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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/30/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “wherein the metal sulfide comprises at least one of In2S3, Bi2S3, or In2S3 and Bi2S3 ”. The recitation of “at least one of” appears to be redundant with the last option listed in the alternative. Accordingly, to increase clarity, the Examiner suggests changing the wording to either: “wherein the metal sulfide comprises one or both of In2S3 or Bi2S3”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein during charging, the metal sulfide is converted into the metal and lithium sulfide” (emphasis added). There is no antecedent basis for the limitation “the metal”. It could be interpreted that this limitation is intended to refer to the metal of “a metal sulfide”, or it could be interpreted that “the metal” is intended to refer to a different metal. Applicant’s intended meaning of “the metal” is further complication by the later recitation of “wherein the lithium layer further comprises at least one of lithium sulfide, an alloy of lithium and a metal derived from the metal sulfide” (last two lines, emphasis added). As such, Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-5 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the first interpretation will be applied to the claims, and it will be interpreted that “the metal” is the metal of the previously claimed metal sulfide. Accordingly, it will also be interpreted that the later recitation of “a metal derived from the metal sulfide” should read “the metal derived from the metal sulfide” (emphasis added).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US-6402795-B1) in view of Yushin et al. (US-20150318530-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chu discloses an electrode precursor wherein a protective layer (18, Fig. 2) is deposited onto the surface of a current collector (14, Fig. 2) with a wetting layer (15, Fig. 2) between the protective layer and the current collector (Col. 2, lines 19- 57; Col. 3, lines 7-18; Col. 5, lines 1-10). The electrode precursor can then be converted to an alkali metal electrode by an initial charging operation, in which lithium plates from the positive electrode (Col. 2, lines 58-66). In such a charging method, the electrode precursor is assembled with other battery elements including an electrolyte and a positive electrode (Col. 2, lines 58-61). Chu further discloses that current collectors contact both the positive and negative electrodes in a conventional manner (Col. 11, lines 24-27), and that the protective layer can be used directly as a solid electrolyte (Col. 11, lines 14-16).
Therefore, although not disclosed in a single embodiment, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have provided an all-solid-state battery (corresponds to a battery assembled with an electrode precursor) wherein the protective layer is used as a solid electrolyte with a reasonable expectation that using the protective layer as a solid electrolyte would result in an all-solid-state battery.
The configuration of the all-solid-state battery rendered obvious by Chu can be visualized using the annotation of Chu Fig. 3, below. Notably, the configuration disclosed in Chu Fig. 3 comprises a lithium layer (314; Col. 11, lines 33-48), which is not present in the all-solid-state battery comprising the electrode precursor as rendered obvious by Chu (see above; Col. 2, line 58 – Col. 3, line 2; Col. 8, line 61 – Col. 9, line 4). Accordingly, the solid electrolyte layer is rendered obvious by Chu is understood to be disposed directly on the intermediate layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
874
1345
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Chu Fig. 3.
Therefore, as depicted in the annotation of Chu, Fig. 3 (above), the all-solid-state battery comprises (Col. 8, line 61 – Col. 9, line 4; Col. 11, lines 14-16, 33-43):
an anode current collector (negative current collector 312, Fig. 3);
an intermediate layer (wetting layer 313, Fig. 3) disposed on the anode current collector;
a solid electrolyte layer (protective layer 308) disposed directly on the intermediate layer;
a cathode active material layer (positive electrode 318, Fig. 3) disposed on the solid electrolyte layer; and
a cathode current collector (positive current collector 320, Fig. 3) disposed on the cathode active material layer.
Chu discloses that the intermediate layer (wetting layer) can intercalate ions of the alkali metal and, as an example, may include titanium sulfide or iron sulfide (Col. 3, lines 23-25; Claim 17). The alkali metal can be lithium (Col. 3, lines 26-27). Chu does not teach that the intermediate layer comprises a metal sulfide wherein M comprises at least one of In, Bi, Pb, Si, Ge, Sb, or Zn.
Yushin teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising active cathode particles and active anode particles [0159]. As an example of the active anode particles, metal sulfide particles that exhibit lithium intercalation can be used [0159]. Examples of suitable metal sulfide particles include, among a list of possible candidates, PbS, ZnS, FeS2, FeS, TiS, and TiS2 [0159]. The Examiner notes that this establishes lead sulfide (PbS) and zinc sulfide (ZnS) as a suitable metal sulfide alternatives to titanium sulfide (TiS, TiS2) or iron sulfide (FeS, FeS2), all of which are capable of intercalating lithium ions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used lead sulfide (PbS) and/or zinc sulfide (ZnS) instead of or in addition to the titanium sulfide or iron sulfide taught by Chu, with a reasonable expectation that the use of lead sulfide and/or zinc sulfide in the intermediate layer (wetting layer) would result in a successful lithium all-solid-state battery (MPEP 2144.06, I-II, MPEP 2144.07). Lead sulfide (PbS) and zinc sulfide (ZnS) are within the list of claimed metal sulfides of instant Claim 1 (i.e. MxSy wherein M = Pb, x = 1, and y = 1 or MxSy wherein M = Zn, x = 1, and y = 1).
Chu discloses that the intermediate layer (wetting layer) is formed directly on the current collector (Col. 5, lines 1-10; Col. 6, lines 33-44; see Fig. 2). Additionally, Chu discloses that the all-solid-state battery comprising the electrode precursor does not contain free alkali metal until after charging (Col. 2, line 58 – Col. 3, line 2; Col. 8, line 61 – Col. 9, line 4). Therefore, modified Chu renders obvious a configuration wherein “the all-solid-state battery does not comprise a lithium layer between the anode current collector and the intermediate layer prior to initial charging”.
The Examiner notes that the limitation “wherein during charging, the metal sulfide is converted into the metal and lithium sulfide (Li2S), wherein the all-solid-state battery further comprises the lithium layer formed between the anode current collector and the intermediate layer during charging, and the lithium layer comprises at least lithium metal, wherein the lithium layer further comprises at least one of lithium sulfide, an alloy of lithium and a metal derived from the metal sulfide, or any combination thereof” is an intended use limitation for the claimed all-solid-state battery.
The recitation of intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the limitation of the claim. Here, the prior art teaches the claimed configuration of the all-solid-state battery which is necessary to perform the intended use limitation. Specifically, the prior art teaches the claimed configuration of an anode current collector, an intermediate layer disposed on the anode current collector, a solid electrolyte disposed directly on the intermediate layer, a cathode active material layer, and a cathode current collector (see above). The prior art also renders obvious that the intermediate layer includes a metal sulfide, and the prior art renders obvious the use of PbS or ZnS, which are within the claimed list of metal sulfide materials. Therefore, the prior art has the structure necessary to perform the intended use limitation. Thus the intended use limitation is met.
Additionally, since the structure rendered obvious by the prior art is substantially similar to the claimed structure (as laid out above), it is understood that the all-solid-state battery of modified Chu necessarily and inherently undergoes the claimed transformation during charging wherein “the metal sulfide is converted into the metal and lithium sulfide” as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0053-0055, 0057-0059, 0067] (MPEP 2112.01). Additionally, it is understood that the all-solid-state battery of modified Chu necessarily and inherently “further comprises the lithium layer formed between the anode current collector and the intermediate layer during charging, and the lithium layer comprises at least lithium metal” as claimed and as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0060-0066, 0068-0069] (MPEP 2112.01). Furthermore, it is understood the process of charging necessarily and inherently results in an all-solid-state battery wherein “the lithium layer further comprises at least one of lithium sulfide, an alloy of lithium and a metal derived from the metal sulfide, or any combination thereof” as claimed and as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0069] (MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Chu renders obvious the product of Claim 1. Chu further discloses that the anode current collector be selected from the group consisting of copper, nickel, stainless steel and zinc (Chu, Claim 12). Chu discloses an embodiment wherein copper is used as the anode current collector (Col. 18, lines 4-9), thus rendering obvious the use of copper as the material of the anode current collector, which is within the claimed list of anode current collector materials.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, modified Chu renders obvious the product of Claim 1. Modified Chu teaches that the intermediate layer can have a thickness of about 50 to 1000 Å (Col. 6, lines 57-59). This corresponds to a thickness of about 5 to 100 nm.
The range disclosed in the prior art overlaps the range disclosed in the instant application. Although modified Chu does not specifically teach in a specific embodiment an intermediate layer with a thickness of about 100 nm to 1000 nm as required by Claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range recited in the prior art, including a thickness of about 100 nm, with a reasonable expectation that such a thickness would result in a successful all-solid-state lithium battery (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Furthermore, since modified Chu teaches an all-solid-state battery that is substantially similar to that that recited in the instant application, the intermediate layer is understood to inherently have an initial capacity of about 1.0 mAh/cm2 or less than 1.0 mAh/cm2 as required by Claim 5 and as evidenced by the instant specification, which indicates that the initial capacity relates to the thickness of the intermediate layer (instant specification: [0072]). Since modified Chu teaches a thickness of the intermediate layer which is within the claimed range, it is understood to inherently have an initial capacity of about 1.0 mAh/cm2 or less than 1.0 mAh/cm2 (MPEP 2112.01, I).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US-6402795-B1) in view of Yushin et al. (US-20150318530-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in further view of Nagayama et al. (US-20040219428-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Chu renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the metal sulfide can include lead sulfide (PbS) or zinc sulfide (ZnS) (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Although Chu discloses that the wetting layer preferably either intercalates lithium or alloys with lithium (Col. 2, lines 46-57; Col. 3, lines 7-18, 26-27), modified Chu does not teach that the metal sulfide comprises at least one of In2S3, Bi2S3, or In2S3 and Bi2S3.
Nagayama teaches a lithium ion secondary battery including an anode which includes a metal sulfide which forms an alloy with lithium [0009-0012, 0025]. Nagayama teaches that the metal sulfide may include, from a list of possible candidates, lead sulfide (PbS) and indium sulfide (In2S3) [0025]. The Examiner notes that this establishes indium sulfide (In2S3) as a substitutable alternative to lead sulfide (PbS) for use in lithium ion secondary batteries (MPEP 2144.06, I-II). Furthermore, this establishes indium sulfide (In2S3) as a metal sulfide capable of forming an alloy with lithium (MPEP 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used indium sulfide (In2S3) instead of or in addition to the lead sulfide (PbS) rendered obvious by modified Chu, with a reasonable expectation that the use of indium sulfide (In2S3) in the intermediate layer would result in a successful lithium all-solid-state battery (MPEP 2144.06, I-II, MPEP 2144.07). Indium sulfide (In2S3) is within the list of claimed materials.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangasamy et al. (US-20200395618-A1) in view of Yushin et al. (US-20150318530-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Rangasamy teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising:
an anode current collector (160, Fig. 1);
an intermediate layer (protective film 180, Fig. 1) disposed on the anode current collector;
a solid electrolyte layer (solid electrolyte film 130, Fig. 1) disposed directly on the intermediate layer;
a cathode active material layer (cathode film 150, Fig. 1) disposed on the solid electrolyte layer; and
a cathode current collector (140, Fig. 1) disposed on the cathode active material layer.
Rangasamy teaches that the intermediate layer (protective film 180) can comprise a transition metal dichalcogenide [0074-0076]. These transition metal dichalcogenides undergo a lithiation process during the first cycle charge to form a lithium transition metal dichalcogenide [0043, 0073]. Therefore, prior to an initial charge, it is understood that the intermediate layer comprises the transition metal dichalcogenide, and does not comprise lithium. In a specific embodiment, Rangasamy discloses forming the intermediate layer as a film of TiS2 [0076]. Rangasamy does not teach that the metal sulfide comprises at least one of In, Bi, Pb, Si, Ge, Sb, Zn, or any combination thereof.
Yushin teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising active cathode particles and active anode particles [0159]. As an example of the active anode particles, metal sulfide particles that exhibit lithium intercalation can be used [0159]. Examples of suitable metal sulfide particles include, among a list of possible examples, PbS, ZnS, and TiS2 [0159]. The Examiner notes that this establishes lead sulfide (PbS) and zinc sulfide (ZnS) as a suitable metal sulfide alternatives to titanium sulfide (TiS2), all of which are capable of intercalating lithium ions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used lead sulfide (PbS) and/or zinc sulfide (ZnS) instead of or in addition to the titanium sulfide taught by Rangasamy, with a reasonable expectation that the use of lead sulfide and/or zinc sulfide in the intermediate layer would result in a successful all-solid-state battery (MPEP 2144.06, I-II, MPEP 2144.07). Lead sulfide (PbS) and zinc sulfide (ZnS) are within the list of claimed metal sulfides of instant Claim 1 (i.e. MxSy wherein M = Pb, x = 1, and y = 1 or MxSy wherein M = Zn, x = 1, and y = 1).
Modified Rangasamy teaches that an anode film (170, Fig. 1) exists between the intermediate layer (protective layer 180) and the current collector (160, Fig. 1). The anode film can be constructed from graphite, silicon-containing graphite, lithium metal, lithium metal foil, or a lithium alloy foil, or a mixture of a lithium metal and/or lithium alloy and materials such as carbon, nickel, copper, tin, indium, silicon, oxides thereof, or a combination thereof [0054].
Therefore, although modified Rangasamy does not teach in a specific embodiment using graphite or silicon-containing graphite as the material of the anode film (170), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the graphite or silicon-containing graphite as the material of the anode film with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful anode for use in an all-solid-state battery.
By selecting the anode film (170) to be comprised of graphite or silicon-containing graphite, modified Rangasamy thereby renders obvious “wherein the all-solid state battery does not comprise a lithium layer between the anode current collector and the intermediate layer prior to initial charging”.
The Examiner notes that the limitation “wherein during charging, the metal sulfide is converted into the metal and lithium sulfide (Li2S), wherein the all-solid-state battery further comprises the lithium layer formed between the anode current collector and the intermediate layer during charging, and the lithium layer comprises at least lithium metal, wherein the lithium layer further comprises at least one of lithium sulfide, an alloy of lithium and a metal derived from the metal sulfide, or any combination thereof” is an intended use limitation for the claimed all-solid-state battery.
The recitation of intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the limitation of the claim. Here, the prior art teaches the claimed configuration of the all-solid-state battery which is necessary to perform the intended use limitation. Specifically, the prior art teaches the claimed configuration of an anode current collector, an intermediate layer disposed on the anode current collector, a solid electrolyte disposed directly on the intermediate layer, a cathode active material layer, and a cathode current collector (see above). The prior art also renders obvious that the intermediate layer includes a metal sulfide, and the prior art renders obvious the use of PbS or ZnS, which are within the claimed list of metal sulfide materials. Therefore, the prior art has the structure necessary to perform the intended use limitation. Thus the intended use limitation is met.
Additionally, since the structure rendered obvious by the prior art is substantially similar to the claimed structure (as laid out above), it is understood that the all-solid-state battery of modified Rangasamy necessarily and inherently undergoes the claimed transformation during charging wherein “the metal sulfide is converted into the metal and lithium sulfide” as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0053-0055, 0057-0059, 0067] (MPEP 2112.01). Additionally, it is understood that the all-solid-state battery of modified Rangasamy necessarily and inherently “further comprises the lithium layer formed between the anode current collector and the intermediate layer during charging, and the lithium layer comprises at least lithium metal” as claimed and as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0060-0066, 0068-0069] (MPEP 2112.01). Furthermore, it is understood the process of charging necessarily and inherently results in an all-solid-state battery wherein “the lithium layer further comprises at least one of lithium sulfide, an alloy of lithium and a metal derived from the metal sulfide, or any combination thereof” as claimed and as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0069] (MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Rangasamy renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Rangasamy discloses that the anode current collector can be selected from a group which consists of Al, Cu, Zn, Ni, Co, Mn, Cr, stainless steel, alloys thereof, and combinations thereof [0051]. In a specific embodiment, the current collector is a copper current collector [0069], thus rendering obvious the use of an anode current collector comprising copper, which is within the claimed list of materials.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, modified Rangasamy renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Rangasamy teaches that the intermediate layer has a thickness of 500 nm or less [0059].
The range disclosed in the prior art overlaps the range disclosed in the instant application. Although Rangasamy does not teach in a specific embodiment that the intermediate layer has a thickness of 100 nm to 1000 nm, as required by Claim 4 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range recited within the prior art, including a thickness of about 100 nm to about 500 nm, with a reasonable expectation that such a thickness would result in a successful intermediate layer for use in an all-solid-state battery (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Furthermore, since modified Rangasamy teaches an all-solid-state battery that is substantially similar to that that recited in the instant application, the intermediate layer is understood to inherently have an initial capacity of about 1.0 mAh/cm2 or less than 1.0 mAh/cm2 as required by Claim 5 and as evidenced by the instant specification (instant specification: [0072]). Specifically, the instant specification indicates that the initial capacity relates to the thickness of the intermediate layer (instant specification: [0072]). Since modified Rangasamy teaches a thickness of the intermediate layer which is within the claimed range, it is understood to inherently have an initial capacity of about 1.0 mAh/cm2 or less than 1.0 mAh/cm2 (MPEP 2112.01, I).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangasamy et al. (US-20200395618-A1) in view of Yushin et al. (US-20150318530-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in further view of Nagayama et al. (US-20040219428-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Rangasamy renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the metal sulfide can include lead sulfide (PbS) or zinc sulfide (ZnS) (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Modified Rangasamy does not teach that the metal sulfide comprises at least one of In2S3, Bi2S3, or In2S3 and Bi2S3.
Nagayama teaches a lithium ion secondary battery including an anode which includes a metal sulfide which forms an alloy with lithium [0009-0012, 0025]. Nagayama teaches that the metal sulfide may include, from a list of possible candidates, lead sulfide (PbS) and indium sulfide (In2S3) [0025]. The Examiner notes that this establishes indium sulfide (In2S3) as a substitutable alternative to lead sulfide (PbS) for use in lithium ion secondary batteries (MPEP 2144.06, I-II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used indium sulfide (In2S3) instead of or in addition to the lead sulfide (PbS) rendered obvious by modified Rangasamy, with a reasonable expectation that the use of indium sulfide (In2S3) in the intermediate layer would result in a successful all-solid-state battery (MPEP 2144.06, I-II, MPEP 2144.07). Indium sulfide (In2S3) is within the list of claimed materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant has argued that Chu does not teach the newly added limitations regarding the transformation which occurs during charging (Remarks, Pgs. 5-6). Similarly, Applicant has argued that Rangasamy fails to teach the newly added limitations regarding the transformation which occurs during charging (Remarks, Pgs. 6-7).
The Examiner has carefully considered these argument, but does not find them persuasive. The Examiner notes that the limitations added to the end of Claim 1 amount to the intended use of the all-solid-state battery. The recitation of intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the limitation of the claim (MPEP 2173.05(g); MPEP 2144). Here, the prior art (i.e. Chu or Rangasamy) teaches the claimed structure of the all-solid-state battery, and renders obvious metal sulfide materials which fall within the claimed metal sulfide materials. Therefore, it is understood that the all-solid-state battery rendered obvious by the prior art will inherently react with lithium ions during charging to form the claimed lithium metal layer with the claimed chemical reactivity (see MPEP 2112, I-II; MPEP 2112.01), as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0053-0069]. Although Applicant has argued that the claimed electrochemical transformation in the intermediate layer is non-obvious over the cited references (Remarks, Pg. 5), Applicant has not pointed out specifically how the prior art fails to achieve the claimed electrochemical reactivity when subjected to charging. “Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis for a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the Applicant” (see MPEP 2112, V).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Chu in view of Mizuno (Remarks, Pg. 6) are moot, since the rejections of record no longer rely on Mizuno. Likewise, Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Rangasamy in view of Sato (Remarks, Pg. 7) are moot, since the rejections of record no longer rely on Sato.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/18/2026