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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A1 and Species B1 in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction requirement between species was improper because such did not rely on Unity of Invention Requirement. This is found persuasive because the present application is a 371 of PCT/KR2022/018725. Therefore, the election/restriction requirement of 05/21/2025 is now withdrawn, and all pending claims are examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the first “Wherein” clause capitalizes the “W” of “Wherein”, though for consistency in the sentence structure, this “w” should be lowercase (“wherein”) instead. 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.
Claim 15 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 15 recites the limitation "the winding direction" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (US 2023/0420744 A1) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20170138670 A, with foreign publication provided in 08/24/2023 IDS and machine translation attached to present Office action used for line citations below).
Regarding claim 1, Sung teaches a jelly-roll electrode assembly (120, Figs. 1B-2) comprising a cathode sheet (electrode plate 122 coated with active material e.g. transition metal oxide, [0033]), an anode sheet (electrode plate 121 coated with active material e.g. carbon, [0033]), and a separator interposed between the cathode sheet and the anode sheet (separator 123 positioned between 121 and 122, [0033]),
Wherein the cathode sheet, the anode sheet, and the separator are wound together (the first electrode plate 121, the separator 123, and the second electrode plate 122 may be stacked and wound into a substantially cylindrical shape; [0033] and Figs. 1B-2)
wherein an outermost side of the jelly-roll electrode assembly includes a non-coated portion (the non-coating portions 1216 and 1217 may cover the outermost periphery of the electrode assembly 120; [0059]) on which no active material layer is provided on the anode sheet (electrode plate 121 may include a conductive first base 1211 having an inner surface 1212 and an outer surface 1213, non-coating portions 1216 and 1217 provided by not coating the first active material on the inner side 1212 and the outer side 1213 of the first base 1211; [0059]),
wherein a swelling tape is attached to an inner surface of the non-coated portion of the anode sheet (swelling tape 130 may be adhered to the inner surface (or the non-coating portion 1216) of the base finish part 1218; [0059]) facing towards a central part of the jelly-roll electrode assembly (position of 130 shown in Figs. 2-3A, 4A, and 5),
but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the swelling tape includes one or more perforated holes.
However, Sung does teach that multiple swelling tape units 130 may be arranged with a gap between swelling tape units so that electrolyte injection time is shortened and so that it is possible to prevent a phenomenon in which specific areas of the swelling tape units 130 are excessively inflated or protrude after the electrolyte is injected from occurring ([0055-0057] and Figs. 4A-4C).
Lee is analogous in the art of swelling tapes attached to electrode assemblies (300 on 100, Figs. 1 and 3-5) and teaches an embodiment of a swelling tape 300 in the form of a net having a plurality of voids (line 389) where the net-like swelling tape 300 may have a porosity of 30% by volume to 50% by volume (line 391), resulting in protecting the electrode assembly from external shocks or vibrations (line 395), and noting that the swelling tape 300 is expanded after contact with the electrolyte, the volume of the gap in the swelling tape 300 may be reduced or the gap itself may disappear (lines 399-401; similar functionality to the multiple swelling tape units 130 with gaps in between as taught by Sung cited above). Lee teaches generally that the shape of the swelling tape of the lithium secondary battery of the present invention may be a frame shape having one void or a net shape having a large number of voids, the area that can be protected by the same weight and thickness is widened, and this structure has the advantage of ensuring safety while reducing the influence on the weight and size of the lithium secondary battery (lines 80-83).
Therefore, the swelling tape of Lee which has a plurality of voids (reading on “one or more perforated holes” – see Lee Figs. 1 and 3-5 as cited above) is known in the art as an embodiment of a swelling tape which would expectedly achieve electrolyte contact in its voids similar to electrolyte contact in the gaps between swelling tape units of Sung, to thus expectedly achieve shortened electrolyte injection time as taught toward by Sung above. Lee also teaches that when expansion rate of the swelling tape after contact with the electrolyte is remarkably excellent, the internal electrode assembly can be more effectively protected (lines 77-78). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the electrolyte swelling tape taught by Lee for that of Sung and expect sufficient swelling effects. See MPEP 2143 I B. Further, the selection of a known material recognized as suitable for its intended purpose is obvious, such that using the multi-void net-like swelling tape (i.e., with perforated holes) of Lee in place of the swelling tape units with gaps therebetween of Sung would have been an obvious choice. See MPEP 2144.07. Furthermore, when modifying the swelling tape of Sung to have the perforated holes (voids) as taught toward by Lee, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by further advantageous effects of ensuring safety/protection via the swelling tape while reducing the influence on the weight and size of the battery as taught by Lee.
Thereby, claim 1 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 4, modified Sung teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches the swelling tape (130) is attached to only a part of the inner surface of the non-coated portion (1216 at 1212, within 1218) of the anode sheet (1211 of 121) (see Sung [0059] and Fig. 5, in view of Figs. 3A and 4A).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sung teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches the swelling tape (130) covers 10% to 90% of a total area (apparent in Sung Fig. 4A in view of Fig. 5, where 130 appears to cover the majority of but not the entire area of 1216) of the inner surface of the non-coated portion (1216 at 1212, within 1218) of the anode electrode sheet (1211 of 121) (see Sung [0059] and Fig. 5, in view of Figs. 3A and 4A). Sung also teaches in [0049] that the horizontal length of the swelling tape 130 may be approximately 1% to approximately 100% of the horizontal length of the base finish part 1218, and the winding-turn length of the swelling tape 130 may be approximately 0.1-1 turn compared to the winding-turn length of the base finish part 1218. Therefore, the calculated area of the tape 130 versus the uncoated finishing part 1218 would encompass and obviate the claimed areal percentage range (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Further, Lee (as applied to modified Sung above) teaches that porosity of the swelling tape can be controlled within a certain range such that the tape does not cover the entire area of the electrode assembly surface, which still achieves protection of the assembly and allows for electrolyte filling and tape swelling with less impact on overall weight and size (Lee lines 378-399, in view of lines 81-83). As such, the areal coverage of the swelling tape on the coated region portion would also be obvious to interpret as a result-effective variable that can be optimized (in view of MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sung teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches the anode sheet (121, Sung Fig. 5 and [0033] as cited above) includes a coated portion having an active material layer provided on the anode sheet (1214 on 1212 and 1215 on 1213 of 1211 within 121, Sung Fig. 5 and [0059]), and the non-coated portion of the anode sheet on which the swelling tape is located (130 at 1216, Sung Fig. 5 and [0059]) faces the coated portion of the anode sheet when wound (tape 130 at uncoated 1216 on inner surface 1212 faces inward portions of electrode assembly including active material layer 1215 on outer surface 1213 when assembly including 121 is wound as, shown in Sung Figs. 2-3A in view of Fig. 5 and described in [0033, 0035]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sung teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches the swelling tape is a single-sided or double-sided tape (swelling tape adheres, swelling tape includes acrylic binder; Sung [0012, 0018] – therefore the swelling tape has at least one adhesive surface and satisfies the claimed “or” limitation; Sung Fig. 2 also shows swelling tape 130 sandwiches between two layers, which implies the possibility of double-sided adhesion functionality).
Further, Lee (as applied to modified Sung above) teaches swelling tape 300 can include swelling layer 320 and adhesive layer 310 (Lee lines 188-189). This reads on a single-sides tape that is an acceptable embodiment of a swelling tape known in the art.
Regarding claim 8, modified Sung teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to yet the single-sided or double-sided tape is made of at least one of polyurethane (PU), polyethylene (PE), polycarbonate (PC), polypropylene (PP), or polyimide (PI).
Regarding the material forming the swelling tape, Sung teaches such being an organic material (organic bonding relationship, Sung [0035]), has the ability absorb an electrolyte and be swollen (Sung [0050]), and may include an acrylic binder (Sung [0018, 0050]). However, Lee (as applied to modified Sung above) teaches the swelling tape 300 includes a swelling layer 320 including polyurethane which swells when brought into contact with organic electrolyte (Lee lines 64-65 and 188-191), while the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 310 can include acrylic (Lee lines 202-203, 207-208). Lee teaches examples of the acrylic adhesive being polymers of (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer (Lee lines 216-217). Lee teaches that beneficially, the acrylic adhesive is capable of expanding together with the swelling layer (made of polyurethane as cited above) when in contact with electrolyte, to prevent the swelling layer 320 from separating from the pressure sensitive adhesive layer 310 and effectively protect the electrode assembly 100 (Lee lines 207-211). Further regarding the swelling layer, Park teaches the polyurethane in the swelling layer 320 has a certain molecular weight range in order to have a good expansion rate when in contact with the electrolyte (Lee lines 350-352) and is especially useful alongside the acrylic adhesive layer due to similar coefficients of expansion which prevent delamination of the swelling tape (Lee lines 353-357).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the swelling tape of Sung to include specifically a polyurethane (which is an option satisfying the claimed list at “PU”) swelling layer for use alongside the acrylic adhesive layer taught by Lee with the motivation of achieving a good swelling rate to protect the electrode assembly, as well as ensure similar coefficients of swelling between the polyurethane and acrylic layers to prevent delamination therebetween when swollen in contact with electrolyte.
Thus, the instant claim 8 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 13, modified Sung teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and the one or more perforated holes occupy an area of 10% to 60% of a total area of the swelling tape (swelling tape 300 may have a porosity of 30% by volume to 50% by volume, Lee line 391; related to total area of layers 310/320 having the perforated holes as shown in Lee Fig. 1 – as applied to modify Sung above to include said perforated holes).
Regarding claim 14, modified Sung teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and the one or more perforated holes extend in a line in a direction perpendicular to a winding direction of the jelly-roll electrode assembly in the swelling tape (holes in swelling tape 300 are aligned linearly in longitudinal direction of cylinder as shown in Lee Fig. 1, as applied to the similarly-oriented gaps between swelling tape units 130 which are linear in the vertical direction as shown in Sung Figs. 4A-4C, which is perpendicular to the jelly-roll winding direction of assembly 120 as shown in Sung Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 15, modified Sung teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and the one or more perforated holes extend in two lines in a direction parallel to the winding direction of the jelly-roll electrode assembly (Lee Fig. 1 shows swelling tape 300 having more than two rows of perforated holes – which reads on and satisfies “two lines” – in the circumferential direction, which is also the jelly-roll winding direction of Lee and of modified Sung, to which teachings of Lee were applied above to include said perforated holes).
Regarding claim 16, modified Sung teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and the one or more perforated holes are located in a central part of the swelling tape (Fig. 2 of Lee shows the swelling tape 300 in the form of a net having a plurality of voids, including at the central part thereof; such is applied to modified Sung above such that the swelling tape 130 would also have the voids/perforated holes at its central part, especially since Sung Fig. 4A also shows a central gap in the longitudinal direction between swelling tape units 130).
Regarding claim 17, modified Sung teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and a secondary battery comprising the jelly-roll electrode assembly according to claim 1 (the secondary battery 100 includes a cylindrical electrode assembly 120, Sung [0031] and Fig. 1C).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (US 2023/0420744 A1) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20170138670 A, with foreign publication provided in 08/24/2023 IDS and machine translation attached to present Office action used for line citations below) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Park et al. (US 2003/0099880 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Sung teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches the anode sheet (121, Sung Fig. 5 and [0033] as cited above) includes a coated portion having an active material layer provided on the anode sheet (1214 on 1211, Sung Fig. 5 and [0059]), and
the swelling tape is attached to a part of the inner surface of the non-coated portion of the anode sheet (130 on 1216 at 1212, Sung Fig. 5 and [0059]),
but fails to teach the swelling tape also attached to: a part of the coated portion of the anode sheet at a boundary surface between the non-coated portion and the coated portion of the anode sheet.
However, Sung does teach that the thickness of the swelling tape 130 may be smaller than the thickness of the coating portion 1214 provided on the inner surface 1212 before absorbing the electrolyte, but may be greater than or equal to the thickness of the coating portion 1214 provided on the inner surface 1212 after absorbing the electrolyte.
Park is analogous in the art of tapes used at winding/finishing ends of wound electrode assemblies and teaches an insulating tape 530 is selectively attached to the negative electrode plate insulating tape 530 is formed so as to completely cover an area ranging from one edge of the negative electrode current collector 52a to a boundary between the front negative electrode sheet 52b and the front negative electrode uncoated area 52d ([0054, 0059] and Figs. 5-7). Park teaches that this tape having sufficient length so as to cover the boundary between uncoated and coated areas aids to prevent short circuit ([0064, 0069-0070] in view of [0023]).
Since the swelling tape of Sung as modified by Lee above also serves a protective function, it would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify such tape to have a sufficient length to cover the boundary (so as to be attached to a part of the coated portion of the anode sheet at a boundary surface between the non-coated portion and the coated portion of the anode sheet) as taught by Park with the motivation of achieving further protection and shirt-circuit prevention at said boundary.
Thus, instant claim 2 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 3, modified Sung teaches the limitations of claim 2 above and teaches the swelling tape covers 0.25% to 10% of a total area of the coated portion of the anode sheet (approximately 6.4% of coated portion 52b appears to be covered by tape 500 on anode 52 as shown in Fig. 5 of Park as annotated below; 500 corresponds to 530 in Park Figs. 6-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
296
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, Lee (as applied to modified Sung above) teaches that porosity of the swelling tape can be controlled within a certain range such that the tape does not cover the entire area of the electrode assembly surface, which still achieves protection of the assembly and allows for electrolyte filling and tape swelling with less impact on overall weight and size (Lee lines 378-399, in view of lines 81-83). As such, the areal coverage of the swelling tape on the coated region portion would also be obvious to interpret as a result-effective variable that can be optimized (in view of MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (US 2023/0420744 A1) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20170138670 A, with foreign publication provided in 08/24/2023 IDS and machine translation attached to present Office action used for line citations below) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2012/0115025 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sung teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to teach that the swelling tape includes an adhesive layer on one surface or opposite surfaces of a polyolefin-based substrate.
Sung does teach at least an acrylic binder adhesive layer included in the swelling tape ([0018]). Sung also teaches that the swelling tape 130 can be used in place of the finishing tape 128 to prevent unwinding of the electrode assembly 120 ([0036, 0046]).
Kim is analogous in the art of battery finishing tapes (seal tape capable of preventing an electrode assembly from moving, Kim Abstract) and teaches such seal tape can act as a swelling tape to achieve similar effects as cited to modified Sung above (when the seal tape is impregnated with the electrolyte in the secondary battery, the seal tape swells, and the swelling seal tape may play a role of absorbing the impact transferred from the outside of the secondary battery to the electrode assembly so that the electrode assembly may be more stably protected; Kim [0022]). Kim teaches such tape includes a substrate layer 140 between the first adhesive layer 110 and the second adhesive layer 120 (Kim Fig. 4), wherein the substrate layer 140 is a non-adhesive layer interposed between the first adhesive layer 110 and the second adhesive layer 120, and the substrate layer 140 may be made of polymer material such as polypropylene or polyethylene (Kim [0063]).
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07), such that it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the multilayer structure seal tape (capable of being used as both swelling tape and finishing tape, which are shared inventive goals with Sung) including a polypropylene or polyethylene substrate between two adhesive layers as taught by Kim to be suitably used as the swelling tape within modified Sung, and achieve expected results of swelling in electrolyte and providing stability and protection to the electrode assembly.
Thereby, claim 9 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 10, modified Sung teaches the limitations of claim 9 above and the adhesive layer includes polyacrylate (PA) (swelling tape includes an acrylic binder (Sung [0018, 0050]; in Lee, adhesive layer of swelling tape may be an acrylic adhesive per lines 206-207, examples of which include polymers made of acrylate-based monomers per lines 216-248, which thus read on “polyacrylate”).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (US 2023/0420744 A1) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20170138670 A, with foreign publication provided in 08/24/2023 IDS and machine translation attached to present Office action used for line citations below) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kawabe et al. (US 2018/0316045 A1, as cited in the 01/10/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sung teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to teach a diameter of each of the one or more perforated holes is 0.1 mm to 3 mm.
Kawabe is analogous in the art of swelling tape (a pressure-sensitive adhesive that can swell in an electrolytic solution, [0061]) and teaches a certain range of open area within the adhesive to maintain electrolytic permeability of the electrolytic solution to reach the separator and prevent clogging of separator pores ([0029]), which is achieved by patterning of the pressure-sensitive adhesive ([0023]). Kawabe teaches that any appropriate shape may be adopted as its pattern shape as long as the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is formed so as to cover only part (i.e., to maintain a ratio of open area) of the first base material, and that constituent elements for the pattern shape (e.g., dots forming a dot shape, or lines forming a stripe shape or a grid shape) are preferably distributed over an entire region on the first base material ([0028-0029]). Kawabe teaches that an interval between a dot and another dot is, for example, from 0.1 mm to 100 mm, preferably from 1 mm to 50 mm; when the interval falls within such range, at the time of the transfer of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer onto a separator, the clogging of the pores of the separator is more effectively prevented, and hence the permeability of an electrolytic solution into the separator can be improved.
Since modified Sung (in view of Lee above) includes the perforated holes and has the inventive goal of enabling electrolyte permeability to cause the desired swelling, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the interval measurements of open space (e.g., from 0.1 mm to 100 mm, preferably from 1 mm to 50 mm) as taught toward by Kawabe to ensure electrolyte permeability by sizing the perforated hole diameters to have open space in the same range. Such ranges encompass and overlap the instantly claimed diameter hole range of 0.1 mm to 3 mm and render such obvious (per MPEP 2144.05 I).
Thereby, claim 11 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 12, modified Sung teaches the limitations of claim 1 above one or more perforated holes includes two or more perforated holes (multiple voids in net-like swelling tape shown in Lee Figures, as applied to modified Sung above), but fails to explicitly teach that the distance between adjacent perforated holes is 1 mm to 10 mm.
Kawabe is analogous in the art of swelling tape (a pressure-sensitive adhesive that can swell in an electrolytic solution, [0061]) and teaches a certain range of open area within the adhesive to maintain electrolytic permeability of the electrolytic solution to reach the separator and prevent clogging of separator pores ([0029]), which is achieved by patterning of the pressure-sensitive adhesive ([0023]). Kawabe teaches that any appropriate shape may be adopted as its pattern shape as long as the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is formed so as to cover only part (i.e., to maintain a ratio of open area) of the first base material, and that constituent elements for the pattern shape (e.g., dots forming a dot shape, or lines forming a stripe shape or a grid shape) are preferably distributed over an entire region on the first base material ([0028-0029]). Kawabe teaches that an interval between a dot and another dot is, for example, from 0.1 mm to 100 mm, preferably from 1 mm to 50 mm; when the interval falls within such range, at the time of the transfer of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer onto a separator, the clogging of the pores of the separator is more effectively prevented, and hence the permeability of an electrolytic solution into the separator can be improved.
Since Lee teaches swelling tape 300 may have a porosity of 30% by volume to 50% by volume (Lee line 391) and Kawabe teaches the ratio of the area of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer to the area of the first base material is preferably from 5% to 90%, more preferably from 10% to 80%, still more preferably from 20% to 50% in order to enhance the permeability of an electrolytic solution through the adhesive layer (Kawabe [0029]), both references envision embodiments in which approximately half of the area of the adhesive layer is void space while the half of the area is filled in, such that the interval between dots (i.e., open space) and the area covered by adhesive would be approximately equivalent. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the interval measurements (e.g., from 0.1 mm to 100 mm, preferably from 1 mm to 50 mm) as taught toward by Kawabe to ensure electrolyte permeability by also applying such as the distance between adjacent perforated holes. Such ranges encompass the instantly claimed distance of 1 mm to 10 mm and renders such obvious (per MPEP 2144.05 I).
Thereby, claim 12 is rendered obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights