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 .
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/03/2024 and 03/06/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideaki et al. (Pub. No. US 20170352876 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hideaki teaches a positive electrode (cathode, see [0011]), comprising: a positive electrode current collector (metal foil, see [0011]); and a positive electrode mixed material layer (deposited cathode material, see [0011]) formed on a surface (surface of metal foil the cathode material is deposited, see [0011]) of the positive electrode current collector (metal foil, see [0011]), wherein the positive electrode mixed material layer (deposited cathode material, see [0011]) comprises: a first positive electrode active material (lithium metal oxide, see [0012]) that is a layered compound (layered structure, see [0059]) represented by formula (1) (Formula (IV), see [0067]),
Li.sub.aNi.sub.xCo.sub.yM1.sub.1−x−yO.sub.2 (0<a≤1.2 (x is greater than 0 to 1.2, see [0067]), 0<x≤0.9 (1-(y+z+d) is from 0.5 to 0.85, see [0067] where b+c+d is 0.15 to 0.5, note this appears to be a typographical error and is intended to be y+z+d, therefore 1-0.15 = 0.85, and 1-0.5 = 0.5), 0<y≤0.5 (y is 0.1 to 0.5, see [0067]), 0<x+y<1 (1-x-y = 0.05 to 0.8, see [0067] where the equivalent M1 is Mn and D, see z is 0.05 to 0.4 and w is 0 to 0.4)) (1) (Formula (IV), see [0067]); a second positive electrode active material (lithium metal phosphate, see [0012]) having a phosphate compound (lithium metal phosphate, see [0012]) that is represented by formula (2) (formula (I), see [0036]) and that has an olivine structure (olivine structure, see [0041]),
LiMn.sub.zM2.sub.bFe.sub.1−z−bPO.sub.4 (0<z≤0.9 (b is from 0.1 to 0.9, see [0038]), 0<z+b<1 (c is from 0.1 to 0.9, see [0039], note 1-z-b is greater than 0 and less than 1)) (2) (Formula (I), see [0036]); and an electrically conductive agent (conductive carbon, see [0096] gives a specific example of using a conductive carbon), a median diameter (10.41, see [0085] gives specific example of D50 being 10.41 microns) of the first positive electrode active material (lithium metal oxide, see [0012]) is larger than D90 (less than 9 micrometers, see [0055]) of the second positive electrode active material (lithium metal phosphate, see [0012]), in the formula (1) (Formula (IV), see [0067]), M1 (Mn and D, see [0067]) is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ti, Zr, Nb, W (W, see [0067]), P, Al (Al, see [0067]), Mg, V (V, see [0067]), Mn (Mn, see [0067]), Ca, Sr, Cr (Cr, see [0067]), Fe (Fe, see [0067]), B (B, see [0067]), Ga (Ga, see [0067]), In, Si (Si, see [0067]), Mo, Y, Sn, Cu (Cu, see [0067]), Ag, Ce, Pr, Ge, Bi, Ba, Er, La, Sm, Yb, Sb, Bi, S and Zn (Zn, see [0067]), but fails to teach in the present embodiment wherein the phosphate compound has a carbon material film formed on a surface, and fails to teach wherein in the formula (2), 0≤b≤0.1, and M2 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Ti, Cu, Zn, Mg, Zr, Ca, Y, Mo, Ba, Pb, Bi, La, Ce, Nd, Gd, Al, Ga and Sr.
However in another embodiment Hideaki teaches wherein the phosphate compound (lithium metal phosphate, see [0071]) has a carbon material film formed on a surface (carbonaceous coating, see [0071].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the present embodiment to include a carbonaceous coating as taught by the embodiment of [0071] of Hideaki. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Further, Hideaki teaches wherein in the formula (2) (Formula (I), see [0036]), 0≤b≤0.1 (1-b-c is from 0.0 to 0.12, see [0040]), and M2 (M.sub.1, see [0036]) is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ni (nickel, see [0041]), Co (cobalt, see [0041]), Ti (titanium, see [0041]), Cu (copper, see [0041]), Zn (zinc, see [0041]), Mg (magnesium, see [0041]), Zr (Zr, see [0041]), Ca (calcium, see [0041]), Y, Mo (molybdenum, see [0041]), Ba, Pb, Bi, La (lanthanum, see [0041]), Ce, Nd, Gd, Al (aluminum, see [0041]), Ga and Sr (strontium, see [0041]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hideaki such that (1-b-c) stays between 0.0 and 0.1 as Hideaki teaches it is known in the art to do so and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hideaki such that M.sub.1 is at least one of nickel, cobalt, titanium, copper, zinc, magnesium, zirconium, calcium, molybdenum, lanthanum, aluminum, or strontium as Hideaki teaches it is known in the art to do so.
Regarding claim 3, Hideaki fails to teach a median diameter of the second positive electrode active material is 1/100 or more and ⅕ or less of the median diameter of the first positive electrode active material.
However, Hideaki does teach a median diameter (D50 is at least 0.1 microns and equal or less than 2.5 microns, see [0055]) of the second positive electrode active material (lithium metal phosphate, see [0012]) is 1/100 or more and ⅕ or less (0.0096 to 0.24, see [0085] gives a specific example of lithium metal oxide D50 of 10.41, therefore 0.1/10.41 = 0.0096 and 2.5/10.41 = 0.24) of the median diameter (10.41, see [0085] gives specific example of D50 being 10.41 microns) of the first positive electrode active material (lithium metal oxide, see [0012]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hideaki such that the ratio of median diameter of lithium metal phosphate to the median diameter of lithium metal oxide stays within the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.2 as Hideaki teaches an overlapping range and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 4, Hideaki fails to teach wherein a median diameter of the second positive electrode active material is 0.1 μm or more and 1.0 μm or less.
However, Hideaki does teach wherein a median diameter of the second positive electrode active material (lithium metal phosphate, see [0012]) is 0.1 μm or more and 1.0 μm or less (D50 is at least 0.1 microns and equal or less than 2.5 microns, see [0055]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hideaki such that the median diameter of lithium metal phosphate stays within the claimed range of 0.1 microns to 1.0 microns as Hideaki teaches an overlapping range and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 5, Hideaki teaches wherein, a ratio of a weight of the second positive electrode active material (lithium metal phosphate, see [0012]) to a total weight of the first positive electrode active material (lithium metal oxide, see [0012]) and the second positive electrode active material (lithium metal phosphate, see [0012]) is 10% or more and 30% or less (10 to 50 weight percent, see [0069] which overlaps the claimed range and see [0096] gives a specific example of 20 weight percent which lies within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 9, Hideaki teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (LIB, see [0081]) comprising: the positive electrode (cathode, see [0011], see [0081] where the cathode is used in the LIBs, see [0032]) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); a negative electrode (anode, see [0081]); a separator (separator, see [00825]); and a non-aqueous electrolyte (battery electrolyte, see [0083]) comprising a lithium salt (lithium salt, see [0083]) and a non-aqueous solvent (solvents, see [0083] where the solvents are non-aqueous).
Regarding claim 11, Hideaki teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (LIB, see [0081]) comprising: the positive electrode (cathode, see [0011], see [0081] where the cathode is used in the LIBs, see [0032]) according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above); a negative electrode (anode, see [0081]); a separator (separator, see [00825]); and a non-aqueous electrolyte (battery electrolyte, see [0083]) comprising a lithium salt (lithium salt, see [0083]) and a non-aqueous solvent (solvents, see [0083] where the solvents are non-aqueous).
Regarding claim 12, Hideaki teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (LIB, see [0081]) comprising: the positive electrode (cathode, see [0011], see [0081] where the cathode is used in the LIBs, see [0032]) according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above); a negative electrode (anode, see [0081]); a separator (separator, see [00825]); and a non-aqueous electrolyte (battery electrolyte, see [0083]) comprising a lithium salt (lithium salt, see [0083]) and a non-aqueous solvent (solvents, see [0083] where the solvents are non-aqueous).
Regarding claim 13, Hideaki teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (LIB, see [0081]) comprising: the positive electrode (cathode, see [0011], see [0081] where the cathode is used in the LIBs, see [0032]) according to claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above); a negative electrode (anode, see [0081]); a separator (separator, see [00825]); and a non-aqueous electrolyte (battery electrolyte, see [0083]) comprising a lithium salt (lithium salt, see [0083]) and a non-aqueous solvent (solvents, see [0083] where the solvents are non-aqueous).
5. Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideaki et al. (Pub. No. US 20170352876 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Satoko et al. (Pub. No. JP 2020031028 A).
Regarding claim 2, Hideaki fails to teach wherein the second positive electrode active material has a tapped density of 0.70 g/cc or more and 1.00 g/cc or less.
However, Satoko teaches wherein the second positive electrode active material (lithium-based olivine-type composite oxide, see [0016], see [0021] where the oxide is a manganese iron phosphate) has a tapped density of 0.70 g/cc or more and 1.00 g/cc or less (0.85g/cc to 1.0g/cc, see [0016]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hideaki such that the tap density of the lithium metal phosphate is 0.85 g/cc to 1.0 g/cc as taught by Satoko to ensure sufficient energy density while ensuring elution of transition metal from the layered lithium composite oxide is sufficiently suppressed (see [0016] of Satoko).
Regarding claim 10, Hideaki in view of Satoko teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (LIB, see [0081]) comprising: the positive electrode (cathode, see [0011], see [0081] where the cathode is used in the LIBs, see [0032]) according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above); a negative electrode (anode, see [0081]); a separator (separator, see [00825]); and a non-aqueous electrolyte (battery electrolyte, see [0083]) comprising a lithium salt (lithium salt, see [0083]) and a non-aqueous solvent (solvents, see [0083] where the solvents are non-aqueous).
6. Claim(s) 6-7 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideaki et al. (Pub. No. US 20170352876 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagano (Pub. No. US 20160164101 A1) in view of Satoko et al. (Pub. No. JP 2020031028 A).
Regarding claim 6, Hideaki teaches wherein: a ratio of a weight of the first positive electrode active material (lithium metal oxide, see [0012]) to a total weight of the first positive electrode active material (lithium metal oxide, see [0012]) and the second positive electrode active material (lithium metal phosphate, see [0012]), upon considering the total weight as 1, is represented by R1 (0.5 to 0.85, see [0070] where lithium metal oxide is 50 to 85 weight percent based on total, therefore when total is taken as 1, 50 to 85 becomes 0.5 to 0.85), a ratio of a weight of the second positive electrode active material (lithium metal phosphate, see [0012]) to the total weight of the first positive electrode active material (lithium metal oxide, see [0012]) and the second positive electrode active material (lithium metal phosphate, see [0012]), upon considering the total weight as 1, is represented by R2 (0.15 to 0.5, see [0069] where total is between 10 to 50 weight percent, but see above the maximum for lithium metal oxide is 0.85 therefore the minimum for lithium metal phosphate becomes 0.15), but fails to teach when a tapped density (g/cc) of the first positive electrode active material is represented by W1, a tapped density (g/cc) of the second positive electrode active material is represented by W2, and a density (g/cc) of the positive electrode mixed material layer calculated based on a thickness of the positive electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery when a charging rate of the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery after initial activation is 0% is represented by D, formula (3) is satisfied, 0.760≤(W1×R1+W2×R2)/D≤0.960 (3).
However, Hideaki does teach a density (g/cc) (about 3 g/cm.sup.3, see [0102] gives specific examples showing pressing density, see table 2 gives specific values of 3.023 and 2.973) of the positive electrode mixed material layer (deposited cathode material, see [0011], see [0102] where the density is of the pressed deposited cathode layer) before activation (see [0102] the density is determined before activation). Further, the density of the positive electrode mixed material layer is expected to stay the same or decrease after initial activation and discharge based on thickness, which is shown in the instant published application [0140] where initial pressing density is 3.00 g/cc and decreases to 2.86 g/cc. Further, it is known in the art that positive electrode mixed material layers can have a range of densities as evidenced by [0097] of Wang* where densities can range between 2.2 to 4 g/cm.sup.3. Therefore the examiner will consider the range of density D for calculation purposes between 2.8 and 3 g/cc to account for changes from 3.0 g/cc taught by Hideaki.
Hideaki fails to teach a tapped density (g/cc) of the first positive electrode active material.
However, Nagano teaches a tapped density (g/cc) (2.4 to 2.9 g/cm.sup.3, see [0038]) of the first positive electrode active material (lithium nickel-based composite oxide, see [0038]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hideaki such that the lithium metal oxide has a tap density of 2.4 to 2.9 g/cc as taught by Nagano to ensure high compactness of primary particles constituting secondary particles and improving cycle characteristics (see [0038] of Nagano).
Hideaki in view of Nagano fails to teach a tapped density (g/cc) of the second positive electrode active material.
However, Satoko teaches a tapped density (g/cc) (0.85g/cc to 1.0g/cc, see [0016]) of the second positive electrode active material (lithium-based olivine-type composite oxide, see [0016], see [0021] where the oxide is a manganese iron phosphate).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hideaki in view of Nagano such that the tap density of the lithium metal phosphate is 0.85 g/cc to 1.0 g/cc as taught by Satoko to ensure sufficient energy density while ensuring elution of transition metal from the layered lithium composite oxide is sufficiently suppressed (see [0016] of Satoko).
Therefore, Hideaki in view of Nagano and further in view of Satoko teaches wherein formula (3) is, 0.760≤(W1×R1+W2×R2)/D≤0.960 (3) (0.542 ≤(W1×R1+W2×R2)/D≤ 0.934, see math calculations below).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hideaki in view of Nagano and further in view of Satoko such that the range of formula 3 stays within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.760 and less than or equal to 0.934 as Hideaki in view of Nagano in view of Satoko teaches an overlapping range and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I).
*Additional evidence provided by Wang (Pub. No. US 20220052319 A1).
Math Calculations: Completed using computational software and placed into table below. W1max = 2.9 g/cc, see modifications above, W1min = 2.4 g/cc, see modifications above, W2max = 1.0 g/cc, see modifications above, W2min = 0.85 g/cc, see modifications above, R1max = 0.85, see [0070] of Hideaki, R1min = 0.5, see [0070] of Hideaki, R2max = 0.5, see [0069] of Hideaki, R2min = 0.15, see [0069] of Hideaki and modifications above, Dmax = 3 and Dmin = 2.8, see modifications above.
Iteration
W1
R1
W2
R2
(W1*R1+W2*R2)
/Dmax
/Dmin
1
max
max
max
min
2.615
0.872
0.934
2
max
max
min
min
2.593
0.864
0.926
3
max
min
min
max
1.875
0.625
0.670
4
max
min
max
max
1.950
0.650
0.696
5
min
min
max
max
1.700
0.567
0.607
6
min
min
min
max
1.625
0.542
0.580
7
min
max
min
min
2.168
0.723
0.774
8
min
max
max
min
2.190
0.730
0.782
Table above gives all minimum and maximum combinations. The outputs in bold are the highest and smallest outputs possible.
Regarding claim 7, Hideaki in view of Nagano and further in view of Satoko teaches wherein the weight ratio R2 (0.15 to 0.5, see [0069] where total is between 10 to 50 weight percent, but see above the maximum for lithium metal oxide is 0.85 therefore the minimum for lithium metal phosphate becomes 0.15) is 0.1 or more and 0.3 or less (0.2, see [0096] gives a specific example of the weight percent of lithium metal phosphate as 0.2, and therefore R1 is 0.8, a table of this range is calculated as in claim 6 setting R1 as 0.8 and R2 as 0.2).
Iteration
W1
W2
(W1*R1+W2*R2)
/Dmax
/Dmin
1
max
max
2.520
0.840
0.900
2
max
min
2.490
0.830
0.889
5
min
max
2.120
0.707
0.757
6
min
min
2.090
0.697
0.746
Regarding claim 14, Hideaki in view of Nagano and further in view of Satoko teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (LIB, see [0081]) comprising: the positive electrode (cathode, see [0011], see [0081] where the cathode is used in the LIBs, see [0032]) according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above); a negative electrode (anode, see [0081]); a separator (separator, see [00825]); and a non-aqueous electrolyte (battery electrolyte, see [0083]) comprising a lithium salt (lithium salt, see [0083]) and a non-aqueous solvent (solvents, see [0083] where the solvents are non-aqueous).
Regarding claim 15, Hideaki in view of Nagano and further in view of Satoko teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (LIB, see [0081]) comprising: the positive electrode (cathode, see [0011], see [0081] where the cathode is used in the LIBs, see [0032]) according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above); a negative electrode (anode, see [0081]); a separator (separator, see [00825]); and a non-aqueous electrolyte (battery electrolyte, see [0083]) comprising a lithium salt (lithium salt, see [0083]) and a non-aqueous solvent (solvents, see [0083] where the solvents are non-aqueous).
7. Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideaki et al. (Pub. No. US 20170352876 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagano (Pub. No. US 20160164101 A1) in view of Satoko et al. (Pub. No. JP 2020031028 A).
Regarding claim 8, Hideaki fails to teach wherein a ratio of a specific surface area of the first positive electrode active material to a specific surface area of the second positive electrode active material is 0.005 or more and 0.025 or less.
However, Nagano teaches a specific surface area (0.3 to 0.7 m.sup.2/g, see [0039]) of the first positive electrode active material (lithium nickel-based composite oxide, see [0039]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hideaki such that the BET specific surface area of the lithium metal oxide is between 0.3 and 0.7 m.sup.2/g as taught by Nagano to ensure the reaction area of the active material is secured, internal resistance of the battery is lowered, and polarization at time of electrode reaction is suppressed at minimum level (see [0039] of Nagano).
Further, Satoko teaches a specific surface area (18 to 25 m.sup.2/g, see [0020]) of the second positive electrode active material (lithium-based olivine-type composite oxide, see [0020], see [0021] where the oxide is a manganese iron phosphate).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hideaki in view of Nagano such that the lithium metal phosphate has a BET specific surface area of 18 to 25 m.sup.2/g as taught by Satoko to ensure sufficient filling of voids and sufficient suppression of elution of transition metal from layered composite oxide particles (see [0020] of Satoko).
Therefore, Hideaki in view of Nagano and further in view of Satoko teaches wherein a ratio of a specific surface area (0.3 to 0.7 m.sup.2/g, see [0039] of Nagano, see modifications above) of the first positive electrode active material (lithium metal oxide, see [0012]) to a specific surface area (18 to 25 m.sup.2/g, see [0020] of Satoko, see modifications above) of the second positive electrode active material (lithium metal phosphate, see [0012]) is 0.005 or more and 0.025 or less (0.012 to 0.038, 0.3/25 = 0.012 and 0.7/18 = 0.038).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hideaki in view of Nagano and further in view of Satoko such that the ratio of specific surface area of lithium metal oxide to lithium metal phosphate stays within the claimed range of 0.012 to 0.025 as Hideaki in view of Nagano and further in view of Satoko teaches an overlapping range and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further, specific surface area of lithium metal phosphate is a result effective variable of ensuring sufficient suppression of the elution of the transition metal (see [0020] of Satoko), and specific surface area of the lithium metal oxide is a result effective variable of ensuring reaction area of active material and lowering resistance of the battery (see [0039] of Nagano).
Regarding claim 16, Hideaki in view of Nagano and further in view of Satoko teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (LIB, see [0081]) comprising: the positive electrode (cathode, see [0011], see [0081] where the cathode is used in the LIBs, see [0032]) according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above); a negative electrode (anode, see [0081]); a separator (separator, see [00825]); and a non-aqueous electrolyte (battery electrolyte, see [0083]) comprising a lithium salt (lithium salt, see [0083]) and a non-aqueous solvent (solvents, see [0083] where the solvents are non-aqueous).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights