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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites that (emphasis added) “heat-resistant layers are disposed on two opposite surface of the substrate, and the adhesive layer is disposed on the heat-resistant layer.” Therefore, Claim 1 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear which of the heat-resistant “layers” the adhesive layer is disposed. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the adhesive layer is disposed on each respective heat-resistant layer.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "negative electrode." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6-7 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 6 recites that the heat-resistant layer comprises a ceramic, a heat-resistant polymer, and a binder. Claim 6 further recites mass proportions of said materials using the term “and/or.” However, Claim 6 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear if the heat-resistant layer (1) may only be required to comprise the ceramic, heat-resistant polymer, and binder, (2) may only be required to only satisfy one of the “or” statements (e.g. the heat-resistant layer is require to comprise a ceramic in a mass proportion of 5-20 wt%), or both (1) and (2).
Claims 8 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 8 recites that the adhesive layer comprises an adhesive polymer. Claim 8 further recites the identity and mass proportion of said adhesive polymer using the term “and/or.” However, Claim 8 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear if the adhesive layer (1) may only be required to comprise the adhesive polymer, (2) may only be required to only satisfy one of the “or” statements, or both (1) and (2).
Claims 11 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 11 recites amounts of “the” ethyl propionate and “the” lithium salt. However, Claim 11 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar Claims 1 and 9 do not recite the initial presence of such materials. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that Claim 11 depends from Claim 10 (given that Claim 10 first introduces ethyl propionate and a lithium salt).
Claim 14 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 14 recites that the additive further comprises another additive (i.e. the another additive must be present), “and/or” an addition amount of the another additive accounts for “0-10 wt%” of the claimed total mass. However, Claim 14 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear if the another additive is required to be present given that the addition amount of the another additive may be 0 wt%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (US 2018/0123106).
Regarding Claim 1, Shin teaches a separator used for a battery (Abstract, [0001]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Shin teaches that the separator (10) comprises a porous polymeric material (21) (“substrate”), porous coating layers (22) (“heat-resistant layers”), and an electrode bonding layer (30) (“adhesive layer”), wherein the porous coating layers are disposed on two opposite surfaces of the porous polymeric material, and wherein the electrode bonding layer is disposed on each respective porous coating layer ([0031]). In an embodiment (i.e. Example 1), Shin teaches that the bonding force between the electrode bonding layer and a negative electrode (“adhesive force”) (referred to by Shin as “electrode bonding force” in terms of gf/15 mm and indicative of the bonding force between the electrode bonding layer and the negative electrode) is 50 gf/15 mm (i.e. “A” = 50 gf/15 mm), and further that the bonding force between the porous coating layer and the porous polymeric material (“peel force”) (referred to by Shin as “bonding force of inorganic particles” in terms of gf/15 mm and indicative, at least in part, of the bonding force between the porous coating layer and the porous polymeric material) is 30 gf/15 mm (i.e. “B” = 30 gf/15 mm) ([0092], [0097]-[0098], Table 1). Therefore, a ratio of “A” to “B” in Shin is approximately 1.7 (“A/B is greater than 1”).
Regarding Claim 3, Shin teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Shin teaches that a thickness of a given porous coating layer is 1 micrometer ([0092]). Shin also teaches that a thickness of a given electrode bonding layer is 1 micrometer ([0092]).
Regarding Claim 5, Shin teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Shin teaches that the bonding force between the electrode bonding layer and a negative electrode is 50 gf/15 mm (i.e. 32.6 N/m) (“greater than or equal to 10 N/m”).
Regarding Claim 6, Shin teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
In the embodiment, Shin teaches that each porous coating layer comprises alumina (“ceramic”), a cyanoresin dispersant (“heat-resistant polymer,” especially given that the cyanoresin necessarily exhibits heat resistance to at least some degree and the instant Claim does not place any restrictions/definitions on what constitutes “heat-resistant”), and PVDF-HFP (“binder”) ([0092]).
In the embodiment, Shin also teaches that a given porous coating layer comprises 18 wt% of alumina ([0092]).
In the embodiment, Shin also teaches that a given porous coating layer comprises 1.7 wt% of PVDF-HFP ([0092]).
Regarding Claim 7, Shin teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 6, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 6), Shin teaches that each porous coating layer comprises alumina (“the ceramic is… aluminum oxide”).
Furthermore, and as previously descried (See Claim 6), Shin teaches that each porous coating layer comprises PVDF-HFP (“the binder is… a polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer”).
Regarding Claim 8, Shin teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
In the embodiment, Shin teaches that each electrode bonding layer comprises PVDF-HFP (“an adhesive polymer” and “the adhesive polymer is… a polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer”) and poly(butyl acrylate) (alternatively, “an adhesive polymer”).
In the embodiment, Shin also teaches that each electrode bonding layer comprises 80 wt% of PVDF-HFP ([0092]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2018/0123106), and further in view of Annaka et al. (US 2020/0280072).
Regarding Claim 2, Shin teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Shin does not explicitly teach an “A” to “B” ratio in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Annaka teaches a battery separator (Abstract, [0176]-[0177]). Annaka teaches that the peel strength (i.e. adhesive force) between the separator and a negative electrode (due to the presence of an adhesive layer positioned on the separator surface) is evaluated according to the standard that a larger peel strength (e.g. 1.5 N/m or more) provides for stronger adhesive characteristics between the separator and the negative electrode even upon electrolyte immersion ([0220]-[0224]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would further increase the bonding force between the electrode bonding layer and negative electrode of Shin (i.e. “A” in Shin) (for example, such that the instantly claimed A/B ratio is satisfied when also considering the “B” in Shin, as previously described) in order to help optimize the adhesive strength characteristics of the electrode bonding layer (e.g. increase strength characteristics with an increasing “A”), as taught by Annaka, especially given that such a modification would have involved only routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2018/0123106), and further in view of Yamasaki et al. (WO 2020/203908, using the machine translation provided herewith for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 4, Shin teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Shin does not explicitly teach a heat shrinkage in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Yamasaki teaches a separator for a secondary battery (Abstract). Yamasaki teaches that the separator comprises a porous substrate and a heat-resistant layer formed thereon such that a combined TD and MD heat shrinkage at 150°C after 1 hour is 6% or less ([0179]).Yamasaki teaches that such a low heat shrinkage helps provide for excellent thermal stability ([0179]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the separator of Shin such that each porous coating layer exhibits a combined TD and MD heat shrinkage at 150°C after 1 hour of 6% or less, as taught by Yamasaki, given that such a low heat shrinkage would help provide for excellent thermal stability. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong et al. (CN 113206296, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2018/0123106).
Regarding Claim 9, Xiong teaches a battery, wherein the battery is a secondary battery (e.g. a lithium-based secondary battery), wherein the battery comprises a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, a non-aqueous electrolyte solution, and a separator ([0001], [0068]-[0072], [0079]-[0080], [0084]).
Xiong teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte solution includes the following:
ethyl propionate present in an amount of 3-40 wt% of a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution ([0028], [0031]),
fluoroethylene carbonate present in an amount of 0.01-15 wt% of a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution ([0035]),
a boron-containing lithium salt in an amount of 0.01-1 wt% of a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution ([0055]), and
a lithium salt ([0065]).
Xiong does not explicitly teach that the separator is a separator according to Claim 1.
However, it is first noted that Xiong teaches that the material and shape of the separator used in the battery is not particularly limited ([0084]).
Furthermore, Shin teaches a separator used for a battery (Abstract, [0001]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Shin teaches that the separator (10) comprises a porous polymeric material (21) (“substrate”), porous coating layers (22) (“heat-resistant layers”), and an electrode bonding layer (30) (“adhesive layer”), wherein the porous coating layers are disposed on two opposite surfaces of the porous polymeric material, and wherein the electrode bonding layer is disposed on each respective porous coating layer ([0031]). In an embodiment (i.e. Example 1), Shin teaches that the bonding force between the electrode bonding layer and a negative electrode (“adhesive force”) (referred to by Shin as “electrode bonding force” in terms of gf/15 mm and indicative of the bonding force between the electrode bonding layer and the negative electrode) is 50 gf/15 mm (i.e. “A” = 50 gf/15 mm), and further that the bonding force between the porous coating layer and the porous polymeric material (“peel force”) (referred to by Shin as “bonding force of inorganic particles” in terms of gf/15 mm and indicative, at least in part, of the bonding force between the porous coating layer and the porous polymeric material) is 30 gf/15 mm (i.e. “B” = 30 gf/15 mm) ([0092], [0097]-[0098], Table 1). Therefore, a ratio of “A” to “B” in Shin is approximately 1.7 (“A/B is greater than 1”). Shin teaches that when utilized in an electrochemical element such as a secondary battery, the separator helps provide for enhanced output and life characteristics ([0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use, as the separator in Xiong, the separator disclosed by Shin (“a separator according to Claim 1”), given not only because Xiong already teaches that the material and shape of the separator used in the battery is not particularly limited, but also because the separator disclosed by Shin would specifically help enhance life and output characteristics of the battery.
Regarding Claim 10, Xiong, as modified by Shin, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 9, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 9), the battery comprises the positive electrode plate, the negative electrode plate, and the non-aqueous electrolyte solution, wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprises ethyl propionate (“non-aqueous organic solvent” which comprises “ethyl propionate”), fluoroethylene carbonate (“additive”), a boron-containing lithium salt (alternatively, “additive”), and a lithium salt (“lithium salt”).
Regarding Claim 11, Xiong, as modified by Shin, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 10, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 9), the ethyl propionate is present in an amount of 3-40 wt% of a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 12, Xiong teaches a battery, wherein the battery is a secondary battery (e.g. a lithium-based secondary battery), wherein the battery comprises a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, a non-aqueous electrolyte solution, and a separator ([0001], [0068]-[0072], [0079]-[0080], [0084]).
Xiong teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte solution includes the following:
ethyl propionate present in an amount of 3-40 wt% of a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution, ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, and propyl propionate (collectively interpreted as a “non-aqueous organic solvent” which comprises “ethyl propionate”) ([0028], [0031]),
fluoroethylene carbonate present in an amount of 0.01-15 wt% of a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution alongside a boron-containing lithium salt in an amount of 0.01-1 wt% of a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution (the fluoroethylene carbonate and boron-containing lithium salt, collectively, are interpreted as an “additive” which comprises a “carbonate compound” in the form of the fluoroethylene carbonate) ([0035], [0055]), and
a lithium salt ([0065]).
Xiong does not explicitly teach that the separator is a separator according to Claim 1.
However, it is first noted that Xiong teaches that the material and shape of the separator used in the battery is not particularly limited ([0084]).
Furthermore, Shin teaches a separator used for a battery (Abstract, [0001]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Shin teaches that the separator (10) comprises a porous polymeric material (21) (“substrate”), porous coating layers (22) (“heat-resistant layers”), and an electrode bonding layer (30) (“adhesive layer”), wherein the porous coating layers are disposed on two opposite surfaces of the porous polymeric material, and wherein the electrode bonding layer is disposed on each respective porous coating layer ([0031]). In an embodiment (i.e. Example 1), Shin teaches that the bonding force between the electrode bonding layer and a negative electrode (“adhesive force”) (referred to by Shin as “electrode bonding force” in terms of gf/15 mm and indicative of the bonding force between the electrode bonding layer and the negative electrode) is 50 gf/15 mm (i.e. “A” = 50 gf/15 mm), and further that the bonding force between the porous coating layer and the porous polymeric material (“peel force”) (referred to by Shin as “bonding force of inorganic particles” in terms of gf/15 mm and indicative, at least in part, of the bonding force between the porous coating layer and the porous polymeric material) is 30 gf/15 mm (i.e. “B” = 30 gf/15 mm) ([0092], [0097]-[0098], Table 1). Therefore, a ratio of “A” to “B” in Shin is approximately 1.7 (“A/B is greater than 1”). Shin teaches that when utilized in an electrochemical element such as a secondary battery, the separator helps provide for enhanced output and life characteristics ([0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use, as the separator in Xiong, the separator disclosed by Shin (“a separator according to Claim 1”), given not only because Xiong already teaches that the material and shape of the separator used in the battery is not particularly limited, but also because the separator disclosed by Shin would specifically help enhance life and output characteristics of the battery.
Regarding Claim 13, Xiong, as modified by Shin, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 12, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 12), the ethyl propionate is present in an amount of 3-40 wt% of a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Also, and as previously described (See Claim 12), the fluoroethylene carbonate is present in an amount of 0.01-15 wt% of a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 14, Xiong, as modified by Shin, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 12, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 12), the additive further comprises the boron-containing lithium salt (“the additive further comprises another additive”). In particular, Xiong teaches that the boron-containing lithium salt lithium bis(oxalate)borate and/or lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate ([0055]).
Regarding Claim 15, Xiong, as modified by Shin, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 12, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 12), the non-aqueous organic solvent further comprises ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, and propyl propionate.
Regarding Claim 16, Xiong, as modified by Shin, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 12, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 12), the ratio of “A” to “B” is approximately 1.7.
Regarding Claim 17, Xiong teaches a battery, wherein the battery is a secondary battery (e.g. a lithium-based secondary battery), wherein the battery comprises a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, a non-aqueous electrolyte solution, and a separator ([0001], [0068]-[0072], [0079]-[0080], [0084]).
Xiong teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte solution includes the following:
ethyl propionate present in an amount of 3-40 wt% of a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution, ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, and propyl propionate (collectively interpreted as a “non-aqueous organic solvent” which comprises “ethyl propionate”) ([0028], [0031]),
a polynitrile compound (“additive” which comprises “a nitrile group”) in an amount of 0.001-10 wt% of a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution, and
a lithium salt ([0065]).
Xiong does not explicitly teach that the separator is a separator according to Claim 1.
However, it is first noted that Xiong teaches that the material and shape of the separator used in the battery is not particularly limited ([0084]).
Furthermore, Shin teaches a separator used for a battery (Abstract, [0001]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Shin teaches that the separator (10) comprises a porous polymeric material (21) (“substrate”), porous coating layers (22) (“heat-resistant layers”), and an electrode bonding layer (30) (“adhesive layer”), wherein the porous coating layers are disposed on two opposite surfaces of the porous polymeric material, and wherein the electrode bonding layer is disposed on each respective porous coating layer ([0031]). In an embodiment (i.e. Example 1), Shin teaches that the bonding force between the electrode bonding layer and a negative electrode (“adhesive force”) (referred to by Shin as “electrode bonding force” in terms of gf/15 mm and indicative of the bonding force between the electrode bonding layer and the negative electrode) is 50 gf/15 mm (i.e. “A” = 50 gf/15 mm), and further that the bonding force between the porous coating layer and the porous polymeric material (“peel force”) (referred to by Shin as “bonding force of inorganic particles” in terms of gf/15 mm and indicative, at least in part, of the bonding force between the porous coating layer and the porous polymeric material) is 30 gf/15 mm (i.e. “B” = 30 gf/15 mm) ([0092], [0097]-[0098], Table 1). Therefore, a ratio of “A” to “B” in Shin is approximately 1.7 (“A/B is greater than 1”). Shin teaches that when utilized in an electrochemical element such as a secondary battery, the separator helps provide for enhanced output and life characteristics ([0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use, as the separator in Xiong, the separator disclosed by Shin (“a separator according to Claim 1”), given not only because Xiong already teaches that the material and shape of the separator used in the battery is not particularly limited, but also because the separator disclosed by Shin would specifically help enhance life and output characteristics of the battery.
Regarding Claim 18, Xiong, as modified by Shin, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 17, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 17), the ethyl propionate is present in an amount of 3-40 wt% of a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Also, and as previously described (See Claim 17), the polynitrile compound is present in an amount of 0.001-10 wt% of a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 19, Xiong, as modified by Shin, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 17, as previously described.
Furthermore, Xiong teaches that the polynitrile compound may glutaronitrile and/or adiponitrile (along with a plurality of the other instantly claimed compounds) ([0047]).
Regarding Claim 20, Xiong, as modified by Shin, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 17, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 17), the ratio of “A” to “B” is approximately 1.7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights