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 .
Notice of Non-Patent Literature Cited
ASTM International. Standard Test Method for Peel or Stripping Strength of Adhesive Bonds. 2017 (Herein, “ASTM, D903”).
ASTM International. Standard Test Method for Resistance of Nonporous Paper to Passage of Air. 1999 (Herein, “ASTM, D726”).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1-6, 9, 14-16, and 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over KR-10-2022-0070098-A (Herein, “Hyun”).
Regarding claim 1, Hyun teaches a separator comprising:
a porous substrate (Hyun, (0011), "porous substrate"); and
a heat-resistant adhesive layer ((0011), "heat-resistant layer")
disposed on at least one surface of the porous substrate ((0011), "a heat-resistant layer disposed on at least one surface of the porous substrate"),
wherein the heat-resistant adhesive layer includes:
inorganic particles ((0041)); and
a binder component ((0015), "adhesive layer") including organic particles ((0043), "flourine-based polymer, and … acrylic polymer") that include a plurality of protrusion parts (Fig. 1) and a plurality of valley parts (Fig. 1).
Hyun is silent on the claimed average particle diameter.
However, Hyan discloses an average particle diameter (D50) of the organic particles is from 0.05 to 1 μm ((0051)),
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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the range of average particle diameters of Hyun to 0.1 to 1.5 micrometers.
Regarding D50 is a particle diameter below which 50% of the total particles are found, absent pervasive circumstances, the Examiner will assume the size distribution of particles of Hyun is such that the mean (average) of the diameters approximately equals the median (50th percentile) of the diameters.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hyun teaches the separator of claim 1, wherein
the heat-resistant adhesive layer includes 50 wt% or more of the organic particles (Hyun, (0015))
based on the total weight of
the binder component ((0015), "adhesive layer")
Regarding claim 3, modified Hyun teaches the separator of claim 1, wherein
the binder component further includes (Hyun, (0011), "adhesive layer … bound by a binder") an organic binder ((0055)).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hyun teaches the separator of claim 3, wherein
the organic binder includes one or more of acryl-based polymers, silane-based compounds, styrene butadiene rubber, carboxymethylcellulose, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinylpyrrolidone, or polyvinyl acetate (Hyun, (0055)).
Regarding clam 5, Modified Hyun teaches the separator of claim 3, but is silent on the specified ranges for the composition of inorganic particles, organic particles, and organic binder in the heat-resistant adhesive layer. However, modified Hyun renders obvious wherein:
30 to 85 wt% of the inorganic particles (Hyun, (0015), "the content of the inorganic particles in the heat-resistant layer may be 60 to 99% by weight")
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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filling of the instant disclosure to modify the disclosure of modified Hyun by inclusion of the claimed range of inorganic particles in the heat-resistant layer of modified Hyun.
10 to 60 wt% of the organic particles (the Examiner notes that the aforementioned disclosed range of inorganic particles in the heat resistant layer allows for organic particles to be included in a range of 1-40 wt%. (100-60/99 wt.%)).
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).
Inclusion of organic particles in the heat-resistant layer of modified Hyun in the claimed range would benefit modified Hyun by ensuring adhesion of the heat-resistant layer while ensuring high breathability, ionic conductivity, and dispersibility ((0049)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing of the instant disclosure to modify the disclosure of modified Hyun by inclusion of the organic particles of modified Hyun in the heat-resistant layer of modified Hyun.
1 to 15 wt% of the organic binder (the Examiner notes that the aforementioned disclosed range of inorganic binder in the heat resistant layer allows for organic particles to be included in a range of 1-40 wt%. (100-60/99 wt.%)).
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).
Inclusion of organic binder in the heat-resistant layer of modified Hyun would benefit modified Hyun by binding the inorganic particles and/or organic particles to each other in the heat-resistant layer ((0054)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing of the instant disclosure to modify the disclosure of modified Hyun by inclusion of the organic binder of modified Hyun in the heat-resistant layer of modified Hyun.
Wt% above based on the total weight of the heat-resistant adhesive layer.
Regarding claim 6, modified Hyun teaches the separator of claim 1, but is silent on the ratio of particle diameters with respect to the organic and inorganic particles.
However, modified Hyun teaches wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the organic particles is from 0.05 to 1 μm (Hyun, (0051)). Modified Hyun discloses this range of the average particle diameter of the organic particles ensures high breathability and ionic conductivity of the separation membrane while ensuring appropriate adhesion and resistance properties ((0051)).
Modified Hyun further teaches wherein the average particle diameter of the inorganic particles is in the range of 0.1 - 1.5 micrometers ((0039)). Modified Hyun discloses this range of the average particle diameter of the inorganic particles ensures high breathability and ionic conductivity of the separation membrane ((0039)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filling of the instant disclosure to modify the disclosure of modified Hyun by inclusion of the claimed ratio of an average particle diameter (D50) of the organic particles to an average particle diameter (D50) of the inorganic particles.
This modification would benefit the disclosure of modified Hyun by ensuring high breathability and ionic conductivity of the separation membrane while further ensuring appropriate adhesion and resistance properties.
Regarding claim 9, modified Hyun teaches the separator of claim 1, wherein
the heat-resistant adhesive layer has a thickness ranging from 0.1 μm to 5 μm (Hyun, (0016)).
Regarding claim 14, Hyun teaches an electrochemical device (Hyun, (0020), "an electrochemical device") comprising:
a separator (Hyun, (0010), "a separator") comprising:
a porous substrate (Hyun, (0011), "porous substrate"); and
a heat-resistant adhesive layer ((0011), "heat-resistant layer")
disposed on at least one surface of the porous substrate ((0011), "a heat-resistant layer disposed on at least one surface of the porous substrate"),
wherein the heat-resistant adhesive layer includes:
inorganic particles ((0041)); and
organic particles ((0043), "flourine-based polymer, and … acrylic polymer") that include a plurality of protrusion parts (Fig. 1) and a plurality of valley parts (Fig. 1), and
a binder material ((0011), "a binder")
that holds and binds the inorganic particles ((0011), "inorganic particles bound by a binder") and
the organic particles ((0011), "organic particles bound by a binder") to
the at least one surface of the porous substrate.
Hyun is silent on the claimed average particle diameter.
However, Hyan discloses an average particle diameter (D50) of the organic particles is from 0.05 to 1 μm ((0051)),
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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the range of average particle diameters of Hyun to 0.1 to 1.5 micrometers.
Regarding D50 is a particle diameter below which 50% of the total particles are found, absent pervasive circumstances, the Examiner will assume the size distribution of particles of Hyun is such that the mean (average) of the diameters approximately equals the median (50th percentile) of the diameters.
Regarding claim 15, modified Hyun teaches the separator of claim 14, wherein:
the heat-resistant adhesive layer includes 50 wt% or more of the organic particles (Hyun, (0015))
based on the total weight of
the binder component ((0015), "adhesive layer") including the organic particles
Regarding claim 16, modified Hyun teaches the separator of claim 14, but is silent on the ratio of particle diameters with respect to the organic and inorganic particles.
However, modified Hyun teaches wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the organic particles is from 0.05 to 1 μm (Hyun, (0051)). Modified Hyun discloses this range of the average particle diameter of the organic particles ensures high breathability and ionic conductivity of the separation membrane while ensuring appropriate adhesion and resistance properties ((0051)).
Modified Hyun further teaches wherein the average particle diameter of the inorganic particles is in the range of 0.1 - 1.5 micrometers ((0039)). Modified Hyun discloses this range of the average particle diameter of the inorganic particles ensures high breathability and ionic conductivity of the separation membrane ((0039)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filling of the instant disclosure to modify the disclosure of modified Hyun by inclusion of the claimed ratio of an average particle diameter (D50) of the organic particles to an average particle diameter (D50) of the inorganic particles.
This modification would benefit the disclosure of modified Hyun by ensuring high breathability and ionic conductivity of the separation membrane while further ensuring appropriate adhesion and resistance properties.
Regarding claim 19, modified Hyun teaches the separator of claim 14, wherein:
the heat-resistant adhesive layer has a thickness ranging from 0.1 μm to 5 μm (Hyun, (0016)).
Claim 7-8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Hyun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR-10-2020-0083918-A (Herein, “Woong”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hyun teaches the separator of claim 1, but is silent on the particle size distribution of the claimed organic particles.
Woong teaches wherein D10 is 0.92 micrometers and D90 is 2.99 micrometers (Woong, (0104), Embodiment 1). Therefore, Woong teaches a particle size distribution of the organic particles (D10/D90) is 0.31 (0.92/2.99). This value of 0.31 falls within the range of 0.3 to 0.9.
Woong further teaches wherein D10/D90 is a particle diameter below which 10/90% of the total particles are found ((0106), "Dx is a particle size value corresponding to x")
Modification of the disclosure of modified Hyun by inclusion of a particle size distribution of the organic particles (D10/D90), as shown by Woong, would benefit the disclosure of Hyun by confirming the particle size of the formed particles ((0103)) and enhancing pH, viscosity, ((0107)) and dispersion ((0011)) of the heat-resistant adhesion layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filling of the instant disclosure to modify the disclosure of modified Hyun by inclusion of a particle size distribution of the organic particles (D10/D90), as shown by Woong.
Regarding claim 8, modified Hyun teaches the separator of claim 1, but is silent on the glass transition temperature of the organic particles.
Woong teaches wherein the organic particles have a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 50 to 100 degrees Celsius.
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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the disclosed glass transition temperature range of Woong with the composition containing organic particles of modified Hyun.
Claim 17-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Hyun as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Woong.
Regarding claim 17, modified Hyun teaches the separator of claim 14, but is silent on the particle size distribution of the claimed organic particles.
Woong teaches wherein D10 is 0.92 micrometers and D90 is 2.99 micrometers (Woong, (0104), Embodiment 1). Therefore, Woong teaches a particle size distribution of the organic particles (D10/D90) is 0.31 (0.92/2.99). This value of 0.31 falls within the range of 0.3 to 0.9.
Woong further teaches wherein D10/D90 is a particle diameter below which 10/90% of the total particles are found ((0106), "Dx is a particle size value corresponding to x")
Modification of the disclosure of modified Hyun by inclusion of a particle size distribution of the organic particles (D10/D90), as shown by Woong, would benefit the disclosure of Hyun by confirming the particle size of the formed particles ((0103)) and enhancing pH, viscosity, ((0107)) and dispersion ((0011)) of the heat-resistant adhesion layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filling of the instant disclosure to modify the disclosure of modified Hyun by inclusion of a particle size distribution of the organic particles (D10/D90), as shown by Woong.
Regarding claim 18, modified Hyun teaches the separator of claim 14, but is silent on the glass transition temperature of the organic particles.
Woong teaches wherein the organic particles have a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 50 to 100 degrees Celsius.
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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the disclosed glass transition temperature range of Woong with the composition containing organic particles of modified Hyun.
Claim 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Hyun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US-20200407543-A1 (Herein, “Amin-Sanayei”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hyun teaches the separator of claim 1 and organic particles, but is silent on the morphology of the organic particles.
Amin-Sanayei teaches wherein the organic particles are secondary particles in which primary particles are aggregated with each other by surface melting (Amin-Sanayei, (0099), "The blending of the two polymers may be in the form of a melt blending") to form a plurality of protrusion parts and a plurality of valley parts ((0056)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the organic particle morphology, and associated formation of such morphology, of Amin-Sanayei with the unspecific organic particle morphology of modified Hyun because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
The Examiner notes that claim 10 as written comprises an "or" statement. Therefore, the Examiner will pick, at their discretion, any one of the limitations of the "or" statement as being required while treating the rest as optional, and therefore not considered in this analysis.
Claim 20 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Hyun as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Amin-Sanayei.
Regarding claim 20, modified Hyun teaches the separator of claim 14 and organic particles, but is silent on the morphology of the organic particles.
Amin-Sanayei teaches wherein the organic particles are secondary particles in which primary particles are aggregated with each other by surface melting (Amin-Sanayei, (0099), "The blending of the two polymers may be in the form of a melt blending") to form a plurality of protrusion parts and a plurality of valley parts ((0056)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the organic particle morphology, and associated formation of such morphology, of Amin-Sanayei with the unspecific organic particle morphology of modified Hyun because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
The Examiner notes that claim 20 as written comprises an "or" statement. Therefore, the Examiner will pick, at their discretion, any one of the limitations of the "or" statement as being required while treating the rest as optional, and therefore not considered in this analysis.
Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Hyun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amin-Sanayei, ASTM, D903, and US-20200127266-A1 (Herein, “Kwack”) .
Regarding claim 11, Modified Hyun teaches separator of claim 1, wherein the separator has an electrode adhesive strength of 1.0 gf/mm or more (Hyun, (0019)) and the associated testing properties.
Modified Hyun further teaches adhering the separator by compression at 5 MPa ((0088) at 80 degrees Celsius ((0088)).
While modified Hyun is silent on the length of the compression and teaches a different pressure, it is the Examiner's position that the underlying properties of the separator of modified Hyun as claimed in claim 1 will have the same properties as the instant disclosed properties.
Therefore, the Examiner considers the aforementioned limitations of claim 11 obvious modifications when optimizing the process of determining adhesive strength.
with a heat press (the Examiner notes that since the separator of modified Hyun is heated to 80 degrees Celsius (Hyun, (0088)), it is implied one such method of heating would be to use a heat press), and is silent on the separator having the claimed adhesive strength in claim 11.
the heat-resistant adhesive layer of the separator faces the carbon sheet (Hyun, (0088), "the adhesive layer of the separator ... and the electrode ... face each other"),
using universal testing machine (UTM) equipment (Hyun, (0088), "Shimatsu's UTM")
Modified Hyun is silent on the separator having the claimed adhesive strength in claim 11 using a 180 degree peel test.
Amin-Sanayei teaches wherein the separator has an adhesive strength of 1.53 gf/mm (obtained from disclosed 15 N/m (0083) of Amin-Sanayei divided by ((9.806 N*mm)/(gf*m))).
Amin-Sanayei teaches peeling off the separator at 180° (Amin-Sanayei, (0083), "180 degree peel test")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the electrode adhesion strength, and associated testing components, of modified Hyun with the electrode adhesion strength, and associated testing components, of Amin-Sanayei because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Modified Hyun is silent on the testing being performed in accordance with ASTM D903.
However, the Examiner notes that ASTM D903 is a standard peel test method (ASTM, D903).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the peel test method of modified Hyun with the peel test method established by ASTM, D903 because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Modified Hyun is silent on:
the electrode adhesive strength being measured by laminating the separator on
a carbon sheet having a thickness of 200 μm.
Instead, modified Hyun teaches the adhesive strength being measured by laminating the separator into an aluminum pouch (Hyun, (0088)).
Kwack US-20200127266-A1 (from KR-1026504789-B1) (L21) teaches
the electrode adhesive strength being measured by laminating the separator on
a carbon sheet ((0077), “carbon sheet”) having a thickness of 200 μm ((0077), “thickness of 200 μm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the aluminum pouch of modified Hyun with the carbon sheet of a thickness of 200 micrometers of Kwack because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Hyun as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of ASTM, D726.
Regarding claim 12, modified Hyun teaches the separator of claim 11 and an air permeability of 210-350 sec/100 ml (Hyun, (0019)) measured using a densometer (Hyun, (0087), "Asahi Seiko's Densometer EGO2-5"), but is silent on the air permeability being within the range disclosed by claim 12.
However, Hyun teaches that the air permeability of the separator can be lower by closing the pores, thereby affecting ion movement, charging, and discharging (Hyun, (0009).
Therefore, it is the Examiner's position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to lower the air permeability of the separator to the range required by claim 12 when making routine optimizations for ion movement, charging, or discharging.
Modified Hyun is silent on air permeability measured according to the standard of ASTM D726.
However, the Examiner notes that ASTM D726 is a standard test method for air permeability (ASTM, D726).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the air permeability method of modified Hyun with the air permeability method established by ASTM, D726 because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 13, modified Hyun teaches adhering the separator of claim 12:
At a compression of 5 MPa ((0088) at 80 degrees Celsius ((0088)).
peeling off the separator at 180° (Amin-Sanayei, (0083), "180 degree peel test")
resulting in no blocking occurrence (Kwack, Table 1, row "Whether antibocking occurs", values of "OK").
in accordance with ASTM D903 (the Examiner notes that ASTM D903 is a standard peel test method (ASTM International).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the peel test method of modified Hyun with the peel test method established by ASTM international because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
While modified Hyun is silent on the length of the compression and teaches a different pressure and temperature, it is the Examiner's position that the underlying properties of the separator of modified Hyun as claimed in claim 1 will have the same properties as the instant disclosed properties. Therefore, the Examiner considers the aforementioned limitations of claim 11 obvious modifications when optimizing the process of determining adhesive strength.
Regarding when two sheets of separators are disposed so that the adhesive layers face each other and that the adhesive layers are separated as they are without a phenomenon in which the adhesive layers are adhered to each other and partially or completely peeled off of claim 13, absent pervasive circumstances it is the Examiner’s position that since modified Hyun teaches the separator of claim 12, the separator will inherently have the same or similar properties as recited in claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN M ABELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9302. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM U.S. 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571)272-8760. 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.
/E.M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights