surface and electrolyte than other combinations of solvents and sodium-containing conductive salts (pp. 451-452 highlighted citations 1, 2). Furthermore, Seh produces an experimental example of a Na-S battery comprising NaPF6 in diglyme which is shown to have a high coulombic efficiency (pp. 453 col. 1 paragraph 1 - col. 2 paragraph 2).
As such, in seeking to improve the quality of the SEI layer, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to select an electrolyte comprising NaPF6 in diglyme as taught by Althues and Seh. Such a selection would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Althues recognizes a suitability of using a sodium-containing conducting salt in an ether such as diglyme, and Seh demonstrates the suitability of NaPF6 in diglyme in a Na-S battery; see MPEP 2144.06 and 2144.07.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Althues (WO-2016202969-A1) in view of Kim (Sodium Polysulfides during Charge/Discharge […]) and Medenbach et al. (A Sodium Polysulfide Battery with Liquid/Solid Electrolyte: Improving Sulfur Utilization Using P2S5 as Additive and Tetramethylurea as Catholyte Solvent; copy in 04/24/2025 Office action):
Regarding claims 1-3 and 11, Althues discloses a metal (M)-sulfur battery (“sodium-sulfur battery”; [0016]) comprising a complex of phosphorus polysulfide and sodium sulfide (i.e., a mP2S5-nM2Sx complex) as an additive ([0029]). The mP2S5-nM2Sx complex may be provided in either the electrolyte, electrolyte and anode, or all three of the electrolyte, anode, and cathode ([0031]). These comprise a finite number of configurations such it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely explore providing the mP2S5-nM2Sx complex in the electrolyte, anode, and cathode from the finite identified, predictable solutions to provide the additive (MPEP 2143 I. E).
In doing so, a skilled artisan would produce Althues’ battery wherein the cathode comprises an mP2S5-nM2Sx complex as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Althues further discloses an anode comprising the metal (sodium; [0021]), wherein the complexed additive forms a SEI layer on the anode preventing self-discharge reactions (i.e., passivating the anode) ([0027]), and thus discloses the “an anode comprising the metal, wherein the metal is passivated using an anode passivation solution comprising an aP2S5-bM2Sy complex” claimed in claim 1; and an electrolyte in contact with the cathode and anode ([0008]) as claimed in claim 1.
Althues discloses the metal (M) is sodium ([0016]), thus rendering obvious “wherein the metal (M) is lithium or sodium” claimed in claim 1 and “wherein M is sodium” claimed in claim 2.
Modified Althues provides the P2S5 and M2Sx additive to efficiently complex, i.e., solubilize sodium polysulfide, where mP2S5 and nM2Sx are provided in a ratio of “1:5 to 5:1, preferably 1:3 to 3:1, particularly preferably 1:2 to 2:1, in particular 1:1” ([0029]). Although 2:3 and 3:2 are encompassed within the particularly preferable range of “1:2 to 2:1, in particular 1:1”, Althues fails to expressly describe a battery where the ratio of P2S5 to M2Sx (m:n) in the cathode is exactly 2:3 or 3:2 as claimed in claim 1.
Medenbach (Sodium Polysulfide Battery […]) is directed to an analogous sodium-sulfur battery which similarly uses a P2S5 additive to dissolve (i.e., complex) precipitated sulfides to improve activity and cyclability of the battery (Medenbach p. 2 col. 2 ¶3). Medenbach further demonstrates that a ratio of mP2S5-nM2Sx where m:n is 3.34:2 (“1 mM Na2S5 and 1.67mM P2S5”) suitably complexes the sodium (poly)sulfides in solution (p. 3 col. 2 ¶2), improving capacity and cyclability of the battery (p. 3 col. 2 ¶2-3), similar to the improvements to cycling characteristics and capacity from the complex in Althues’ battery (Althues [0002])
Thus, as Althues discloses a 1:1 ratio (Althues [0029]) and Medenbach teaches a 3.34:2 ratio of mP2S5 to nM2Sx for the same purpose of complexing P2S5 to M2Sx, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the range of m:n = 1:1 to 3.34:2 disclosed by Althues and Medenbach for this purpose. This range encompasses m:n=3:2 claimed in claim 1 such that a skilled artisan would have routinely selected this value through seeking to complex mP2S5 to nM2Sx (MPEP 2144.05 I). Such a selection would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, being within Althues’ “particularly preferable” range of 1:2 to 2:1.
Modified Althues further discloses that the complexed additive forms an SEI layer on the anode during the normal voltage range of the battery, i.e., during charging ([0027]), thus passivating the anode layer. The complexed additive is provided with a ratio of aP2S5 to bM2Sy in the range of “1:5 to 5:1, preferably 1:3 to 3:1, particularly preferably 1:2 to 2:1, in particular 1:1” ([0029]), the particularly preferable range of 1:2 to 2:1 encompassing the claimed “wherein the ratio of P2S5 to M2Sy (a:b) in the anode passivation solution is between 1:2 and 2:1, optionally the ratio of P2S5 to M2Sy (a:b) in the anode passivation solution is 1:2, 2:3, 1:1, 3:2, or 2:1” of claim 1. As such, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have routinely selected within the encompassed claimed range with the reasonable expectation of successfully forming the SEI layer during charging to passivate Althues’ anode (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Modified Althues further discloses that the additive comprised by the cathode and used to passivate the anode includes P2S5 and sodium monosulfide (i.e., Na2Sx, x=1) and/or sodium polysulfide (i.e., Na2Sx, x>1) ([0041]); the inclusion of sodium monosulfide renders obvious x=1 in mP2S5-nM2Sx in the cathode and y=1 in aP2S5-bM2Sy in the anode passivation solution; however, Althues fails to further indicate the amount of sulfur (i.e., x and y) in the sodium polysulfide species and thus disclose an upper limit of x and y.
Kim, directed to cycling studies of sodium-sulfur batteries (Kim, abstract), evidences during cycling an analogous battery that Na2Sn in the electrolyte changes from Na2Sn (6 ≤ n ≤ 8) to Na2S4 to Na2S during discharge of the battery and the reverse during charging (Kim, abstract). Na2Sn (“sodium polysulfides”) dissolved in electrolyte confined within the cathode also undergoes this change (p. A615 col. 2 ¶1; pp. A615 col. 2 ¶4-A616 col. 1 ¶1), this corresponding to the mP2S5-nM2Sx complex in modified Althues’ cathode, as would M2Sy in the aP2S5-bM2Sy complex in Althues’ electrolyte solution, understood to contact the anode to form the passivating SEI during charge/discharge (Althues [0008-0009], [0027]).
Thus, in Althues’ battery, x in mP2S5-nM2Sx in the cathode and y in aP2S5-bM2Sy in the solution passivating the anode both inherently range from 1 to 8 depending on the charge/discharge stage of the battery, x and y being integers corresponding to the order of the polysulfide M2Sx/y. This range falls within and renders obvious the claimed range of 1 to 12 for x and y in claim 1.
Additionally, during charge, Kim evidences that charging the battery inherently forms higher-order polysulfides such as Na2S8 (i.e., nM2Sx where x=8) at modified Althues’ cathode comprising the mP2S5-nM2Sx complex (p. A615 col. 2 ¶1; pp. A615 col. 2 ¶4-A616 col. 1 ¶1), thus inherently producing a battery wherein x is 8 as claimed in claim 3. Furthermore, at this charging stage, where higher-order polysulfides (i.e., those, with a longer Sx chain) are formed existing in a liquid form, modified Althues’ cathode is recognized as a liquid phase cathode according to the instant specification p. 9 ln. 13-18 which reads on “wherein the cathode is a liquid-phase cathode” claimed in claim 11.
Regarding claim 7, modified Althues discloses the formation of a SEI on the anode (Althues [0027]). Althues does not explicitly disclose the composition of the SEI on the anode to comprise mainly Na4P2S7, Na4P2S6, Na2P2S6, Na3PS4 and NaPS3. However, both Althues and the instant specification recite the use of a passivation solution comprising a P2S5-Na-2S complex as a defining feature (Althues FIG. 1B, [0027], instant specification pp. 12 ln. 12-16); as such, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect the SEI disclosed by Althues to inherently comprise mainly Na4P2S7, Na4P2S6, Na2P2S6, Na3PS4 and NaPS3; see MPEP 2112 III.
Regarding claim 9, modified Althues discloses the battery of claim 1, further comprising a separator (Althues [0035]). Althues does not explicitly recite the separator as keeping the cathode and anode apart; however, as Althues discloses a function of the separator to suppress in part the migration of polysulfides from the cathode to the anode, it would be understood in the art that the separator would necessarily keep the cathode and anode apart to prevent such a migration (Althues [0009], [0035]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Althues discloses the battery of claim 1, wherein the battery undergoes cycling (Althues [0043]); the battery is therefore rechargeable as claimed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Althues (WO-2016202969-A1), Kim (Sodium Polysulfides during Charge/Discharge […]), and Medenbach (Sodium Polysulfide Battery […]) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Seh et al. (A Highly Reversible Room-Temperature Sodium Metal Anode; copy in 04/24/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 8, modified Althues discloses the battery of claim 1. Althues further discloses that the electrolyte comprises a sodium-containing conducting salt (Althues [0035]) in an ether, tetraglyme (tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether) disclosed as a non-limiting example ([0033]), but does not explicitly disclose the use of NaPF6 in diglyme as the electrolyte.
Medenbach notes diglyme as a commonly used ether solvent in metal-sulfur batteries (Medenbach p. 2 col. 2 ¶3). It would therefore be obvious to select diglyme for the same intended purpose of an ether solvent in modified Althues’ battery (MPEP 2144.07).
Furthermore, Seh, directed to an electrolyte comprising NaPF6 in diglyme in a Na-O2 sodium metal battery, Na-O2 being noted as an analogous system applicable to a NaS sodium metal battery (Seh abstract, pp. 453 highlighted citation 1), teaches that a NaPF6 and diglyme electrolyte advantageously forms a uniform, inorganic SEI on the Na metal surface which is more effective to prevent reactions between the Na metal surface and electrolyte than other combinations of solvents and sodium-containing conductive salts (pp. 451-452 highlighted citations 1, 2). Furthermore, Seh produces an experimental example of a Na-S battery comprising NaPF6 in diglyme which is shown to have a high coulombic efficiency (pp. 453 col. 1 paragraph 1 - col. 2 paragraph 2).
As such, in seeking to improve the quality of the SEI layer, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to select an electrolyte comprising NaPF6 in diglyme as taught by Althues, Medenbach, and Seh. Such a selection would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Althues recognizes a suitability of using a sodium-containing conducting salt in an ether such as diglyme, and Seh demonstrates the suitability of NaPF6 in diglyme in a Na-S battery; see MPEP 2144.06 and 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
On December 17, 2025, Applicant's representative, Farhang Amini, held a telephonic interview with Examiner Everett Choi to discuss the Office Action and proposed claim amendments. Examiner clarifies that the claim amendments reciting m:n is 2:3 or 3:2 would appear to overcome the cited art as applied in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in the Office action filed 09/18/2025, as Althues fails to disclose a cathode containing an mP2S5-nM2Sx complex with a ratio of 2:3 or 3:2 specifically. However, both 2:3 or 3:2 still fall within Althues’ preferable range of 1:2 to 2:1 (Althues [0029]), such that Althues remains pertinent as prior art for considerations of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant asserts unexpected results when ratios of mP2S5-nM2Sx (m:n) in the cathode are 2:3 or 3:2, comparatively, non-homogenous (i.e., not fully dissolved) systems are formed when such ratios are 1:2 and 2:1 where adjustments in stoichiometry produce qualitatively different phase behavior. Applicant cites ¶[0069] and FIG. 1B of the instant specification to support evidence of unexpected results and criticality of the claimed range (Remarks p. 8 ¶4). Additional prior art cited in the 09/18/2025 Office action cannot be combined with Althues to arrive at the claimed values (Remarks p. 9 ¶1-4).
While this argument has been considered, it has not been found persuasive for the reasons below:
Althues discloses mP2S5-nM2Sx (m:n) in the cathode provided in a ratio of “particularly preferably 1:2 to 2:1, in particular 1:1” for efficiently complexing sodium polysulfide (Althues [0029]), indicating that ratios closer to 1:1 are more desirable for the purpose of forming the mP2S5-nM2Sx complex. Therefore, although Althues does not expressly specify mP2S5-nM2Sx (m:n) of 2:3 or 3:2, a skilled artisan would nonetheless expect the result of ratios of 2:3 or 3:2 to being more efficient at forming the complex and homogenizing the mixture (MPEP 716.02(c) II).
Paragraph [0069] of the specification recites inter alia “homogeneous systems are formed in the ratio range from 2:3 to 3:2 […] while both 1:2 and 2:1 ratios result in nonhomogeneous systems (solids at the bottom of vials in FIG. 1B)”. This disclosure supports criticality of a m:n value of 2:3 compared to 1:2 or a value of 3:2 compared to 2:1 in order to form a homogenized, i.e., sufficiently complexed system of mP2S5-nM2Sx, but fails to demonstrate criticality of 2:3 and 3:2 relative to any ratio within 2:3 and 3:2 (MPEP 716.02 (d) II), as the specification appears to demonstrate that ratios within this range (i.e., 1:1) are at least equally as effective at forming a homogenized mP2S5-nM2Sx system (FIGs. 1B, 1C, 1D).
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that Althues’ disclosure alone fails provides insufficient specificity to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed ratio of 2:3 or 3:2 parts P2S5 to M2Sx (m:n) in the cathode in claim 1, Medenbach demonstrates that a ratio of mP2S5-nM2Sx where m:n is 3.34:2 (“1 mM Na2S5 and 1.67mM P2S5”) suitably complexes the sodium (poly)sulfides in solution (p. 3 col. 2 ¶2), such that selection of a ratio between Althues’ preferred 1:1 ratio (Althues [0029]) and Medenbach’s 3.34:2 ratio of mP2S5 to nM2Sx (e.g., 3:2 as claimed in claim 1) for the same purpose of complexing P2S5 to M2Sx would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art; see p. 8 of this Office action.
Thus, as specific values of mP2S5-nM2Sx (m:n) of 2:3 or 3:2 fall within Althues’ disclosed preferable range of 1:2 to 2:1 and because the evidence of unexpected results is to be expected in view of Althues’ disclosure, this limitation recited in amended claim 1 is found to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Althues according MPEP 2144.05 I; see rejection of claim 1 (i.e., pp. 7-9 of this Office action).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights