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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 06/30/2026. Claims 1 and 12 are amended. Claims 2 and 13 are canceled. Claims 21 – 22 are new. Claims 1, 3 – 12, and 14 – 22 are pending in the current Office action.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office action mailed 04/01/2026 are withdrawn. A new grounds of rejection, necessitated by applicant’s amendment, is established below {i.e. applicant’s amendment changes the scope of the claimed invention in a manner that was not previously considered by narrowing the range of the claimed strength ratio}.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of prior art being used in the current rejection. Specifically, in the new grounds of rejection below, a new primary reference: Ryu (US PG Pub. 2005/0186477 A1) and teaching reference: Kim (US 2012/0288756 A1) is applied in combination with the previously cited reference: Iwasaki (US PG Pub. 2014/0170451 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 12, 15, and 21 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (US PG Pub. 2005/0186477 A1) in view of Kim (US PG Pub. 2012/0288756 A1) and Iwasaki (US PG Pub. 2014/0170451 A1, cited in previous O.A. mailed 04/01/2026).
Regarding Claims 1, 12 and 21, Ryu discloses a electrochemical device (lithium secondary battery 26, Fig. 1; [0030]) comprising a positive electrode (Figs. 1 – 2, 22; [0030]) comprising a current collector (Figs. 1 – 2, 22a; [0030]) and a positive electrode mixture layer provided on at least one surface of the current collector (Figs. 1 – 2, 22b; [0030]), the current collector comprising a first region provided with the positive electrode mixture layer (Refer to region including active material layer 22b in Fig. 2; [0030]) and a second region being a foil-free region of the positive electrode (Refer to region that does not include active material layer 22b in Fig. 2 {i.e. 23}); the positive electrode mixture layer comprising a positive electrode active material ([0006];[0033]) and a binder ([0006];[0033]).
Ryu teaches controlling the physical properties of the collector {i.e. tensile strength, % of aluminum} in order to ensure that the electrode is resistant to being bent by differences in elongation rates between the uncoated part of the current collector and the coated part which has been coated with an active material layer of the electrode due to a high degree of strength and a low elongation rate ([0017]). In example 1, Ryu discloses a positive electrode with a current collector formed from an aluminum alloy having a tensile strength of 145 MPa ([0033]) and thus suggests an embodiment where P1 {i.e. a strength of the current collector in the corresponding first/active material-including region} and P2 {i.e. a strength of the current collector in the second/foil-free region} of the collector is 145 MPa
Ryu does not explicitly disclose an embodiment wherein 0% < (P2-P1)/P2 ≤ 22%.
Kim, also directed to electrode plates including an active material coating portion and a non-coating portion on the current collector, teaches inductively heating the non-coating portion of the current collector to improve the quality of the non-coating portion and prevent bending ([0005];[0065]). Kim further teaching heating the non-coating portion such that the hardness of the non-coating portion is about 6 N/mm2 to about 19 N/mm2 and the tensile strength a range of about 167 N/mm2 to about 171 N/mm2 ([0057 – 0059]). The taught hardness and tensile strength of non-coating portion is taught by Kim to minimize failure of the positive electrode plate in the manufacturing process and improve battery performance ([0060]).
Since Ryu is concerned with preventing electrode bending, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the example collector in Ryu to have a tensile strength as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success in further Ryu’s goal of preventing bending of the electrode and further improving battery performance.
Furthermore, by modifying the example collector to have a tensile strength of 167 N/mm2 - 171 N/mm2 in the corresponding foil-free region, the modified example of Ryu provides a (P2-P1)/P2 greater than or equal to ≈ 13% {i.e. (167 – 145)/167} or less than or equal to ≈ 15% (Ryu: [0033] and Kim: [0059]), which is within the claimed ranges of 0 % < (P2-P1)/P2 ≤ 22% (Claim 1) and 14.06 % ≤ (P2-P1)/P2 ≤ 22% (Claim 21).
Based on Figs. 1 and 2, Ryu further appears to use the corresponding foil-free region {i.e. uncoated part 23 as lead/tab portions of the positive electrode ([0030]).
Modified Ryu does not explicitly disclose wherein 1 ≤ Sa1/Sa2 ≤ 20, where Sa1 is a roughness of a surface of the current collector in the first region and Sa2 is a roughness of a surface of the current collector in the second region.
Iwasaki teaches a positive electrode 3 for a battery including an active material layer and a current collector ([0020];[0060]). Iwasaki further teaches the current collector of the electrode having two regions, specifically first region 3c that does not support the active material layer {i.e. corresponds to claimed second region} and a second region 3a that supports the active material layer 3b (Fig. 3A – 3B; [0060]) {i.e. corresponds to claimed first region}. The first region 3c of the positive electrode in Iwasaki is further taught to serve as the tab portion of the positive electrode ([0060]). Iwasaki additionally teaches controlling the surface roughness of the first region {i.e. corresponds to claimed Sa2} to be not less than 0.01 µm but not more than 0.4 µm for the purpose of being able to perform ultrasonic welding in the first region at low power and increasing the reliability of connection between the electrode tabs, and controlling the surface roughness of the second region {i.e. corresponds to claimed Sa1} to be more than 0.4 µm but not more than 5 µm for the purpose of improving the adhesion with the active material-containing layer supported on the second region ([0022 – 0023];[0028];[0048 – 0049]). As such, Iwasaki suggests having a collector where Sa1/Sa2 is greater than 1 {i.e. 0.4/0.4} but not more than 500 {i.e. 5/0.01}. Furthermore, in working embodiments, Iwasaki teaches Sa1/Sa2 values of ≈ 2.7, ≈ 6.7, and ≈ 8.7 (See Table 1).
Since Ryu also appears to utilize the uncoated region as tab/lead portion(s) (Refer to Fig. 1), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the example collector in Ryu to have a surface roughness in the coated and uncoated region as taught by Iwasaki, and thus obtain a current collector that provides an Sa1/Sa2 encompassing the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining an electrode with improved tab connection reliability as well as improved active material adhesion.
Furthermore, selection of surface roughness for the corresponding first and second regions that provide an Sa1/Sa2 within the overlapping portion of the range suggested by Iwasaki and the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to ensure sufficient connection reliably between tab portions of the electrode, even with low power ultrasonic welding, while also optimizing active material adhesion, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Ryu teaches the lithium secondary battery having application in electric vehicles when of a large size and having application in cellular phones or notebook computers when of a small size ([0020]).
Modified Ryu does not explicitly disclose an electronic device comprising the electrochemical device established above (Claim 12).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely incorporate the battery of modified Ryu in an electronic device such as a vehicle or phone, as taught by Ryu, and thus obtain the electronic device of claim 12, with a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing the battery in a suitable application.
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, modified Ryu discloses all limitations as set forth above. Ryu further discloses wherein the binder comprises polyvinylidene fluoride ([0033]).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Ryu discloses all limitations as set forth above. Ryu further discloses wherein a thickness of the current collector in the first region is equal to a thickness of the current collector in the second region (Refer to Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (US PG Pub. 2005/0186477 A1), Kim (US 20120/ 288756 A1) and Iwasaki (US PG Pub. 2014/0170451 A1), as applied to claims 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Haung (CN112151755A, cited in previous O.A. mailed 04/01/2026).
Regarding Claims 3 and 14, modified Ryu discloses all limitations as set forth above. In Example 1, Ryu teaches an electrode density of the positive electrode, after pressing being, 2.4 g/cc ([0033]), as such modified Ryu does not explicitly disclose wherein a compacted density of the positive electrode mixture density is 3.0 g/mm3 to 4.5 g/mm3,
Huang, directed to a positive electrode plates for lithium ion batteries, teaches having the positive electrode active material compaction density be within the range of 2.7 g/cm3 to 3.7 g/cm3 and preferably 2.9 g/cm3 to 3.6 g/cm3 for the purpose of obtaining an electrode with high energy density and good flexibility and overall obtaining a battery with reduced impedance and improved capacity retention ([0005 – 0006];[0031]).
Since Ryu also teaches a positive electrode for a lithium ion battery and is concerned with achieving improved battery characteristics by using a particular electrode structures ([0015 – 0017];[0033]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the compacted density of modified Ryu’s positive electrode active material layer to be within the range taught by Huang, and thus overlapping the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a positive electrode having high energy density and good flexibility and further a battery with improved capacity retention.
In general, Huang teaches that a high electrode compaction density improves volumetric energy density of battery, but simultaneously reduces the porosity of the active material coating, thereby affecting lithium-ion conduction and causing DC internal resistance of to rise rapidly and capacity to decay quickly during long term cycling ([0005]). A higher electrode compaction density is also taught by Huang to increase the likeliness of breakage and powdering during electrode processing ([0005]). A low compaction density is taught by Huang to increase electrode porosity but also results in increased difficulty in forming a conductive network and thus also lead to rapid capacity decay ([0005]).
As such, selection of a compact density within the overlapping portion of the claimed range and Huang’s taught range would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize volumetric density of the battery while also ensuring suitable electrode porosity and flexibility {i.e. reduce chance of breakage/powdering} , with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Claim(s) 5 – 6 and 16 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (US PG Pub. 2005/0186477 A1), Kim (US 20120/ 288756 A1) and Iwasaki (US PG Pub. 2014/0170451 A1), as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Fujita (JP2014165037A, cited in previous O.A. mailed 04/01/2026).
Regarding Claims 5 – 6 and 16 – 17, modified Ryu discloses all limitations as set forth above. In Example 1, Ryu teaches the binder being polyvinylidene fluoride ([0033]), but does not teach the particulars of the binder.
Therefore, modified Ryu does not particularly disclose wherein a weight average molecular weight of the binder is 1,000,000 to 1,400,000 (Claims 5 and 16) or wherein 1.9 ≤ Mw/Mn ≤ 2.5, where Mw represents a weight average molecular weight of the binder and Mn represents a number average molecular weight of the binder (Claims 6 and 17).
Fujita, directed to electrodes for nonaqueous secondary batteries, teaches preferably using a resin, particularly containing polyvinylidene fluoride, having a weight average molecular weight of preferably 6.5x105 or more and less than 1.2X106 and a degree of dispersion {i.e. Mw/Mn} of 1.6 or more and less than 3.0 for the binder of the electrode, and further teaches that such a binder is applicable to both a negative electrode and positive electrode ([17];[23]). Fujita further teaches that using resin with a weight average molecular weight of 6.5x105 or more sufficient adhesion strength can be secured with a small amount of binder; however, when the weight average molecular weight is 1.2X106 or more, the molecular chain becomes too long, so even if the degree of dispersion is lowered the coatability of the current collector cannot be improved ([18]). With respect to the degree of dispersion, setting the degree of dispersion to 1.6 or more and less than 3.0 is taught by Fujita to reduce internal resistance and avoid excessive coating of the particles of the electrode active material ([19]). In general, Fujita teaches that lower degrees of dispersion improve battery performance by shortening the diffusion distance in the particles of the electrode active material and that too low degrees of dispersion result in excessive coating of the particles of the electrode active material ([19]).
Since Ryu exemplifies using polyvinylidene fluoride as the binder of the positive electrode, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the molecular weight of the binder and degree of dispersion of the binder as taught by Fujita, and thus obtain a binder with an overlapping weight average molecular weight and degree of dispersion {i.e. Mw/Mn}, with a reasonable expectation of obtaining a binder with sufficient adhesion strength and an electrode with reduced internal resistance.
Selection of weight average molecular weight and degrees of dispersion within the overlapping portion of the claimed ranges and taught ranges would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize adhesion strength and internal resistance of the electrode while ensuring that the electrode active material particles are not excessively covered by binder, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Claim(s) 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (US PG Pub. 2005/0186477 A1), Kim (US 20120/ 288756 A1) and Iwasaki (US PG Pub. 2014/0170451 A1), as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Fujita (JP2014165037A) and Fukumine (US PG Pub. 2009/0274958 A1, cited in previous O.A. mailed 04/01/2026).
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, modified Ryu discloses all limitations as set forth above. In Example 1, Ryu further teaches the binder of the positive electrode being polyvinylidene fluoride ([0033]), but does not teach the particulars of the binder.
Therefore, modified Ryu does not particularly disclose wherein the binder has a swelling ratio of 15% to 25% after being soaked in electrolytic solution at 85°C for 6 hours.
However, the examiner notes that the limitation, “wherein the binder has a swelling ratio of 15% to 25% after being soaked in electrolytic solution at 85°C for 6 hours” establishes an intended use/inherent function of the binder. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)}
In the instant specification, the binder capable of obtaining a swelling ratio within the claimed range is taught to include polyvinylidene fluoride, have a molecular weight within the range of 1,000,000 to 1,400,000, and further have a molecular weight distribution wherein 1.9 ≤ Mw/Mn ≤ 2.5 (Instant Specification: Refer to Table 2; [0013 – 0016]).
As established above, Ryu explicitly teaches using a polyvinylidene fluoride for the positive electrode of example 1 ([0033]), but does not particularly disclose the molecular weight of the binder or molecular weight dispersion.
Fujita, directed to electrodes for nonaqueous secondary batteries, teaches preferably using a resin, particularly containing polyvinylidene fluoride, having a weight average molecular weight of preferably 6.5x105 or more and less than 1.2X106 and a degree of dispersion {i.e. Mw/Mn} of 1.6 or more and less than 3.0 for the binder of the electrode, and further teaches that such a binder is applicable to both a negative electrode and positive electrode ([17];[23]). Fujita further teaches that using resin with a weight average molecular weight of 6.5x105 or more sufficient adhesion strength can be secured with a small amount of binder; however, when the weight average molecular weight is 1.2X106 or more, the molecular chain becomes too long, so even if the degree of dispersion is lowered the coatability of the current collector cannot be improved ([18]). With respect to the degree of dispersion, setting the degree of dispersion to 1.6 or more and less than 3.0 is taught by Fujita to reduce internal resistance and avoid excessive coating of the particles of the electrode active material ([19]). In general, Fujita teaches that lower degrees of dispersion improve battery performance by shortening the diffusion distance in the particles of the electrode active material and that too low degrees of dispersion result in excessive coating of the particles of the electrode active material ([19]).
Since Ryu already exemplifies using polyvinylidene fluoride as the binder of the positive electrode, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the molecular weight of the binder and degree of dispersion of the binder in modified Ryu as taught by Fujita, and thus obtain a binder with an overlapping weight average molecular weight and degree of dispersion {i.e. Mw/Mn}, with a reasonable expectation of obtaining a binder with sufficient adhesion strength and an electrode with reduced internal resistance.
Selection of weight average molecular weight and degrees of dispersion in the overlapping portion of the claimed range and taught range, and thus selection of binder with properties capable of providing the swelling ratio when tested as claimed, would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize adhesion strength and internal resistance of the electrode while ensuring that the electrode active material particles are not excessively covered by binder, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Assuming arguendo applicant is able to persuasively argue/show evidence that modified Ryu as established above would not inherently provide the swelling ratio when tested as claimed, the claimed swelling ratio would further be obvious in light of the following:
Fukumine teaches, with respect a lithium secondary battery, a binder used in at least one of a positive electrode or negative electrode having a swelling degree in electrolyte of 5 – 50 % and preferably 5 – 20% ([0020 – 0022];[0025]). Fukumine further teaches that the binder can be a fluorine resin fluorine resin such as polytetrafluoroethylene and polyvinylidene-fluoride ([0047]). Fukumine teaches controlling the swelling degree to balance the fluid retention of the binder and the binding strength, particularly Fukumine teaches that lower swelling degrees corresponds to lower fluid retentions which can cause deterioration in cycle characteristics while a higher swelling degrees correspond to lower binding strengths ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the swelling degree of modified Ryu’s binder to be within the preferable range taught by Fukumine {i.e. 5 – 20%}, which overlaps the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a binder capable of providing improved cycle characteristics and sufficient binding strength.
Furthermore, selection of a swelling ration within the overlapping portion of the claimed range and the taught range, would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize fluid retention of the binder while ensuring sufficient binding strength, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Claim(s) 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (US PG Pub. 2005/0186477 A1), Kim (US 20120/ 288756 A1) and Iwasaki (US PG Pub. 2014/0170451 A1), as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Song (US PG Pub. 2016/0093880 A1, cited in previous O.A. mailed 04/01/2026).
Regarding Claims 8 and 19, modified Ryu discloses all limitations as set forth above. In Example 1, Ryu teaches the binder of the positive electrode being polyvinylidene fluoride ([0033]), but does not teach the particulars of the binder.
Therefore, modified Ryu does not particularly disclose wherein an adhesion force between the positive electrode mixture layer and current collector is 15 N/m – 35 N/m.
Song, directed to manufacturing electrodes for, teaches that if an electrode is prepared with a low adhesion force between the active material layer and the collector, the active material layer and the current collector may be separated during post processing and thereby cause defects ([0007]). Song further teaches that improving the adhesion force between the active material layer and collector allows for the enhancement of battery characteristics ([0019]). Song teaches forming electrodes with an adhesion force of 20 gf/cm {i.e. ≈ 20 N/m} to 30 gf/cm {≈ 29 N/m} ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the positive electrode of modified Ryu such that that the adhesion force between the active material layer and collector is within the range taught by Song, and thus within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in preventing the active material layer and current collector from becoming separated during processing.
Claim(s) 9 – 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (US PG Pub. 2005/0186477 A1), Kim (US 20120/ 288756 A1) and Iwasaki (US PG Pub. 2014/0170451 A1), as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, as applied to claims 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Oyama (WO2015075520A2, cited in previous O.A. mailed 04/01/2026).
Regarding Claims 9 – 11 and 20, modified Ryu discloses all limitations as set forth above. In Example 1, Ryu teaches usingLiNiCoAlO2 as the active material ([0033]).
Modified Ryu does not explicitly disclose wherein a Dv50 of the positive electrode active material is 0.5 µm to 35 µm (Claims 9 and 20); wherein a relationship between the Dv10 and Dv50 of positive electrode active material satisfies 0.25 ≤ Dv10/Dv50 ≤ 0.5 (Claim 10); or further wherein the positive electrode wherein the positive electrode satisfies at least one of the following characteristics: 1) a compacted density of the positive electrode mixture layer is 4.0 g/mm3 to 4.3 g/mm3; 2) a thickness of the positive electrode mixture layer is 40.5 µm to 55 µm; 3) a Dv50 of the positive electrode active material in the positive electrode mixture layer is 10 µm to 25 µm; 4) a relationship between Dv10 and Dv50 of the positive electrode active material in the positive electrode mixture layer satisfies 0.33 ≤ Dv10/Dv50 ≤ 0.45; or 5) a thickness of the current collector is 7 to 2 µm (Claim 11).
Oyama, directed to a positive electrode active material including lithium composite cobalt-containing oxide particles, teaches controlling the particle size distribution of the active material such that the D10/D50 satisfies D10/D50 ≤ 0.75 for the purpose of improving cycle characteristics and simplifying production ([0005 – 0008]). Oyama further teaches setting the D50 to be 0.5 µm – 30 µm for the purpose of forming a dense, highly conductive positive electrode active material with suitable void space ([0030]).
Since Ryu teaches a positive electrode including a lithium composite cobalt-containing oxide as the active material, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the D50 and D10/D50 of modified Ryu’s active material as taught by Oyama, and thus obtain an active material having a D50 within the claimed range of 0.5 µm to 35 µm and a D10/D50 encompassing the claimed ranges of 0.25 ≤ Dv10/Dv50 ≤ 0.5 and 0.33 ≤ Dv10/Dv50 ≤ 0.45, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a positive electrode active material that is capable of improving cycle characteristics, simplifying production, and forming a dense, highly conductive positive electrode active material layer with suitable void space.
Oyama further teaches a particular preference for selecting D10/D50 ratios satisfying D10/D50 ≤ 0.6, because if the D10/D50 is too large, the gas amount during overcharge is insufficient and cycle characteristics are reduced ([0023]). When the D10/D50 is too small, the particles are taught by Oyama to be hard to produce and are unable to obtain the desired improvements in cycle characteristics ([0019 – 0020];[0023]).
Therefore, selection of a D10/D50 within the overlapping portion of the claimed ranges and the taught range (Claim 10 and 11 cont.), would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the overcharge gas amount of the active material {i.e. improvement in cycle characteristics provided by the particle size distribution} without increasing production difficulty, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)]. Furthermore, by including a Dv10/Dv50 that satisfies 0.33 ≤ Dv10/Dv50 ≤ 0.45, modified Ryu as established above, satisfies at least one of the characteristics of claim 11.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/A.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/10/2026
Prosecution Insights