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 .
Status of Claims and Other Notes
Claims 1–9 are pending.
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 paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2023/0318136 A1.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03 March 2023 and 08 June 2023 were filed before the mailing of a first Office Action on the merits. The submissions comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
FIG. 1 do not have satisfactory reproduction characteristics. The photographs or microphotographs are not of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. See US 2023/0318136 A1. See 37 CFR 1.84 (b).
FIGS. 2–4 use shading that reduces legibility or solid black shading that is not used to represent bar graphs or color. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color. See 37 CFR 1.84 (m).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: SEPARATOR INCLUDING MIXED LAYER OF HEAT-RESISTANT RESIN AND POROUS POLYOLEFIN FILM, AND NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1–9 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 "a porous film containing a polyolefin-based resin as a main component." The term "main" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "main" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Paragraph [0062] attempts to provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. However, paragraph [0062] recites three distinct standards while using indefinite language "preferable" and "more preferably" and does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree that would apprise one of ordinary skill in the art the scope of the invention Therefore, the limitation "a porous film containing a polyolefin-based resin as a main component" is indefinite.
Claims 2 and 3 are directly or indirectly dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2 and 3 are also 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 4 recites the limitation " an average value of luminances of the entire heat-resistant layer." Claim 1, which claim 4 is directly dependent, recites the limitation " an average value of luminances of the entire heat-resistant layer." It is unclear if " an average value of luminances of the entire heat-resistant layer" recited in claim 4 is further limiting or referencing " an average value of luminances of the entire heat-resistant layer" recited in claim 1.
Claims 5 and 6 are directly dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 5 and 6 are also 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.
Claims 7 and 8 recites the limitation "a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator recited in claim 1" and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 7 and 8 are also 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 9 recites the limitation "a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery member recited in claim 7" and includes all the limitations of claim 7. Therefore, claim 9 is also 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (US 2014/0178741 A1, hereinafter Hasegawa) in view of Horie et al. (US 2020/0335757 A1, hereinafter Horie).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Hasegawa a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator comprising:
a mixed layer which contains a heat-resistant resin and a porous base material that includes a porous film containing a polyolefin-based resin as a main component (TABLE 4, [0134]); and
a heat-resistant layer which contains the heat-resistant resin and which is in contact with the mixed layer (TABLE 4, [0134]),
when an SEM image which includes a cross section of the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator in a thickness direction is analyzed (TABLE 4, [0129]).
Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose:
luminance distribution of the mixed layer in the thickness direction satisfying the following conditions:
condition 1 a luminance X1 is not less than 20%; and
condition 2 a luminance X2 is not less than 9%,
where a luminance at a point at a depth of 10% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer is X1%,
a luminance at a point at a depth of 30% of the thickness of the porous base material from the interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer is X2%, and
an average of luminances of the entire heat-resistant layer is 100%;
wherein a value, represented by the following expression (1), of the heat-resistant layer is not less than 5%: a luminance X3 (%) - a luminance X4 (%) .. expression (1)
where the luminance X3 indicates an average value of luminances of a part from the interface between the heat-resistant layer and the mixed layer to a depth of 20% of a thickness of the heat-resistant layer from the interface,
the luminance X4 indicates an average value of luminances of a part from an outermost surface of the heat-resistant layer to a depth of 20% of the thickness of the heat-resistant layer from the outermost surface, and
an average value of luminances of the entire heat-resistant layer is 100%.
The instant application discloses the luminance is a parameter indicating the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained in the mixed layer (e.g., [0053]). The luminances X1 and X2 indicate the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained at a depth of 10% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer is greater than the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained at a depth of 30% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer; and luminances X3 and X4 indicate an amount of the heat-resistant resin contained in a part from the interface between the heat-resistant layer and the mixed layer to a depth of 20% of a thickness of the heat-resistant layer from the interface is greater than an amount of the heat-resistant resin contained in a part from an outermost surface of the heat-resistant layer to a depth of 20% of the thickness of the heat-resistant layer from the outermost surface.
Hasegawa discloses the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained at a depth of 10% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer is greater than the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained at a depth of 30% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer (see B layer, [0033]). Hasegawa also discloses an amount of the heat-resistant resin contained in a part from the interface between the heat-resistant layer and the mixed layer to a depth of 20% of a thickness of the heat-resistant layer from the interface is greater than an amount of the heat-resistant resin contained in a part from an outermost surface of the heat-resistant layer to a depth of 20% of the thickness of the heat-resistant layer from the outermost surface (see B layer, [0033]).
Horie discloses the amount of a heat-resistant resin contained at a depth from an interface between a heat-resistant layer and a porous base material should be concentrated at an interface between a mixed layer and a heat-resistant layer to improve the adhesiveness between a porous base material and the heat-resistant layer (see interface, [0065]).
While Horie does not explicitly disclose changing a luminance distribution, the change in the distribution of the heat-resistant resin, which is indicative of the luminance distribution, is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Horie teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that concentrating the heat-resistant resin at the interface of the porous base material and the heat-resistant layer will increase adhesiveness. Therefore, adhesiveness is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the luminance distribution (i.e., the distribution of the heat-resistant resin). For that reason, the luminance distribution, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the luminance distribution cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the luminance distribution in the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator of Hasegawa to obtain the desired adhesiveness (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hasegawa discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator:
wherein the heat-resistant layer further contains a filler (TABLE 1, [0131]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hasegawa discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator:
wherein an amount of the filler contained in the heat-resistant layer is not less than 70% by weight, relative to a total weight of the heat-resistant layer (see B layer, [0061]).
Although Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose a range of not less than 20% by weight and not more than 90% by weight, Hasegawa does disclose an overlapping range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 5, modified Hasegawa discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator:
wherein an air permeability of the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator is not more than 500 sec/100 mL (TABLE 3, [0134]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hasegawa discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator:
wherein the heat-resistant resin is an polyamide resin (see polyamide, [0070]).
Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose:
an aramid resin.
Horie also discloses a heat-resistant layer including an aramid resin (see polyamide, [0054]) improves the heat resistance and electrochemical stability (see resin, [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the heat-resistant resin of Hasegawa with the aramid resin of Horie in order to improve the heat resistance and electrochemical stability
Regarding claim 7, Hasegawa discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery member comprising a positive electrode; a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator; and a negative electrode, the positive electrode, the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator, and the negative electrode being disposed in this order ([0100]–[0112]), wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator comprises:
a mixed layer which contains a heat-resistant resin and a porous base material that includes a porous film containing a polyolefin-based resin as a main component (TABLE 4, [0134]); and
a heat-resistant layer which contains the heat-resistant resin and which is in contact with the mixed layer (TABLE 4, [0134]),
when an SEM image which includes a cross section of the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator in a thickness direction is analyzed (TABLE 4, [0129]).
Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose:
luminance distribution of the mixed layer in the thickness direction satisfying the following conditions:
condition 1 a luminance X1 is not less than 20%; and
condition 2 a luminance X2 is not less than 9%,
where a luminance at a point at a depth of 10% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer is X1%,
a luminance at a point at a depth of 30% of the thickness of the porous base material from the interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer is X2%, and
an average of luminances of the entire heat-resistant layer is 100%.
The instant application discloses the luminance is a parameter indicating the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained in the mixed layer (e.g., [0053]). The luminances X1 and X2 indicate the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained at a depth of 10% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer is greater than the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained at a depth of 30% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer.
Hasegawa discloses the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained at a depth of 10% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer is greater than the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained at a depth of 30% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer (see B layer, [0033]).
Horie discloses the amount of a heat-resistant resin contained at a depth from an interface between a heat-resistant layer and a porous base material should be concentrated at an interface between a mixed layer and a heat-resistant layer to improve the adhesiveness between a porous base material and the heat-resistant layer (see interface, [0065]).
While Horie does not explicitly disclose changing a luminance distribution, the change in the distribution of the heat-resistant resin, which is indicative of the luminance distribution, is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Horie teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that concentrating the heat-resistant resin at the interface of the porous base material and the heat-resistant layer will increase adhesiveness. Therefore, adhesiveness is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the luminance distribution (i.e., the distribution of the heat-resistant resin). For that reason, the luminance distribution, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the luminance distribution cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the luminance distribution in the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator of Hasegawa to obtain the desired adhesiveness (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 8, Hasegawa discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator, wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator comprises:
a mixed layer which contains a heat-resistant resin and a porous base material that includes a porous film containing a polyolefin-based resin as a main component (TABLE 4, [0134]); and
a heat-resistant layer which contains the heat-resistant resin and which is in contact with the mixed layer (TABLE 4, [0134]),
when an SEM image which includes a cross section of the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator in a thickness direction is analyzed (TABLE 4, [0129]).
Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose:
luminance distribution of the mixed layer in the thickness direction satisfying the following conditions:
condition 1 a luminance X1 is not less than 20%; and
condition 2 a luminance X2 is not less than 9%,
where a luminance at a point at a depth of 10% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer is X1%,
a luminance at a point at a depth of 30% of the thickness of the porous base material from the interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer is X2%, and
an average of luminances of the entire heat-resistant layer is 100%.
The instant application discloses the luminance is a parameter indicating the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained in the mixed layer (e.g., [0053]). The luminances X1 and X2 indicate the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained at a depth of 10% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer is greater than the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained at a depth of 30% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer.
Hasegawa discloses the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained at a depth of 10% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer is greater than the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained at a depth of 30% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer (see B layer, [0033]).
Horie discloses the amount of a heat-resistant resin contained at a depth from an interface between a heat-resistant layer and a porous base material should be concentrated at an interface between a mixed layer and a heat-resistant layer to improve the adhesiveness between a porous base material and the heat-resistant layer (see interface, [0065]).
While Horie does not explicitly disclose changing a luminance distribution, the change in the distribution of the heat-resistant resin, which is indicative of the luminance distribution, is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Horie teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that concentrating the heat-resistant resin at the interface of the porous base material and the heat-resistant layer will increase adhesiveness. Therefore, adhesiveness is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the luminance distribution (i.e., the distribution of the heat-resistant resin). For that reason, the luminance distribution, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the luminance distribution cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the luminance distribution in the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator of Hasegawa to obtain the desired adhesiveness (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 9, Hasegawa discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery member comprising a positive electrode; a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator; and a negative electrode, the positive electrode, the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator, and the negative electrode being disposed in this order, wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator comprises:
a mixed layer which contains a heat-resistant resin and a porous base material that includes a porous film containing a polyolefin-based resin as a main component (TABLE 4, [0134]); and
a heat-resistant layer which contains the heat-resistant resin and which is in contact with the mixed layer (TABLE 4, [0134]),
when an SEM image which includes a cross section of the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator in a thickness direction is analyzed (TABLE 4, [0129]).
Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose:
luminance distribution of the mixed layer in the thickness direction satisfying the following conditions:
condition 1 a luminance X1 is not less than 20%; and
condition 2 a luminance X2 is not less than 9%,
where a luminance at a point at a depth of 10% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer is X1%,
a luminance at a point at a depth of 30% of the thickness of the porous base material from the interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer is X2%, and
an average of luminances of the entire heat-resistant layer is 100%.
The instant application discloses the luminance is a parameter indicating the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained in the mixed layer (e.g., [0053]). The luminances X1 and X2 indicate the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained at a depth of 10% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer is greater than the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained at a depth of 30% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer.
Hasegawa discloses the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained at a depth of 10% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer is greater than the amount of the heat-resistant resin contained at a depth of 30% of a thickness of the porous base material from an interface between the mixed layer and the heat-resistant layer (see B layer, [0033]).
Horie discloses the amount of a heat-resistant resin contained at a depth from an interface between a heat-resistant layer and a porous base material should be concentrated at an interface between a mixed layer and a heat-resistant layer to improve the adhesiveness between a porous base material and the heat-resistant layer (see interface, [0065]).
While Horie does not explicitly disclose changing a luminance distribution, the change in the distribution of the heat-resistant resin, which is indicative of the luminance distribution, is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Horie teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that concentrating the heat-resistant resin at the interface of the porous base material and the heat-resistant layer will increase adhesiveness. Therefore, adhesiveness is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the luminance distribution (i.e., the distribution of the heat-resistant resin). For that reason, the luminance distribution, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the luminance distribution cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the luminance distribution in the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery separator of Hasegawa to obtain the desired adhesiveness (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT.
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 A 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.
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725