Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-20 remain pending in the application. The amendments filed 12/29/2025 have been entered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. The examiner respectfully acknowledges the cancellation of claim 2.
The amendment to claim 1 overcomes the original 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections to claim 1. However, Applicant’s response to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 4 is a mathematical explanation that is structured with respect to the terms in the relational expression for L, but the explanation does not clarify how to interpret tan A wherein angle A=135°, specifically because there is no depiction of angle A in the drawings.
The amendments to claim 1 overcome the previous prior art rejections over Choi, but they do not overcome the previous prior art rejections over Park in view of Hong and with support from evidentiary reference “Solder,” Merriam-Webster.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the tab bending angle A must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 3. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites “comprising the battery according to claim 9”. It seems the intention was to recite the battery of claim 19; therefore, there is a typo in claim 20. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites “wherein A satisfies a relational expression 45°≤ A ≤ 135°.” Because the angle A is being used to evaluate tan A, i.e., the tangent of angle A, the result would correspond to the range -1 ≤ tan A ≤ 1. It is unclear how a negative term would be used to evaluate L, a length of the exposed tab in the tab exposure region, because the meaning of A is unclear with respect to Applicant’s drawings of Figs. 2-3 showing the parts of the plurality of tabs exposed out of the core.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-12, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 20190148705 A1) in view of evidentiary reference “Solder,” Merriam-Webster, and in further view of Hong (US 20030232243 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a battery core, comprising: at least one core,
(Fig. 3 and [0029] teach an electrode stack 120 reads on a battery core comprising at least one core)
wherein each core has a plurality of tabs,
(Figs. 3-4 and [0029] teach each core 120 has a plurality of tabs 130(a)-(f))
the plurality of tabs successively form, after being converged, a tab end-portion staggered layer region, a tab soldering region, and a pre-soldered press-fit region,
(Figs. 10-12 shows the plurality of tabs 130(a)-(f) before and after they are converged, per [0020]-[0022]; Fig. 4 shows a cross-sectional view of the tabs divided into the successive regions: a tab end-portion staggered layer region 132b, a tab soldering region 132a, and a pre-soldered press-fit region, the latter is not labeled but corresponds to the section of inclined portion 131 that is left-adjacent to 133, as shown in the region labeled as “d3” of annotated Fig. 4, included below.
Region 132b, labeled as d1 in annotated Fig. 4, is the tab end-portion staggered layer region, because it corresponds to the tab end portion and its position is staggered with respect to the position of the lead 140;
Region 132a, labeled as d2 in annotated Fig. 4, is a tab soldering region because Fig. 4 and [0059] teach the tabs to be joined, or unified, in the region; alternatively, [0039] discloses that 132a region can be bonded; either of these interpretations of 132a read on the definition of solder as “to bring into or restore to firm union” per evidentiary reference Merriam-Webster;
Region d3 of annotated Fig. 4, the section of inclined portion 131 that is left-adjacent to 133, reads on the claimed pre-soldered press-fit region, because the plurality of tabs are not unified in that section, and hence, preface the soldered region, i.e., are pre-soldered, and the region is fitted to its shape as the result of a pressing force caused by the action of pressing blocks 21 and 22 pressing down on the plurality of tabs, as shown in Fig. 11)
Annotated Fig. 4 of Park.
PNG
media_image1.png
621
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
parts of the plurality of tabs exposed out of the core form a tab exposure region,
(Fig. 4 shows a region wherein the plurality of tabs 130(a) – 130(f) are exposed out of the core, and accordingly form a tab exposure region)
and a length of any one tab in the plurality of the tabs exposed out of the core in the tab exposure region is determined according to a width of the tab end-portion staggered layer region, a width of the tab soldering region, a width of the pre-soldered press-fit region, a thickness of the core, and a tab bending angle of the tab, the width of the tab end-portion staggered layer region is d1, the width of the pre-soldered press-fit region is d3, the thickness of the core is D, and the tab bending angle of any one tab in the plurality of tabs is A, the length of the exposed tab in the tab exposure region is L.
(Fig. 4 shows that a length L of the tab exposed out of the core in the tab exposure region can be a horizontal length corresponding to the sum of the width of the tab end-portion staggered layer region, the width of the tab soldering region, the width of the pre-soldered press-fit region, and the width of the inclined region 131, wherein widths of these sections are the horizontal components of the respective sections. Examination of Fig. 4 indicates that a width of the inclined region of the tab 131 can be calculated as the vertical projection of 131 multiplied with tangent of angle A, wherein the vertical projection of 131 depends on the particular tab and is a function of the tab’s vertical position on the core, which can be defined as a fraction of the core’s thickness D, and wherein angle A corresponds to the angle annotated in Fig. 4 formed by the inclined portion of a tab with respect to a horizontal axis. Angle A is a tab bending angle because it corresponds to an angle formed by a bent tab.
Park further teaches the relational expression L = d1 + d2 + d3 + D/2*tan A is satisfied.
(Using annotated Fig. 4 above, a skilled artisan would have been able to calculate the (horizontal) length of the tab exposed out of the core in the tab exposure region based on dimensions of the outermost tabs, and which would correspond to the claimed L. The calculation is the sum of the width of the tab end-portion staggered layer region d1, the width of the width of the tab soldering region, herein labeled as d2, the width of the pre-soldered press-fit region d3, and the width of the inclined region 131, wherein widths of these sections are the horizontal components of the respective sections; that is, L = d1 + d2 + d3 + the width of the inclined region 131. The width of 131, or its horizontal component, is the same value regardless of the tab used to calculate it, even as the angle A and vertical projection of a tab varies with a selected tab within the region 131. For the outermost tabs, one can apply trigonometry to calculate the width of the inclined region 131 as half the thickness of the core multiplied by tangent of angle A, or (D/2)*tan A, wherein A corresponds to the tab bending angle of the outermost tab (with the largest vertical projection).
Park does not teach a tab protection sheet.
In the same field of endeavor, Hong teaches in [0067] that a welded portion of the grids 141 or the tab member 143 can be wrapped with an insulating tape so that the package member can be prevented from being damaged by the grids (functionally equivalent to individual tabs per [0011]) or the tab member (functionally equivalent to tab leads per [0011]), and therefore the battery can be prevented from being short-circuited. Given that primary reference Park teaches in [0060] that the bonding process of the tabs may utilize welding and also teaches a battery case accommodating the battery core in [0006], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Hong’s insulating tape as a tab protection sheet where needed on the welded tab surface of Park’s battery core, such as the tab soldering region, to prevent the surface from damaging the battery case when the core is inserted into the battery case. Accordingly, the width of the tab protection sheet can correspond to the width of the tab soldering region d2.
Regarding claims 3-4, the combination above teaches the battery core according to claim 1, wherein A satisfies a relational expression 45°≤ A ≤ 135°. Park teaches in [0035] that each of bending angles α1 and α2 of the outermost electrode tabs 130a and 130g may be equal to or less than about 30 degrees when measured with respect to the stacked direction 125 of the electrode stack 120. Fig. 4 indicates that there is an angle A complementary to each of α1 and α2 which would have an absolute value greater than or equal to 60° to less than 90° when measured with respect to the horizontal axis of the tab exposed region, and which is within the claimed range.
Additionally, Park teaches that the distance of the inclined portion to the side of the electrode stack has an effect on preventing disconnection without requiring more space ([0036]); therefore, the bending angle A whose value is associated with the distance of the inclined portion to the electrode stack, is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized routine experimentation to optimize the bending angle to prevent disconnection of tabs without requiring more space.
Regarding claim 5, the combination above teaches the battery core of claim 1, but it does not teach a ratio of d2 to d1 nor the claimed range of the ratio.
Park teaches in [0055], Figs. 8-9, that the contact and attachment area between the electrode tab part 130 and the electrode lead 340 may increase to reduce resistance, thereby preventing the electrode tab part and the electrode lead from being damaged by heat (during welding) and also increasing a bonding force. This is a teaching that the width of the tab end-portion staggered layer region d1 impacts the contact resistance between the tab part and the lead and is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust d1 of modified Park’s battery core to optimize the contact resistance between the electrode tab part and the electrode lead.
Additionally, Hong teaches that too short of a length of welding portion can increase the possibility of welding defects increases and too large a length of welded portion can cause unnecessary dead space and material cost increase ([0066]); therefore, the length of a welding region is also a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply this teaching and adjust the width of the tab soldering region d2, which also utilizes welding as a technique for bonding tab surfaces (Park: [0060]), as needed to optimize cost, space, and defect constraints, as taught by Hong.
Accordingly, based on the combination above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust d1 and d2 to respectively optimize the contact resistance and cost, space, and reduce defects, to arrive at the claimed range of ratio B of d2 to d1.
Regarding claim 8, the combination above teaches the battery core of claim 1, but does not teach the claimed relational expression for d1. Park teaches in [0055], Figs. 8-9, that the contact and attachment area between the electrode tab part 130 and the electrode lead 340 may increase to reduce resistance, thereby preventing the electrode tab part and the electrode lead from being damaged by heat (during welding) and also increasing a bonding force. This is a teaching that the width of the tab end-portion staggered layer region d1 impacts the contact resistance between the tab part and the lead and is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust d1 of modified Park’s battery core to optimize the contact resistance between the electrode tab part and the electrode lead, and would have arrived at the claimed relational expression of d1.
Regarding claim 9, the combination above teaches the battery core of claim 5. As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 5, Park teaches in [0055], Figs. 8-9, that the width of the tab end-portion staggered layer region d1 impacts the contact resistance between the tab part and the lead and is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust d1 of modified Park’s battery core to optimize the contact resistance between the electrode tab part and the electrode lead, and would have arrived at the claimed relational expression of d1.
Regarding claim 11, the combination above teaches the battery core of claim 1 but does not teach the claimed relational expression of d2.
Hong teaches that too short of a length of welding portion can increase the possibility of welding defects increases and too large a length of welded portion can cause unnecessary dead space and material cost increase ([0066]); therefore, the length of a welding region is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply this teaching and adjust the width of the tab soldering region d2, which also utilizes welding as a technique for bonding tab surfaces (Park: [0060]), as needed to optimize cost, space, and defect constraints, as taught by Hong, and would have arrived at the claimed relational expression of d2.
Regarding claim 12, the combination above teaches the battery core of claim 5.
As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 5, Hong teaches in ([0066]) the length of a welding region is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply this teaching and adjust the width of the tab soldering region d2, which also utilizes welding as a technique for bonding tab surfaces (Park: [0060]), as needed to optimize cost, space, and defect constraints, as taught by Hong, and would have arrived at the claimed relational expression of d2.
Regarding claim 15, the combination above teaches the battery core of claim 8 but does not teach the claimed relational expression for d2.
Hong teaches that too short of a length of welding portion can increase the possibility of welding defects increases and too large a length of welded portion can cause unnecessary dead space and material cost increase ([0066]); therefore, the length of a welding region is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply this teaching and adjust the width of the tab soldering region d2, which also utilizes welding as a technique for bonding tab surfaces (Park: [0060]), as needed to optimize cost, space, and defect constraints, as taught by Hong, and would have arrived at the claimed relational expression of d2.
Regarding claim 19, the combination above teaches the battery core of claim 1 and further teaches a battery comprising the battery core ([0008]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination above teaches the battery of claim 9 and further teaches a battery pack comprising the battery core ([0004] - [0006] teaches the electrode assembly, i.e., battery core, with a number of individual battery cells, is disposed in battery case 11. Together, they constitute a battery pack).
Claims 6-7, 10, 13-14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 20190148705 A1) in view of evidentiary reference “Solder,” Merriam-Webster and Hong (US 20030232243 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 5, and further in view of Choi et al (KR 20180072065 A, disclosed in IDS submitted 02/28/2023).
Regarding claim 6, the combination above teaches the battery core of claim 1, but does not teach the ratio of d2 to d3 nor the claimed range of the ratio.
Hong teaches that too short of a length of welding portion can increase the possibility of welding defects increases and too large a length of welded portion can cause unnecessary dead space and material cost increase ([0066]); therefore, the length of a welding region such as the tab soldering region d2 is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply this teaching and adjust the width of the tab soldering region d2 of the modified battery core of Park, which also utilizes welding as a technique for bonding tab surfaces (Park: [0060]), as needed to optimize cost, space, and defect constraints, as taught by Hong.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi teaches in machine translation of [0044], [0075] and Fig. 2 a process of pressing electrode tabs in the vertical direction by a guide jig 140 at a distance l0 from the end of the electrode assembly before a process of using a welding jig 150 to pre-weld the electrode tabs pressed by the guide jig to form a weld in the part adjacent to the guide jig, wherein the welded portion is formed at a specified distance l from the end of the electrode assembly. Choi also teaches the configuration reduces the dead space in the portion where the electrode tabs are welded, thereby significantly improving the energy density per volume ([0013]), therefore both the distances l0 and l, as well as the difference between them, which would correspond to the claimed d3, are result-effective variables. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified battery core of Park to adjust distances l0 and l, and the associated claimed variable d3, to optimize the energy density per volume of the battery as taught by Choi.
Accordingly, based on the combination above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust d2 and d3 to respectively optimize the energy density per volume of the battery and cost, space, and reduce defects, to arrive at the claimed range of ratio C of d2 to d3.
Regarding claim 7, the combination above teaches the battery core of claim 5, but does not teach the ratio of d2 to d3 nor the claimed range of the ratio.
As previously pointed out in addressing claim 5, Hong teaches that the length of a welding region, such as the tab soldering region d2, is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the width of d2 of the modified battery core of Park as needed to optimize cost, space, and defect constraints, as taught by Hong.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi teaches in machine translation of [0044], [0075] and Fig. 2 a process of pressing electrode tabs in the vertical direction by a guide jig 140 at a distance l0 from the end of the electrode assembly before a process of using a welding jig 150 to pre-weld the electrode tabs pressed by the guide jig to form a weld in the part adjacent to the guide jig, wherein the welded portion is formed at a specified distance l from the end of the electrode assembly. Choi also teaches the configuration reduces the dead space in the portion where the electrode tabs are welded, thereby significantly improving the energy density per volume ([0013]), therefore both the distances l0 and l, as well as the difference between them, which would correspond to the claimed d3, are result-effective variables. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified battery core of Park to adjust distances l0 and l, and corresponding claimed variable d3, to optimize the energy density per volume of the battery as taught by Choi.
Accordingly, based on the combination above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust d2 and d3 to respectively optimize the energy density per volume of the battery and cost, space, and reduce defects, to arrive at the claimed range of ratio C of d2 to d3.
Regarding claim 10, the combination above teaches the battery core of claim 6. Park teaches in [0055], Figs. 8-9, that the contact and attachment area between the electrode tab part 130 and the electrode lead 340 may increase to reduce resistance, thereby preventing the electrode tab part and the electrode lead from being damaged by heat (during welding) and also increasing a bonding force. This is a teaching that the width of the tab end-portion staggered layer region d1 impacts the contact resistance between the tab part and the lead and is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust d1 of modified Park’s battery core to optimize the contact resistance between the electrode tab part and the electrode lead, and would have arrived at the claimed relational expression of d1.
Regarding claims 13- 14, the combination above teaches the battery core of claims 6 and 7. As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claims 6 and 7, Hong teaches that the length of a welding region, such as the tab soldering region d2, is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the width of d2 of the modified battery core of Park as needed to optimize cost, space, and defect constraints, as taught by Hong, and would have consequently arrived at the claimed relational expression of d2.
Regarding claims 16-17, the combination above teaches the battery core of claims 1 and 5 but does not teach the claimed relational expression for d3.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi teaches in machine translation of [0044], [0075] and Fig. 2 a process of pressing electrode tabs in the vertical direction by a guide jig 140 at a distance l0 from the end of the electrode assembly before a process of using a welding jig 150 to pre-weld the electrode tabs pressed by the guide jig to form a weld in the part adjacent to the guide jig, wherein the welded portion is formed at a specified distance l from the end of the electrode assembly. Choi also teaches the configuration reduces the dead space in the portion where the electrode tabs are welded, thereby significantly improving the energy density per volume ([0013]), therefore both the distances l0 and l, as well as the difference between them, which would correspond to the claimed d3, are result-effective variables. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified battery core of Park to adjust distances l0 and l, and corresponding claimed variable d3, to optimize the energy density per volume of the battery as taught by Choi, and would have correspondingly arrived at the claimed relational expression of d3.
Regarding claim 18, the combination above teaches the battery core of claim 6.
As previously pointed out in addressing claim 6, Choi teaches the distances l0 and l, as well as the difference between them, which would correspond to the claimed d3, are result-effective variables. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified battery core of Park to adjust distances l0 and l, and corresponding claimed variable d3, to optimize the energy density per volume of the battery as taught by Choi, and would have correspondingly arrived at the claimed relational expression of d3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The relational expression for the length of the exposed tab in the tab exposure region L is the sum of component terms d1, d2, d3, D/2*tan A. Irrespective of the numerical value of each component term, their sum would satisfy the claimed expression for L. Prior art Park teaches a structure that has a width of the tab end-portion staggered layer region d1, a width of the pre-soldered press-fit region d3, (D/2)*tan A, and a tab soldering region. Hong was relied upon to teach a tab protection sheet covering the tab soldering region to prevent damage to the battery case when the core is inserted into the battery case; therefore, Hong teaches the claimed width d2 used in the expression for L. The combination of prior art teaches the component terms that sum to L in the claimed expression, and accordingly, teach the claimed expression.
By the same reasoning, the dependent claims reciting relational expressions for the component terms of L or of their ratios would also automatically satisfy the claimed expression of L, because their values do not impact how L is calculated. Therefore, the examiner respectfully asserts that Applicant’s argument of the rejection to the “result-effective variable” statements not teaching or suggesting the particular claimed formula is a moot point. Furthermore, Applicant has not provided further detail regarding L’s numerical value or structural characteristics that would enable considerations of differentiation over that of the cited prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 04/09/2026
Prosecution Insights