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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14, drawn to a method of obtaining a metal salt from a spent lithium-ion battery, classified in C22B 7/007.
II. Claims 15-22, drawn to a system of recycling a spent lithium ion battery, classified in H01M 10/54.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process of Invention I can be carried out with flask, microwave heater and a filter, and does not require the automated apparatus of Invention II.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
--the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Kalpesh Upadhye on 3 November 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-21 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 31 October 2023 has been received and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 12 requires filtering the electrode dispersion, which will contain solids and a liquid solvent (claim 1, lines 3-4), through a sieve to obtain a graphite powder. Though the term sieve is often used to separate a solid powder based on particle size, because it is being applied here to filter a solid/liquid dispersion, any filtration apparatus for separating solids and liquids will be considered a sieve for the purposes of examining this claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim has a typographical error and should be amended to read: “comprises one of [[or]] iron, aluminum, and copper.”
This correction is consistent with [0060] of the instant specification. 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the metal” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While line 1 of the claim refers to “a metal salt,” it is unclear if “the metal” in line 11 refers to this salt or to a metallic form of the metal, as is often implied by use of the phrase “the metal.” For the purposes of further examination, the metal will be interpreted as either a metallic form of the metal or as a metal salt.
Claim 1 additionally recites the limitations “the first dispersion” in lines 8, 10 and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the only dispersion previously referenced is “an electrode dispersion.” For the purposes of further examination these will be considered one and the same.
Claim 2 repeats the recitation of “the metal,” and claims 2-14 all depend upon claim 1 without resolving the indefiniteness issues raised above. Accordingly, claims 2-14 are likewise rejected.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the electrode metal.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In particular, it is unclear if this term is referring to any form of the metallic element that is going to form the metal salt of claim 1, if it refers to an actual metal foil on which the electrode material is supported, or something else. For the purposes of further examination any of these interpretations may be used.
Claim 12 depends upon claim 11 without resolving the indefinites and is likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (TW I644468 B). The provided English machine translation of Lin (TW I644468 B) is used in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a method of obtaining a metal salt (cobalt-containing solution, which will contain cobalt salts; [0011]) from a spent lithium-ion battery (waste lithium ion batteries; [0011]), the method comprising:
separating an electrode portion from a crushed Li-ion battery (the positive electrode portion is crushed into powder by a grinder and then screened with a 60-mesh sieve to obtain a positive electrode portion powder with a particle size range smaller than 60 mesh; [0034]);
contacting a leaching solvent to the separated electrode portion to form an electrode dispersion (the lithium battery cathode material powder is added to a first acid solution; [0036]);
heating the electrode dispersion to a temperature of 80 °C by applying microwave radiation (it is extracted in a microwave system; [0036] and Table 1, which is translated below);
maintaining the temperature of the electrode dispersion at 80 °C for a period of 5 minutes by applying microwave radiation to the heated electrode dispersion (the extraction reaction temperature in the microwave system is 40°C to 100°C; [0036] and 80 °C for 5 min, in particular, from Table 1);
filtering the electrode dispersion to obtain the metal (subjected to a separation step (e.g., filtration or centrifugation); [0037]).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses the method of claim 1 where the leaching solvent comprises sulfuric acid (Group II involved microwave extraction, using 2M sulfuric acid; [0046] referencing Table 1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Lin discloses the method of claim 1 and further teaches adding hydrogen peroxide to the leaching solvent ([0036] and Table 1). Though Lin uses hydrogen peroxide as a reducing agent, it is well known that hydrogen peroxide is also an oxidizing agent and therefore adding hydrogen peroxide meets the limitations of claims 4 and 5.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Lin discloses the method of claim 1, where the electrode dispersion is heated to 80 °C for 5 minutes, which falls in the instantly claimed ranges of 60 °C to 80 °C for a period in a range from 30 seconds to 5 minutes, recited in claims 9 and 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 4-5, 7-8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (TW I644468 B), as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 112322899 A). The provided English machine translations of Lin (TW I644468 B) and Wang et al. (CN 112322899 A) are used in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses the method of claim 1, but does not teach the metal comprising iron, aluminum, or copper.
However, Wang teaches a similar process to Lin for leaching waste lithium-ion battery electrodes ([0002]) using microwave radiation for heating during a sulfuric acid leaching step ([0056], [0085]-[0086]) in order to recover valuable metals ([0049] and [0100]). Wang further teaches that the metals recovered in the leachate can include aluminum, iron, and lithium as their sulfates (Example 3, [0101]-[0113] of translation; [0102] and [0108] of original, copied below).
PNG
media_image2.png
104
1312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
28
477
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of Lin to lithium iron phosphate electrodes in order to recover aluminum, iron, and lithium, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wang teaches that a similar method can be applied to batteries containing these materials in order to recycle them and recover valuable material that is otherwise discarded and cause serious environmental pollution ([0049]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Lin discloses the method of claim 3 and also teaches the addition of hydrogen peroxide to the sulfuric acid leaching solvent. Lin teaches that hydrogen peroxide, though it can be considered an oxidizing agent, actually serves the role of a reducing agent in their method.
However, Wang also teaches the inclusion of hydrogen peroxide in the sulfuric acid leaching solution applied to waste lithium ion batteries, and also teaches that hydrogen peroxide can serve as an oxidant to oxidize Fe2+ to Fe3+ and promote leaching ([0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include hydrogen peroxide in the sulfuric acid leaching solvent used by Lin in order to serve as an oxidizing agent, as taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to promote the leaching process, as taught by Wang.
Regarding claims 7, 13 and 14, Lin discloses the method of claim 1 but does not explicitly mention stirring the electrode dispersion.
However, Wang teaches that their microwave reactor has a stirring device ([0069]) and that the stirring speed of the reaction is important in the heterogeneous reaction being performed during leaching with acid ([0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lin to include stirring of the electrode dispersion while applying microwave radiation, to do so continuously, and to also stir during the step of maintaining the temperature of the electrode dispersion while applying microwave radiation, as taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure that the concentration of local reaction products is not too high and the acid concentration is not too low anywhere in the reaction mixture, as taught by Wang ([0070]).
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly discuss controlling application of the microwave radiation using a controller.
However, Wang teaches that in their microwave-heated leaching process the microwave power is continuously adjusted during the process to keep the material at the set temperature ([0086]). This implies that the heating is controlled by a controller. Even if it were not controlled by a controller but done manually, the courts have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958); MPEP 2144.04(III).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain the temperature of the electrode dispersion in the method of Lin by controlling the application of the microwave radiation using a controller, as taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to control the temperature in the desired range more precisely. Such a modification represents the use of known technique to improve similar microwave leaching methods in the same way. MPEP 2143(C).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (TW I644468 B), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2017/0077564 A1; hereinafter “WPI”). The provided English machine translation of Lin (TW I644468 B) is referenced in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses the method of claim 1 but is silent with respect to the pH of the leaching solvent. Though one would expect the pH of the sulfuric acid leaching solution to be less than 7.0 and likely fall in the claimed range, it may have also been less than zero.
However, like Lin, WPI also teaches the leaching of metals from lithium ion battery cathode materials using sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide ([0035]). WPI further teaches that control of pH allows for the selective extraction of certain metals and that a leaching solvent with a pH of between 3.0-7.0 keeps manganese, cobalt, and nickel in solution while precipitating iron, copper, and aluminum ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a leaching solvent with a pH of 3-7 in the method of Lin. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to afford selectivity to the leaching process and to separate manganese, cobalt, and nickel from iron, copper, and aluminum, as taught by WPI.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (TW I644468 B), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 112322899 A) and Jeong et al. (US 2013/0011731 A1). The provided English machine translations of Lin (TW I644468 B) and Wang et al. (CN 112322899 A) are used in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 11, Lin discloses the method of claim 1, but does not teach the electrode portion comprising the electrode metal, graphite and metal oxides.
However, Wang teaches that their similar method can be applied to typical ternary lithium batteries, and Table 1 of Wang (provided below) shows the elements of the electrode portion used by Wang in one embodiment of their invention (Example 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
108
1274
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The sources of the elements in Table 1 can be attributed to the electrode portion comprising electrode metal (iron and copper) and a black mass comprising carbon (C from carbon black; [0052]) and metal oxide (Li, Ni, Co, Mn from ternary lithium nickel/cobalt/manganese oxide; [0004]). While the carbon black taught by Wang can be considered as comprising graphite, as suggested by the characterization of the typical lithium ion battery cathode comprising graphite in the instant specification [0019], Wang does not specifically mention graphite.
However, Jeong teaches that graphite can replace carbon black as the conducting agent in cathodes of lithium ion batteries ([0036]). This graphite would therefore end up in the black mass of lithium ion batteries so constructed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use in the method of Lin electrodes portions comprised of the electrode metal and a black mass comprising graphite and metal oxides, as taught by Wang and Jeong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Jeong and Want teach that such electrode portions would be recovered from the waste lithium ion batteries that Wang and Lin are aiming to recycle, and Wang shows that such compositions can be treated with a very similar method.
Regarding claim 12, modified Lin teaches the method of claim 11, but Lin does not teach filtering the electrode dispersion through a sieve to obtain a graphite powder.
Wang teaches filtering the electrode dispersion after microwave leaching to obtain a carbon powder (carbon black residue; [0100]). Wang does not use the term graphite to describe the carbon content of their cathode materials.
However, Jeong teaches that graphite can replace carbon black as the conducting agent in cathodes of lithium ion batteries ([0036]). This graphite would therefore end up replacing the carbon black of lithium ion batteries so constructed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of Lin a filtering of the electrode dispersion through a sieve (see Claim Interpretation) to obtain a graphite powder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wang teaches that a filtering step allows the separation of the carbon residue from the metal-containing leachate, and Jeong teaches that in certain batteries this carbon will be a graphite powder instead of the carbon black taught by Wang.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,224,414 in view of Wang et al. (CN 112322899 A). The provided English machine translation of Wang et al. (CN 112322899 A) is used in the analysis below.
The claims of the ‘414 patent require all the limitations of the instant claims except for separating an electrode portion from a crushed Li-ion battery and subjecting this separated portion to the leaching solvent.
However, Wang teaches that lithium ion batteries should be crushed in a pre-treatment and because the methods of Wang are directed to the positive electrode portion, one of ordinary skill would have recognized they were also separated prior to microwave leaching ([0015] and [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to conduct these pre-treatment steps taught by Wang before engaging in the method of the ‘414 patent. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the electrode is the portion that will contain the metals, particularly those recited in claim 2 of the ‘414 patent and because they would have been simply combining prior art methods with the predictable result of having faster and more specific reactions occur by not using the whole battery.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-10, and 12-17 of copending Application No. 18/368,895 in view of Wang et al. (CN 112322899 A). The provided English machine translation of Wang et al. (CN 112322899 A) is used in the analysis below.
Although claim 1 of the ‘895 application is drawn to a method of extracting black mass, it would also provide a method of obtaining a metal salt in the first filtrate, and therefore renders obvious all the limitations of instant claim 1, except for separating an electrode portion from a crushed Li-ion battery.
However, Wang teaches that lithium ion batteries should be crushed and because the methods of Wang are directed to the positive electrode portion, one of ordinary skill would have recognized they were also separated prior to microwave leaching ([0015] and [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to conduct these pre-treatment steps taught by Wang before engaging in the method of the ‘895 application. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been simply combining prior art methods with the predictable result of having faster and more specific reactions occur by not using the whole battery.
Wang also teaches that iron salts can be obtained from an analogous process, and therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of claim 1 of the ‘895 patent to also do so, and to thereby arrive at the limitations of instant claim 2.
Claims 3-10 and 12-17 of the ‘895 patent recite the remaining limitations of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738