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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on January 23, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received January 23, 2026:
Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are pending. Claim 4 has been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous prior art rejection is maintained.
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, 5-7, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2019/0214639) in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0212423) and Zhang et al. (US 2019/0051893).
Regarding Claim 1, Cho et al. teaches a positive active material for a rechargeable lithium battery (Para. [0006]) comprising a large-sized lithium cobalt-based oxide (Para. [0093]) (i.e. a first positive active material comprising a lithium cobalt-based oxide) comprising wherein the lithium cobalt-based oxide has a chemical formula including M1 (Para. [0020]) which may be Al (Para. [0021]) wherein M1 is doped in the cobalt site of the oxide particles (Para. [0027]) (i.e. doped with aluminum) and comprises a surface layer including Zr (Para. [0033]) formed by a coating process (Para. [0096]) (i.e. and coated with zirconium) wherein the average particle diameter D50 is about 15 micrometers (Para. [0093]) and comprising small-sized Li1.025Co0.9773Mg0.01Al0.0127O2 (i.e. a second positive active material comprising a lithium cobalt-based oxide doped with aluminum and coated with zirconium, a doping amount of aluminum based on a total weight of the lithium cobalt-based oxide is about 0.35 wt% [using the formula (0.0127 mol*26.98 g/ mol)/(total molecular weight or 97.29g)] wherein the average particle diameter D50 is about 4.5 micrometers (Para. [0093]) (i.e. wherein a particle diameter of the second positive active material is smaller than a particle diameter of the first positive active material) wherein the surface layer including Zr as a first element (Para. [0034]).
Cho et al. does not teach in the first positive active material, a doping amount of aluminum based on a total weight of the lithium cobalt-based oxide is about 0.50 wt% to about 0.80 wt% nor a coating amount of zirconium based on a total weight of the positive active material is about 0.10 wt% to about 0.15 wt%.
However, Park et al. teaches a cobalt-based first positive electrode active material (Para. [0013], Formula 1) having a particle diameter of 10 micrometers or more (Para. [0038]) wherein the first positive electrode active material comprises a doping element M1 which includes aluminum (Para. [0014], [0016]), the doping element being included in an amount of 100 to 10,000 ppm (Para. [0063]), e.g. 5,500 ppm or 0.55 wt% (i.e. 0.01 wt% to 1%, overlapping with the claimed doping amount of aluminum based on a total weight of the lithium cobalt-based oxide is about 0.50 wt% to about 0.80 wt%).
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 doping amount of the first positive electrode active material of Cho et al. to incorporate the teaching of a doping amount of aluminum as taught by Park et al., as such a doping amount provides improved structural stability and lifetime of the battery (Para. [0063]). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. does not teach a coating amount of zirconium based on a total weight of the positive active material is about 0.10 wt% to about 0.15 wt%.
However, Zhang et al. teaches a positive electrode material comprising a coating wherein the content of the element Zr in the positive electrode material is for example 1000 ppm (Para. [0053]) (i.e. 0.10 wt%) or 1500 ppm (Para. [0054]) (i.e. 0.15 wt%) (i.e. teaches examples within the claimed range of a coating amount of zirconium based on a total weight of the positive active material is about 0.10 wt% to about 0.15 wt%.
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 surface layer of Cho et al. containing Zr to incorporate the teaching of a coating amount of zirconium based on a total weight of the positive active material of 0.10 wt% or 0.15 wt%, as such an amount could suppress C-axis change during delithiation (Para. [0015]) providing a stabilized positive electrode material structure and avoiding irreversible transformation of the crystal structure at high operation voltage (Para. [0014]).
Regarding Claim 2, Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Cho et al. further teaches the positive active material comprising small-sized Li1.025Co0.9773Mg0.01Al0.0127O2 (Para. [0093]) (i.e. the lithium-cobalt-based oxide of the second positive active material represented by Chemical Formula 2 of the instant claim, as a = 1.025, x2 = 0.9773, y2 = 0.0127, M2 is Mg, z2 = 0.01, x2+y2+z2=1 and b = 0).
Cho et al. does not teach the lithium cobalt-based oxide of the first positive active material is represented by Chemical Formula 1 of the instant claim.
However, Park et al. further teaches a cobalt-based first positive electrode active material (Para. [0013], Formula 1) having a particle diameter of 10 micrometers or more (Para. [0038]) wherein the first positive electrode active material is represented by Formula 1 which is LiCo1-aM1aO2 (Para. [0031]) wherein M1 includes aluminum and 0≤a≤0.2 (Para. [0032]) (and thus, at the very least overlapping with Chemical Formula 1 of the instant claim, as the Formula 1 of Park et al. may be LiCo0.98Al0.02O2, wherein a1 = 1, x1 = 0.98, y1 = 0.02, z1 = 0 and b1 = 0).
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 large-sized active material of Cho et al. to incorporate the teaching of the composition as taught by Park et al., as such a composition would provide a structurally stable positive electrode active material, and increased volume capacity of the battery (Para. [0064])
Regarding Claim 3, Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches an Al weight of the first positive active material of e.g., 0.55 wt% (see section 10 above, as taught by Park ) and a Zr weight of the positive active material of about 0.10 wt% or 0.15 wt% (see section 10 above, as taught by Zhang et al. – Para. [0053-0054]). Thus, the natural result of the combination of prior art elements would at the very least overlap with the claimed range a ratio of an Al weight of the first positive active material to a Zr weight of the positive active material is about 3.3 to about 8.0, as 0.55:0.1 is 5.5 and 0.55:0.15 is 3.6. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). See also 2112(IV).
See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Park et al. and Zhang et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 5, Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Cho et al. further teaches the large-sized positive active material (i.e. the first positive active material) having an average particle diameter D50 of 15 micrometers (Para. [0093]), within the claimed range of about 13 to 25 micrometers.
Regarding Claim 6, Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Cho et al. further teaches the small-sized positive active material (i.e. the second positive active material) having an average particle diameter D50 of 4.5 micrometers (Para. [0093]), within the claimed range of about 2 to 6 micrometers.
Regarding Claim 7, Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Cho et al. further teaches the large-sized positive active material (i.e. the first positive active material) having an average particle diameter D50 of 15 micrometers (Para. [0093]) (i.e. a = 15) and the small-sized positive active material (i.e. the second positive active material) having an average particle diameter D50 of 4.5 micrometers (Para. [0093]) (i.e. b = 4.5), and thus, satisfies the claimed average particle diameter relationship of 3b≤a≤4b, as 13.5≤15≤18.
Regarding Claim 9, Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above
Cho et al. further teaches a positive electrode slurry comprising the small and large particles coated on an Al foil (i.e. a positive active material layer wherein the positive active material layer comprises the positive active material of claim 1, and a current collector [Al foil] wherein a positive active material layer is on the current collector) to fabricate a positive electrode (Para. [0094]) for a rechargeable lithium battery (Para. [0008]) (i.e. a positive electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery).
Regarding Claim 12, Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above
Cho et al. further teaches a positive electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery (i.e. a rechargeable lithium battery comprising the positive electrode of claim 9), a negative electrode and an electrolyte solution (i.e. electrolyte) (Para. [0008]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2019/0214639) in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0212423) and Zhang et al. (US 2019/0051893) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kitada et al. (US 2021/0288322).
Regarding Claim 10, Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above
Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. does not teach the positive electrode has a loading level of about 15 mg/cm2 to about 25 mg/cm2.
However, Kitada et al. teaches a positive electrode using a lithium-cobalt composite oxide (Para. [0041]) wherein the area density of the positive electrode is 20 mg/cm2 to 50 mg/cm2 (i.e. a loading level of the positive electrode overlapping with the claimed range of about 15 mg/cm2 to about 25 mg/cm2) (Para. [0245]).
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 positive electrode of Cho et al. to incorporate the teaching of the area density as taught by Kitada et al., as such a loading level makes it easier to satisfy a degree of durability, such that occurrence of a crack in a positive electrode is suppressed even if the battery swells during charging (Para. [0222]). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 11, Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above
Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. does not teach the positive electrode has a mixture density of about 3.8 g/cc to about 4.2 g/cc.
However, Kitada et al. teaches a positive electrode using a lithium-cobalt composite oxide (Para. [0041]) wherein the volume density is from 3.5 g/cm3 to 4.3 g/cm3 (i.e. a mixture density of the positive electrode overlapping with the claimed range of about 3.8 g/cc to about 4.2 g/cc) (Para. [0245]).
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 positive electrode of Cho et al. to incorporate the teaching of the volume density as taught by Kitada et al., as such a loading level makes it easier to satisfy a degree of durability, such that occurrence of a crack in a positive electrode is suppressed even if the battery swells during charging (Para. [0222]). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2019/0214639) in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0212423) and Zhang et al. (US 2019/0051893) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2006/0257745).
Regarding Claim 8, Cho et al. as modified by Park et al. and Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Cho et al. does not teach the first positive active material in an amount of about 60 wt% to about 90 wt% and the second positive active material is in an amount of about 10 wt% to about 40 wt% based on a total amount of the first positive active material and the second positive active material.
However, Choi et al. teaches a composite cathode active material comprising large diameter cathode active material (i.e. a first positive electrode active material) and a small diameter cathode active material (i.e. a second positive electrode active material) which may be a lithium cobalt-based oxide (Para. [0031]) wherein the weight ratio of the large to the small diameter active material ranges from 60:40 to 90:10 (Para. [0034]) (i.e. the first positive active material is in an amount within the claimed range of about 60 wt% to about 90 wt%, and the second positive active material is in an amount within the claimed range of about 10 wt% to about 40 wt% based on a total amount of the first positive active material and the second positive active material).
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 first and second positive electrode active materials of Cho et al. to incorporate the teaching of the large to the small diameter active material weight ratio, as it would increase the final packing ratio of the particles, providing a high packing density (Para. [0034]], providing improved volume density, resulting in batteries with improved volume capacities and improved charge/discharge characteristics (Para. [0038]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues claim 1 is based on differential doping for a homogeneous LCO—LCO bimodal system, the reference to “5,500 ppm” is arbitrarily selected and based on impermissible hindsight.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., differential doping for a homogeneous LCO—LCO bimodal system) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, 5,500 ppm was simply stated as an example of a value within the range taught by Park et al. (hence, “e.g.” 5,500 ppm) to clarify and demonstrate that the range taught by Park et al. was an overlapping range with the claimed range, as Park et al. teaches the doping element being included in an amount of 100 to 10,000 ppm 202(Para. [0063]), e.g. 5,500 ppm or 0.55 wt% (i.e. 0.01 wt% to 1%, overlapping with the claimed doping amount of aluminum based on a total weight of the lithium cobalt-based oxide is about 0.50 wt% to about 0.80 wt%). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As the current rejection of record takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not rely upon knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, no improper hindsight reasoning was used.
Applicant argues the numerical range of 100 ppm to 10,000 ppm does not refer to the concentration of Al alone, but rather to the total dopant element M1 and thus, no effect of high-concentration aluminum alone is disclosed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Park et al. teaches M1 may include at least one metallic element selected from the group consisting of Al, Ti, Mg and Zr. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage selecting one element (as Park teaches at least one) and selecting Al from the list of four elements. A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." See MPEP 2131.02. Thus, the teaching of the effect of amount of doping element affecting structural stability and lifetime of the battery is reasonably applicable and the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues there no motivation or rationale to coordinate or correlate the zirconium coating amount and Al doping, the technical concept of Park is different from the present invention, and there is no reasonable expectation of success .
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the rejection above has explained the motivations to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success as Park teaches doping a lithium cobalt-based oxide (Para. [0058]) having a particle diameter of 10 micrometers or more (Para. [0038]) (i.e. reasonably applicable to the large-sized particles of Cho et al.) and Zhang et al. teaches coating a lithium cobalt-based oxide positive active material with zirconium (Para. [0053]) and thus, there is reasonable expectation of success in applying the teaching to another lithium cobalt-based oxide positive active material, such as the positive active material taught by Cho et al.. In response to applicant's argument that Park does not teach strategic aluminum allocation and other results obtained by the instant application, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “claimed performance metrics”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues unexpected results regarding the Al doping amount and coating amount of Zr in Figures 9-12, and Tables 3 and 4 regarding discharge capacity and charge and discharge efficiency.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Furthermore, applicant appears to be arguing unexpected results. However, the burden to show unexpected results, as required by MPEP 716.02 has not been provided. Examiner suggests Applicant review MPEP 716.02 in full to see the burden that must be met to show unexpected results. For example, the requirements of 716.02(d) have not been met. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Regarding Figure 9, for example, the Examples 1, 2 and 3 only provide one value of the Al doping of first active material and one value of the Al doping of second appositive electrode active material; there is no demonstration of the upper bounds (i.e. at 0.15 wt%) of the claimed zirconium range, and there is only one comparative example outside the Zr coating amount. Regarding Figure 10, for example, the Examples 5, 6 and 7 only provide one value of the Al doping of first active material and one value of the Al doping of second appositive electrode active material; there is no demonstration of the upper bounds (i.e. at 0.15 wt%) of the claimed zirconium range, and there is only one comparative example outside the Zr coating amount. Regarding Figure 11, for example, the Examples 8, 9 and 10 only provide one value of the Al doping of first active material and one value of the Al doping of second appositive electrode active material; there is no demonstration of the upper bounds (i.e. at 0.15 wt%) of the claimed zirconium range, and there is only one comparative example outside the Zr coating amount. Regarding Figure 12, for example, the Examples 5, 6 and 7 only provide one value of the Al doping of first active material and one value of the Al doping of second appositive electrode active material; there is no demonstration of the upper bounds (i.e. at 0.15 wt%) of the claimed zirconium range, and there are only comparative example outside the Zr coating amount and no demonstrations above and below the claimed Al doping amounts. Regarding Tables 3 and 4, for example, Examples 5, 6 and 7 only provide one value of the Al doping of first active material and one value of the Al doping of second appositive electrode active material; there is no demonstration of the upper bounds (i.e. at 0.15 wt%) of the claimed zirconium range. In Table 3, Example 7 and Comparative Example 3-2 show a 0.1% difference in efficiency and a 0.5 mAh/g difference in discharge capacity (i.e. 0.26% difference). In Table 4, Example 7 and Comparative Example 3-2 show a 0.1% difference in efficiency. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Thus, the requirements of 716.02(b) have not been met. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art teach a broader ranges than Claim 7, 10-11 and is thus a teaching away and uses impermissible hindsight.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The teaching of a broader range does not discredit, criticize or otherwise discourage the claimed range. In order to teach away, the reference must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed (In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP 2145. As the current rejection of record takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not rely upon knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, no improper hindsight reasoning was used. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for similar reasons as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729