SOLID ION CONDUCTOR COMPOUND, SOLID ELECTROLYTE CONTAINING SAME ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL COMPRISING SAME, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/10/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 3/10/2026:
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, and 21 have been amended; no new matter has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been modified due to amendment.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-21 have been considered but are moot based on grounds of new rejection necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 15-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2019/107879 A1 using US 2020/0381772 A1) and further in view of Matsuzaki et al. (JP 2009-211950 A).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 16, Kim et al. teach a solid ion conductor (Abstract; claim 1 discloses a solid ion material to be used as a solid electrolyte.) compound comprising:
a compound represented by Formula 1,
wherein the compound has an argyrodite type crystal structure (Paragraph 0020),
has an ion conductivity of 3 mS/cm or more at 25 °C (Paragraph 0021 discloses ion conductivity is tested at 25°C and is 0.1-10 x 10-3 S/cm which is 0.1-10 mS/cm.), and
has an average particle diameter of 0.1 µm to 7 µm (Paragraph 0079 discloses a particle diameter of 0.001-50 µm.),
<Formula 1>
LiaM1xPSyM2zM3w
wherein, in Formula 1,
M1 is Cu, Mg, Ag, Hf, In, Ti, Pb, Sb, Fe, Zr, Zn, Cr, B, Sn, Ge, Si, Ta, Nb, V, Ga, Al, As, or a combination thereof,
M2 is at least one element selected from Group 17 elements in the Periodic Table,
M3 is SOn, and
4≤a≤8, 0≤x<1, 3≤y≤7, 0<z≤2, 0≤w<2, 1.5≤n≤5, and 0<x+w<3 (Paragraph 0104 discloses preparing a compound of formula Li6.15PO0.85Si0.15S4.7O0.3Cl also written as Li6.15Si0.15PS4.4125(SO4)0.2875Cl) in order to improve the stability of the compound against moisture [0046]. Therefore, a=6.15, x=0.15, P=1, y=4.4125, z=1, w=0.2875, n=4, x+w=0.4375.).
However, Kim et al. do not teach wherein the solid ion conductor compound has a D90-D10 value of 2 µm to 30 µm.
Matsuzaki et al. discloses a solid electrolyte comprising lithium sulfide compounds (Abstract; paragraph 0010). The average particle size of the solid electrolyte particles is preferably 0.3 µm or more (Paragraph 0012). The solid electrolyte particles can have a D90 of 2.5 µm or less (Paragraph 0013) and a D10 of 0.11 µm or more (Paragraph 0014). Therefore, D90-D10 can be, at most, 2.39 µm which is within the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sizes of Kim with those of Matsuzaki in order to avoid scattering when forming a film.
Regarding claim 4, Kim and Matsuzaki et al. teach the solid ion conductor compound of claim 1. Further, Kim et al. teach wherein the compound represented by Formula 1 is represented by Formula 1a:
<Formula 1b>
LiaM1xPSyM2zM3w wherein, in Formula 1b,
M1 is Mg, Ag, Hf, In, Ti, Pb, Sb, Fe, Zn, Cr, B, Sn, Ge, Si, Ta, Nb, V, Ga, Al, As, or a combination thereof,
M2 is at least one element selected from Group 17 elements in the Periodic Table, and
4≤a≤8, 0<x<1, 3≤y≤7, 0<z≤2, 0<w<2 (Paragraph 0104 discloses preparing a compound of formula Li6.15PO0.85Si0.15S4.7O0.3Cl also written as Li6.15Si0.15PS4.4125(SO4)0.2875Cl. Therefore, a=6.15, x=0.15, P=1, y=4.4125, n=4, w=0.2875.).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Kim and Matsuzaki et al. teach the solid ion conductor compound of claim 1. Further, Kim et al. teach wherein the compound represented by Formula 1 is represented by Formula 2 and Formula 2a:
<Formula 2>
Li7-mxv-zM1vPS6-z-wM2zM3w wherein, in Formula 2, M1 is Mg, Ag, Hf, In, Ti, Pb, Sb, Fe, Zn, Cr, B, Sn, Ge, Si, Ta, Nb, V, Ga, Al, As, or a combination thereof, m is an oxidation number of M1, M2 is at least one element selected from Group 17 elements in the Periodic Table, M3 is SOn and 0≤v<1, 0<z≤2, 0≤w<2, 1.5≤n≤5, 1≤m≤2, and 0<v+w<3.
-<Formula 2a>
Li7-mxv-zM1vPS6-zM2z wherein, in Formula 2a, M1 is Mg, Ag, Hf, In, Ti, Pb, Sb, Fe, Zn, Cr, B, Sn, Ge, Si, Ta, Nb, V, Ga, Al, As, or a combination thereof, m is an oxidation number of M1, M2 is at least one element selected from Group 17 elements in the Periodic Table, and 0<v<1, 0<z≤2, and 1≤m≤2 (Paragraph 0104 discloses preparing a compound of formula Li6.15PO0.85Si0.15S4.7O0.3Cl also written as Li6.15Si0.15PS4.4125(SO4)0.2875Cl. Therefore, a=6.15, x=0.15, P=1, y=4.4125, w=0.2875. This reads on Formulae 2 and 2a being that v=Si=0.15, z=Cl=1, m=1, n=4, w=0.2875 v+w=0.15+0.2875=0.4375.)
Regarding claim 15, Kim and Matsuzaki et al. teach the solid ion conductor compound of claim 1. Further, Kim et al. teach wherein, in an XRD spectrum using CuKα radiation, a peak intensity (la) of a crystalline peak at a diffraction angle of 2θ=30.01 ±1.00 is greater than a peak intensity (Ib) of a broad peak at a diffraction angle of 2θ=19.0°±3.0 (Paragraphs 0106-0107; figs. 1a, 1b show an X-ray crystal diffraction using CuKα radiation with smaller peak at around 18° and a higher intensity peak at 30.01°.).
Regarding claim 17, Kim and Matsuzaki et al. teach an electrochemical cell comprising: a cathode layer including a cathode active material layer (Kim: Paragraph 0082; 0084-0085); an anode layer including an anode active material layer (Kim: Paragraph 0082; 0096); and an electrolyte layer between the cathode layer and the anode layer (Kim: Paragraph 0082), wherein at least one of the cathode active material layer and the electrolyte layer includes the solid ion conductor compound claimed in claim 1 (Kim: Paragraph 0082).
Regarding claim 18, Kim and Matsuzaki et al. teach the electrochemical cell of claim 17. Further, Kim et al. teach wherein the electrochemical cell is an all-solid secondary battery (Abstract), the solid ion conductor compound included in the cathode active material layer has an average particle diameter of 0.5 µm to 5 µm (Paragraph 0086 discloses the cathode active material has an average particle diameter of 2-50 µm.), and the solid ion conductor compound included in the electrolyte layer has an average particle diameter of 1 µm to 7 µm (Paragraph 0079 discloses a particle diameter of 0.001-50 µm.).
Regarding claim 19, Kim et al. teach a method of preparing the solid ion conductor compound of claim 1 (See Examples). However, they do not teach wherein the method comprises:
separately preparing different kinds of precursor compounds having an average particle diameter of 7 µm or less,
mixing the different kinds of precursor compounds with each other to prepare a mixture; and
heat-treating the mixture to prepare a solid ion conductor compound,
wherein the solid ion conductor compound has an average particle diameter of 7 µm or less.
Matsuzaki et al. teach a method of preparing a solid ion conductor compound (Abstract), the method comprising:
separately preparing different kinds of precursor compounds having an average particle diameter of 7 µm or less (Paragraph 0028 discloses the precursor compounds which comprise lithium sulfide and other sulfide particles to have an average particle size of 1.5 µm or less.);
mixing the different kinds of precursor compounds with each other to prepare a mixture (Paragraph 0027 discloses these particles are wet-milled using a bead mill.); and
heat-treating the mixture to prepare a solid ion conductor compound (Paragraph 0028 discloses heat treating the mixture.),
wherein the solid ion conductor compound has an average particle diameter of 7 µm or less (Paragraph 0012 discloses the average particle size is 0.3 µm or more.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim with Matsuzaki in order to avoid scattering when forming a film.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kim and Matsuzaki teach the method of claim 19. Matsuzaki et al. discloses a solid electrolyte comprising lithium sulfide compounds (Abstract; paragraph 0010). The average particle size of the solid electrolyte particles is preferably 0.3 µm or more (Paragraph 0012). The solid electrolyte particles can have a D90 of 2.5 µm or less (Paragraph 0013) and a D10 of 0.11 µm or more (Paragraph 0014). Therefore, D90-D10 can be, at most, 2.39 µm which is within the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sizes of Kim with those of Matsuzaki in order to avoid scattering when forming a film.
Regarding claim 21, Kim et al. teach a solid ion conductor (Abstract; claim 1 discloses a solid ion material to be used as a solid electrolyte.) compound comprising:
a compound represented by Formula 1,
wherein the compound has an argyrodite type crystal structure (Paragraph 0020),
has an ion conductivity of 3 mS/cm or more at 25 °C (Paragraph 0021 discloses ion conductivity is tested at 25°C and is 0.1-10 x 10-3 S/cm which is 0.1-10 mS/cm.), and
has an average particle diameter of 0.1 µm to 7 µm (Paragraph 0079 discloses a particle diameter of 0.001-50 µm.),
<Formula 1>
LiaM1xPSyM2zM3w
wherein, in Formula 1,
M1 is Cu, Mg, Ag, Hf, In, Ti, Pb, Sb, Fe, Zr, Zn, Cr, B, Sn, Ge, Si, Ta, Nb, V, Ga, Al, As, or a combination thereof,
M2 is at least one element selected from Group 17 elements in the Periodic Table,
M3 is SOn, and
4≤a≤8, 0≤x<1, 3≤y≤7, 0<z≤2, 0<w<2, 1.5≤n≤5, and 0<x+w<3 (Paragraph 0104 discloses preparing a compound of formula Li6.15PO0.85Si0.15S4.7O0.3Cl also written as Li6.15Si0.15PS4.4125(SO4)0.2875Cl) in order to improve the stability of the compound against moisture [0046]. Therefore, a=6.15, x=0.15, P=1, y=4.4125, z=1, w=0.2875, n=4, x+w=0.4375.).
However, Kim et al. do not teach wherein the solid ion conductor compound has a D90-D10 value of 2 µm to 30 µm.
Matsuzaki et al. discloses a solid electrolyte comprising lithium sulfide compounds (Abstract; paragraph 0010). The average particle size of the solid electrolyte particles is preferably 0.3 µm or more (Paragraph 0012). The solid electrolyte particles can have a D90 of 2.5 µm or less (Paragraph 0013) and a D10 of 0.11 µm or more (Paragraph 0014). Therefore, D90-D10 can be, at most, 2.39 µm which is within the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sizes of Kim with those of Matsuzaki in order to avoid scattering when forming a film.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US 2018/0351148 A1) and further in view of Matsuzaki et al. (JP 2009-211950 A).
Regarding claim 1, Schneider et al. teach a solid ion conductor (Abstract; paragraph 0046 discloses a solid ion material to be used as a solid electrolyte.) compound comprising:
a compound represented by Formula 1,
wherein the compound has an argyrodite type crystal structure (Paragraph 0011;0012;0017),
has an ion conductivity of 3 mS/cm or more at 25 °C (Claim 28; paragraphs 0133-0134 disclose ion conductivity is tested at 25°C and greater than or equal to 10-5 S/cm.) and
has an average particle diameter of 0.1 µm to 7 µm (Paragraph 0026 discloses a particle diameter of 10 nm-100 µm.),
<Formula 1>
LiaM1xPSyM2zM3w
wherein, in Formula 1,
M1 is Cu, Mg, Ag, Hf, In, Ti, Pb, Sb, Fe, Zr, Zn, Cr, B, Sn, Ge, Si, Ta, Nb, V, Ga, Al, As, or a combination thereof,
M2 is at least one element selected from Group 17 elements in the Periodic Table,
M3 is SOn, and
4≤a≤8, 0≤x<1, 3≤y≤7, 0<z≤2, 0≤w<2, 1.5≤n≤5, and 0<x+w<3 (Paragraphs 0009;0019 disclose the composition is of the formula represented by LixMyQwPzSuXt wherein M is selected from the group consisting of Na, K, Fe, Mg, Ag, Cu, Zr, and Zn, Q is absent; X is a halide, and a is 8-22, y is 0.1-3, w is 0-3, z is 0.1-3, u is 7-20, and t is 0-8.).
However, Schneider et al. do not teach wherein the solid ion conductor compound has a D90-D10 value of 2 µm to 30 µm.
Matsuzaki et al. discloses a solid electrolyte comprising lithium sulfide compounds (Abstract; paragraph 0010). The average particle size of the solid electrolyte particles is preferably 0.3 µm or more (Paragraph 0012). The solid electrolyte particles can have a D90 of 2.5 µm or less (Paragraph 0013) and a D10 of 0.11 µm or more (Paragraph 0014). Therefore, D90-D10 can be, at most, 2.39 µm which is within the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sizes of Schneider with those of Matsuzaki in order to avoid scattering when forming a film.
Claims 7-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US 2018/0351148 A1) or Kim et al. (WO 2019/107879 A1 using US 2020/0381772 A1) and further in view of Matsuzaki et al. (JP 2009-211950 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seong et al. (US 2020/0194827 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Schneider or Kim and Matsuzaki et al. teach the solid ion conductor compound of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the compound represented by Formula 1 is represented by Formula 3 or Formulae 3c-3e
<Formula 3>
Li7-mxv-zM4vPS6-zM5z1M6z2 wherein, in Formula 3, M4 is Mg, Ag, Cu, Hf, In, Ti, Pb, Sb, Fe, Zn, Cr, B, Sn, Ge, Si, Zr, Ta, Nb, V, Ga, Al, As, or a combination thereof, m is an oxidation number of M4, M5 and M6 are each independently F, Cl, Br, or I, and 0<v<0.7, 0<z1<2, 0≤z2<1, 0<z<2, z=z1+z2, and 1 ≤m≤2.
<Formula 3c-e>
Li7-mxv-z(Cu, Mg, Ag)vPS6-zM5z1M6z2 wherein M5 and M6 are each independently F, Cl, Br, or I, and 0<v<0.7, 0<z1<2, 0≤z2<1, 0<z<2, and z=z1+z2.
Seong teaches a compound represented by the following formula and having an argyrodite-type crystal structure (Table 1; Example 1; Li5.9Mg0.05PS5Cl):
LixM1vPSyM3z
wherein, in the formula, M1 comprises Mg, M3 is Cl which is at least one element of Group 17 of the periodic table, and x = 5.9 which is within the claimed range of 4≤x≤8, y= 5 which is within the claimed range of 3≤y≤7, and z = 1 which is within the claimed range of 0≤z≤2.
Seong further teaches that doping the argyrodite-type structure with an alkaline earth metal improves the ionic conductivity ([0043], [0089], Table 1). Therefore, Seong reads on Formula 3d and Li7-v-zMgvPS6-zClz1 wherein 0<v<0.7, 0<z1<2, 0≤z2<1, 0<z<2, and z=z1+z2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dope the structure of Schneider or Kim with Mg in an amount as claimed as taught by Seong to improve the ionic conductivity and the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Claims 13, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rupert (US 2020/0087155 A1) and further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2019/107879 A1 using US 2020/0381772 A1) and further in view of Matsuzaki et al. (JP 2009-211950 A).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the combination of Rupert, Kim, and Matsuzaki et al. teach the solid ion conductor compound of claim 21. Further, Rupert teaches the compound represented by Formula 1 is represented by Formula 5:
Li7-zPS6-z-wM7z(SO4)w
wherein Formula 5
M7 is F, Cl, Br, or I, and
0<z≤2 and 0<w<2 and Li7-zPS6-z-wClz(SO4)w(Paragraph 0031 discloses Li5.6PS4O0.6Cl1.4 also written as Li5.6PS3.85(SO4)0.15Cl1.4 Therefore, a=5.6, x=0, P=1, y=3.85, z=1.4, w=0.15, n=4, x+w=0.0.15.).
Regarding claim 21, Rupert et al. teach a solid ion conductor (Abstract; paragraph 0002 discloses a solid ion material to be used as a solid electrolyte.) compound comprising:
a compound represented by Formula 1,
wherein the compound has an argyrodite type crystal structure (Abstract),
has an ion conductivity of 3 mS/cm or more at 25 °C (Paragraph 0031 discloses ion conductivity is 3.8 mS/cm.), and
<Formula 1>
LiaM1xPSyM2zM3w
wherein, in Formula 1,
M1 is Cu, Mg, Ag, Hf, In, Ti, Pb, Sb, Fe, Zr, Zn, Cr, B, Sn, Ge, Si, Ta, Nb, V, Ga, Al, As, or a combination thereof,
M2 is at least one element selected from Group 17 elements in the Periodic Table,
M3 is SOn, and
4≤a≤8, 0≤x<1, 3≤y≤7, 0<z≤2, 0≤w<2, 1.5≤n≤5, and 0<x+w<3 (Paragraph 0031 discloses Li5.6PS4O0.6Cl1.4 also written as Li5.6PS3.85(SO4)0.15Cl1.4 Therefore, a=5.6, x=0, P=1, y=3.85, z=1.4, w=0.15, n=4, x+w=0.0.15.)
However, Rupert does not teach wherein the compound has an average particle diameter of 0.1 µm to 7 µm.
Kim et al. teach oxysulfide-based compounds having a particle size of 0.001-50 microns (Paragraph 0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rupert with the particle size of Kim so that a contact area with an electrode active material is increased so that lithium-ion transfer paths are expanded, which is advantageous for charging and discharging of the battery.
However, Kim et al. do not teach wherein the solid ion conductor compound has a D90-D10 value of 2 µm to 30 µm.
Matsuzaki et al. discloses a solid electrolyte comprising lithium sulfide compounds (Abstract; paragraph 0010). The average particle size of the solid electrolyte particles is preferably 0.3 µm or more (Paragraph 0012). The solid electrolyte particles can have a D90 of 2.5 µm or less (Paragraph 0013) and a D10 of 0.11 µm or more (Paragraph 0014). Therefore, D90-D10 can be, at most, 2.39 µm which is within the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sizes of Schneider with those of Matsuzaki in order to avoid scattering when forming a film.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rupert (US 2020/0087155 A1), Kim et al. (WO 2019/107879 A1 using US 2020/0381772 A1), and Matsuzaki et al. (JP 2009-211950 A) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Seong (US 2020/0194827 A1)
Regarding claims 10-12, the combination of Rupert, Kim, and Matsuzaki teach the solid ion conductor of claim 21. However, they do not teach wherein the compound represented by Formula 1 is represented by Formula 4:
Li7-m*v-zM4vPS6-z-wM7z(SO4)w
wherein Formula 4
M4 is Na, K, Mg, Ag, Cu, Hf, In, Ti, Pb, Sb, Fe, Zr, Zn, Cr, B, Sn, Ge, Si, Zr, Ta, Nb, V, Ga, Al, As, or a combination thereof, m is an oxidation number of M4, M7 is F, Cl, Br, or I, and
and
0<v<1, 0<z≤2 and 0<w<0.2, and 1≤m≤2 and Li7-v-z(Na, K, Cu, Mg, Ag)PS6-z-w(F, Br, Cl, I)z(SO4)w.
Rupert et al. disclose Li5.6PS4O0.6Cl1.4 also written as Li5.6PS3.85(SO4)0.15Cl1.4 (Paragraph 0031).
Seong teaches a compound represented by the following formula and having an argyrodite-type crystal structure (Table 1; Example 1; Li5.9Mg0.05PS5Cl):
LixM1vPSyM3z
wherein, in the formula, M1 comprises Mg, M3 is Cl which is at least one element of Group 17 of the periodic table, and x = 5.9 which is within the claimed range of 4≤x≤8, y= 5 which is within the claimed range of 3≤y≤7, and z = 1 which is within the claimed range of 0≤z≤2.
Seong further teaches that doping the argyrodite-type structure with an alkaline earth metal improves the ionic conductivity ([0043], [0089], Table 1).
By adding the Mg dopant of Seong to the compound of Rupert, the modified compound is represented by Formula 4d (Li5.6Mg0.05PS3.85(SO4)0.015Cl1.4) where Li, Mg, P, S, SO4, and Cl are within the ranges needed for Formula 4d Li7-v-zMgvPS6-z-wM7z(SO4)w.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art a to dope the structure of Rupert with Mg in an amount as claimed as taught by Seong to improve the ionic conductivity and the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 March 12th, 2026