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 .
Response to Amendment and Claim Status
The amendment filed 24 February 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Office Action mailed 13 January 2026. Claims 5 and 9 are canceled. Claims 1–4, 6–8, and 10–19 are pending in the application.
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 1–4, 6–8, 10–12, and 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mettan et al. (“A theoretical and experimental study of the crystal structure of H2V3O8”; art already of record) in view of Harada et al. (US 2017/0077495 A1) and further in view of Pitteloud (US 2013/0216903 A1; art already of record).
Regarding Claims 1–4, 10, 11, and 18, Mettan discloses an active material for an electrode (see positive electrode material, p. 106543 ¶ “The first reference…”) for a battery cell (see lithium battery, p. 106543 ¶ “The first reference…”), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the active material comprises H2−xV3O8 wherein x is between 0.01 and 0.99, more specifically wherein x is between 0.20 and 0.99 (Claim 2), more specifically wherein x is between 0.21 and 0.99 (Claim 3), and more specifically wherein x is between 0.25 and 0.95 (Claim 4). Instead, Mettan discloses that the active material comprises H2V3O8.
However, Applicant discloses ([0059]–[0061]) that oxidation of H2V3O8 is performed at a temperature between 50 °C and 200 °C, preferably between 100 °C and 130 °C, in the presence of an oxidizing agent, wherein the oxidizing agent is advantageously dry air, which advantageously comprises at most 2000 ppm water. Applicant also discloses ([0063]) an example wherein the oxidation occurs in dry air, preferably over the course of 10 hours and at 120 °C.
In comparison, Mettan discloses (p. 106544 ¶ “After the hydrothermal…”) a drying process wherein the synthesized H2V3O8 was dried in air stream at room temperature for 3 hours, and then at 393 K (i.e. 119.85 °C) in air overnight.
While Mettan does not explicitly disclose that “dry” air comprising at most 2000 ppm water was used, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that air utilized in a laboratory setting would itself be dry, i.e. comprise at most 2000 ppm water.
It is therefore submitted that the drying process utilized by Mettan is so similar to the preferred oxidation conditions disclosed in the Instant Application, as set forth above, that the active material comprising H2−xV3O8 wherein x is between 0.01 and 0.99, more specifically wherein x is between 0.20 and 0.99, more specifically wherein x is between 0.21 and 0.99, and more specifically wherein x is between 0.25 and 0.95, would necessarily have been synthesized via oxidation by Mettan.
Mettan does not disclose an electrode (Claim 1) comprising the active material for an electrode for a battery cell set forth above, and therefore also does not disclose a battery cell comprising the electrode (Claim 11).
However, Mettan does disclose (p. 106543 ¶ “The first reference…”) that H2V3O8 is capable of reversibly intercalating more than four equivalents of lithium ions, and is therefore an interesting candidate as a positive electrode active material for lithium battery cells.
Furthermore, Harada teaches incorporation of a similar vanadium-based active material (see vanadium oxide, [0097]) into a positive electrode (see positive electrode, [0084]), and further incorporation of the electrode into a lithium battery cell (see nonaqueous electrolyte battery, [0084]).
Mettan and Harada are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of lithium intercalation compounds. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the active material of Mettan into a positive electrode, and further to incorporate the positive electrode into a lithium battery cell in the manner taught by Harada, with a reasonable expectation of success considering Mettan’s disclosure that H2V3O8 is an interesting candidate as a positive electrode active material for battery cells due to its ability to reversibly intercalate more than four equivalents of lithium ions, and Harada’s teachings of incorporation of similar vanadium-based active materials into positive electrodes for lithium battery cells.
Modified Mettan therefore discloses an electrode further comprising a binder (see binder, Harada [0096]). However, modified Mettan does not explicitly disclose wherein the binder is styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) or latex, or polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), and instead discloses examples of binders such as polytetrafluoroethylene and polyvinylidene fluoride (Harada [0102]).
Pitteloud teaches an electrode (see electrode, [0047]) comprising an active material (see electrochemically active material, [0021]) for an electrode for a battery cell (see rechargeable battery, [0053]) and a binder (see non-conducting binder, [0047]), the electrode comprising a similar active material, LixHyV3O8 (see particles of compounds of formula (I), [0022]–[0026]). Pitteloud further teaches ([0048]) that the binder can be selected from a group of suitable binders including polyvinylidene fluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene, and styrene butadiene rubber.
Pitteloud is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium intercalation compounds. KSR Rationale B (see MPEP § 2141) states that it is obvious to perform “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. As Pitteloud teaches that polyvinylidene fluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene, and styrene butadiene rubber are suitable choices of binder for an electrode comprising a compositionally similar active material, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the polyvinylidene fluoride or polytetrafluoroethylene binder of modified Mettan with the styrene butadiene rubber binder of Pitteloud to achieve the predictable result of a functional electrode comprising a suitable binder.
Modified Mettan does not disclose wherein the electrode comprises between 0.1% and 8% by weight of the binder based on the total weight of the electrode (Claim 1), more specifically between 0.5% and 8% by weight of the binder based on the total weight of the electrode (Claim 10), and more specifically between 1% and 5% by weight of the binder based on the total weight of the electrode (Claim 18), and instead discloses (Harada [0105]) wherein the electrode comprises between 2% and 20% by weight of the binder based on the total weight of the electrode. Harada teaches ([0105]) that including the binder in an amount of between 2% and 20% by weight ensures sufficient electrode strength and decreased internal resistance.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the ranges for the percentage by weight of the binder based on the total weight of the electrode with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in sufficient electrode strength and decreased internal resistance.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, modified Mettan discloses the electrode as set forth above. Modified Mettan further discloses (Harada [0106]) the electrode comprising between 77% and 95% by weight of the active material based on the total weight of the electrode.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Mettan discloses the electrode as set forth above. Modified Mettan further discloses the electrode comprising a carbon-based electronically conductive material (see conductive agent, Harada [0096], which can be a carbonaceous substance, Harada [0103]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Mettan discloses the electrode as set forth above. Modified Mettan further discloses the electrode comprising between 3% and 15% by weight of the carbon-based electronically conductive material based on the total weight of the electrode (Harada [0106]).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Mettan discloses the battery cell as set forth above. Modified Mettan further discloses the battery cell further comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte (see nonaqueous electrolyte, [0084]).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Mettan discloses the electrode as set forth above. Modified Mettan does not disclose the electrode comprising between 2% and 10% by weight of the carbon-based electronically conductive material based on the total weight of the electrode, and instead discloses the electrode comprising between 3% and 15% by weight of the carbon-based electronically conductive material based on the total weight of the electrode (Harada [0106]). Harada ([0103], [0107]) teaches that including the carbon-based electronically conductive material in an amount of between 3% and 15% improves the current collection performance and suppresses contact resistance between active material and current collector, while reducing decomposition of a nonaqueous electrolyte on the surface of the carbon-based electronically conductive material during high-temperature storage.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the ranges for the weight of the carbon-based electronically conductive material with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in an improvement of current collection performance and suppression of contact resistance between active material and current collector, as well as reduced decomposition of the nonaqueous electrolyte on the surface of the carbon-based electronically conductive material during high-temperature storage.
Claims 13–15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mettan et al. (“A theoretical and experimental study of the crystal structure of H2V3O8”; art already of record), herein referred to as Mettan, in view of Mettan (US 2014/0178763 A1), herein referred to as Mettan ‘763.
Regarding Claims 13 and 19, Mettan discloses a method for producing an active material for an electrode (p. 106543–106544 ¶ “H2V3O8 was synthesized…” through “After the hydrothermal…”), but does not explicitly disclose the method comprising a step of oxidation of H2V3O8, thereby obtaining H2-xV3O8, wherein x is between 0.01 and 0.99, as the active material.
However, Mettan does disclose (p. 106544 ¶ “After the hydrothermal…”) a drying process wherein synthesized H2V3O8 was dried in air stream at room temperature for 3 hours, and then at 393 K (i.e. 119.85 °C) in air (an oxidizing agent) overnight.
In comparison, Applicant discloses ([0059]–[0061]) that oxidation of H2V3O8 is performed at a temperature between 50 °C and 200 °C, preferably between 100 °C and 130 °C, in the presence of an oxidizing agent, wherein the oxidizing agent is advantageously dry air, which advantageously comprises at most 2000 ppm water. Applicant also discloses ([0063]) an example wherein the oxidizing occurs in dry air, preferably over the course of 10 hours and at 120 °C.
While Mettan does not explicitly disclose that “dry” air comprising at most 2000 ppm water was used, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that air utilized in a laboratory setting would itself be dry, i.e. comprise at most 2000 ppm water.
It is therefore submitted that the drying process utilized by Mettan is so similar to the preferred oxidation conditions disclosed in the Instant Application, as set forth above, that the active material comprising H2−xV3O8 wherein x is between 0.01 and 0.99 would necessarily have been produced via oxidation by Mettan. It can therefore be understood that Mettan does then disclose a method for producing an active material for an electrode comprising a step of oxidation of H2V3O8, thereby obtaining H2−xV3O8, wherein x is between 0.01 and 0.99, as the active material.
As set forth above, Mettan does not disclose wherein the oxidation is performed at a temperature between 125 °C and 150 °C (Claim 13), or more narrowly wherein the oxidation is performed at a temperature between 130 °C and 150 °C (Claim 19), instead disclosing that the synthesized H2V3O8 was subjected to a drying temperature of 119.85 °C.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art will understand that increasing temperature increases drying speed.
Further, Mettan ‘763 teaches a method for producing an active material (see H2V3O8-RedGO composite, [0065]) for an electrode wherein a mixture comprising H2V3O8 as a starting material is dried for 1 hour in air at 180 °C ([0065]). Note that Mettan ‘763 is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium intercalation compounds.
Considering, as set forth above, that Mettan ‘763 dries a mixture including H2V3O8 as a starting material at an elevated temperature of 180 °C, and further understanding that increasing temperature increases drying speed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mettan such that the drying temperature of the synthesized H2V3O8 was any temperature ranging from 119.85 °C to 180 °C with a reasonable expectation that this drying temperature would be effective.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the ranges for the drying temperature of the H2V3O8 with a reasonable expectation that this drying temperature would be effective.
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, modified Mettan discloses the method as set forth above. As set forth in the rejection of Claim 13 above, Mettan further discloses wherein the oxidation of H2V3O8 is performed in the presence of an oxidizing agent, wherein the oxidation agent is air, by disclosing that the drying process takes place in the presence of air (p. 106544 ¶ “After the hydrothermal…”). While Mettan does not explicitly disclose wherein the air is comprising at most 2000 ppm water, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that air utilized to dry a compound in a laboratory setting will itself be dry, i.e. comprise at most 2000 ppm water.
***
Claims 1, 6–8, 10–12, and 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mettan (US 2014/0178763 A1), herein referred to as Mettan ‘763, in view of Harada et al. (US 2017/0077495 A1) and further in view of Pitteloud (US 2013/0216903 A1; art already of record).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, 11, and 18, Mettan ‘763 discloses an electrode (see positive electrode, [0051]) comprising an active material (see RedGO/H4−xV3O8 (0.1 < x < 2.2) oxohydroxide positive electrode material, [0051]; note that in this material, the actual active material appears to be H4−xV3O8, [0052], while RedGO is a conductive material, [0005]) for an electrode for a battery cell (see lithium battery, [0051]). Mettan ‘763 does not specifically disclose wherein the active material comprises H2−xV3O8 wherein x is between 0.01 and 0.99, instead disclosing wherein the active material comprises H4−xV3O8 wherein x is between 0.1 and 2.2 ([0051], [0074]–[0077]).
It can therefore be understood that the claimed active material encompasses compounds with variable H content ranging from H1.01V3O8 (i.e. H2−xV3O8 wherein x = 0.99) to H1.99V3O8 (i.e. H2−xV3O8 wherein x = 0.01), while the active material disclosed by Mettan ‘763 non-inclusively encompasses compounds with variable H content ranging from H1.8V3O8 (i.e. H4−xV3O8 wherein x = 2.2) to H3.9V3O8 (i.e. H4−xV3O8 wherein x = 0.1). Note that Mettan ‘763 is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium intercalation compounds.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the ranges for the compound H2−xV3O8 comprised in the active material with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a functional electrode for a battery cell.
Modified Mettan ‘763 does not disclose the electrode comprising a binder, wherein the electrode comprises between 0.1% and 8% by weight of the binder based on the total weight of the electrode (Claim 1), more specifically between 0.5% and 8% by weight of the binder based on the total weight of the electrode (Claim 10), and more specifically between 1% and 5% by weight of the binder based on the total weight of the electrode (Claim 18).
Harada teaches an electrode (see positive electrode, [0084]) comprising a similar vanadium-based active material (see vanadium oxide, [0097]) for an electrode for a battery cell (see nonaqueous electrolyte battery, [0084]) and a binder (see binder, [0096]), wherein the electrode comprises between 2% and 20% by weight of the binder based on the total weight of the electrode. Harada teaches that a binder serves the purpose of binding the active material with the current collector ([0102]), and including the binder in an amount of between 2% and 20% by weight ensures sufficient electrode strength and decreased internal resistance ([0105]). Note that Harada is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium intercalation compounds.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of modified Mettan ‘763 such that it comprises a binder in an amount of between 2% and 20% by weight of the binder based on the total weight of the electrode, as taught by Harada, for the purpose of binding the active material with the current collector ([0102]) and ensuring that sufficient electrode strength and decreased internal resistance is achieved.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the ranges for the percentage by weight of the binder based on the total weight of the electrode with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in sufficient binding of the active material with the current collector, good electrode strength, and decreased internal resistance.
Modified Mettan ‘763 does not disclose wherein the binder is styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) or latex, or polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), and instead discloses examples of binders such as polytetrafluoroethylene and polyvinylidene fluoride (Harada [0102]).
Pitteloud teaches an electrode (see electrode, [0047]) comprising an active material (see electrochemically active material, [0021]) for an electrode for a battery cell (see rechargeable battery, [0053]) and a binder (see non-conducting binder, [0047]), the electrode comprising a similar active material, LixHyV3O8 (see particles of compounds of formula (I), [0022]–[0026]). Pitteloud further teaches ([0048]) that the binder can be selected from a group of suitable binders including polyvinylidene fluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene, and styrene butadiene rubber.
Pitteloud is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium intercalation compounds. KSR Rationale B (see MPEP § 2141) states that it is obvious to perform “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. As Pitteloud teaches that polyvinylidene fluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene, and styrene butadiene rubber are suitable choices of binder for an electrode comprising a compositionally similar active material, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the polyvinylidene fluoride or polytetrafluoroethylene binder of modified Mettan ‘763 with the styrene butadiene rubber binder of Pitteloud to achieve the predictable result of a functional electrode comprising a suitable binder.
Further regarding Claim 11, modified Mettan ‘763 further discloses a battery cell (see lithium battery, Mettan ‘763 [0051], [0079]) comprising the electrode as set forth above.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, modified Mettan ‘763 discloses the electrode as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the electrode is comprising between 50% and 99% by weight of the active material based on the total weight of the electrode (Claim 6), and more specifically between 75% and 95% by weight of the active material based on the total weight of the electrode (Claim 16).
Mettan ‘763 does disclose ([0053]) wherein the electrode is comprising at least 95% by weight of the active material based on the total weight of the electrode. As set forth above, the electrode of modified Mettan ‘763 includes 2% to 20% by weight of binder based on the total weight of the electrode. It can therefore be understood that modified Mettan ‘763 discloses wherein the electrode is comprising at least 76% (calculated by subtracting 20% of 95%, which is equal to 19%, from 95%, i.e. replacing 20% of the active material present in the electrode of unmodified Mettan ‘763 with binder) by weight of the active material based on the total weight of the electrode.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the percentage by weight of the active material based on the total weight of the electrode with a reasonable expectation that such selection would result in a functional electrode.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Mettan ‘763 discloses the electrode as set forth above. Mettan ‘763 further discloses wherein the electrode is further comprising a carbon-based electrically conductive material (see reduced graphene oxide (RedGO), [0005], [0051]; note [0005] discloses RedGO is electronically conductive).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, modified Mettan ‘763 discloses the electrode as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the electrode is comprising between 0.5% and 20% by weight of the carbon-based electronically conductive material based on the total weight of the electrode (Claim 8), and more specifically between 2% and 10% by weight of the carbon-based electronically conductive material based on the total weight of the electrode (Claim 17).
Mettan ‘763 does disclose ([0053]) wherein the electrode is comprising at least 95% by weight of the active material based on the total weight of the electrode. Considering that the only other component present in the electrode of unmodified Mettan ‘763 appears to be the carbon-based electronically conductive material ([0067], [0075], [0079]), it can thus be understood that the electrode of Mettan ‘763 is comprising at most 5% by weight of the carbon-based electronically conductive material based on the total weight of the electrode. As set forth above, the electrode of modified Mettan ‘763 includes 2% to 20% by weight of binder based on the total weight of the electrode. It can therefore be understood that modified Mettan ‘763 discloses wherein the electrode is comprising at most 4.9% (calculated by subtracting 2% of 5%, which is equal to 0.1%, from 5%, i.e. replacing 2% of the carbon-based electronically conductive material present in the electrode of unmodified Mettan ‘763 with binder) by weight of the carbon-based electronically conductive material based on the total weight of the electrode.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the percentage by weight of the carbon-based electronically conductive material based on the total weight of the electrode with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a functional electrode with suitable electronic conductivity.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Mettan ‘763 discloses the battery cell as set forth above. Mettan ‘763 further discloses wherein the battery cell is further comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte (see electrolyte a 1 M LiPF6 solution of ethylene carbonate-ethylmethyl carbonate (1:1 by weight), [0079]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument on p. 7–10 of the Remarks filed 24 February 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of Claims 13–15 and 19 over Mettan/Rastgoo-Deylami as evidenced by Brittanica, specifically the argument that it would not have been obvious to modify the methods of Mettan/Rastgoo-Deylami such that the oxidation is performed at a temperature between 125 °C and 150 °C, or more narrowly between 130 °C and 150 °C, via routine experimentation for the purpose of achieving a suitable reaction rate-constant because Rastgoo-Deylami and Mettan do not teach or suggest oxidation of the synthesized H2V3O8, and therefore temperature of the oxidation cannot be recognized as a result-effective variable based on these references, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Mettan and Mettan ‘763 as set forth above.
Applicant’s argument on p. 10 of the Remarks filed 24 February 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of Claims 13–15 and 19 over Mettan/Rastgoo-Deylami, specifically the argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on improper hindsight reasoning has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Applicant specifically argues that the Examiner’s statement that the drying process utilized by Rastgoo-Deylami/Mettan is so similar to the oxidation conditions disclosed in the instant application that the active material comprising H2−xV3O8 wherein x is between 0.01 and 0.99 would necessarily have been produced via oxidation by Rastgoo-Deylami/Mettan is an improper use of hindsight with the benefit of the instant application, with the rejection being based on knowledge gained only from the instant application. The Examiner’s statement above does not utilize hindsight, because it does not suggest that any modification of the method of Rastgoo-Deylami/Mettan would be necessary specifically in order for the oxidation of H2V3O8 to occur such that H2−xV3O8 wherein x is between 0.01 and 0.99 is produced, but rather that such an oxidation would necessarily have occurred in the methods of Rastgoo-Deylami/Mettan based on Applicant’s own disclosure regarding the required conditions for oxidation, which the Examiner must necessarily take into account when examining the application and searching the prior art. Such a statement would not be considered hindsight, but rather as per MPEP § 2112.II, a recognition that the subject matter of the claim, i.e. the oxidation of H2V3O8 to produce H2−xV3O8 wherein x is between 0.01 and 0.99, would be an inherent feature of the methods disclosed by Rastgoo-Deylami/Mettan based on the instant application’s description of the conditions which result in the oxidation. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights