DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed September 10, 2025 were received. Claim 1 was amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 9 of Remarks that Mitchell ‘298, Mosso, and Goller do not disclose the claimed active material mixture and/or claimed binder.
In response, Mitchell ‘298, Mosso, and Goller are not required to disclose the claimed composition in order to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
In this case, the claimed apparatus and cited prior art devices are identical in structure. The claimed composition does not structurally or mechanically differentiate the claimed invention from the cited prior art devices. Applicant stated on record that independent claims 1 and 16 are not drawn to compositions of matter (Pg. 8 of Remarks filed September 10, 2025). The applicant has failed to establish how the prior art devices would be unable to apply the claimed compositions.
Applicant argues on Pg. 9 of Remarks that the previous Office action does not provide sufficient reasoning that Mosso establishes a prima facie case of anticipation of claim 16.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The basis for the rejection of claim 16 is supported by para [0083]-[0085] of Mosso and the rejection statement for claim 1 on Pg. 8 of the last Office action. Claims 1 and 16 recite substantially matching features except for claim 16 being directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
There is no new ground of rejection when the basic thrust of the rejection remains the same such that an appellant has been given a fair opportunity to react to the rejection. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302-03, 190 USPQ 425, 426-27 (CCPA 1976). Where the statutory basis for the rejection remains the same, and the evidence relied upon in support of the rejection remains the same, a change in the discussion of, or rationale in support of, the rejection does not necessarily constitute a new ground of rejection. Id. at 1303, 190 USPQ at 427. See MPEP 1207.03(a)(II).
Applicant argues on Pg. 10 of Remarks that the Mosso reference fails to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of claim 16 since the computer program of Mosso does not include the particular composition of the applied layer.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed composition in claim 16 is not required by the computer-readable medium or program instructions of the prior art in order to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. The applicant has failed to establish that a functional relationship exists between the programming (i.e., claimed instructions) and the intended computer system (i.e., claimed computer or processor). In other words, the computer-readable medium will not cause the computer to operate the dry powder application process any different regardless of the particular powder composition. Claims directed to a computer-readable medium are not examined as method claims.
Applicant argues on Pg. 11 of Remarks that claims 1 and 19 of the ‘017 Patent do not recite the claimed composition in claim 1 with regard to the double patenting rejection.
In response, a system claim may include compositions of matter as part of the system claim. However, unless the composition of matter corresponds to a structural or mechanical difference in the claimed apparatus (i.e., system), then instant claim 1 is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 19 of the ‘017 Patent. Claims 1 and 19 of the ‘017 Patent must have all mechanical claim features of claim 1. The applicant has failed to establish that the claimed composition amounts to merely more than a manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Election/Restrictions
The petition decision mailed on June 4, 2024 is acknowledged. Currently, the claim groupings are as follows:
Group I (elected) directed to claims 1-10, 16, and 21, wherein claim 16 is treated as a linking claim;
Group II (non-elected), directed to claims 11-20, wherein claim 16 is treated as a linking claim.
Claims 16 and 21 are rejoined.
Claim Interpretation
Claim limitation “(first or second) device for applying” in claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 16, and 21 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “applying” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term “device” is merely a generic placeholder for the term “means.”
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 16, and 21 has/have been interpreted to cover “a spray gun, brushing, a fluidized bed, doctor blading, or wiping with a rag” corresponding to structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (Spec., para 0026, 0033).
Claim limitation “first device” in claim 10 refers to the “first device for applying” in claim 1. This limitation has NOT been interpreted under or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, since the limitation is sufficiently modified by structure in the claim to include a grounding wire.
Claim limitation “mechanism for feeding the substrate” in claim 2 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language “feeding” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term “mechanism” is merely a generic placeholder for the term “means.”
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 2 has/have been interpreted to cover “a roller” corresponding to structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (Spec., para 0025).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claims rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn since applicant stated on record that independent claims 1 and 16 are not drawn to a composition of matter (Pg. 8 of Remarks filed September 10, 2025).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Mitchell (US 20050266298, cited in IDS).
Applicant’s specification reads as follows:
(Spec., para 0026) “First application region 110 includes a device 118 for applying a first layer to substrate 102 that includes a spray mechanism (such as a spray gun or other known devices for causing a spray) that is configured to spray 120 a first or base layer of a mix of material onto substrate 102. In general, although first application region 110 is described as having a spray mechanism or gun in order to apply material onto the substrate, and such is illustrated as “spray 120”, it is contemplated that any mechanism may be used to apply the material, to include painting, brushing, powder coating, using a fluidized bed, doctor blading, or wiping with a rag, as examples. In fact, in this and all subsequent application regions described, it is contemplated that a spray gun or other known spray device may be employed for applying first and subsequent layers to the substrate 102, or any mechanism may be used to apply the materials, as described above, and that the term “spray” may be applied to any mechanism or means that are used to apply a liquid to a surface” (Spec., para 0026).
Regarding claim 1, Mitchell teaches a solventless system for fabricating electrodes comprising:
a first dry, solventless application region comprising an upper roller 52 of a heated roll-mill (first device) mechanically configured to apply, via a dry dispersion application, a first upper electrode layer 34 to an electrode substrate 50 comprising a current collector (para 0118; see for example Fig. 3)
a heater (implicit of heated roll-mill; para 0119) configured to heat the first electrode layer 34 and/or the electrode substrate 50 during the first upper electrode layer 34 to the electrode substrate 50 to bind the first upper electrode layer 34 to the electrode substrate 50 (para 0118-0119; see for example Fig. 3).
Mitchell further teaches that the first upper electrode layer 34 comprises a dry mixture 20 of an active material mixture (i.e., activated carbon 12, conductive particles 14, binder 16), a binder 23, and a conductive material 21 (para 0076-0077, 0104-0105; see for example Figs. 1a and 2a,b).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See MPEP 2111.04.
In this case, the limitation “an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; a conductive material” refers to the coating composition and does not further structurally limit the apparatus as claimed since the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself (see MPEP 2115).
The apparatus of Mitchell is mechanically configured to deposit various compositions, including the claimed compositions, since there is no mechanical or structural difference between the apparatus of Mitchell and the claimed invention (see MPEP 2114(I)).
Regarding claim 2, Mitchell further teaches rollers (mechanism) for feeding the electrode substrate 50 through the system (para 0118; see for example Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Mitchell further teaches that the rollers (mechanism) for feeding the electrode substrate 50 is a roller assembly that comprises at least one chill roll 56 (mandrel) used to compress the electrode substrate 50 after the first upper electrode layer 34 has been applied thereto (para 0119; see for example Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 9, Mitchell further teaches the heated roll-mill 52 applies the first electrode layer 34 to each of opposing sides of the electrode substrate 50 (para 0119; see for example Fig. 3).
Claims 1, 9, 16, and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Mosso (US 20110143019, already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Mosso teaches a solventless system for fabricating electrodes comprising:
a first dry, solventless application station 212 (region) comprising an aerosol sprayer (first device) configured to apply, via a dry dispersion application, a first electrode layer to an electrode substrate comprising a current collector material (see para 0030 for “dry process” and “aerosol spraying”, para 0044, 0076, 0091); and
integrated heater/implicit of annealing (first heater) configured to heat the first electrode layer and/or the electrode substrate during and/or after application of the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate to bind the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate (see para 0060 for “integrated heater”, see para 0073 for “annealing”).
Mosso further teaches the first electrode layer comprises an active material mixture, a binder, and a conductive material (para 0034-0035).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See MPEP 2111.04.
In this case, the limitation “an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; a conductive material” refers to the coating composition and does not further structurally limit the apparatus as claimed since the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself (see MPEP 2115).
The apparatus of Mosso is mechanically configured to deposit various compositions, including the claimed compositions, since there is no mechanical or structural difference between the apparatus of Mosso and the claimed invention (see MPEP 2114(I)).
Regarding claim 9, Mosso further teaches the aerosol sprayer (first device) applies the first electrode layer to each of opposing sides of the electrode substrate (para 0032-0033).
Regarding claims 16 and 21, Mosso further teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions which are executed by a computer to cause a processor to operate the system of Mosso in the claimed manner (para 0083-0085; see claim 1 rejection above as being anticipated by Mosso).
Claims 1, 2, and 3 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Goller (USP 4175055, already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Goller teaches a solventless system for fabricating electrodes comprising:
a first application region comprising a chamber 16 (first device) configured to apply, via a dry dispersion application, a first electrode layer to an electrode substrate 12 (col. 4, lines 67-68 through col. 5, lines 1-29; see Figure for example) comprising a current collector (col. 5, lines 62-68 through col. 6, lines 1-30); and
an oven 32 (first heater) configured to heat the first electrode layer and/or the electrode substrate 12 during and/or after application of the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate 12 to bind the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate 12 (col. 5, lines 55-61; col. 3, lines 34-41; see Figure for example).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See MPEP 2111.04.
In this case, the limitation “an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; a conductive material” refers to the coating composition and does not further structurally limit the apparatus as claimed since the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself (see MPEP 2115).
The apparatus of Goller is mechanically configured to deposit various compositions, including the claimed compositions, since there is no mechanical or structural difference between the apparatus of Goller and the claimed invention (see MPEP 2114(I)).
Regarding claim 2, Goller further teaches a conveyor belt 12 (mechanism) for feeding the electrode substrate 12 through the system (col. 4, lines 67-68 through col. 5, lines 1-13; see Figure for example).
Regarding claim 3, Goller further teaches that the (mechanism) for feeding the electrode substrate 12 is a conveyor belt 12 (roller assembly) that comprises rollers 28, 30 (at least one mandrel) used to compress the electrode substrate 20 after the electrode layer has been applied thereto (col. 5, lines 55-61; see Figure for example).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 20050266298, cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Mitchell (US 20050186473, cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Mitchell ‘298 further teaches the first device is a heated roll-mill (para 0119; see for example Fig. 3).
Mitchell ‘298 does not explicitly teach that the heated roll-mill is configured to heat a first lower surface of the electrode substrate 50 that is opposite a second upper surface of the electrode substrate 50 to which the first upper layer 34 is applied.
However, Mitchell ‘473 teaches a lower roll heater (implicit of heated roll 215) configured to heat the first lower surface of electrode substrate 425 within a first application region, that is opposite a second upper surface of the electrode substrate 202, while a first upper electrode layer 204 is applied to the second upper surface, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 202 and upper electrode layer 204 (para 0041; see for example Fig. 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the first heater at the lower roller 52 opposite of the first upper electrode layer 34 in Mitchell ‘298 such that both rollers are heated, as taught by Mitchell ‘473, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 34 and upper electrode layer 50.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 20050266298, cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Brooks (USP 3167442, already of record).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, as mentioned above, Mitchell further teaches the first device is a heated roll-mill (para 0119; see for example Fig. 3).
Mitchell does not explicitly teach a first heater configured to heat the first opposite, lower surface of the electrode substrate 50 after the first upper electrode layer 34 is applied to the second upper surface of the electrode substrate 50.
However, Brooks teaches a lower induction coil 17 (first heater) configured to heat a lower surface of a sheet metal 6 (substrate) after a first upper powder layer 26 is applied to an upper surface of the sheet metal 6 (substrate), for the benefit of bonding the powder layer to the surface of the sheet metal (col. 2, lines 58-67; col. 4, lines 33-42; see for example Fig. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the first heater after the first upper electrode layer 34 is applied to the second upper surface of the electrode substrate 50 in Mitchell, as taught by Brooks, for the benefit of bonding the first upper electrode layer 34 to the surface of the second upper surface of the electrode substrate 50.
Claims 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 20050266298, cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Mitchell (US 20050186473, cited in IDS) and Brooks (USP 3167442, already of record).
Regarding claims 4, 7, and 8, Mitchell ‘298 further teaches a lower roller 52 (“third” device) of heated roll-mill 52 within the first application region that applies a “third” electrode layer 34 to the first lower surface of electrode substrate 50 (para 0119; see for example Fig. 3).
Mitchell ‘298 does not explicitly teach that the lower roller 52 of heated roll-mill is configured to heat the first lower surface of the electrode substrate 50 that is opposite a second upper surface of the electrode substrate 50 to which the first upper layer 34 is applied.
However, Mitchell ‘473 teaches a lower roll heater (implicit of heated roll 215) configured to heat the first lower surface of electrode substrate 425 within a first application region, that is opposite a second upper surface of the electrode substrate 202, while a first upper electrode layer 204 is applied to the second upper surface, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 202 and upper electrode layer 204 (para 0041; see for example Fig. 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the first heater at the lower roller 52 opposite of the first upper electrode layer 34 in Mitchell ‘298 such that both rollers are heated, as taught by Mitchell ‘473, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 34 and upper electrode layer 50.
Mitchell ‘298 does not explicitly teach a second heater positioned to heat the first electrode layer 34 after the first electrode layer 34 is applied to the upper second surface of the electrode substrate 50.
However, Brooks teaches an upper induction coil 17 (second heater) configured to heat an upper surface of a sheet metal 6 (substrate) after a first upper powder layer 26 is applied to an upper surface of the sheet metal 6 (substrate), for the benefit of bonding the powder layer to the surface of the sheet metal (col. 2, lines 58-67; col. 4, lines 33-42; see for example Fig. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange another (i.e., “second”) heater after the first upper electrode layer 34 is applied to the second upper surface of the electrode substrate 50 in Mitchell ‘298, as taught by Brooks, for the benefit of bonding the first upper electrode layer 34 to the surface of the second upper surface of the electrode substrate 50.
Mitchell ‘298 does not explicitly teach a “second” application region comprising a “second” device to apply a second electrode layer to the first upper electrode layer 34, wherein the second electrode layer comprises the active material mixture and the binder; or a “third” heater to heat the second electrode layer.
However, as mentioned above, Mitchell ‘298 teaches providing an application region comprising an upper roller 52 of a heated roll-mill (first device) to apply an electrode layer 34 (para 0118; see for example Fig. 3); and a heater (implicit of heated roll-mill; para 0119) to bind the first upper electrode layer 34 (para 0118-0119; see for example Fig. 3).
Therefore, in view of Mitchell ‘298 and In re Harza, a case of prima facie obviousness exists to provide additional rollers (devices) and heaters to apply additional electrode layers with a reasonable expectation of success. The duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a second application region comprising a second device to apply an additional electrode layer to the first upper electrode layer 34 and current collector 50; and provide an additional heater to bind the additional electrode layer, for the benefit of applying additional electrode layers and obtain a desired layer thickness and density.
The test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goller (USP 4175055, already of record) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Wirth (USP 3386416, already of record).
Regarding claim 10, Goller does not explicitly teach a grounding wire electrically coupled to the electrode substrate 12 when the chamber 16 (first device) applies the first electrode layer to the substrate 12.
However, Wirth teaches a grounding wire 17 electrically coupled to a substrate 2 when a container 4 (device) apples a layer to the substrate 2, for the benefit of assuring adhesive to the substrate and improving deposition uniformity (col. 2, lines 38-55; col. 3, lines 1-11; see for example Fig. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to electrically couple a grounding wire to the electrode substrate 12 when the chamber 16 (first device) applies the first electrode layer to the substrate 12 in Goller, as taught by Wirth, for the benefit of assuring adhesive to the substrate and improving deposition uniformity.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-10 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11394017 (US App. No. 17/302,944).
Claims 1 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11394017 claim all the structural limitations set forth in instant independent claim 1.
The limitation “an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; a conductive material” refers to the coating composition and does not patentably distinguish the claimed apparatus in instant claim 1 from claims 1 and 19 of USP 11394017. The manner or method in which it is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself (see MPEP 2115).
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claims 2-10 and 21 depend on 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 CHARLES CAPOZZI whose telephone number is (571)270-3638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00pm.
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, DAH-WEI YUAN can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717