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 Group I and species A1 in the reply filed on 06/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that it would not be unduly burdensome to search for all of the different inventions as defined in the restriction requirement. This is not found persuasive because there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required, as the distinct inventions have separate classifications in the art, and therefore have separate fields of search, as well as having separate statuses in the art which each require search scopes that would not be likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The applicant has elected group I, which comprises claims 1-28. Accordingly, claims 29-41 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Additionally, the applicant has elected species A1, which is directed towards subject matter wherein the particles of the primary particles are cathode active material particles and the composite particulate is a cathode material. Accordingly, claims 10-12, 23, and 26 are withdrawn from consideration, as they are directed towards Species A2, which is directed towards subject matter where the particles of the primary particles are anode particles, and the composite particulate is an anode material.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/06/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to due to a lack of indentations between each element of the claim, as per MPEP 608.01(m): “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i).”
Claim 2 is objected to due to a lack of indentations between each element of the claim, as per MPEP 608.01(m): “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i).”
Claim 4 is objected to due to presenting the name and chemical formula of each lithium salt option in the list of the claim. Here, a suggested rephrasing is along the lines of the phrasing used in claim 10, which has the form of “name (chemical formula)”.
Claim 6 is objected to due to a lack of indentations between each element of the claim, as per MPEP 608.01(m): “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i).”
Claim 10 is objected to due to a lack of indentations between each element of the claim, as per MPEP 608.01(m): “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i).”
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 10 are objected to due to using inconsistent notation for elements of a list within their claims. Claim 1 presents lowercase letters within parentheses, claim 2 presents capital letters within parentheses, claim 6 presents lowercase roman numerals, and claim 10 presents lowercase letters within parentheses. A consistent list format is requested between claims.
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 9, 13-19 and 24 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 9 recites the limitation "said conductive additive" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 1 provides antecedent basis for “an electron-conducting additive”. For the purpose of this office action Claim 9 is interpreted as referring to the electron-conducting additive of claim 1.
Claim 13 is indefinite where it recites “said cathode active material is selected from an inorganic material”, as claim has previously introduced “an inorganic material” and it is unclear if the inorganic material of claim 13 is distinct from claim 1. A suggested rephrasing is “said cathode active material is selected from an inorganic cathode active material,”.
Claims 14-18 are indefinite as a result of their dependence on claim 13.
Claim 14 is indefinite where it recites “said inorganic material”, as both claims 13 and 1 provide antecedent basis for an inorganic material. For the purpose of this office action, claim 14 is interpreted as referring to the inorganic material of claim 13.
Claim 15 is indefinite where it recites “said inorganic material”, as both claims 13 and 1 provide antecedent basis for an inorganic material. For the purpose of this office action, claim 15 is interpreted as referring to the inorganic material of claim 13.
Claim 16 is indefinite where it recites “said inorganic material”, as both claims 13 and 1 provide antecedent basis for an inorganic material. For the purpose of this office action, claim 16 is interpreted as referring to the inorganic material of claim 13.
Claim 18 is indefinite, as it presents chemical formulas which include variables, along with bounds for said variables in parentheses. Accordingly, it is unclear if the limitations imposed within said parentheses are intended to further limit the claims, or if they are representatives of the chemical formulas named before the parentheses.
Claim 19 is indefinite due to the language “, or nano horn having a thickness or diameter from 0.5 nm to 100 nm.”, as it is unclear if the thickness limitation applies solely to the nanohorn option, or to every element of the list. For the purpose of examination this limitation is interpreted as limiting each element of the list. A suggested rephrasing is “, or nano horn, and wherein said primary particles of anode or cathode active material have a thickness or diameter from 0.5 nm to 100 nm.”
Claim 24 is indefinite due to the language “wherein the particulates comprise primary particles of a cathode active material”, as claim provides antecedent basis for “cathode active material”. Accordingly, it is unclear if claim 24 requires a new active material beyond the scope of claim 1, or if it is specifying that a cathode active material is present, as claim 1 presents an option between anode or cathode active material. For the purpose of this office action, this claim language is interpreted as specifying that the option of claim 1 between anode and cathode active material selects cathode active material.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 13-22, 24-25, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20200350589 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jang discloses multi-functional composite particulates for a lithium battery (Abstract, “The disclosure provides multi-functional cathode particulates for a lithium battery”) with composite particulate structure depicted in figure 2B, wherein at least one of said composite particulates has a diameter from 100 nm to 50 microns (Abstract, “wherein at least one of the particulates has a diameter from 100 nm to 50 μm”) and comprises a polymer electrolyte (Abstract, “comprises a conducting polymer network composite”) comprising 0 to 50% by weight of a lithium salt dissolved or dispersed in said polymer electrolyte (Paragraph 0035, “the conducting network of cross-linked polymer chains further contains a lithium ion-conducting additive dispersed therein”; Paragraph 0036, “The proportion of this lithium ion-conducing additive is preferably from 0.1% to 40% by weight”; Paragraph 0094, “the lithium ion-conducting additive may contain a lithium salt”).
Additionally, Jang discloses a plurality of primary particles of cathode active material that are embedded or dispersed in or bonded by said polymer electrolyte (Abstract, “comprising one or a plurality of primary particles of a cathode active material that are partially or fully encapsulated by, embedded in, dispersed in, or bonded by an electrically and ionically conducting network of cross-linked polymer chains”), wherein said polymer electrolyte has a lithium ion conductivity of 10-8 to 5 x 10-2 S.cm (Abstract, “lithium ion conductivity from 10−8 to 5×10−2 S/cm”).
In regards to the limitation which requires that said active material particles have a diameter or thickness from 1 nm to 20 microns Jang discloses a diameter of 0.5 nm to 20 microns (Abstract, “wherein the primary particles have a diameter or thickness from 0.5 nm to 20 μm”), which as an encompassing range with the range of the instant claim constitutes a prima facie case of obviousness. "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Additionally, Jang discloses structure wherein the active material particles occupy a weight fraction from 5% to 98% based on the total weight of the composite particulate (Paragraph 0135, “the working electrodes were prepared by mixing 85 wt. % active material”).
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the composite particulates comprise particles of an inorganic material having a diameter or thickness from 2 nm to 20 microns and occupy a weight fraction of 0 to 30 percent based on the total weight of the composite particulate, Jang discloses that in some embodiments their composition comprises particles of inorganic material as a filler (Paragraph 0075, “In certain embodiments, the inorganic filler”). Accordingly, as Jang discloses that the inclusion of this component in their composite particulate is only in some embodiments, it is therefore optional. In disclosing that particles of inorganic material are optional, Jang therefore discloses structure that reads on a weight fraction of 0% based on the total weight of the composite particulate, as a non-present particle of inorganic material has a weight fraction of 0%.
Additionally, Jang discloses that the composite particulates comprise particles of an electron-conducting additive (Paragraph 0031, “The particulate may further contain a graphite or carbon material mixed with the active material particles,”). However in regards to the limitation that requires that the conducting additive have a weight fraction of 0% to 30% based on the total weight of the composite particulate, as Jang discloses that the inclusion of this additive is optional, they therefore disclose structure that reads upon a weight fraction of 0% based on the total weight of the composite particulate, as a non-present electron conductive additive has a weight fraction of 0%.
Regarding Claim 2, Jang discloses multi-functional composite particulates for a lithium battery (Abstract, “The disclosure provides multi-functional cathode particulates for a lithium battery”) with composite particulate structure depicted in figure 2B, wherein at least one of said composite particulates has a diameter from 100 nm to 50 microns (Abstract, “wherein at least one of the particulates has a diameter from 100 nm to 50 μm”) and comprises a polymer electrolyte (Abstract, “comprises a conducting polymer network composite”) comprising 0.1% to 50% by weight of a lithium salt dissolved or dispersed in said polymer electrolyte (Paragraph 0035, “the conducting network of cross-linked polymer chains further contains a lithium ion-conducting additive dispersed therein”; Paragraph 0036, “The proportion of this lithium ion-conducing additive is preferably from 0.1% to 40% by weight”; Paragraph 0093, “the lithium ion-conducting additive may contain a lithium salt”), wherein said polymer electrolyte has a lithium ion conductivity of 10-8 to 5 x 10-2 S/cm (Abstract, “lithium ion conductivity from 10−8 to 5×10−2 S/cm”).
Additionally, Jang makes obvious structure wherein at least one of the composite particles comprises particles of an inorganic material having a diameter or thickness from 2 nm to 10 microns, through disclosing that their primary particles of cathode active material have a diameter or thickness of 0.5 nm to 20 microns (Paragraph 0098, “dispersing a plurality of primary particles of a cathode active material having a diameter or thickness from 0.5 nm to 20 μm”), which is an encompassing range with the claimed range, thereby presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Further, Jang discloses that their primary particles of a cathode active material are inorganic (Paragraph 0073, “cathode active material layer may contain a cathode active material selected from an inorganic material”).
Additionally, Jang discloses structure wherein the active material particles which are the inorganic particles occupy a weight fraction from 5% to 98% based on the total weight of the composite particulate (Paragraph 0135, “the working electrodes were prepared by mixing 85 wt. % active material”).
Regarding Claim 3, Jang makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Jang discloses that said polymer electrolyte comprises a polymer selected from poly(ethylene oxide), polypropylene oxide, poly(acrylonitrile), poly(methyl methacrylate), poly(vinylidene fluoride), poly bis-methoxy ethoxyethoxide-phosphazenex, polyvinyl chloride, poly dimethylsiloxane, poly(vinylidene fluoride)-hexafluoropropylene, sulfonated derivatives thereof, and a combination thereof (Paragraph 0037, “poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), Polypropylene oxide (PPO), poly(acrylonitrile) (PAN), poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVdF), Poly bis-methoxy ethoxyethoxide-phosphazenex, Polyvinyl chloride, Polydimethylsiloxane, poly(vinylidene fluoride)-hexafluoropropylene (PVDF-HFP), a sulfonated derivative thereof, or a combination thereof.”).
Regarding Claim 4, Jang makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Jang discloses that the lithium salt is selected from lithium perchlorate, lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium hexafluoro arsenide, lithium trifluoro-meta sulfonate, bis-trifluoromethyl sulfonylimide lithium, lithium bis(oxalatoborate), lithium oxalyldifluoroborate, lithium nitrate, Li-Fluoroalkyl-phosphates, lithium bisperfluoro-ethysulfonylimide, lithium trifluoromethanesulfonyimide, an ionic liquid based lithium salt, or a combination thereof (See paragraph 0094).
Regarding Claim 5, Jang makes obvious the invention of claim 1. Additionally, Jang discloses structure where said polymer electrolyte is further impregnated with an ionic liquid, through their disclosure of the lithium ion-conducting additive optionally being an ionic liquid-based lithium salt (Paragraph 0094, “an ionic liquid-based lithium salt,”) where the polymer electrolyte is impregnated with the lithium ion-conducting additive (Paragraph 0033, “a lithium ion-conducting additive dispersed in the sulfonated elastomer matrix material.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Jang makes obvious the invention of claim 1. Additionally, Jang discloses that the polymer electrolyte comprises a polymer that is soluble by a liquid solvent, disclosing an embodiment where the polymer electrolyte comprises PEDOT:PSS (See paragraph 0119-0120) which is soluble in water (Paragraph 0119, “The PEDOT/PSS is initially soluble in water.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Jang makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Jang discloses structure wherein the composite particulate is further encapsulated by a shell of conducting material (Paragraph 0051, “The shell material can be both lithium ion-conducting and electron-conducting”) selected from graphene (Paragraph 0078, “Thus, the presently invented sulfonated elastomer/graphene composite shell preferably contains mostly single-layer graphene”).
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the shell has an electrical conductivity from 10-8 S/cm to 103 S/cm, Jang is silent in regards to the electrical conductivity of the shell of conducting material. However, Jang discloses that their polymer electrolyte which encompasses their active material has an electrical conductivity of 10-7 S/cm to 100 S/cm. Where Jang discloses that the graphene within the elastomer-graphene composite shell has the purpose of being electron conducting (Paragraph 0078), it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to select an electron conductivity within the electron conductivity range of the polymer, so as to improve electron conductivity rather than reduce it. Accordingly, Jang makes obvious an electron conductivity of their shell of from 10-7 S/cm to 100 S/cm, which falls within the instant range of 10-8 S/cm to 103 S/cm.
Additionally, Jang discloses that where the graphene of the shell comprises nano graphene platelets (NGP) the shell has a thickness of 0.34 nm to 100 nm (Paragraph 0078, “An NGP can have a platelet thickness from less than 0.34 nm (single layer) to 100 nm (multi-layer).”).
Regarding Claim 8, Jang makes obvious the invention of claim 1. Additionally, Jang discloses that said composite particulate further comprises graphene sheets dispersed in said polymer electrolyte matrix (Paragraph 0076, “In certain preferred embodiments, the conducting network of cross-linked polymer chains further contains an electron-conducting filler dispersed in the conducting network of cross-linked polymer chains, wherein the electron-conducting filler is selected [from] graphene”), where said graphene sheets are selected from pristine graphene, graphene fluoride, graphene chloride, nitrogenated graphene, hydrogenated graphene, doped graphene, chemically functionalized graphene, or a combination thereof (Paragraph 0076, “The graphene may be preferably selected from pristine graphene, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide, graphene fluoride, graphene chloride, nitrogenated graphene, hydrogenated graphene, doped graphene, functionalized graphene, or a combination thereof”).
Regarding Claim 9, Jang makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Jang discloses that said conductive additive is selected from carbon nanotubes, carbon nano-fibers, carbon or graphite fibers, graphene sheets, expanded graphite flakes, metal filaments or metal nanowires (See paragraph 0115), as well as carbon black and acetylene black (Paragraph 0039, “carbon black, acetylene black”).
Regarding Claim 13, Jang makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Jang discloses structure wherein the cathode active material is selected from an inorganic material, an organic material, a polymeric material, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0073, “The cathode active material layer may contain a cathode active material selected from an inorganic material, an organic material, a polymeric material, or a combination thereof.”).
Regarding Claim 14, Jang makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Jang discloses structure wherein said inorganic material, as a cathode active material, is selected from sulfur, selenium, a metal oxide, a metal phosphate, a metal silicide, a metal selenide, a metal sulfide, or a combination thereof (See paragraph 0019).
Regarding Claim 15, Jang makes obvious the invention of Claim 13, Additionally, Jang discloses that said inorganic material is selected from a lithium cobalt oxide, a lithium nickel oxide, a lithium manganese oxide, a lithium vanadium oxide, a lithium-mixed metal oxide, a lithium iron phosphate, a lithium manganese phosphate, a lithium vanadium phosphate, a lithium mixed metal phosphate, a lithium metal silicide, or a combination thereof (See paragraph 0074).
Regarding Claim 16, Jang makes obvious the invention of Claim 13. Additionally, Jang discloses that said inorganic material is selected from a lithium transition metal silicate denoted as Li-2-MSiO4 or Li2MaxMbySiO4 where M and Ma are selected from Fe, Mn, Co, Ni, V, or Vo, and Mb is selected from Fe, Mn, Co, N, V, Ti, Al, B, Sn, or Bi, and x+y≤1 (See paragraph 0021).
Regarding Claim 17, Jang makes obvious the invention of Claim 14. Additionally, Jang discloses structure wherein said metal oxide or metal phosphate is selected from a layered compound LiMO2, a spinel compound LiM2O4, an olivine compound LiMPO4, a silicate compound Li-2MSiO4, a tavorite compound LiMPO4F, a borate compound LiMBO-3, or a combination thereof, wherein M is a transition metal or a mixture of multiple transition metals (See paragraph 0024).
Regarding Claim 18, Jang makes obvious the invention of Claim 13. Additionally, Jang discloses that the cathode active material comprises lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide or lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide, through disclosing the use of NMC and NCA for lithium-mixed metal oxides (Paragraph 0074, “lithium-mixed metal oxide (e.g. NMC and NCA)”), lithium iron phosphate, and lithium manganese oxide (Paragraph 0074, “lithium iron phosphate, lithium manganese phosphate”).
Regarding Claim 19, Jang makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Jang discloses structure wherein the primary particles of cathode active material is in a form of a nanoparticle, nanowire, nano fiber, nano tube, nano sheet, nano belt, nano ribbon, nano disc, or nano horn (Paragraph 0029, “The cathode active material is preferably in a form of nanoparticle (spherical, ellipsoidal, and irregular shape), nanowire, nanofiber, nanotube, nanosheet, nanobelt, nanoribbon, nanodisc, nanoplatelet, or nanohorn”). Additionally, in regard to the limitation which requires that the particle thickness or diameter is from 0.5 nm to 100 nm, Jang discloses a that their particles have a thickness or diameter less than 100 nm (Paragraph 0029, “having a thickness or diameter less than 100 nm.”). As this range encompasses the claimed range, it therefore constitutes a prima facie case of obviousness. "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding Claim 20, Jang makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Jang discloses structure wherein at least one of said primary cathode active material particles is coated with a layer of carbon or graphene (Paragraph 0072, “a cathode active material core 18 coated by a carbon or graphene layer 20”).
Regarding Claim 21, Jang makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Jang discloses structure wherein the particles of inorganic material comprise particles of an inorganic solid electrolyte material selected from a sulfide type (Li2S) (See paragraph 0093).
Regarding Claim 22, Jang makes obvious the invention as presented in regards to claim 1. Additionally, Jang discloses that the particles of inorganic material are selected from Li2CO3, Li2O, Li2C2O4, LiOH, LiX, ROCO2Li, HCOLi ROLi, (ROCO2Li)2, (CH2OCO2Li)2, Li2S, LixSOy, or a combination thereof, wherein X is F, Cl, I, or Br, and R is a hydrocarbon group and X is 0 to 1 and y is 0 to 4. (See paragraph 0093).
Regarding Claim 24, Jang makes obvious a powder mass comprising the multi-functional composite particulates of claim 1, where the particulates comprise primary particulates of a cathode active material (Paragraph 0044, “The disclosure also provides a method of producing a powder mass of a cathode active material for a lithium battery”).
Regarding Claim 25, Jang makes obvious a powder mass comprising the multi-functional composite particulates of claim 2 (Paragraph 0044, “The disclosure also provides a method of producing a powder mass of a cathode active material for a lithium battery”).
Regarding Claim 27, Jang makes obvious a battery cathode or positive electrode that comprises the multi-functional composite particulates of claim 1 as a cathode material (Paragraph 0039, “The present disclosure also provides a cathode electrode that contains the presently invented conducting network of cross-linked polymer chains-encapsulated cathode material particles”).
Regarding Claim 28, Jang makes obvious a battery comprising the multi-functional composite particulates of claim 1 as a cathode material (Paragraph 0039, “The present disclosure also provides a cathode electrode that contains the presently invented conducting network of cross-linked polymer chains-encapsulated cathode material particles”), wherein the battery is a lithium ion battery, a lithium metal battery, or a lithium-air battery (Paragraph 0043, “The lithium battery may be a lithium-ion battery, lithium metal battery (containing lithium metal or lithium alloy as the main anode active material and containing no intercalation-based anode active material), or lithium-air battery.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.
/J.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights