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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/619990 filed on 6/30/2022. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 18: the limitation of “hard carbon” is unclear as the term of “hard” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hard” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, “hard carbon” is being interpreted as “any carbon which is hardly converted into graphite”.
Claims 2-17 are rejected for their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 19-20 are rejected for their dependence on claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20230238517 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 14: Lee discloses a secondary battery (abstract). The secondary battery (equivalent to an electrochemical device), comprising: a cathode (equivalent to a positive electrode plate) (par. 43), an electrolyte (equivalent to an electrolytic solution) (par. 43), and an anode (equivalent to a negative electrode plate) (par. 43); the anode plate comprising an electrode plate (equivalent to a negative current collector) (par. 526), and an anode mixture layer (equivalent to a negative active material layer) disposed on at least one side of the electrode plate (par. 526); wherein the anode mixture layer comprises an anode active material (equivalent to a negative active material) (par. 526), the anode active material comprises graphite and amorphous hard carbon (par. 67).
Lee does not specifically disclose a ratio of a mass percent WH of hydrogen to a mass percent WC of carbon in the hard carbon. However, it is the position of the examiner that such properties are inherent, given that the amorphous hard carbon disclosed by Lee and the present application having similar precursor materials and calcination (sintering) temperatures. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Claims 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20230238517 A1).
Regarding claims 18, 19: Lee discloses a secondary battery (abstract). The secondary battery (equivalent to an electrochemical device) is used in various fields, such as notebook PCs, mobile devices (equivalent to electronic devices). The secondary battery comprises: a cathode (equivalent to a positive electrode plate) (par. 43), an electrolyte (equivalent to an electrolytic solution) (par. 43), and an anode (equivalent to a negative electrode plate) (par. 43); the anode plate comprising an electrode plate (equivalent to a negative current collector) (par. 526), and an anode mixture layer (equivalent to a negative active material layer) disposed on at least one side of the electrode plate (par. 526); wherein the anode mixture layer comprises an anode active material (equivalent to a negative active material) (par. 526), the anode active material comprises graphite and amorphous hard carbon (par. 67).
Lee does not specifically disclose a ratio of a mass percent WH of hydrogen to a mass percent WC of carbon in the hard carbon. However, it is the position of the examiner that such properties are inherent, given that the amorphous hard carbon disclosed by Lee and the present application having similar precursor materials and calcination (sintering) temperatures. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, 15-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azami (US 10777817 B2) in view of Kuboki et al. (US 6342319 B1).
Regarding claim 1: : Azami discloses a lithium ion secondary battery (abstract). The lithium ion secondary battery (equivalent to an electrochemical device), comprising: a positive electrode (equivalent to a positive electrode plate) (col. 6, line 18), an electrolyte solution (equivalent to an electrolytic solution) (col. 7, line47), and a negative electrode (equivalent to a negative electrode plate) (col. 2, line54); the negative electrode comprising a current collector (col. 2, lines 55-60), and a negative electrode active material layer (equivalent to a negative active material layer) disposed on at least one side of the current collector (col. 2, lines 55-60); wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material (equivalent to a negative active material) (col. 2, lines 55-60), the negative electrode active material comprises graphite particles and hardly graphitizable carbon (equivalent to hard carbon) particles (col. 2, lines 61-63).
Azami fails to explicitly disclose a ratio of a mass percent WH of hydrogen to a mass percent WC of carbon in the hard carbon is 0.02 ≤ WH/WC ≤ 0.20. However, Kuboki et al. disclose a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery including a negative electrode containing a carbonaceous material (abstract). The carbonaceous material has a graphite structure or a glassy carbon structure (col. 5, lines 27-45) (the glassy carbon structure is equivalent to hard carbon as evidenced by Browne. et al. (US 20200381703 A1) in par. 36). The carbonaceous material is capable of absorbing and desorbing lithium ions and having a molar ratio of hydrogen to carbon of 0.2 to 0.4 (equivalent to WH/WC of 0.017 to 0.033) (col. 1, lines 36-41). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the carbonaceous material with the molar ratio of hydrogen to carbon of 0.2 to 0.4 of Kuboki et al. as the hardly graphitizable carbon particles of Azami because Kuboki et al. teach that this molar ratio range can provide good discharge capacity and conductivity of the carbonaceous material (col. 5, lines 27-45). 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). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3: Azami discloses the negative electrode active material layer comprises graphite particles and hardly graphitizable carbon particles (col. 2, lines 61-63), and D1V50 of the graphite particles is 5 µm to 25 µm (col. 5, lines 4-15). 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). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4: Azami discloses D2V50 of the hard carbon particles is 0.5 µm to 15 µm (col. 5, lines 4-15). 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). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5: Azami discloses the negative electrode active material layer comprises graphite particles and hardly graphitizable carbon particles (col. 2, lines 61-63), and D1V50 of the graphite particles is 14 µm and D2V50 of the hard carbon particles is 9 µm (equivalent to D2V50/D1V50 =0.64) in Example 28 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 6: Azami discloses D1V50 of the graphite particles is 14 µm and D2V50 of the hard carbon particles is 9 µm (equivalent to D2V50/D1V50 =0.64) in Example 28 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 7: Azami discloses a lithium ion secondary battery (abstract) as described above. Azami does not specifically disclose an X-ray diffraction pattern of the negative active material.
However, it is the position of the examiner that such properties are inherent, given that the negative electrode active material disclosed by Azami and the present application have a similar composition (material and weight percentage), and that the graphite particles disclosed by Azami have a similar G/D ratio range. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Alternatively, Azami recognizes as the cycle characteristics and the energy density of the lithium ion secondary battery are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the weight percentage of the graphite and the hardly graphitizable carbon in the negative electrode active material (col. 2, lines 61-67, col. 3, lines 1-10, col. 3, lines 52-67, col. 4, lines 1-4) (the weight percentage of the graphite and the hardly graphitizable carbon influences X-ray diffraction pattern as evidenced by Mitra et al. (US 20180375093 A1) in par. 7), with the cycle characteristics increasing and the energy density decreasing as the weight percentage of the hardly graphitizable carbon in the negative electrode active material is increased, the precise weight percentage of the hardly graphitizable carbon (which influences the X-ray diffraction pattern) would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed X-ray diffraction pattern cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the X-ray diffraction pattern to obtain the desired balance between the cycle characteristics and the energy density of the lithium ion secondary battery. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 8: Azami discloses the graphite in the negative electrode preferably has a ratio (G/D) in the range of 2.0 to 5.0 (equivalent to ID/IG in the range of 0.5 to 0.2), wherein the ratio (G/D) is a ratio of intensity G of a peak at 1550 to 1650 cm−1 to intensity D of a peak at 1300 to 1400 cm−1 by Raman spectroscopic analysis. Here, the peak intensity G is assigned to crystalline carbon, the peak intensity D is assigned to amorphous carbon (col. 3, lines 21-35). Azami does not specifically disclose the Raman spectrum of the negative active material layer and ID/IG <0.3. However, it is the position of the examiner that such properties are inherent, given that the negative electrode active material disclosed by Azami and the present application have a similar composition (material and weight percentage), and that the graphite particles disclosed by Azami have a similar G/D ratio range. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Regarding claim 9: Azami discloses a lithium ion secondary battery (abstract) as described above. Azami does not specifically disclose an X-ray diffraction pattern of the negative active material.
However, it is the position of the examiner that such properties are inherent, given that the negative electrode active material disclosed by Azami and the present application have a similar composition (material and weight percentage), and that the graphite particles disclosed by Azami have a similar G/D ratio range. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Alternatively, Azami recognizes as the cycle characteristics and the energy density of the lithium ion secondary battery are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the weight percentage of the graphite and the hardly graphitizable carbon in the negative electrode active material (col. 2, lines 61-67, col. 3, lines 1-10, col. 3, lines 52-67, col. 4, lines 1-4) (the weight percentage of the graphite and the hardly graphitizable carbon influences X-ray diffraction pattern as evidenced by Mitra et al. (US 20180375093 A1) in par. 7), with the cycle characteristics increasing and the energy density decreasing as the weight percentage of the hardly graphitizable carbon in the negative electrode active material is increased, the precise weight percentage of the hardly graphitizable carbon (which influences the X-ray diffraction pattern) would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed X-ray diffraction pattern cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the X-ray diffraction pattern to obtain the desired balance between the cycle characteristics and the energy density of the lithium ion secondary battery. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 10: Azami discloses the graphite in the negative electrode preferably has a ratio (G/D) in the range of 2.0 to 5.0 (equivalent to ID/IG in the range of 0.5 to 0.2), wherein the ratio (G/D) is a ratio of intensity G of a peak at 1550 to 1650 cm−1 to intensity D of a peak at 1300 to 1400 cm−1 by Raman spectroscopic analysis. Here, the peak intensity G is assigned to crystalline carbon, the peak intensity D is assigned to amorphous carbon (col. 3, lines 21-35). Azami does not specifically disclose the Raman spectrum of the negative active material layer and 0.1<ID/IG <0.3. However, it is the position of the examiner that such properties are inherent, given that the negative electrode active material disclosed by Azami and the present application have a similar composition (material and weight percentage), and that the graphite particles disclosed by Azami have a similar G/D ratio range.
Regarding claim 11: Azami discloses the negative electrode active material layer comprises graphite particles, silicon oxide particles, and hardly graphitizable carbon particles (col. 2, lines 61-63). It is preferable that ranges of each median diameter satisfy:
5.0 μm<D50G (graphite) <25.0 μm,
1.0 μm<D5OS (silicon oxide) <15.0 μm,
0.5 μm<D50H (hardly graphitizable carbon)<15.0 μm (col. 5, lines 4-27) (As each median diameter overlaps the range of 7 μm to 15 μm, the DV50 of the negative active material can overlaps 7 μm to 15 μm). 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). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 15: Azami discloses based on a mass of the negative electrode active material, a mass percent of the hardly graphitizable carbon is 3% in Example 28 (table 1).
Regarding claim 16: Azami discloses based on a mass of the negative electrode active material, a mass percent of the hardly graphitizable carbon is 3% in Example 28 (table 1).
Regarding claim 17: Azami discloses a lithium ion secondary battery (abstract) as described above. Azami fails to explicitly disclose after the electrochemical device is charged and discharged at a current of 3 C under 25 °C for 800 cycles, a mass percent of hydrogen in the negative active material is less than 2%. However, Kuboki et al. disclose a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery including a negative electrode containing a carbonaceous material (abstract). The carbonaceous material has a graphite structure or a glassy carbon structure (col. 5, lines 27-45) (the glassy carbon structure is equivalent to hard carbon as evidenced by Browne. et al. (US 20200381703 A1) in par. 36). The carbonaceous material is capable of absorbing and desorbing lithium ions and having a molar ratio of hydrogen to carbon of 0.2 to 0.4 (equivalent to WH/WC of 0.017 to 0.033) (col. 1, lines 36-41) (When both the graphite structure and the glassy carbon structure have WH/WC = 0.02, the mass percentage of hydrogen in the negative active material is less than 1.96%). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the carbonaceous material with the molar ratio of hydrogen to carbon of 0.2 to 0.4 (equivalent to the mass percentage of hydrogen in the negative active material less than 1.96% ) of Kuboki et al. as the graphite particles and the hardly graphitizable carbon particles of Azami because Kuboki et al. teach that this molar ratio range can provide good discharge capacity and conductivity of the carbonaceous material (col. 5, lines 27-45).
Regarding claim 18: : Azami discloses a lithium ion secondary battery (abstract). The lithium ion secondary battery (equivalent to an electrochemical device) is used in electronic devices (col. 1, lines 24-29). The lithium ion secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode (equivalent to a positive electrode plate) (col. 6, line 18), an electrolyte solution (equivalent to an electrolytic solution) (col. 7, line47), and a negative electrode (equivalent to a negative electrode plate) (col. 2, line54); the negative electrode comprising a current collector (col. 2, lines 55-60), and a negative electrode active material layer (equivalent to a negative active material layer) disposed on at least one side of the current collector (col. 2, lines 55-60); wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material (equivalent to a negative active material) (col. 2, lines 55-60), the negative electrode active material comprises graphite particles and hardly graphitizable carbon particles (col. 2, lines 61-63).
Azami fails to explicitly disclose a ratio of a mass percent WH of hydrogen to a mass percent WC of carbon in the hard carbon is 0.02 ≤ WH/WC ≤ 0.20. However, Kuboki et al. disclose a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery including a negative electrode containing a carbonaceous material (abstract). The carbonaceous material has a graphite structure or a glassy carbon structure (col. 5, lines 27-45) (the glassy carbon structure is equivalent to hard carbon as evidenced by Browne. et al. (US 20200381703 A1) in par. 36). The carbonaceous material is capable of absorbing and desorbing lithium ions and having a molar ratio of hydrogen to carbon of 0.2 to 0.4 (equivalent to WH/WC of 0.017 to 0.033) (col. 1, lines 36-41). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the carbonaceous material with the molar ratio of hydrogen to carbon of 0.2 to 0.4 of Kuboki et al. as the hardly graphitizable carbon particles of Azami because Kuboki et al. teach that this molar ratio range can provide good discharge capacity and conductivity of the carbonaceous material (col. 5, lines 27-45). 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). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 20: Azami discloses the negative electrode active material layer comprises graphite particles and hardly graphitizable carbon particles (col. 2, lines 61-63), and D1V50 of the graphite particles is 14 µm and D2V50 of the hard carbon particles is 9 µm (equivalent to D2V50/D1V50 =0.64) in Example 28 (Table 1).
Claims 1, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20240243272 A1) in view of Kuboki et al. (US 6342319 B1).
Regarding claim 1: : Liu et al. disclose an electrochemical device (par. 2). The electrochemical device, comprising: a positive electrode (equivalent to a positive electrode plate) (par. 37), an electrolytic solution (par. 37), and a negative electrode (equivalent to a negative electrode plate) (par. 37); the negative electrode comprising a negative current collector (par. 50), and a negative material layer (equivalent to a negative active material layer) disposed on at least one side of the negative current collector (par. 50); wherein the negative material layer comprises a negative active material (par. 41), the negative active material includes at least one of natural graphite, artificial graphite, or hard carbon (par. 41).
Liu et al. fail to explicitly disclose a ratio of a mass percent WH of hydrogen to a mass percent WC of carbon in the hard carbon is 0.02 ≤ WH/WC ≤ 0.20. However, Kuboki et al. disclosed a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery including a negative electrode containing a carbonaceous material (abstract). The carbonaceous material has a graphite structure or a glassy carbon structure (col. 5, lines 27-45) (the glassy carbon structure is equivalent to hard carbon as evidenced by Browne. et al. (US 20200381703 A1) in par. 36). The carbonaceous material is capable of absorbing and desorbing lithium ions and having a molar ratio of hydrogen to carbon of 0.2 to 0.4 (equivalent to WH/WC of 0.017 to 0.033) (col. 1, lines 36-41). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the carbonaceous material with the molar ratio of hydrogen to carbon of 0.2 to 0.4 of Kuboki et al. as the hard carbon of Liu et al. because Kuboki et al. teach that this molar ratio range can provide good discharge capacity and conductivity of the carbonaceous material (col. 5, lines 27-45). 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). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 12, 13: : Liu et al. disclose the particle size of the negative active material satisfies 5 μm≤DV90≤20 μm, and 5 μm≤DV99−DV90≤25 μm, and preferably 5 μm≤DV90≤15 μm, and 5 μm≤DV99−DV90≤10 μm (par. 41) (when DV90= 15 μm, DV99 is in the range of 20-25 μm).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). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights