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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted March 9, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 11-15 are cancelled, claims 1, 4-6, and 8-10 are amended, and claims 16-25 are new, resulting in claims 1-10 and 16-25 pending for examination.
A call was made to Attorney Vladimir Gusev on Wednesday April 22, 2026 to propose an Examiner’s Amendment. Attorney Gusev informed the Examiner that he would consult with his client. No response was received. The proposed Examiner’s Amendment was as follows:
Claim 1, line 14:
particles operable as metal ion hosts
Claim 1:
incorporation of all limitations of claims 8 and 9
Claim 9, lines 17-18:
wherein the recess extends from the respective slot along entire dispensing surface in the coating direction.
Claim 16, line 2:
particles operable as metal ion hosts
Claim 17, line 2:
a polymer
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, claims 1 and 16 recite the limitation “particles operable as ion hosts”. The instant specification does not provide support for the genus of “ion hosts”, rather the instant specification provides support for “metal ion hosts” (instant specification [47-50], [59], [83], [114], [123-126], [149]).
Claims 2-10 and 16-25 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore, for the reasons outlined with respect to claim 1, these claims also contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, the inventor(s) at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitation “extends from the respective slot along an entire portion of the dispensing surface”. The instant specification does not provide support for the recess extending along “an entire portion of the dispensing surface”, rather the instant specification provides support for the recess extending “along the entire dispensing surface” (instant specification [67]) and not just a portion of it.
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 17 and 23 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.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the limitation “the polymer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 recites “wherein the first functional layer and the second functional layer are cross-linked after forming the first functional layer and the second functional layer”. It is unclear if the first functional layer and the second functional layer are each cross-linked or if the first functional layer and the second functional layer are cross-linked to each other.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki (US 2003/0180470 A1) in view of Yusaku (WO 2015/107896 A1, English translation used for citations) and Zhang (Zhang, L. et al. Magnetic Field Regulating the Graphite Electrode for Excellent Lithium-Ion Batteries Performance. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering. 7, 6, 6152-6160 (2019)).
Regarding claim 1, Oki teaches a method for generating functional layers, the method comprising:
Providing a first preparation in a first reservoir of a coating device and providing a second preparation in a second reservoir of the coating device (coating solutions located in coating solution tanks, Oki [48])
Placing the coating device above a substrate and moving the coating device relative to the substrate along a coating direction (Oki Fig. 3)
Dispensing the first preparation from the first reservoir through a first slot of the coating device onto a coating surface of the substrate, the first slot extending along a lateral axis substantially perpendicular to the coating direction and substantially parallel to the coating surface (Oki [48], Fig. 3)
And substantially simultaneously dispensing the second preparation from the second reservoir through a second slot of the coating device onto the substrate, the second slot extending along the lateral axis (Oki Fig. 3)
Wherein the first preparation and the second preparation form a curtain between the coating device and the substrate (Oki Fig. 3, “freely fall in the form of curtain” [48])
Wherein a first functional layer is formed on the coating surface from the first preparation and a second functional layer is substantially simultaneously formed on the first functional layer form the second preparation (Oki Fig. 3)
Oki does not expressly teach the first preparation and the second preparation exhibiting a shear thinning behavior.
Yusaku teaches that it is known and desirable for preparations (slurry compositions, Yusaku lines 62-66) used to form layers for electrochemical storage devices (Yusaku title) to exhibit shear thinning behavior (low viscosity under high shear and high viscosity under low shear, Yusaku lines 62-66) in order to allow for easy coating and subsequent suppression of migration after coating (Yusaku lines 62-66).
Since Yusaku teaches that it is known and desirable for preparations used to form electrochemical storage device layers to exhibit shear thinning behavior in order to allow for easy coating and suppress migration after coating, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use preparations that exhibit shear thinning behavior in the method of Oki in order to achieve easy coating and desirable suppression of migration after coating.
Oki does not expressly teach an embodiment wherein the method is used to form functional layers of an electrochemical storage device.
Additionally, Oki teaches that the coating apparatus used in the method can be used to fabricate an electrochemical storage device (batteries, Oki [2]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Oki to generate functional layers of an electrochemical device, including a first functional layer and a second functional layer, in order to obtain an electrochemical device with suitable performance for desired application.
Oki does not expressly teach:
at least one of the first preparation or the second preparation being a slurry comprising a liquid portion and particles operable as ion hosts, suspended in the liquid portion,
the liquid portion comprising at least one liquid solvent or a monomer
the particles having a particle size of 1 nanometer to 500 micrometers
Zhang teaches electrochemical storage devices (lithium ion batteries, Zhang title) wherein an electrode is formed (Zhang Experimental) using a slurry comprising a liquid portion (ethanol, Zhang Suspension Preparation) that is a liquid solvent and particles operable as ion hosts that have a particle size of 1 nanometer to 500 micrometers (graphite flakes, Zhang Suspension Preparation).
Since Oki teaches that their method can be used to fabricate electrochemical storage devices and Zhang teaches a slurry for making a component of an electrochemical storage device, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the slurry of Zhang as the first preparation and the method of Zhang to form the first functional layer, in order to fabricate an electrode layer suitable for use in electrochemical storage devices.
Regarding claim 4, Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Oki further teaches the first functional layer and/or the second functional layer forming at least one of a cathode, an anode, an electron transport medium, or a protective layer (graphite electrode, Zhang Experimental).
Regarding claim 5, Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Oki further teaches the first preparation comprising a solvent and a metal ion host (ethanol, graphite, Zhang Suspension Preparation).
Regarding claim 16, Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Oki further teaches the particles being electrochemically active particles operable as ion hosts (graphite flakes, Zhang Experimental).
Regarding claim 17, Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Claim 17 does not affirmatively require a monomer; therefore, modified Oki reads on claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Oki further teaches the coating device comprising a dispensing surface on which the first preparation and the second preparation are deposited on top of each other to form the curtain (element 20, Oki Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Oki further teaches the first preparation comprising an electrically-conductive additive (acetylene black, Zhang Suspension Preparation).
Regarding claim 22, Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Oki further teaches the first functional layer being exposed to a magnetic field during drying (“drying suspension takes more than 40 min under the rotating field”, Zhang pg. 6154 left column paragraph 2).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Zhao (Zhao, W. et al. Solid State Electrolyte for Lithium Ion Batteries: Fundamentals, Challenges and Perspectives. Electrochemical Energy Reviews. 2, 574-605 (2019)).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Oki does not teach an embodiment wherein the first functional layer and/or the second functional layer forms a solid-state electrolyte of the electrochemical storage device, and wherein the solid-state electrolyte comprises an inorganic solid electrolyte and/or a polymer electrolyte, or comprises a mixtures of a polymer and a metal ion salt.
Zhao teaches that it is known to fabricate lithium ion batteries, which are an electrochemical storage device, including solid-state electrolytes (Zhao title). Zhao further teaches that it is known and suitable to form these solid-state electrolytes using inorganic solid electrolyte compounds (Zhao Section 2.1), polymer electrolytes (Zhao Section 2.2), or mixtures of a polymer and a metal ion salt (“alkali metal salts in polymer matrixes”, Zhao Section 2.2).
Since Zhao teaches that it is known to form lithium ion batteries with solid-state electrolytes, wherein the solid-state electrolyte may comprise an inorganic solid electrolyte and/or a polymer electrolyte, or comprises a mixtures of a polymer and a metal ion salt, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Oki to have the second functional layer form a solid-state electrolyte, wherein the solid-state electrolyte comprises an inorganic solid electrolyte and/or a polymer electrolyte, or comprises a mixtures of a polymer and a metal ion salt, in order to obtain a method capable of fabricating a lithium ion battery suitable for a desired electrochemical application.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Reddy (Reddy, M.J. Structural and ionic conductivity of PEO blend PEG solid polymer electrolyte. Solid State Ionics. 177, 253-256 (2006)).
Regarding claim 7, Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Oki does not teach the first preparation and/or the second preparation comprising a first polymer and a second polymer having the molecular weights claimed in instant claim 7. As mentioned above, Oki teaches that the coating apparatus used in the method can be used to fabricate an electrochemical storage device (batteries, Oki [2]).
Reddy teaches a solid electrolyte composition comprising PEO having a molecular weight of 6x105 g/mol (Reddy Experimental) and PEG having a molecular weight of 4000 g/mol (Reddy Experimental) for use in solid state electrochemical devices (Reddy Introduction).
Since Oki teaches that their invention is suitable for fabricating electrochemical storage devices and Reddy teaches a solid electrolyte composition for solid state electrochemical devices, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the solid electrolyte composition of Reddy, including PEO having a molecular weight of 6x105 g/mol (second polymer of instant claim 7) and PEG having a molecular weight of 4000 g/mol (first polymer of instant claim 7), as the second preparation in the method of Oki in order to obtain a method capable of forming a solid electrolyte layer.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Parsekian (US 2021/0370342 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Oki does not teach the first reservoir and the first slot or the second reservoir and the second slot being divided into a first section and a second section along a lateral axis.
Parsekian teaches a method for forming thin films with multi-material patterns (Parsekian [21]) wherein a coating device comprises a reservoir and slot that is divided into a first section and a second section along a lateral axis and wherein the sections each comprise a preparation (coating fluid, Parsekian [49]). Parsekian further teaches the first section and second section physically separated from each other and the first section forming an end section of the reservoir along the lateral axis (Parsekian Fig. 3A). Parsekian further teaches that patterned films may be applied to optoelectronics, sensors, computing, and wearable energy conversion (Parsekian [5]).
PNG
media_image1.png
686
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since Parsekian teaches that having a slot separated into a first section and a second section allows for the production of multi material patterned thin films and that patterned films have applications in areas such as optoelectronics, sensors, computing, and wearable energy conversion, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Oki to include a first section and a second section in the first reservoir and the first slot, as taught by Parsekian, wherein the first section and the second section are physically separated from each other, the first section forms an end section of the first or second reservoir along the lateral axis, the first or second preparation is provided in the first section, and a further preparation is provided in the second section, in order to obtain a method capable of fabricating a first functional layer (patterned multi material thin film) suitable for a desired application.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Neudecker (US 20040048157 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Oki is silent to the thickness of the first and second functional layers.
Neudecker teaches lithium secondary batteries, as in Zhang, wherein the electrolyte layer has a thickness of about 0.1 µm to about 100 µm (Neudecker claim 86).
Since modified Oki is silent to the thickness of the functional layers and Neudecker teaches that it is suitable for the thickness of an electrolyte layer to be 0.1 to 100 µm, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the second functional layer having a thickness of 0.1 µm to 100 µm, as taught by Neudecker, in order to obtain a method capable of producing a battery suitable for a desired application.
The thickness range of Neudecker substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 19. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Neudecker, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang, as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, and in further view of Varzi (Varzi A. et al. Study of multi-walled carbon nanotubes for lithium-ion battery electrodes. Journal of Power Sources. 196, 6, 3303-3309 (2011).
Regarding claim 21, Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang teaches all features of claims 1 and 20, as described above. Modified Oki does not teach the electrically-conductive additive comprises carbon nanotubes.
However, Varzi teaches that carbon nanotubes have high electronic conductivity relative to carbon blacks (Varzi pg. 3303 right column second paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute acetylene black in the first preparation of modified Oki for carbon nanotubes in order to achieve higher electronic conductivity.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Polichette (US 3956041 A).
Regarding claim 24, Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Oki is silent to the substrate being removed from the functional layers after forming the first functional layer and the second functional layer. However, modified Oki teaches a substrate and the ordinary artisan would recognize that the functional layers must be coated onto something in order to perform the curtain coating process.
Polichette teaches coating onto a transfer base material and subsequently removing the transfer base material after a coating layer is formed (Polichette col 2 lines 10-60). Since Polichette teaches the use of transfer base material, which is a substrate, to facilitate the formation of layers where this transfer base material is removed upon layer formation, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the functional layers of modified Oki from the substrate in order to use the layered structure (first and second functional layers) for its desired application or to undergone further processing.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Zhao and Porcarelli (Porcarelli, L. et al. Super Soft All-Ethylene Oxide Polymer Electrolyte for Safe All-Solid Lithium Batteries. Scientific Reports. 6, 19892 (2016)).
Regarding claim 25, Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Oki does not teach the first preparation or the second preparation comprising a polymer dispensed at a temperature above a melting point of the polymer to form a solvent-free layer that is the first functional layer or the second functional layer.
Zhao teaches that it is known to fabricate lithium ion batteries, which are an electrochemical storage device, including solid-state electrolytes (Zhao title). Zhao further teaches that it is known and suitable to form these solid-state electrolytes using polymer electrolytes (Zhao Section 2.2) or mixtures of a polymer and a metal ion salt (“alkali metal salts in polymer matrixes”, Zhao Section 2.2).
Since Zhao teaches that it is known to form lithium ion batteries with solid-state electrolytes, wherein the solid-state electrolyte may comprise a polymer electrolyte or a mixture of a polymer and a metal ion salt, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Oki to have the second functional layer form a solid-state electrolyte, wherein the solid-state electrolyte comprises a polymer electrolyte or a mixture of a polymer and a metal ion salt, in order to obtain a method capable of fabricating a lithium ion battery suitable for a desired electrochemical application.
Porcarelli teaches polymer electrolytes for lithium secondary batteries that are formed without the use of solvent (Porcarelli Experimental Section). Porcarelli further teaches that it is desirable to use solvent-free approaches since it is challenging to completely remove solvent from the final product and “unavoidable traces of solvent persisting in the polymer matrix create various interfacial stability issues, even enabling thermal runaway reactions” (Porcarelli Introduction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a solvent-free method to fabricate a polymer electrolyte layer for the second functional layer in order to prevent the issue of traces of solvent remaining in the final product. The ordinary artisan would recognize that, in order to use a solvent-free approach with the curtain coating method of Oki, the polymer of the second preparation would need to be dispensed at a temperature above a melting point of the polymer in order to allow for the second preparation to be capable of being curtain coated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach or render obvious a method according to claim 1 wherein there is “no diffusion” occurring at an interface of the first and second preparations, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Response – Drawings Objections
The objections to the drawings are overcome by Applicant’s amendments to the drawings in the response received on March 9, 2026. The objections to the drawings are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Objections
The objections to claims 5 and 6 due to informalities is overcome by Applicant’s amendments to claims 5 and 6 in the response received on March 9, 2026. The objections to claims 5 and 6 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for insufficient antecedent basis is overcome by Applicant’s amendments to claim 6 in the response received March 9, 2026. This rejection of claim 6 is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
The following rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments to claim 1:
Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki in view of Yusaku.
Claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki in view of Yusaku and Zhao.
Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki in view of Yusaku and Kubota.
Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki in view of Yusaku and Morie.
Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki in view of Yusaku and Reddy.
Claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki in view of Yusaku and Parsekian.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stewart (US 4173662 A): appears to disclose forming a fuel cell electrolyte matrix using curtain coating (abstract).
Kageira (US 2011/0256442 A1): appears to disclose that curtain coating is a known and suitable method for coating electrode slurries (Kageira [58]).
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 S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights