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 .
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 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as indefinite due to a lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 10 sets forth “a metal or a nonmetal compound.” Claims 14 and 15 rely upon Claim 10, directly or indirectly. Claims 14 recites “the compound.” This is lacking in antecedent basis; this should instead be “the metal or nonmetal compound.”
Claims 15 recites “the compound.” This is lacking in antecedent basis; this should instead be “the metal or nonmetal compound.”
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto, et. al. (JP2018101638A; original included with IDS, see EPO Machine Translation for citation), in view of Zhang, et. al. (US2021234166A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sakamoto recites a lithium-ion secondary battery, which may have two positive electrode active materials (“[p.15] The above positive electrode active materials may be used alone or in combination of two or more”), wherein “[p.14] Alkali metal transition metal oxide systems include, LiCoO2, . . . Li2FeSiO4 . . . LiFeO2 . . . NaCoO2 . . . NaFePO4 . . . K2FeSiO4 . . . K2CoSiO4 . . . KFeO2.” Sakamoto at [p.14-15]. Consequently, Sakamoto recites a positive electrode composite material (i.e. composed of multiple components) for a lithium ion secondary battery, characterized by comprising a positive electrode active material (“a combination of two or more”) and an alkali metal oxide as shown by formula AmGOn, wherein A represents at least one element selected from Na and K and optionally Li, G represents at least one element selected from Fe, Ni, Co, Mn, Ru, Ir, Sn, Cr, Nb, Mo, V and Ti, m is 1 - 6, and n is 1 – 4, because K2FeSiO4, NaCoO2, K2FeSiO4, and K2CoSiO4 meet the formula as claimed.
However, Sakamoto is silent as to the positive electrode composite material comprising a layered lithium metal oxide and a lithium-containing olivine type positive electrode active material, and that relative to a total of 100 wt% of the positive electrode active material and the alkali metal oxide, the alkali metal oxide has a content of 0.1 wt% to 10 wt%.
Zhang teaches an [0062] The cathode 12 includes at least one electrochemically active cathode material. The electrochemically active cathode material can include an alpha-demetallated layered nickel oxide and/or a non-stoichiometric beta-delithiated layered nickel oxide prepared according to methods of the disclosure. In embodiments, when a non-stoichiometric beta-delithiated layered nickel oxide is provided as an electrochemically active cathode material, the non-stoichiometric beta-delithiated layered nickel oxide comprises less than 5 wt. %, less than 3 wt %, less than 1 wt %, or less than 0.5 wt % residual non-stoichiometric alpha-delithiated layered nickel oxide, based on the total weight of the delithiated layered nickel oxide electrochemically active cathode material . . .the cathode may also include at least one or more additional electrochemically active cathode materials . . . [including] nickel oxide . . . [which] has been found to provide unexpectedly advantageous battery performance in both high discharge rate applications and low rate discharge applications.” Zhang at [0062 – 64].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the positive electrode composite material of Zhang, such that that one of the positive electrode active materials of Sakamoto is a layered nickel oxide, and such that the other is a separate nickel oxide having the previously claimed formula, having that relative to a total of 100 wt% of the positive electrode active material and the alkali metal oxide, the alkali metal oxide has a content of 0.1 wt% to 10 wt%, because Zhang teaches a benefit to high discharge rate and low discharge rate applications, and because Zhang provides an overlapping range, which presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 1 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Sakamoto.
Claim 3 requires “relative to a total of 100 wt% of the positive electrode active material and the alkali metal oxide, the alkali metal oxide has a content of 0.1 wt% - 10 wt%,” which is now included within Claim 1; Claim 1 is obvious over modified Sakamoto.
Claim 3 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Sakamoto.
Sakamoto recites a positive electrode for a lithium ion secondary battery, characterized by comprising a positive electrode composite material according to claim 1 (“[p.20] First Embodiment - [1. Method of Manufacturing Electrode] First, as an example of this embodiment, a method of manufacturing an electrode of a lithium secondary battery will be described . . . there [is] a negative electrode and a positive electrode in the electrode”). Sakamoto at [p.20].
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 4 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 relies upon Claim 4. Claim 4 is obvious over modified Sakamoto.
Sakamoto recites a lithium ion secondary battery, characterized by comprising a positive electrode for a lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 4 and a negative electrode (“[p.20] First Embodiment - [1. Method of Manufacturing Electrode] First, as an example of this embodiment, a method of manufacturing an electrode of a lithium secondary battery will be described . . . there [is] a negative electrode and a positive electrode in the electrode”). Sakamoto at [p.20].
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 9 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 relies upon Claim 9. Claim 9 is obvious over modified Sakamoto.
Sakamoto teaches “the electrode has a negative electrode and a positive electrode. First, regarding the negative electrode, the negative electrode active material used for the negative electrode is not particularly limited as long as it is a material capable of reversibly adsorbing and releasing alkali metal ions (lithium ions, sodium ions, potassium ions, etc.), [including] Zn, Ga, Ge, Y, Zr, Nb, Al, Si, P, Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, At least one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Mo, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, Sn, Sb, W, Pb and Bi, alloys, complexes, oxides, chalcogenides or halogens It may be anything.” Sakamoto at [p.20]. Sakamoto recites the negative electrode may comprise a conductive auxiliary agent, which comprises “carbon material, conductive polymer, conductive glass, or the like can be used. Specifically, it is preferable to use acetylene black (AB), ketjen black (KB), furnace black (FB), thermal black, lamp black, channel black, roller black, disk black, carbon black (CB), carbon fiber Carbon nanotube (CNT), carbon nanohorn, graphite, graphene, glassy carbon, amorphous carbon.” Id. at [p.15]. This recites “the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode active material, wherein the negative electrode active material comprises at least one selected from a carbon material, a metal or a nonmetal compound and a coating of the compound and a dopant of the compound. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 10 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 relies upon Claim 10. Claim 10 is obvious over modified Sakamoto.
Sakamoto, in addition to the electrode described in the above analysis, teaches “From the viewpoint of energy density, Al, Si, Zn, Ge, Ag, Sn or the like is preferable as the element, and examples of the alloy include Si - Al, Al - Zn, Si - Mg, Si - La, Al - Si - V, Si - Nb, Si - Mo, Zn - Sn, Ge - Zn, Si - Zr, Si . . . As the alloy, a wholly percentage solid solution type alloy, a eutectic alloy, a hypoeutectic alloy, a hypereutectic alloy, or a peritectic type alloy may be used. Further, the surface of the active material particles may be coated with a material or ceramics excellent in electronic conductivity. Two or more kinds of materials capable of reversibly occluding and releasing lithium may be used.” Sakamoto at [p.11].
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 11 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 relies upon Claim 10. Claim 10 is obvious over modified Sakamoto.
Sakamoto teaches “Si, Ti, Zn . . . Sn . . . oxides using these elements are preferable.” Sakamoto at [p.11]. Sakamoto recites “the metal or nonmetal compound comprises at least one selected from SiO2, SiO, SnO2, TiO2, SiS2 and TiS2.”
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 12 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 relies upon Claim 9. Claim 9 is obvious over modified Sakamoto.
Sakamoto teaches “An electric device according to the present invention is characterized by comprising the battery according to claim 19.” Sakamoto at [p.19]. This recites a “power consuming device, characterized by comprising a lithium ion secondary battery.” Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 13 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 relies upon Claim 10. Claim 10 is obvious over modified Sakamoto.
Sakamoto teaches “The electrodes such as the positive electrode and the negative electrode are composed of an active material, a conductive auxiliary agent, an organic polymer binder and a current collector. Generally, an electrode is manufactured by mixing an active material, a conductive aid, and an organic binder in a solvent to form a slurry, applying the slurry on a current collector, drying, and then rolling with a roll press or the like ..” Sakamoto at [p.1].
Zhang teaches the anode mixture comprises spun zinc particles [0111] to form a slurry. The teaching of both a slurry (which is coated upon a current collector) and a dopant meets the claim terms.
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 14 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang. Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 relies upon Claim 14. Claim 14 is obvious over modified Sakamoto.
Sakamoto teaches “The negative electrode is manufactured by coating an electrode material on a copper foil. First, for example, a rolled copper foil having a thickness of 10 μm is produced, and a copper foil previously wound into a roll is prepared. Also, as the electrode material of the negative electrode, artificial graphite graphitized by firing the carbon precursor is mixed with a binder, a conductive aid or the like to form a paste. In the present embodiment, PVdF is used as a binder and acetylene black (AB) is used as a conductive aid, for example. Then, an electrode material is applied to the surface of the copper foil, dried, and pressure-adjusted to complete the negative electrode main body.” Sakamoto at [p.20]. Sakamoto teaches “In the case of an electrode using a material having an irreversible capacity, it is preferable that irreversible capacity is canceled by lithium doping. There is no particular limitation on the method of lithium doping.” Id. at [p.18]. These two read upon “wherein the coating of the compound comprises: a coating obtained by coating the metal or nonmetal compound with graphite, soft carbon or hard carbon, the dopant of the compound comprises: a dopant obtained by doping the metal or nonmetal compound with at least one element selected from Mg, Ni, Co, and Mn. “
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 15 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Sakamoto.
Sakamoto and Zhang teach a nickel metal oxide which in turn teaches G comprises at least one element selected from Fe and Ni.
Claim 16 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Sakamoto.
Zhang teaches the “[0025] In embodiments, wherein the alkali metal-containing layered nickel oxide includes a metal dopant, M, the metal dopant can include a transition metal, main group metal, or both. In general, the metal dopant is a metal that can access an oxidation state of +3 or greater and has an ionic radius comparable to that of the Ni(III) (about 0.60 Å), for example, in a range of about 0.45 Å to about 0.75 Å. In embodiments, the transition metal comprises cobalt (Co3+ , Co4+ ), manganese (Mn3+ , Mn4+ , Mn7+ ), iron (Fe3+ , Fe4+ ), chromium (Cr3+ , Cr4+ , Cr5+ ), vanadium (V3+ , V5+ ), titanium (Ti3+ , Ti4+ ), niobium (Nb3+ , Nb5+ ), zirconium (Zr4+ ) or a combination thereof.” This reads upon G comprising Mn, Nb, V, or Chromium.
Claim 17 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 relies upon Claim 2. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Sakamoto.
Sakamoto teaches a sodium system within its alkali metal transition metal oxide system, such as “Na2 MnO3 --Na (Mn, Co) O2.”
Claim 18 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang.
Claims 2 , 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Zhu, et. al. (Espacenet translation of CN113793979A; original included with IDS, attached FOR reference of 06/10/2023). Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Sakamoto.
Sakamoto does not teach the alkali metal oxide is selected from at least one of Na6FeO4, K6FeO4, Na6CoO4,K6CoO4, Li2Na4FeO4 and Li2K4FeO4. However, Sakamoto teaches, “Here, the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery is a secondary battery using an electrolyte not containing water as a main component, and examples thereof include a lithium secondary battery (lithium ion battery), a sodium battery (sodium ion battery), a potassium battery Potassium ion battery) and the like.” Sakamoto at [p.1]. This is relevant because it demonstrates the teachings applied to its lithium ion battery embodiments are applicable to its sodium battery embodiments, even if they are not strictly identical. Id.
Zhu teaches “the working principle of sodium-ion battery is similar to that of lithium-ion battery, which uses the process of insertion and extraction of sodium ions between the positive and negative electrodes to realize charge and discharge. . .
the sodium-ion battery also has the same problem as the lithium-ion battery, that is, when it is charged for the first time, it will form an SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode, consume a part of the sodium ions, and reduce the reversible capacity of the positive electrode; at the same time, the cycle and storage process In the process, sodium ions will also be continuously consumed to repair the continuously damaged negative electrode SEI film, resulting in the continuous consumption of active sodium, which further aggravates the irreversible loss of battery capacity.” Zhu at [p.1]. Zhu teaches this is resolved by a “supplementary sodium source,” in the positive “pole piece,” such that “Preferably, the sodium supplementation source in the positive electrode plate is at least one of a binary sodium-containing compound, a ternary sodium-containing compound, and an organic sodium salt; the ternary sodium-containing compound includes Na4FeO5, Na6CoO4, Na2NiO2, Na5ReO6, Na2MnO3.” Id. at [p.5]. Specifically, the supplemental sodium source serves to provide sodium to repair the SEI without compromising capacity. See id at p.1, 5. Na6CoO4 is one of the claimed materials.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the positive electrode composite material of Sakamoto, such that its alkali compound comprises Na6CoO4, because the Zhu teaches this supplementary sodium source can prevent a loss of reversible capacity of the positive electrode. Further, Zhu teaches that this SEI process occurs in both lithium ion and sodium ion batteries, meaning logically the same benefit should be realized within a lithium ion battery as well as within a sodium ion battery.
Claim 2 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Zhu.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 relies upon Claim 5. Claim 5 is obvious over Sakamoto.
Sakamoto does not teach the alkali metal oxide is selected from at least one of Na6FeO4, K6FeO4, Na6CoO4,K6CoO4, Li2Na4FeO4 and Li2K4FeO4. However, Sakamoto teaches, “Here, the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery is a secondary battery using an electrolyte not containing water as a main component, and examples thereof include a lithium secondary battery (lithium ion battery), a sodium battery (sodium ion battery), a potassium battery Potassium ion battery) and the like.” Sakamoto at [p.10]. This is relevant because it demonstrates the teachings applied to its lithium ion battery embodiments are applicable to its sodium battery embodiments, even if they are not strictly identical. Id.
Zhu teaches “the working principle of sodium-ion battery is similar to that of lithium-ion battery, which uses the process of insertion and extraction of sodium ions between the positive and negative electrodes to realize charge and discharge. . .
the sodium-ion battery also has the same problem as the lithium-ion battery, that is, when it is charged for the first time, it will form an SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode, consume a part of the sodium ions, and reduce the reversible capacity of the positive electrode; at the same time, the cycle and storage process In the process, sodium ions will also be continuously consumed to repair the continuously damaged negative electrode SEI film, resulting in the continuous consumption of active sodium, which further aggravates the irreversible loss of battery capacity.” Zhu at [p.1]. Zhu teaches this is resolved by a “supplementary sodium source,” in the positive “pole piece,” such that “Preferably, the sodium supplementation source in the positive electrode plate is at least one of a binary sodium-containing compound, a ternary sodium-containing compound, and an organic sodium salt; the ternary sodium-containing compound includes Na4FeO5, Na6CoO4, Na2NiO2, Na5ReO6, Na2MnO3.” Id. at [p.2, 5]. Specifically, the supplemental sodium source serves to provide sodium to repair the SEI without compromising capacity. See id at p.1, 5. Na6CoO4 is one of the claimed materials.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the positive electrode material of Sakamoto, such that its alkali compound comprises Na6CoO4, because the Zhu teaches this supplementary sodium source can prevent a loss of reversible capacity of the positive electrode. Further, Zhu teaches that this SEI process occurs in both lithium ion and sodium ion batteries, meaning logically the same benefit should be realized within a lithium ion battery as well as within a sodium ion battery.
Claim 6 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Zhu.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 relies upon Claim 5. Claim 5 is obvious over modified Sakamoto.
As previously modified, modified Sakamoto alkali metal oxide layer is disposed between the positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode active material layer, or on the positive electrode active material layer. Sakamoto at [p.1, 10-11, 14-16].
Claim 7 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Zhu.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Sakamoto.
Sakamoto teaches a positive electrode composite material having a two-active material structure, wherein one material is an alkali metal oxide. Sakamoto also teaches a framework / skeleton forming agent, wherein this agent comprises , for example, an alkali metal oxide such as Na 2 O · n SiO 2, wherein n = 0.5 – 5.0. Sakamoto at [p.22]. Sakamoto teaches this agent comprises alkali resistant inorganic particles which may comprise TiO2. These materials may optionally be close to the claimed AmGOn, wherein, for example, instead of Na2TiO2, the skeleton forming agent consists of Na2 · SiO2 ·TiO2. Further, this showed positive results when applied to the electrode active material, wherein “it is preferable that the framework-forming agent is contained in the range of 0.2 to 30% by mass with respect to the granules. The granulated material thus obtained not only improves the cycle life characteristics but also improves the coatability of the slurry.” Sakamoto at [p.12]. For a two active material embodiment as described within the Claim 1 analysis, this implies a benefit wherein one of the two active materials, which is the same but for the presence of additional silicon dioxide, provides a benefit to cycle life when within the same range.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would find it obvious to apply the range of the framework-forming agent (0.2 to 30% by mass with respect to the active material granules) to the alkali metal oxide of Sakamoto, such that relative to a total of 100 wt% of the positive electrode active material and the alkali metal oxide, the alkali metal oxide has a content of 0.1 wt% - 10 wt%, because Sakamoto teaches a benefit to cycle life when utilizing a similar material.
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 8 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Zhu.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Junxi, et. al. (CN101083326A).
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 relies upon Claim 2. Claim 2 is obvious over modified Sakamoto.
Junxi teaches ferrates such as Na2FeO4, LiK2FeO4, and Li2FeO4 which demonstrate better environmental protection and higher availability; however, these are known to have drawbacks in terms of instability. Junxi at p.1. Because Junxi teaches “ferrates,” and LiK2FeO4, Li2FeO4, these materials would be expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to have similar properties as Li2K4FeO4, namely the iron oxide products and high discharge voltage. Id. Junxi’s method teaches a method of negating the instability downsides, namely through the use of LiAlCl4, which is found in Sakamoto.
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify the battery of Sakamoto, such that it comprises a ferrate such as Li2K4FeO4, because Junxi teaches a benefit to improved environmental effects and higher materials availability.
Claim 19 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Junxi.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Homma, et. al. (US 20180331390 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 relies upon Claim 2. Claim 2 is obvious over modified Sakamoto.
Homma teaches a composition and method for reducing the likelihood of electrode decomposition, wherein “[t]he negative electrode active material is not particularly limited and may be appropriately selected depending on the intended purpose. Examples of the negative electrode active material include lithium, lithium alloys, Li4 Ti5 O12 , LiVO3 , amorphous carbon, natural graphite, artificial graphite, TiS2 , TiO2 , and CoO2.” Homma at [006 -7, 88-90].
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify the battery of Sakamoto, such that it comprises Ti S2 within its metal or nonmetal compound, because Homma teaches a benefit to reduced risk of decomposition.
Claim 19 is obvious over Sakamoto, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Homma.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights