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 .
Status of Claims
Claim amendments filed on November 27, 2025 have not been entered.
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claim(s) 21, 32 is/are amended; claim(s) 23-24 and 39 are withdrawn; and claim(s) 27-29 has/have been canceled. Claims 21-26 and 30-40 are pending, of which, claims 21-22,25-26,30-38 and 40 are rejected. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 08/27/2025 has/have been maintained, as presented hereinbelow.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 recites inter alia “the The SEI layer of claim 21, wherein the lithium salt of the artificial SEI forming salt is […] lithium nitrate (LiNO₃), […] LiNO₃, [etc.] or a combination thereof”.
Claim 26 is objected to for minor typographical errors reciting LiNO₃ twice.
Claim 26 is also objected to for failing to incorporate all limitations of claim 21. Claim 21 requires an artificial SEI forming salt comprising at least LiNO3 as a lithium salt (see claim 21, clauses 3 and 5), while claim 26 does not positively recite the inclusion of LiNO3.
The objected limitation of amended claim 26 originally referred to a generic lithium salt recited in claim 21 filed 08/01/2022, which has been amended to recite a lithium salt comprising LiNO3. Thus, it is interpreted that this limitation necessitates at least LiNO3 as the lithium salt in addition to other members of the group recited in claim 26.
As a non-limiting example, a suggested amendment to claim 26 is "The SEI layer of claim 21, wherein the lithium salt of the artificial SEI forming salt is lithium nitrate (LiNO₃) alone or in combination with lithium perchlorate (LiCIO4) […] 3 as the lithium salt. For the purposes of examination, claims 26 is interpreted as reciting the above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-22,25-26,30-31,34-36 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (CN-108565398-A; cited with machine translation, 08/27/2025 Office action).
Claim 21 is interpreted as directed to a solid interphase (SEI) layer on an electrode of a battery (the end product) formed with the structure implied by applying a composition (an intermediate product) of a stable colloidal solution of a polymer, SEI-forming salt, and a solvent to form a thin film on an electrode, removing the solvent form the film to form a dried film on the electrode, and charging and discharging a battery comprising the dried film on the electrode.
Notably, the composition (intermediate product) of a stable colloidal solution of a polymer, SEI-forming salt, and a solvent is dried in order to form the end product (a SEI layer), thus removing the solvent from the end product and leaving only the polymer and SEI-forming salt in the dried film used to form the end product.
Therefore, unless Applicant submits persuasive evidence of effects thereof on the end product (a SEI layer), limitations dependent on a concentration or structure of solvent in the intermediate composition (e.g., claim 21, “the artificial SEI forming salt is present at a concentration of between 0.5 wt% and 8 wt% based on a total weight of the composition [comprising a polymer, SEI salt, and a solvent]"; “polymer and artificial SEI forming salt are dispersed in the solvent to form a stable colloidal solution”) do not patentably distinguish the claimed end product and a prior art end product having the structure implied by the steps (i.e., both having an SEI formed from a dried film comprising the polymer and SEI salt after the solvent is removed) (MPEP 2112 I).
Regarding claims 21, 25, and 26, Gao discloses a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer (“inorganic protective coating”) on an electrode of a battery (see machine translation of Gao, paragraph above [0001] labeled “DESCRIPTION CN108565398A”), wherein the SEI layer is formed from a composition comprising:
a polymer (“a binder”, [0013]);
an artificial SEI forming salt (“inorganic compound”, [0015]) comprising:
a lithium salt ([0015]; working examples of the SEI layer comprise lithium fluoride [0043], lithium chloride [0045], lithium iodide [0047], lithium nitrate [0051]),
and (“inorganic compound…is at least one of”, [0015]) InF3 (“indium fluoride”, [0015], exemplified in [0041]);
and a solvent (“dispersant”, [0013]), wherein the polymer and the artificial SEI forming salt are dispersed in the solvent ([0013]).
Gao’s SEI layer is formed from a composition wherein the polymer (“binder”) and artificial SEI forming salt (“inorganic compound powder”) are dispersed in the solvent (“dispersant”) to form a uniform slurry ([0013]), which is then applied on an electrode to form a film before drying ([0014]) and charging/discharging in a battery to activate the battery with the SEI layer ([0041]).
While Gao fails to disclose forming a stable colloidal solution of the polymer, SEI salt, and solvent of the composition, this structure is not present in the claimed end product (a SEI layer) where the solvent is removed to dry the stable colloidal solution into a dried film. Thus, Gao’s SEI layer, formed from a polymer and artificial SEI forming salt dispersed in the solvent to form a uniform slurry has the structure implied through use of a polymer and SEI-forming salt dispersed in the solvent to form a stable colloidal solution as claimed (see interpretation of claim 21 under MPEP 2113 above).
Gao further discloses the artificial SEI forming salt (“inorganic compound”) comprises at least one of lithium nitrate (LiNO3) and indium fluoride (InF3) inter alia for the purpose of generating a lithium-ion conductor in-situ on a lithium electrode surface ([0015]). Working embodiments of the SEI layer are formed from a polymer and artificial SEI forming salt comprising LiNO3 (Example 9, [0051]) and InF3 (Example 4, [0041]), where LiNO3 and InF3 are both recognized as equivalent SEI forming salts ([0015]).
As such, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the use of LiNO3 and InF3 as artificial SEI forming salts in order to form another artificial SEI forming salt composition for the very same purpose in forming an SEI layer (MPEP 2144.06 I), thus rendering obvious limitations of claim 21 and of claim 26 where the lithium salt of the artificial SEI forming salt is lithium nitrate. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Gao demonstrates the workability of both LiNO3 and InF3 as artificial SEI forming salts, and because LiNO3 and InF3 are used identically as artificial SEI forming salts in forming Gao Example 9 and Example 4 and in combination as an artificial SEI forming salt in Applicant’s invention.
The weight ratio of LiNO3 and InF3 in the above modification necessarily ranges within 10:0 to 0:10, this range encompassing the range of 10:1 and 1:10 claimed in claim 21 such that a skilled artisan seeking to form modified Gao’s SEI layer with a combination of LiNO3 and InF3 would have routinely selected within the encompassed range with a reasonable expectation of successfully forming the SEI layer (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Additionally, Gao provides an example embodiment (Example 8, [0049]) wherein the composition (“paste”) is formed from a composition of artificial SEI forming salts LiCl, LiI and polymer in a mass ratio of 4:4:2, where LiCl and LiI are two different SEI forming salts in a mixture of 1:1. Thus, Gao Example 8 also renders obvious the selection of two different equivalent SEI forming salts (e.g., LiNO3 and InF3) in an equal mass 1:1 mixture, which falls within and renders obvious the range of 10:1 and 1:10 claimed in claim 21.
Gao fails to explicitly indicate a weight percentage of artificial SEI forming salt based on a total weight of the composition as being between 0.5 wt% to 8% as claimed in claim 21, or indicate a weight percentage of polymer in the composition as being between 0.5 wt% to 20 wt% as claimed in claim 25.
However, the composition (an intermediate) comprising the polymer, SEI salt, and solvent is not itself present in the structure implied in the SEI layer (the end product) where the solvent is removed through drying (see claim 21); only the SEI forming salt and polymer are necessarily present in the dried film which is formed into the SEI layer. Consequently, claims 21 and 25 imply the structure of a SEI layer formed from a dried film comprising a polymer and an artificial SEI forming salt with a weight ratio between 40:1 (20 wt% polymer, 0.5 wt% SEI forming salt) to 1:16 (0.5 wt% polymer, 8% SEI forming salt).
Gao provides experimental embodiments of the SEI layer comprising the structure implied by use of a dried film comprising a polymer and artificial SEI forming salt with a ratio of 2:8 ([Example 6, [0045]) to 4:6 (Example 9, [0051]), thereby rendering obvious the selection of these compositions of polymer and SEI forming salt which fall within the range of 40:1 to 1:16 in the structure implied by claims 21 and 25 (see interpretation of claim 21 under MPEP 2113 above).
Gao discloses the SEI forming salt induces formation of a lithium-ion conductor in situ on a surface of the lithium negative electrode ([0011]), the electrode being lithium metal or alloy ([0010]).
While Gao fails to expressly indicate LiNO3 and InF₃ of the artificial SEI forming salt induce formation of lithium fluoride or lithium nitride in the SEI layer, the instant specification indicates that LiNO3 and InF3 immediately react with Li to induce formation of lithium nitride and lithium fluoride in the SEI layer during charge and discharge (inst. spec. pp. 24 ln. 15-20). Gao, which discloses activation cycling of experimental embodiments where an artificial SEI layer is formed using InF3 (Example 4, [0041]) and LiNO3 (Example 9, [0051]), would thus inherently form lithium fluoride and lithium nitride in the SEI layer during charge and discharge. The LiNO3 and InF₃ of the artificial SEI forming salt in modified Gao’s SEI layer thus induce formation of lithium fluoride or lithium nitride in the SEI layer as well.
Modified Gao discloses the SEI layer on the electrode is formed by applying the stable colloidal solution (“mixed slurry”) on the electrode to form a film (“coating”) on the electrode, removing the solvent from the film (“[drying] in a vacuum”) to form a dried film on the electrode, and charging and discharging (“activating”) a battery comprising the dried film on the electrode, thus reading on claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, modified Gao discloses the SEI layer of claim 21 wherein the polymer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), polytetrafluoroethylene, polyacrylic acid (PAA), and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) (Gao [0018]).
Regarding claim 30, modified Gao discloses the SEI layer of claim 21, wherein the solvent comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), dimethylformamide (DMF), N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) (“N-methylpyrrolidone”) (Gao [0018]).
Regarding claims 31 and 40, modified Gao discloses a battery comprising an anode, wherein the SEI layer of claim 21 is formed on surface of the anode ([0014]) as claimed in claim 31, and wherein the battery undergoes charge and discharge cycles ([0041]) and is thus recognized as a rechargeable battery as claimed in claim 40.
Regarding claims 34 and 35, modified Gao discloses the battery of claim 32. A working example of Gao’s battery exhibits a retention rate of 93.3% after 500 cycles at 1C (Gao Example 1, [0035]), and this example is demonstrated to have a retention rate of at least 90% after 20 cycles at 1C and above 96.7% after 20 cycles at 1C (see Annotated Gao FIG. 2 below). It would be reasonably apparent, assuming similar behavior of the battery at a lower charge rate, that this translates to a retention rate of at least 90% after 20 cycles at 0.1C as claimed in claim 34 and above 96.7% after 20 cycles at 0.1C as claimed in claim 35.
While Gao fails to expressly provide detailed cycle capacity in the batteries with InF3 (Example 4, [0041]) and LiNO3 (Example 9, [0051]), these batteries exhibit retention rates of 93.6% and 93.5% respectively after 500 cycles at 1C, and would therefore be expected to have equivalent if not better performance than Gao’s Example 1 having a retention rate of 93.3% after 500 cycles at 1C (Gao Example 1, [0035]). Thus, modified Gao’s battery using a SEI layer being a combination of that of Example 4 and Example 9 as a combination of InF3 and LiNO3 would inherently comprise a retention rate of at least 90% after 20 cycles at 0.1C as claimed in claim 34 and above 96.7% after 20 cycles at 0.1C as claimed in claim 35.
PNG
media_image1.png
535
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Gao FIG. 2
Regarding claim 36, modified Gao discloses the battery of claim 31. The cited experimental embodiments of Gao’s SEI layer comprise SEI layers having a thickness of 1 µm (Example 4, [0041]) and 5 µm (Example 9, [0051]), thereby rendering obvious or disclosing with sufficient specificity the selection of an SEI layer having these thicknesses within the claimed range of 5 µm to 20 µm.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (CN-108565398-A) as applied to claim 31, further in view of Zhao et al. (CN-109360937-A; cited with machine translation, 08/27/2025 Office action).
Claim 32 is interpreted reciting the limitation of a battery comprising a SEI layer (an end product) comprising the structure implied by use of a composition of a stable colloidal solution comprising 0.5 wt % PEO and 2wt% of the SEI forming salt in THF as the solvent.
The composition (an intermediate) comprising the polymer, SEI salt, and solvent is not itself present in the structure implied in the SEI layer (the end product) where the solvent (e.g., THF) is removed through drying (see claim 21); only the SEI forming salt and polymer are necessarily present in the dried film which is formed into the SEI layer.
Consequently, claim 32 using a composition of 0.5 wt % PEO and 2wt% SEI forming salt in THF solvent implies the structure of a SEI layer formed from a dried film comprising a polymer and an artificial SEI forming salt with a weight ratio of 8:2 (see interpretation of claim 21 under MPEP 2112 I), and is additionally not limited to a battery with an SEI formed where THF is the solvent.
Regarding claim 32, modified Gao discloses the battery of claim 31, wherein the SEI layer is formed with a stable colloidal solution (“uniform slurry”, [0013]). While Gao discloses a desirability to limit interfacial impedance to improve the coulombic efficiency and cycle performance of the battery ([0004, 0007]), Gao does not explicitly disclose the use of PEO as the polymer.
Zhao, analogous as a battery having a SEI layer formed with a composition of SEI forming salt (“inorganic phase”, [0012]; e.g., indium halide, [0023]) and a polymer (“organic polymer”, [0012]), teaches polyethylene oxide (PEO) as desirable as a SEI polymer to provide lithium-ion conductivity ([0005], [0055]).
As such, in seeking to improve the lithium-ion conductivity to improve the cycle efficiency of Gao or modified Gao’s battery comprising a SEI layer, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to select PEO for the polymer as taught by Zhao. Such a selection would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Gao and Zhao are directed towards SEI layers comprising analogous materials and effects, and Gao discloses a desirability to reduce the interfacial impedance and improve the cycle stability and coulombic efficiency of the battery.
Modified Gao further discloses an embodiment with a mass ratio of SEI forming salt (“inorganic compound”) to polymer (“binder”) of 8:2 (Gao Example 6, [0045]), thereby rendering obvious/disclosing with sufficient specificity a battery with the structure implied by use of a colloidal solution comprising 0.5 wt % PEO and 2wt% of the SEI forming salt in THF wherein the SEI forming salt consists of LiNO₃ and InF₃ as claimed in claim 32.
Regarding claim 33, modified Gao discloses the battery of claim 32. Gao provides an example embodiment (Example 8, [0049]) wherein the composition (“paste”) is formed from a composition of artificial SEI forming salts LiCl, LiI and polymer in a mass ratio of 4:4:2, where LiCl and LiI are two different SEI forming salts in a mixture of 1:1. Thus, Gao Example 8 also renders obvious or discloses with sufficient specificity the selection of two different equivalent SEI forming salts (e.g., LiNO3 and InF3) in an equal mass 1:1 mixture, such that it would be obvious to select a weight ratio of LiNO₃ and InF₃ of 1:1 as claimed in claim 33.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (CN-108565398-A) as applied to claim 31, further in view of Pan et al. (US-20190115617-A1; cited in 08/27/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 37, modified Gao discloses battery of claim 31. While the disclosure of a working battery implies the structure of a current collector to support and provide an electrical connection to the anode (see MPEP 2144.01), and Gao further discloses a desirability to improve the cycle life and coulombic efficiency of the battery ([0026]), Gao does not explicitly disclose a current collector in the battery or material of the current collector.
Pan, analogous as a battery with an anode active material with an artificially formed SEI layer (“protecting polymer layer”, Pan, abstract), teaches a desirability that the anode be provided maintaining contact with a current collector to improve cycle life length and stability (Pan, [0025]). Pan further teaches selection of aluminum, stainless steel, and nickel as current collector materials due to their electrical conductivity and corrosion resistance ([0097]).
Thus, assuming arguendo that Gao fails to implicitly include a current collector in the battery of claim 31 comprising at least one of the materials recited in claim 37, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to further provide a current collector in contact with the anode in order to improve the cycle life as taught by Pan.
Furthermore, in seeking to improve the cycle life of modified Gao’s battery, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to select a current collector comprising at least one of aluminum, stainless steel, and nickel in the battery as these materials are good electrical conductors and resistant to corrosion as taught by Pan, benefitting battery cycle life and coulombic efficiency. Such a modification and/or selection would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Gao and Pan are similarly directed to batteries having artificial SEI layers, and Gao discloses a desirability to improve the cycle life and coulombic efficiency of the battery.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (CN-108565398-A) as applied to claim 31, further in view of Cheng et al. (A Review of Solid Electrolyte Interphases on Lithium Metal Anode; copy in 08/27/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 38, modified Gao discloses the battery of claim 31. While Gao does not explicitly indicate a charge transfer resistance (RCT) of the battery, Gao discloses a desirability to improve the coulombic efficiency and cycle life of the battery ([0026]).
Cheng, analogous as related to forming an artificial SEI layer in a battery, teaches reducing the charge transfer resistance to improve the cycle life of the battery, which may be suitably effected through the use of CO2-saturated propylene carbonate as an electrolyte (Cheng pp. 11, see highlighted sec. 1) or through coating an artificial SEI layer with graphite to improve the coulombic efficiency and reduce the resistance (Cheng pp. 15, highlighted sec. 1).
As such, in seeking to improve the cycle life of modified Gao’s battery, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to reduce the charge transfer resistance RCT through at least one of the above methods taught by Cheng. While modified Gao fails to indicate a RCT value of the battery, a skilled artisan would seek to utilize a range of RCT approaching 0 Ω/cm2 through reducing the RCT value such that one skilled in the art would have routinely selected within a portion overlapping with the claimed range of 67.94 Ω/cm2 or less in modified Gao’s battery through experimentation and optimization under Cheng’s teaching (MPEP 2144.05 I). Furthermore, such modifications would be done with a reasonable expectation of success as Gao and Cheng are both directed to batteries comprising an artificially-formed SEI, and Gao discloses a desirability to improve the coulombic efficiency and cycle life of the battery.
Response to Arguments
Claims 21, 22, 25, 26, 30-36 and 40 were rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over US Patent No. 11404697B2. Applicant elected in Remarks filed 03/25/2026 to hold the issue in abeyance until allowable subject matter is agreed upon.
Applicant is reminded that a complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional. As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only compliance with objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.
However, the amendments to claim 21 to recite inter alia “SEI layer on the electrode is formed by: applying the stable colloidal solution on the electrode to form a film on the electrode, removing the solvent from the film to form a dried film on the electrode, and charging and discharging a battery comprising the dried film on the electrode” overcome the rejection under nonstatutory double patenting over US Patent No. 11404697B2; thus, the response is considered to be fully responsive.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Gao, disclosing a paste/slurry of dispersed particles applied to the electrode during forming the SEI layer, fails to disclose a step of applying a stable colloidal solution to the anode as claimed in claim 21 because a paste, being a dispersion with a relatively high solid content, is materially different from a stable colloidal solution (Remarks pp. 9)
While this argument has been considered, it has not been found persuasive. Claim 21 is a product-by-process claim (see interpretation section of claim 21). The cited differences between Gao’s use of paste and Applicant’s use of a stable colloidal solution are directed to differences in a composition which is dried to form a dried film used to form the SEI layer; the composition intermediate itself is not present in the SEI layer end product. In both products, since the solvent is removed from the composition to form the dried film which contains only an artificial SEI forming salt and a polymer, which is then cycled to form the SEI layer, the claimed SEI layer appears to be the same product as that of Gao’s SEI layer in spite of the relative concentrations of solvent implied in the composition intermediate associated with each SEI layer (see MPEP 2113, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.").
Applicant asserts that LiNO3 and InF3 involve different chemistries when in situ forming different materials in the SEI layer, and thus should not be considered as equivalent materials. Not all of Gao’s SEI forming salts would necessarily generate LiF or Li3N during charge/discharge. As LiNO3 and InF3 are nonequivalent, a skilled artisan would likewise not have known to vary the ratio between 10/0 of Example 9 and 0/10 of Example 4 to arrive at a weight ratio between 10:1 and 1:10 (Remarks pp. 9-10).
While this argument has been considered, it has not been found persuasive. Even with LiNO3 and InF3 being non-identical substances, LiNO3 and InF3 are both recognized and used as inorganic compounds (i.e., SEI forming salts) that play the same role of generating a lithium-ion conductor in situ. Additionally, Gao’s examples using LiNO3 (Example 9, Gao [0051]) where a coating comprising InF₃/PVDF (7/3, w/w) based on paste is dried and cycled and InF3 (Example 4, [0041]) where a coating comprising LiNO₃/PVDF (6/4, w/w) based on paste is dried and cycled employ the SEI forming salts LiNO3 and InF3 under nearly identical processes and do not necessitate separate conditions for the use LiNO3 or InF3 respectively. The fact that LiNO3 and InF3 are known to be useful as SEI forming salts for the same purpose of generating a lithium-ion conductor -in situ establishes a case of prima facie obviousness to use LiNO3 and InF3 in combination for the very same purpose (MPEP 2144.06 I).
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 EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/11/2026
Prosecution Insights