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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 05/04/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-22 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claims 18-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claim 5 is cancelled.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 and 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “polyvinylidenefluoride (PVDF)” in claim 1, line 4 should read “polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)”.
Regarding claim 22, the recitation “the polymer layer” in claim 22, line 1 should read “the polymeric layer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura et al. (Pub. No. US 20090233164 A1) in view of Zhai et al. (Journal of Material Chemistry, 2014).
Regarding claim 1, Shimamura teaches a polymer blocker (4b, Fig. 10(B), see [0062], the examiner would like to note Fig. 10 will be referenced for illustrative purposes as it is the most clear depiction, however as seen in [0019] Fig. 10 shows the heat pressing process and the outcome is used in a battery or in other Figs, and Fig. 3 and Fig. 5 are the same embodiment) for use in an electrochemical battery that cycles lithium ions (11, Fig. 3, see [0019] result of Fig. 10 including polymer blocker are used in a bipolar battery, see [0038] 11 is a bipolar lithium ion secondary battery with movement of ions), the polymer blocker (4b, Fig. 10(B), see [0062]) comprising: a polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040], the examiner would like to note 4a in the figures refers to the polymeric layer itself, while 4b.sub.2 refers to the separator which has been impregnated by the adhesive, see [0043]); a first adhesive layer (4b.sub.1’, A. Fig. 10, see [0043]) comprising a first adhesive (seal resin, see [0040]) and disposed on or near a first surface (first surface, A. Fig. 10, see 4b.sub.1’ on the first surface) of the polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040]), a portion of the first adhesive (seal resin, see [0040]) impregnating a first portion (4b.sub.2, Fig. 10(A), see [0043] see seal resin impregnating inside the separator) of the polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040]); and a second adhesive layer (4b.sub.1”, A. Fig. 10, see [0043]) comprising a second adhesive (seal resin, see [0040], the first and second adhesive are the same adhesive) and disposed on or near a second surface (second surface, A. Fig. 10, see 4b.sub.1” on the second surface) of the polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040]), the second surface (second surface, A. Fig. 10) of the polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040]) being parallel with the first surface (first surface, A. Fig. 10, see first and second surface parallel to each other) of the polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040]), a portion of the second adhesive (seal resin, see [0040]) impregnating a second portion (4b.sub.2, Fig. 10(A), see [0043] see seal resin impregnating inside the separator, both first and second portions are the same portion) of the polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040]), the first (4b.sub.2, Fig. 10(A), see [0043]) and second portions (4b.sub.2, Fig. 10(A), see [0043]) of the polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040]) being the same (the first and second portions are both 4b.sub.2) or different, but Shimamura fails to teach wherein the polymeric layer comprises a sandwich-structure nanofibrous separator having polyvinylidenefluoride (PVDF): poly(m-phenylene isophthalamide): polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) layers and having a porosity greater than or equal to about 50 vol. % to less than or equal to about 95 vol. %.
However, Zhai teaches a sandwich-structure nanofibrous separator (sandwich-structured PVdF/PMIA/PVdF composite separator, see [pg. 14512, para. 3]) having polyvinylidenefluoride (PVDF) (PVdf, see [pg. 14512, para. 3]): poly(m-phenylene isophthalamide) (PMIA, see [pg. 14512, para. 3], see [pg. 14512, para. 2] where PMIA is poly(m-phenylene isophthalamide)): polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (PVdf, see [pg. 14512, para. 3]) layers and having a porosity greater than or equal to about 50 vol. % to less than or equal to about 95 vol. % (83.97%, see Table 2 where V/M/V is shown as a specific example having a porosity of 83.97%, see [pg. 14512, para. 5 where V/M/V is used to denote the separator after it is made).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shimamura to substitute the materials of 4a as taught by Shimamura for the materials formed using a PVdF/PMIA/PVdF sandwich structure with a porosity of 83.97% as an art effective equivalent separator material as taught by Zhai to exhibit excellent thermal stability, stable cycle performance and high rate capability (see [pg. 14512, para. 3] of Zhai). Further Shimamura teaches that modifications can be made (see [0184] of Shimamura).
Regarding claim 2, Shimamura in view of Zhai teaches wherein the first (seal resin, see [0040]) and second adhesives (seal resin, see [0040]) together fill greater than or equal to about 80% to less than or equal to about 100% (100%, see [0043] the separator is impregnated so the seal member passes through the separator, therefore it is the examiner’s position this is complete filling of porosity of the separator) of a total porosity (see [0106], total porosity) of the polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Shimamura in view of Zhai fails to teach wherein the polymer blocker has an average thickness greater than or equal to about 2 micrometers to less than or equal to about 400 micrometers.
However, Shimamura further teaches wherein the polymer blocker (4b, Fig. 10(B), see [0062]) has an average thickness greater than about 25 micrometers to less than or equal to about 1010 micrometers (see [0107] thickness of the separator is 5 to 10 micrometers, see [0050] thickness of seal part on each side of the separator is thicker than the thickness of the electrode, however as shown in Fig. 10(A) to 10(B) when fusion heating and pressing is performed, 4b.sub.1’ and 4b.sub.1” compress to approximately the same size as the positive and negative electrode, see [0137] thickness of positive electrode layer is 10 to 500 micrometers, therefore 4b.sub.1’ and 4b.sub.1” is about 10 to 500 micrometers, therefore the thickness of 4b is 25 to 1010 micrometers) which overlaps the claimed range in at least the range of 25 to 400 micrometers.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shimamura in view of Zhai such that the thickness of the polymer blocker stays within the claimed range as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I), and thickness of the resin sealing layers above and below the separator are result effective variable for thickness of an electrode (see [0050] of Shimamura). Further Shimamura in view of Zhai teaches that modifications can be made (see [0184] of Shimamura, technological scope is not limited).
Regarding claim 4, Shimamura in view of Zhai teaches wherein the polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040]) has an average thickness greater than or equal to about 2 micrometers to less than or equal to about 100 micrometers (5 to 10 micrometers, see [0107]).
Regarding claim 6, Shimamura in view of Zhai teaches wherein at least one of the first (seal resin, see [0040]) and second adhesives (seal resin, see [0040]) comprises a hot-melt adhesive (heat fusion resin, see [0046], further see [0019] and Fig. 10 is the process of sealing by heat fusion).
Regarding claim 8, Shimamura in view of Zhai fails to teach wherein the first and second adhesives are independently selected from the group consisting of: polyethylene resin, polypropylene resin, polybutylene resin, urethane resin, polyamide resin, ethylene, propylene, butene, silicon, polyimide resin, epoxy resin, acrylic resin, ethylene-propylenediene rubber (EPDM), isocyanate adhesive, acrylic resin adhesive, cyanoacrylate adhesive, and combinations thereof.
However, Shimamura further teaches that the first (seal resin, see [0040]) and second adhesives (seal resin, see [0040]) are polyethylene resin (polyethylene, see [0057]), polypropylene resin (polypropylene, see [0057]), urethane resin (polyurethane, see [0057]), and epoxy resin (silicone epoxy, see [0057]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shimamura in view of Zhai such that the seal resin is polyethylene resin, polypropylene resin, polyurethane resin, or silicon epoxy as Shimamura teaches it is known in the art to do so. Further Shimamura in view of Zhai teaches that modifications can be made (see [0184] of Shimamura, technological scope is not limited).
Regarding claim 9, Shimamura teaches an electrochemical cell (11, Fig. 3, see [0036]) that cycles lithium ions (see [0038] the bipolar battery is a lithium ion secondary battery where charge-discharge is mediated by movement of lithium ions), the electrochemical cell (11, Fig. 3, see [0036]) comprising: a first current collector (First Collector, A. Fig. 10(B), see [0062], the examiner would like to note, Fig. 10 is being used for illustrative purposes, and for the embodiment including a heat fusion resin, however Fig. 10 is the same embodiment of Fig. 1-5, see [0019] that shows Fig. 10 is showing the heat sealing process); a second current collector (second collector, A. Fig. 10(B), see [0062]) parallel with the first current collector (First Collector, A. Fig. 10(B), see [0062], see the current collectors parallel to each other); a first polymer blocker (left side 4b, Fig. 10(B), see [0062]) connecting a first side (first side of first, A. Fig. 10(B)) of the first current collector (First Collector, A. Fig. 10(B), see [0062]) to a first side (first side of second, A. Fig. 10(B)) of the second current collector (second collector, A. Fig. 10(B), see [0062]); and a second polymer blocker (right side 4b, Fig. 10(B), see [0062]) connecting a second side (second side of first, A. Fig. 10(B)) of the first current collector (First Collector, A. Fig. 10(B), see [0062]) and a second side (second side of second, A. Fig. 10(B)) of the second current collector (second collector, A. Fig. 10(B), see [0062]) to form a sealed area (area inside first and second collector, and left and right side 4b) defined by the first current collector (First Collector, A. Fig. 10(B), see [0062]), the second current collector (second collector, A. Fig. 10(B), see [0062]), the first polymer blocker (left side 4b, Fig. 10(B), see [0062]), and the second polymer blocker (right side 4b, Fig. 10(B), see [0062]), the first (left side 4b, Fig. 10(B), see [0062]) and second polymer blockers (right side 4b, Fig. 10(B), see [0062]) comprising: a polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040], the examiner would like to note 4a in the figures refers to the polymeric layer itself, while 4b.sub.2 refers to the separator which has been impregnated by the adhesive, see [0043]), a first adhesive layer (4b.sub.1’, A. Fig. 10(A), see [0043]) comprising a first adhesive (seal resin, see [0040]) and disposed on or near a first surface (first surface, A. Fig. 10, see 4b.sub.1’ on the first surface) of the polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040]), a portion of the first adhesive (seal resin, see [0040]) impregnating a first portion (4b.sub.2, Fig. 10(A), see [0043] see seal resin impregnating inside the separator) of the polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040]); and a second adhesive layer (4b.sub.1”, A. Fig. 10, see [0043]) comprising a second adhesive (seal resin, see [0040], the first and second adhesive are the same adhesive) and disposed on or near a second surface (second surface, A. Fig. 10, see 4b.sub.1” on the second surface) of the polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040]), the second surface (second surface, A. Fig. 10) of the polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040]) being parallel with the first surface (first surface, A. Fig. 10, see first and second surface parallel to each other) of the polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040]), a portion of the second adhesive (seal resin, see [0040]) impregnating a second portion (4b.sub.2, Fig. 10(A), see [0043] see seal resin impregnating inside the separator, both first and second portions are the same portion) of the polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040]), the first (4b.sub.2, Fig. 10(A), see [0043]) and second portions (4b.sub.2, Fig. 10(A), see [0043]) of the polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040]) being the same (the first and second portions are both 4b.sub.2) or different, but Shimamura fails to teach wherein the polymeric layer comprises a sandwich-structure nanofibrous separator having polyvinylidenefluoride (PVDF): poly(m-phenylene isophthalamide): polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) layers and having a porosity greater than or equal to about 50 vol. % to less than or equal to about 95 vol. %.
However, Zhai teaches a sandwich-structure nanofibrous separator (sandwich-structured PVdF/PMIA/PVdF composite separator, see [pg. 14512, para. 3]) having polyvinylidenefluoride (PVDF) (PVdf, see [pg. 14512, para. 3]): poly(m-phenylene isophthalamide) (PMIA, see [pg. 14512, para. 3], see [pg. 14512, para. 2] where PMIA is poly(m-phenylene isophthalamide)): polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (PVdf, see [pg. 14512, para. 3]) layers and having a porosity greater than or equal to about 50 vol. % to less than or equal to about 95 vol. % (83.97%, see Table 2 where V/M/V is shown as a specific example having a porosity of 83.97%, see [pg. 14512, para. 5 where V/M/V is used to denote the separator after it is made).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shimamura to substitute the materials of 4a as taught by Shimamura for the materials formed using a PVdF/PMIA/PVdF sandwich structure with a porosity of 83.97% as an art effective equivalent separator material as taught by Zhai to exhibit excellent thermal stability, stable cycle performance and high rate capability (see [pg. 14512, para. 3] of Zhai). Further Shimamura teaches that modifications can be made (see [0184] of Shimamura).
Regarding claim 10, Shimamura in view of Zhai teaches wherein the sealed area (area inside first and second collector, and left and right side 4b) comprises: a positive electroactive material layer (2, Fig. 10(B), see [0062], see [0128] the positive electrode contains a positive electrode active material); a negative electroactive material layer (3, Fig. 10(B), see [0062], see [0138] the negative electrode contains a negative electrode active material); and an electrolyte layer (4, Fig. 10(B), see [0062]) disposed between and physically separating the positive electroactive material layer (2, Fig. 10(B), see [0062]) and the negative electroactive material layer (3, Fig. 10(B), see [0062], see in Fig. 10(B) 4 is between 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 11, Shimamura in view of Zhai teaches wherein the electrolyte layer (4, Fig. 10(B), see [0062]) comprises a polymeric gel electrolyte (see [0061] the electrolyte is a polymer gel electrolyte).
Regarding claim 12, Shimamura in view of Zhai teaches wherein at least one of the positive electroactive material layer (2, Fig. 10(B), see [0062]) and the negative electroactive material layer (3, Fig. 10(B), see [0062]) comprises a polymeric gel electrolyte (see [0128] the positive electrode layer contains a polymer gel electrolyte, see [0138] the negative electrode layer comprises polymer gel electrolyte).
Regarding claim 13, Shimamura in view of Zhai teaches wherein the first (seal resin, see [0040]) and second adhesives (seal resin, see [0040]) together fill greater than or equal to about 80% to less than or equal to about 100% (100%, see [0043] the separator is impregnated so the seal member passes through the separator, therefore it is the examiner’s position this is complete filling of porosity of the separator) of a total porosity (see [0106], total porosity) of the polymeric layer (4a, Fig. 5(E), see [0040]).
Regarding claim 15, Shimamura in view of Zhai teaches wherein at least one of the first (seal resin, see [0040]) and second adhesives (seal resin, see [0040]) comprises a hot-melt adhesive (heat fusion resin, see [0046], further see [0019] and Fig. 10 is the process of sealing by heat fusion).
Regarding claim 17, Shimamura in view of Zhai fails to teach wherein the first and second adhesives are independently selected from the group consisting of: polyethylene resin, polypropylene resin, polybutylene resin, urethane resin, polyamide resin, ethylene, propylene, butene, silicon, polyimide resin, epoxy resin, acrylic resin, ethylene-propylenediene rubber (EPDM), isocyanate adhesive, acrylic resin adhesive, cyanoacrylate adhesive, and combinations thereof.
However, Shimamura further teaches that the first (seal resin, see [0040]) and second adhesives (seal resin, see [0040]) are polyethylene resin (polyethylene, see [0057]), polypropylene resin (polypropylene, see [0057]), urethane resin (polyurethane, see [0057]), and epoxy resin (silicone epoxy, see [0057]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shimamura in view of Zhai to such that the seal resin is polyethylene resin, polypropylene resin, polyurethane resin, or silicon epoxy as Shimamura teaches it is known in the art to do so. Further Shimamura in view of Zhai teaches that modifications can be made (see [0184] of Shimamura, technological scope is not limited).
6. Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura et al. (Pub. No. US 20090233164 A1) in view of Zhai et al. (Journal of Material Chemistry, 2014) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Rextac (Rextac, 2016).
Regarding claim 7, Shimamura in view of Zhai fails to teach wherein at least one of the first and second adhesives comprises an amorphous polypropylene resin prepared by copolymerizing at least two of ethylene, propylene, and butene.
However, Rextac teaches an amorphous polypropylene resin (copolymer of propylene and ethylene, see page 10) prepared by copolymerizing at least two of ethylene, propylene (copolymer of propylene and ethylene, see page 10), and butene for use in battery assembly (battery assembly, see page 41).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shimamura in view of Zhai such that the seal resin is amorphous polypropylene resin as taught by Rextac as an art effective equivalent thermal fusion adhesive (see page 1 of Rextac, the APAOs are hot melts) for excellent adhesion and hot tack properties (see page 27 of Rextac). Further Shimamura in view of Zhai teaches that modifications can be made (see [0184] of Shimamura, technological scope is not limited), and further the resin is preferably a modified polypropylene (see [0057] of Shimamura).
Regarding claim 16, Shimamura in view of Zhai fails to teach wherein at least one of the first and second adhesives comprises an amorphous polypropylene resin prepared by copolymerizing at least two of ethylene, propylene, and butene.
However, Rextac teaches an amorphous polypropylene resin (copolymer of propylene and ethylene, see page 10) prepared by copolymerizing at least two of ethylene, propylene (copolymer of propylene and ethylene, see page 10), and butene for use in battery assembly (battery assembly, see page 41).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shimamura in view of Zhai such that the seal resin is amorphous polypropylene resin as taught by Rextac as an art effective equivalent thermal fusion adhesive (see page 1 of Rextac, the APAOs are hot melts) for excellent adhesion and hot tack properties (see page 27 of Rextac). Further Shimamura in view of Zhai teaches that modifications can be made (see [0184] of Shimamura, technological scope is not limited), and further the resin is preferably a modified polypropylene (see [0057] of Shimamura).
7. Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura et al. (Pub. No. US 20090233164 A1) in view of Zhai et al. (Journal of Material Chemistry, 2014) as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (Pub. No. US 20230048711 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Shimamura in view of Zhai fails to teach wherein the first and second adhesives are independently selected from the group consisting of: polybutylene resin, polyamide resin, butene, polyimide resin, acrylic resin, ethylene-propylenediene rubber (EPDM), isocyanate adhesive, acrylic resin adhesive, cyanoacrylate adhesive, and combinations thereof.
However, Kim teaches wherein the first (inner layer, see [0036] where the inner layer is thermally bonded, therefore acts as a thermal adhesive) and second adhesives (inner layer, see [0036] where the inner layer is thermally bonded, therefore acts as a thermal adhesive, further the inner layers thermally bond together so they can be the same materials) are independently selected from the group consisting of: polybutylene resin (polybutylene resin, see [0036]), polyamide resin, butene, polyimide resin (polyimide resin, see [0036]), acrylic resin, ethylene-propylenediene rubber (EPDM), isocyanate adhesive, acrylic resin adhesive, cyanoacrylate adhesive, and combinations thereof.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shimamura in view of Zhai such that the seal resin is a polybutylene resin or a polyimide resin as taught Kim as an art effective equivalent thermal sealing resin (see [0036] of Kim where the resins are thermally bonded to seal) for the similar purpose of creating a hermetic seal and exhibit excellent thermal bonding strength (see [0036] of Kim) and exhibit excellent chemical resistance (see [0036] of Kim). Further Shimamura in view of Zhai teaches that modifications can be made (see [0184] of Shimamura, technological scope is not limited).
8. Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura et al. (Pub. No. US 20090233164 A1) in view of Zhai et al. (Journal of Material Chemistry, 2014) as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Gupta et al. (Pub. No. US 20120183862 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Shimamura in view of Zhai fails to teach wherein the polymer layer has a porosity of 95 vol. %.
However, Gupta teaches wherein the polymer layer (nonwoven web, see [0013] where the nonwoven web is used for the battery separator) has a porosity of 95 vol. % (at least 94% and less than 97%, see [0013] where this porosity is based on a calculation, see [0166] gives the formula which calculates the volume percentage of the material used to make the separator and subtracts it from 100 to get volume of empty space therefore it is a volume based porosity).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shimamura in view of Zhai such that the porosity of 4a is between 94% and 97% porosity as taught by Gupta to provide good electrolyte absorption and retention (see [0013] of Gupta) and further obvious to modify the porosity to be 95% as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and Gupta teaches porosity is a result effective variable of electrolyte absorption and retention (see [0013] of Gupta). Further Shimamura in view of Zhai teaches that modifications can be made (see [0184] of Shimamura, technological scope is not limited).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-13, 15-17, and 21-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights