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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 01/02/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-16 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
The amendments and remarks filed are sufficient to cure the previous 35 U.S.C 112 rejection set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 10/02/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 35 USC § 103
2. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-7, and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shizuka et al. (Pub. No. US 20110003200 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shizuka teaches a cathode active material (positive electrode material, see [0168]) for a lithium secondary battery (lithium secondary battery, see [0167] the positive electrode material is for a lithium secondary battery) comprising: lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide) but is silent to the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles having a (113) plane FWHM change rate of 75% or less, which is measured through in-situ X-ray diffraction (XRD) and defined by Equation 1 below: (113)plane FWHM change rate (%) =100×{(FWHM.sub.max(113)−FWHM.sub.min(113))/FWHM.sub.max(113)} Equation 1 wherein FWHM.sub.max (113) is a maximum FWHM value of a peak of (113) plane of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle measured through the in-situ XRD, and FWHM.sub.min (113) is a minimum FWHM value of the peak of (113) plane of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle measured through in-situ XRD.
However, Shizuka teaches wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide) exhibit a peak in the (113) plane (see [0264], (113) diffraction peak) and teaches the same composition (see [0411], composition Li.sub.1.118(Ni.sub.0.451Mn.sub.0.451Co.sub.0.098)O.sub.2 which adheres to composition of published instant application [0069-0070]) and teaches toward a similar purpose of preventing degradation of crystal structure (see [0044]-[0046] of instant published application described prevention of lattice structure deformation caused by charging and discharging, see [0258] of Shizuka, cycle characteristics are improved) and as evidenced by *Nam-Yung, Ni content below 60% is expected to reduce degradation of crystal structure (see pg. 2362, paragraph 3 of *Nam-Yung).
Therefore, if the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide) as taught by Shizuka were measured in the same way as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the transition metal to exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, thereby implicitly teaching the claim. Alternatively, the claimed invention is found to be obvious because even if the Shizuka cathode material would not exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, if measured, the difference is not a patentable distinction as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated the difference, noting that both materials are taught to have the same or similar advantageous properties as described above (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide).
*Additional Evidence provided by Nam-Yung (ACS Energy Letters, 2022).
Regarding claim 2, Shizuka is silent to wherein the (113) plane FWHM change rate is 30 to 70%.
However, if the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide) as taught by Shizuka were measured in the same way as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the transition metal to exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, thereby implicitly teaching the claim. Alternatively, the claimed invention is found to be obvious because even if the Shizuka cathode material would not exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, if measured, the difference is not a patentable distinction as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated the difference, noting that both materials are taught to have the same or similar advantageous properties as described above (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide), (see detailed explanation in rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, Shizuka is silent to wherein a value of the FWHM.sub.max (113) is greater than 0.200 and less than 0.510.
However, if the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide) as taught by Shizuka were measured in the same way as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the transition metal to exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, thereby implicitly teaching the claim. Alternatively, the claimed invention is found to be obvious because even if the Shizuka cathode material would not exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, if measured, the difference is not a patentable distinction as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated the difference, noting that both materials are taught to have the same or similar advantageous properties as described above (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide), (see detailed explanation in rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Shizuka is silent to wherein a value of the FWHM.sub.min (113) is 0.125 to 0.500.
However, if the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide) as taught by Shizuka were measured in the same way as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the transition metal to exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, thereby implicitly teaching the claim. Alternatively, the claimed invention is found to be obvious because even if the Shizuka cathode material would not exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, if measured, the difference is not a patentable distinction as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated the difference, noting that both materials are taught to have the same or similar advantageous properties as described above (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide), (see detailed explanation in rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Shizuka fails to teach wherein in the (113) plane FWHM change rate (%) of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle according to the charging and discharging of the lithium secondary battery are measured in real time through the in-situ XRD.
However, if the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide) as taught by Shizuka were measured in the same way as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the transition metal to exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, thereby implicitly teaching the claim. Alternatively, the claimed invention is found to be obvious because even if the Shizuka cathode material would not exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, if measured, the difference is not a patentable distinction as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated the difference, noting that both materials are taught to have the same or similar advantageous properties as described above (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide), (see detailed explanation in rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, Shizuka teaches wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide) include at least one doping element (foreign elements, see [0172] where the element is present in grain boundaries, see [0410-0411] B and W are introduced in the mixture, but not part of the composition overall therefore are dopants).
Regarding claim 7, Shizuka teaches wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide) are represented by Formula 1 below:
Li.sub.xNi.sub.aCo.sub.bMn.sub.cM.sub.dO.sub.2+y Formula 1 (see [0090] Formula (I), see [0098] Formula (II), which overlap the claimed formula in ranges, further see [0411] the composition is Li.sub.1.118(Ni.sub.0.451Mn.sub.0.451Co.sub.0.098)O.sub.2 which is within the bounds of the formula) wherein M includes at least one of Na, Mg, Ca, Y, Ti, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo, W (W, see [0410] W is included, it is now shown in final composition because it is a dopant), Fe, Cu, Ag, Zn, B (B, see [0410] W is included, it is now shown in final composition because it is a dopant), Al, Ga, C, Si, Sn, Sr, Ba, Ra, P and Zr, and a, b, c, d, x and y are in a range of 0.8<x<1.5 (1.118, see [0411]), 0.30≤a≤0.70 (0.451, see [0411]), 0<b<0.20 (0.098, see [0411]), 0.02≤c≤0.50 (0.451, see [0411]), 0≤d≤0.05 (0.015, see [0410] B and W combined equal 0.015), 0.98≤a+b+c≤1.02 (equal 1, see [0411]), and −0.1≤y≤0.1, respectively (y=0, see [0411]).
Regarding claim 9, Shizuka teaches wherein in Formula 1, (see [0090] Formula (I), see [0098] Formula (II), which overlap the claimed formula in ranges, further see [0411] the composition is Li.sub.1.118(Ni.sub.0.451Mn.sub.0.451Co.sub.0.098)O.sub.2 which is within the bounds of the formula) b is in a range of 0.03≤b≤0.15 (0.098, see [0411]).
Regarding claim 10, Shizuka teaches wherein in Formula 1 (see [0090] Formula (I), see [0098] Formula (II), which overlap the claimed formula in ranges, further see [0411] the composition is Li.sub.1.118(Ni.sub.0.451Mn.sub.0.451Co.sub.0.098)O.sub.2 which is within the bounds of the formula), a and b satisfy 3≤a/b≤40 (see [0411], 0.451/0.098 = 4.602).
Regarding claim 11, Shizuka teaches wherein in Formula 1 (see [0090] Formula (I), see [0098] Formula (II), which overlap the claimed formula in ranges, further see [0411] the composition is Li.sub.1.118(Ni.sub.0.451Mn.sub.0.451Co.sub.0.098)O.sub.2 which is within the bounds of the formula), a and b satisfy 4.5≤a/b≤10 (see [0411], 0.451/0.098 = 4.602).
Regarding claim 12, Shizuka is silent to wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles have a (101) plane FWHM ratio of 300% or less, which is defined by Equation 3 below:
(101)plane FWHM ratio(8)=100×(FWHM.sub.max(101)/FWHM.sub.min(101)) Equation 3 wherein in Equation 3, FWHM.sub.max (101) is a maximum FWHM value of a peak of (101) plane of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle measured through the in-situ XRD, and FWHM.sub.min (101) is a minimum FWHM value of the peak of (101) plane of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle measured through in-situ XRD.
However, Shizuka teaches wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide) exhibit a peak in the (101) plane (see [0264], (101) diffraction peak) and teaches the same composition (see [0411], composition Li.sub.1.118(Ni.sub.0.451Mn.sub.0.451Co.sub.0.098)O.sub.2 which adheres to composition of published instant application [0069-0070]) and teaches toward a similar purpose of preventing degradation of crystal structure (see [0044]-[0046] of instant published application described prevention of lattice structure deformation caused by charging and discharging, see [0258] of Shizuka, cycle characteristics are improved) and as evidenced by *Nam-Yung, Ni content below 60% is expected to reduce degradation of crystal structure (see pg. 2362, paragraph 3 of *Nam-Yung).
Therefore, if the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide) as taught by Shizuka were measured in the same way as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the transition metal to exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, thereby implicitly teaching the claim. Alternatively, the claimed invention is found to be obvious because even if the Shizuka cathode material would not exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, if measured, the difference is not a patentable distinction as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated the difference, noting that both materials are taught to have the same or similar advantageous properties as described above (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide).
*Additional Evidence provided by Nam-Yung (ACS Energy Letters, 2022).
Regarding claim 13, Shizuka is silent to wherein the (101) plane FWHM ratio is 250% or less.
However, if the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide) as taught by Shizuka were measured in the same way as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the transition metal to exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, thereby implicitly teaching the claim. Alternatively, the claimed invention is found to be obvious because even if the Shizuka cathode material would not exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, if measured, the difference is not a patentable distinction as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated the difference, noting that both materials are taught to have the same or similar advantageous properties as described above (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide), (see detailed explanation in rejection of claim 12 above).
Regarding claim 14, Shizuka teaches a lithium secondary battery (lithium secondary battery, see [0326]), comprising: a cathode (positive electrode, see [0326]) comprising a cathode active material layer (positive electrode material layer, see [0314], see [0326] where the positive electrode is the positive electrode described above) comprising the cathode active material (positive electrode material, see [0168]) for a lithium secondary battery (lithium secondary battery, see [0167] the positive electrode material is for a lithium secondary battery) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and an anode (negative electrode, see [0326]) disposed to face the cathode (positive electrode, see [0326] where the battery contains both the positive and negative electrode therefore at least one face of the negative electrode will face the positive electrode).
Regarding claim 15, Shizuka teaches a cathode active material (positive electrode material, see [0168]) for a lithium secondary battery (lithium secondary battery, see [0167] the positive electrode material is for a lithium secondary battery) comprising: lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide) are represented by Formula 1 below:
Li.sub.xNi.sub.aCo.sub.bMn.sub.cM.sub.dO.sub.2+y Formula 1 (see [0090] Formula (I), see [0098] Formula (II), which overlap the claimed formula in ranges, further see [0411] the composition is Li.sub.1.118(Ni.sub.0.451Mn.sub.0.451Co.sub.0.098)O.sub.2 which is within the bounds of the formula) wherein M includes at least one of Na, Mg, Ca, Y, Ti, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo, W (W, see [0410] W is included, it is now shown in final composition because it is a dopant), Fe, Cu, Ag, Zn, B (B, see [0410] W is included, it is now shown in final composition because it is a dopant), Al, Ga, C, Si, Sn, Sr, Ba, Ra, P and Zr, and a, b, c, d, x and y are in a range of 0.8<x<1.5 (1.118, see [0411]), 0.30≤a≤0.70 (0.451, see [0411]), 0<b<0.20 (0.098, see [0411]), 0.02≤c≤0.50 (0.451, see [0411]), 0≤d≤0.05 (0.015, see [0410] B and W combined equal 0.015), 0.98≤a+b+c≤1.02 (equal 1, see [0411]), and −0.1≤y≤0.1, respectively (y=0, see [0411]), but is silent to having a (113) plane FWHM change rate of 75% or less, which is measured through in-situ X-ray diffraction (XRD) and defined by Equation 1 below:
(113)plane FWHM change rate (%)=100×{(FWHM.sub.max(113)−FWHM.sub.min(113))/FWHM.sub.max(113)} Equation 1 wherein FWHM.sub.max (113) is a maximum FWHM value of a peak of (113) plane of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle measured through the in-situ XRD, and wherein FWHM.sub.min (113) is a minimum FWHM value of the peak of (113) plane of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particle measured through in-situ XRD.
However, Shizuka teaches wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide) exhibit a peak in the (113) plane (see [0264], (113) diffraction peak) and teaches the same composition (see [0411], composition Li.sub.1.118(Ni.sub.0.451Mn.sub.0.451Co.sub.0.098)O.sub.2 which adheres to composition of published instant application [0069-0070]) and teaches toward a similar purpose of preventing degradation of crystal structure (see [0044]-[0046] of instant published application described prevention of lattice structure deformation caused by charging and discharging, see [0258] of Shizuka, cycle characteristics are improved) and as evidenced by *Nam-Yung, Ni content below 60% is expected to reduce degradation of crystal structure (see pg. 2362, paragraph 3 of *Nam-Yung).
Therefore, if the lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide) as taught by Shizuka were measured in the same way as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the transition metal to exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, thereby implicitly teaching the claim. Alternatively, the claimed invention is found to be obvious because even if the Shizuka cathode material would not exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, if measured, the difference is not a patentable distinction as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated the difference, noting that both materials are taught to have the same or similar advantageous properties as described above (lithium transition metal, see [0168], see [0090] the powder composition is an oxide).
*Additional Evidence provided by Nam-Yung (ACS Energy Letters, 2022).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shizuka et al. (Pub. No. US 20110003200 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Shizuka fails to teach wherein in Formula 1, a is in a range of 0.50≤a≤0.70.
However, Shizuka teaches wherein in Formula 1 (see [0090] Formula (I), see [0098] Formula (II)), a is in a range which overlaps the claimed range (see [0098] Formula (II), for example when x = 0.1, y = 0.1, and z = -0.0432 which is the minimum value of z calculated by the range given, Nickel content or a = 0.506).
It would It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shizuka to such that Nickel content is within a range of 0.5 to 0.7 as Shizuka teaches it is known in the art to do so, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further Shizuka teaches that modifications can be made (see [0475] of Shizuka).
Regarding claim 16, Shizuka fails to teach wherein in Formula 1: a is in a range of 0.50≤a≤0.70, b is in a range of 0.03≤b≤0.15, and a and b satisfy 3≤a/b≤40.
However, Shizuka teaches wherein in Formula 1 (see [0090] Formula (I), see [0098] Formula (II)), a, b, and c are in a range which overlaps the claimed range (see [0098] Formula (II), for example when x = 0.1, y = 0.1, and z = -0.0432 which is the minimum value of z calculated by the range given, Nickel content or a = 0.506, Cobalt content or b = 0.102, and a/b = 0.506/0.102 = 4.96).
It would It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shizuka to such that Nickel content is within a range of 0.5 to 0.7, Cobalt content was in a range of 0.03 to 0.15 and ratio of Nickel content to cobalt content is between 3 and 40 as Shizuka teaches it is known in the art to do so, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further Shizuka teaches that modifications can be made (see [0475] of Shizuka).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the invention provides unexpected results of suppressing distortions in the lattice or crystal structure, preventing particle cracks and side reactions, reducing amount of gas generated, and improving life-span properties the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding applicants’ argument that Shizuka does not disclose or suggest parameters corresponding to the (113) plane FWHM change rate of 75% or less. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as Shizuka teaches a specific example in [0411] of a composite oxide with a composition in the range as described by [0069-0070] of the instant published application, and further as seen in [0047] distortion of lattice or crystal structure can be determined by XRD analysis of FWHM change in value, and further [0044] of the instant published application describes benefits exhibited from preventing this distortion are attributed to Ni and Co content which Shizuka teaches a specific example within these ranges. Therefore, if the composite oxide as taught by Shizuka were measured in the same way, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composite oxide to exhibit the same FWHM characteristics and even if the composite oxide material as taught by Shizuka would not exhibit the same FWHM characteristic, if measured, the difference is not a patentable distinction as the structure of the prior art and claimed materials are close enough that no significant difference in function is associated with the difference.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Shizuka does not recognize all the technical problems that occur when the (113) plane FWHM change rate exceeds 75%. This argument is moot as the prior art is not used nor required to teach all the technical problems that occur when the (113) plane FWHM change rate exceeds 75%.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Nam-Yung does not recognize the (113) plane FWHM change rate, or the specific technical problems that arise when the (113) plane FWHM change rate exceeds 75%. This argument is moot as the Examiner used Nam-Yung as evidentiary of the benefits resulting from Ni contents below 60%, and did not use Nam-Yung to teach the (113) plane FWHM change rate or specific technical problems that arise when the (113) plane FWHM change rate exceeds 75%.
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 DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723