CTNF 18/288,161 CTNF 98024 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) with a filing date of 04/13/2022. The certified copy of KR10-2022-0045866 has been filed in the present application, received on 10/24/2023. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of the claim recites “an electrode assembly for a lithium secondary battery of claim 9”; however this electrode assembly is already defined in claim 9 from which claim 10 depends. For the purpose of this Office action, the preamble of claim 10 will be interpreted to recite --the electrode assembly for a lithium secondary battery of claim 9 --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, specifically, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instant, Formula 1 of claim 1 is written to recite “LiFe a M 1 1-A XO 4 … wherein X is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of P, Si, S, As, and Sb…0 ≤ a ≤ 0.5”, and thus does not necessarily require iron and/or phosphate; however, claim 1 also recites “a first positive electrode active material comprising an iron phosphate compound represented by Formula 1”, and thus additionally recites claim language requiring Formula 1 to include iron and phosphate. As such, the claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2-12 are rejected for the same reasons since they are dependent from claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 – 3, 6 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US PG Pub. 2013/0209865 A1) in view of Oh (KR20180013512A, cited in 10/24/2023 IDS, machine translation provided), Wang (CN110911669A, machine translation provided), and Yanagida (JP2018147874A, cited in 03/19/2025 IDS, machine translation provided). { Examiner Note: For citations of the instant specification the examiner relies upon the US PG publication of the instant application: US20240234723A1} Regarding Claim 1 , Kim discloses a positive electrode for a secondary battery (Fig. 1; [0023]) comprising a positive electrode current collector (Fig. 1, 10 ; [0023]) and n = 2 positive electrode mixture layers (Refer to composite layers 21 and 22 in Fig. 1), which is within the claimed range of n ≥ 2 positive electrode mixture layers, wherein each of the n positive electrode mixture layers comprises a first positive electrode material comprising an iron phosphate compound ([0023 – 0024]) represented by LiFePO 4 which is within the claimed scope of claimed Formula 1 because LiFePO 4 is LiFe a M 1 1-a XO 4 when a = 0 , which is within the claimed range of 0 ≤ a ≤ 0.5; M 1 is Fe which is included within the one element from the claimed selection of elements for M 1 ; and X is P which is included within the claimed selection of elements for P. Kim further discloses wherein a first positive electrode mixture layer of the n positive electrode mixture layers is in contact with the positive electrode current collector (Refer to composite layer 21 in Fig. 1). Kim further teaches the cathode composite layers further including binder and conductive material ([0035 – 0037]), but does not disclose each of the n positive electrode mixtures further including a second positive electrode material comprising a lithium composite metal oxide represented by Formula 2. Oh teaches a cathode electrode active material for a secondary battery including a lithium ferric phosphate compound (LFP) as a first, main positive electrode active material having an olivine structure and a lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt composite metal (NMC) as a secondary active material ([0024]). The LFP is specifically taught to be LiFePO 4 , Li(Fe,Mn)PO 4 , Li(Fe,Co)PO 4 , Li(Fe,Ni)PO 4 , or a mixture thereof, and most specifically, may be LiFePO 4 ([0036]). The NCM is specifically taught to be LiNi 0.6 Co 0.2 Mn 0.2 O 2 , LiNi 0.8 Mn 0.1 Co 0.1 O 2 , or a mixture of the two ([0068]), and both NCM active materials taught by Oh are within the scope of claimed Formula 2. Oh further teaches including the NCM active material in an optimal amount in order to overcome the deficiencies of the LFP active material, that is LFP while having excellent lifespan characteristics and superior safety, is known to have problems with initial voltage along with micro-short circuits and low voltage generation and the inclusion of NMC, due to having low resistance and low initial voltage drop compared to LFP, allows for improved initial output of the battery without concerns of capacity degradation ([0006];[0027];[0081]). Since the positive electrode of Kim utilizes LiFePO 4 as the primary active material, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add NCM active material as a secondary active material in the composite layers of Kim, as taught by Oh, and thus obtain the claimed second active material within the scope of Formula 2, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a battery with improved initial output without concerns of capacity degradation. Modified Kim, as established above however, does not particularly provide the claimed configuration of wherein a content ratio of the second positive electrode active material in each of the n positive mixture layers decreases from the first positive electrode mixture layer to the n th positive electrode mixture layer of the n positive electrode mixture layers. Wang, directed to multiplayer composite cathodes, teaches a cathode having a first electrode material layer {i.e. on current collector} and second electrode material layer {i.e. on the first active material layer} comprising a first active material, a second active material, a third active material and the weight ratio of the active materials change from the first layer to the second layer ([0006]). Specifically, the amount of first active material, a lithium cobalt-based material, decreases from the first to second layer, the amount of second active material, a lithium iron phosphate material, increases from the first to second layer, and third active material, a lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide material, decreases from the first to second layer ([0008 – 0009]). Furthermore, based on the weight ratios of the active material by Wang, the lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide material is included in the smallest amount among the active materials and the lithium iron phosphate material is included in a larger amount relative to the lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide material in both layers and further is greatest in the second composite active material layer {i.e. the layer on top of the first composite active material layer} ([0008 – 0009]). The active material layer design is taught by Wang to improve the energy density, rate performance, and cycle performance of the material ([0023]). Furthermore, Wang teaches that the stability of the electrode in the electrolyte is improved when a relatively higher amount of lithium iron phosphate material is in the outer layer ([0026]). Yanagida, also directed to multi-layered electrodes, teaches a positive electrode including a lithium Ni-composite oxide as a main material and a lithium phosphate-based material as an additive ([0007];[0031 – 0034]). Yanagida further teaches that when the concentration of the lithium Ni-composite oxide in the layer closer to the collector is increased improved ion diffusion occurs and, when the concentration is decreased in the layer farther from the collector, capacity is increased ([0044]). Since modified Kim utilizes a LiFePO 4 as a primary active material and a lithium nickel-based oxide as an auxiliary active material, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the composite active materials layer such that the concentration of NMC material in modified Kim is lowest in the upper composite active material layer {i.e. corresponds to n th positive electrode mixture layer} and highest in the lower composite active material layer {i.e. corresponds to first positive electrode mixture layer}, as suggested/taught by Wang and Yanagida, and thus obtain the claimed content ratio configuration, with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving an electrode with higher stability in electrolyte, improved ion diffusion, and improved capacity. Regarding Claim 2 , modified Kim discloses all limitations as set forth above. In modified Kim, LiFePO 4 is the primary active material and lithium nickel-based oxide is the auxiliary active material (Oh: [0024]. Furthermore, relative to the total weight of cathode active material composition, each composite layer of the modified cathode includes 1 – 9 wt% of NCM material (Oh: [0081]) and the second composite layer {i.e. corresponds to claimed n th positive electrode layer} includes a relatively smaller amount of NCM material than the first composite layer {i.e. corresponds to claimed first positive electrode mixture layer} (Wang: [0008 – 0009];[0026] and Yanagida: [0044]). As such, modified Kim includes an amount of the second active material {i.e. the NCM material} based on a total weight of the n positive electrode mixture layers within/overlapping the claimed range of less than 10% and thus establishes a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed range [See MPEP 2144.05(I)]. To further render obvious the claimed range, the following teachings are relied upon: Oh further discloses including the NMC in an amount of 1% to 9% by weight relative to the total weight of the cathode active material composition for the purpose of ensuring the effect of preventing initial voltage drop due to the mixed use of LFP and NMC while preventing degradation of capacitance characteristics ([0081]). Amounts less than 1 wt% are taught by Kim to make the effect of mixing the two active materials negligible while amounts exceeding 9 wt% leads to capacity degradation ([0081]). Oh further teaches that amounts of more than 3% and 5% or less by weight provide the most significant effects of preventing initial voltage drop and improving battery capacity characteristics ([0081]). Wang further teaches, with respect to a positive electrode including multiple layers with three different active materials, that the ratio of active materials in the different layers affects the volume change of the active material and volume changes are taught to cause stress deformation and a decline in cycling performance ([0026]:[0063]). As such, Wang teaches that controlling the stoichiometric ratio of active materials included within the layers can alleviate the difference in volume expansion coefficient between the layers and prevent the separation of layers ([0026]). Yanagida, as established above, further teaches/suggests that the concentration of NCM-type material included within an upper and lower layer can affect the lithium ion diffusion of the electrode and capacity of the electrode, that is when the concentration of the lithium Ni-composite oxide in the layer closer to the collector is increased improved ion diffusion occurs and, when the concentration is decreased in the layer farther from the collector, capacity is increased ([0044]). Therefore, selection of an amount second active material, based on the total weight of the positive electrode mixture layers, within the overlapping portion of the claimed range and the range suggested by the prior art Oh would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the effects of the combined used of the LFP and NMC materials without causing degradation of battery capacity characteristics, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)] Regarding Claim 3 , modified Kim discloses all limitations as set forth above. In modified Kim, LiFePO 4 is the primary active material and lithium nickel-based oxide is the auxiliary active material (Oh: [0024]. Furthermore, relative to the total weight of cathode active material composition, each composite layer of the modified cathode includes 1 – 9 wt% of NCM material (Oh: [0081]) and the second composite layer {i.e. corresponds to claimed n th positive electrode layer} includes a relatively smaller amount of NCM material than the first composite layer {i.e. corresponds to claimed first positive electrode mixture layer} (Wang: [0008 – 0009];[0026] and Yanagida: [0044]). As such, modified Kim includes, in each of the n positive electrode mixture layers, an amount of the second positive electrode active material within the claimed range of 0.5 – 20 wt% based on a weight of each of the n positive electrode mixture layers. Regarding Claims 6 , modified Kim discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim further discloses wherein the first positive electrode active material in each of the n positive mixture layers {i.e. the lithium iron phosphate cathode active material in composite layers 21 and 22 } decreases from the first positive electrode mixture layer {i.e. composite layer 21 } to the n th positive electrode mixture layer of the n positive electrode mixture layers {i.e. composite layer 22 } (Kim: [0029 – 0030]). Regarding Claim 7 – 8, modified Kim discloses all limitations as set forth above. The cathode of modified Kim includes two layers of active material where the primary active material in each layer is LiFePO 4 , which is within the scope of claimed Formula 1, and the auxiliary active material is an NCM material within the scope of claimed Formula 2 (Kim: Fig. 1; [0023 – 0024] and Oh: [0024];[0068]). Additionally, the cathode active material layers in modified Kim include a particle size difference, specifically the LiFePO 4 active material particles in the first layer 21 have an average particle size that is larger than the LiFePO 4 active material particles in the second layer 22 (Kim: [0029 – 0030]). Modified Kim does not explicitly disclose the positive electrode having a change in voltage of 5 mV to 60 mV per state of charge (SOC) 1% in the range of SOC 30 to 70% ( Claim 7 ) or further wherein the positive electrode has a change in voltage of 0.1 mV to 60 mV in the range of SOC 65 to 95% ( Claim 8 ); however, based on [0083 – 0084];[0088 – 0089]] of the instant specification, the claimed voltage changes appear to be dependent on the configuration of the positive electrode {i.e. (1) multi-layered structure, (2) including lithium phosphate within claimed formula 1 as a first active material; (3) including a second active material within claimed formula 2; (4) concentration of second active material increases as it gets closer to the to the positive electrode current collector among a plurality of positive electrode mixture layers stacked in multi-layered structure) as well as the type of negative electrode active material {i.e. graphite}. Therefore since, modified Kim, as established above explicitly discloses/renders obvious the positive electrode configuration suggested to provide the claimed changed in voltage, and further since Kim teaches using carbon-based materials including graphite as a negative electrode active material and explicitly discloses forming a battery using a graphite anode (Kim: [0034];[0053]), one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect (given the same test/operation conditions}, modified Kim to provide voltage difference within/significantly overlapping the claimed ranges. Furthermore, the courts have found where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation/obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430 433 (CXPA 19771). Regarding Claims 9 – 10 , modified Kim discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim further discloses an electrode assembly for a lithium secondary battery ([0038]) comprising: a positive electrode according to claim 1 (Refer to rejection of claim 1 above and Kim: [0038]); a negative electrode ([0038 – 0039]); and a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0038];[0042]) ( Claim 9 ); and further wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode mixture layer ([0039]) ( Claim 10 ). For the anode active material, Kim teaches using carbon-based materials capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions, lithium metals, silicon, tin, or metal oxides ([0040]). Kim further teaches a preference for carbon-based materials and exemplifies carbon-based materials such as natural graphite, Kish graphite, pyrolytic carbon, mesophase pitch based carbon fiber, meso-carbon microbeads, mesophase pitches, petroleum derived cokes, and tar pitch derived cokes ([0040]). Therefore, Kim teaches a selection of anode active material that overlaps with the claimed scope of at least one of carbon-based negative electrode active materials of natural graphite, artificial graphite, expanded graphite, hard carbon, soft carbon, carbon fiber, carbon black, carbon nanotube, fullerene, activated carbon, acetylene black, or ketjen black, or combinations thereof ( Claim 10 ). { Examiner Note : The examiner acknowledges that [0040] of Kim recites “as the cathode active material carbon-based materials”; however, the recitation appears to be a typo and should rectie anode active materials, especially in light of the working example of the prior art explicitly teaching an anode using carbon-based active material in [0053]). Since Kim teaches a preference for using carbon-based anode materials and further teaches a finite list of carbon based materials, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select as the anode active material of modified Kim’s electrode assembly, a carbon-based material and further a carbon-based material within the overlapping portion of the taught and claimed lists, with a reasonable expectation of success that such a selection of case would be suitable for the anode of the battery [See MPEP 2143 (I)(E)]. Regarding Claim 11 , modified Kim discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim further discloses a lithium secondary battery (Kim: [0038]) comprising an electrode assembly according to claim 9 (Refer to rejection of claim 9 above; a battery case into which the electrode assembly is inserted (Kim: [0038];[0046]); and an electrolyte composition injected into the battery case (Kim: [0038];[0043 – 0044]). Regarding Claim 12 , modified Kim discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kim further teaches a finite list of battery casing shapes including a cylindrical shape, a prismatic shape, a pouch shape, or a coin shape ([0046]), but does not provide a particular example battery formed using a prismatic case, as such modified Kim does not particularly disclose wherein the lithium secondary battery is a prismatic secondary battery. Since Kim teaches a finite list of battery casing shapes, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when forming a battery using modified Kim’s electrode assembly, to form the battery using a prismatic shape, and thus obtain a prismatic secondary battery, with a reasonable expectation of success that such a selection of case would be suitable for the battery [See MPEP 2143 (I)(E)] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US PG Pub. 2013/0209865 A1), Oh (KR20180013512A) and Wang (CN110911669A) , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imachi (US 2007/0026312 A1) . Regarding Claims 4 – 5 , modified Kim discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kim further teaches that the first composite layer has a thickness of 10 – 150 µm and the second composite layer has a thickness of 10 – 150 µm ([0032]). As such, the modified cathode active material layers of Kim have a total thickness of 20 – 300 µm, which encompasses the claimed range of 50 – 300 µm ( Claim 4 ) and a thickness of the first composite layer, based on ranges taught for each composite layer, is 6% – 93% of a total thickness of the n positive electrode mixture layers, which encompasses the claimed range of 10% to 60% ( Claim 5 ) and thus establishes a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed ranges [See MPEP 2144.05(I)]. Kim further teaches that when each thickness of the first and second composite layers is within the taught range of 10 – 150 µm, improved output characteristics is achieved ([0032]). Yanagida teaches, with respect to a positive electrode having two active material layers, controlling the combined thicknesses of the layers to be 10 – 300 µm for the purpose of balancing energy density {i.e. energy density decreases as total thickness decreases} vs. load characteristics {i.e. deteriorates when total thickness exceeds 300 µm} ([0033]). Imachi, directed toward the manufacturing of electrodes having a current collector and a plurality of active material layers, and more specifically two layers, teaches controlling the thickness of the of the active material layer that is in contact with the current collector to be equal to or less than ½ of the total thickness of the plurality of active material layers (Fig. 5; [0021 – 0022];[0029 – 0030]). Imachi teaches controlling the thickness to be within such a range for the purpose of controlling/reducing the internal resistance of the electrode ([0029 – 0030];[0116]). Therefore, selection of a total thickness and further a first composite layer thickness that provides thickness ratio within the overlapping portion of the claimed ranges and the ranges suggested/taught by the prior art Kim would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the energy density while also minimizing internal resistance and preventing load characteristic deterioration, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)] Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-35 Claim s 1 – 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 – 7 and 19 - 14 of copending Application No. 18/288,173 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because co-pending application 18/288,173 is directed toward a positive electrode for a second battery requiring the same active material layer configuration/structure (Claims 1 and 4 – 6), active material compounds and amounts (Claims 1 – 3), and properties (Claims 7 – 9) as well as an electrode assembly and battery comprising the positive electrode (Claims 9 – 14) This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-35 Claim s 1 – 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 – 11 of copending Application No. 18/288,031 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because co-pending application 18/288,031 is directed toward a positive electrode for a second battery requiring the same active material layer configuration/structure (Claims 1 – 2 and 4 – 5), active material compounds and amounts (Claims 1 and 3), and properties (Claims 6 – 7) as well as an electrode assembly and battery comprising the positive electrode (Claims 8 – 11) This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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. /A.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 /JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/11/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/288,161 Page 2 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/288,161 Page 4 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/288,161 Page 5 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/288,161 Page 6 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/288,161 Page 7 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/288,161 Page 8 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/288,161 Page 9 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/288,161 Page 10 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/288,161 Page 11 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/288,161 Page 12 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/288,161 Page 13 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/288,161 Page 14 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/288,161 Page 15 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/288,161 Page 16 Art Unit: 1751
