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 Interpretation
The specification and claims refer to “powders” (plural). However, the specification never discloses multiple types of powder. The term “powders” as used throughout the specification and claims is understood to mean “powder” (i.e. at least one type of powder). Thus, “iron powders” as recited in claim 1 is understood to mean powder containing iron.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the saccharides” which is understood to mean that the claim includes the limitation that the carbon source recited in claim 4 is required to be selected from a saccharide.
Claim 7 is understood to require the carbon source to be selected from fructose, glucose, galactose, maltose, sucrose, or lactose
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the polymeric material is polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP)” which is understood to mean that the carbon source recited in claim 4 is required to comprise polyvinylpyrrolidone.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “claims 1” in line 2 which should be changed to “claim 1” and claim 5 recites “claims 2” in line 2 which should be changed to “claim 2”.
Claim 10 recites “revolution per minute” in line 4 which should be changed to “revolutions per minute”.
Claim 10 recites “ranges” in line 7 and “ranges” in line 8 and these should be changed to “range”.
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 4-8 and 10-11 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.
Claims 4-5 recite “a-FePO4·xH2O” it’s unclear what is meant by “a-“ in the term and it is recommended to change this to “FePO4·xH2O”. The specification does not appear to disclose the meaning of “a-“ and it’s unclear if it is meant to be read as “a FePO4·xH2O” or something else.
Claims 6-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 4.
Claim 10 recites “the powder” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is in reference to iron powders as recited in claim 1 or another powder. It is noted that “a powder” is introduced in claim 9 which is not in the dependency chain of claim 10.
Claim 11 recites “the rotating speed” in line 4, “the inlet temperature” in line 5, “the outlet temperature” in line 6, “the calcination temperature” in line 7 and “the powder” in line 7 which all lack antecedent basis. It is noted that the rotary disk spray dryer with “a rotating speed”, “an inlet temperature”, and “an outlet temperature” and “a calcination temperature” are introduced in claim 10 and “a powder” is introduced in claim 9, while claim 11 is dependent on claim 8.
Claim 11 recites “the average particle size (D50) of the first product” in line 2. It is noted that grinding of the first product is introduced in claim 9 which is not in the dependency chain of claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yong et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 108376769A).
Regarding claim 12, Yong et al. discloses a preparation method of a battery composite material
(lithium-ion battery composite positive electrode material, Abstract), comprising steps of: reacting a precursor, with a chemical formula of FePO4 (para. [0012]), with a first reactant containing lithium atoms (Li2CO3, para. [0012]) and a carbon source containing carbon atoms (stearic acid, para. [0012]), thereby forming a battery composite material with a chemical formula of LiFePO4 (LiFePO4 cathode material, para. [0012]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okada et al. (US 20060127750).
Regarding claim 13, Okada et al. discloses a preparation method of a precursor for a battery composite material (a method for producing a cathode material for a lithium battery, Abstract), comprising steps of: reacting a compound capable of releasing a phosphate ion (phosphoric acid, para. [0056]) with iron powders (para. [0056]) to produce a first product in a slurry form (iron powder and water mixing would form a slurry, para. [0056]); and forming a precursor via grinding (ground in ball mill, para. [0056]), drying (para. [0056]), and calcining (para. [0056]), wherein the precursor has a chemical formula of FePO4 (para. [0056]).
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Applicant disclosed non-patent literature titled “Preparation of LiFePO4/C Cathode Materials via a Green Synthesis Route for Lithium-Ion Battery Applications”) in view of Okada et al. (US 20060127750) and Ren et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 101693532A).
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. discloses a preparation method of a battery composite material (used as cathode material in lithium-ion batteries, Abstract), comprising steps of: step 1: reacting a compound capable of releasing a phosphate ion with iron powders (“chemical reaction of Fe2O3 powder with H3PO4 solution”, page 2, section 2.1) to produce a first product in a slurry form (slurry in that the powder is mixed in liquid: “added into 20 mL deionized water in a flask followed by ultrasonic dispersion for 30 min”, page 2, section 2.1); step 2: forming a precursor via grinding (“mixed slurries were transferred into a ball mill”, page 2, section 2.1), drying (“then dried in a blast drying box”, page 2, section 2.1), wherein the precursor has a chemical formula of FePO4 (page 3, section 2.1); and step 3: reacting the precursor with a first reactant containing lithium atoms and a carbon source containing carbon atoms (FePO4·2H2O precursor and Li2CO3 were added into water-dissolved glucose, page 3, section 2.1) to form a battery composite material with a chemical formula of LiFePO4 (LiFePO4/carbon composite, page 3, section 2.1).
Liu et al. does not explicitly disclose calcining.
However, Okada et al. discloses a method for producing a cathode material for a lithium-ion battery (para. [0001]) where iron powder is reacted with a compound capable of releasing phosphate ion (phosphoric acid, para. [0056]) forming a precursor which is ground and dried to obtain a calcination precursor (para. [0056]) and Okada et al. further teaches calcination where air or oxygen is directly introduced (para. [0056]).
Similarly, Ren et al. discloses a method for producing a cathode material (para. [0002]) for a lithium-ion battery (Abstract) and teaches calcining a first product (FePO4·2H2O) in air (heating to 550⁰ C in air atmosphere, para. [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Liu et al. wherein the method includes calcining wherein air or oxygen is directly introduced during calcining.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to undergo calcination in order to achieve a trigonal crystal structure (Okada et al., pars. [0026] and [0056]) or to remove excess solvent/moisture or volatiles to form anhydrous FePO4 (Ren et al., para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 4, Liu et al. discloses wherein the compound is a phosphoric acid (page 2, section 2.1), and the chemical formula of the first product is a-FePO4·xH2O, wherein x is greater than zero (FePO4·2H2O, page 2, section 2.1) the first reactant is selected from lithium carbonate (Li2CO3), lithium hydroxide (LiOH), or a mixture containing lithium compounds (lithium carbonate, page 2, section 2.1); and the carbon source is selected from saccharides, organic compounds, polymers, or polymeric materials (glucose [a monosaccharide and organic compound], page 2, section 2.1).
Regarding claim 6, Liu et al. discloses wherein the saccharides are selected from monosaccharides or disaccharides (monosaccharide: glucose, page 2, section 2.1).
Regarding claim 7, Liu et al. discloses wherein the monosaccharides are selected from fructose, glucose, or galactose; the disaccharides are selected from maltose, sucrose, or lactose (monosaccharide: glucose, page 2, section 2.1).
Claims 2-3, 5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Applicant disclosed non-patent literature titled “Preparation of LiFePO4/C Cathode Materials via a Green Synthesis Route for Lithium-Ion Battery Applications”) in view of Okada et al. (US 20060127750) and Ren et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 101693532A) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Yu et al. (US 20150030517) and Shirakata et al. (US 20060216605).
Regarding claim 2, Liu et al. does not expressly disclose that a metal oxide is added in step 3.
However, Yu et al. discloses a preparation method of a battery composite material (Abstract) using a compound capable of releasing phosphate ion (phosphoric acid, para. [0024]), iron powder, a carbon source, and a reactant containing lithium atoms (lithium hydroxide or lithium carbonate, para. [0024]) where the composite material has a chemical formula LiFePO4 (para. [0027]) and Yu et al. teaches adding a metal oxide (para. [0027]).
Similarly, Shirakata et al. discloses a battery composite material having a chemical formula LiFePO4 (para. [0012]) and teaches adding metal oxide (pars. [0012]-[0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Liu et al. wherein in step 3, a metal oxide is added to react with the precursor, the first reactant, and the carbon source, forming a LiFePO4 battery composite material that incorporates a metal oxide.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a metal oxide in order to improve performance (Shirakata et al., pars. [0013]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 3, Liu et al. discloses olivine-type (“the lattice fringes corresponding to the
(011) crystal plane demonstrate the formation of olivine-type LiFePO4”, Section 3, page 6), but does not expressly disclose lithium iron phosphate nano co-crystalline olivine.
However, Yu et al. further teaches adding the metal oxide to LiFePO4 in order to generate lithium iron phosphate nano co-crystalline olivine (LFP-NCO) (para. [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Liu et al. wherein the battery composite material is lithium iron phosphate nano co-crystalline olivine (LFP-NCO).
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to produce LFP-NCO in order to manufacture batteries which are safer, more cost effective, less polluting and have improved power conductivity (Yu et al., para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 5, Liu et al. discloses wherein the compound is a phosphoric acid (page 2, section 2.1), and the chemical formula of the first product is a-FePO4·xH2O, wherein x is greater than zero (FePO4·2H2O, page 2, section 2.1) the first reactant is selected from lithium carbonate (Li2CO3), lithium hydroxide (LiOH), or a mixture containing lithium compounds (lithium carbonate, page 2, section 2.1); and the carbon source is selected from saccharides, organic compounds, polymers, or polymeric materials (glucose [a monosaccharide and organic compound], page 2, section 2.1).
Regarding claim 8, Liu et al. does not disclose polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP).
However, Yu et al. further teaches using carbon sources including a carbohydrate, an organic compound, a polymer or a macromolecule material (para. [0011]) and further teaches that the carbon source may be polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) (para. [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Liu et al. wherein the polymeric material is polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP).
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use polyvinylpyrrolidone as a known carbon source for battery composite material in order to improve performance. Regarding claim 9, Liu et al. discloses grinding down the particle using a ball mill (page 2, section 2.1).
Insomuch as Liu et al. does not expressly disclose grinding until the average particle size (D50) of the first product is less than 5 micrometers (μm); Yu et al. further teaches grinding until the average particle size is less than 1 micrometer (para. [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Liu et al. wherein step 2 further comprises: grinding the first product until the average particle size (D50) of the first product is less than 5 micrometers (μm).
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to grind the particle size to less than 5 μm in order to improve performance (Ren et al., “the smaller the particle size and the faster the lithium ion diffusion rate, the higher the specific discharge capacity of LiFePO4 under the condition of high current”, para. [0002]).
Liu et al. does not expressly disclose the drying (page 2, section 2.1) is spray drying.
However, Yu et al. further discloses spray drying is used as a drying method (para. [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Liu et al. wherein step 2 further comprises spray drying the first product that has been ground to form a powder.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known drying method to produce the expected result of efficient drying of powders used to produce battery composite material.
The combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 1 further disclose introducing air or oxygen (Ren et al., para. [0007] or Okada et al., para. [0056]) to calcine the powder to form the precursor.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Applicant disclosed non-patent literature titled “Preparation of LiFePO4/C Cathode Materials via a Green Synthesis Route for Lithium-Ion Battery Applications”) in view of Okada et al. (US 20060127750) and Ren et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 101693532A) as applied to claim 7 above and in further view of Yu et al. (US 2015030517), Ishii (US 20150125755), and Kawakami (US 20100047691).
Regarding claim 10, Liu et al. does not disclose a rotating speed for grinding/milling.
However, Yu et al. discloses a preparation method of a battery composite material (Abstract) using a compound capable of releasing phosphate ion (phosphoric acid, para. [0024]), iron powder, a carbon source, and a reactant containing lithium atoms (lithium hydroxide or lithium carbonate, para. [0024]) where the composite material has a chemical formula LiFePO4 (para. [0027]) and Yu et al. further teaches a first product is ground at a rotating speed of 450 to 650 revolutions per minute (rpm) (para. [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Liu et al. wherein the first product is ground at a rotating speed of 450 to 650 revolutions per minute (rpm).
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select a grinding method which can produce small particle size, such as 1 μm (Yu et al., para. [0033]).
Liu et al. does not appear to disclose spray drying.
However, Yu et al. further teaches performing spray drying with a rotary disk spray dryer (para. [0034]), wherein the rotary disk spray dryer includes: an inlet temperature range from 180° C. to 230° C. (210⁰ C, para. [0034]); an outlet temperature range from 80° C. to 100° C (“-95⁰ C”, para. [0034], presumed to be a typo for 95⁰ C); and a rotating speed frequency of the rotary disk spray dryer at 350 Hz (para. [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Liu et al. wherein the method includes performing spray drying with a rotary disk spray dryer, wherein the rotary disk spray dryer includes: an inlet temperature ranges from 180° C. to 230° C.; an outlet temperature ranges from 80° C. to 100° C.; and a rotating speed frequency of the rotary disk spray dryer at 350 Hz.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known drying device, such as a spray dryer with a rotary disk, operating at known ranges in order to achieve the predictable result of efficient drying of powders used to produce battery composite material.
Assuming, arguendo, that the -95⁰ C outlet temperature taught by Yu et al. is not a typo for 95⁰ C; Ishii teaches a method of preparation of an electrode composite material (Abstract) and further teaches using rotary disk spray drying and further teaches a 90⁰ C outlet temperature (para. [0137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Liu et al. wherein an outlet temperature ranges from 80° C to 100° C.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select an outlet temperature from 80° C to 100° C in order to achieve the predictable result of drying particles for recovery.
Liu et al. does not expressly disclose a calcination temperature.
However, Kawakami discloses an electrode material (para. [0013]) which may include LiFePO4 (para. [0014]) and where the material is calcined at 600⁰ C or above for 30 minutes or longer and which may be conducted in air or oxygen (para. [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Liu et al. wherein a calcination temperature of the powder ranges from 550° C. to 700° C, and a calcination time ranges from 30 minutes to 1.5 hours.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected a temperature in the range of 550° C. to 700° C and a time ranging from 30 minutes to 1.5 hours in order to achieve the predictable result of removing solvent/moisture and/or volatiles from the material.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Liu et al. in view of Kawakami overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003) and MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Applicant disclosed non-patent literature titled “Preparation of LiFePO4/C Cathode Materials via a Green Synthesis Route for Lithium-Ion Battery Applications”) in view of Okada et al. (US 20060127750), Ren et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 101693532A) and Yu et al. (US 2015030517) as applied to claim 8 above and in further view of Ishii (US 20150125755).
Regarding claim 11, Liu et al. does not disclose a rotating speed for grinding/milling.
However, Yu et al. further teaches a first product is ground at a rotating speed of 450 to 600 revolutions per minute (rpm) (para. [0032]) to produce a particle size less than 2 μm (para. [0033]) which overlaps with the claimed 500 rpm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Liu et al. wherein the average particle size (D50) of the first product is less than 2 μm wherein the first product is ground at a rotating speed of 500 revolutions per minute (rpm).
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select a grinding method which can produce small particle size, such as 1 μm (Yu et al., para. [0033]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the speed taught by Liu et al. in view of Yu et al. overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Liu et al. does not appear to disclose spray drying.
However, Yu et al. further teaches performing spray drying with a rotary disk spray dryer (para. [0034]), wherein the rotary disk spray dryer includes: an inlet temperature range from 200° C. to 220° C. (210⁰ C, para. [0034]); an outlet temperature range from 85° C. to 95° C (-95⁰ C, para. [0034], presumed to be a type for 95⁰ C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Liu et al. wherein the method includes performing spray drying with a rotary disk spray dryer, wherein the rotary disk spray dryer includes: an inlet temperature ranging from 200° C to 220° C and an outlet temperature ranging from 85° C to 95° C.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known drying device, such as a spray dryer with a rotary disk, operating at known ranges in order to achieve the predictable result of efficient drying of powders used to produce battery composite material.
Assuming, arguendo, that the -95⁰ C outlet temperature taught by Yu et al. is not a typo for 95⁰ C; Ishii teaches a method of preparation of an electrode composite material (Abstract) and further teaches using a rotary disk spray dryer and further teaches a 90⁰ C outlet temperature (para. [0137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Liu et al. wherein an outlet temperature ranges from 85° C to 95° C.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select an outlet temperature from 85° C to 95° C in order to achieve the predictable result of drying particles for recovery.
Liu et al. does not expressly disclose a calcination temperature.
However, Okada et al. who teaches calcination where air or oxygen are introduced as discussed for claim 1 above further teaches a calcination temperature of 650⁰ C (pars. [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Liu et al. wherein the calcination temperature of the powder ranges from 600° C. to 650° C.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to undergo calcination in order to achieve a trigonal crystal structure (Okada et al., pars. [0026] and [0056]) or to remove excess solvent/moisture or volatiles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Armand et al. (US 7955733) discloses calcination in air to eliminate water.
Örnek et al. (attached non-patent literature) discloses carbon sources are used with lithium iron phosphate in order to enhance surface conductivity and improve capacity, performance and life.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774