DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Examiner Note
The examiner would like to note the following breath of the limitations in the independent claims. Independent claims require an active material comprised of: lithium, transition metals, and an oxygen layer. The breath of this claim is that it includes virtually every lithium metal oxide that is used in cathode material. There exists over three dozen transition metals and when one considers possible combinations such as such as NMC, LAMO, LNMCAO, etc. the breath of the claim quickly balloons. Furthermore, the requirement of a first and second element other than one of the elements in the active material means that the first element maybe 1 of ~100 elements and the second element may be 1 of ~100 elements.
The examiner wanted to make this note in an effort to expedite prosecution. Claim amendments and arguments have not been presented to address the breath of these limitations. However, the examiner suspects that at some point there will need to be a discussion on this matter. Addressing them now may limit future office actions/RCE’s/Interviews/etc.
Claim Interpretation
Each independent claim recites “the defect layer is parallel to a 003 crystal plane of the layered cathode material matrix”. This is recited in the instant specification, for instance, [0014], [0016], [0069], [0092], [0099]. There is no clear definition for “parallel to a 003 crystal plane” as such if any defect is parallel to any 003 crystal plane, then the limitation is met.
The examiner notes that there is nothing that recites the relative positions between the parallel defect layer and the 003 crystal plane. As such the two layers in question may be spaced apart by any distance and may be parallel either along the surface of the active material, within the active material itself, or a combination of the two.
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, 4-14, 19-24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (WO 2018207049 A1) in view of Hong (KR20190024680A) and as evidenced by US2020176770A1 and Karino (Ionics, 2016, 22, 991-995).
Regarding claim 1, 19, and 22, Takahashi disclose a lithium-ion battery cathode material [0008-0009, Takahashi], wherein the lithium-ion battery cathode material comprises a layered cathode material matrix and a defect layer [0046-0053, fig. 1, Takashi. The examiner is interpreting crystal defect (105) and grain boundaries (103) to both be considered as a defect layer]; the layered cathode material matrix comprises body layers and lithium layers [0050-0056, Takahashi discloses a composite oxide having a layered rock salt type crystal structure, including but not limited to LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2, which are known to comprise a body layer (anion, transition metal oxides) and a lithium layer (cation, lithium) as can be seen in US2020176770A1 [0092-0093, fig. 3] or Karino [fig. 1]], and the body layer comprises a transition metal layer and an oxygen layer [0050-0056, Takahashi discloses a composite oxide having a layered rock salt type crystal structure, such as LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 which are known to have a body layer comprised of transition metals and oxygen see Karino [fig. 1]]; a first element in the defect layer fills a gap between the body layers [fig. 2, fig. 31, fig. 37, Takahashi discloses that the first element (magnesium) is found in the gaps between the body layers], and when a periodic arrangement of atoms comprised in the defect layer is different from that of atoms comprised in the matrix [0036, 0048, 0050-0056, 0077-0093, 0097, Takahashi discloses that the grain boundary layer (defect layer) comprises magnesium and fluorine as such this would give a different periodic arrangement of atoms compared to the atoms listed in the cathode active material], the defect layer and the layered cathode material matrix have different interlayer spacings (This claim language holds little meaning as different solid materials/crystals would have different interlayer spacings. For instance, a solid comprised of lithium, nickel, manganese, cobalt, and oxygen would have different interlayer spacings than a solid comprised of magnesium and fluorine); or when an element comprised in the defect layer is different from an element comprised in the matrix [0036, 0048, 0050-0056, 0077-0093, 0097, Takahashi discloses that grain boundary (defect layer) comprises magnesium and fluorine while the active material comprises elements other than magnesium and fluorine], the defect layer comprises a first element or a second element [0097, Takahashi discloses the grain boundary (defect layer) comprises magnesium and fluorine], content of the first element or the second element in the defect layer is greater than or equal to that in the layered cathode material matrix [0033-0034, fig. 2, Takahashi discloses crystal defects and grain boundaries have higher concentrations of magnesium and fluorine], and the first element is different from the second element [0097, Takahashi, the first element is magnesium and the second is fluorine],
In regards to the claim limitation of “the defect layer is parallel to a 003 crystal plane of the layered cathode material matrix” the examiner notes the following.
The instant specification starts with sintering and cooling of the cathode material to form an intermediate having a defect layer which is then ground down into smaller pieces [0073-0074], followed by second a second sintering with the first and second element to introduce them into the crystal layer followed by grinding to obtain the final product [0075-0076]. During the first step a lithium source and a transition metal (hydr)oxide are placed in a furnace and heated to 800-1100oC for 8-20 hours followed by cooling to room temp obtain the intermediate cathode material with defects [0073-0074, 0080-0083, 0090]. The first and second element are then added to the intermediate product which is then heated at a temperature ranging from 600-1000oC for 6-12 hours.
Takashi notes that a lithium source, transition metal source (e.g. cobalt (tetr)oxide, cobalt hydroxide, aluminum metal) [0080, 0094, Takashi; 0080, 0089-0090, instant spec] along with a magnesium and fluorine source (e.g. magnesium fluoride) [0093, Takashi; 0086, instant spec]. The materials are then mixed and heated at a range of 800-1050oC for 2-20 hours [0104, Takashi], followed by cooling to room temp and crushed [0106, Takashi]. Doing so produces a composite oxide containing lithium and transition metals in the crystal grains and wherein magnesium and fluorine are in a state of being solid-dissolved in the composite oxide [0105, ]. Next the crushed intermediate material is heated to 700-1000oC for 2-35 hours [0107, Takashi]. Doing so allows for the magnesium and fluorine (first and second element) into the material grain boundary.
Both the instant invention and Takashi produce a layered rock salt type crystal with a first and second element in or near a grain boundary by first making the lithium transition metal oxide via heating at high temperatures at ranging from 800oC to ~1100oC for 20 hours or less followed by cooling to room temp and crushing the intermediate product [0082, 0090, instant; 0104, 0106, Takashi]. Next a second heating at high temperatures (~900oC) [0084, instant; 0107, Takashi] allows for the first and second materials to be incorporated into the grain boundary [0066, instant; 0108, Takashi].
As such, the first and second element of Takashi would inherently be in a defect layer parallel to the 003 crystal plane, see MPEP 2112.
"[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).
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977).
Takahashi further discloses that the width of the crystal grain boundaries are 1-10 nm [0326, Takahashi].
Takahashi is silent to the length of the crystal defects (105) and grain boundary (103).
However, Hong discloses a cathode material, wherein the longer dimensions of the filling layer is 10 nm to 2000 nm [0087, Hong discloses a grain boundary length of 50-1000 nm which reads on the claimed range] in at least another direction.
The work of Takahashi and Hong are analogous as they both relate to a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery. Wherein both Takahashi [citations for Takahashi can be found throughout the office action] and Hong [0023, 0140 Hong] fill in a grain boundary (defect layer) with a material other than the active material.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would be motivated to modify Takahashi’s grain boundary size to be that of the grain boundary size disclosed by Hong as it is possible to provide further improved charge/discharge characteristics within the range of this grain boundary length and thickness [0087, Hong].
In regards to claim 19, in addition to the rejected limitations above, Takashi also discloses a lithium-ion battery [0008-0009, fig. 5 Takahashi], wherein the lithium-ion battery comprises a cathode plate [0173, fig. 5b (304), Takahashi], an anode plate [0173, fig. 5b (307), Takahashi], an electrolyte [0155, Takahashi], and an isolation film disposed between the cathode and anode plates [0165-0170, 0176, fig. 5b (310), Takahashi discloses the use of a separator, which the examiner is interpreting to be equivalent to an isolation film], wherein the cathode plate comprises a cathode current collector (305) and a cathode active material (306) layer distributed on the cathode current collector [0173, fig. 5b], and the cathode active material layer is the lithium-ion battery cathode material [0119-0120, Takahashi].
In regards to claim 22, in addition to the rejected limitations above, Takashi discloses the cathode material containing at least one of lithium cobalt oxide or ternary material (nickel-manganese-cobalt) [0052-0053, Takashi].
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein an ionic radius of the first element ranges from 0.04 nm to 0.08 nm [0092, 0097, Takahashi, the first element is magnesium which Takahashi discloses can come from a number of sources that are not elemental magnesium. As such, magnesium is present as an ion and its atomic radii would be 0.079 nm which reads on the claimed range].
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein the first element comprises at least one of Mg, Al, Ni, Mn, Ca, Fe, Ga, Ti, Mo, W, Zn, B, or Sn [0031-0034, 0048, 0097, Takahashi].
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein the defect layer further comprises the second element [0033-0034, 0048, 0097, Takahashi], and content of the second element in the defect layer is greater than or equal to that in the layered cathode material matrix [0033-0034, fig. 2, Takahashi discloses crystal defects and grain boundaries have higher concentrations of fluorine (the second element)]; and the second element in the defect layer fills the gap between the body layers [fig. 2, fig. 31, fig. 37, Takahashi discloses that the second element (fluorine) is found in the gaps between the body layers], or ions formed by the second element in the defect layer replace anions in the layered cathode material matrix.
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein the second element is at least one of F, Cl, C, S, or P [0033-0034, 0048, 0097, Takahashi discloses that the use of fluorine].
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi discloses the cathode material, , wherein electronegativity of the second element is higher than electronegativity of the oxygen element [0033-0034, 0048, 0097, Takahashi. Oxygen is the second most electronegative element and fluorine is the most electronegative element].
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein bond energy of an ionic bond formed between the first element and the second element is greater than bond energy of an ionic bond formed between the transition metal and the oxygen in the layered cathode material matrix [0052, 0092-0093, Takahashi discloses that the layered rock-salt type crystal structure may be represented by LiMO2, where M is a combination of Co, Ni, Al, or Mn. As such, one could have the structure LiCo0.99-Al0.01O2 and using MgF2 as the first and second element would provide the same example as in embodiment 1 of the instant specification. As such, MgF2 would inherently have a greater bond energy or ionic bond formation than the bond energy between the transition metal and the oxygen in the layered cathode structure, see MPEP 2112].
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein the defect layer comprises the second element[0033-0034, 0048, 0097, Takahashi], and content of the second element in the defect layer is greater than or equal to that in the layered cathode material matrix [0033-0034, fig. 2, Takahashi discloses crystal defects and grain boundaries have higher concentrations of fluorine (the second element)]; and the second element in the defect layer fills the gap between the body layers [fig. 2, fig. 31, fig. 37, Takahashi discloses that the second element (fluorine) is found in the gaps between the body layers], or ions formed by the second element in the defect layer replace anions in the layered cathode material matrix.
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein the second element comprises at least one of F, Cl, C, S, or P [0033-0034, 0048, 0097, Takahashi discloses that the use of fluorine].
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein electronegativity of the second element is higher than electronegativity of the oxygen element [0033-0034, 0048, 0097, Takahashi. Oxygen is the second most electronegative element and fluorine is the most electronegative element].
Regarding claim 14, Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein the defect layer comprises the first element [0097, Takahashi discloses the grain boundary (defect layer) comprises magnesium and fluorine], and content of the first element in the defect layer is greater than or equal to that in the layered cathode material matrix [0033-0034, fig. 2, Takahashi discloses crystal defects and grain boundaries have higher concentrations of magnesium]; and the first element in the defect layer fills the gap between the body layers [fig. 2, fig. 31, fig. 37, Takahashi discloses that the first element (magnesium) is found in the gaps between the body layers], or ions formed by the first element in the defect layer replace cations in the layered cathode material matrix.
Regarding claim 20, Takahashi discloses a mobile terminal [0256, fig. 19, Takahashi], comprising a housing [0256, fig. 19 (7401), Takahashi], a working circuit [0256, fig. 19, Takahashi discloses the use of operation buttons which the examiner is interpreting to mean that there are working circuits, otherwise the operation buttons would not be operational], and a charging port installed on the housing [0256, fig. 19 (7407), Takahashi], wherein the mobile terminal comprises the lithium-ion battery [0256, fig. 1, 2, and 19 (7407) Takahashi], and the lithium-ion battery is configured to supply electric energy to the working circuit and is charged by using the charging port [0256, Takahashi discloses that the mobile phone has a secondary battery. The function of a secondary battery is to discharge to power electronics and be recharged. As such, the examiner is interpreting this to mean that the secondary battery (7407) would be used to supply electric energy to the working circuit and can be charged by the charging port (7404)].
Regarding claim 21, The cathode material according to claim 1, wherein the layered cathode material matrix has a general formula of LiMO2, wherein M refers to one or any combination of Co, Ni, and Mn [0052, Takahashi].
Regarding claim 23, Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein the layered cathode material matrix comprises a lithium cobalt oxide having a general formula Li1+xCo1-yJyO2where 0≤x≤0.1, 0≤y≤0.1 [0052, Takahashi discloses using LiCoO2 which reads on the applicants claimed range when x = y= 0].
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 24, Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein the layered cathode material matrix comprises a lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide ternary material having a general formula of Li1+nNixCoyE1-x-yO2, where E = Mn and 0≤n<0.1, 0.3≤x<1, 0.1≤y<1 and 0 < x+y < 1 [0053, Takahashi discloses using LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2. This reads on the applicant’s claimed range when n=0, x = 1/3 and y = 1/3].
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 26, modified Takahashi is explicitly silent to wherein the battery has a voltage range of 3.0 V to 4.5 V under a condition of 45°C±5°C, after charging and discharging the battery for 300 cycles at a charge/discharge rate of 2C/0.7C.
However, as noted above in the rejection of claim 19 (as well as claim 1 and claim 22) Both the instant invention and Takashi produce a layered rock salt type crystal with a first and second element in or near a grain boundary by first making the lithium transition metal oxide via heating at high temperatures at ranging from 800oC to ~1100oC for 20 hours or less followed by cooling to room temp and crushing the intermediate product [0082, 0090, instant; 0104, 0106, Takashi]. Next a second heating at high temperatures (~900oC) [0084, instant; 0107, Takashi] allows for the first and second materials to be incorporated into the grain boundary [0066, instant; 0108, Takashi].
As such, the first and second element of Takashi would inherently possess the same properties as the claimed invention, see MPEP 2112.
"[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).
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Takahashi as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Oh (US 20110311869 A1).
Regarding claim 25, modified Takahashi is silent to the layered cathode material matrix comprises a lithium-rich manganese-based material having a general formula of nLi2MnO3∙(1-n)LiGO2, where 0 < n < 1, LiGO2 is LiCoxNiyMnzO2, 0 < x < 1, 0 < y < 1, 0 <z<1,andx+y+z=1.
However, Oh discloses a cathode material matrix with the following general formula aLi2MnO3∙ (1-a )LiMO2 wherein M may be two or more of Al, Mg, Mn, Ni, Co, Cr, V, and Fe [0021, Oh]. Oh further discloses an embodiment where the cathode matrix material is 0.5Li2MnO3∙0.5Li(Mn0.33Ni0.33Cu0.33)O2 [0113, Oh’s disclosed embedment reads on the applicant’s claim when n = 0.5, x, y, and z = 1/3].
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Takahashi such that the active material was 0.5Li2MnO3∙0.5Li(Mn0.33Ni0.33Cu0.33)O2. Doing so would provide a secondary battery with a great initial capacity and reduced capacity reduction phenomenon according to the increase in cycle, and even profiles without a rapid voltage drop over 2 V to 4.5 V [0122, Oh].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional details.
Applicant first argues the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
168
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
After reviewing the instant specification and the prior art the examiner has come to the conclusion that Takahashi does meet the features listed above either via teachings of the art and/or inherency as discussed in details outlined above in claim 1. The examiner additionally notes that given the breath of the limitation of “parallel to a 003 crystal plane” means the defect layer must only be parallel to a single 003 crystal plane to read on the applicants claim limitations.
Applicant next argues
PNG
media_image2.png
190
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Takahashi discloses a lithium-ion battery cathode material that includes a layered cathode material matrix and a defect layer. Wherein the cathode material includes body layers, transition metal layer and oxygen layer, in addition to a lithium layer. In regards to the defect layer applicant states the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
332
731
media_image3.png
Greyscale
These features are addressed in the rejection of claim 1 and applicant does not point to where the examiner failed to meet these limitations.
Applicant then argues the following:
PNG
media_image4.png
546
750
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that there appears to be a misunderstanding in the use of Zhang. Zhang was introduced not as prior art but rather as evidence to support that defect layers form along the 003 crystal plane of rock-salt like crystals. Additionally, Zhang teaches that the degradation of these types of active materials occurs after repeated cycling causes fracturing and breaking to form along these crystal planes. As such, the teachings of Zhang findings show that addressing these issues may allow one to improve the performance of the active material. Therefore, the examiner does not believe that Zhang is teaching away from the primary reference or the instant invention. But rather was a work that showed that this type of material naturally forms defects along this crystal plane and that upon repeated use the material will continue to form defect layers.
In light of the present amendments and upon further review of the prior art the examiner has realized the inherency of the primary reference teaching the present invention the examiner has removed Zhang from the rejection of claim 1. But, maintains that it is still relevant in its teachings and has such moved it to “prior art made of record and not relied upon”.
In regards to the following comments:
PNG
media_image5.png
189
731
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that again Zhang is teaching why this type of active material naturally forms these defect layers along this specific crystal plane. It is obvious to one of ordinary skill within the arts that if they can prevent this then they would prevent the degradation that naturally comes with it.
Applicant continues to state the following:
PNG
media_image6.png
133
737
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Again Zhang is simply introduced as evidence to show that defect layers naturally form along the 003 crystal plane.
In regards to the final comments seen below:
PNG
media_image7.png
671
737
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that the rejections of claims 1, 19, and 22 provided a detailed description as to why inherency is present and that the material and properties of the instant invention would be present in the final product of Takahashi.
For the reasons listed above, the examiner finds the applicant’s arguments to be unpersuasive and maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang (ACS Energy Lett, 2017, 2, 2607) teaches that rock-salt like crystals, such as those present in the instant invention and prior art used in the office action, experience defect layers along the 003 crystal plane.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724