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 the Claims
The amendment/remarks submitted 06/18/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 13-14 are withdrawn. Claims 1-4 are amended. Claims 1-12 and 15-20 are examined herein.
Specification
The amendment to the specification received 06/18/2026 is acceptable and has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-12 and 15-20 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 claim(s) contains 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 1, the claim recites “a first straight section of the inner separator has a surface friction coefficient of 0.1-0.4, wherein the surface friction coefficient is a dynamic friction coefficient between the separator and a surface of a winding needle; the surface of the winding needle comprises Polytetrafluoroethylene material.” However, the specification does not provide support for the surface friction coefficient as measured to be between the separator and a surface of a winding needle. While the surface of the winding needle and the material against which the surface friction coefficient is measured are both polytetrafluoroethylene (see, for example, paragraph [0008] of the specification as filed), the specification does not disclose measuring the surface friction coefficient against the winding needle as claimed. The specification only discloses measuring/testing the surface friction coefficient as in paragraph [0008] and claims 2-3. Claims 2-12 and 15-20 depend from claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claims 2-3, the last line of claim 2 recites in the limitation “wherein the material is the Polytetrafluoroethylene material” referencing both “S2: spreading material that is in direct contact with the separator on a measurement area” in claim 2 and “the surface of the winding needle comprises Polytetrafluoroethylene material” in claim 1. This appears to recite that the polytetrafluoroethylene material from the winding needle is spread on a measurement area. This is not supported by the specification as filed. It is suspected that polytetrafluoroethylene in claims 2 and 3 is a different polytetrafluoroethylene material.
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 2-3 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 claims 2-3, the claims recite a specific method of measuring the surface friction coefficient that does not include the winding needle. This conflicts with the limitation in claim 1 that the surface friction coefficient be between the separator and winding needle. Moreover, in the last line of claim 2, the limitation “wherein the material is the Polytetrafluoroethylene material” referencing both “S2: spreading material that is in direct contact with the separator on a measurement area” in claim 2 and “the surface of the winding needle comprises Polytetrafluoroethylene material” in claim 1. This appears to imply that the polytetrafluoroethylene material removed from the winding needle and spread on a measurement area.
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.
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 1-11, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 205828578 U (“Zeng” – machine translation of record dated 03/19/2026 cited herein) in view of US 2015/0207122 A1 (“Yoshitomi”).
Regarding claim 1, Zeng discloses a lithium ion battery (Abstract; [0039]). The battery comprises a wound cell and tabs 13, 23 (Figs. 2-5, 8-11). The wound cell is formed by stacking and winding a separator winding start layer 31 (“inner separator”), a first electrode 10, a separator winding second layer 33 (“outer separator”), and a second electrode 20, wherein the first electrode 10 and the second electrode 20 have opposite polarity (Figs. 2-5, 8-11; [0035]).
The separator winding start layer 31 is located at an innermost layer of the wound cell (Figs. 2-5, 8-11). Each of the separator winding start layer 31 and the separator winding second layer 33 has a natural fold-back section 35 (“clamping section”), a first straight section connected with the natural fold-back section 35 and located behind the natural fold-back section 35, and a tail laminating section extending beyond a tail end of the first electrode 10 (Figs. 5, 10-11; [0015], [0053]-[0055]).
The first straight section is located in front of the first electrode 10 (e.g. this portion extends beyond the first electrode at the center of the wound cell. The tail laminating section is a separator end (Figs. 5, 10-11). The natural fold-back section 35, the first straight section, and the tail laminating section of the separator winding start layer 31 are respectively laminated with the natural fold-back section 35, the first straight section, and the tail laminating section of the separator winding second layer 33 (Figs. 5, 10-11).
PNG
media_image1.png
379
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zeng does not expressly disclose a first straight section of the inner separator has a surface friction coefficient of 0.1-0.4, wherein the surface friction coefficient is a dynamic friction coefficient between the separator and a surface of a winding needle; the surface of the winding needle comprises Polytetrafluoroethylene material.
Yoshitomi discloses a separator for a nonaqueous electrolyte battery, including a porous substrate and an adhesive porous layer that is provided on one side or both sides of the porous substrate and contains an adhesive resin (Abstract). The dynamic coefficient of friction on the surface of the adhesive porous layer provided on one side and/or the other side of the porous substrate is within a range of 0.1 or more and 0.5 or less ([0038], [0029]-[0039]). The separator of Yoshitomi balances process yield, adhesion to electrodes, and electrolyte retention ([0031]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the separator of Yoshitomi for the separators of Zeng to balance process yield, adhesion to electrodes, and electrolyte retention. It is the position of the Office that the dynamic coefficient of friction disclosed by Yoshitomi would be sufficiently similar to the claimed dynamic friction coefficient in view of the disclosure in Yoshitomi that a dynamic coefficient of friction is a value measured by the method in accordance with JIS K7125 ([0039]) which is aligned with ASTM D1894-24 and ISO 8295 cited by applicant.
Regarding claim 2, modified Zeng discloses the lithium battery of claim 1. The instant claim recites a method of measuring the surface friction coefficient. It is deemed that the separator of modified Zeng inherently meets the structural limitations of the claim in view of the dynamic coefficient of friction of 0.1 or more and 0.5 or less as taught by Yoshitomi. The dynamic coefficient of friction corresponds to the claimed second friction coefficient.
Regarding claim 3, modified Zeng discloses the lithium battery of claim 1. Yoshitomi discloses the dynamic coefficient of friction is a value measured by the method in accordance with JIS K7125 ([0039]). It is deemed that the separator of modified Zeng inherently meets the structural limitations of the claim in view of Yoshitomi.
Regarding claims 4-7, modified Zeng discloses the lithium battery of claim 1. Yoshitoshi further discloses the separator (in the combination, this applies to both separators) comprises a base film and an adhesive porous layer ([0029]). The porous substrate is a composite porous sheet including a microporous membrane and a functional layer laminated thereon. The functional layer is a porous layer made of a heat-resistant resin and an inorganic filler, such as alumina ([0058]). The porous layer is provided as the outermost layer of the separator on both sides of the porous substrate ([0064]). This corresponds to the claims as a functional layer comprising a ceramic (“ceramic layer”) is provided on the microporous membrane (“base film”) and the adhesive layer is provided the functional layer.
Regarding claim 8, modified Zeng discloses the lithium battery of claim 1. The instant claim recites dimensions of various portions of the lithium battery. While modified Zeng is silent regarding the dimensions as claimed, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the relative size of the portion(s) as claimed because a lithium battery having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently. The examiner’s position is supported by MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). “Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, modified Zeng discloses the lithium battery of claim 1. It is deemed that the dry peeling force and adhesive transfer area ratio are inherent characteristics and/or properties of the specifically disclosed the inner and outer separators. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
“When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Regarding claim 10, modified Zeng discloses the lithium battery of claim 1. As shown in Figs. 10-11, the separator winding start layer 31 has a first inner laminating section that is laminated with itself. It is deemed that the wet peeling force is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed the adhesive surface. See the sections of MPEP 2112 cited above.
Regarding claim 11, modified Zeng discloses the lithium battery of claim 4. Yoshitomi discloses the adhesive porous layer is formed by, for example, phase separation ([0107]-[0108]). An example of a solvent that induces phase separation includes water ([0110]). The separator is therefore considered to be a water-based separator.
Regarding claim 15, modified Zeng discloses the lithium battery of claim 4. Yoshitomi further discloses the thickness of the adhesive porous layer on one side of the porous substrate is 0.5 µm to 5 µm. When the thickness is 0.5 µm or more, this leads to excellent adhesion to electrodes and provides a battery with excellent cycle characteristics. When the thickness is 5 µm or less, this leads to excellent ion permeability and provides a battery with excellent load characteristics ([0068]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the layer for the reasons disclosed by Yoshitomi.
Given the composition and thickness of the adhesive porous layer, it is the position of the Office that the packing density would likewise be obvious for the same reasons as the thickness as the packing density is equal to the total density of the layer times thickness.
Regarding claim 16, modified Zeng discloses the lithium battery of claim 4. Yoshitomi further discloses the adhesive porous layer comprises an adhesive resin such as polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinylidene fluoride copolymers, styrene-butadiene copolymers, homopolymers and copolymers of vinyl nitriles such as acrylonitrile and methacrylonitrile, and polyvinyl alcohols ([0074]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 205828578 U (“Zeng” – machine translation of record dated 03/19/2026 cited herein) in view of US 2015/0207122 A1 (“Yoshitomi”) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 2023/0344077 A1 (“Qiu”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Zeng discloses the lithium battery of claim 11. Yoshitomi discloses the adhesive porous layer comprises an adhesive resin and may contain an inorganic filler ([0042]). Modified Zeng does not expressly disclose the adhesive layer comprises a binder and a dispersing agent; wherein a content of the adhesive polymer accounts for 92-96%, a content of the binder accounts for 2.5-5.5%, and a content of the dispersing agent accounts for 1.5-2.5%, based on a total mass of the adhesive layer.
Qiu discloses a porous coating on a porous substrate ([0058]). The porous coating provides adhesion between the separator and the electrodes ([0062]). The porous coating layer comprises a thickener (“binder”) and a wetting agent (“dispersing agent”). The thickener and wetting agent are both provided in an amount of 1% to 15% (if inorganic particles are not included) or 1% to 10% (if inorganic particles are included) ([0061], [0072]). The thickener is used to increase a viscosity of a porous coating slurry, so that the porous coating slurry has good stability, preventing agglomeration and sedimentation of particles. The wetting agent is used to make contact between the polymer binder and thickener and water fuller, facilitating dispersion of the polymer binder. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the thickener and wetting agent as taught by Qiu to prevent agglomeration and sedimentation of particles and facilitate dispersion of the polymer binder ([0062]) and optimize the amounts thereof to prevent agglomeration and sedimentation of particles ([0064]) and uniform apply the coating and avoid the risk of short circuit of the battery cell caused by insufficient bonding forces between the porous film and the electrodes ([0073]).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 205828578 U (“Zeng” – machine translation of record dated 03/19/2026 cited herein) in view of US 2015/0207122 A1 (“Yoshitomi”) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of JP 2019-121508 A (“Nishiura” – machine translation of record dated 03/19/2026 cited herein).
Regarding claim 17, modified Zeng discloses the lithium battery of claim 4. As discussed above, the functional layer is a porous layer made of a heat-resistant resin and an inorganic filler, such as alumina ([0058]). Modified Zeng does not expressly disclose a content of the ceramic particles accounts for 85-92% of a total amount of the ceramic layer.
Nishiura discloses a separator having a microporous base material (A) and a filler layer (B) disposed so as to be adjacent to one face of the microporous base material (A) (Abstract). The filler layer (b) comprises inorganic particles in an amount more than 85 mass % and not more than 99.97 mass % relative to the total mass of the filler layer. When the amount of inorganic particles is within this range, the dimensional stability of the secondary battery separator is likely to be improved, and furthermore, the electrical resistance of the secondary battery separator is unlikely to increase ([0030]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of the inorganic particles to improve the dimensional stability of the separators while not increasing the electrical resistance of the separators.
Regarding claim 18, modified Zeng discloses the lithium battery of claim 17. Nishiura further discloses examples of the inorganic particles include aluminum oxide, aluminum hydroxide oxide (boehmite), and magnesium oxide ([0028], [0066]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 205828578 U (“Zeng” – machine translation of record dated 03/19/2026 cited herein) in view of US 2015/0207122 A1 (“Yoshitomi”) and JP 2019-121508 A (“Nishiura” – machine translation of record dated 03/19/2026 cited herein) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of US 2011/0171535 A1 (“Ohinshi”) and US 2019/0051906 A1 (“Rhee”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Zeng discloses the lithium battery of claim 17. Modified Zeng does not expressly disclose a particle size distribution of the ceramic particles is: D10 particle size being 0.15-0.3 µm, D50 particle size being 0.35-0.45 µm, D90 particle size being 0.6-0.8 µm, and D100 particle size being less than 4.5 µm.
Ohinshi discloses a separator for lithium ion secondary batteries, having an inorganic layer formed from inorganic particles, characterized in that the inorganic particles have a particle diameter distribution in which the 50% cumulative particle diameter D50 is in the range of 200 nm to 430 nm, the 10% cumulative particle diameter D10 is 0.5D50 or more, and the 90% cumulative particle diameter D90 is 2D50 or less (Abstract). This particle size distribution provides a lithium ion secondary battery in which the current density applied to the electrodes during charging and discharging is uniform so that charging and discharging can be efficiently achieved ([0012], [0019]). Ohinshi provides motivation to optimize the D10, D50, and D90 (limiting resistance to the migration of lithium ions, which deteriorates the high-rate discharging characteristics; limiting the occurrence of pinholes or cracks) ([0019]-[0020]).
Rhee discloses a separation membrane for a secondary battery comprising an alumina-containing coating layer (Abstract). The alumina powder preferably has a D100 of 3.5 µm or less. If the D100 value exceeds 3.5 µm, the proportion of coarse alumina particles may increase, thus making it difficult to realize thinning of the obtained alumina-containing coating layer, or the heat resistance of the obtained alumina-containing coating layer may deteriorate ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize to optimize the D10, D50, D90, and D100 as claimed in view of Ohinshi which teaches the D10, D50, and D90 affect the high-rate discharging characteristics and the occurrence of pinholes or cracks and Rhee which teaches the D100 affects the thickness and the heat resistance characteristics of the layer.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06/18/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number 18/148,966 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the objection to claims 1-12 and 15-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claims 1-12 and 15-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 9-10, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-12 and 15-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 10-12, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 and 15-20 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-12 and 15-20 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn. However, the amendment to claims 1-3 has prompted rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b).
Applicant's arguments, see pp. 12-18, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (I.) that Zeng does not disclose the feature (a) “the first straight section is located in front of the first electrode sheet.” As an initial matter, applicant references Fig. 1 of Zeng; however, the figure included in the response appears to be Fig. 5 of Zeng. The Office respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument. As shown in Figs. 5 and 8-11, the separator winding start layer 31 (“inner separator”) is provided as a section in front of the electrode 15 in the winding direction. This meets the claim limitation.
Applicant argues (II.) that Zeng does not teach the lamination of the separators. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of laminated, it is the position of the Office that the sections of the separators of Zeng identified as corresponding to the claimed clamping section, first straight section, and tail laminating section that overlap each other and contact one another in the wound structure read on the claimed lamination. This interpretation is broader than applicant argues in the remarks, but is not inconsistent with the instant specification. The instant specification does not define the laminated sections as integral, nor does the specification require pressing, hot pressing or other processes be used to produce the laminated structure. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, it is noted that the outstanding rejection is an obviousness rejection over Zeng in view of Yoshitomi. Yoshitomi discloses that an adhesive porous layer is provided on both surfaces of the porous substrate (Abstract). As noted in the rejection above, Zeng discloses each of the separator winding start layer 31 and the separator winding second layer 33 has a natural fold-back section 35 (“clamping section”), a first straight section connected with the natural fold-back section 35 and located behind the natural fold-back section 35, and a tail laminating section extending beyond a tail end of the first electrode 10 (Figs. 5, 10-11; [0015], [0053]-[0055]). As seen in the figures of Zeng, the separators 31, 33 contact each other at these sections. Therefore, in the combination, in which the adhesive layer of Yoshitomi is present on outer surfaces of the separators, the separators are laminated.
Applicant argues (III.) that Yoshitomi does not disclose the claimed surface friction coefficient. As best understood in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) above, the structure of Zeng modified by Yoshitomi would be sufficiently similar to the claimed structure in view of the disclosure in Yoshitomi that a dynamic coefficient of friction is a value measured by the method in accordance with JIS K7125 ([0039]) which is aligned with ASTM D1894-24 and ISO 8295 cited by applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2010/0136410 A1 (“Kawasoe”) discloses a separator for a lithium ion secondary battery with an alloy based negative electrode, wherein a dynamic friction coefficient of at least one surface is 0.1 or more and 0.4 or less (Abstract). When the dynamic friction coefficient exceeds 0.4, the friction is generated between the separator and the active substance when the separator is wound and closely contacts with the active substance, and a deformation such as a scrape, twist or collapse is caused. In consequence, battery performance cannot be maintained anymore. On the other hand, when the dynamic friction coefficient is less than 0.1, the friction generated between the separator and a center core used in winding the battery may be too low to achieve an economical production speed ([0028]).
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-6PM 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights