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 § 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan (CN101853963A) and in view of Horikawa (JP2006179458A) and Xu (Xu et. al., Research progress of fluorine-containing electrolyte additives for lithium ion batteries, Journal of Power Sources Advances, Volume 7, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Gan teaches an overcharge-preventing lithium-ion battery electrolyte (claim 1) comprising:
a lithium salt, including LiPF6 (pgs. 002-003, Comparative Example, Embodiment 1, Embodiment 4, Example 5, and Embodiment 6 use lithium hexafluorophosphate),
an organic solvent (pg. 003, ethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, methyl ethyl carbonate are used with the additive N-phenylimidazole in Embodiment 3),
and an electrolyte additive (pg. 003, N-phenylimidazole in Embodiment 3) represented by the structure below:
PNG
media_image1.png
221
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Electrolyte additive (N-phenylimidazole) of Gan in Embodiment 3
Gan further teaches that lithium-ion battery electrolytes comprising such additives improve overcharge performance and cycling efficiency (pg. 002, lines 11-16).
The teachings of Gan differ from the claimed invention regarding the lithium salt, wherein the lithium salt in the electrolyte comprising the N-phenylimidazole additive is LiTFSI instead of LiPF6 (pg. 003, LiTSFI is used with the additive N-phenylimidazole in Embodiment 3).
However, Gan teaches that the lithium salt may be LiPF6. Specifically, Gan teaches a lithium salt in the electrolyte, wherein the lithium salt is:
lithium trifluoromethanesulfonimide (LiTSFI) (pg. 003, LiTSFI is used with the additive N-phenylimidazole in Embodiment 3) and
lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) (pgs. 002-003, Comparative Example, Embodiment 1, Embodiment 4, Example 5, and Embodiment 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium salt of Gan by substituting LiTFSI with LiPF6, because Gan teaches that LiPF6 is a suitable lithium salt for a lithium-ion battery electrolyte. Such substitution would have represented the use of one preferred element for another with predictable results, as one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that LiPF6 would be useful as a lithium salt in the electrolyte of Gan and possess the benefits taught by Gan.
Therefore, Gan teaches the claimed electrolyte except that the phenyl ring of the N-phenylimidazole does not include an R group that is a halogen or a haloalkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms, as claimed in the structure of Formula 1.
However, Gan does teach other imidazole and phenyl-based additives that are fluorinated (pg. 002, 5-10), and further teaches that such fluorinated additives improve overcharge performance and cycling efficiency (pg. 002, lines 11-16).
Horikawa teaches that fluorinated aromatic compounds, including fluorobenzene and other fluorinated aromatic compounds, are suitable electrolyte additives for lithium-ion batteries (pg. 004, lines 3-8). Horikawa further teaches that an electrolyte comprising such fluorinated aromatic additives show excellent discharge capacity, cycle characteristics, and low temperature characteristics while exhibiting flame retardancy and nonflammability (pg. 006, lines 18-22).
In addition, Xu teaches the that fluorine-containing electrolyte additives have excellent kinetic reactivity (abstract), and further teaches that fluorine-containing electrolyte additives possess desirable electrochemical properties due to the strong electronegativity and weak polarity of fluorine. Specifically, Xu teaches that fluorine-containing electrolyte additives enhance the interfacial film forming capability on the anode side and the stability against oxidation of solvent molecules on the cathode side at high voltages, prolonging the cycling performance of lithium-ion batteries. Xu also teaches that fluorinated compounds have higher flash points, so that thermal stability of the electrolyte and the safety performance of lithium-ion batteries could be significantly improved in the presence of fluorinated additives (pg. 2, left column, para. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the N-phenylimidazole electrolyte additive of Gan by fluorinating the phenyl ring (i.e. substituting a H atom on the phenyl ring with an R group comprising a halogen, in this case the halogen is F) in view of the teachings of Horikawa and Xu, because Horikawa teaches that fluorinated aromatic compounds are recognized electrolyte additives for improving electrolyte safety, and Xu teaches that fluorination of electrolyte additives provides predictable electrochemical advantages such as improved interfacial stability, oxidation resistance, cycling performance, thermal stability, and safety. Since Gan already teaches N-phenylimidazole as an effective electrolyte additive for improving battery performance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known fluorination strategy taught by Horikawa and Xu to the phenyl ring of Gan’s N-phenylimidazole additive in order to obtain the known benefits associated with fluorinated electrolyte additives, yielding predictable results. Accordingly, claim 1 is rendered obvious by Gan in view of the teachings of Horikawa and Xu.
Lastly, regarding the recited “non-aqueous” limitation for the electrolyte of claim 1, although Gan does not expressly use the term “non-aqueous electrolyte,” modified Gan teaches an electrolyte comprising similar lithium salts, such as LiPF6, organic carbonate solvents, and the claimed electrolyte additive. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such an electrolyte to be a non-aqueous electrolyte because LiPF6 is conventionally utilized in non-aqueous organic solvent-based lithium battery electrolytes, and is incompatible with aqueous electrolyte systems due to hydrolysis. Accordingly, modified Gan teaches or suggests the claimed non-aqueous electrolyte.
Regarding claim 2, modified Gan teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including the electrolyte additive of Formula 1 wherein R is F, Cl, or a haloalkyl group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms (modified Gan teaches R is a halogen, and in this case R is F).
Regarding claim 3, modified Gan teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including the electrolyte additive of Formula 1 wherein R is F, CF3, or CF2CF3 (modified Gan teaches R is a halogen, and in this case, R is F).
Regarding claim 4, modified Gan teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including the electrolyte additive of Formula 1 wherein the R group is a halogen, and the halogen is fluorine (F). Modified Gan does not expressly teach wherein the fluorine R group is positioned in the para- or ortho- position of the phenyl group, as required by Formula 1-1 or Formula 1-2 of the claim.
However, since it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fluorinate the phenyl ring of the N-phenylimidazole electrolyte additive as taught by modified Gan, selecting the particular positioning of the fluorine substituent on the phenyl ring would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization. A monosubstituted phenyl ring on the N-phenylimidazole presents only 3 unique substitution positions for a single fluorine atom: ortho, meta and para. Selection of either the ortho- or the para-position from these finite and predictable positional isomers would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art and would have been achieved through routine experimentation while reasonably expecting the same known electrochemical and safety benefits associated with fluorinated electrolyte additives, as taught by Horikawa and Xu. The selection of one known positional isomer for a small number of predictable alternatives would result in the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a fluorine atom at either the para- or ortho- position of the phenyl ring of the N-phenylimidazole additive of modified Gan, thereby arriving at the compounds recited in Formula 1-1 and Formula 1-2 of the claim.
Regarding claim 5, modified Gan teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including the electrolyte additive of Formula 1 wherein the R group is a halogen, and the halogen is fluorine (F). As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify the N-phenylimidazole additive of Gan by fluorinating the phenyl ring in view of Horikawa and Xu.
Instant claim 5 further limits the electrolyte additive to one of the compounds represented by Formula 2-1, Formula 2-2, Formula 2-3, or Formula 2-4. However, modified Gan does not expressly teach wherein the fluorine R group is specifically positioned in the para- or ortho- position of the phenyl group 1, as required by Formula 2-1 or Formula 2-3 of the claim.
However, since it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fluorinate the phenyl ring of the N-phenylimidazole electrolyte additive as taught by modified Gan, selecting the particular positioning of the fluorine substituent on the phenyl ring would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization. A monosubstituted phenyl ring on the N-phenylimidazole presents only 3 unique substitution positions for a single fluorine atom: ortho, meta and para. Selection of either the ortho- or the para-position from these finite and predictable positional isomers would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art and would have been achieved through routine experimentation while reasonably expecting the same known electrochemical and safety benefits associated with fluorinated electrolyte additives, as taught by Horikawa and Xu. The selection of one known positional isomer for a small number of predictable alternatives would result in the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a fluorine atom at either the para- or ortho- position of the phenyl ring of the N-phenylimidazole additive of modified Gan, thereby arriving at the compounds recited in Formula 2-1 and Formula 2-3 of the claim.
Regarding claim 6, modified Gan teaches all features of claim 1 as described above. The claim requires the electrolyte additive included in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight to 5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte.
Gan discloses the anti-overcharged lithium-ion battery electrolyte includes additives at a weight ratio of 0.01% to 53.6% (pg. 001, last line), and explicitly discloses an electrolyte with the N-phenylimidazole additive present at 5 wt % based on the weight of the electrolyte (pg. 003 lines 7-12, Embodiment 3), which overlaps with the upper end of the claimed range. The expression of a composition in “parts by weight” is mathematically equivalent to a “weight ratio” and/or “wt %,” as all terms define the relative mass proportions of the mixture's components.
Xu teaches that fluorinated aromatic electrolyte additives are generally employed in small amounts, including 5 wt %, because such additives provide improvements in the electrochemical and chemical stability of the electrode-electrolyte interface, while maintaining a favorable balance between performance and cost (pg. 1, left column, “1. Introduction” paragraph).
Accordingly, selecting an additive amount within the claimed range of 0.1 parts by weight to 5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte, would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable, since the prior art recognizes that additive concentration affects electrolyte and battery performance and teaches using relatively small additive amounts (generally <5%) to achieve the desired electrochemical benefits. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the concentration of the modified fluorinated N-phenylimidazole additive through routine experimentation in order to obtain the known benefits taught by Gan and Xu while maintaining the expected battery performance and cost advantages.
Regarding claim 7, modified Gan teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including a non-aqueous electrolyte that comprises an organic solvent, an additive represented by Formula 1, and a lithium salt comprising LiPF6, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Horikawa discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte containing a non-aqueous solvent and a supporting salt, wherein the supporting salt comprises LiPF6 in addition to one or more of LiBF4, LiClO4, LiAsF6, LiSO3CF3, LiN(SO2CF3)2, and LiN(SO2CF2CF3)2 (pg. 004, lines 24-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte of Gan to further include one or more of the additional lithium salts taught by Horikawa, because Horikawa teaches that such lithium salts are suitable supporting salts for use in non-aqueous electrolytes for lithium secondary batteries. Such modification would be the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions with the predictable results of producing a suitable non-aqueous electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery.
Regarding claim 8, modified Gan teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including wherein the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt, and the lithium salt is LiPF6. Gan further discloses the lithium salt is present at a concentration of 1 mol/L (pgs. 002-003, 1 mol/L of LiPF6 was used in Comparative Example, Embodiments 1, 4, and 6, and Example 5; pg. 002, 1 mol/L of LiTFSI was used in Embodiment 3 with the N-phenylimidazole additive), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 M to 4.0 M.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte of Gan to include the lithium salt (LiPF6) at a concentration of 1 mol/L, because Gan teaches that LiPF6 is a suitable lithium salt for non-aqueous electrolytes and teaches that a concentration of 1 mol/L (or 1 M) is suitable for use in such electrolytes. Selecting the expressly taught concentration within the claimed range would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization and would have yielded the predictable result of a functional, non-aqueous electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery.
Regarding claim 9, modified Gan teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising an organic solvent, wherein the organic solvent comprises ethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, and methyl ethyl carbonate (pg. 003 line 7, Embodiment 3 with N-phenylimidazole). Ethylene carbonate is a cyclic carbonate-based organic solvent, and dimethyl carbonate and methyl ethyl carbonate are linear carbonate-based organic solvents.
Thus, Gan (as previously modified in claim 1 wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte electrolyte comprises LiPF6 and the modified fluorinated N-phenylimidazole additive) teaches that the organic solvent comprises at least one of a cyclic carbonate-based organic solvent (ethylene carbonate) and/or a linear carbonate-based organic solvent (dimethyl carbonate/methyl ethyl carbonate), rendering the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 10, modified Gan teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising LiPF6 and a fluorinated N-phenylimidizole additive. Claim 10 recites that the non-aqueous electrolyte further comprises at least one second additive selected from the recited classes.
Gan teaches in Embodiment 6, that the electrolyte comprises one or more additives: the N-phenylimidazole additive at 2 wt% together with a second 2-(2,3,4,5-tetrafluorophenyl)-4-(2,4,5-trifluoro -3,6-dimethoxybenzene)-1-nitrogen-3-boron-cyclopentane additive at 3 wt% (pg. 003, Embodiment 6). The latter additive may be classified as:
a benzene-based compound: the structure contains substituted benzene rings (tetrafluorophenyl and trifluorodimethoxybenzene groups),
a borate-based compound: the structure contains a 3-boron center embedded in the cyclopentane heterocycle, and/or
an amine-based compound: the structure contains a 1-nitrogen atom within the 5-membered cyclopentane-derived ring structure.
Thus, modified Gan discloses a second additive comprising a benzene-based compound, borate-based compound, and/or amine-based compound, as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, modified Gan teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising LiPF6, an organic solvent, and a fluorinated N-phenylimidizole additive. Gan expressly discloses an overcharge-preventing lithium-ion battery electrolyte (claim 1) and a lithium-ion battery comprising the overcharge-preventing lithium-ion battery electrolyte (claim 4). Thus, modified Gan teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 1.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan (CN101853963A) in view of Horikawa (JP2006179458A) and Xu (Xu et. al., Research progress of fluorine-containing electrolyte additives for lithium-ion batteries, Journal of Power Sources Advances, Volume 7, 2021) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Iwaya (US20110300439A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Gan teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising LiPF6 and a fluorinated N-phenylimidizole additive. Gan discloses during the preparation of a positive electrode wherein the positive electrode slurry comprises LiCoO2, acetylene black, NMP, and PVDF, coated on an aluminum foil and subsequently dried and calendared to obtain a positive electrode plate.
However, Gan does not teach the lithium secondary battery further comprises a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material having a nickel content of 80 atm% or more.
Iwaya teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery ([0021]) comprising a positive electrode containing a positive electrode active material ([0065]). Iwaya further teaches that a known positive electrode active material may be used, for example, a lithium-containing metal oxide such as lithium nickel oxide ([0066]). Iwaya further teaches the lithium-containing composite oxide may be LixNi1-yMyO2 wherein M is at least one member selected from Fe, Co, Ni, Mn, Mg, Cu, Zn, Al, Sn, B, Ga, Cr, V, Sr and Ti, and wherein 0.4 ≦ x ≦ 1.2, and 0 ≦ y ≦ 0.6 ([0067]).
The limitation “LixNi1-yMyO2 wherein 0.4 ≦ x ≦ 1.2, and 0 ≦ y ≦ 0.6” in Iwaya’s formula corresponds to a nickel (Ni) content of (1-y), which ranges from 40 atm% to 100 atm%. This disclosure encompasses and overlaps with the claimed subrange of a nickel content of 80 atm% or more (y ≤ 0.2). When the prior art discloses a general range that overlaps or routinely encompasses the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness is established.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Gan by substituting or utilizing the high-nickel active material taught by Iwaya, because Iwaya explicitly teaches overlapping ranges and that such nickel-containing composite oxides are known and suitable for secondary batteries to achieve suitable capacity. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have routinely optimized the nickel content within Iwaya's overlapping range to balance energy density and structural stability.
Regarding claim 13, modified Gan teaches all features of claim 12 as described above, including a positive electrode active material having a nickel content of 80 atm% or more based on the teachings of Iwaya. However, modified Gan does not expressly teach that the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium transition metal oxide represented by Formula 2:
LixNiaCobM1cM2dO2
wherein 0.90 ≤ x ≤ 1.1, 0.80 ≤ a ≤ 1.0, 0 < b < 0.2, 0 < c < 0.2, and 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.1.
Iwaya teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery ([0021]) comprising a positive electrode containing a positive electrode active material ([0065]). Iwaya further teaches that a known positive electrode active material may be used, for example, lithium-containing metal oxides such as lithium cobalt oxide and lithium nickel oxide ([0066]). Iwaya further teaches the lithium-containing composite oxide may be represented by the formula:
LixNi1-yMyO2
wherein M is at least one member selected from Fe, Co, Ni, Mn, Mg, Cu, Zn, Al, Sn, B, Ga, Cr, V, Sr and Ti, and wherein 0.4 ≦ x ≦ 1.2, and 0 ≦ y ≦ 0.6 ([0067]).
The limitation “LixNi1-yMyO2 wherein 0.4 ≦ x ≦ 1.2, and 0 ≦ y ≦ 0.6” in Iwaya’s formula corresponds to Formula 2 of the claim, which is LixNiaCobM1cM2dO2, such that:
M1 of Formula 2 is at least one of Mn or Al (Iwaya lists Mn and Al as options for the metal My, which corresponds to the M1 of Formula 2 of the claim; [0067]), and
M2 of Formula 2 is at least one selected from the group consisting of B, Mg, Ti, Sr (Iwaya lists B, Mg, Ti, Sr as options for the metal My, which corresponds to the M2 of Formula 2 of the claim [0067]).
Regarding the “LixNiaCobM1cM2dO2 wherein 0.90 ≤ x ≤ 1.1, 0.80 ≤ a ≤ 1.0, 0 < b < 0.2, 0 < c < 0.2, and 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.1,” limitation for the ranges of each constituent, the ranges of the constituents correlate to:
a Lix content of the LixNi1-yMyO2 composite of Iwaya is disclosed in a range of 0.4 – 1.2 ([0067]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.9 ≤ x ≤ 1.1 of Formula 2,
a Co content of the LixNi1-yMyO2 composite, where My is Co, of Iwaya is disclosed in a range of 0 – 0.6 ([0067]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0 < b < 0.2 of Formula 2,
and the My content of the LixNi1-yMyO2 composite of Iwaya is disclosed to be 0 ≦ y ≦ 0.6, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of 0 < c < 0.2 and 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.1 for M1c and M2d of Formula 2.
Since Iwaya states at least one member may be selected from Fe, Co, Ni, Mn, Mg, Cu, Zn, Al, Sn, B, Ga, Cr, V, Sr and Ti, and wherein 0.4 ≦ x ≦ 1.2, and 0 ≦ y ≦ 0.6 ([0067]), Iwaya suggests that more than one metal may be used in the composite.
Thus, the disclosures of Iwaya encompass the claimed lithium transition metal oxide composition in Formula 2 for the positive electrode active material, including the claimed Li, Ni, Co, and transitional metal M1 and M2 selections, and their respective ranges which overlap with the claimed ranges. Accordingly, when the prior art discloses a general range that overlaps or routinely encompasses the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness is established.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery of Gan to utilize the known positive electrode active materials taught by Iwaya, because Iwaya teaches that such lithium-containing metal oxides are suitable positive electrode active materials for non-aqueous lithium secondary batteries. In addition, the disclosed Li, Ni, Co, and transitional metal M1 and M2 ranges overlap with the claimed ranges; thus, selection of values within the overlapping portions would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization with the predictable results of a lithium secondary battery utilizing a conventional positive electrode active material for its intended purpose.
Regarding claim 14, modified Gan teaches all features of claim 11 as described above, including a lithium-ion battery comprising the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 1. Gan further discloses during the preparation of a negative electrode wherein the negative electrode slurry comprises mesophase carbon microspheres (CMS), acetylene black, NMP, and PVDF, coated on a copper foil and subsequently dried and calendared to obtain a negative electrode plate.
However, Gan does not expressly teach the lithium-ion battery further comprising a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material comprising a mixture of graphite and SiOx (0<x<2).
Iwaya teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery ([0021]) comprising a negative electrode containing a negative electrode active material. Iwaya further teaches that the negative electrode active material may be a known negative electrode active material for lithium-ion secondary batteries, including carbon materials such as graphite or amorphous carbon, and teaches that such materials provide a negative electrode having high capacity and low reactivity with the electrolyte solution ([0058]).
Iwaya further teaches that silicon (Si) may be useful as a negative electrode active material, and that oxides of such a metal may be used (i.e. silicon oxides) ([0058]). Iwaya also expressly discloses that one of these negative electrode active materials may be used alone, or two or more of them may be used in combination ([0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery of Gan to include a negative electrode active material comprising a combination of graphite and silicon oxide, because Iwaya teaches that graphite and silicon oxide are each known negative electrode active materials suitable for lithium ion secondary batteries and expressly teaches that two or more of such negative electrode active materials may be used in combination. Combining these known negative electrode active materials according to Iwaya would have been the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to provide a suitable negative electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery, while obtaining the known advantages of graphite, including high capacity and low reactivity with the electrolyte, together with the known lithium storage capability of silicon oxides.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXIS R OSTWALT whose telephone number is (571)272-8650. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 5712707692. 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.R.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights