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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments have been entered. Amendments do not overcome the 103 rejection previously set forth in Final Office Action mailed 10/22/2025
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 ,5-6, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of ‘, ‘Self-ball milling strategy to construct high-entropy oxide coated LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 with enhanced electrochemical performance’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Yuan’, in view of Improvement of the Cycling Performance of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 Cathode Active Materials by a Dual-Conductive Polymer Coating’ hereinafter referred to a ‘Ju’ in further view of ‘Improving electrochemical performance of Ni-rich LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 cathode for Li-ion batteries by dual-conductive coating layer of PPy and LiAlO2’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Ma’
Regarding Claim 1,
Yuan teaches an electrode for an electrochemical device, comprising: an electroactive material comprising particles of cathode active material, each particle having a surface; a primary coating layer on the surface of each particle of the cathode active material, the primary coating layer comprising a high entropy metal oxide (HEO) (Yuan, “Here, we present a facile self-ball milling method to obtain (La0.2Nd0.2Sm0.2Eu0.2Gd0.2)2Zr2O7 (HEO) coated LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 (NCM811). The HEO coating endows NCM811 with a stable surface, reduces the contact with the external environment (air and electrolyte), and inhibits side reactions between cathode and electrolyte.”, see Abstract); the particles of cathode active material comprise layered lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (Li1+6NixMnyCozO2,6>0, x+y+z=1); layered lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (LiNixCoyAlzO2, x+y+z=1);LiCoO2; LiNiO2; LiMnO2; lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2); spinel lithium nickel manganese oxide (LiNixMn2-x04, Ox<2); lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4); LiNiPO4; LiMnxFei-xPO4 (0<x1); LiCoPO4; layered sodium transition metal oxide (NaTMO2) (Yuan, “The HEO coating endows NCM811”, see Abstract); or a mixture of any two or more thereof, wherein TM is Fe, Co, Ni, Mn, Cr, V, Cu, Ti, or a combination of any two or more thereof, the primary coating layer is present in a weight percentage from >0 wt.% to about 5 wt. %, based on the weight of the electroactive material (Yuan, “the sample with 5 wt% HEO coated (5HEO-NCM811) delivers enhanced cycling stability”, Introduction):
Yuan does not teach the primary coating has a thickness from about 0.5 nm to about 30 nm.
Yuan teaches the primary coating has of about 100nm in thickness (Yuan, “The prepared HEO is a flake powder with a size of ~100 nm”, see Results and Discussion).
Yuan teaches that is desirable for the coating to be as thin as possible in order to inhibit resistance (Yuan, “According to previous works, the ideal surface coating should meet the following conditions: (1) The coating materials do not change the crystal structure of the cathode material, (2) the coating layer is thin enough and well dispersed so as not to reduce the conductivity, (3)”, see Introduction).
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 layer thickness of 100nm to be smaller to the claimed range as a matter of optimization to reduce resistance (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A))
Yuan does not teach secondary a secondary coating layer comprising an ionic and electronic conductive polymer; wherein: the secondary coating layer, when present, is disposed directly on the primary coating layer
Ju teaches a secondary a secondary coating layer comprising an ionic and electronic conductive polymer (Ju, “LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 cathode materials were surface-modified by coating with a dual conductive poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)-co-poly(ethylene glycol) (PEDOT-co-PEG) copolymer”, see Abstract).
Ju teaches that the presence of a conductive polymer suppresses the growth of a resistive layer (Ju, “The presence of a protective conducting polymer layer formed on the cathode also suppressed the growth of a resistive layer and inhibited the dissolution of transition metals from the active cathode materials, which resulted in more stable cycling characteristics than the pristine LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2”, see Abstract).
Yuan and Ju are analogous as they are both of the same field of coatings for electrode materials.
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 invention as taught in Yuan to add a protective polymer layer.
Modified Yuan does not teach a secondary coating layer, when present, is disposed directly on the primary coating layer.
Ma teaches a secondary coating layer, when present, is disposed directly on the primary coating layer (Ma, “However, NCM still suffers from poor rate capability and insufficient cycle stability owing to the poor conductivity as well as side reactions. Here, a dual-conductive coating strategy is employed to address these issues.”, see Abstract)(see Figure 1).
Ma teaches that a dual coating can suppress side reactions and increase conductivity (Ma, “The LiAlO2 coating can suppress side reactions and enhance ionic conductivity, and the PPy coating can increase electronic conductivity.”, see Abstract).
Modified Yuan and Ma are analogous as they are both of the same filed of coatings of cathode.
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 invention as taught in Yuan to have a dual coating as taught in Ma, one of which is a conductive polymer coating, in order to protect the cathode while allowing for increase conductivity along with the inherent benefits of HEO.
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Yuan teaches the electrode of claim 1, wherein secondary coating layer is present and the ionic and electronic conductive polymer comprises poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), polypyrrole, polyaniline, or a blend of any two or more thereof (Ju, “LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 cathode materials were surface-modified by coating with a dual conductive poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)”, See Abstract).
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Yuan teaches the electrode of claim 1, wherein the secondary coating layer is present in a weight percentage from 0 wt.% to about 3 wt. %, based on the weight of the electroactive material (Ju, “The weight percentage of the PEDOT-co-PEG copolymer coated on the LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 particle was determined to be about 0.78% see Results and Discussion); and the secondary coating has a thickness from about 0.5 nm to about 20 nm (Ju, “On the contrary, the magnified image around the edge of the surface-modified LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 particle shown in Figure 2b reveals that it is uniformly coated by a thin conductive polymer layer which has a thickness ranging from 11 to 18 nm.”, Results and Discussion).
Regarding Claim 9,
Modified Yuan teaches the electrode of claim 1, wherein the particles of cathode active material comprise polycrystalline particles that are micrometer-sized spherical secondary particles comprising nanometer- sized primary particles, or particles of cathode active material comprise single-crystalline particles that do not contain primary particles (Yuan, see annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image1.png
404
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10,
Modified Yuan teaches an energy storage device, comprising a cathode comprising the electrode of claim 1, an anode, a separator, and an electrolyte (Yuan, “The separator and anode were a porous polypropylene membrane (Celgard2500) and a lithium metal disc with a diameter of 15 mm, respectively. The cathode electrodes were fabricated by mixing the active material”, see 2.3 Assessments of Electrochemical Performance) .
Regarding Claim 11,
Modified Yuan teaches the energy storage device of claim 10, wherein the anode comprises lithium metal, sodium metal, graphite, hard carbon, silicon, tin, antimony, phosphorus, transition metal oxide lithium titanate, or a combination of any two or more thereof (Yuan, “The separator and anode were a porous polypropylene membrane (Celgard2500) and a lithium metal disc with a diameter of 15 mm, respectively. The cathode electrodes were fabricated by mixing the active material”, see 2.3 Assessments of Electrochemical Performance).
Regarding Claim 12,
Modified Yuan teaches the energy storage device of claim 10, wherein the cathode and/or the anode comprise one or more of a current collector;a conductive carbon material and a binder that is sodium carboxymethylcellulose, sodium alginate, poly(acrylic acid), lithiated poly(acrylic acid), sodiated poly(acrylic acid), poly (vinyl alcohol), polyvinyl acetate, poly (ethylene imine), carboxymethyl chitosan, glutaradehyde, B-cyclodextrin polymer, Gum Arabic, PEDOT-PSS, polyacrylic latex, gelatin, polyamido amine, polyvinylidene fluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyethylene, polystyrene, polyethylene oxide, polyimide, styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), polythiophene, polyacetylene, poly(9,9-dioctylfluorene-co-fluorenone), poly(9,9- dioctylfluorene-co-fluorenone-co-methylbenzoic ester), or a combination of any two or more thereof (Yuan, “The cathode electrodes were fabricated by mixing the active material, poly(vinyl difluoride) (PVDF), and acetylene black (AB) in a weight ratio of 8:1:1 with the solvent of N-methyl-2- pyrrolidone (NMP). Then the homogenized slurries were coated on Al foil and dried at 100 ℃ for 8 h under vacuum.”, see 2.3 Assessment of Electrochemical Performance ).
Regarding Claim 13,
Modified Yuan teaches the energy storage device of claim 10, wherein the electrolyte comprises a salt and a solvent comprising ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, tetraethylene glycol, dimethylsulfolane, 1,2-dimethoxyethane, 1,2- diethoxyethane, or a combination of any two or more thereof, or b. the electrolyte is a solid electrolyte that is a ceramic electrolyte, a polymer electrolyte, a glass electrolyte, or a combination of any two or more thereof (Yuan, “To evaluate the electrochemical performances of these materials, CR2032 coin half-cells were assembled in a glovebox filled with argon. 1.0 M LiPF6 in a mixture of ethylene carbonate (EC)/dimethyl carbonate (DEC)/ ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC)”, see 2.3 Assessment of Electrochemical Performance ).
5. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Self-ball milling strategy to construct high-entropy oxide coated LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 with enhanced electrochemical performance’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Yuan’, in view of Improvement of the Cycling Performance of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 Cathode Active Materials by a Dual-Conductive Polymer Coating’ hereinafter referred to a ‘Ju’ in further view of ‘Improving electrochemical performance of Ni-rich LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 cathode for Li-ion batteries by dual-conductive coating layer of PPy and LiAlO2’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Ma’, in further view of Designing a double-coated cathode with high entropy oxides by microwave-assisted hydrothermal synthesis for highly stable Li–S batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Colombo’
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Yuan does not teach the electrode of claim 1, wherein the HEO comprises at least five constituent cations selected from the group consisting of Li, Ni, Co, Mn, Nb, W, Zr, La, Al, Ti, Cu, Si, Mg, Zn, Sn, Ta, Fe, Sb, Y, Cr, Mo, V, and Sc cations; at least five constituent cations selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, Nb, W, Zr, La, Al, Ti, Cu, Si, Mg, Zn, Sn, Ta, Fe, Sb, Y, Cr, Mo, V, and Sc cations; at least five constituent metal cations selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, Nb, W, Zr, La, Al, Ti, and Ta cations; at least five constituent metal cations selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, Nb, W, Zr, Al, Ti, and Ta cations; or at least five constituent metal cations selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, Nb, W, and Zr cations; and wherein the cations are present with different weight percentages
Colombo teaches wherein the HEO comprises at least five constituent cations selected from the group consisting of Li, Ni, Co, Mn, Nb, W, Zr, La, Al, Ti, Cu, Si, Mg, Zn, Sn, Ta, Fe, Sb, Y, Cr, Mo, V, and Sc cations; at least five constituent cations selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, Nb, W, Zr, La, Al, Ti, Cu, Si, Mg, Zn, Sn, Ta, Fe, Sb, Y, Cr, Mo, V, and Sc cations; at least five constituent metal cations selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, Nb, W, Zr, La, Al, Ti, and Ta cations; at least five constituent metal cations selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, Nb, W, Zr, Al, Ti, and Ta cations; or at least five constituent metal cations selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, Nb, W, and Zr cations; and wherein the cations are present with different weight percentages (Colombo, “By building the dual-layer cathode, in which the sulfur/carbon active material is sandwiched between the aluminum current collector and the (Co0.2Cu0.2Mg0.2Ni0.2Zn0.2)O HEO layer,”, see Introduction) (The examiner notes that considering the molar ratios are equal, the weight percentages must be different due to the different molar masses of each element).
Colombo teaches that this HEO is beneficial (Colombo, “Nonetheless, HEO has been successfully employed as coating of NMC811 cathode active material. In this case, the HEO coating acted as an artificial cathode electrolyte interphase (CEI) that inhibited side reactions at the cathode/electrolyte interface, significantly reducing the polarization of the Li-ion battery and increasing the rate of the capacity retention”, see Introduction).
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 HEO as taught in Yuan with the HEO as taught in Colombo as matter of obvious simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 (I)(B)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of, ‘Self-ball milling strategy to construct high-entropy oxide coated LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 with enhanced electrochemical performance’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Yuan’, in view of Improvement of the Cycling Performance of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 Cathode Active Materials by a Dual-Conductive Polymer Coating’ hereinafter referred to a ‘Ju’ in further view of ‘Improving electrochemical performance of Ni-rich LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 cathode for Li-ion batteries by dual-conductive coating layer of PPy and LiAlO2’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Ma ’, as evidenced by ‘Entropy and crystal-facet modulation of P2-type layered cathodes for long-lasting sodium-based batteries’, hereinafter referred to as ‘Fu’
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Yuan teaches the electrode of claim 1, wherein the primary coating layer comprises aligned diffusion channels for alkaline ions (Yuan, “DLi+ of the two samples have the same order of magnitude, indicating that the HEO coating layer does not hinder the diffusion of Li+. However, compared to NCM811, the DLi+ of 5HEO-NCM811 is slightly larger. This is because the amount of HEO coating is very small relative to that of the bulk material, and the coating layer suppresses the side reaction at the electrode– electrolyte interface, and thus the Li-ion diffusion is slightly improved.”, see Results and Discussion))(The examiner notes that high entropy coating inherently creates more aligned diffusion channels as evidenced by Fu (Fu, “Na0.62Mn0.67Ni0.23Cu0.05Mg0.09-2yTiyO2. The Na+ extraction/insertion kinetics are mainly attributed to the increased structural stability and ion-diffusion channels.”, see Discussion))
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of, ‘Self-ball milling strategy to construct high-entropy oxide coated LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 with enhanced electrochemical performance’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Yuan’, in view of Improvement of the Cycling Performance of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 Cathode Active Materials by a Dual-Conductive Polymer Coating’ hereinafter referred to a ‘Ju’ in further view of ‘Improving electrochemical performance of Ni-rich LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 cathode for Li-ion batteries by dual-conductive coating layer of PPy and LiAlO2’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Ma in further view of ‘The Effect of Elemental Doping on Nickel-Rich NCM Cathode Materials of Lithium Ion Batteries’, hereinafter referred to as ‘Dang’
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Yuan does not teach wherein the electroactive material further comprises dopants selected from the group consisting of Sn, Al, Ti, La, Mg, Zn, Si, Ta, Mo, W, Nb, Fe, Cu, Cr, and Zr.
Dang teaches the electroactive material further comprises dopants selected from the group consisting of Sn, Al, Ti, La, Mg, Zn, Si, Ta, Mo, W, Nb, Fe, Cu, Cr, and Zr (Dang, “Mg- and Al-doped LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 (NCM) materials were synthesized by a hydrothermal method,”, see Abstract).
Dang also teaches that doping with Al improved the performance of the cell. (Dang, “Compared with NCM without doping, the Al-doped NCM (NCM-Al) exhibited improved electrochemical behavior”, see Abstract).
Yuan and Dang are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery materials for lithium nickel cobalt oxides.
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 electrochemical active material as taught in Yuan with the dopant as taught in Dang in order to improve the electrochemical performance of the battery.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 01/30/2026 have been entered. Arguments are fully considered.
On pg. 8 the applicant argues:
“Applicant asserts that it would not have bene obvious to modify Chen’s nickel-rich cathode materials to include the recited primary coating comprising HEO because a person of ordinary skill in the art (a ‘POSITA’) would have no expectation for success…[The office alleges] Chen may be used in the rejection of former claim 3, whose elements are no incorporated in claim 1…Yuan indicated that the claimed HEO is soluble in ethanol, and therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reasonable expectation of success. ”
The examiner finds this partially convincing. The examiner acknowledged that Chen does not teach a wt% and thickness for the HEO layer, and therefore the examiner has instead mapped Yuan, which teaches the claimed wt% and thickness, through optimization, as outlined in the new claim 1. Regarding the second coating layer, the examiner first notes that the layer is claimed as optional in the current amended claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 could be rejected in view of only Yuan. However, for the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner will consider the limitation of the second coating layer. The examiner adds to the record ‘Ju’. ‘Ju’ teaches a conductive polymer coating in the form of PEDOT (Ju, “LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 cathode materials were surface-modified by coating with a dual conductive poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)-co-poly(ethylene glycol) (PEDOT-co-PEG) copolymer”, see Abstract). Ju teaches that the coating layer is around 11nm thick and is applied using NMP, rather than ethanol (Ju, “The LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 materials were synthesized as described in the Supporting Information. (16) PEDOT or PEDOT-co-PEG solution (Aldrich) was dispersed in N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP) at a concentration of 10 wt %.”, see Experimental Section), which makes the argument around the solubility of the HEO material moot. The examiner notes that dual coating with a conductive polymer is also well known in the art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as taught in ‘Ma’ (Ma, “Here, a dual-conductive coating strategy is employed to address these issues. The PPy-LiAlO2 coated NCM composites (PPy-LA) are synthesized by hydrolysis–hydrothermal approach and in-situ chemical polymerization method. The LiAlO2 coating can suppress side reactions and enhance ionic conductivity, and the PPy coating can increase electronic conductivity.”, see Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply a secondary coating layer of a conductive polymer to the HEO layer.
On 9, the applicant argues:
“The composition of HEO coating in Yuan is different than that in the recited claim 1…Furthermore, the HEO coating achieved in Yuan is described as ‘nano-flakes’ with ‘a size of ~100nm’…Accordingly, a POSITA in the art would have no reasonable expectation of success ”
However, this is not convincing. The examiner acknowledges that Yuan particle size is larger than as claimed. However, Yuan states that a thinner layer has less resistivity (Yuan, “According to previous works, the ideal surface coating should meet the following conditions: (1) The coating materials do not change the crystal structure of the cathode material, (2) the coating layer is thin enough and well dispersed so as not to reduce the conductivity, (3)”, see Introduction). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to optimize the thickness to the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). The examiner agrees that the composition of Yuan is different than as claimed, but Colombo teaches the HEO as claimed and it would be a matter of substitution of a known HEO with a reasonable expectation of success in order to modify Yuan (MPEP 2143 (I)(B)).
On pg. 10, the applicant argues:
“Fu is relied upon for showing…ion diffusion channels. However, applicant notes that Fu is void of ant teaching or suggestion of the coating of such a material.”
However, this is not convincing. Fu teaches HEO’s have diffusion channels. Yuan teaches an HEO coating on a NCM particle. Therefore, it can be said that Yuan’s HEO coating similarly has a channel. Fu is an evidence reference and does not teach the coating, but teaches an inherent feature of the HEO. A similar argument can be applied to the applicant’s argument against Dang, as Dang is relied upon for the doping of the material, not the coating, which is taught by Yuan primarily. Further, Yuan more directly suggest this feature (Yuan, “D-Li+ of the two samples have the same order of magnitude, indicating that the HEO coating layer does not hinder the diffusion of Li+. However, compared to NCM811, the DLi+ of 5HEO-NCM811 is slightly larger. This is because the amount of HEO coating is very small relative to that of the bulk material, and the coating layer suppresses the side reaction at the electrode– electrolyte interface, and thus the Li-ion diffusion is slightly improved.”, see pg. 889). Therefore, the diffusion channel would have been present in the HEO coating taught in Yuan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752