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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/13/25 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 11/13/2025, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 7–10, and 18 is/are amended; claim(s) 2–6, 11–17, and 19 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 20 is/are added without entering new matter. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 08/15/2025 has/have been withdrawn. However, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been maintained and altered as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment below. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Objections
4. Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to as a substantial duplicate under 37 CFR 1.75. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim (see MPEP 608.01(m)).
Further, Applicant is recommended to amend claim 9 as follows: in line 2, “a binder included in the first safety function layer” should recite “[[a]] the binder included in the first safety function layer” for proper antecedent reference to claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (CN 109461882 A; citations to English equivalent US 20200144600 A1) (Zhong) in view of Maejima (JP H09147834 A).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, and 16, Zhong discloses a lithium secondary battery (e.g., ¶ 0002; see also Embodiment 1, ¶ 0088) including a negative electrode, a separator, and a positive electrode (Embodiment 1, ¶ 0088).
Zhong further discloses that the positive electrode comprises a first active layer plus transition layer on a positive electrode current collector (Abstract, ¶ 0006, and Embodiment 1, ¶ 0084); as the first active layer—and, by extension, transition layer (¶ 0044)—contains LiFePO4 (LFP) (per Embodiment 1), which is the instant disclosure’s safety-imparting material (per instant specification, pp. 11 and 12), the first active layer plus transition layer would together reasonably be a “safety function layer”, per MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Zhong further discloses a positive electrode mixture layer arranged on the safety function layer (second active layer, ¶ 0084), wherein the safety function layer includes a multi-layer structure including two or more layers including a first safety function layer contacting the positive electrode current collector (first active layer, ¶ 0084), and a second safety function layer arranged on the first safety function layer (transition layer, e.g., ¶ 0006; see also ref. 14, FIG. 2),
wherein the second safety function layer includes a mixture including a composition of the first safety function layer and a composition of the positive electrode mixture layer (see transition layer’s containing first and second active materials, ¶ 0044), wherein the safety function layer includes a first positive electrode active material (LFP, Embodiment 1), wherein the positive electrode mixture layer includes a second positive electrode active material (lithium cobaltate (LCO), Embodiment 1),
wherein the first safety function layer includes the first positive electrode active material in an amount of 96.2 wt% of a total weight of the first safety function layer (¶ 0084), falling within 88–99%, and the first safety function layer consists of the first positive electrode active material, a conductive material, and a binder (LFP, first conductive agent, and PVDF, respectively, ¶ 0084).
wherein a binder is included in each of the first safety function layer, the second safety function layer, and the positive electrode mixture layer (e.g., ¶ 0011).
Zhong further discloses 1.5~6 wt% binder in the first active layer, as well as that the second active layer, i.e., positive mixture layer, contains 0.5~4 wt% binder (¶ 0012), further disclosing that, in some embodiments, the first active layer’s binder content is greater than the second active layer’s (¶ 0013). Zhong further discloses that, in some embodiments, the transition layer’s binder content may be greater than either active layer’s binder content (¶ 0014) yet, while not appearing necessarily limited to these embodiments to achieve the desired electrode/transition layer (as evidenced by Zhong’s affording no technical preference to these embodiments but merely noting that such a content may sometimes result from the first and second binders’ mixing in the transition layer, ¶ 0054), fails to explicitly disclose that a weight percentage of the binder decreases as a distance from the positive electrode current collector increases.
Maejima, in teaching a battery (Title), teaches a positive electrode with gradually decreasing binder content from the collector interface toward the outside, which allows the active-material content to gradually increase (¶ 0028). Maejima teaches that such suppresses peeling between the active layer and collector while providing higher capacity and energy density (¶ 0028).
Maejima is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery positive electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Zhong’s binder content to gradually decrease from the current collector toward the outside with the reasonable expectation of allowing relative active-material content to gradually increase to provide higher capacity and energy density while suppressing peeling between the active layer and collector, as taught by Maejima.
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on the following:
(claim 2) the second positive electrode active material is different from the first positive electrode active material (LCO vs. LFP, respectively, Zhong’s ¶ 0084);
(claim 4) the second positive electrode active material is a lithium transition metal oxide represented by the recited Chemical formula 2, wherein a = 1, x = 1, y and z each = 0, and, accordingly, Ni, Mn, and M are absent (LCO, i.e., LiCoO2, Zhong’s ¶ 0084).
Regarding claim 5, modified Zhong discloses the positive electrode of claim 1, wherein the second safety function layer contains the first and second positive electrode active materials (Zhong, e.g., ¶ 0044) and a binder (Zhong, e.g., ¶ 0011).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Zhong discloses the positive electrode of claim 1 but fails to explicitly articulate the recited adhesive forces A, B, and C.
However, because Zhong discloses 1) a substantially similar positive electrode with substantially similar compositions in each layer—and compositional ratios that appear to correspond with or encompass the instant disclosure’s—as well as 2) a substantially similar preparation method (mixing and coating each layer, followed by compression and drying, e.g., ¶ 0084) compared to the instant spec. (e.g., Ex. 1, pp. 29 and 30), it is submitted that Zhong’s A, B, and C values would reasonably fall within or at least overlap the respectively recited ranges (i.e., A > B in claim 7, B ≥ C in claim 8), per MPEP 2112.01 (I). Such overlap would render the recited ranges obvious such that the artisan could have routinely selected within each overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful electrode with sufficient adhesion between each layer (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Additionally, the instant specification notes that the adhesive forces can be controlled to A > B ≥ C by adjusting the binder content in each layer (¶ 0060). Importantly, as outlined above, Zhong discloses 1) 1.5~6 wt% binder in the first active layer (¶ 0012), i.e., first safety layer, 2) 0.5~4 wt% binder in the second active layer (¶ 0012), i.e., positive mixture layer, 3) greater binder content in the first active layer than the second (¶ 0013 and per Maejima), and 4) relatively high adhesion between the collector and first active layer compared to the second (¶ 0050, which appears further evidenced by peeling’s mainly occurring in second active layer in ¶ 0045 and fig. 4). Moreover, as further addressed in claim 1, Maejima prompts gradually decreasing binder content as the distance to the collector increases. Thus, based on these disclosures, the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected modified Zhong’s A, B, and C adhesive forces to satisfy the recited relations, absent additional evidence.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, modified Zhong discloses the positive electrode of claim 1.
As noted in claim 1, Zhong further discloses that the binder may constitute 1.5~6 wt% of the first active layer (¶ 0012), i.e., first safety layer, but Zhong fails to explicitly embody that the binder constitutes 5–30 wt% of the total weight of the first safety function layer.
The skilled artisan would appreciate, however, that, in Zhong’s first active layer, the active material necessarily provides capacity via Li+ (de)intercalation (as implied from energy density in ¶ 0051); the conductive material necessarily imparts conductivity; and the binder necessarily adheres these materials to each other and the collector (as in ¶ 0050). To balance these effects, then, all while accounting for Maejima’s gradient and, thus, relatively high binder content in the first layer, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the binder content within the first safety layer, including within 5–6% (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 11, modified Zhong discloses the positive electrode of claim 10 but fails to explicitly articulate the binder content within the transition layer, i.e., second safety layer, thereby failing to disclose 0.5–10 wt% binder.
Similar to the above discussion, though, the skilled artisan would appreciate that, in Zhong’s transition layer, each active material provides capacity, while the binder adheres these materials to each other. To balance these effects, then—all while conforming to Maejima’s binder gradient—it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the binder content within the second safety function layer (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 12, modified Zhong discloses the positive electrode of claim 1.
Zhong further exemplifies a 6 μm thick first active layer (¶ 0084), i.e., first safety layer, while further disclosing that the first layer’s thickness may generally be 0.5~30 μm (¶ 0007), but fails to explicitly articulate the total thickness of the safety function layer—i.e., first active layer plus transition layer—and, thus, 1–20 μm.
Zhong further discloses, however, that the first active layer needs a certain thickness before cold pressing to ensure adhesion between the layer and the collector, whereas a too thick layer reduces the battery’s energy density (¶ 0051). Zhong further appears to disclose a transition-layer thickness no greater than the first active layer’s thickness (fig. 2), more importantly disclosing that the transition layer increases contact area and adhesion between the two active layers to reduce the probability that the second active layer delaminates (¶ 0044); thus, the skilled artisan would understand that the transition layer must necessarily be thick enough to exert this effect. The artisan would further appreciate, though, that making this layer too thick would necessarily increase the distance electrons and ions must travel to and from the collector and separator, respectively, and, thus, resistance. To balance all these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the safety layer’s total thickness (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 13, modified Zhong discloses the positive electrode of claim 1, wherein a thickness of one layer in the safety function layer is 6 μm (Zhong’s first active layer, i.e., first safety layer, ¶ 0084), falling within ≤ 7 μm.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, modified Zhong discloses the positive electrode of claim 2, wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the first positive electrode active material is 3 μm (Zhong, ¶ 0084), satisfying ≤ 4 μm (claim 14) and in a range of 0.1–3 μm (claim 15), and is smaller than an average particle diameter (D50) of the second positive electrode active material (by the second active material’s average diameter’s being 13 μm in Zhong’s ¶ 0084).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Zhong discloses the positive electrode of claim 1, wherein the first safety function layer includes a first positive electrode active material having a specific surface area of 12 m2/g (LFP, ¶ 0084), falling within 5–25 m2/g.
Zhong further subjects the electrode and battery to a nail-penetration test (e.g., ¶ 0115), where Embodiment 1’s battery passed 10/10—which appears to reflect a lower elongation rate because the instant specification notes that reducing the elongation rate increases resistance to nail penetration (p. 7, lines 13–15)—but Zhong is silent to the elongation rates within the first safety layer and positive mixture layer.
However, the instant specification notes that 1) the first active material’s relatively small D50 of ≤ 4 μm reduces the first safety layer’s elongation rate (p. 19, lines 3–6, and p. 20, lines 3–7); 2) the first active material’s surface area of preferably 5–25 m2/g prevents each safety layer’s elongation rate from increasing (p. 20, lines 18–20, and p. 21, line 1); and 3) the difference in elongation rate is affected by a smaller first active material and a larger second active material (p. 22, lines 8–12).
Because Zhong discloses 1) a first active material D50 of ≤ 4 μm (see claim 14); 2) a first active material specific surface area of 12 m2/g (per above); 3) a smaller first active material and larger second active material (see claim 14), as well as an overall substantially similar electrode and production method compared to the instant disclosure (see claims 7 and 8), Zhong’s electrode’s layers’ elongation rates would reasonably satisfy or at least overlap recited elongation-rate relations (MPEP 2112.01 (I)). Such overlap would render the recited ranges obvious such that the artisan could have routinely selected within each overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful electrode with suitable elongation within each layer (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (CN 109461882 A; citations to English equivalent US 20200144600 A1) (Zhong) in view of Maejima (JP H09147834 A), as applied to claim 1, as evidenced by Wang et al. (First-Principles Study on LiFePO4 Materials for Lithium-Ion Battery) (Wang).
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhong discloses the positive electrode of claim 1, wherein the first positive electrode active material is lithium iron phosphate (Embodiment 1, Zhong’s ¶ 0084) having an olivine structure (as evidenced by Wang, p. 134, § 2.1, first ¶, LiFePO4 is olivine) and is represented by Chemical Formula 1, wherein M and X are absent, and each of a, x, and b = 0 (LiFePO4 in Zhong’s ¶ 0084).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (CN 109461882 A; citations to English equivalent US 20200144600 A1) (Zhong) in view of Maejima (JP H09147834 A), as applied to claim 5, taken alone or further in view of Imachi et al. (US 20070003829 A1, from 09/02/22 IDS) (Imachi).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhong discloses the positive electrode of claim 5 but fails to explicitly articulate the active materials’ ratio in the second safety function layer and, thus, the recited first:second ratio of 85:15 to 25:75.
However, one skilled in the art would recognize that some ratio of the active materials in the transition layer, i.e., second safety layer, must necessarily be chosen for Zhong’s electrode to function. The skilled artisan would further appreciate that only two solutions for the weight ratio broadly exist: they must be the same or different. In determining the proper weight ratio between the materials, then, it would have been obvious to routinely investigate employing the active materials at the same ratio, i.e., 50:50, in the second safety layer with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful transition layer with suitable amounts of each active material (MPEP 2143 (E.)).
Alternatively, Imachi, in teaching a positive electrode active material with two layers (e.g., ¶ 0055–0059), teaches that the lower layer includes lithium iron phosphate (¶ 0055), and the upper layer includes lithium cobalt oxide (¶ 0058). Imachi teaches that lithium iron phosphate exhibits a high resistance-increase rate during overcharge to reduce heat production and reactions between the active material and excess electrolyte (¶ 0034, 0035), while lithium cobalt oxide provides large volumetric capacity (¶ 0039). Imachi teaches that the lithium cobalt oxide’s total mass is preferably greater than the lithium iron phosphate’s total mass for higher energy density (¶ 0065, 0066).
Imachi is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrodes.
To balance the effects of lithium iron phosphate in Zhong’s lower layer with lithium cobalt oxide’s effects in Zhong’s upper layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the recited ratio by routinely optimizing the LFP:LCO ratio in the second safety layer while controlling the LCO content to be greater for higher energy density, as taught by Imachi (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (CN 109461882 A; citations to English equivalent US 20200144600 A1) (Zhong) in view of Maejima (JP H09147834 A), as applied to claims 1 and 11, further in view of Jung et al. (US 20180097255 A1) (Jung).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, modified Zhong discloses the positive electrode of claims 1 and 11.
Although Zhong’s active layers would almost certainly be at least somewhat porous for ion transport, Zhang is silent to the porosity of each layer and, thus, fails to explicitly disclose the first safety layer’s 20–40% porosity and positive electrode mixture layer’s porosity of 15–35%.
Jung, in teaching a multilayered electrode (Abstract; see also ability for two active layers, ¶ 0040), teaches that the uppermost layer’s porosity is 30–50% because this range allows optimal electrolyte-solution flow through the pores without reducing the electrode’s surface mechanical strength (¶ 0046), and the lowermost layer’s porosity is 20–40% because this range allows suitable packing density to enable sufficient electrolyte solution to be present for ion and/or electron conduction without reducing the mechanical/electrical connection with and adhesion to the current collector (¶ 0047).
Jung is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery electrodes.
To balance optimal electrolyte-solution flow through the pores without reducing the electrode’s surface mechanical strength in Zhong’s upper active layer, i.e., positive mixture layer, as well as balance suitable packing density to enable sufficient electrolyte solution to be present for ion and/or electron conduction without reducing the mechanical/electrical connection with and adhesion to the current collector in Zhong’s lower active layer, i.e., first safety layer, it would have been obvious to arrive at each respectively recited range by routinely optimizing each layer’s porosity—including within 20–40% and 30–35%, respectively—as taught by Jung (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Alternative Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (CN 109461882 A; citations to English equivalent US 20200144600 A1) (Zhong) in view of Maejima (JP H09147834), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Jung et al. (US 20180097255 A1) (Jung).
NOTE: the following is an alternate rejection rendering the elongation rates further obvious.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, modified Zhong discloses the positive electrode of claim 1, wherein the first safety function layer includes a first positive electrode active material having a specific surface area of, e.g., 12 m2/g (see LFP, Zhong’s ¶ 0084), falling within 5–25 m2/g. Further, as established above, Zhong discloses a first active material with ≤ 4 μm D50 and specific surface area falling within the recited range, as well as a larger second active material, all of which, per the spec., affect the elongation rates. Arguendo, however, Zhong fails to explicitly disclose the recited elongation rates.
The instant specification further notes, though, that the difference in elongation rate can be further adjusted by controlling the porosity between the first safety layer and positive mixture layer (p. 23, lines 6–8).
Zhong, however, fails to explicitly disclose porosities for each of these layers—which, per the instant spec.’s p. 21, lines 6–9, are preferably 20–40% in first safety layer and 15–35% in positive mixture layer—i.e., Zhong’s first and second active layers.
Jung, in teaching a multilayered electrode (Abstract; see also ability for two active layers, ¶ 0040), teaches that the uppermost layer’s porosity is 30–50% because this range allows optimal electrolyte-solution flow through the pores without reducing the electrode’s surface mechanical strength (¶ 0046), and the lowermost layer’s porosity is 20–40% because this range allows suitable packing density to enable sufficient electrolyte solution to be present for ion and/or electron conduction without reducing the mechanical/electrical connection with and adhesion to the current collector (¶ 0047).
Jung is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery electrodes.
To balance optimal electrolyte-solution flow through the pores without reducing the electrode’s surface mechanical strength in Zhong’s upper active layer, i.e., positive mixture layer, as well as balance suitable packing density to enable sufficient electrolyte solution to be present for ion and/or electron conduction without reducing the mechanical/electrical connection with and adhesion to the current collector in Zhong’s lower active layer, i.e., first safety layer, it would have been obvious to routinely optimize each layer’s porosity—including within the instant disclosure’s preferred 20–40% and 30–35%, respectively—as taught by Jung (MPEP 2144.05 (II)). Thus, in controlling each layer’s porosity, such would seemingly further render the recited elongation rate in each layer achievable by routine experimentation, per MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Zhong discloses that the transition layer’s binder content is greater than the binder content in each of the first and second active layers, which corroborates Zhong’s inventive concept that the adhesion between the transition layer and first active layer is stronger than the adhesion between the current collector and first active layer. Examiner respectfully echoes Zhong’s disclosing that, in some embodiments, the transition layer’s binder content may be higher due to binder mixing from cold pressing, but, in both sections that Applicant cites (¶ 0014 and 0054), Zhong discloses no technical significance to the transition layer’s binder content as long as the transition layer provides the desired adhesion between the first and second active layers.
Rather, Zhong underscores five other factors promoting such adhesion—1) the specific cold-pressing method to promote active-material “interlocking” (¶ 0023, 0044/0045, and 0118), 2) a relatively small particle size (D50) in the first active material as well as a D50 ratio of the first and second active materials of 1~40:1 (¶ 0046, 0047), 3) greater binder content in the first active layer than the second (¶ 0050), 4) a specific thickness of the first active layer (¶ 0051), and 5) heating and/or roughening treatments of the active layer(s) and/or collector (¶ 0059)—none of which relies on higher binder content in the transition layer.
Applicant further alleges that Zhong’s SEM in fig. 4/¶ 0045, which references “the embodiments of the present application,” shows greater adhesion between the first active layer and transition layer than between the collector and first active layer, which “indicate[s] that the stronger adhesion and hence the higher binder content in Zhong’s transition layer is necessarily present in all (not merely some) of Zhong’s embodiments.” Examiner respectfully asserts that 1) Zhong never appears to disclose that the adhesion between the transition layer and first active layer must be higher than between the first active layer and collector and, instead, appears to disclose a) high adhesion between the first active layer and collector (¶ 0050) and b) that peeling—i.e., lower adhesion—mainly occurs in the second active layer, whereas each of a) the interface between the collector and first active layer, b) the first active layer, and c) the transition layer is not peeled off (¶ 0045, fig. 4). Thus, ¶ 0045 and fig. 4 do not appear to necessitate higher transition-layer binder content.
2) Given the five factors above, Examiner believes that Zhong, in discussing “the embodiments of the present application,” could be referencing embodiments where the transition layer’s adhesion is sufficient (as seen in fig. 4’s peeling-test results) without requiring higher transition-layer binder content. Therefore, this argument as well as the auxiliary argument that modifying Zhong’s layers’ binder contents would counter Zhong’s inventive concept are unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues that Maejima is irrelevant to Zhong because Maejima, in generally disclosing three active layers, fails to disclose a method that could control Zhong’s transition-layer binder content to yield a value between the first and second active layers’ contents. Examiner respectfully disagrees and believes that Maejima’s structure corresponds sufficiently enough to Zhong’s to reasonably suggest the benefits of a binder gradient to one of ordinary skill.
As in Zhong, Maejima teaches three laminated layers, each of which contains an active material and some amount of binder, where the binder content gradually declines as a function of distance to the collector to enable higher capacity and energy density while preventing peeling. As discussed above, Zhong desires a) relatively high adhesion between the collector and first active layer as well as b) higher binder content in the first active layer than the second to prevent peeling—which appears similar to Maejima’s configuration—so Examiner submits that the skilled artisan would incorporate Maejima’s gradient and reasonably expect to achieve Maejima’s benefits. Even though Maejima does not teach the mixed layer, one of ordinary skill is also one of ordinary creativity (MPEP 2141) and, thus, would reasonably infer the constructive measures to control Zhong’s binder contents as Maejima suggests for higher energy density, absent evidence otherwise.
Moreover, though Examiner agrees that Maejima would make an unsuitable primary reference by failing to disclose the mixed “second safety function layer,” obviousness hinges on whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious based on the prior art’s suggestions to the skilled artisan (MPEP 2145 (IV)). As a teaching reference, then, Examiner maintains that Maejima’s gradient is applicable to Zhong’s electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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 Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/2/2026