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 . 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because it presents a plurality of elements without the required separation by line indentation. 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i); see also M.P.E.P. § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-16, and 18 are objected to because they recite ratios as both “x to y” and “x-y.” Applicant is advised to choose one format and use it consistently throughout all of the claims.
Claims 3, 6, and 7 are objected to because Applicant recites both “(meth)acrylic acid” and “methacrylic acid” in the claims. Applicant is advised to choose one format and use it consistently throughout all of the claims.
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 1-19 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 the limitation “using a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution as a reference, a content of the lithium salt is B1 mol/L,” rendering the claims indefinite. Particularly, it is unclear how a ratio of Avogadro’s number per units of volume is related to the weight of the solution.
Claim 1 also recites that the ratio of the termination tape area A in cm2 to the lithium salt content B1 in the electrolyte in mol/L is “2-20” and ratio of the termination tape area A in cm2 to the width of the positive electrode plate C in cm is “1 to 3,” rendering the claims indefinite. Specifically, the recited ranges are unitless. When calculating the ratio of A to B1 the resulting units are
c
m
2
m
o
l
L
or
c
m
2
·
L
m
o
l
and when calculating the ratio of A to C the resulting units are cm. The lack of units makes it unclear if Applicant has performed additional operations beyond comparing the recited values to arrive at the claimed ratios or has merely ignored the units of measure for each compared value. For the purposes of examination the ranges will be interpreted as reciting the appropriate units for each claimed ratio.
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 M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation 1 mol/L to 6 mol/L, and the claim also recites 1.5 mol/L to 3 mol/L which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 10 recites the broad recitation 0.1 wt% to 3 wt%, and the claim also recites 0.2 wt% to 1 wt%, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 12 recites the broad recitation 5 wt% to 30 wt%, and the claim also recites 5 wt% to 10 wt%, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 14 recites the broad recitation 0.1 wt% to 3 wt%, and the claim also recites 0.2 wt% to 1 wt%, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 1 recites the broad recitation 0.5 wt% to 3 wt%, and the claim also recites 1 wt% to 2 wt%, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language are: (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required; or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as reciting the first, broader range only.
Claims 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 18 recite the limitation "the electrolyte additive" in line 1 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites that the ratio of the termination tape area A in cm2 to the content of lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate B3 in wt% is “5-200,” rendering the claim indefinite. Specifically, the recited range is unitless. When calculating the ratio of A to B3 the resulting units are
c
m
2
w
t
%
. The lack of units makes it unclear if Applicant has performed additional operations beyond comparing the recited values to arrive at the claimed ratios or has merely ignored the units of measure for each compared value. For the purposes of examination the range will be interpreted as reciting the appropriate units for the claimed ratio.
Claim 11 recites that the ratio of the termination tape area A in cm2 to the content of fluoroethylene carbonate B2 in wt% is “0.5-5,” rendering the claim indefinite. Specifically, the recited range is unitless. When calculating the ratio of A to B2 the resulting units are
c
m
2
w
t
%
. The lack of units makes it unclear if Applicant has performed additional operations beyond comparing the recited values to arrive at the claimed ratios or has merely ignored the units of measure for each compared value. For the purposes of examination the range will be interpreted as reciting the appropriate units for the claimed ratio.
Claim 13 recites that the ratio of the termination tape area A in cm2 to the content of lithium difluoro phosphate B4 in wt% is “5-200,” rendering the claim indefinite. Specifically, the recited range is unitless. When calculating the ratio of A to B4 the resulting units are
c
m
2
w
t
%
. The lack of units makes it unclear if Applicant has performed additional operations beyond comparing the recited values to arrive at the claimed ratios or has merely ignored the units of measure for each compared value. For the purposes of examination the range will be interpreted as reciting the appropriate units for the claimed ratio.
Claim 15 recites that the ratio of the termination tape area A in cm2 to the content of 1,2-bis(cyanoethoxy)ethane and/or 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane B56 in wt% is “2-40,” rendering the claim indefinite. Specifically, the recited range is unitless. When calculating the ratio of A to B56 the resulting units are
c
m
2
w
t
%
. The lack of units makes it unclear if Applicant has performed additional operations beyond comparing the recited values to arrive at the claimed ratios or has merely ignored the units of measure for each compared value. For the purposes of examination the range will be interpreted as reciting the appropriate units for the claimed ratio.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oura et al. (US 2018/0131034 A1), hereinafter “Oura.”
Regarding claim 1, Oura discloses a battery comprising:
a positive electrode plate (¶ [0059], Fig. 4, ref. no. 10);
a negative electrode plate (¶ [0059], Fig. 4, ref. no. 20);
a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (¶ [0055]); and
a separator (¶ [0057] & [0059], Fig. 4, ref. no. 30);
wherein:
the non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprises a non-aqueous organic solvent and a lithium salt (¶ [0055]-[0056]); and
a termination tape of the positive electrode plate, in this case the insulating tape (¶ [0040], Figs. 1 & 2, ref. no. 14), is disposed at a past coating tail of the positive electrode plate, in this case the exposed portion (¶ [0039], Fig. 2, ref. no. 11a).
Oura further discloses the lithium content of the non-aqueous electrolyte B1 in terms of mol/L (¶ [0056]) and the dimensions of the termination tape A and positive electrode plate C (¶ [0039]-[0041], Fig. 1), but is silent as to the ratios of A:B1 and A:C. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the battery and its components appropriately in order to provide sufficient electrical power to the desired load (see ¶ [0083]). Furthermore, the electrolyte loading would remain the same in terms of the number of moles per volume regardless of the size of the battery. Thus any changes in the claimed ratios are merely changes in the relative dimensions of the termination tape and positive electrode plate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected the dimensions of the battery components in order to provide sufficient electrical power to the intended load.
Regarding claim 2, Oura further teaches that:
the termination tape area A is 3 cm2 to 120 cm2, in this case the insulating tape covers the entire exposed portion (¶ [0040], Fig. 1, ref. nos. 14 & 11a) which may have an area of 0.3 cm2 to 12 cm2 (¶ 0039])1; and
the width C of the positive electrode plate is 1 cm to 120 cm, in this case the length D of the electrode lead is 10 mm to 60 mm and is 5% to 100% the width L (¶ [0039]) which results in an positive electrode width of 20 cm to 120 cm2.
Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Oura further discloses that the termination layer comprises:
a substrate (¶ [0040], Fig. 3, ref.no. 14a); and
a termination adhesive layer coated on the substrate surface (¶ [0040], Fig. 3, ref. no. 14b);
wherein the termination adhesive layer is a rubber adhesive layer or a (meth)acrylic acid termination layer, in this case the adhesive layer contains an acrylic resin or a butyl rubber (¶ [0006]).
Regarding claim 8, Oura further teaches that B1 ranges from 1 mol/L to 6 mol/L, in this case preferably 0.7 mol/L to 1.5 mol/L (¶ [0056]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Oura is silent as to the cut-off voltage. However, the battery taught by Oura would possess the same cut-off voltage because it possesses a similar battery chemistry, electrolyte lithium salt loading, and other similarities.
Regarding claim 20, Oura further discloses a secondary lithium-ion battery (¶ [0030]).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oura as applied to claim 3, above, and further in view of Nishino et al (US 2020/0373582 A1), hereinafter “Nishino.”
Regarding claim 4, Oura discloses that the adhesive includes a rubber, but does not disclose the cross-linked modified rubber. However, Nishino teaches an adhesive comprising an acrylic resin or a rubber such as butyl rubber and a cross-linking agent (¶ [0040]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the butyl rubber with a cross-linking agent taught by Nishino for the rubber disclosed by Oura would have yielded the predictable result of an adhesive suitable for use in a battery. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted butyl rubber and cross-linking agent for the rubber in order to yield the predictable result of an adhesive suitable for use in a battery. Additionally, the limitation “obtained by cross-linking modification of a first base under an action of a first cross-linking agent; and the first base is selected from at least one of a natural rubber, styrene-butadiene rubber, polyisobutylene rubber, butyl rubber, or nitrile rubber” is a product-by-process limitation. Applicant is reminded that “‘even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).” M.P.E.P. § 2113 I. Here. Oura and Nishino teach all of the positively-recited structural limitations of the claim, thereby rendering it obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Oura discloses that the adhesive includes a (meth)acrylic acid, but does not disclose the cross-linked modified (meth)acrylic acid. However, Nishino teaches an adhesive comprising an acrylic resin or a rubber such as butyl rubber and a cross-linking agent (¶ [0040]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the (meth)acrylic with a cross-linking agent taught by Nishino for the acrylic resin disclosed by Oura would have yielded the predictable result of an adhesive suitable for use in a battery. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted (meth)acrylic and cross-linking agent for the acrylic resin in order to yield the predictable result of an adhesive suitable for use in a battery. Additionally, the limitation “obtained by cross-linking modification of a second base under an action of a second cross-linking agent; and the second base is selected from at least one of a natural rubber, styrene-butadiene rubber, polyisobutylene rubber, butyl rubber, or nitrile rubber” is a product-by-process limitation. Applicant is reminded that “‘even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).” M.P.E.P. § 2113 I. Here. Oura and Nishino teach all of the positively-recited structural limitations of the claim, thereby rendering it obvious.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oura and Nishino as applied to claim 4, above, and further in view of Yushin et al. (US 2015/0325882 A1), hereinafter “Yushin.”
Regarding claim 5, neither Oura nor Nishino specify the cross-linking agent. However, Yushin teaches that cross-linked electrolyte solvents such as vinylene carbonate promote lithium ion diffusion (¶ [0059]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing vinylene carbonate as the cross-linking agent would have imbued this property to the termination tape, thus allowing lithium ions to move freely to and from the electrode structure and in turn facilitating improved battery performance. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine amount of cross-linking agent to include in order to achieve the desired effect of promoting such lithium ion transport. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included 0.5 wt% to 5 wt% vinylene carbonate as the cross-linking agent in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 7, neither Oura nor Nishino specify the cross-linking agent. However, Yushin teaches that cross-linked electrolyte solvents such as vinylene carbonate promote lithium ion diffusion (¶ [0059]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing vinylene carbonate as the cross-linking agent would have imbued this property to the termination tape, thus allowing lithium ions to move freely to and from the electrode structure and in turn facilitating improved battery performance. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine amount of cross-linking agent to include in order to achieve the desired effect of promoting such lithium ion transport. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included 0.5 wt% to 5 wt% vinylene carbonate as the cross-linking agent in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Claims 9-14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oura as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2023/0178811 A1), hereinafter “Park.”
Regarding claim 9, Oura does not disclose the electrolyte additive. However, Park teaches lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiODFB) as an electrolyte additive (¶ [0035]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that such a lithium salt-based additive would have acted as an ion transporter within the battery (see ¶ [0035]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included LiODFB as an electrolyte additive in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Oura and Park are silent as to the ratios of A:B3. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the battery and its components appropriately in order to provide sufficient electrical power to the desired load (see Oura ¶ [0083]). Furthermore, the electrolyte additive loading would remain the same in terms of the wt% regardless of the size of the battery. Thus any changes in the claimed ratios are merely changes in the relative dimensions of the termination tape. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected the dimensions of the battery components in order to provide sufficient electrical power to the intended load.
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches the additive as set forth in the rejection of claim 9, above, and further teaches that the content of LiODFB is 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% (¶ [0036]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that such a lithium salt-based additive would have acted as an ion transporter within the battery (see ¶ [0035]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included 0.1 wt% to 3 wt% LiODFB as an electrolyte additive in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 11, Oura does not disclose the electrolyte additive. However, Park teaches fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) as an electrolyte additive (¶ [0046]-[0047]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such an additive would have suppressed side reactions at the electrodes (¶ [0044]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included FEC as an electrolyte additive in order to have facilitated improved battery operation. Oura and Park are silent as to the ratios of A:B2. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the battery and its components appropriately in order to provide sufficient electrical power to the desired load (see Oura ¶ [0083]). Furthermore, the electrolyte additive loading would remain the same in terms of the wt% regardless of the size of the battery. Thus any changes in the claimed ratios are merely changes in the relative dimensions of the termination tape. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected the dimensions of the battery components in order to provide sufficient electrical power to the intended load.
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches the additive as set forth in the rejection of claim 11, above, and further teaches that the content of FEC is 5 wt% to 30 wt% (¶ [0049]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such a loading of FEC would have suppressed side reactions at the electrodes (¶ [0044]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included 5 wt% to 30 wt% FEC as an electrolyte additive in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 13, Oura does not disclose the electrolyte additive. However, Park teaches lithium difluoro phosphate (LiODFP) as an electrolyte additive (¶ [0035]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that such a lithium salt-based additive would have acted as an ion transporter within the battery (see ¶ [0035]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included LiODFP as an electrolyte additive in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Oura and Park are silent as to the ratios of A:B4. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the battery and its components appropriately in order to provide sufficient electrical power to the desired load (see Oura ¶ [0083]). Furthermore, the electrolyte additive loading would remain the same in terms of the wt% regardless of the size of the battery. Thus any changes in the claimed ratios are merely changes in the relative dimensions of the termination tape. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected the dimensions of the battery components in order to provide sufficient electrical power to the intended load.
Regarding claim 14, Park teaches the additive as set forth in the rejection of claim 13, above, and further teaches that the content of LiODFP is 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% (¶ [0036]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that such a lithium salt-based additive would have acted as an ion transporter within the battery (see ¶ [0035]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included 0.1 wt% to 3 wt% LiODFB as an electrolyte additive in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 17, Oura does not disclose the electrolyte additives. However, Park teaches a first electrolyte additive selected from LiODFB and LiODFP (¶ [0035]) and FEC as a second electrolyte additive (¶ [0046]-[0047]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that the first additive would have acted as an ion transporter within the battery (see ¶ [0035]) and the second additive would have suppressed side reactions at the electrodes (¶ [0044]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore it would have been obvious to have provided at least one of LiODFB and LiODFP with FEC as electrolyte additives in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 18, Oura does not disclose the electrolyte additive and does not specify the organic solvent. However, Park teaches a battery comprising:
an electrolyte additive selected from LiODFB (¶ [0035]), LiODFP (¶ [0035]), and vinyl ethylene carbonate (VEC) (¶[0047]);
where the total weight of the electrolyte additive is 0 wt% to 10 wt%, in this case 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% for LiODFB and LiODFP (¶ [0036]) and 5 wt% to 30 wt% for VEC; and
an organic solvent selected from propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, methyl propyl carbonate, dipropyl carbonate, fluoro-ethylene carbonate, dimethyl sulfoxide, acetonitrile, dimethoxyethane, diethoxyethane, and vinylene carbonate (¶ [0057]).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including the additives would have acted as an ion transporter within the battery (see ¶ [0035]) or suppressed side reactions at the electrodes (¶ [0044]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing such well known carbonate solvents would have yielded the predictable result of a functional battery. Lastly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided the organic carbonate solvent to have yielded the predictable result of a functional battery and the electrolyte additive in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oura as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Wen et al. (US 2021/0328268 A1), hereinafter “Wen.”
Regarding claim 15, Oura does not disclose the electrolyte additive. However, Wen teaches that 1,2-bis(cyanoethoxy)ethane and 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane may be used as electrolyte additives (¶ [0098]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such an additive in the electrolyte would have enhanced lithium ion battery cycle performance (¶ [0153]), thereby facilitating improved battery performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included an additive selected from 1,2-bis(cyanoethoxy)ethane and 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 16, Wen teaches the electrolyte additive as set forth in the rejection of claim 15, above, and further teaches that it is provided in an amount of 2 wt% to 4 wt% (¶ [0099]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including the additive in the electrolyte at this loading would have enhanced lithium ion battery cycle performance (¶ [0153]), thereby facilitating improved battery performance. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided 1,2-bis(cyanoethoxy)ethane or 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane at 0.5 wt% to 3 wt% in order to have facilitated improved battery performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 For disclosed ranges: minimum area = W x L = 3 mm x 10 mm = 30 mm2 = 0.3 cm2; and maximum area = W x L = 20 mm x 60 mm = 1,200 mm2 = 12 cm2.
2 If D = 0.05L then 200 mm ≤ L ≤ 1,200 mm or 20 cm ≤ L ≤ 120 cm.
Prosecution Insights