DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that Yamada, which provides particles having a specific surface area of 2.6 or higher, is similar to comparative example 1 of the present application and therefore appear to be irregularly oriented instead of having their main faces facing each other thereby being gathered or bound as claimed in claim 1. Applicant further submits that in all the examples of Yamada having a specific surface area of 0.5 to 2.0 m2/g, which are examples A4, A5, A7, A8, B3, B4, C4, D4, and E2, the particles only employ green coke and do not contain flat graphite particles.
However, firstly, the broader disclosure of Yamada provides that the BET specific surface area of the particles is 10 m2/g or less (see e.g., Yamada; [0034]). That is, the rejection does not only depend on the specific examples of Yamada; the rejection includes the full disclosure of Yamada which provides the graphite particles (see e.g., Yamada; [0042]) having a specific surface area of 17 m2/g or less (see e.g., Yamada; [0074], regarding invention C). Although the individual examples of Yamada do not employ flat graphite particles at the same time as a specific surface area of 0.5-2.0 m2/g, the rejection is an obviousness type rejection: It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a particle with a specific surface area of 0.5-2.0 m2/g as disclosed by Yamada in order to sufficiently secure a site through which Li gets in and out, have excellent high-speed charging and discharging characteristics and output characteristics, and suppress activity of an active material with respect to an electrolytic solution (see e.g., Yamada; [0305]). That is, them modification of Yamada is such that the flat graphite particles are employed together with the range of specific surface area of 0.5-2.0 m2/g.
Applicant further submits regarding Yamada in combination with Li, that Li does not disclose any advantage of stacking flat graphite particles with their main planes facing each other. Applicant further submits that the figs.1a and 1b of Li are SEM images of expandable graphite flakes that were commercially purchased and that Li is directed to PFDF/expandable graphite composites, which does not contemplate the use of the stacking graphite particles for use in a negative electrode material. Applicant further argues that the expandable graphite of Li cannot be used as primary particles of the carbon material for Yamada, and that expandable graphite of Li expands by thermal treatment to have a loose, porous, or worm-like morphology having numerous entangles nanosheets, which would not be able to maintain its desired size or shape when formed in composite particles or formed in an electrode by pressing. Applicant further submits that Li is in a different field of endeavor from the negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery of Yamada.
However, the application of Li to Yamada is to show that the graphite particles of Yamada may be oriented such that the main planes are facing each other and gathered and bound. That is, because Yamada does not provide an image, such as an SEM image, of the way in which the graphite particles are oriented, the incorporation of Li is to show how the flaky graphite of Yamada may be oriented such that the planes are facing each other. This is further possible because modified Yamada already provides the graphite particles, specific surface area characteristics, and particles size distribution as claimed and provided in the instant specification. So, Li does not need to provide that the graphite particles are applied in a negative electrode for a lithium-ion battery to be relevant to the disclosure of Yamada because the SEM image of Li is of graphite, which is the same material used by Yamada. Furthermore, Li shows in fig. 1a an SEM image of expandable graphite and in fig. 1b and 1c of expanded graphite. That is, fig. 1a, which still shows how the flaky graphite may have main planes facing each other, is graphite that has not yet been heat treated, and therefore the form of the SEM image is applicable to the graphite of Yamada. Furthermore, the expandable graphite of Li is not to replace the primary particles of Yamada. As before, the SEM images of Li is to only show that graphite material may have their main planes facing each other, and similarly the graphite particles in Yamada may likewise have their main planes facing each other.
Applicant further submits that Hou provides D10 of 11 μm and D90 of 30 μm in example 1, and D10 of 14.8 μm and D90 of 41 μm in example 2, wherein the BET specific surface areas of the particles are 4.8 m2/g and 4.2 m2/g respectively. Applicant further submits that the composite particles of Hou are likely to contain randomly oriented flat graphite particles as in comparative example 1 rather than having their main planes facing each other as claimed.
However, firstly, Hou is only applied to modify Yamada to provide a D90 and D10 range satisfying D90/D10 of from 2.0 to 4.4 as claimed. The BET specific surface area of the particle of Hou is not used to further modify Yamada, because Yamada already provides the BET specific surface area element. So, the primary particles of Hou do not completely replace the particles of Yamada. Modified Yamada already provides the BET specific surface area of particle falling within the claimed range of 0.5 to 2.0 m2/g, and therefore do not correspond with the randomly oriented flat graphite particles of comparative example 1.
The examiner further submits that in analyzing the instant specification and drawings, a correlation between the claimed flat graphite particles stacked “with their main planes facing each other, thereby being gathered or bound together” and the provided electron micrograph images are not fully commensurate with scope of the argument. Fig. 1a and 1b show example 1 of the instant specification, while figs. 2-4 show the comparative examples. Fig. 1b provides the cross-section of example 1 which shows that some particles are oriented vertically, some sideways, and some slanted, and there are some main planes facing and stacked with each other. However, comparative example 1, as shown in the cross-section image of fig. 2b, also shows that there are some particles oriented vertically, some sideways, and some slanted, and there are some main planes facing and stacked with each other. Similarly, comparative example 2 as shown in the cross-section image of fig. 3b, has particles that seem rounder, but still have main planes facing each other and tightly compacted to thereby be gathered or bound. Lastly, comparative example 3 shown in the cross-section image of fig. 4b shows a mix of larger and smaller particles, but there are still particles which may be seen as having their main planes facing each other. In other words, from the provided images of at least example 1 in fig. 1b compared to comparative example 1 in fig. 2b, one of ordinary skill in the art would not necessarily conclude that example 1 of fig. 1b provides particles having their main planes facing each other thereby being gathered or bound while comparative example 1 of fig. 2b does not.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-12, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US-20180013146-A1), and in further view of Hou (CN-1699479-A) (see translation) and Li; “Li, Yu Chao, Li, Robert Kwok Yiu, Tjong, Sie Chin, Frequency and Temperature Dependences of Dielectric Dispersion and Electrical Properties of Polyvinylidene Fluoride/Expanded Graphite Composites, Journal of Nanomaterials, 2010, 261748, 10 pages, 2010.”
Regarding claim 1, Yamada discloses a negative electrode material for lithium-ion secondary battery (see e.g., [0042]), the negative electrode material comprising composite particles, each of the composite particles having a structure in which a plurality of flat graphite particles are stacked (see e.g., Yamada; [0042], regarding invention A wherein graphite particles A and graphite particles B form a composite carbon material, or alternatively, [0053], regarding invention B wherein a shell layer surrounds a plurality of graphite particles, or alternatively, [0065]-[0067], [0075], regarding invention C wherein a composite carbon material is made of artificial graphite and natural graphite, or alternatively, [0077]-[0079], [0085], regarding invention D which is a composite carbon material comprised of a plurality of graphite particles). Yamada discloses the natural graphite Ba-Be may be flake graphite, scale-like graphite, or bulk graphite (see e.g., Yamada; [0178]), which are all flat graphite.
Yamada teaches in invention C a BET (which uses nitrogen adsorption measurement at 77K, see also [0581]) specific surface area of 17 m2/g or less (see e.g., Yamada; [0074]), and further provides the BET specific surface area most preferably 10 m2/g or less (see e.g., Yamada; [0304]), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 0.5 m2/g to less than 2.0 m2/g. Yamada further provides specific examples of composite particles that fall within the claimed range of 0.5 m2/g to 2.0 m2/g (see e.g., Yamada; tables A1, B1, C1, C4, D1, regarding examples such as experimental example A7 with specific surface area of 0.9 m2/g). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a particle with a specific surface area of 0.5-2.0 m2/g as disclosed by Yamada in order to sufficiently secure a site through which Li gets in and out, have excellent high-speed charging and discharging characteristics and output characteristics, and suppress activity of an active material with respect to an electrolytic solution (see e.g., Yamada; [0305]).
MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'."
Yamada does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of flat graphite have a particle size distribution D90/D10 of from 2.0 to 4.4. However, Hou teaches a material made with a plurality of flat graphite particles (see e.g., Hou; [0009]-[0011], [0014], [0016], regarding flake graphite, which is flat); wherein the plurality of flat graphite particles have a particle size distribution in example 1 of D90=30 μm and D10=11 μm such that D90/D10=2.73 (see e.g., Hou; [0014]), and a particle size distribution in example 2 of D90=41 μm and D10=14.8 μm such that D90/D10=2.77 (see e.g., Hou; [0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composite particles disclosed by Yamada such that the flat particles that comprise the composite particle have a D90/D10 of 2.73 or 2.77 as disclosed by Hou because the particle is low in cost, good in quality, has a high number of cycles, and a large reversible capacity, and also improves its particle size distribution and BET value, and increases its TAP value (see e.g., Hou; [0008]).
Modified Yamada teaches the flat graphite particles as described above. Yamada does not explicitly show how the graphite particles are stacked, so Yamada does not explicitly disclose a plurality of flat graphite particles are stacked with their main planes facing each other, thereby being gathered or bound together. However, Li discloses an expandable graphite materials that shows how a plurality of graphite particles are stacked with their main planes facing each other, thereby being gathered or bound (see e.g., Li; fig. 1a-b). Li is further analogous art to Yamada because Li emphasizes the improvements in electrical conductivity and mechanical property of the material (see e.g., Li; page 1 introduction paragraph 1), which is pertinent to application and functionality in batteries. Fig. 1a of Li shows expandable graphite, which is graphite prior to heat treating, and shows the flaky graphite having main planes facing each other. Li is further applicable because Li shows that the particle size in the SEM image is on the scale of 10-100 μm with some particles on the larger side and some particles on the smaller side. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the flat graphite particles of Yamada be stacked with their main planes facing each other as shown by Li in order to have high capacity, excellent filling properties, initial efficiency and productivity with efficiency (see e.g., Yamada; [0100]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yamada teaches the negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1. Yamada also teaches, such as in invention C, wherein the composite carbon material has D90/D10 of 2 to 10 (see e.g., Yamada; [0073]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 2.0 to 5.0. Similarly, in invention D, Yamada discloses an overlapping range of D90/D10≥3.5 (see e.g., Yamada; [0083]). Yamada emphasizes a most preferable range of D90/D10 of 3 to 5 (see e.g., Yamada; [0344]), which closely overlaps with the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the composite particle disclosed by modified Hou to have a D90/D10 of 3 to 5 disclosed by Yamada such that small particles enter a void between large particles, and thus filling properties of the carbon material for a non-aqueous secondary battery are improved such that high capacity, and excellent charging and discharging load characteristics and input and output characteristics are exhibited (see e.g., Yamada; [0344]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yamada teaches the negative electrode material for a lithium-ion battery according to claim 1. In addition, Yamada teaches that the natural graphite particles corresponding to the claimed flat graphite particles have the following similarities to the instant specifications: raw materials such as scale-like graphite, squamous (flake) graphite, bulk (vein) graphite (see e.g., Yamada [0178] compared to instant specification [0026]); average particle size D50 of preferably 3 μm to particularly preferably 20 μm or less (see e.g., Yamada [0192] compared to instant specification [0027] regarding the overlapping range with preferably 10 μm to 15 μm); an aspect ratio of 5 or greater (see e.g., Yamada [0187] compared to instant specification [0029] regarding the overlapping range with aspect ratio of 4 to 10); Raman R value of 0.05 to 0.5 (see e.g., Yamada [0202] compared to instant specification [0032] regarding the overlapping range of 0.2 or more).
Furthermore, as explained regarding claim 1 above, Hou may be applied to teach a particle size distribution D90/D10 that falls within the range of preferably 2.0 to 3.5.
Therefore, because the structural properties of the graphite particle disclosed by Yamada in combination with Hou are the same as the instant specification, it is the examiner’s position that the resulting graphite particle would have a ratio of peak intensities (P1/P2) of a diffraction peak (P1) of a (101) plane of a rhombohedral structure to a diffraction peak (P2) of a (101) plane of a hexagonal structure in an X-ray diffraction pattern by a CuKa ray, of 0.15 or less.
MPEP 2112 | states “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
Regarding claim 7, modified Yamada teaches the negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1. Yamada also teaches wherein: low-crystalline carbon is disposed on at least a part of a surface of the composite particles (see e.g., Yamada; [0178], [0182], wherein the graphite particles B may be a natural graphite such as amorphous graphite which is low-crystalline carbon, [0213], regarding the amorphous carbon may be in a shell layer in one embodiment and therefore on an outer surface of the composite particle). Yamada teaches the composite particle have a R value of preferably 0.03 to 0.4 (see e.g., Yamada; [0321]), which overlaps with the claimed composite particles at which low-crystalline carbon is disposed have an R value of 0.50 or less as measured by Raman spectroscopy.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yamada teaches the negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein: low-crystalline carbon is not disposed on a surface of the composite particles (see e.g., Yamada; [0042], [0053], [0067], [0079], [0178], regarding invention A-D wherein the graphite particles are not low-crystalline; embodiments that do not use amorphous graphite, and instead use flake graphite, scale graphite, or bulk graphite, are not low-crystalline, and therefore in these embodiments there is no low-crystalline particles on the surface of the composite particle).
Yamada teaches the composite particle have a R value of preferably 0.03 to 0.4 (see e.g., Yamada; [0321]), which overlaps with the claimed composite particles at which low-crystalline carbon is not disposed have an R value of 0.20 or less as measured by Raman spectroscopy.
MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'."
Regarding claim 9, modified Yamada teaches the negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein an oil absorption of the composite particles may be preferably 20 mL/100 to 60 mL/100g (see e.g., Yamada; [00332]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 15 mL/100g to 45 mL/100g.
MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'."
Regarding claim 10, modified Yamada teaches the negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1. Yamada also teaches that the natural graphite particles corresponding to the claimed flat graphite particles have the following similarities to the instant specifications: raw materials such as scale-like graphite, squamous (flake) graphite, bulk (vein) graphite (see e.g., Yamada [0178] compared to instant specification [0026]); average particle size D50 of preferably 3 μm to particularly preferably 20 μm or less (see e.g., Yamada [0192] compared to instant specification [0027] regarding the overlapping range with preferably 10 μm to 15 μm); an aspect ratio of 5 or greater (see e.g., Yamada [0187] compared to instant specification [0029] regarding the overlapping range with aspect ratio of 4 to 10); Raman R value of 0.05 to 0.5 (see e.g., Yamada [0202] compared to instant specification [0032] regarding the overlapping range of 0.2 or more).
Furthermore, as explained regarding claim 1 above, Hou may be applied to teach a particle size distribution D90/D10 that falls within the range of preferably 2.0 to 3.5.
Yamada also teaches that the composite particle has similar properties to the composite particle disclosed in the instant specification: an average particle size D50 of 15 μm to 25 μm (see e.g., Yamada [0273] compared to instant specification [0035] regarding the overlapping range of composite particle size from 12 to 20 μm); preferable range of D90/D10 of 3 to 5 (see e.g., Yamada [0344] compared to instant specification and claim 3 of 5 or less); invention C a BET specific surface area of 17 m2/g or less (see e.g., Yamada; [0074]) and BET specific surface area most preferably 10 m2/g or less (see e.g., Yamada; [0304]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 m2/g to 2.8 m2/g in claim 4; Yamada further provides specific examples of composite particles that fall within the claimed range of 0.5 m2/g to 2.8 m2/g (see e.g., Yamada; tables A1, B1, C1, C4, D1, regarding examples such as experimental example A3 with specific surface area of 0.9 m2/g); an oil absorption of the composite particles may be preferably 20 mL/100 to 60 mL/100g (see e.g., Yamada; [00332]), which overlaps with the claimed range in claim 9 of 15 mL/100g to 45 mL/100g.
Therefore, because the structural properties of the composite particle disclosed by Yamada in combination with Hou are the same as the instant specification, it is the examiner’s position that the resulting composite particle would inherently have springback amount of 40% or more, the springback amount being obtained by compressing the composite particles until the composite particles have a density of 1.8 g/cm3, releasing pressure therefrom, and dividing, by the density of 1.8 g/cm3, an absolute value of a difference between the density of 1.8 g/cm3 and a density of the composite particles after releasing the pressure.
Regarding claim 11, modified Yamada teaches a negative electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery (see e.g., Yamada; [0049]), the negative electrode comprising: a negative electrode material layer comprising the negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (see e.g., Yamada; [0050]); and a current collector (see e.g., Yamada; [0050]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yamada teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery (see e.g., Yamada; [0049]), comprising: the negative electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 11; a positive electrode (see e.g., Yamada; [0049]); and an electrolytic solution (see e.g., Yamada; [0049] and [0103]-[0105], [0109]-[0112], [0188] which specifically mention electrolytic solution).
Regarding claim 19, modified Yamada teaches the negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, and wherein the composite particles have a specific surface area of from 0.5 m2/g to 2.2 m2/g as measured by nitrogen adsorption measurement at 77 K (see above regarding claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, modified Yamada teaches the negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, and wherein the composite particles have a specific surface area of from 0.5 m2/g to 2.0 m2/g as measured by nitrogen adsorption measurement at 77 K (see above regarding claim 1).
Regarding claim 21, modified Yamada teaches the negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein low-crystalline carbon is not disposed on a surface of the composite particles (see e.g., Yamada; [0042], [0053], [0067], [0079], [0178], regarding invention A-D wherein the graphite particles are not low-crystalline; embodiments that do not use amorphous graphite, and instead use flake graphite, scale graphite, or bulk graphite, are not low-crystalline, and therefore in these embodiments there is no low-crystalline particles on the surface of the composite particle).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US-20180013146-A1), Hou (CN-1699479-A) (see translation), and Li; “Li, Yu Chao, Li, Robert Kwok Yiu, Tjong, Sie Chin, Frequency and Temperature Dependences of Dielectric Dispersion and Electrical Properties of Polyvinylidene Fluoride/Expanded Graphite Composites, Journal of Nanomaterials, 2010, 261748, 10 pages, 2010” as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Chung (KR-2019062319-A) (previously cited 06/04/2025).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yamada teaches the negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1. Yamada discloses the natural graphite may have a degree of graphitization, such as up to 100% of up to 99.9% (see e.g., [0178]). Yamada does not explicitly disclose wherein the composite particle has a degree of graphitization of from 93.0 to 98.0% as measured by an X-ray diffraction method. However, Chung teaches a graphite particle with a degree of graphitization of 97% to 99% as measured by XRD (see e.g., [0046]) which overlaps with the claimed range. Chung is analogous art because Chung similarly teaches graphite particles that are graphitized in the overlapping temperature range of 2800°C to 3000°C (see e.g., Chung [0055] and Yamada [0409]-[0416]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composite particles disclosed by Yamada to have a graphitization of 97% to 99% disclosed by Chung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide high capacity and rapid charging performance in harmony (see e.g., Chung; [0046]).
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 KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights