DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/01/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 12/01/2025 and 12/22/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 15-16 have been amended and Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210091413 A1), hereinafter “Liu” in view of Fasching et al. (US 20170098824 A1), hereinafter “Fasching” and Zheng et al. (CN109841822A – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Zheng”. Liu, Fasching and Zheng et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely coating electroactive materials.
In regard to Claim 1, Liu et al. discloses an electroactive material for use with an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, the electroactive material comprising: a plurality of electroactive material particles at least a portion of the electroactive material particles having a surface coating comprising a nitrate salt (Liu, Abstract, Claim 4). While Liu discloses that the nitrate salt may comprise LiNO3, RbNO3, KNO3, CsNO3 and more it is silent as to magnesium nitrate (Mg (NO3)2) as one of the nitrate salts.
Zheng et al. discloses an electroactive material for use with an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, the electroactive material comprising: a plurality of electroactive material particles at least a portion of the electroactive material particles having a surface coating comprising a nitrate salt including magnesium nitrate (Mg (NO3)2) (Zheng, [36, 44]) with a beneficial surface coating formed from the magnesium nitrate that has the beneficial effects of effectively improving the surface stability of the positive electrode material which directly effects its electrochemical performance (Zheng, [24]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a magnesium nitrate as taught in Zheng et al. as the nitrate salt used to coat the active material particles as disclosed in Liu et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Zheng an as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
While Liu et al discloses coating the active material particles with a nitrate salt it is silent as to the percentage of the active material particles that are coated with a nitrate salt. Fasching et al. discloses electroactive material particles coated with a protective coating comprising aluminum nitrate or lithium nitrate (Fasching, Abstract, Paragraph [0137]), wherein the surface coating covers at least 90% of a total exposed surface of the electroactive material particles (Fasching, Paragraph [0009]), which overlaps the claimed range and results in an effective coating. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to maximize the coating area and select the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, considering that overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 2, Liu et al. in view of Fasching and Zheng et al. discloses the electroactive material of claim 1. Lui et al. also discloses wherein the nitrate salt is selected from one or more compounds (emphasis added), the compounds are selected from a group the group consisting of: lithium nitrate (LiNO3), cesium nitrate (CsNO3), potassium nitrate (KNO3), rubidium nitrate (RbNO3), and combinations thereof (Liu, Abstract and Claim 4), which necessarily discloses a coating comprising a first and second nitrate salt.
In regard to Claim 5, Liu et al. discloses an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, the electrochemical cell comprising: a first electrode comprising a first electroactive material; a second electrode comprising a second electroactive material, the second electroactive material comprising a plurality of electroactive material particles, at least a portion of the electroactive material particles having a surface coating comprising a nitrate salt and a separating layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (Liu, Abstract, Claim 9). While Liu discloses that the nitrate salt may comprise LiNO3, RbNO3, KNO3, CsNO3 and more it is silent as to magnesium nitrate (Mg (NO3)2) as one of the nitrate salts.
Zheng et al. discloses an electroactive material for use with an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, the electroactive material comprising: a plurality of electroactive material particles at least a portion of the electroactive material particles having a surface coating comprising a nitrate salt including magnesium nitrate (Mg (NO3)2) (Zheng, [36, 44]) with a beneficial surface coating formed from the magnesium nitrate that has the beneficial effects of effectively improving the surface stability of the positive electrode material which directly effects its electrochemical performance (Zheng, [24]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a magnesium nitrate as taught in Zheng et al. as the nitrate salt used to coat the active material particles as disclosed in Liu et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Zheng an as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
While Liu et al discloses coating the active material particles with a nitrate salt it is silent as to the percentage of the active material particles that are coated with a nitrate salt. Fasching et al. discloses electroactive material particles coated with a protective coating comprising aluminum nitrate or lithium nitrate (Fasching, Abstract, Paragraph [0137]), wherein the surface coating covers at least 90% of a total exposed surface of each of the at least a portion of the electroactive material particles (Fasching, Paragraph [0009]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to maximize the coating area and select the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, considering that overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 6, Liu et al. in view of Fasching and Zheng et al. discloses the electroactive material of claim 5. Lui et al. also discloses wherein the nitrate salt is selected from one or more compounds (emphasis added), the compounds are selected from a group the group consisting of: lithium nitrate (LiNO3), cesium nitrate (CsNO3), potassium nitrate (KNO3), rubidium nitrate (RbNO3), and combinations thereof (Liu, Abstract and Claim 4), which necessarily discloses a coating comprising a first and second nitrate salt.
In regard to Claim 7, Liu et al. in view of Fasching and Zheng et al. discloses the electroactive material of claim 5. Liu et al. also discloses material density and coating thickness values to which it’s easily obtainable to the skilled artisan to calculate the claimed mass loading of the nitrate salt with said disclosed values. Using these values for the calculation, Liu discloses a specific example with a mass loading of 4.2602 mg/cm2 which falls within the claimed range (Liu, Paragraph [0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the nitrate salt in a mass loading within the claimed range as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 8, Liu et al. in view of Fasching et al. discloses the electroactive material of claim 5. Liu et al. also discloses wherein the portion of the electroactive material particles having the surface coating are distributed evenly throughout the second electrode (Liu, Figure 1).
In regard to Claim 10, Liu et al. in view of Fasching et al. discloses the electroactive material of claim 5. Liu et al. also discloses wherein the second electrode has a plurality of pores and a porosity greater than or equal to about 20 vol.% to less than or equal to about 50 vol.% by disclosing a specific example with a porosity of 26µm (Liu, Paragraph [0034]) as well as a range of porosity of the electrode of 30-95% which overlaps the claimed range (Liu, Claim 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 11, Liu et al. in view of Fasching et al. discloses the electroactive material of claim 5. Liu et al. also discloses wherein the second electrode further comprises an electrolyte that is in contact with the second electroactive material the electrolyte comprising a solvent selected from the group consisting of: ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), butylene carbonate (BC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), vinylene carbonate (VC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC), and combinations thereof (Liu, Paragraph [0024], Claim 9).
In regard to Claim 13, Liu et al. in view of Fasching et al. discloses the electroactive material of claim 5. Liu et al. also discloses a lithium metal electrode coated with a nitrate salt and another electrode such as a Lithium rich layered oxide. The original specification doesn’t define "first" and "second" however the second electrode in independent claim 5 has the nitrate salt coating so for examination purposes the other electrode disclosed, which is not coated with the nitrate salt will represent the first electroactive material comprising a lithium metal (Liu, Abstract, Paragraph [0039, 0040], Claim 9).
In regard to Claim 14, Liu et al. in view of Fasching et al. discloses the electroactive material of claim 13. Liu et al. also discloses an electrolyte that is in contact with the first electroactive material and the second electroactive material. The instant specification doesn’t define "first" and "second" however the second electrode in independent claim 5 has the nitrate salt coating so for examination purposes the other electrode disclosed, which is not coated with the nitrate salt will represent the first electroactive material. Liu also discloses the electrolyte comprising a solvent selected from the group consisting of: ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), butylene carbonate (BC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), vinylene carbonate (VC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC), and combinations thereof (Liu, Paragraph [0024, 0028], Claim 9).
Claims 3-4, 9, 12, 15-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210091413 A1), hereinafter “Liu” in view of Fasching et al. (US 20170098824 A1), hereinafter “Fasching” and Zheng et al. (CN109841822A – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Zheng” as applied to Claims 1 and 5 above and further in view of Buchberger et al. (US 20220216519 A1) , hereinafter “Buchberger”. Liu, Fasching Zheng and Buchberger et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely coating electroactive materials.
In regard to Claim 3, Liu et al. in view of Fasching and Zheng et al. discloses the electroactive material of claim 1 but fail to explicitly disclose, wherein the at least a portion of the electroactive material particles defining the plurality of electroactive material particles comprise a material represented by: LiM1xM2yM3M4(1-x-y-z)02 where M1, M2, M3, and M4 are each a transition metal independently selected from the group consisting of: nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and combinations thereof, 0 <x<1, 0 < y <1, and 0 <z< 1.
Buchberger et al. teaches coating a nitrate salt on the electroactive materials of the cathode, the electroactive materials being selected from any of the following: lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel oxide, lithium nickel cobalt oxide (doped or undoped), lithium manganese oxide (spinel), lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxides, lithium nickel manganese oxides, lithium iron phosphate, lithium cobalt phosphate, lithium manganese phosphate, lithium vanadium phosphate, lithium vanadium oxides or lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxides (Buchberger, Paragraph [0063]).
There is also a specific example where the electroactive material for the nitrate coated cathode is lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide 1:1:1 (Buchberger, Paragraph [0103]). The combination of materials included in Buchberger overlaps the claimed formula. Buchberger et al. also teaches beneficial experimental test results from the use of these materials (Buchberger, Table 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the electroactive materials taught in Buchberger and apply the nitrate coating to said materials as doing so would allow the skilled artisan to obtain the beneficial results taught in Buchberger.
In regard to Claims 4 and 9, Liu et al. in view of Fasching and Zheng et al. discloses the electroactive material of claim 1 and claim 5, and Liu discloses lithium particles between 0.5-5µm (Liu, Paragraph [0034]) which overlaps the claimed range. While Liu discloses a thickness of a Li film as low as 11.5µm and a theoretical thickness of 9.7µm (Liu, Paragraph [0034]), it fails to explicitly disclose the surface coating has an average thickness greater than or equal to about 0.1 micrometers to less than or equal to about 10 micrometers. Buchberger et al. teaches a coating with a thickness of 0.5-5µm which overlaps the claimed range. (Buchberger, Paragraph [0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 12, Liu et al. in view of Fasching and Zheng et al. discloses the electroactive material of claim 5, but fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the at least a portion of the electroactive material particles defining the plurality of electroactive material particles comprise a material represented by: LiM1xM2yM3M4(1-x-y-z)02 where M1, M2, M3, and M4 are each a transition metal independently selected from the group consisting of: nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and combinations thereof, 0 <x<1, 0 < y <1, and 0 <z< 1. Buchberger et al. teaches coating a nitrate salt on the electroactive materials of the cathode, the electroactive materials being selected from any of the following: lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel oxide, lithium nickel cobalt oxide (doped or undoped), lithium manganese oxide (spinel), lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxides, lithium nickel manganese oxides, lithium iron phosphate, lithium cobalt phosphate, lithium manganese phosphate, lithium vanadium phosphate, lithium vanadium oxides or lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxides (Buchberger, Paragraph [0063]).
There is also a specific example where the electroactive material for the nitrate coated cathode is lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide 1:1:1 (Buchberger, Paragraph [0103]). The combination of materials included in Buchberger overlaps the claimed formula. Buchberger et al. also teaches beneficial experimental test results from the use of these materials (Buchberger, Table 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the electroactive materials taught in Buchberger and apply the nitrate coating to said materials as doing so would allow the skilled artisan to obtain the beneficial results taught in Buchberger.
In regard to Claim 15, Liu et al. discloses a method of preparing an electroactive material for use with an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions (Abstract). Liu also discloses a precursor solution containing nitrate salts and drying the admixture to form surface coatings on at least a portion of the electroactive material particles defining the plurality of electroactive material particles (Liu, Claim 9). While Liu discloses that the nitrate salt may comprise LiNO3, RbNO3, KNO3, CsNO3 and more it is silent as to magnesium nitrate (Mg (NO3)2) as one of the nitrate salts.
Zheng et al. discloses an electroactive material for use with an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, the electroactive material comprising: a plurality of electroactive material particles at least a portion of the electroactive material particles having a surface coating comprising a nitrate salt including magnesium nitrate (Mg (NO3)2) (Zheng, [36, 44]) with a beneficial surface coating formed from the magnesium nitrate that has the beneficial effects of effectively improving the surface stability of the positive electrode material which directly effects its electrochemical performance (Zheng, [24]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a magnesium nitrate as taught in Zheng et al. as the nitrate salt used to coat the active material particles as disclosed in Liu et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Zheng an as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
While Liu discloses the nitrate salt admixture it is silent as to the concentration of the nitrate salt which is greater than or equal to about 0.5 M of a nitrate salt to form an admixture. Buchberger et al. teaches an R/M-NOx compound (nitrate salt) with areal concentrations ranging from 0.14 to 73 µmol/cm2 and a thickness of the coating ranging from 0.5 to 5 µm (Buchberger, [0013, 0028]), which when converted to molarity M results in a range that overlaps the claimed range. For example, if the areal concentration was 0.25 µmol/cm^2 and the thickness of the coating was 5µm the resulting molarity M would be equal to 0.5M. Thus, the skilled artisan would find obvious to try coatings with a molarity within the claimed range with the reasonable expectation of success.
While Liu discloses a nitrate salt coating formed from this method, it is silent as to the percentage of the active material particles that are coated with a nitrate salt. Fasching et al. discloses electroactive material particles coated with a protective coating comprising aluminum nitrate or lithium nitrate (Fasching, Abstract, Paragraph [0137]), wherein the surface coating covers at least 90% of a total exposed surface of each of the at least a portion of the electroactive material particles (Fasching, Paragraph [0009]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to maximize the coating area and select the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, considering that overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 16, Liu in view of Fasching, Zheng and Buchberger et al. discloses the electroactive material of claim 15. Lui et al. also discloses wherein the nitrate salt is selected from one or more compounds (emphasis added), the compounds are selected from a group the group consisting of: lithium nitrate (LiNO3), cesium nitrate (CsNO3), potassium nitrate (KNO3), rubidium nitrate (RbNO3), and combinations thereof (Liu, Abstract and Claim 4), which necessarily discloses a coating comprising a first and second nitrate salt.
In regard to Claim 17, Liu et al. in view of Fasching, Zheng and Buchberger et al. discloses the electroactive material of claim 15. Liu et al. also discloses coating a nitrate salt to an electroactive material but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the contacting comprises immersing the electroactive material particles of the plurality of electroactive material particles in the precursor solution. Buchberger et al. discloses dipping (immersing) the electroactive material into the solution (Buchberger, Paragraph [0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to use a known technique such as immersing, on a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 19, Liu et al. in view of Fasching, Zheng and Buchberger et al. discloses the electroactive material of claim 15. Liu et al. also discloses coating a nitrate salt to an electroactive material but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the contacting comprises spraying the precursor solution onto exposed surfaces of the electroactive material particles of the plurality of electroactive material particles. Buchberger et al. discloses spraying methods used on the electroactive material (Buchberger, Paragraph [0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to use a known technique such as spraying, on a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 20, Liu et al. in view of Fasching, Zheng and Buchberger et al. discloses the electroactive material of claim 15. Liu et al. also discloses wherein the drying comprises a vacuum drying process having a temperature greater than or equal to about 20 °C to less than or equal to about 130 °C (Liu, Paragraph [0027]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210091413 A1), hereinafter “Liu” in view of Fasching et al. (US 20170098824 A1), hereinafter “Fasching”, Zheng et al. (CN109841822A – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Zheng” and Buchberger et al. (US 20220216519 A1), hereinafter “Buchberger” as applied to claims 15 and 17 above, and further in view of Zheng 2 et al. (US 10734641 B2), hereinafter “Zheng”. Liu, Fasching, Zheng Buchberger, and Zheng 2 et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely coating electroactive materials.
In regard to Claim 18, Liu et al. in view of Fasching, Zheng and Buchberger et al. discloses the method of claim 17. While Buchberger et al. discloses an electroactive material being immersed in a nitrate salt solution and that for the purpose of immersing the electroactive material in a solution, it is reasonable to use the common apparatuses and procedures known in the art (Buchberger, Paragraph [0019]), it fails to explicitly disclose wherein the electroactive material particles of the plurality of electroactive material particles are immersed in the precursor solution for a period greater than or equal to about 1 minute to less than or equal to about 5 hours.
Zheng 2 et al. discloses a method wherein the precursor solution is introduced into a reaction chamber with the electroactive material and cycled 150 times where each cycle is 17 seconds, this equates to a 42.5 minute exposure of the electroactive material to the nitrate salt solution, falling within the claimed range (Zheng, Paragraph [0057]). Further, there is no significance in regard to the time the solution is in contact with the electroactive material disclosed in the original specification. Thus, it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to use known techniques and coating methods to immerse the electroactive material as long as necessary to evenly and reliably coat the nitrate salt solution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 5, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the claims were amended and new ground of rejection includes a new reference Zheng et al. (CN109841822A – Machine Translation), which was not previously presented and teaches the newly amended claim limitation of the nitrate salt comprising magnesium nitrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached on (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725