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
The amendment filed on 08/27/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the office action mailed 05/29/2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not introduced new matter and are supported in the specification in at least [0039] of the instant specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 3-5 that Zhang teaches the core of the low-crystallinity precipitate in the core-shell structure gradually diffuses toward the shell of the high-crystallinity precipitate in the core-shell structure in order to increase the specific surface area to improve the electrochemical properties of the materials. Applicant argues Zhang therefore does not disclose, teach, or suggest a tap density of the core-shell particle increasing from an interior to a circumferential region of the hollow core.
First, Examiner notes the limitation of ” a tap density of the particle core increases from an interior of the particle core to a circumferential region of the particle core” was present in previously examined claim 12 of the claim set filed 08/05/2022.
Second, in response to applicant's argument that Zhang discloses a core-shell particle with an increased surface area between the interior and the exterior and doesn’t explicitly state the tap density of the core-shell particles increases from an interior to a circumferential region, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As stated in the Office Action of 05/29/2025, Zhang teaches the preparation of a hollow-core material that comprises Ni, Mn, and Co, that comprises a core and a shell, where the core is of a lower-crystallinity and the shell is of a high-crystallinity (Abstract; Claim 1). Zhang teaching a material with a hollow-core of low crystallinity with a solid shell formed thereon of a higher-crystallinity would suggest to a skilled artisan that the shell of the particle had a greater density than the core of the particle, due to hollow core particles necessarily having voids that would reduce density. Accordingly, the density of the particle would necessarily increase on going from the core to the periphery and makes the limitation required by the claim obvious in such a hollow-core-shell particle construction. Advantageously, providing a low-crystallinity material at the core with a high-crystallinity shell at the surface, where the core is described as hollow, provides improvements in electron transition while improving the materials resistance to strain during charging and discharging (Pg. 2, Background Technique).
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the ternary precursor particle of claim 1 “having a chemical compound of NixCoyMnz(OH)2, wherein x+y+z=1, 0<x<1, 0<y<1, 0<z<1” is interpreted to consist of the chemical formula NixCoyMnz(OH)2. Transitional phrases such as "having" must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended. The instant specification does not describe a high temperature calcination (e.g. >700 °C) in the presence of lithium, which is a key feature commonly employed in the art to convert chemicals with the formula “NixCoyMnz(OH)2” to chemicals with the formula LiNixCoyMnzO2. Accordingly, in light of the specification, the ternary precursor particles of claim 1-15 are interpreted to consist of NixCoyMnz(OH)2. See MPEP 2111.03 IV.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “at an atomic level” is interpreted to be describing chemical bond formation between reactants to yield a product, as the term is not given a special definition in the instant specification. See at least [0034].
Regarding claim 2, the descriptions of D50, D5, and D95 are interpreted to be describing the standard bell curve model for particle distributions as is commonly understood in the art. Accordingly, prior art that recites a “D50” value, is considered to meet the limitation required by the phrase “D50 denotes a diameter value of abscissa corresponding to 50% of ordinate accumulation distribution of the ternary precursor particles.” This interpretation is supported by Fig. 2 of the instant specification that shows a unimodal particle size distribution that follows a bell curve distribution.
Regarding claim 15, the particle diameter range of 1 µm to 40 µm is considered a maximal range of particle sizes within a sample, while the D50 particle size range required by claim 2 is a median particle size measurement. Therefore, the range of claim 15 serves to further limit the particle size range and is not interpreted as a narrow and broad range of the same limitation. This is supported in at least [0040] of the instant specification.
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 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, 3-6, 9, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (ChemSusChem 2014, 7, 3295 – 3303) in view of Zhang et al. (CN107069023A English Machine Translation; cited in IDS 5 August 2022; English translation provided by Examiner is cited herein), as evidenced by Fierro et al. (US6432580).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon teaches a concentration gradient core-shell particle with different shell morphologies where the particles have the formula [Ni0.6Co0.15Mn0.25](OH)2 and are comprised of a core particle, a concentration gradient layer, and a shell layer (Scheme 1; Abstract; Figure 1.; Figure 2; Pg. 3296-2397, Results and Discussion). Yoon teaches the particle is arranged such that the core is at the center and the gradient layer extends from the core outwardly until meeting the shell (Scheme 1). Yoon teaches the particles are prepared by mixing an aqueous solution of NaOH and NH4OH with Ni, Co, and Mn sulfate salts (Pg. 3302, Synthesis). Mixing metal sulfates in the presence of hydroxide ions would necessarily form metal hydroxide salts and meet the limitation required by the claim, as evidenced by Fierro et al. who teaches preparing nickel hydroxide salts from nickel sulfate by reaction with hydroxide ions (Abstract). The claim further requires “at an atomic level” however any reaction that forms chemical bonds is conducted “at an atomic level” and is met by the formation of [Ni0.6Co0.15Mn0.25](OH)2 from discreet metal salts in the process of Yoon.
The claim further requires “a crystallinity of the shell is greater than a crystallinity of the transition layer, and the crystallinity of the transition layer is greater than a crystallinity of the particle core,” to which Yoon is silent.
Zhang teaches the preparation of a hollow-core material that comprises Ni, Mn, and Co, that comprises a core and a shell, where the core is of a lower-crystallinity and the shell is of a high-crystallinity (Claim 1; Abstract). Advantageously, forming a material with a lower-crystallinity core and a higher-crystallinity shell provides a material with improved electron transmission and diffusion of lithium ions that displays improved contact area between the active material and the electrolyte (Abstract).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a core-shell particle with a higher crystallinity shell than core in the product of Yoon in order to improve electron transmission, diffusion of lithium ions, and contact area between active material and electrolyte, as taught by Zhang.
The claim further requires “a tap density of the particle core increases from an interior of the particle core to a circumferential region of the particle core,” to which Yoon is silent.
Zhang teaches the preparation of a hollow-core material that comprises Ni, Mn, and Co, that comprises a core and a shell, where the core is of a lower-crystallinity and the shell is of a high-crystallinity (Abstract; Claim 1). Zhang teaching a material with a hollow-core of low crystallinity with a solid shell formed thereon of a higher-crystallinity would suggest to a skilled artisan that the shell of the particle (i.e. the outer part or circumferential region) had a greater density than the core of the particle, due to hollow particles necessarily having voids that would reduce density. Accordingly, the density of the particle taught by Zhang increases on going from the core to the periphery and makes the limitation required by the claim obvious in such a hollow-core-shell particle construction. Advantageously, providing a low-crystallinity material at the core with a high-crystallinity shell at the surface, where the core is described as hollow, provides improvements in electron transition while improving the materials resistance to strain during charging and discharging (Pg. 2, Background Technique).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the material density on going from the core of the material to the shell in the product of Yoon in order to improve electron mobility and increase the materials resistance to charging and discharging strain, as taught by Zhang.
Regarding claim 3, Yoon teaches the shells are approximately 1-1.5 µm (Pg. 3296, right col.). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Yoon (1-1.5 µm) overlaps with the claimed range (shell thickness 0.5 to 10 µm). Therefore, the range in Yoon renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Yoon teaches the gradient layer thickness is about 1.5 µm (Scheme 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Yoon (about 1.5 µm) overlaps with the claimed range (transition layer less than 2 µm). Therefore, the range in Yoon renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Yoon teaches the core-shell particles have a diameter of about 12 µm and that the transition layer and the shell are about 1.5 and 1-1.5 µm, respectively (Scheme 1; Pg. 3296, right col.). When subtracting the shell and transition layer, Yoon teaches a core diameter of about 9 to 9.5 µm, which meets the range required by the claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Yoon (9 to 9.5 µm core diameter) overlaps with the claimed range (less than 10 µm). Therefore, the range in Yoon renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, modified Yoon teaches the ternary precursor particle of claim 1 and the claim further requires limitations to which Yoon is silent.
Zhang teaches the preparation of a hollow-core material that comprises Ni, Mn, and Co, that comprises a core and a shell, where the core is of a lower-crystallinity and the shell is of a high-crystallinity (Abstract; Claim 1). Zhang teaching a material with a hollow-core of low crystallinity with a solid shell formed thereon of a higher-crystallinity would suggest to a skilled artisan that the shell of the particle had a greater density than the core of the particle, due to hollow particles necessarily having voids that would reduce density. Therefore a particle with a “hollow” core and solid shell would necessarily include a density gradient on going from the core to the periphery. Advantageously, providing a low-crystallinity material at the core with a high-crystallinity shell at the surface, where the core is described as hollow, provides improvements in electron transition while improving the materials resistance to strain during charging and discharging (Pg. 2, Background Technique).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the material density on going from the core of the material to the shell in the product of Yoon in order to improve electron mobility and increase the materials resistance to charging and discharging strain, as taught by Zhang.
Regarding claim 9, modified Yoon teaches the ternary precursor particle of claim 1 and 6 and the claim further requires limitations to which Yoon is silent.
Zhang teaches the preparation of a hollow-core material that comprises Ni, Mn, and Co, that comprises a core and a shell, where the core is of a lower-crystallinity and the shell is of a high-crystallinity (Abstract; Claim 1). Zhang teaching a material with a hollow-core of low crystallinity with a solid shell formed thereon of a higher-crystallinity would suggest to a skilled artisan that the shell of the particle had a greater density than the core of the particle, due to hollow particles necessarily having voids that would reduce density. Advantageously, providing a low-crystallinity material at the core with a high-crystallinity shell at the surface, where the core is described as hollow, provides improvements in electron transition while improving the materials resistance to strain during charging and discharging (Pg. 2, Background Technique).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the material density on going from the core of the material to the shell in the product of Yoon in order to improve electron mobility and increase the materials resistance to charging and discharging strain, as taught by Zhang.
Regarding claim 11, Yoon teaches the particle core diameter is about 9 to 9.5 µm and the shell thickness is about 1-1.5 µm (Scheme 1; Pg. 3296, right col.), which provides a ratio of range of the shell thickness to the core diameter of 1:6 to 1:9.5. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Yoon (ratio of 1:6 to 1:9.5) overlaps with the claimed range (1:1 to 1:9). Therefore, the range in Yoon renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 15, Yoon teaches the CGCS hydroxide particles have a diameter of approximately 12 µm (Pg. 3296, right col.). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Yoon (12 µm diameter) overlaps with the claimed range (diameter 1 to 40 µm). Therefore, the range in Yoon renders obvious the claimed range.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (ChemSusChem 2014, 7, 3295 – 3303) in view of Zhang et al. (CN107069023A English Machine Translation), as evidenced by Fierro et al. (US6432580) and applied to claim 1, and evidenced by Cal State Water Control (Particle Analysis, 1997).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yoon teaches the ternary precursor particles of claim 1 and Yoon further teaches the concentration-gradient core–shell (CGCS) particles have a diameter of approximately 12 µm (Pg. 3296, right col.). Yoon further teaches the CGCS hydroxide particles can be further treated to form lithiated core-shell particles, where the formed particles display a D50 of 11.97 and 12.02, a D90 of 16.78 and 17.65, and a D10 of 7.83 and 8.12 (Table 4).
First, due to the particle size of the [Ni0.6Co0.15Mn0.25](OH)2 particles being substantially identical to the D50 particle size of the lithiated [Ni0.6Co0.15Mn0.25](OH)2 (Li[Ni0.60Co0.15Mn0.25]O2) particles (about 12 µm), the D90 and D10 would be expected to be commensurate and therefore meet the limitations required by the claim.
Second, it is noted Yoon teaches a D90 and D10 rather than a D95 or D5, however the terms D95 and D5 are describing monomodal particle size distributions. The term D95, for example, means that 95% of the particles in a sample are smaller than a certain value based distribution of particle sizes in a sample, as evidenced by Cal State Water Control (Pg. 40-44). Accordingly, the teachings of Yoon describing D90 and D10 values would be expected to be commensurate in scope to the D95 and D5 values required by the claim and a comparison between the prior art Yoon and the instant claims are merited.
In this regard, Yoon teaches (D10+D90):D50 ratios of 2.06 and 2.14, which would be expected to meet the limitation “(D5+D95):D50 ≤ 2.2:1.” In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the values taught by Yoon ((D10+D90):D50 ratios of 2.06 and 2.14) overlaps with the claimed range ((D5+D95):D50 ≤ 2.2:1). Therefore, the range in Yoon renders obvious the claimed range.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (ChemSusChem 2014, 7, 3295 – 3303) in view of Zhang et al. (CN107069023A English Machine Translation) and further in view of Ito et al. (JP2002201028A English Machine Translation), as evidenced by Fierro et al. (US6432580) and applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, modified Yoon teaches the ternary precursor particles of claim 1 and 6 and the claim further requires limitations to which Yoon and Zhang are silent.
Ito teaches a high density nickel hydroxide coprecipitated with cobalt and manganese that is prepared by continuously supplying an aqueous solution of nickel, cobalt, and manganese to a reactor that enables the continuous growth of the crystal that provides a product with a tap density of [Symbol font/0xB3] 1.5 g/mL (Abstract; Claims; Pg. 2, par. 1-3). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Ito (tap density of [Symbol font/0xB3] 1.5 g/mL) overlaps with the claimed range (shell tap density of greater than or equal to 2.5 g/cm3). Therefore, the range in Ito renders obvious the claimed range.
Ito teaching The continuous formation of material on a crystal surface to achieve a material with a tapped density of [Symbol font/0xB3] 1.5 g/mL would allow a skilled artisan to conduct such a process until coating was achieved with a tapped density meeting the limitation required by the claim. Ito teaches the continuous nature of the synthesis allows the user control over the trapping density, crystallinity, surface area, and particle diameter (Pg. 2, [0006]). As such, a skilled artisan would have an expectation of success in performing the continuous growth of material on a crystal surface in order to achieve the tapping density required by the claim. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Advantageously, performing a continuous growth of material with a tapping density [Symbol font/0xB3] 1.5 g/mL ensures the material has excellent high-temperature stability and improved charge/discharge cycling (Pg. 1, [0001]-[0003]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the continuous process of Ito in order to achieve a material with a tapping density of [Symbol font/0xB3] 1.5 g/mL in the product of Yoon in order to ensure the material has excellent high-temperature stability and improved charge/discharge cycling, as taught by Ito.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (ChemSusChem 2014, 7, 3295 – 3303) in view of Zhang et al. (CN107069023A English Machine Translation) and further in view of Kim et al. (Cryst. Growth Des. 2017, 17, 3677-3686), as evidenced by Fierro et al. (US6432580) and applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yoon teaches the ternary precursor particles of claim 1 and the claim further requires limitations to which Yoon is silent.
Kim teaches (Ni0.9Mn0.05Co0.5)(OH)2) core-shell particles where the core of the spherical particles have a tap density of 2.26 g/mL (Pg. 3679, left col.). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Kim (tap density 2.26 g/mL) overlaps with the claimed range (core less than 3.0 g/cm3). Therefore, the range in Kim renders obvious the claimed range. Advantageously, preparing a core with a tap density of 2.26 g/mL allows for the construction of a shell with controlled thickness, which influences material properties including tap density and coefficient of variation of the particle sizes (Pg. 3683, left and right col.; Figure 10; Table 2; Pg. 3679, left and right col.)
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a particle core with a tap density of 2.26 g/mL in the product of Yoon in order to control the shell thickness and resulting material properties such as tap density and particle size variation, as taught by Kim.
Regarding claim 10, modified Yoon teaches the ternary precursor particles of claim 1 and the claim further requires limitations to which Yoon is silent.
Kim teaches (Ni0.9Mn0.05Co0.5)(OH)2) core-shell particles where the core of the spherical particles have a tap density of 2.26 g/mL (Pg. 3679, left col.). A particle core with a tapped density of 2.26 g/mL falls within the gradient layer of 2.0 g/cm3 to 4.2 g/cm3, which meets the limitation required by the claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the values taught by Kim (2.26 g/mL) overlaps with the claimed range (gradient of 2.0 g/cm3 to 4.2 g/cm3). Therefore, the range in Kim renders obvious the claimed range. Advantageously, preparing a core with a tap density of 2.26 g/mL allows for the construction of a shell with controlled thickness, which influences material properties including tap density and coefficient of variation of the particle sizes (Pg. 3683, left and right col.; Figure 10; Table 2; Pg. 3679, left and right col.).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a particle core with a tap density of 2.26 g/mL in the product of Yoon in order to control the shell thickness and resulting material properties such as tap density and particle size variation, as taught by Kim.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (ChemSusChem 2014, 7, 3295 – 3303) in view of Zhang et al. (CN107069023A English Machine Translation) and further in view of Yura et al. (JP2014067546A English Machine Translation), as evidenced by Fierro et al. (US6432580) and applied to claim 1.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Yoon teaches the ternary precursor particles of claim 1 and the claim further requires limitations to which Yoon is silent.
Yura teaches a positive electrode active material that comprises manganese, cobalt, and nickel and that has a porosity of 3-30% by volume and an average pore diameter of 0.1 to 5 µm (Abstract; Claims; Pg. 2, par. 7-13). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Kim (diameter 0.1 to 5 µm; porosity 3-30%) overlaps with the claimed range (0.1 to 2 µm; porosity 20% to 70%). Therefore, the range in Yura renders obvious the claimed range. Advantageously, providing pores of 0.1 to 5 µm in diameter improves the lithium ion conductivity and electronic conductivity (Pg. 3, par. 12-15), while a porosity between 3-30% improves the charge/discharge characteristics without impairing the capacity (Pg. 6, par. 1-7).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a particle core with diameter between 0.1 to 5 µm and a porosity of 3-30% by volume in the product of Yoon in order to improve the lithium ion conductivity, electronic conductivity, and charge/discharge characteristics without impairing the capacity, as taught by Yura.
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 Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.W.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights