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 .
Response to Amendment, Claim Status, and Other Notes
The amendment filed 2 October 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every claim objection and 35 U.S.C. 112 Rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 15 July 2025. Claims 1–36 are pending in the application. Claims 18–36 are withdrawn from consideration.
The paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the Instant Application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PGPub of the Instant Application. See US 2023/0155167 A1.
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 1–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2019/0157723 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2019/0348672 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 4, and 11, Suzuki discloses a negative electrode (see anode 220, [0122], FIG. 4)-solid electrolyte (see solid electrolyte layer 230, [0122], FIG. 4) sub-assembly for an all-solid secondary battery (see all-solid-state secondary battery 200, [0122], FIG. 4), the sub-assembly (220 + 230) comprising:
a negative electrode current collector (see anode current collector 221, [0123], FIG. 4);
a first negative active material layer on the current collector (see anode active material layer 222, [0123], FIG. 4); and
a solid electrolyte (see solid electrolyte layer 230, [0122], FIG. 4),
wherein the first negative active material layer (222) comprises a carbonaceous negative active material (see amorphous carbon, [0086]), and optionally a first negative active material comprising a second metal (see gold (Au), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), and zinc (Zn), [0086]), a metalloid (see silicon (Si), [0086]), or a combination thereof ([0086]).
Suzuki does not disclose an interlayer on the first negative active material layer; wherein the interlayer comprises a composite comprising a first metal material and a lithium ion conductor, wherein the first metal material comprises a first metal, an alloy comprising the first metal and lithium, a compound comprising the first metal and lithium, or a combination thereof, wherein the content of the first metal material is greater than that of the lithium ion conductor (Claims 1 and 11). Suzuki also does not disclose wherein the solid electrolyte is on the interlayer and opposite the first negative active material layer.
Wang teaches a negative electrode (see electrode 110, [0027], FIG. 1; note that Wang discloses in [0068] that the electrode can be an anode) and a solid electrolyte (see electrolyte, [0073]–[0074]; note that Wang discloses in [0074] that the electrolyte can be solid), wherein the negative electrode comprises a first negative active material layer (see electroactive portion, [0029]). Wang further teaches an interlayer (see protective structure 120, [0027], FIG. 1) on the first negative active material layer ([0027]–[0029]); wherein the interlayer comprises a composite (Wang discloses in [0030] that the interlayer can comprise more than one constituent materials, which are then described in more detail in [0034]–[0045] and include metal and metalloid alloys ([0035]–[0038]), oxides ([0039]–[0040]), halide salts ([0041]), elemental carbon ([0042]), and non-alloyed metals and metalloids ([0043]–[0045]); see also composite protective structure, [0039]) comprising a first metal material and a lithium ion conductor (see an oxide, [0039]; note that Wang teaches in [0039] that the oxide can be an oxide of an alkali metal such as lithium; see also a halide salt, [0041]; note that Wang teaches in [0041] that the halide salt can be a salt of an alkali metal such as lithium), wherein the first metal material comprises an alloy (see alloy, [0035]–[0039]; note that Wang describes the properties of the alloy in particle form in [0049]–[0050]) comprising the first metal (see second species, [0035]; note that Wang teaches in [0035] that the second species of the alloy can be a metal) and lithium (see first species; note that Wang teaches in [0035] that the first species of the alloy can be lithium), wherein the content of the alloy (as the first metal material) is greater than or equal to 60 wt% and less than or equal to 95 wt% of the interlayer ([0036]; note that this necessarily results in the content of the first metal material being greater than that of the lithium ion conductor). Wang discloses that the solid electrolyte is on the interlayer and opposite the first negative active material layer by teaching ([0026]) that the interlayer transports ions which participate in electrochemical reactions from a side proximate the solid electrolyte to an opposite side proximate the negative electrode; one of ordinary skill in the art will understand therefore that the solid electrolyte is necessarily situated on the interlayer, opposite the first negative active material layer in order for the interlayer to accomplish this ion transport. Finally, Wang teaches ([0026]) that the interlayer serves to prevent or substantially reduce the exposure of the negative electrode to the solid electrolyte, transport ions which participate in electrochemical reactions, and improve cell performance by: bonding sufficiently strong to the negative electrode to prevent its delamination during typical handling and cycling, and having good flexibility such that it is capable of accommodating typical changes in size of the negative electrode during cycling while still maintaining its protective functionality.
Suzuki and Wang are analogous to the Instant Invention as they are in the same field of electrochemical cells capable of cycling lithium. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Instant Invention to modify the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of Suzuki such that it comprises the interlayer of Wang, for the purpose of preventing or substantially reducing the exposure of the negative electrode to the solid electrolyte, transporting ions which participate in electrochemical reactions, and improving cell performance by: bonding sufficiently strong to the electrode to prevent its delamination during typical handling and cycling, and having good flexibility such that it is capable of accommodating typical changes in size of the negative electrode during cycling while still maintaining its protective functionality.
Further regarding Claim 4, regarding the limitation wherein a volume of the first negative active material layer after charging the all-solid secondary battery is about 100 percent to about 200 percent or less than a volume of the first negative active material layer after discharging, it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the Instant negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly.
Applicant discloses that the volume change of the first negative active material layer during charge/discharge depends on:
side reactions between lithium metal and the solid electrolyte layer, which increase volume expansion ([0073]); such contact could be avoided by the inclusion of an interlayer present between the first active material layer and the solid electrolyte layer ([0073]–[0074]),
and inclusion of a carbonaceous active material in the first negative active material layer, which serves to alleviate volume expansion ([0113], [0125], [0127]).
Furthermore, Applicant discloses ([0316]) Examples 3 and 4 as having alleviated volume changes during charge and discharge. It can be reasonably interpreted, given the above, that alleviation, i.e. minimization, of the volume change of the first negative active material layer during charge/discharge for Examples 3 and 4 is a result of:
inclusion of an interlayer in Example 3 comprising a composite containing LixSn (0 ≤ x ≤ 5) and LiCl ([0274]), and inclusion of an interlayer in Example 4 comprising a composite of LiAg and LiCl ([0278]),
and inclusion of a carbonaceous active material in the first negative active material layer in both Example 3 and Example 4 ([0259], [0271], [0275]).
Another property of Examples 3 and 4 which was not explicitly disclosed in the Instant Specification as affecting the volume change of the first negative active material layer during charge/discharge, but which relates to the claimed negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly is:
Example 3 and Example 4 both have a second negative active material layer comprising a lithium-silver, i.e. Li–Ag, alloy metal layer between the current collector (Cu foil) and first negative active material layer (AgC) ([0274], [0277]).
Finally, an additional property of the interlayer which was not explicitly disclosed in the Instant Specification as affecting the volume change of the first negative active material layer during charge/discharge, but which relates to the claimed negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly is
the interlayer is a composite having a structure in which the first metal material is dispersed in a matrix comprising the lithium ion conductor ([0093]).
In comparison, modified Suzuki discloses:
an interlayer comprising a composite comprising a first metal material comprising an alloy of a first metal and lithium, wherein the alloy can be Li4Sn or LiAg (Wang [0035]), and a lithium ion conductor, wherein the lithium ion conductor can be LiCl (Wang [0041]),
and a carbonaceous active material in the first negative active material layer (Suzuki [0086]),
and the interlayer is a composite having a structure in which the first metal material is dispersed in a matrix comprising the lithium ion conductor (Wang [0031]).
Suzuki further discloses wherein the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly further comprises a second negative active material layer (see metal layer 223, [0123], FIG. 4) between the negative electrode current collector and the first negative active material layer, comprising a third metal material, and the third metal material can comprise a lithium alloy such as a Li–Ag alloy ([0124]).
MPEP § 2112.01.I states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
It is submitted that the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of modified Suzuki is substantially identical to the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of Examples 3 and 4 of the Instant Application, as set forth above, such that it would inherently possess the same properties, exhibit the same results, and thus anticipate the claimed limitation, i.e. wherein a volume of the first negative active material layer after charging the all-solid secondary battery is about 100 percent to about 200 percent or less than a volume of the first negative active material layer after discharging.
Assuming, arguendo, that the property recited in the claimed limitation is not anticipated, as there is no evidence on the record that any differences between the instantly claimed negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly and that of modified Suzuki are critical, and as the conditions of the prior art significantly overlap the relevant conditions disclosed in the Instant Specification, it is submitted that prior to the effective filing date, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of modified Suzuki and that of the Instant Application to be obvious variants of one another.
Further regarding Claim 11, Suzuki discloses wherein the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly (220 + 230) further comprises a second negative active material layer (see metal layer 223, [0123], FIG. 4) between the negative electrode current collector (221) and the first negative active material layer (222), and the second negative active material layer (223) comprises a third metal material, and the third metal material comprises lithium or a lithium alloy ([0124]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of Claim 1. Modified Suzuki further discloses wherein the interlayer has a thickness of 1 micrometer or less (Wang [0045]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of Claim 1. Suzuki further discloses ([0104]) wherein the first negative active material layer (222) has a thickness in a range of about 1 micrometer to about 20 micrometers, which overlaps with the claimed range of about 1 micrometer to about 10 micrometers. Suzuki discloses ([0104]) that when the thickness of the first negative active material layer (222) is within the range of 1 micrometer to 20 micrometers, the characteristics of the all-solid secondary battery (200) will be sufficiently enhanced and the first negative active material layer (222) will not have a high resistance value.
Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It therefore follows that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Instant Invention would have found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the thickness of the first negative active material layer with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in the characteristics of the all-solid secondary battery being sufficiently enhanced and the first negative active material layer not having a high resistance value.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of Claim 1. Modified Suzuki further discloses (Wang [0035]) wherein the first metal is tin (see Sn), indium (see In), silicon (see Si), gallium (see Ga), aluminum (see Al), germanium (see Ge), antimony (see Sb), bismuth (see Bi), zinc (see Zn), magnesium (see Mg), or silver (see Ag).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of Claim 1. Modified Suzuki further discloses (Wang [0035]) wherein the first metal material is a Li-Ag alloy (see LiAg), a Li-Al alloy (see LiAl3), a Li-Sn alloy (see Li4Sn), a Li-In alloy (see Li3In), a Li-Zn alloy (see LiZn and LiZn13), a Li-Ge alloy (see Li4Ge), a Li-Si alloy (see Li4Si), a Li-Sb alloy (see Li3Sb), a Li-Bi alloy (see Li3Bi), a Li-Ga alloy (see LiGa), or a Li-Mg alloy (see LiMg).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of Claim 1. Modified Suzuki further discloses wherein the lithium ion conductor is LiCl (Wang [0041]), LiBr (Wang [0041]), LiI (Wang [0041]), LiF (Wang [0041]), or Li2O (Wang [0039]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of Claim 1. Modified Suzuki further discloses wherein the composite comprises the first metal material dispersed in a matrix comprising the lithium ion conductor (Wang [0031]).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of Claim 8. Modified Suzuki further discloses wherein the first metal material has an average particle diameter in a range of 20 nanometers to 200 nanometers (Wang [0049]–[0050]), which anticipates the claimed range of about 0.1 nanometer to about 300 nanometers.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of Claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the matrix is a continuous phase. However, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the matrix as described by Wang ([0031]) will necessarily need to be continuous in order for the first metal material to be disposed therein.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of Claim 11. Suzuki further discloses ([0124]) wherein the third metal comprises lithium or a lithium alloy.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of Claim 1. Suzuki further discloses ([0086]) wherein the carbonaceous negative active material comprises amorphous carbon, and the first negative active material comprises silicon, tin, aluminum, bismuth, gold, platinum, palladium, silver, or zinc.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of Claim 1. Suzuki further discloses ([0086]) wherein the first negative active material layer (222) comprises:
a mixture of a first particle comprising amorphous carbon, and a second particle comprising a metal or a metalloid,
wherein a content of the second particle is in a range of about 25 weight percent to about 75 weight percent (see a weight ratio of the amorphous carbon to the element that is alloyable with lithium may be about 3:1 to about 1:3, [0086]) based on a total weight of the mixture, which overlaps with the claimed range of about 1 weight percent to about 60 weight percent. Suzuki discloses ([0086]) that when the first negative active material layer (222) includes these materials, the characteristics of the all-solid secondary battery (200) can be enhanced.
Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It therefore follows that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Instant Invention would have found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for a content of the second particle based on a total weight of the mixture with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in an all-solid secondary battery with enhanced characteristics.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of Claim 1. As previously set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Modified Suzuki further discloses wherein a content of the first metal material in the composite is in a range of 60 parts by weight (see greater than or equal to 60 wt%, Wang [0036]) to 95 parts by weight (see less than or equal to 95 wt%, Wang [0036]), based on 100 parts by weight of the composite, which anticipates the claimed range of about 0.1 part by weight to about 95 parts by weight.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of Claim 1. Modified Suzuki further discloses wherein the interlayer is in contact with the solid electrolyte by teaching, as described above for the rejection of Claim 1, that the interlayer transports ions which participate in electrochemical reactions from a side proximate the solid electrolyte to an opposite side proximate the negative electrode (Wang [0026]); one of ordinary skill in the art will understand therefore that the interlayer is necessarily in contact with the solid electrolyte in order for the interlayer to accomplish this ion transport.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 2 October 2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 1–17 on the basis of the references Suzuki and Wang have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below:
Applicant argues on p. 15–16 of Remarks that the materials constituting the composite structure of Wang are in a mixed state, i.e. simple blend, which corresponds to Comparative Example 4 of the Instant Specification, that Wang (or any other cited reference) does not disclose wherein the first metal material has a higher relative content than the lithium ion conductor in the composite structure, and that because of these differences, the sub-assembly of Wang-modified Suzuki will not achieve the volume expansion suppression effect. This argument is not persuasive. As set forth in the rejections of Claims 1, 4, 8, 10, and 11 above, Wang discloses ([0031]) wherein the composite comprises the first metal material dispersed in a matrix comprising the lithium ion conductor, and therefore Wang’s mixed state does not correspond to a simple blend. Furthermore, as set forth in the rejections of Claims 1, 11, and 16 above, Wang discloses wherein the first metal material in the composite is in a range of 60 parts by weight to 95 parts by weight (Wang [0036]), which necessarily results in the first metal material having a higher relative content than the lithium ion conductor in the composite structure. In light of the above, as well as the other properties related to volume expansion suppression detailed in the rejection of Claim 4 above, it can be reasonably expected that the sub-assembly of Wang-modified Suzuki will achieve the volume expansion suppression effect as claimed.
Applicant argues on p. 16–17 of Remarks that inherency has not been established because neither Suzuki nor Wang measures, predicts, or contemplates any volumetric change of the first negative active material layer, that one of ordinary skill would expect total expansion to exceed the claimed limit, and that neither Suzuki nor Wang identifies volume expansion of the first active material layer as a parameter to be controlled, and that their stated goals are different. This argument is not persuasive. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference (MPEP § 2112.II, Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (rejecting the contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the critical date and allowing expert testimony with respect to post-critical date clinical trials to show inherency)); as such, it is not necessary that Suzuki nor Wang measure, predict, or contemplate any volumetric change of the first negative active material layer, identify it as a parameter to be controlled or a goal to achieve. As set forth in the rejection of Claim 4 above, the Examiner has provided a rationale for inherency (see MPEP 2112.IV) and why based on inherency the total expansion would not exceed the claimed limit.
Applicant argues on p. 16 of Remarks that the present application shows unexpected results and criticality of the “about 100% to about 200%” threshold. This argument is not persuasive. This is a conclusory statement without any supporting evidence (see MPEP 716.01(c)), as the Instant Application does not appear to show any data that indicates the criticality of this threshold. For instance, no specific volume expansion percentages are reported for any of the Examples or Comparative Examples in the Instant Application.
Applicant argues on p. 17 of Remarks that achieving the limit of volume expansion requires coordinated selection of (i) carbon-to-metal ratio, (ii) first-layer thickness, and (iii) interlayer thickness of less than 1 µm, and thus rises above the level of “routine optimization” under KSR. This argument is not persuasive. The selection of the above parameters is anticipated or rendered obvious by modified Suzuki as set forth in the rejections of Claims 15, 3, and 2 above, respectively. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any evidence in the Instant Application that the above variables are interdependent, and it is unclear how for instance carbon-to-metal ratio, which pertains to materials comprised in the first negative active material layer, would affect e.g. interlayer thickness.
Applicant argues on p. 17 of Remarks that there is lack of motivation to combine the references Suzuki and Wang, as Suzuki’s objective is to optimize capacity balance by placing the carbonaceous anode directly against the solid electrolyte, while Wang’s objective is to passivate a lithium-metal surface in liquid systems, and that the Office Action offers only a conclusory statement as motivation. This argument is not persuasive. While Suzuki does disclose that an objective is to optimize capacity balance, this is a capacity balance between the anode active material layer and the cathode active material layer (Suzuki [0088]), and Suzuki does not appear to suggest that such balance can only be achieved if the carbonaceous anode and solid electrolyte are directly against each other. Furthermore, [0071] of Wang describes a special step of passivating electrode surfaces via e.g. plasma treatment under certain circumstances, and is not representative of the objective of Wang as a whole. Instead, the objective of Wang is to provide a protective structure for an electrode, which can be considered to be an interlayer, and which can be used in combination with solid electrolytes in a battery (Wang [0026], [0074]). Finally, as set forth in the rejection of Claims 1, 4, and 11 above, a detailed explanation of the motivation to combine the references Suzuki and Wang is provided, specifically that utilization of the interlayer of Wang in the subassembly of Suzuki would provide the benefits of preventing or substantially reducing the exposure of the negative electrode to the solid electrolyte, transporting ions which participate in electrochemical reactions, and improving cell performance by: bonding sufficiently strong to the electrode to prevent its delamination during typical handling and cycling, and having good flexibility such that it is capable of accommodating typical changes in size of the negative electrode during cycling while still maintaining its protective functionality.
Applicant argues on p. 17 of Remarks that the combination of Wang and Suzuki would change the principle of operation, because Suzuki relies on ionic contact between the solid electrolyte and the carbon layer to achieve the disclosed b/a capacity ratio, while inserting Wang’s electronically blocking barrier would defeat this contact, undermining Suzuki’s operating principle. This argument is not persuasive. Ionic conductance is concerned with the movement of ions such as Li+, while electronic conductance is concerned with the movement of electrons. Wang’s interlayer is ionically conductive (Wang [0052]), and therefore would not be expected to prevent the subassembly and battery of Suzuki from operating successfully, and would be expected to allow for sufficient ionic contact to be retained between the solid electrolyte and negative electrode active material layer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights