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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
While there is support to recite that “a coating layer is be disposed in each active material layer” (0041, lines 1-2), there is no support to recite “a surface coating layer is disposed on the lithium cobalt oxide particles in each active material layer”.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 11-15, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (CN 112531151 A).
Regarding claim 1 and 21:
Sun et al. teaches a positive electrode sheet, i.e. plate, the positive electrode sheet comprising a current collector that is necessarily comprised of a first side surface and a second side surface arranged away from each other, and N active layers, i.e. first and second active material layers, sequentially stacked on the surface of the current collector, where N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2, and the direction from the first active layer to the Nth active layer is a direction that gradually moves away from the current collector and a positive electrode active material is lithium cobalt oxide ([n0006], [n0027]).
Although Sun et al. do not explicitly disclose the thickness of the positive electrode plate, given that Sun et al. also teaches that when there are two active material layers, the aluminum content of the active material in the first active layer is 5000-6000 ppm, and the aluminum content of the active material in the second active layer is 6000-8000 ppm ([n0012]), Sun et al. would meet the content of aluminum as presently claimed regardless of whether the thickness is less than or equal to 110 micrometers or greater than 110 micrometers ([n0012]).
In light of the overlap between the claimed positive electrode plate and that disclosed by Sun et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a positive electrode plate that is both disclosed by Sun et al. and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Given that Sun discloses positive electrode plate as presently claimed including amounts of aluminum that overlap that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, it is clear that after 300 cycles, a quantity of broken lithium cobalt oxide particles in the bottom active material layer (first quantity) would inherently be less than or equal to a quantity of broken lithium cobalt oxide particles in the top active material layer (second quantity) including where the ratio of the first quantity to the second quantity inherently ranges from 80% to 100%.
Regarding claim 8:
Sun et al. teaches the average particle size of the active material in the (i-1)th active layer is smaller than the average particle size of the active material in the i-th active layer ([n0015]), i.e. the particle diameter of lithium cobalt oxide particles in the active material layer increases from a bottom layer close to the current collector to a top layer away from the current collector.
Regarding claim 11:
Sun et al. teaches cation doping, such as Al and Mg elements, can be performed on the surface of the active material ([n0010] lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 12-15:
Sun et al. teaches an N-layer active layer slurry is prepared by mixing a positive electrode active material, a conductive agent, and a binder in a certain proportion; wherein the positive electrode active material is lithium cobalt oxide, the conductive agent is one or more of carbon black, carbon nanotubes, and graphene, and the binder is polyvinylidene fluoride ([n0027]).
Regarding claim 18:
Sun et al. teaches the solid content of the positive electrode slurry should be 60%-80% ([n0028] lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 19:
Sun et al. teaches the viscosity of a positive electrode slurry should be 3000-8000 mPa·s ([n0028] line 3).
Regarding claim 20:
Sun et al. teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising any of the above-described positive electrode plates, wherein the lithium-ion battery further comprises a separator, a negative electrode plate, an electrolyte, and a packaging shell ([n0035] lines 1-3), i.e. a battery comprising the positive electrode plate according to claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (CN 112531151 A) in view of Wang et al. (KR 20210057818 A).
Regarding claim 2:
Sun et al. teaches a positive electrode plate as set forth above.
However, Sun et al. does not teach a ratio of a thickness of the first active material layer to the thickness of the positive electrode plate ranging from 5:95 to 95:5.
Wang et al. teaches a thickness ratio between the positive electrode active material layer and the positive electrode current collector is less than 50 or greater than 0.5 ([0208] lines 1-6), i.e. the ratio of a thickness of the first active material layer to the thickness of the positive electrode plate ranges from 0.98 (50/51) to 0.33 (0.5/1.5) ([0208] lines 1-6).
Wang et al. also teaches that when the thickness ratio is within the above range, heat dissipation of the positive electrode current collector during high current density charging and discharging can be suppressed, and the capacity of the electrochemical device can be secured ([0208] lines 8-10).
In light of the motivation for using a thickness ratio between the positive electrode active material layer and the positive electrode current collector less than 50 or greater than 0.5 disclosed by Wang et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thickness ratio between the positive electrode active material layer and the positive electrode current collector less than 50 or greater than 0.5 in the positive electrode plate of Sun et al. in order to suppress heat dissipation of the positive electrode current collector during high current density charging and discharging and secure the capacity of the electrochemical device.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (CN 112531151 A) in view of Sasaki et al. (WO 2018042842 A1).
Regarding claims 4-5:
Sun et al. teaches a positive electrode plate as set forth above.
However, Sun et al. does not teach a surface density of the first active material layer is a first surface density, a surface density of the second active material layer is a second surface density, and the first surface density is less than or equal to the second surface density.
Sasaki et al. teaches an average area density, i.e. surface density, D1 (mg/cm2) of the first positive electrode active material layer is preferably 32.5 mg/cm2 or less ([0037]) and that the average area density of the second positive electrode active material layer in the entire positive electrode is almost uniform and set to the same value as the average area density D1 of the first positive electrode active material layer ([0038]).
Sasaki et al. also teaches when the average area densities are equivalent, the hardening of the positive electrode is prevented ([0036] lines 5-8).
In light of the motivation for using an average area density of the first positive electrode active material layer equivalent to the average area density of the second positive electrode active material layer disclosed by Sasaki et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an average area density of the first positive electrode active material layer equivalent to the average area density of the second positive electrode active material layer in the positive electrode plate of Sun et al. in order to prevent hardening of the positive electrode.
Claim 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (CN 112531151 A) in view of Sawa et al. (JP 2021082556 A).
Regarding claim 6:
Sun et al. teaches a positive electrode plate as set forth above.
However, Sun et al. does not teach a thickness of the positive electrode plate ranging from 60 μm to 130 μm.
Sawa et al. teaches a thickness of the positive electrode active material layer obtained by subtracting the thickness of the current collector is the thickness of the positive electrode active material layer with respect to one side of the current collector, where 10 μm or more and 100 μm or less is preferable ([0226]). Sawa et al. also teaches that the thickness of the current collector is preferably 1 μm or more and 100 μm or less ([0222]), i.e. the positive electrode plate thickness ranges from 11 μm to 200 μm.
Sawa et al. further teaches that the thickness of the positive electrode plate ensures high capacity, high output, high rate characteristics, sufficient strength, and improved handling ([0222] and [0226]).
In light of the motivation for using a positive electrode plate thickness ranging from 11 μm to 300 μm disclosed by Sasaki et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a positive electrode plate thickness ranging from 11 μm to 300 μm in the positive electrode plate of Sun et al. in order to ensure high capacity, high output, high rate characteristics, sufficient strength, and improved handling.
Regarding claim 16:
Sun et al. teaches a positive electrode plate as set forth above.
However, Sun et al. does not teach a content range of each component in the formula is as follows: the main material ranges from 92 wt% to 98 wt%, the conductive agent ranges from 0.5 wt% to 4 wt%, and the binder ranges from 0.5 wt% to 4 wt%.
Sawa et al. teaches a content of the positive electrode active material such as lithium cobalt oxide ([0254] line 1-2), in the positive electrode active material layer is preferably 60% by mass or more ([0208] lines 1-4), a content of conductive material such as carbon black ([0209] line 3) in the positive electrode active material layer is preferably 0.01% by mass or more ([0210] lines 1-4), and a binder content such as polyvinylidene fluoride, polymethyl methacrylate, or rubber-like polymers such as SBR in the positive electrode active material layer is preferably 0.1% by mass or more ([0213] lines 1-4).
Sawa et al. also teaches that if the content of each component above is met, sufficient electrical capacity is ensured ([0208] lines 5-6), sufficient conductivity is ensured ([0210] lines 5-6), and the mechanical strength of the positive electrode is ensured ([0213] lines 5-8).
In light of the motivation for using a content of the positive electrode active material in the positive electrode active material layer is preferably 60% by mass or more, a content of conductive material in the positive electrode active material layer is preferably 0.01% by mass or more, and a binder content in the positive electrode active material layer is preferably 0.1% by mass or more disclosed by Sasaki et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a content of the positive electrode active material in the positive electrode active material layer is preferably 60% by mass or more, a content of conductive material in the positive electrode active material layer is preferably 0.01% by mass or more, and a binder content in the positive electrode active material layer is preferably 0.1% by mass or more in the positive electrode plate of Sun et al. in order to ensure sufficient electrical capacity, sufficient conductivity, and mechanical strength of the positive electrode.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (CN 112531151 A) in view of Sato et al. (CN 1702890 A).
Regarding claim 7:
Sun et al. teaches a positive electrode plate as set forth above.
However, Sun et al. does not teach a tapped density of the active material layer ranging from 2.0 g/cm3 to 3.5 g/cm-3.
Sato et al. teaches a positive electrode having a bulk density, i.e. tapped density, in the range of 3.1 - 3.7 g/cm³ ([0200] line 4).
Sato et al. also teaches when the positive electrode has a bulk density in the range above, the initial capacity reduction is suppressed ([0200] line 5).
In light of the motivation for using a tapped density of the active material layer ranging from 2.0 g/cm3 to 3.5 g/cm-3 disclosed by Sato et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a tapped density of the active material layer ranging from 2.0 g/cm3 to 3.5 g/cm-3 in the positive electrode plate of Sun et al. in order to suppress the initial capacity reduction.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (CN 112531151 A) in view of Liang et al. (CN 111864179 A).
Regarding claim 9:
Sun et al. teaches a positive electrode plate as set forth above.
However, Sun et al. does not teach lithium cobalt oxide particles in the first active material layer meeting at least one of the following conditions: Dv10 of the lithium cobalt oxide particles ranging from 2 μm to 4 μm; median particle diameter Dv50 of the lithium cobalt oxide particles ranging from 10 μm to 15 μm; or Dv90 of the lithium cobalt oxide particles ranging from 20 μm to 35 μm.
Liang et al. teaches lithium cobalt oxide particles in the first active material layer having particle size including D10, i.e. Dv10, of 2 μm to 4 μm ([0023]).
Liang et al. also teaches that the use of these smaller-sized lithium cobalt oxide particles in the first active material layer helps to reduce the ion impedance of the battery, thereby facilitating the insertion of lithium ions ([0024] lines 1-3).
In light of the motivation for using lithium cobalt oxide particles in the first active material layer having a particle size including D10 of 2 μm to 4 μm disclosed by Liang et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use lithium cobalt oxide particles in the first active material layer having particle size including D10 of 2 μm to 4 μm in the positive electrode plate of Sun et al. in order to reduce the ion impedance of the battery, thereby facilitating the insertion of lithium ions.
Regarding claim 10:
Sun et al. teaches a positive electrode plate as set forth above.
However, Sun et al. does not teach lithium cobalt oxide particles in the second active material layer meeting at least one of the following conditions: Dv10 of the lithium cobalt oxide particles ranging from 3 μm to 5 μm; median particle diameter Dv50 of the lithium cobalt oxide particles ranging from 15 μm to 30 μm; or Dv90 of the lithium cobalt oxide particles ranging from 30 μm to 45 μm.
Liang et al. teaches lithium cobalt oxide particles having particle size including D50, i.e. Dv50, of 12μm to 16μm ([0012] lines 7-8).
Liang et al. also teaches that the use of these larger diameter particles can increase battery stability ([0013] lines 3-4).
In light of the motivation for using lithium cobalt oxide particles having a particle size including D50 of 12μm to 16μm disclosed by Liang et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use lithium cobalt oxide particles having particle size including D50 of 12μm to 16μm in the positive electrode plate of Sun et al. in order to increase battery stability.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (CN 112531151 A) in view of Momma et al. (KR 20180056367 A). It is noted that the disclosures of Momma et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
Regarding claim 17:
Sun et al. teaches a positive electrode sheet, i.e. plate, the positive electrode sheet comprising a current collector that is necessarily comprised of a first side surface and a second side surface arranged away from each other, and N active layers, i.e. first and second active material layers, sequentially stacked on the surface of the current collector, where N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2, and the direction from the first active layer to the Nth active layer is a direction that gradually moves away from the current collector and a positive electrode active material is lithium cobalt oxide ([n0006], [n0027]).
Although Sun et al. do not explicitly disclose the thickness of the positive electrode plate, given that Sun et al. also teaches that when there are two active material layers, the aluminum content of the active material in the first active layer is 5000-6000 ppm, and the aluminum content of the active material in the second active layer is 6000-8000 ppm ([n0012]), Sun et al. would meet the content of aluminum as presently claimed regardless of whether the thickness is less than or equal to 110 micrometers or greater than 110 micrometers ([n0012]).
In light of the overlap between the claimed positive electrode plate and that disclosed by Sun et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a positive electrode plate that is both disclosed by Sun et al. and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
However, Sun et al. does not teach a surface coating layer is disposed on the lithium cobalt oxide particles in each active material layer.
Momma et al. teaches a positive electrode active material used in a lithium-ion secondary battery (]0009]) formed by forming an aluminum coating layer on lithium cobaltate, i.e. lithium cobalt oxide, particles containing magnesium and fluorine, exhibited very good cycle characteristics ([0360]).
In light of the motivation for using an aluminum coating layer on lithium cobaltate particles disclosed by Momma et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an aluminum coating layer on lithium cobaltate particles in the positive electrode plate of Sun et al. in order to exhibit very good cycle characteristics.
Given that Sun et al. in Momma et al. disclose a positive electrode plate as presently claimed including amounts of aluminum that overlap that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, it is clear that after 300 cycles, a quantity of broken lithium cobalt oxide particles in the bottom active material layer (first quantity) would inherently be less than or equal to a quantity of broken lithium cobalt oxide particles in the top active material layer (second quantity) including where the ratio of the first quantity to the second quantity inherently ranges from 80% to 100%.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 8/28/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of a different interpretation of Sun et al (CN 112531151 A) in view of Sasaki et al. (WO 2018042842 A1). In light of the new grounds of rejection with respect to claim 5 above, the action is nonfinal.
Applicant's arguments filed August 28th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sun does not disclose any dependence of the Al-content selection on the thickness of the positive electrode plate, does not disclose any positive electrode plate thickness threshold at 110 m, and does not disclose any particle breakage after 300 cycles, much less a ratio of broken-particle quantities constrained to 80%-100%.
It is agreed that Sun does not disclose any dependence of the Al-content selection on the thickness of the positive electrode plate, does not disclose any positive electrode plate thickness threshold at 110 m, and does not disclose any particle breakage after 300 cycles, much less a ratio of broken-particle quantities constrained to 80%-100%.
However, given that Sun et al. teaches that when there are two active material layers, the aluminum content of the active material in the first active layer is 5000-6000 ppm, and the aluminum content of the active material in the second active layer is 6000-8000 ppm ([n0012]), Sun et al. would meet the content of aluminum as presently claimed regardless of whether the thickness is less than or equal to 110 micrometers or greater than 110 micrometers ([n0012]).
In light of the overlap between the claimed positive electrode plate and that disclosed by Sun et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a positive electrode plate that is both disclosed by Sun et al. and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Given that Sun discloses positive electrode plate as presently claimed including amounts of aluminum that overlap that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, it is clear that after 300 cycles, a quantity of broken lithium cobalt oxide particles in the bottom active material layer (first quantity) would inherently be less than or equal to a quantity of broken lithium cobalt oxide particles in the top active material layer (second quantity) including where the ratio of the first quantity to the second quantity inherently ranges from 80% to 100%.
Further, the basis for inherency is not based on mere possibility or probability but based on the fact that the prior art references explicitly meet all the claim limitations. It is the examiner’s position that a sound basis has been set forth for believing that the product of the prior art is the same as that claimed. The Office realizes that the claimed properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed properties would be inherently necessarily be capable of being achieved by the prior art. If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) persuasive evidence would need to be provided to support this position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure in that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed components. Given that it is the examiner’s position that a sound basis has been provided in the rejections of record for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, one would expect the claimed properties to necessarily be present (i.e. naturally flow from the prior art), and thus, the burden is properly shifted back to applicant to show that they are not.
Applicant argues that the present specification demonstrates that the broken-particle ratio of 80%-100% is not an automatic consequence of any two-layer Al-gradient design and states that Example 6 employs a bottom M1 + top N2 configuration at 120 m thickness and exhibits a ratio of broken-particle quantity of 61%, outside the claimed range.
However, given that it is not clear that Example 6 in the present specification is meeting the aluminum content required in claim 1, there is no evidence that the present specification demonstrates that the broken-particle ratio of 80%-100% is not an automatic consequence of any two-layer Al-gradient design.
Applicant argues that amended claim 17 is not met by the disclosure of Sun alone.
It is agreed that Sun et al. alone does not meet amended claim 17 which is why Sun et al. is now used in combination with Momma et al. to meet this claim.
Applicant argues that Sasaki does not disclose or suggest the claimed relationship between the surface density of the second active material layer in Applicant’s layered positive electrode plate.
However, the present claims do not specify a total surface density of the first active material layer. The present claims only require "a" surface density of the first active material layer is equal to "a" surface density of the second active material layer. Given that R1of the first positive electrode active material has an average area density D1 (0037), i.e. a surface density of the first active material layer, and an average area density of the second positive electrode active material layer in the entire positive electrode is almost uniform and set to the same value as the average area density D1 of the first positive electrode active material layer in the first region R1 (0038), Sasaki therefore meets claims 4-5.
Further, Applicant argues that Sasaki is not directed to a high-temperature cycling problem or layer-by-layer Al-content/stability gradient design
However, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662,1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
Additionally, it is agreed that Sasaki is not directed to a layer-by-layer Al-content/stability gradient design.
However, note that while Sasaki does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Sasaki is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely a surface density of the first active material layer is a first surface density, a surface density of the second active material layer is a second surface density, and the first surface density is equal to the second surface density, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicant argues that new claim 21 is not taught by Sun or the other cited references.
However, after further searches and consideration, a new ground of rejection has been made.
Further, it is noted that claim 21 does not require N1 and M1 and N2 and M2. Rather the claim only requires N1 and/or M1 and N2 and/or M2. Given that Sun et al. disclose the aluminum content of the active material (lithium cobalt oxide) in the first active layer is 5000-6000 ppm (N1), and the aluminum content of the active material in the second active layer is 6000-8000 ppm (N2 or M2) ([n0012]), claim 21 is met by Sun et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON E. BROWN whose telephone number is (571)775-5984. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 5712721123. 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.
/MADISON ELIZABETH BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights