Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinoshita et al. (JP-2014194842-A), hereafter referred to as Kinoshita.
Regarding Claim 1, Kinoshita teaches an electrochemical apparatus (“This invention relates to a lithium-ion secondary battery,” paragraph 1) comprising a positive electrode (“positive electrode for lithium-ion secondary batteries used in this invention,” paragraph 16), a negative electrode (“the negative electrode material in one embodiment of the present invention,” paragraph 15), and an electrolyte (“a non-aqueous electrolyte,” paragraph 46), wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer formed on the positive electrode current collector (“positive electrode mixture slurry was applied to both sides of a positive electrode current collector,” paragraph 55), and the positive electrode active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material, wherein the positive electrode active material comprises element tungsten (“a positive electrode active material containing heterogeneous elements as the positive electrode,” paragraph 13; “the heterogeneous elements include at least one heterogeneous element selected from the group consisting of tungsten, niobium, boron, zirconium, and vanadium,” paragraph 13), and the electrolyte comprises fluoroethylene carbonate (“it is preferable to include a fluorinated solvent as the non-aqueous electrolyte, which is at least one selected from the group consisting of fluoroethylene carbonate,” paragraph 44);
based on a mass of the positive electrode active material, a percentage of the element tungsten is x% (“The tungsten compound was present in a concentration of 0.5 mol% relative to the lithium nickel composite oxide,” paragraph 54, where 0.5 mol% ≈ 0.9 wt%); based on a mass of the electrolyte, a percentage of the fluoroethylene carbonate is a% [“A non-aqueous solvent was obtained by mixing fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), ethylene carbonate (EC), and ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) in a volume ratio of 1:1:6,” paragraph 57, where 1:1:6 vol% ≈ 12 wt%] where ; and 1≤a/x≤70 (12 wt%/0.9 wt% = 13.3).
Regarding Claim 2, Kinoshita teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein 0.05≤x≤1 (“The tungsten compound was present in a concentration of 0.5 mol% relative to the lithium nickel composite oxide,” paragraph 54, where 0.5 mol% ≈ 0.9 wt%).
Regarding Claim 14, Kinoshita teaches an electronic apparatus, comprising an electrochemical apparatus (“the lithium-ion secondary battery of the present invention is useful as a power source for various portable electronic devices such as mobile phones, PDAs, notebook personal computers, digital cameras, and portable game consoles,” paragraph 102), the electrochemical apparatus comprising a positive electrode (“positive electrode for lithium-ion secondary batteries used in this invention,” paragraph 16), a negative electrode (“the negative electrode material in one embodiment of the present invention,” paragraph 15), and an electrolyte (“a non-aqueous electrolyte,” paragraph 46), wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer formed on the positive electrode current collector (“positive electrode mixture slurry was applied to both sides of a positive electrode current collector,” paragraph 55), and the positive electrode active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material, wherein the positive electrode active material comprises element tungsten (“a positive electrode active material containing heterogeneous elements as the positive electrode,” paragraph 13; “the heterogeneous elements include at least one heterogeneous element selected from the group consisting of tungsten, niobium, boron, zirconium, and vanadium,” paragraph 13), and the electrolyte comprises fluoroethylene carbonate (“it is preferable to include a fluorinated solvent as the non-aqueous electrolyte, which is at least one selected from the group consisting of fluoroethylene carbonate,” paragraph 44);
based on a mass of the positive electrode active material, a percentage of the element tungsten is x% (“The tungsten compound was present in a concentration of 0.5 mol% relative to the lithium nickel composite oxide,” paragraph 54, where 0.5 mol% ≈ 0.9 wt%); based on a mass of the electrolyte, a percentage of the fluoroethylene carbonate is a% [“A non-aqueous solvent was obtained by mixing fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), ethylene carbonate (EC), and ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) in a volume ratio of 1:1:6,” paragraph 57, where 1:1:6 vol% ≈ 12 wt%]; and 1≤a/x≤70 ((12 wt%/0.9 wt% = 13.3).
Regarding Claim 15, Kinoshita teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 14, wherein 0.05≤x≤1 (“The tungsten compound was present in a concentration of 0.5 mol% relative to the lithium nickel composite oxide,” paragraph 54, where 0.5 mol% ≈ 0.9 wt%).
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.
Claim 3 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita in view of Hasegawa (US-20180287118-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Kinoshita teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1, but not wherein 0.1≤a≤7. However, Hasegawa teaches an electrochemical apparatus with a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising fluorine-containing organic compound, preferably fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC). Therein, Hasegawa teaches that the wt%, a, of FEC be 0.1≤a≤7 [“The nonaqueous solvent contains a fluorine-containing organic compound, and a content of the fluorine-containing organic compound is preferably 5% by volume or more and 15% by volume or less,” paragraph 45; “Among these, FEC is preferred,” paragraph 47; “a mixed solvent was adjusted to contain 5% by volume of fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), 15% by volume of ethylene carbonate (EC) and 80% by volume of ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC),” paragraph 69, which is ~6.4 wt% FEC]. Hasegawa teaches that adding too much FEC could lead to “an amount of a decomposition product of the fluorine-containing organic compound produced at a high temperature increases as compared with the case where the content satisfies the above-described range, and battery performance may be degraded in some cases,” paragraph 45.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the electrochemical device taught by Kinoshita and modify the wt% of FEC in order to prevent excessive decomposition product from forming and degrading the battery performance, as taught by Hasegawa. Please also see MPEP § 2144.05(I) and (II).
Regarding Claim 16, Kinoshita teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 14, but not wherein 0.1≤a≤7. However, Hasegawa teaches an electrochemical apparatus with a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising fluorine-containing organic compound, preferably fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC). Therein, Hasegawa teaches that the wt%, a, of FEC be 0.1≤a≤7 [“The nonaqueous solvent contains a fluorine-containing organic compound, and a content of the fluorine-containing organic compound is preferably 5% by volume or more and 15% by volume or less,” paragraph 45; “Among these, FEC is preferred,” paragraph 47; “a mixed solvent was adjusted to contain 5% by volume of fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), 15% by volume of ethylene carbonate (EC) and 80% by volume of ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC),” paragraph 69, which is ~6.4 wt% FEC]. Hasegawa teaches that adding too much FEC could lead to “an amount of a decomposition product of the fluorine-containing organic compound produced at a high temperature increases as compared with the case where the content satisfies the above-described range, and battery performance may be degraded in some cases,” paragraph 45.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the electrochemical device taught by Kinoshita and modify the wt% of FEC in order to prevent excessive decomposition product from forming and degrading the battery performance, as taught by Hasegawa. Please also see MPEP § 2144.05(I) and (II).
Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita in view of Watanabe et al. (JP-2013030284-A in IDS, see machine translation for citation purposes), hereafter referred to as a Watanabe.
Regarding Claim 4, Kinoshita teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1, but not wherein the electrolyte further comprises a sulfur-oxygen double bond-containing compound; and based on a mass of the electrolyte, a mass percentage of the sulfur-oxygen double bond-containing compound is b%, and 0.01≤b≤5. However, Watanabe teaches an electrochemical apparatus with a nonaqueous electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte comprises sulfonic acid ester with a mass %, b%, of the electrolyte, where 0.01≤b≤5 (“compounds having a sulfonic acid ester structure is 0.001 to 10% by mass in the non-aqueous electrolyte,” paragraph 15). Watanabe teaches that adding such a compound is beneficial because “these compounds strongly coordinate to the transition metal contained in the positive electrode used in the present invention, effectively suppressing the catalytic oxidation reaction and avoiding side reactions,” paragraph 22.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the electrochemical apparatus taught by Kinoshita and add sulfonic acid ester compound to the electrolyte within the claimed range to suppress unwanted side reactions, as taught by Watanabe. Please also see MPEP § 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 5, Kinoshita modified by Watanabe teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 4, wherein 1≤b/x≤50 (Kinoshita teaches x as “The tungsten compound was present in a concentration of 0.5 mol% relative to the lithium nickel composite oxide,” paragraph 54, where 0.5 mol% ≈ 0.9 wt%; Watanabe teaches b as, “compounds having a sulfonic acid ester structure is 0.001 to 10% by mass in the non-aqueous electrolyte,” paragraph 15; e.g., b = 0.9% yields b/x = 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Kinoshita teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1, but not wherein the electrolyte further comprises at least one of succinonitrile, adiponitrile, ethylene glycol di(2-cyanoethyl) ether, 1,3,6-hexanetrinitrile, 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane, 1,3-propanesultone, ethylene sulfate, vinylene carbonate, or 1-propyl phosphoric acid cyclic anhydride. However, Watanabe teaches an electrochemical apparatus with a nonaqueous electrolyte including a compound from the list in Claim 12 (“a non-aqueous electrolyte battery having a non-aqueous electrolyte containing at least one compound selected from the group consisting of compounds having a carbon-nitrogen unsaturated bond,” paragraph 133; “compounds having two cyano groups, such as malononitrile, succinonitrile, glutalonitrile, adiponitrile, pimeronitrile, suberonitrile, azeranitrile, sebaconitrile, undecanedinitrile, and dodecanedinitrile, are more preferred,” paragraph 144). Watanabe teaches the benefit of adding these compounds “from the viewpoint of suppressing side reactions within the non-aqueous battery,” paragraph 133.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the electrochemical apparatus taught by Kinoshita and add succinonitrile and/or adiponitrile to the electrolyte to suppress unwanted side reactions, as taught by Watanabe.
Regarding Claim 13, Kinoshita teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1, but not wherein the positive electrode active material comprises lithium nickel cobalt manganate (Kinoshita’s proposed active material does not include cobalt or manganese: “positive electrode active material layer can be formed, for example, by mixing lithium nickel composite oxide,” paragraph 19). However, Watanabe teaches that lithium nickel cobalt manganate is commonly used for its good balance of battery performance (“In recent years, lithium nickel manganese cobalt-based composite oxides, which offer a good balance of battery performance while reducing cobalt content, and iron phosphate, used in polyanionic cathode materials, have been put into practical use,” paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the electrochemical apparatus taught by Kinoshita and modify the positive electrode active material to comprise lithium nickel cobalt manganate in order to offer a good balance of battery performance, as taught by Watanabe.
Regarding Claim 17, Kinoshita teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 14, but not wherein the electrolyte further comprises a sulfur-oxygen double bond-containing compound, and based on a mass of the electrolyte, a mass percentage of the sulfur-oxygen double bond-containing compound is b%, and 0.01≤b≤5. However, Watanabe teaches an electrochemical apparatus with a nonaqueous electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte comprises sulfonic acid ester with a mass %, b%, of the electrolyte, where 0.01≤b≤5 (“compounds having a sulfonic acid ester structure is 0.001 to 10% by mass in the non-aqueous electrolyte,” paragraph 15). Watanabe teaches that adding such a compound is beneficial because “these compounds strongly coordinate to the transition metal contained in the positive electrode used in the present invention, effectively suppressing the catalytic oxidation reaction and avoiding side reactions,” paragraph 22.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the electrochemical apparatus taught by Kinoshita and add sulfonic acid ester compound to the electrolyte within the claimed range to suppress unwanted side reaction, as taught by Watanabe. Please also see MPEP § 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 18, Kinoshita modified by Watanabe teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 14, wherein 1≤b/x≤50 (Kinoshita teaches x as “The tungsten compound was present in a concentration of 0.5 mol% relative to the lithium nickel composite oxide,” paragraph 54, where 0.5 mol% ≈ 0.9 wt%; Watanabe teaches b as, “compounds having a sulfonic acid ester structure is 0.001 to 10% by mass in the non-aqueous electrolyte,” paragraph 15; e.g., b = 0.9% yields b/x = 1).
Claims 6-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita in view of Cui et al. (US-20200075943-A1), hereafter referred to as Cui.
Regarding Claim 6, Kinoshita teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the positive electrode further comprises an insulating layer; and the insulating layer is formed on the positive electrode current collector and overlaps with the positive electrode active material layer, or the insulating layer is formed on the positive electrode current collector and does not overlap with the positive electrode active material layer. However, Cui teaches an electrochemical apparatus of similar design, wherein the positive electrode comprises an insulating layer formed on the positive electrode current collector (“the surfaces of the positive electrode, the negative electrode or the separator of the lithium ion battery are coated with an inorganic insulating coating composed of aluminum oxide,” paragraph 25; “the inorganic layer has a certain coverage on the surface of the current collector, and the coverage is 60% to 100%,” paragraph 34). Cui teaches that a safety issue with lithium ion batteries, such as those in Cui and the instant application, is that “electrochemical devices (such as lithium ion batteries) are prone to internal short-circuits and cause thermal runaway when subjected to abnormal conditions such as nail penetration, impact,” paragraph 3. Cui teaches that an insulating layer of aluminum oxide is one of “the main technologies for improving the safety performance for impact and nail penetration of lithium ion batteries,” paragraph 25.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to take the electrochemical apparatus taught by Kinoshita and modify the positive electrode to explicitly include an insulating layer to improve the safety of the battery, as taught by Cui.
Regarding Claim 7, Kinoshita modified by Cui teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 6, wherein Cui further teaches the insulating layer comprises a compound containing element aluminum (“The inorganic layer comprises a metal oxide, and does not comprise a polymer such as a binder. The metal oxide comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of alumina,” paragraph 27), and based on a mass of the insulating layer, a mass percentage of element aluminum is y1%; and 50≤y1/x≤650 (for y1, Cui teaches the layer comprise alumina, i.e., Al2O3, and “In addition to the metal element and the oxygen element, the inorganic layer contains other impurities, and the mass percentage of the impurities is 0% to 2%,” paragraph 30; assuming no impurities, the wt% of the element aluminum would therefore be y1 ≈ 52; for x, Kinoshita teaches “The tungsten compound was present in a concentration of 0.5 mol% relative to the lithium nickel composite oxide,” paragraph 54, where 0.5 mol% ≈ 0.9 wt%, x = 0.9; thus, y1/x ≈ 58). Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 8, Kinoshita modified by Cui teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 7, wherein Cui further teaches y1 is in a range from 30 to 65 (Cui teaches the layer comprise alumina, i.e., Al2O3, and “In addition to the metal element and the oxygen element, the inorganic layer contains other impurities, and the mass percentage of the impurities is 0% to 2%,” paragraph 30; assuming no impurities, the wt% of the element aluminum would therefore be y1 ≈ 52).
Regarding Claim 9, Kinoshita teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the positive electrode further comprises a primer layer, and the primer layer is formed between the positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode active material layer. However, Cui teaches an electrochemical apparatus of similar design, wherein the positive electrode further comprises a primer layer, and the primer layer is formed between the positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode active material layer (“an inorganic layer arranged on a surface of the current collector,” paragraph 27; “by arranging the inorganic layer of the metal oxide on the surface of the positive electrode current collector, on the one hand, the surface roughness of the positive electrode current collector is increased, thereby increasing the adhesion of the positive electrode current collector to the positive active material,” paragraph 27, clarifying that the primer layer is in between the current collector and positive electrode active material). Cui teaches the benefit is increasing the adhesion of the current collector to the active material, as just noted, and that “the resistance of the positive electrode current collector is increased, thereby improving the safety performance of the lithium ion battery,” paragraph 27.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the electrochemical apparatus taught by Kinoshita and modify the positive electrode to include a primer layer in order to increase adhesiveness of the current collector and improve the safety of the battery, as taught by Cui.
Regarding Claim 10, Kinoshita modified by Cui teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the primer layer comprises element aluminum, and based on a mass of the primer layer, a mass percentage of element aluminum is y2%; and 20≤y2/x≤550 (for y1, Cui teaches the layer comprise alumina, i.e., Al2O3, and “In addition to the metal element and the oxygen element, the inorganic layer contains other impurities, and the mass percentage of the impurities is 0% to 2%,” paragraph 30; assuming no impurities, the wt% of the element aluminum would therefore be y2 ≈ 52; for x, Kinoshita teaches “The tungsten compound was present in a concentration of 0.5 mol% relative to the lithium nickel composite oxide,” paragraph 54, where 0.5 mol% ≈ 0.9 wt%, x = 0.9; thus, y2/x ≈ 58). Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 11, Kinoshita modified by Cui teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 10, wherein y2 is in a range from 20 to 50 (Cui teaches the layer comprise alumina, i.e., Al2O3, and “In addition to the metal element and the oxygen element, the inorganic layer contains other impurities, and the mass percentage of the impurities is 0% to 2%,” paragraph 30; assuming impurities, the wt% of the element aluminum would therefore be y2 ≈ 50. Furthermore, Cui teaches “the metal oxide comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of alumina, titanium oxide, magnesium oxide, tin oxide, cerium oxide, zirconium oxide, zinc oxide, calcium oxide,” indicating that Cui discloses that y2 may be even lower since other metal oxides may be included in addition to alumina).
Regarding Claim 19, Kinoshita teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 14, but does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations of claim 19. However, Cui teaches an electrochemical apparatus of similar design, wherein the positive electrode further comprises an insulating layer (“the surfaces of the positive electrode, the negative electrode or the separator of the lithium ion battery are coated with an inorganic insulating coating composed of aluminum oxide,” paragraph 25); and the insulating layer comprises a compound containing element aluminum (“The inorganic layer comprises a metal oxide, and does not comprise a polymer such as a binder. The metal oxide comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of alumina,” paragraph 27), and based on a mass of the insulating layer, a mass percentage of element aluminum is y1%; and 50≤y1/x≤650 ((for y1, Cui teaches the layer comprise alumina, i.e., Al2O3, and “In addition to the metal element and the oxygen element, the inorganic layer contains other impurities, and the mass percentage of the impurities is 0% to 2%,” paragraph 30; assuming no impurities, the wt% of the element aluminum would therefore be y1 ≈ 52; for x, Kinoshita teaches “The tungsten compound was present in a concentration of 0.5 mol% relative to the lithium nickel composite oxide,” paragraph 54, where 0.5 mol% ≈ 0.9 wt%, x = 0.9; thus, y1/x ≈ 58). Cui teaches that an insulating layer of aluminum oxide is one of “the main technologies for improving the safety performance for impact and nail penetration of lithium ion batteries,” paragraph 25.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to take the electrochemical apparatus taught by Kinoshita and modify the positive electrode to explicitly include an insulating layer to improve the safety of the battery, as taught by Cui. Please also see MPEP § 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 20, Kinoshita modified by Cui teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 19, wherein Cui further teaches that y1 is in a range from 30 to 65 (Cui teaches the layer comprise alumina, i.e., Al2O3, and “In addition to the metal element and the oxygen element, the inorganic layer contains other impurities, and the mass percentage of the impurities is 0% to 2%,” paragraph 30; assuming no impurities, the wt% of the element aluminum would therefore be y1 ≈ 52).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN P WILKERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/JORDAN P WILKERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights