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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 14 January 2026 has been entered. By this amendment, claim 8 is canceled; claims 1, 21, and 22 are amended; and claims 23-27 are added. Claims 1 and 9-27 are pending and examined herein.
All previous rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 23, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 21, and 22, from which these claims depend, all require the secondary particles to satisfy the relation 0.1 ≤ Dv50/(Dv90-Dv10) < 0.3. Claims 23, 25, and 27 further recite that the secondary particles satisfy the requirements that Dv10 ≥ 5 µm and Dv90 ≤ 12 µm. It is impossible for the secondary particles to simultaneously meet these requirements; therefore, the scope of the claims is unclear. Specifically, a minimum value of 5 µm for Dv10 and a maximum value of 12 µm for Dv90 means that the value of (Dv90 - Dv10) must be less than or equal to 7 µm. This would mean that in order for Dv50/(Dv90-Dv10) to be within the range required by claims 1, 21, and 22, the value of Dv50 could be no larger than 2.1 µm. It is impossible for Dv50 to be smaller than Dv10.
Claims 23, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 1, 21, and 22, from which these claims depend, all require the secondary particles to satisfy the relation 0.1 ≤ Dv50/(Dv90-Dv10) < 0.3. Claims 23, 25, and 27 further recite that the secondary particles satisfy the requirements that Dv10 ≥ 5 µm and Dv90 ≤ 12 µm. For the reasons detailed above in the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), it is impossible for the secondary particles to simultaneously meet these requirements, therefore claims 23, 25, and 27 fail to specify a further limitation to the claims from which they depend, and the claims do not comply with 35 USC 112(d).
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
As claims 23 and 25 recite no other limitations and cannot be understood, they will not be further treated on the merits. Claim 27 will only be examined on the basis of the definite limitations recited therein, specifically the recited general formula.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideaki et al. (US 2017/0352876 A1) in view of Fujii et al. (US 2011/0223482 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hideaki et al. teaches a mixed positive electrode material comprising a mixed component consisting of a material of lithium iron phosphate chemical system and a material of ternary chemical system (Para 0008, 0009, 0015-0019, and 0031; para 0096 teaches mixing the oxide and phosphate material prior to mixing with further components), the material of the lithium iron phosphate chemical system being secondary particles (Para 0053-0055). The reference further teaches typical phosphate secondary particle size ranges with D10 up to 1.0 µm, D50 up to 3.5 µm and D90 up to 15 µm. (Para 0055) Selection of the upper limits of these typical ranges, for example, will lead to a value of Dv50/(Dv90-Dv10) of 0.25, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the range of potential values of Dv50/(Dv90-Dv10) suggested by the typical particle sizes disclosed by Hideaki are considered to overlap the instantly claimed range. 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)
Hideaki et al does not explicitly teach a specific surface area of the secondary particles.
Fujii et al teaches a similar positive electrode material comprising a mixed lithium manganese iron phosphate secondary particle and a lithium nickel manganese cobalt composite oxide, further teaching that selection of a BET specific surface area of the phosphate secondary particle between 1 to 100 m2/g will result in improved high-rate charge-discharge characteristics. (Para 0036)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the phosphate secondary particles of Hideaki et al. to provide a specific surface area between 1 to 100 m2/g in order to provide improved high-rate charge-discharge characteristics. 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)
Regarding claim 9, Hideaki et al. further teaches typical D10 ranging between 0.1 and 1.0 µm and typical D90 being less than or equal to 15 µm (Para 0055), which overlap the claimed ranges. 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)
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Hideaki et al. further teaches typical D50 ranging between 0.1 and 3.5 µm (Para 0055), which overlaps the claimed ranges. 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)
Regarding clam 12, modified Hideaki et al. teaches a mixed positive electrode active material as described above in addressing claim 1.
Hideaki et al. is silent as to the size of primary particles that make up the lithium metal phosphate secondary particles, and thus fails to teach the average primary particle size being greater than or equal to 20 nm and less than or equal to 800 nm.
Fujii et al. teaches a mixed positive electrode active material comprising lithium metal phosphate secondary particles of comparable size (i.e. 0.1 µm to 20 µm) to those taught by Hideaki et al. Fujii teaches that such secondary particles are preferably formed with primary particles from 1 to 500 nm in size. (Para 0034)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to further modify the mixed positive electrode material of Hideaki et al by forming the secondary particles using primary particles from 1 – 500 nm in size, as taught by Fujii et al, since Fujii et al teaches this a s a preferable primary particle size. The use of particles having this size could be accomplished using known methods disclosed in the references, and the combination would have predictably resulted in preparation of secondary particles suitable for the mixed positive electrode material. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 13, modified Hideaki et al. teaches a positive electrode material as described above in addressing claim 1. Hideaki et al further teaches the secondary particles of lithium iron phosphate chemical system are formed of lithium iron manganese phosphate. (Para 0036-0040) Fujii et al recognizes that resistance of the electrode can be optimized by varying the composition of the lithium manganese iron phosphate (Para 0033), and it would have been recognized that the resistance characteristics of the electrode will depend on the resistivity of the powder used to make the particles comprising the electrode. Accordingly, the examiner’s position is that one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the powder resistivity of the secondary particles of lithium iron phosphate as an optimizable result-effective variable. A skilled artisan would have arrived at an optimal value for powder resistivity within the claimed range while performing routine experimentation varying the composition and other properties of the particles taught by Fujii et al. to optimize the resistance. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Hideaki et al. further discloses the secondary particles (i.e. the lithium metal phosphate) being preferably from 10-50 wt. % of the total weight of the cathode material (Para 0069), which overlaps the claimed ranges. 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)
Regarding claim 16, Hideaki et al. further discloses the material of the ternary chemical system being lithium nickel cobalt manganate having a general formula of LixCoyMnzCo(2-x-y-z)O2, with x preferably from 0.98 to 1.08, y preferably from 0.3 to 0.95, z preferably from 0.05 to 0.7, and (2-x-y-z) preferably from 0.5 to 0.7. (Para 0061-0066) This overlaps the composition ranges specified for the lithium nickel cobalt manganate option recited in the claim. 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) Note that the repeated use of “and/or” is understood to be open to optionally just one of the listed compositions. (i.e. only one of the specified lithium iron phosphate, lithium nickel cobalt manganate, or lithium nickel cobalt aluminate compositions is required to meet the claim.
Regarding claim 17, Hideaki et al. further teaches a positive electrode plate comprising the mixed positive electrode material. (Para. 0031)
Regarding claim 18, Hideaki et al. further teaches a compacted density of the positive electrode material layer being about 3 g/cm3. (Para 0102)
Regarding claim 19, Hideaki et al. teaches that the positive electrode material layer further contains a conductive agent and binder, with mass ratio of the mixed positive electrode material : conductive agent : binder is 93:3:4 (Para 0102)
Regarding claim 20, modified Hideaki et al. is relied upon to teach the positive electrode material of claim 1. Hideaki et al further teaches a method of making a positive electrode plate comprising mixing the positive electrode material; collecting a slurry; applying the slurry onto a current collector; removing a solvent; rolling; and cutting to obtain the positive electrode plate. (Para 0096-0097, 0102)
Hideaki et al does not explicitly disclose a step of filtering as recited in the claim.
Fujii et al teach using a sieve as a classifier to aid in obtaining active material particles of a desired shape. (Para 0072, 0074) A sieve is considered to correspond to a filter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of Hideaki et al. by explicitly using a sieve to select desired particles, as taught by Fujii, in order to ensure particles of the desired shape and size are included in the electrode.
Claims 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideaki et al (US 2017/0352876) in view of Fujii et al (US 2011/0223482) and Barker et al. (US 6528033)
Regarding claim 21, Hideaki et al. teaches a mixed positive electrode material comprising a mixed component consisting of a material of lithium iron phosphate chemical system and a material of ternary chemical system (Para 0008, 0009, 0015-0019, and 0031; para 0096 teaches mixing the oxide and phosphate material prior to mixing with further components), the material of the lithium iron phosphate chemical system being secondary particles (Para 0053-0055). The reference further teaches typical phosphate secondary particle size ranges with D10 up to 1.0 µm, D50 up to 3.5 µm and D90 up to 15 µm. (Para 0055) Selection of the upper limits of these typical ranges, for example, will lead to a value of Dv50/(Dv90-Dv10) of 0.25, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the range of potential values of Dv50/(Dv90-Dv10) suggested by the typical particle sizes disclosed by Hideaki are considered to overlap the instantly claimed range. 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)
Hideaki et al does not explicitly teach a specific surface area of the secondary particles.
Fujii et al teaches a similar positive electrode material comprising a mixed lithium manganese iron phosphate secondary particle and a lithium nickel manganese cobalt composite oxide, further teaching that selection of a BET specific surface area of the phosphate secondary particle between 1 to 100 m2/g will result in improved high-rate charge-discharge characteristics. (Para 0036)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the phosphate secondary particles of Hideaki et al. to provide a specific surface area between 1 to 100 m2/g in order to provide improved high-rate charge-discharge characteristics. 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)
Hideaki et al also does not explicitly teach a general formula of the material of lithium iron phosphate chemical system being LiFe1-xMxPO4 wherein 0<x≤0.1 and M is Cu, Pb, or Sr. Hideaki et al teaches any lithium metal phosphate that is capable of insertion and extraction of Li can be used, suggesting those described in several patent documents. (Para 0034)
Barker et al is one of the patents listed by Hideaki et al as describing a useful lithium metal phosphate. Barker et al teaches a general formula of phosphate usable for positive electrode active materials in lithium batteries (Col 2, Lines 25-29), the general formula being LiMI1-yMIIyPO4, where MI can be Fe, among other potential transition metals and MII can be Sr or Pb, among a total of 8 potential elements. (Col. 2, lines 36-37 and Col 2, line 59 – Col 3, line 6) Barker et al does not specify particular values for y in the general formula, but example compounds set y=0.1 or 0.2 (See e.g. Col 19, line 36 – Col 20, line 65). Example compounds uniformly use Fe as MI, though they use metals other than Sr or Pb as MII.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the lithium metal phosphate material of Hideaki et al to specifically be LiMI1-yMIIyPO4 with y=0.1, Fe ad MI and Pb as M2, as suggested by Barker et al, because Barker et al teaches this compound as suitable for use in a lithium battery positive electrode active material and Hideaki et al specifically suggests selection of the phosphate materials taught in this patent for use as the required lithium metal phosphate. Though the examples of Barker et al show Mg or Ca as MII within the disclosed LiFe0.9MII0.1PO4 compounds. (See e.g. Col 19, lines 36-38; Col 20, line 66 – Col 21, line 3), selection of Pb or Sr as an alternative MII is considered to have been obvious based on the direct suggestion of Barker et al (Col 2, lines 59-62)
Regarding claim 26, selection of Pb as MII as described above will meet the limitations of the claim.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideaki et al (US 2017/0352876) in view of Fujii et al (US 2011/0223482) and Kuzuoka et al (US 2020/0235397 A1)
Hideaki et al. teaches a mixed positive electrode material comprising a mixed component consisting of a material of lithium iron phosphate chemical system and a material of ternary chemical system (Para 0008, 0009, 0015-0019, and 0031; para 0096 teaches mixing the oxide and phosphate material prior to mixing with further components), the material of the lithium iron phosphate chemical system being secondary particles (Para 0053-0055). The reference further teaches typical phosphate secondary particle size ranges with D10 up to 1.0 µm, D50 up to 3.5 µm and D90 up to 15 µm. (Para 0055) Selection of the upper limits of these typical ranges, for example, will lead to a value of Dv50/(Dv90-Dv10) of 0.25, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the range of potential values of Dv50/(Dv90-Dv10) suggested by the typical particle sizes disclosed by Hideaki are considered to overlap the instantly claimed range. 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)
Hideaki et al does not explicitly teach a specific surface area of the secondary particles.
Fujii et al teaches a similar positive electrode material comprising a mixed lithium manganese iron phosphate secondary particle and a lithium nickel manganese cobalt composite oxide, further teaching that selection of a BET specific surface area of the phosphate secondary particle between 1 to 100 m2/g will result in improved high-rate charge-discharge characteristics. (Para 0036)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the phosphate secondary particles of Hideaki et al. to provide a specific surface area between 1 to 100 m2/g in order to provide improved high-rate charge-discharge characteristics. 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)
Hideaki et al also does not explicitly teach the material of the ternary chemical system being a lithium nickel cobalt aluminate chemical system. Hideaki et al teaches any lithium metal oxide that is capable of insertion and extraction of Li can be used (Para 0059), and suggests one desirable oxide is a lithium nickel manganese cobaltate. (Para 0066)
Kuzuoka teaches lithium nickel cobalt aluminate and lithium nickel manganese cobaltate (i.e. a lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide) as alternatives among positive electrode active materials having desirably large capacity density. (Para 0006)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode material of Hideaki et al by replacing the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide with lithium nickel cobalt aluminate, as taught by Kuzuoka et al, as an art-recognized equivalent high-capacity cathode material. (See MPEP 2144.06(II) Selection from among such known materials would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideaki et al and Fujii et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barker et al. (US 6528033)
Modified Hideaki et al teaches a mixed positive electrode material as described above in addressing claim 1.
Modified Hideaki et al does not explicitly teach a general formula of the material of lithium iron phosphate chemical system being LiFe1-xPbxPO4 wherein 0<x≤0.1. Hideaki et al teaches any lithium metal phosphate that is capable of insertion and extraction of Li can be used, suggesting those described in several patent documents. (Para 0034)
Barker et al is one of the patents listed by Hideaki et al as describing a useful lithium metal phosphate. Barker et al teaches a general formula of phosphate usable for positive electrode active materials in lithium batteries (Col 2, Lines 25-29), the general formula being LiMI1-yMIIyPO4, where MI can be Fe, among other potential transition metals and MII can be Pb, among a total of 8 potential elements. (Col. 2, lines 36-37 and Col 2, line 59 – Col 3, line 6) Barker et al does not specify particular values for y in the general formula, but example compounds set y=0.1 or 0.2 (See e.g. Col 19, line 36 – Col 20, line 65). Example compounds uniformly use Fe as MI, though they use metals other than Pb as MII.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the lithium metal phosphate material of Hideaki et al to specifically be LiMI1-yMIIyPO4 with y=0.1, Fe ad MI and Pb as M2, as suggested by Barker et al, because Barker et al teaches this compound as suitable for use in a lithium battery positive electrode active material and Hideaki et al specifically suggests selection of the phosphate materials taught in this patent for use as the required lithium metal phosphate. Though the examples of Barker et al show Mg or Ca as MII within the disclosed LiFe0.9MII0.1PO4 compounds. (See e.g. Col 19, lines 36-38; Col 20, line 66 – Col 21, line 3), selection of Pb as an alternative MII is considered to have been obvious based on the direct suggestion of Barker et al (Col 2, lines 59-62)
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideaki et al, Fujii et al, and Kuzuoka et al as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Barker et al. (US 6528033)
Modified Hideaki et al teaches a mixed positive electrode material as described above in addressing claim 22.
Modified Hideaki et al does not explicitly teach a general formula of the material of lithium iron phosphate chemical system being LiFe1-xPbxPO4 wherein 0<x≤0.1. Hideaki et al teaches any lithium metal phosphate that is capable of insertion and extraction of Li can be used, suggesting those described in several patent documents. (Para 0034)
Barker et al is one of the patents listed by Hideaki et al as describing a useful lithium metal phosphate. Barker et al teaches a general formula of phosphate usable for positive electrode active materials in lithium batteries (Col 2, Lines 25-29), the general formula being LiMI1-yMIIyPO4, where MI can be Fe, among other potential transition metals and MII can be Pb, among a total of 8 potential elements. (Col. 2, lines 36-37 and Col 2, line 59 – Col 3, line 6) Barker et al does not specify particular values for y in the general formula, but example compounds set y=0.1 or 0.2 (See e.g. Col 19, line 36 – Col 20, line 65). Example compounds uniformly use Fe as MI, though they use metals other than Pb as MII.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the lithium metal phosphate material of Hideaki et al to specifically be LiMI1-yMIIyPO4 with y=0.1, Fe ad MI and Pb as M2, as suggested by Barker et al, because Barker et al teaches this compound as suitable for use in a lithium battery positive electrode active material and Hideaki et al specifically suggests selection of the phosphate materials taught in this patent for use as the required lithium metal phosphate. Though the examples of Barker et al show Mg or Ca as MII within the disclosed LiFe0.9MII0.1PO4 compounds. (See e.g. Col 19, lines 36-38; Col 20, line 66 – Col 21, line 3), selection of Pb as an alternative MII is considered to have been obvious based on the direct suggestion of Barker et al (Col 2, lines 59-62)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Jeffrey Barton, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1307. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 AM – 6:00 PM.
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.
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.
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 4 February 2026
Prosecution Insights