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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 16th, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on December 16th, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 1 and 8 are amended and claim 2 is cancelled, resulting in claims 1, 3-12 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments submitted on December 16th, 2025 have been entered into the file.
Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 to remove “Equation 1 A/B < 1” in claim 1 has overcome the 35 USC § 112b rejection of claim 1 with respect to the claim boundaries of A/B previously set forth in the Final Rejection mailed October 21st, 2025.
Applicant’s amendment of claim 8 has overcome the 35 USC § 112a rejection of claim 8 previously set forth in the Final Rejection mailed October 21st, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The Examine Request in order to improve clarity of the instant claim, the claim be amended to recite: “wherein in a . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajo (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220006093 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakajo teaches a conductive material dispersion (carbonaceous material dispersion) for a rechargeable (secondary) lithium battery (Paragraph 0017-0018) comprising carbon nanotubes (Paragraph 0065).
Nakajo teaches the addition of a dispersant in order to obtain high flowability of the carbonaceous dispersion. Nakajo teaches polyvinyl pyrrolidone as a dispersant suitable for use in the dispersion, which is also provided as an example dispersing agent in the instant disclosure (Paragraph 0042). Further, Nakajo teaches the amount of dispersant may be about 0.01% to 5% by mass based on the total amount of the dispersion (Paragraphs 0096-0097). The range of the dispersant of Nakajo present in the dispersion overlaps with the amount of dispersing agent in the conductive material dispersion of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Nakajo teaches that the carbonaceous material dispersion has a viscosity in the range of 50 to 500 mPa·s (50 to 500 cps, as 1 cps = 1 mPa·s) (Paragraph 0093) (corresponds to conductive material dispersion having a viscosity of about 10,000 cps or less).
Nakajo teaches a graph showing a particle size distribution of the conductive (carbonaceous) material dispersion (Paragraph 0036).
Nakajo teaches that it is desirable to have a state in which primary particles or primary aggregates and secondary aggregates of the carbonaceous material (carbon nanotubes) are present in sufficient proportions resulting in two or more size peaks when measured with laser diffraction. The ratio of the height of the two peaks P1:P2 (P1:P2, equated to B/A) in a carbonaceous material dispersion is from 1:0.7 to 0.7:1 (A/B = 0.7-1.43) (Paragraph 0095 and Figure 1). This range of peak heights overlaps with the claimed range of 0.2 ≤ A/B ≤ 0.8. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Nakajo does not specifically disclose that the embodiment containing the carbon nanotubes has a particle size range of peak A being about 0.5 microns or less and peak B being more than about 0.5 microns.
However, Nakajo teaches an embodiment wherein the graph of the particle sizes of the conductive carbonaceous material displays two peaks, P1 and P2, in Figure 1 (Paragraph 0036). As shown in Figure 1, the peak P2 (A) is located at an estimated particle size 0.25 µm (corresponds to a particle size range of about 0.5 microns or less), while peak P1 (B) is located at an estimated particle size of 1.05 µm (corresponds to a particle size range of more than about 0.5 microns).
As Nakajo discloses that the sizes presented in the graph are suitable for providing the desired carbonaceous dispersion, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to have the maximum peak intensity at the particle size 0.25 µm and 1.05 µm correspond to a maximum peak intensity of all the carbon nanotubes in the carbonaceous dispersion the claimed particles at peaks P2 (A) and P1 (B), respectively. One would have been motivated to do so, as Nakajo discloses that the plot in Figure 1 represents a carbonaceous dispersion suitable for its intended use as functioning as a conductive auxiliary agent (Paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 4, Nakajo teaches a conductive material dispersion for a rechargeable lithium battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Nakajo does not explicitly teach the amount of the carbon nanotubes to be about 0.4 wt% to about 2.0 wt% based on a total of 100 wt% of the conductive material dispersion.
However, Nakajo teaches the amount of carbonaceous material (obvious to select as carbon nanotubes, as described above in claim 1) is 15 to 30% by mass with respect to the 100 parts by mass of the dispersion (Paragraph 0032).
The range of weight percent of carbon nanotubes of Nakajo substantially overlaps the claimed ranges of the weight percentage of carbon nanotubes in the instant claim 4. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ito because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, Nakajo teaches a conductive material dispersion for a rechargeable lithium battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1, wherein the carbon nanotubes are single-walled carbon nanotubes. As Nakajo teaches the carbonaceous material of the dispersion may be carbon nanotubes (CNT) (Paragraph 0065), and the two main types of carbon nanotubes recognized in the art are single walled or multi walled carbo nanotubes, it follows that the CNT of Nakajo would be either single or multi-walled carbon nanotubes or a combination thereof, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Claims 1-9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (Japanese Patent Publication No. 2020105316 A) (machine translation relied upon) in view of Choy (Chinese Patent Publication No. 107112524 A) and Nakajo.
Regarding claim 1, Ito teaches a material dispersion for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising carbon nanotubes (Abstract).
Ito teaches the carbon nanotube dispersion has high dispersibility so as to obtain an electrode film having high conductivity (Abstract). Further, through disclosed examples, Ito teaches the dispersion able to provide a lithium secondary battery conductivity that is difficult to realize with conventional carbon nanotube dispersion liquid (Page 22, Paragraph 4). Thus, the carbon nanotube dispersion of Ito is conductive and meets the limitations of the instant claim.
Ito discloses the carbon nanotube dispersion liquid includes a dispersant (Abstract). Ito teaches polyvinyl pyrrolidone and carboxymethyl cellulose as a dispersant suitable for use in the dispersion (Paragraph 7, Paragraph 5), which is also provided as an example dispersing agent in the instant disclosure (Paragraph 0042). Ito teaches the amount of carbon nanotube in the carbon nanotube dispersion liquid is preferably 0.2 to 20 parts by mass, preferably 0.5 to 5 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the carbon nanotube dispersion liquid (Page 9, Paragraph 3). Ito teaches the amount of the dispersant in the carbon nanotube dispersion liquid is preferably 30 to 80 parts by mass with respect to the mass of carbon nanotubes (Page 9, Paragraph 4). Therefore, Ito teaches the weight percent of dispersing agent with respect to the total weight of the conductive material dispersion as follows:
Upper Limit
5
p
a
r
t
s
c
a
r
b
o
n
n
a
n
o
t
u
b
e
s
100
p
a
r
t
s
c
a
r
b
o
n
n
a
n
o
t
u
b
e
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
i
o
n
l
i
q
u
i
d
×
80
p
a
r
t
s
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
a
n
t
100
p
a
r
t
s
c
a
r
b
o
n
n
a
n
o
t
u
b
e
s
*
100
%
=
4
%
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
t
o
100
%
c
a
r
b
o
n
n
a
n
o
t
u
b
e
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
i
o
n
Lower Limit
0.5
p
a
r
t
s
c
a
r
b
o
n
n
a
n
o
t
u
b
e
s
100
p
a
r
t
s
c
a
r
b
o
n
n
a
n
o
t
u
b
e
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
i
o
n
l
i
q
u
i
d
×
30
p
a
r
t
s
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
a
n
t
100
p
a
r
t
s
c
a
r
b
o
n
n
a
n
o
t
u
b
e
s
*
100
%
=
=
0.15
%
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
t
o
100
%
c
a
r
b
o
n
n
a
n
o
t
u
b
e
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
i
o
n
Thus, Ito teaches the dispersant present in the conductive material dispersion from 0.15 wt.% to 4 wt.% based on 100 wt % of the conductive material dispersion. The range of the weight percent of the dispersant of Ito overlaps with the instant claimed range. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitation is met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Ito does not explicitly teach the conductive material dispersion having a viscosity of about 10,000 cps or less.
Choy teaches a method for forming a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract). Choy discloses the dispersing agent added to the dispersion as a way to control the dispersibility of the conductive agent as well as the viscosity of the composition (Page 9, Paragraph 4). Further, Choy teaches the viscosity of the composition containing a conductive agent and a dispersant to suitably be from 1000 cps to 5000 cps (Page 11, Paragraph 3). When the viscosity of the dispersion is outside the range, Choy teaches reduced coating ability of the composition which makes forming a uniform thickness on the electrode (Page 18, Paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the viscosity of the conductive material dispersion of Ito to incorporate the teachings of Choy in which the viscosity is between 1,000 and 5,000 cps. Doing so would increase the ability to coat and achieve uniform thickness on the electrode, as recognized by Choy. With this modification, modified Ito teaches a range of viscosity of conductive material dispersion which substantially overlaps the claimed ranges of conductive material dispersion viscosity in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by modified Ito because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Ito does not explicitly teach a graph showing a particle size distribution of the conductive material dispersion, where A is a maximum peak intensity of all the carbon nanotubes occurring in a particle size range of about 0.5 µm or less, and B is a maximum peak intensity of all the carbon nanotubes occurring in a particle size range of more than about 0.5 µm, the A and the B satisfy the relationship of Equation 1, 0.2 ≤ A/B ≤ 0.8.
However, Nakajo teaches a carbonaceous material dispersion comprising carbon nanotubes (Paragraph 0065) suitable for use as a conductive auxiliary agent for forming a battery electrode layer (Paragraph 0002). Nakajo teaches a graph showing a particle size distribution of the conductive (carbonaceous) material dispersion (Paragraph 0036).
As Nakajo discloses that the sizes presented in the graph are suitable for providing the desired carbonaceous dispersion, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to have the maximum peak intensity at the particle size 0.25 µm and 1.05 µm correspond to a maximum peak intensity of all the carbon nanotubes in the carbonaceous dispersion the claimed particles at peaks P2 (A) and P1 (B), respectively. One would have been motivated to do so, as Nakajo discloses that the plot in Figure 1 represents a carbonaceous dispersion suitable for its intended use as functioning as a conductive auxiliary agent (Paragraph 18). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Further, Nakajo teaches the ratio of the heights of the peaks (P1:P2, equated to B/A) is in the range of 1:0.7 to 0.7:1 (1.43-0.7). Therefore, the ratio of the height of the peaks in the particle size distribution, P2:P1 (instant claim A/B in instant Equation 1) is taught by Nakajo to be in the range of 0.7-1.43. The range of the ratio of peak height P2:P1 (equivalent to A/B) of Nakajo substantially overlaps the claimed range of A/B in Equation 1 of the instant claim 1 (corresponds to A/B between 0.2 and 0.8). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Nakajo because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the particle size distribution of Ito to incorporate the teachings of Nakajo in which A (P2) is a maximum peak intensity occurring in a particle size range of about 0.5 µm or less, and B (P1) is a maximum peak intensity occurring in a particle size range of more than about 0.5 µm, the A and the B satisfy a relationship of Equation 1, Equation 1: 0.2 ≤ A/B ≤ 0.8. Doing so would provide a carbonaceous material dispersion which is highly concentrated that can easily be coated on electrodes so that that exhibit excellent electrical properties, as recognized by Nakajo (Paragraph 0018). With this modification, as discussed above, Ito in view of Nakajo meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 3, modified Ito teaches a conductive material dispersion for a rechargeable lithium battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the modification of Ito by Choy results in a viscosity of the conductive material dispersion from 1000 cps to 5000 cps (Page 11, Paragraph 3). With this modification, modified Ito teaches a range of viscosity of conductive material dispersion which substantially overlaps the claimed ranges (1000 cps to about 10,000 cps) of conductive material dispersion viscosity in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by modified Ito because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 4, modified Ito teaches a conductive material dispersion for a rechargeable lithium battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Ito does not explicitly teach the amount of the carbon nanotubes to be about 0.4 wt% to about 2.0 wt% based on a total of 100 wt% of the conductive material dispersion.
However, Ito teaches the amount of carbon nanotube is most preferably 0.5 to 5 parts by mass with respect to the 100 parts by mass of the carbon nanotube dispersion liquid (0.5-5 wt% of carbon nanotubes).
The range of weight percent of carbon nanotubes of Ito substantially overlaps the claimed ranges of the weight percentage of carbon nanotubes in the instant claim 4. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ito because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ito teaches a conductive material dispersion for a rechargeable lithium battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1, wherein the carbon nanotubes are single-walled carbon nanotubes (Page 3, Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ito teaches a conductive material dispersion for a rechargeable lithium battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Ito does not explicitly teach the carbon nanotubes having an average length of about 10 µm or less.
However, Ito teaches the fiber length of the carbon nanotube is 0.1 µm to 10 µm, preferably 0.2 µm to 5 µm, most preferably 0.3 µm to 2 µm (Page 9, Paragraph 5).
The range of fiber length of carbon nanotubes of Ito substantially overlaps the claimed ranges of the fiber length of carbon nanotubes in the instant claim 6. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ito because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 7, modified Ito teaches a conductive material dispersion for a rechargeable lithium battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Ito does not explicitly teach the carbon nanotubes having an average diameter of about 1 nm to about 5 nm.
However, Ito teaches the average outer diameter of the carbon nanotube is 1 nm to 10 nm, preferably 3 nm to 10 nm, and most preferably 3 nm to 8 nm (Page 4, Paragraph 4).
The range of fiber length of carbon nanotubes of Ito substantially overlaps the claimed ranges of the fiber length of carbon nanotubes in the instant claim 6. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ito because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ito teaches a conductive material dispersion for a rechargeable lithium battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1, with particles A and B.
Ito does not explicitly teach the dispersion wherein the A is about 0.1 volume% to about 15 volume% and the B is about 1 volume% to about 20 volume% as a fraction of the volume of particles in the particle size distribution.
However, as discussed above, Nakajo discloses that it is desirable to have a state in which primary particles or primary aggregates and secondary aggregates of the carbonaceous material (carbon nanotubes) are present in sufficient proportions resulting in two or more size peaks in the particle size distribution when measured with laser diffraction (Paragraph 0095). Further, Nakajo teaches that by forming two or more particle size peaks, the agglomerated structure of the carbonaceous material can be preserved while also maintaining the desired dispersibility, fluidity, and conductivity in the process of forming electrodes (Paragraph 0094).
Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the volume percent of carbonaceous material in the dispersion represented by peak P2 to be between 0.1 volume% to about 15 volume% (equivalent to instant particles A) based on 100 volume% of the carbon nanotubes and those represented by peak P1 to be between 1 volume% to about 20 volume% (equivalent to instant particles B) based on 100 volume% of the carbon nanotubes, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involved only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the volume concentration of carbonaceous material to be within the claimed ranges of instant claim 8 in order to achieve the desired structure of the dispersion as well as battery properties. For example, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the proportion of the carbon nanotubes with a smaller particle size (P2 of Nakajo, instant particle A) and the proportion of the carbon nanotubes with a larger particle size (P1 of Nakajo, instant particle B) with respect to the entirety of carbon nanotubes in the dispersion may be tuned to balance between forming the desired agglomerated structure and achieving the desired battery properties of dispersibility, fluidity, and conductivity.
Regarding claim 9, Ito teaches a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery prepared by using the conductive material dispersion (mixture slurry comprising the carbon nanotube dispersion) (Page 12, Paragraph 6) as discussed above with respect to claim 1 (Page 13, Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 11, Ito teaches a rechargeable lithium battery comprising the negative electrode as discussed above with respect to claim 9, a positive electrode, and an electrolyte (Page 13, Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ito teaches a conductive material dispersion for a rechargeable lithium battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the modification of Ito by Choy results in a viscosity of the conductive material dispersion from 1000 cps to 5000 cps (Page 11, Paragraph 3). With this modification, modified Ito teaches a range of viscosity of conductive material dispersion which overlaps the claimed ranges (4230 cps to about 5830 cps) of conductive material dispersion viscosity in the instant claim 12. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Choy and Nakajo as applied to claims 1-9, 11-12 above, as evidenced by the Merriam Webster Definition of “composite.”
Regarding claim 10, Ito teaches a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery as discussed above with respect to claim 9, wherein the negative electrode comprises a silicon and carbon (graphite) composite negative active material (Page 11, Paragraph 5). A composite is defined by Merriam Webster as being made up of distinct parts or elements, and because Ito teaches the active material as a combination of silicon and graphite, Ito teaches a composite active material.
Cited Art Not Relied Upon
Hirabayashi (W.O. 2022138496 A1) discloses a conductive material dispersion (carbon nanotube dispersion liquid) (Paragraphs 11, 3) for a rechargeable lithium battery (Paragraphs 12, 26) comprising carbon nanotubes and a dispersing agent (polymer A and polymer B) (Paragraph 32). Hirabayashi teaches the carbon nanotube dispersion having two or more peaks in the particle size distribution measured using the laser diffraction/scattering type particle size distribution measurement method (Paragraph 109). However, Hirabayashi does not teach the appropriate peak intensities corresponding the particle sizes of the disclosed invention.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 112(b)
In response to the Final Rejection mailed October 21st, 2025, applicant argues on page 5 of the response received December 16th, 2025 that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the graph showing the particle size distribution of the conductive material dispersion would include all carbon nanotubes of the conductive material dispersion. Applicant further argues the graph would include all the carbon nanotubes occurring in a particle size range of about 0.5 µm or less (and the examiner believes the argument contains a typo and should also include a particle size range of 0.5 µm or more).
These arguments have been fully considered but are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112(b) of claims 1, 3-11 has been withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 103
In response to the Final Rejection mailed October 21st, 2025, applicant argues on page 5 of the response received December 16th, 2025 that the newly amended limitations of claim 1, particularly with respect to the dispersing agent, are not taught by the prior art of record including Nakajo, Ito, and Choy. Applicant argues that the absence of this teaching renders claim 1 as nonobvious over the prior are
These arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Nakajo was used as a primary reference in the rejection of claim 1 teaches a dispersing agent used in the conductive material dispersion present in the dispersion at a weight percentage which overlaps that of the instant claim, which established prima facie obviousness and met the instant claimed limitations. Further, Ito was used as a primary reference in the alternate rejection of claim 1 teaches a dispersing agent used in the conductive material dispersion present in the dispersion at a weight percentage which overlaps that of the instant claim, which established prima facie obviousness and met the instant claimed limitations. For the aforementioned reasons and as articulated in the above rejections of claim 1, applicant’s argues are found not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789