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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 6/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 33-36 are added. Claims 21-36 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(a) and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 4/1/2026.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21, 24, 25, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 113013393, referring to previously provided translation thereof, hereinafter "Guo") in view of Lu et al. (CN 107689448, hereinafter "Lu", referring to previously provided translation thereof, hereinafter "Lu"), Jae et al. (KR 20190070458, referring to previously provided translation thereof, hereinafter "Jae"), and Wan et al. (US 2025/0304446 hereinafter "Wan").
Regarding claim 21, Guo teaches a positive electrode material (“composite cathode material”) comprising a core comprising a first positive electrode active material (“conductive core”) and a functional layer comprising a second positive electrode active material (“cathode material coating layer”), and a conductive agent (“conductive skeleton”) [0008]. Guo teaches that the chemical formula of the first positive electrode material is LiNixCoyMnzO2, wherein 0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, and 0≤z≤1 [0009], and that the chemical formula of the second positive electrode is Li1+mNixCoyMnzO2, wherein 0.1 ≤m≤1, ≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, and 0≤z≤1 [0010]. When x and y are 0 and z is 1 for both the first positive electrode active material and second positive electrode active material, then the first positive electrode active material and second positive electrode active material are lithium manganate. The lithium manganate first positive electrode active material may constitute the claimed “conductive core”, lithium manganate being the same material taught and claimed in the instant application [see instant claim 25 and paragraph 0025 of the instant specification], wherein if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties [see MPEP 2112.01(II)]. Guo teaches that the conductive agent entangles the second positive electrode active material particles, or lithium-rich particles, and fixes them to the rest of the positive electrode active material [0012, “while the outer layer is coated with lithium-rich positive electrode active material”, “the conductive agent effectively entangles the outer lithium-rich particles together and uniformly coats and fixes them to the surface of the large particles of the internal conventional positive electrode active material”]. Fig. 1 of Guo shows that the conductive agent (3) has one end in contact with the core and another end extending into the functional layer [0040, “The core includes a first positive electrode active material 1, and the functional layer includes a second positive electrode active material 2, a conductive agent 3”]. Guo also discloses that the material of the conductive agent may comprise carbon nanotubes [0020], which have the structure of a hollow tube. Guo does not specifically teach a length and inner diameter of the carbon nanotubes, a mass ratio of the core, functional layer, and conductive agent, a particle size of the core, a thickness of the functional layer, or a cathode material of the functional layer as claimed.
Lu teaches analogous art of a cathode material comprising lithium manganese iron phosphate and a three-dimensional carbon skeleton [0002]. Lu teaches that the carbon skeleton may comprise carbon nanotubes with a diameter greater than 1 nm and less than 100 nm and an average length greater than 2 µm, which overlaps the recited range [0028]. 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) [see MPEP 2144.05(I)].
The carbon skeleton of Lu has the same effect as the conductive agent of Guo, which is to ensure the electronic conductivity of the cathode material [0029, “directly adds a certain amount of carbon material inside the spray-granulated particles to ensure basic electronic conductivity”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive agent in the positive electrode material taught by Guo to have the same diameter and length as the carbon nanotubes taught by Lu, to yield the predictable result of a positive electrode material having an ensured electronic conductivity [see MPEP 2143(I)(A)].
Jae teaches analogous art of a positive electrode active material precursor used to make a positive electrode active material [0001]. Jae teaches that the positive electrode active material precursor has a core-shell structure, wherein the core has a particle size of 100 nm and the shell has a particle size of 1 µm, which overlaps the claimed range [0049]. 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) [see MPEP 2144.05(I)]. Jae teaches that a positive electrode active material prepared from the positive electrode active material precursor may retain a core size of 100 nm or less and a shell size of 1 µm or more [0114, “the positive electrode active material for a secondary battery prepared in Example 2 (Fig. 5 (b)) has a core with a particle size of 100 nm or less and a shell with a particle size of 1 μm or more”].
Jae teaches that the oxidation state of the transition metals in the positive electrode active material can be improved by controlling the core and shell size [0050]. Jae teaches that when the average oxidation number of the transition metals other than lithium is greater than +3, a stable layered crystal structure is formed and higher capacity is enabled [0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the positive electrode material taught by Guo to have the core size and functional layer thickness be within the ranges taught by Jae, in order to form a stable layered crystal structure and enable a higher capacity.
Wan teaches analogous art of a lithium iron phosphate composite material comprising an Li6MnO4 core (“conductive core”) and a carbon-coated (“conductive skeleton”) lithium iron phosphate shell (“cathode material coating layer”) [Abstract]. Wan teaches mass ratio of the core to shell of (0.005-0.05):1, or (0.5-5):100, which overlaps the claimed range [0014]. 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) [see MPEP 2144.05(I)]. Wan teaches that a mass ratio of a total of a second lithium source, an iron source, and a phosphorus source of the lithium iron phosphate to the carbon source is 1:(0.01-0.05), or 100:(1-5), which overlaps the claimed range [0035].
Wan teaches that lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material has a high reversible charge-discharge specific capacity, high energy density, stable voltage platform, long life, low cost, and good safety performance, among other advantages [0004]. Wan also teaches that the lithium iron phosphate composite material has an improved rate performance and cycle life, as well as a significantly improved conductivity [0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode material of Guo to include lithium iron phosphate in the functional layer as taught by Wan, in order to have a high reversible charge-discharge specific capacity, high energy density, stable voltage platform, long life, low cost, and good safety performance, and to have a mass ratio of the core, functional layer, and conductive agent within the ranges taught by Wan, in order to improve the rate performance, cycle life, and conductivity of the positive electrode material.
Regarding claim 24, modified Guo teaches the positive electrode material of claim 21, as described in the rejection of instant claim 21.
As described in the rejection of claim 21 above, Lu teaches that the carbon skeleton may comprise carbon nanotubes with an average length greater than 2 µm, which overlaps the recited range [0028]. 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) [see MPEP 2144.05(I)].
The carbon skeleton of Lu has the same effect as the conductive agent of Guo, which is to ensure the electronic conductivity of the cathode material [0029, “directly adds a certain amount of carbon material inside the spray-granulated particles to ensure basic electronic conductivity”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive agent in the positive electrode material taught by modified Guo to have the same diameter and length as the carbon nanotubes taught by Lu, to yield the predictable result of a positive electrode material having an ensured electronic conductivity [see MPEP 2143(I)(A)].
Regarding claim 25, modified Guo teaches the positive electrode material of claim 21, as described in the rejection of instant claim 21. Guo further teaches that the core comprises a first positive electrode active material (“cathode material”) [0008].
Regarding claim 31, modified Guo teaches the positive electrode material of claim 21, as described in the rejection of instant claim 21. Guo further teaches positive electrode sheets (“cathode plate”) comprising an aluminum foil substrate (“current collector”) and a positive electrode slurry uniformly coated onto the surface of the aluminum foil (“cathode active layer”) [0050].
Regarding claim 32, modified Guo teaches the positive electrode sheets of claim 31, as described in the rejection of instant claim 31. Guo further teaches a battery cell (“secondary battery”) comprising the positive electrode sheets, and negative electrode sheets (“anode plate”) [0052]. Guo teaches that the battery cells are rechargeable [0071-0072].
Regarding claim 33, modified Guo teaches the positive electrode material of claim 21, as described in the rejection of instant claim 21. As described previously, Guo teaches that the conductive agent entangles the second positive electrode active material particles, or lithium-rich particles, and fixes them to the rest of the positive electrode active material [0012]. Fig. 1 of Guo shows that the conductive agent (3) has one end in contact with the core and another end extending through the functional layer to its outer surface [0040, “The core includes a first positive electrode active material 1, and the functional layer includes a second positive electrode active material 2, a conductive agent 3”].
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 113013393) in view of Lu (CN 107689448), Jae (KR 20190070458), and Wan (US 2025/0304446) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN 113707879, referring to previously-provided translation thereof, hereinafter "Zhou").
Regarding claim 22, modified Guo teaches the positive electrode material of claim 21, as described in the rejection of instant claim 21. Guo is silent regarding a conductive coating layer coated on an outer surface of the functional layer.
Zhou teaches analogous art of a composite cathode material comprising a core and a graphene coating layer (“conductive coating layer”), wherein the core comprises lithium iron phosphate [0004].
Zhou teaches that the graphene coating layer on the outer shell can improve the conductivity of the lithium iron phosphate, which improves the rate performance and cycle stability of the material [0055].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode material taught by modified Guo to further include a graphene coating layer as taught by Zhou, in order to improve the rate performance and cycle stability of the material.
Regarding claim 23, modified Guo teaches the positive electrode material of claim 22, as described in the rejection of instant claim 22.
Zhou teaches that the graphene coating layer has a thickness of 2-3 nm, which is within the recited range [0135].
As described in the rejection of claim 23 above, Zhou teaches that the graphene coating layer on the outer shell can improve the rate performance and cycle stability of the material [0055].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode material taught by modified Guo to have a graphene coating layer with the thickness taught by Zhou, in order to improve the rate performance and cycle stability of the material.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 113013393) in view of Lu (CN 107689448), Jae (KR 20190070458), and Wan (US 2025/0304446) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Hsu et al. (High-Speed Lithium-Ion Transfer inside Mesoporous Core-shell LiFePO4/Carbon-Sphere Cathodes, hereinafter "Hsu") and Kawasaki et al. (US 2014/0335419, hereinafter "Kawasaki").
Regarding claim 26, modified Guo teaches the positive electrode material of claim 25, as described in the rejection of instant claim 25. Guo further teaches that the conductive agent may be carbon nanotubes [0020]. Guo does not specifically teach the core being carbon and the second positive electrode active material being lithium manganese iron phosphate.
Hsu teaches analogous art of a cathode material (LFP/MCS) comprising a core-shell structure [pg. 409, col. 1, “LiFePO4 cathode materials”, “this mesoporous LiFePO4/carbon core-shell sphere”]. Hsu teaches that the core material is mesoporous carbon, and the shell material is LiFePO4 (lithium iron phosphate) [pg. 409, col. 1, “If a nanoscale LiFePO4 thin shell is coated on a mesoporous carbon sphere”].
Hsu teaches that the LFP/MCS cathode material comprising a mesoporous carbon core has considerably enhanced electronic conductivity and improved Li-ion diffusion [pg. 409, col. 1].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode material taught by modified Guo to have a core made of mesoporous carbon as taught by Hsu, in order to enhance the electronic conductivity and Li ion diffusion of the material.
Kawasaki teaches analogous art of a positive electrode material comprising carbon material and a lithium-containing phosphate [Abstract]. Kawasaki teaches that the lithium-containing phosphate may be LiMnxFe(1-x)PO4 (“lithium manganese iron phosphate”) [0034].
Kawasaki teaches that lithium-containing phosphate have a phosphate ion, which is more stable than an oxide ion, thus generating no oxygen, which improves battery safety [0010].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode material taught by Guo to have the second positive electrode active material be a lithium-containing phosphate like lithium manganese iron phosphate, as taught by Kawasaki, in order to improve battery safety.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 113013393) in view of Lu (CN 107689448), Jae (KR 20190070458), Wan (US 2025/0304446), and Zhou (CN 113707879) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 2013/0337327, hereinafter "Sun").
Regarding claim 34, modified Guo teaches the positive electrode material of claim 22, as described in the rejection of instant claim 22.
Sun teaches analogous art of a cathode active material comprising a core and a shell [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. Sun teaches that the core includes a compound represented by the chemical formula Lix1M1y1M2z1PO4-w1Ew1, and the shell includes a compound represented by the chemical formula Lix2M3y2M4z2PO4-w2Ew2, wherein M1, M2, M3, and M4 may be independently selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, Fe, Na, Mg, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Cu, Zn, Ge, Sr, Ag, Ba, Zr, Nb, Mo, Al, Ga, B and a combination thereof, E may be selected from the group consisting of F, S, and a combination thereof, and wherein 0<x1≤1.1, 0≤y1≤1, 0≤z1≤1, 0<x1+y1+z1≤2, 0≤w1≤0.5, 0<x2≤1.1, 0≤y2≤1, 0≤z2≤1, 0<x2+y2+z2≤2, and 0≤w2≤0.5 [0010-0014]. Sun teaches that the cathode active material may also include a carbon-coated layer (“conductive coating layer”) on the surface of the shell [0021]. Sun discloses that the carbon-coated layer may be formed from acetylene black [0120].
Sun teaches that when the cathode active material includes a carbon-coated layer on the surface of the shell, the electric conductivity may be effectively improved [0092]. Both Zhou and Sun teach a conductive coating layer for improving the conductivity of the cathode active material (Zhou’s graphene coating layer, Sun’s carbon-coated layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the known conductive coating layer comprising acetylene black of Sun for that of Zhou, and the results of that substitution, i.e. improved conductivity, would have been predictable [see MPEP 2143(I)(B)].
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 113013393) in view of Lu (CN 107689448), Jae (KR 20190070458), Wan (US 2025/0304446), and Zhou (CN 113707879) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (JP 2015118874, referring to examiner-provided translation thereof, hereinafter "Yoshida").
Regarding claim 35, modified Guo teaches the positive electrode material of claim 22, as described in the rejection of instant claim 22. Modified Guo is silent regarding the other end of the conductive agent extending to an outer surface of the graphene coating layer.
Yoshida teaches analogous art of a particulate active material made of a lithium transition metal phosphate and a coating of a carbon material formed on a surface of the particles of the active material [0006]. Yoshida teaches that the coating of the carbon material comprises a first carbon material that forms a carbon layer (“conductive coating layer”) attached to the surface of the particles of active material and a fibrous second carbon material (“conductive skeleton”) [0006]. Fig. 1 of Yoshida shows the fibrous second carbon material with one extending to the outer surface of the first carbon material forming the carbon layer [0013, “a fibrous second carbon material 16 is formed on at least a portion of the surface of the active material particles 12”].
Yoshida teaches that the carbon layers of adjacent active material particles are linked to each other via the fibrous second carbon material [0006]. Yoshida discloses that this ensures numerous electron conduction paths between the active material particles, resulting in high battery capacity [0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode material taught by modified Guo to have the other end of the conductive agent extend to an outer surface of the graphene coating layer as taught by Yoshida, in order to ensure numerous electron conduction paths and provide a high battery capacity.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 113013393) in view of Lu (CN 107689448), Jae (KR 20190070458), and Wan (US 2025/0304446) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Sun (US 2013/0337327).
Sun teaches analogous art of a cathode active material comprising a core and a shell [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. Sun teaches that the core includes a compound represented by the chemical formula Lix1M1y1M2z1PO4-w1Ew1, and the shell includes a compound represented by the chemical formula Lix2M3y2M4z2PO4-w2Ew2, wherein M1, M2, M3, and M4 may be independently selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, Fe, Na, Mg, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Cu, Zn, Ge, Sr, Ag, Ba, Zr, Nb, Mo, Al, Ga, B and a combination thereof, E may be selected from the group consisting of F, S, and a combination thereof, and wherein 0<x1≤1.1, 0≤y1≤1, 0≤z1≤1, 0<x1+y1+z1≤2, 0≤w1≤0.5, 0<x2≤1.1, 0≤y2≤1, 0≤z2≤1, 0<x2+y2+z2≤2, and 0≤w2≤0.5 [0010-0014]. Sun teaches that the cathode active material may have a diameter (“D50”) of about 5 µm to 25 µm, which overlaps the recited range [0107]. 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) [see MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Sun teaches that when the diameter of the cathode active material is within the disclosed range, the energy density of the cathode active material may be effectively improved [0107].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode material taught by modified Guo to have the diameter of the positive electrode material be within the range disclosed by Sun, in order to effectively improve the energy density of the positive electrode material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references because Guo neither discloses nor suggests any need to improve its disclosed parameters [Remarks, pg. 10], it is noted that “[t]he rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law”. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992) [see MPEP 2144(I)]. Furthermore, the courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary [see MPEP 2143(I)(G)]. "[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references." (emphasis added) Id. at 1368, 80 USPQ2d at 1651 [see MPEP 2143(I)(G)]. Thus, this argument is not persuasive and the rejection of claims 21-26 and 31-36 is maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument that Guo teaches away from the claimed mass ratio [Remarks, pg. 11], it is noted that "the nature of the teaching is highly relevant and must be weighed in substance. A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) [see MPEP 2145(X)(D)(I)]. See also the following case law in MPEP 2144.05(III)(B):
In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Applicant argued that the prior art taught away from use of a protective layer for a reflective article having a thickness within the claimed range of "50 to 100 Angstroms." Specifically, a patent to Zehender, which was relied upon to reject applicant’s claim, included a statement that the thickness of the protective layer "should be not less than about [100 Angstroms]." The court held that the patent did not teach away from the claimed invention. "Zehender suggests that there are benefits to be derived from keeping the protective layer as thin as possible, consistent with achieving adequate protection. A thinner coating reduces light absorption and minimizes manufacturing time and expense. Thus, while Zehender expresses a preference for a thicker protective layer of 200-300 Angstroms, at the same time it provides the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to focus on thickness levels at the bottom of Zehender’s ‘suitable’ range- about 100 Angstroms- and to explore thickness levels below that range. The statement in Zehender that ‘[i]n general, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about [100 Angstroms]’ falls far short of the kind of teaching that would discourage one of skill in the art from fabricating a protective layer of 100 Angstroms or less. [W]e are therefore ‘not convinced that there was a sufficient teaching away in the art to overcome [the] strong case of obviousness’ made out by Zehender.")
Guo does not expressly discredit, criticize, or otherwise discourage the claimed mass ratio of the conductive core, the conductive skeleton, and the cathode material coating layer. Thus, this argument is not persuasive and the rejection of claims 21-26 and 31-36 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA F OROZCO whose telephone number is (571)272-0172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/M.F.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights