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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Oh (KR-20190108814-A) is newly applied in combination with Lee to teach amended claim 1 including “the negative active material comprises a silicon-based active material comprising a silicon-carbon composite having an amount of silicon of 1 wt% to 60 wt% based on 100 wt% of the silicon-carbon composite.” Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding the silicon-carbon composite are moot.
Applicant further argues that the combination of references does not provide all the features as claimed. However, the new combination of references does provide all the features as claimed in instant claim 1, and includes the structure and methods of forming the negative electrode similar to that in the instant specification.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Furthermore, claim 1 is a product-by-process claim, and modified Lee teaches the structure of the negative electrode active material as claimed in claim 1; product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113 I.).
Regarding amended claim 12, Kang (US-20150243993-A1) is newly applied in combination with Lee to teach amended claim 12.
Regarding applicant’s arguments over claims 11 and 14, the claims are product-by-process claim, and modified Lee teaches the structure of the negative electrode active material as claimed in claim 1; product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113 I.). Therefore, the additions of claims 11 and 14 still fall within the structure as provided by the prior art in claim 1. Furthermore, although Tsukuda does not provide the conveyance speed for negative electrode active material to obtain the claimed orientation ratio, Tsukuda is analogous art because Tsukuda teaches the conveyance and magnetic field applied to materials for a secondary battery. The application of Tuskuda is to show that conveyance speed of materials for secondary battery materials overlaps with the conveyance speed as claimed.
Regarding new claim 16, modified Lee teaches new claim 16 as follows from the combination described regarding claim 1. Applicant submits that tables 1-3 in the instant specification show that the orientation ratio of 63-92 as claimed provides unexpected results and criticality. Table 2 shows that examples 1, 2, 4, and 5 have an orientation ratio ranging from 63 to 92, and table 3 shows that the examples have a capacity retention of over 84%. As shown in table 2, comparative example 1 has an orientation ratio of 69, comparative example 2 has an orientation ratio of 82, and comparative example 5 has an orientation ratio of 73, and table 3 shows the comparative examples having a notably lower capacity retention compared to examples 1-5. Applicant argues that the unique combination of the orientation ratio with the silicon-based active material and carbon nanotubes as claimed achieve the unexpected results. However, applicant’s arguments do not overcome evidence. That is, modified Lee teaches the silicon-based active material, which is specifically a silicon-carbon composite as claimed in claims 4 and 15, and the addition of carbon nanotubes, and the process by which the claimed orientation ratio is achieved. Therefore, claim 16 is taught by modified Lee.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10, 13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20190334161-A1), and in further view of Oh (KR-20190108814-A) (see translation) and Ka (US-20180123120-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery (see e.g., [0002]) comprising: a current collector (see e.g., [0005]); and a negative active material layer on the current collector (see e.g., [0005]), the negative active material layer comprising a negative active material and a conductive material (see e.g., [0005], regarding carbon negative active material and conductive agent), wherein the negative active material is oriented at a set angle to the current collector (see e.g., [0048], fig. 1, regarding active material oriented at a specific angle with respect to the current collector), the negative active material comprises a silicon-based active material (see e.g., [0023], regarding Si negative active material [0061]-[0062]), the conductive material comprises carbon nanotubes (see e.g., [0063]-[0064], regarding fiber-shaped conductive agent which may be carbon nanotubes).
Lee discloses that the negative active material may be a Si based material, such as an Si-C composite (see e.g., Lee; [0062]). Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the silicon-based active material comprises a silicon-carbon composite having an amount of silicon of 1 wt% to 60 wt% based on 100 wt% of the silicon-carbon composite. However, Oh discloses a silicon-carbon composite material for a negative electrode active material wherein the content of silicon particles in the silicon-carbon composite is 28-57 wt% based on 100 wt% of the total silicon carbon composite (see e.g., Oh; [0009]), which falls within the claimed range of 1-60 wt%. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the silicon-carbon composite material of Lee have 28-57 wt% of silicon as disclosed by Oh in order to effectively suppress expansion due to charging and discharging and exhibiting improved swelling characteristics (see e.g., Oh; [0007]).
The instant specification states that the orientation ratio of equation 1 may be achieved via a magnetic field of 2000 Gauss to 5000 Gauss wherein the speed for passing through the area where the magnetic field is generated may be 3.0 m/min to 5.0 m/min. Similarly, Lee discloses that magnetic field may be 1000 Gauss to 10,000 Gauss (see e.g., Lee; [0052]) with a specific example provided of 3000 Gauss (see e.g., Lee; [0116]), and that the negative active material may be exposed to the field for 2 to 9 seconds (see e.g., Lee; [0052]).
In example 1, Lee applies the 3000 Gauss magnetic field to negative active material that is primarily artificial graphite. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the magnetic field of 3000 Gauss to a negative active material that is a silicon-carbon composite instead of artificial graphite because Lee specifically teaches that the negative active material may be a Si-C composite material (see e.g., Lee; [0061]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select this material for the 3000 Gauss magnetic field treatment in order to obtain high capacity (see e.g., Lee; [0148]).
The instant specification further submits that the amount of the negative active material may be 90 wt% to 98.99 wt%. Similarly, Lee discloses that the negative active material layer may include 90 wt% to 98 wt% of the negative electrode active material (see e.g., Lee; [0077]).
Therefore, Lee teaches the composition and weight % of the negative active material disclosed by the instant specification.
Furthermore, the instant specification submits that the conductive material may be carbon nanotubes, single-walled, multi-walled, or a combination, and included in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 5 wt%. Similarly, Lee teaches that a conductive material may be selected from a group of materials including single-walled carbon nanotube and multi-walled nanotube (see e.g., Lee; [0063]-[0064]) and included at 1 wt% to 5 wt%.
KSR Rationale E states that it is obvious to choose "from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success". Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select carbon nanotube from the list of possible conductive materials taught by Lee.
Therefore, Lee also teaches the composition and weight % of the conductive material disclosed by the instant specification.
Lee does not explicitly disclose a slurry viscosity of 1000 cps to 4000 cps at room temperature as disclosed in the instant specification. However, Ka teaches that a negative electrode active material may have a viscosity of 2000 cps to 4000 cps at room temperature (see e.g., Ka; [0033]). Ka is further combinable with Lee because Ka similarly teaches that the negative electrode may include carbon material with Si-based material in a mixed ratio of 50:50 to 99:1 (see e.g., Ka; [0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the negative electrode material disclosed by Lee have the property of the viscosity being 2000 cps to 4000 cps at room temperature as disclosed by Ka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve a desired degree of divergence (see e.g., Ka; [0032]). Therefore, Ka combined with Lee teaches a slurry viscosity that overlaps with the instant specification.
In summary, Lee teaches a negative electrode active material having the same composition and weight % of the negative active material, composition and weight % of the conductive material, and magnetic field strength as the instant specification; it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the combination of silicon-carbon composite material with the carbon nanotube conductive material and applied a magnetic field of 3000 Gauss. Moreover, Ka may be combined with Lee to teach a viscosity that is the same as the instant specification.
Therefore, because modified Lee discloses the same composition of the negative electrode, an overlapping magnetic field strength for further processing the negative active material, and a time of exposure that may overlap with the specified speed, it is the examiners position that the resulting structure would have an orientation ratio of equation 1, specifically: the negative electrode has an orientation ratio represented by Equation 1 of 50 to 100: Equation 1 Orientation ratio=I(110)/I(002), and wherein, in Equation 1, (110) is a peak intensity at a (110) plane for an x-ray diffraction analysis (XRD) measured by utilizing a CuKa ray, and (002) is a peak intensity at a (002) plane for the XRD measured by utilizing the Cuka ray.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. As described above regarding claim 1, modified Lee discloses the same composition of the negative electrode, and the similar magnetic field for further processing the negative active material and therefore it is the examiners position that the resulting structure would have an orientation ratio of 54 to 95.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the conductive material is multi-walled carbon nanotubes or single-walled carbon nanotubes (see e.g., [0064]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee teaches the negative electrode of claim 1. Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the Si-C composite material comprises a crystalline carbon, silicon particles, and an amorphous carbon. However, Oh discloses wherein a Si-C composite material comprises crystalline carbon, silicon particles, and an amorphous carbon coating layer (see e.g., Oh; [0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Si-C composite material disclosed by Lee such that the material comprises crystalline carbon, silicon particles, and an amorphous carbon as disclosed by Oh in order to suppress expansion due to charging and discharging and exhibiting improved swelling characteristics (see e.g., Oh; [0007]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the carbon nanotubes have an average length of 1 μm to 10 μm (see e.g., Lee;[0063]-[0064], regarding fiber-shaped conductive agent having length of 1 μm to 200 μm which overlaps with the claimed range, wherein the fiber-shaped conductive agent may be carbon nanotube).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee teaches the negative electrode of claim 1. As described above, Lee discloses the same composition of the negative electrode, and the similar magnetic field for further processing the negative active material and therefore it is the examiners position that the resulting structure would have an orientation ratio of wherein the peak intensity is a peak integral area value..
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee teaches a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising the negative electrode of claim 1 (see e.g., Lee; [0002]); a positive electrode; and an electrolyte (see e.g., [0085]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee teaches an electronic device comprising the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 8 (see e.g., Lee; [0086], regarding the battery applied to an electronic device such as a power tool, electric vehicle, vacuum cleaner).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee teaches a method of forming the negative electrode of claim 1 (see e.g., Lee; [0051], regarding method of manufacture), the method comprising: providing the negative active material layer on the current collector (see e.g., Lee; [0005]), the negative active material layer comprising a negative active material and a conductive material (see e.g., Lee; [0005], regarding carbon negative active material and conductive agent), wherein the providing of the negative active material comprises: orienting the negative active material at the set angle to the current collector (see e.g., Lee; [0048], fig. 1, regarding active material oriented at a specific angle with respect to the current collector), providing, as the negative active material the silicon-based active material (see e.g., Lee; [0023], regarding Si negative active material [0061]-[0062]), providing the conductive material comprising the carbon nanotubes (see e.g., Lee; [0063]-[0064], regarding fiber-shaped conductive agent which may be carbon nanotubes).
As above regarding claim 1, Oh modifies Lee to teach wherein the silicon-based active material comprising the silicon-carbon composite having the amount of silicon within the claimed range of 1 wt% to 60 wt% based on 100 wt% of the silicon-carbon composite.
The equation 1 orientation ratio=I(110)/I(002) is taught by modified Lee as described above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee teaches the negative electrode of claim 1. As in the rejection of claim 1 above, it is the examiner’s position that modified Lee also teaches wherein the X-ray diffraction (XRD) utilized to determine I(110) and I(002) is measured without a monochromator, over 28 = 200 to 800, with a scan speed of 0.044 to 0.0890/s and a step size of 0.013 to 0.0390/step. Claim 13 is a product-by-process claim, and modified Lee above regarding claim 1 teaches the structure of the negative electrode active material; product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113 I.).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee teaches the negative electrode of claim 4. Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the silicon-carbon composite comprises 3 wt% to 60 wt% silicon, 20 wt% to 60wt% amorphous carbon, and 20 wt% to 60 wt% crystalline carbon, based on 100 wt% of the silicon-carbon composite. However, Oh discloses wherein silicon particles comprise 28-57 wt% (see e.g., Oh; [0009]), which overlaps with the claimed 3-60 wt% of silicon, wherein the amorphous carbon layer may be 18-22 wt% (see e.g., Oh; [0043]), which overlaps with the claimed 20-60 wt% amorphous carbon, and therefore the resulting first crystalline carbon may be 18-54 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed 20-60 wt% of crystalline carbon. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Si-C composite particle disclosed by Lee to have 28-57 wt% silicon, 18-22 wt% amorphous carbon, and 18-54 wt% crystalline carbon as disclosed by Oh in order to effectively suppress expansion due to charging and discharging and exhibiting improved swelling characteristics (see e.g., Oh; [0007]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Lee teaches the negative electrode of claim 1. As above regarding claim 1, because modified Lee discloses the same composition of the negative electrode, an overlapping magnetic field strength for further processing the negative active material, and a time of exposure that may overlap with the specified speed, it is the examiners position that the resulting structure would have an orientation ratio of the negative electrode of 63 to 92.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20190334161-A1), Oh (KR-20190108814-A) (see translation), and Ka (US-20180123120-A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Azami (US-20180198159-A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee teaches the negative electrode of claim 1. Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the carbon nanotubes have an average diameter of 1 nm to 5 nm. However, Azami discloses carbon nanotubes with an average diameter 0.5 nm to 50 nm (see e.g., Azami; [0021]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 nm to 5nm. Azami is further combinable because Azami similarly discloses the length of the carbon nanotubes are 0.05 μm to 5 μm. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbon nanotubes disclosed by Lee to have an average diameter of 0.5 nm to 50 nm disclosed by Azami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have improved cycle characteristics (see e.g., Azami; [0009]).
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20190334161-A1), Oh (KR-20190108814-A) (see translation), and Ka (US-20180123120-A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tsukuda (US-20210184310-A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the negative active material layer is formed by passing a slurry comprising the negative active material and the conductive material through a magnetic field having a strength of 2000 Gauss to 5000 Gauss (see above regarding claim 1 which provides an example of 3000 Gauss that is combined with the silicon-carbon composite negative active material).
Lee discloses that the exposure time may be 2 to 9 seconds (see e.g., Lee; [0052]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the speed is 3.0 m/min to 5.0 m/min. However, Tsukuda teaches that a conveyance speed may wherein a magnet field is applied may be 5 m to 200 m per minute (see e.g., Tsukuda; [0181]) which overlaps with the claimed range. Tsukuda is analogous art because Tsukuda teaches the conveyance and magnetic field applied to materials for a secondary battery. While Tsukuda teaches the conveyance speed applied to a separator film, a similar speed may be applied to Lee for the negative electrode active material. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a conveyance speed of 5 m to 200 m per minute disclosed by Tsukuda to the negative electrode active material disclosed by Lee in order to provide the possibility of eliminating foreign objects from the material (see e.g., Tsukuda; [0181]).
Moreover, Claim 11 is a product-by-process claim, and modified Lee teaches the structure of the negative electrode active material as claimed in claim 1; product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113 I.).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lee teaches the negative electrode of claim 1.
wherein the negative active material layer is formed by coating a slurry having a viscosity of 1000 cps to 4000 cps at 25 °C on the current collector (see above regarding claim 1), and passing the coated current collector through a magnetic field of 2000 Gauss to 5000 Gauss (see above regarding claim 1 which provides an example of 3000 Gauss that is combined with the silicon-carbon composite negative active material).
Lee discloses that the exposure time may be 2 to 9 seconds (see e.g., Lee; [0052]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the speed is 3.0 m/min to 5.0 m/min. However, Tsukuda teaches that a conveyance speed may wherein a magnet field is applied may be 5 m to 200 m per minute (see e.g., Tsukuda; [0181]) which overlaps with the claimed range. Tsukuda is analogous art because Tsukuda teaches the conveyance and magnetic field applied to materials for a secondary battery. While Tsukuda teaches the conveyance speed applied to a separator film, a similar speed may be applied to Lee for the negative electrode active material. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a conveyance speed of 5 m to 200 m per minute disclosed by Tsukuda to the negative electrode active material disclosed by Lee in order to provide the possibility of eliminating foreign objects from the material (see e.g., [0181]).
Moreover, Claim 14 is a product-by-process claim, and modified Lee above regarding claim 1 teaches the structure of the negative electrode active material; product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113 I.).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20190334161-A1), Oh (KR-20190108814-A) (see translation), Ka (US-20180123120-A1), Tsukuda (US-20210184310-A1), and further in view of Kang (US-20150243993-A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee teaches the negative electrode of claim 11. Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the slurry comprising the negative active material and the conductive material has a viscosity of 1000 cps to 1910 cps at 25 °C. However, Kang discloses an inclusion of a binder that when added to an anode at 5% may result in a viscosity of 1300-4900 cP (see e.g., Kang; [0032]). Kang is further applicable to Lee because Lee discloses that the binder may be added in a range of 1-5 wt% (see e.g., Lee; [0077]), and wherein the binder may be polymer materials (see e.g., Lee; [0079]-[0080]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the binder disclosed by Lee with the binder disclosed by Kang such that the viscosity of the anode slurry is 1300-4900 cP as disclosed by Kang in order to provide excellent adhesive strength and lifespan characteristics (see e.g., Kang; [0012]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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 Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights