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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 25 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/11/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “0.2 mass% or more”, and the claim also recites “2.0 mass% or less” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation & claim 1 recites the broad recitation “0.1 mass% or more”, and the claim also recites “5.0 mass% or less” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 5 recites the broad recitation “5 µm or more”, and the claim also recites “25 µm or less” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 16 recites the broad recitation “0.1 mass% or more”, and the claim also recites “1.5 mass% or less” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 17 recites the broad recitation “0.1 mass% or more”, and the claim also recites “1.5 mass% or less” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 18 recites the broad recitation “more than 1.5 mass%”, and the claim also recites “5.0 mass% or less” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 19 recites the broad recitation “more than 1.5 mass%”, and the claim also recites “5.0 mass% or less” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (WO 2020085189 A1, “Hayashi”) in view of Yasuda et al. (WO 2020085462 A1, “Yasuda”). The machine translations are used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses an exterior material for electrical storage devices comprising a laminate including at least a base material layer, a barrier layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order (see title “exterior material for energy storage devices”; see [0036] “laminated structure”; see FIG. 1 “1” describes base layer & “3” describes barrier layer & “4” describes heat-fusible resin layer & FIG. 1 describes order of layers “1”, ”3”, ”4”), wherein the barrier layer includes an aluminum alloy foil formulated to have a Fe content of 0.2 mass% or more and 2.0 mass % or less (see FIG. 1 “barrier layer 3” & see [0042] “barrier layer 3 of the exterior material for an energy storage device” & “can be composed of aluminum alloy foil” & see [0017] “aluminum alloy foil” & “Fe (Iron)” & see [0151] “Example 1” & “Fe 0.40 wt%” which lies within the claimed range), and a Mg content of 0.1 mass% or more and 5.0 mass% or less (see [0151] describes “Mg 2.20 wt%” & see [0161] “Mg contents of 2.20 mass%” which lies within the claimed range), the heat-sealable resin layer is composed of a single layer (see FIG. 4 describes “heat-fusible resin layer 4” describes 1 layer) or multiple layers (see [0046] “resin layers 4 are facing each other” which reads on multiple layers & see FIG. 10), and a first heat-sealable resin layer of the heat-sealable resin layer, which forms a surface of the laminate, has a logarithmic decrement ΔE of 0.25 or less at 140°C in measurement with a rigid pendulum (see [0125] “the logarithmic attenuation rate ΔE at 120 °C” & “about 0.10 to 0.50” which overlaps the claimed range of 0.25 & see [0122] “ΔE at 120°C for rigid pendulum measurement” & see [0126] “temperature range of 30°C to 200 °C” which overlaps the claimed range of 140°C).
Yasuda teaches “a logarithmic decrement ΔE of no more than 0.20 in a rigid body pendulum measurement at 140°C” (see abstract). Yasuda teaches in [0013] “characterized by having a logarithmic attenuation rate ΔE at 140°C in rigid body pendulum measurement of 0.20 or less. According to the exterior material for energy storage devices in the present disclosure, having this configuration effectively suppresses crushing when the thermoplastic resin layer is thermally melted” & 0.20 or less lies within the claimed range of 0.25 or less.
Hayashi and Yasuda are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely casing material for power storage device (see Hayashi title).
Yasuda teaches a range of 0.20 or less, which lies within the claimed range of 0.25 or less. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the aluminum alloy is formulated to have a Mn content of 0.1 mass% or less (see [0151] “Mn 0.10 mass%”).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the aluminum alloy foil is formulated to have a Si content of 0.5 mass% or less (see [0151] “Si 0.00 wt%” which lies within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a thickness of the first heat-sealable resin layer is 2-25 µm (see [0068] “the thickness of the resin films constituting each layer is preferably about 2-25 µm) which overlaps the claimed range of 5 µm or more and 25 µm or less.
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 1 and further discloses wherein after the first heat-sealable resin layers of the laminate are opposed to each other and heated and pressed in a laminating direction under conditions of a temperature of 190 °C, a surface pressure of 2.0 MPa and a time of 3 seconds, a residual ratio of a total thickness of the two first heat-sealable resin layers opposed to each other is 30% or more (see [0128] “heating and pressurizing in the stacking direction at a temperature of 190 °C, a surface pressure of 0.5 MPa, and a time of 3 seconds” & “residual thickness of the adhesive layer is 70% or more”; see [0046] “heat and apply pressure in the lamination direction from both sides of the test sample under conditions of 190 °C, surface pressure 2.0 MPa, and time for 3 seconds”; see Table 3”).
Hayashi discloses a range of 70% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range of 30% or more. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 6 “heated and pressed in a laminating direction under conditions of a temperature of 190 °C, a surface pressure of 2.0 MPa and a time of 3 seconds”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process). See MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a resin forming the first heat-sealable resin layer has a polyolefin backbone (see [0085] “resin layer 4” & “resins containing polyolefin backbones such as polyolefins” & “are preferred”).
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 1 and further discloses further comprising an adhesive layer between the barrier layer and the heat-sealable resin layer (see [0105] “adhesive layer 5 is a layer provided as needed between the barrier layer 3 (or corrosion-resistant coating) and the thermoplastic resin layer 4 to firmly bond them”).
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 8 and further discloses wherein a total thickness of the adhesive layer and the heat-sealable resin layer is 50 µm or more (see [0096] “thickness of the adhesive layer 5 described later is 10 µm or more, the thickness of the thermoplastic resin layer 4 is preferably about 85 µm or less, more preferably about 15-45µm” which describes a total thickness of 25 µm -95 µm which overlaps the claimed range of 50 µm or more).
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 8 and further discloses wherein a thickness of the adhesive layer is equal to or larger than the thickness of the first heat-sealable resin layer (see [0096] “thickness of the adhesive layer 5 described later is 10 µm or more, the thickness of the thermoplastic resin layer 4 is preferably about 85 µm or less, more preferably about 15-45 µm”).
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 8 and further discloses wherein the heat-sealable resin layer includes the first heat-sealable resin layer and a second heat-sealable resin layer in this order form the surface side of the laminate (see [0091] “thermoplastic resin layer 4” & “may be formed in two or more layers by the same or different resins”), and a thickness of the second heat-sealable resin layer is equal to or more than the thickness of the adhesive layer (see [0096] describes thickness of the thermoplastic resin layer 4 & “more preferably about 15-45 µm” & “thickness of the adhesive layer 5” & “10 µm or more”).
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 8 and further discloses wherein the thickness of the second heat-sealable resin layer (see [0091] “thermoplastic resin layer 4” & “may be formed in two or more layers by the same or different resins”; see [0096] “the thickness of the thermoluscible resin layer 4 is not particularly limited if the thermoluscible resin layers perform thermal fusion with each other to seal the energy storage device element”). Hayashi does not explicitly disclose wherein the thickness of the second heat-sealable resin layer is larger than the thickness of the first heat-sealable resin layer.
Yasuda teaches in [0101] “first thermo-fusible resin layer 41 is thermally melted and enhanced sealing with the exterior material for energy storage devices, if the thermo-fusible resin layer 4 is provided with a first thermo-fusible resin layer 41 and a second thermo-fusible resin layer 42, the thickness of the first thermo-fusible resin layer 41 is preferably about 85 um or less” & see [0105] “from the viewpoint of effectively suppressing crushing when the first thermo-fusible resin layer 41 is thermally melted and enhancing the sealing performance by exterior material for energy storage devices, it is preferable that the thickness of the second thermo-fusible resin layer 42 is greater than that of the first thermo-fusible resin layer 41”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “thickness of the second thermo-fusible resin layer 42 is greater than that of the first thermo-fusible resin layer 41” as suggested by Yasuda (see [0105]) into the exterior material of Hayashi because doing so is preferable & improves the sealing performance as suggested by Yasuda (see [0105]).
Regarding claim 13, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 8 and further discloses wherein the adhesive layer has a thickness of 10 µm or more (see [0096] “adhesive layer 5” & describes thickness is “10 µm or more”) which lies within the claimed range of 50 µm or less.
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a slipping agent is present on a surface of the first heat-sealable resin layer (see [0062] “if the substrate layer 1 is a two-layer resin film laminate, it is preferable to use a polyester resin film and a polyester resin film laminate, a polyamide resin film and a polyamide resin film laminate”). The specification of the instant application in [0039] provides evidence of amide-based slipping agent. Hayashi discloses a polyamide resin film (see [0062]) which reads on amide-based slipping agent.
Regarding claim 24, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 1 and further discloses an electrical storage device in which an electrical storage device element including at least a positive electrode, a negative electrode and an electrolyte is housed in a packaging formed of the exterior material (see [0147] “the outer packaging materials for energy storage devices disclosed in this disclosure are used as packaging bodies for sealing and housing energy storage device elements such as cathode, negative electrodes and electrolytes”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (WO 2020085189 A1, “Hayashi”) in view of Yasuda et al. (WO 2020085462 A1, “Yasuda”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayashi et al. (WO 2021132562 A1, “Hayashi2”, US 20220375697 A1 used herein for citation purposes) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 1 and further discloses “maximum tensile strength” (see [0173]). Regarding the limitation wherein the aluminum alloy foil has a tensile strength of 100 MPa or more and a breaking elongation of 10% or more as measured for a JIS No. 5 test piece in accordance with the provisions of JIS Z 2241: 2011, Hayashi does not explicitly disclose tensile strength of 100 MPa or more, nor breaking elongation of 10% or more, however, tensile strength and breaking elongation are material properties.
Hayashi2 provides evidence in [0152] “tensile strength and elongation were measured in a tensile test. The tensile test was conducted in accordance with JIS Z 2241: 2011” & see [0158] “tensile strength of 100 MPa or more and an elongation of 10% or more as measured for JIS No. 5 test piece as specified in JIS Z 2241: 2011”. Hayashi2 describes “exterior material for electric storage devices is excellent in moldability” (see [0014]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that tensile strength of 100 MPa or more & elongation of 10% or more as evidenced by Hayashi2 (see [0152], [0158]) improves the moldability of the exterior material as evidenced by Hayashi2 (see [0014]). Hayashi discloses a substantially similar exterior material as the claimed invention would exhibit similar properties as the claimed invention including tensile strength and elongation.
Claims 15-16, 18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (WO 2020085189 A1, “Hayashi”) in view of Yasuda et al. (WO 2020085462 A1, “Yasuda”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahagi et al. (US 20190363312 A1, “Takahagi”).
Regarding claim 15, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 1 and further discloses wherein in the aluminum alloy foil, a ratio between a length of a high-angle grain boundary L1 and a length of a low-angle grain boundary L2 per unit area (see [0022] “thickness cross-section of aluminum alloy foil is observed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM)”; see FIG. 16 describes L1 and L2; see [0019] describes “average of the diameters y of the top 20 second-phase particles 2b in order of the largest diameter y is, 10.0 µm or less”; see [0024] “100 aluminum alloy grains 3a located within the field of view, as shown in the schematic diagram of Figure 16, the thickness of each individual grain is the leftmost vertically oriented” & “maximum diameter x”). Hayashi discloses an electron microscope (see [0162]).
PNG
media_image1.png
234
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hayashi does not explicitly disclose satisfies the relationship of L1/L2 > 3.0, however, ratio of the grain boundary is a material property. Hayashi does not explicitly disclose as measured by an electron backscatter diffraction method.
Takahagi teaches electron backscattered diffraction (see [0050] “EBSD (Electron BackScattered Diffraction Pattern) method”).
Hayashi and Takahagi are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery packaging materials (see Takahagi title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate electron backscattered diffraction as suggested by Takahagi (see [0050]) because doing so “measure[s] microscopic crystal orientations of a crystal sample”, as suggested by Takahagi (see [0050]).
Regarding claim 16, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 15 and further discloses wherein the aluminum alloy foil is formulated to have a Mg content of 0.1 mass% or more (see [0017] “aluminum alloy foil” & “Fe (iron)” & see [0151] & [0161] “Mg contents of 2.20 mass%”). Hayashi discloses and 1.5 mass% or less and at least one surface of the aluminum alloy foil contains Mg in an amount of 5.0 atm% or more (see [0017], [0151], [0161], [0178] “Mg content of 0.20 mass% or more and 5.50 mass% or less” which overlaps the claimed ranges). Regarding the limitation and at least one surface of the aluminum alloy foil has an oxide film with a thickness of 80 Angstroms or more, Hayashi discloses in [0027] “aluminum oxide present on the aluminum alloy foil surface” & see [0039] describes O & thickness of the corrosion-resistant coating & 1 nm-20µm, more preferably about 1 nm- 50 nm” which is equivalent to 10 Angstroms – 500 Angstroms & overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 15 and further discloses wherein the aluminum alloy foil is formulated to have a Mg content of more than 1.5 mass% and 5.0 mass% or less (see [0151] “example 1” & describes “Mg 2.20 wt%” & see [0161] “Mg contents of 2.20 mass%”). Regarding the limitation and at least one surface of the aluminum alloy foil contains Mg in an amount of 15.0 atm% or more, Hayashi discloses “Mg 2.20 wt%” in [0151] & in [0178] describes Aluminum alloy foil used as an exterior material for energy storage devices with a Mg content of 0.20 mass% or more and 5.5 mass% or less”. A skilled artisan would find obvious that the atomic mass of Mg is 24.31 & (5.5/24.31)×100 = 23 which lies within the claimed range of 15 or more.
Regarding the limitation and at least one surface of the aluminum alloy foil has an oxide film with a thickness of 120 Angstroms or more, Hayashi discloses in [0027] “aluminum oxide present on the aluminum alloy foil surface” & see [0039] describes O & thickness of the corrosion-resistant coating & 1 nm-20µm, more preferably about 1 nm- 50 nm” which is equivalent to 10 Angstroms – 500 Angstroms & overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 20, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 15 and further discloses “chemical treatment is carried out by applying a solution containing compounds used to form corrosion-resistant coatings on the surface of the aluminum alloy foil” (see [0040]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the aluminum alloy foil has a texture orientation density of 15 or less in each of Copper orientation and R orientation, however texture orientation density is a material property.
Takahagi teaches crystal orientations (see [0054] “crystal orientations of the aluminum crystals are analyzed using the EBSD method” & see [0090] “crystal orientation analysis software”; see [0215] “In the calculation of the proportion of the total area of the {111} plane, the analysis was performed with an acceptable angle of 15°”). Takahagi teaches “aluminum alloy foil exhibits excellent moldability when used for a battery packaging material” (see [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate crystal orientations analysis & acceptable angle of 15 as suggested by Takahagi (see [0054], [0090], [0215]) into the exterior material of Hayashi because doing so improves the moldability when used for a battery packaging material, as suggested by Takahagi (see [0013]).
Regarding claim 21, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 15 and further discloses wherein the aluminum alloy foil has an average crystal grain size of 25 µm or less (see [0023] “average grain size of aluminum alloy foil, from the perspective of improving moldability, it is preferably 20 µm or less” which lies within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 22, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 15 and further discloses wherein the aluminum alloy foil contains Mn in an amount of 0.1 mass% or less as an inevitable impurity (see [0178] “other unavoidable impurities are individually 0.05 mass% or less” which lies within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 23, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 15 and further discloses wherein the aluminum alloy foil is formulated to have a Si content of 0.5 mass% or less (see [0151] “Si 0.00 wt%” which lies within the claimed range).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (WO 2020085189 A1, “Hayashi”) in view of Yasuda et al. (WO 2020085462 A1, “Yasuda”) and Takahagi et al. (US 20190363312 A1, “Takahagi”) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Hayashi et al. (WO 2021132562 A1, “Hayashi2”, US 20220375697 A1 used herein for citation purposes) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 17 and claim 19, Hayashi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices of claim 15 and further discloses wherein the aluminum alloy foil is formulated to have a Mg content of 0.1 mass% or more, as required by claim 17 and more than 1.5 mass% as required by claim 19 (see [0017], [0151], [0161] “2.20 mass%” which lies within the claimed range).
Regarding the limitation the aluminum alloy foil has a tensile strength of 110 MPa or more, and a breaking elongation of 10% or more as required by claim 19 and a tensile strength of 180 MPa or more and a breaking elongation of 15% or more as required by claim 19, Hayashi discloses in [0173] “maximum tensile strength”, but does not explicitly disclose tensile strength of 110 MPa or more nor breaking elongation of 10% or more, nor tensile strength of 180 MPa or more nor breaking elongation of 15% or more, however, tensile strength and breaking elongation are material properties.
Hayashi2 provides evidence in [0152] “tensile strength and elongation were measured in a tensile test. The tensile test was conducted in accordance with JIS Z 2241: 2011” & see [0158] “tensile strength of 100 MPa or more and an elongation of 10% or more as measured for JIS No. 5 test piece as specified in JIS Z 2241: 2011”. Hayashi2 describes “exterior material for electric storage devices is excellent in moldability” (see [0014]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that tensile strength of 100 MPa or more & elongation of 10% or more as evidenced by Hayashi2 (see [0152], [0158]) improves the moldability of the exterior material as evidenced by Hayashi2 (see [0014]). Hayashi discloses a substantially similar exterior material as the claimed invention would exhibit similar properties as the claimed invention including tensile strength and elongation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 09/26/2026
