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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered. All claims remain as originally presented. Claims 1-15 are pending, of which, claims 1-2 and 4-15 are rejected.
Upon considering said arguments filed 03/10/2026, the previous rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 12/10/2025 have been maintained for the reasons presented below:
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 recites the formula LiaNixCoyMzO2, wherein 0.2≤a≤1.2, 0.85≤x≤1, 0≤y<0.15, and x+y+z=1, and M comprises one or more of Mn and Al. Claim 1 was rejected in view of prior art Ohkubo et al. (US20070111101A1) which names LixNiO2 where 0.02≤x≤1.2 as a positive electrode active material (Ohkubo [0074]). Applicant argues that claim 1 requires x+y+z=1, where y is <0.15, so M must be present because x+y do not equal 1. Ohkubo, which fails to disclose M (Mn or Al), thus fails to render obvious the claimed composition (Remarks pp. 4). Applicant further asserts that other positive electrode active material compositions disclosed by Ohkubo additionally fail to disclose the inclusion of Li, Ni, and M as claimed (Remarks pp. 4-5)
While this argument has been considered, it has not been found persuasive. Claim 1 recites a range of Ni proportion x between 0.85≤x≤1, including the upper limit x=1. When x=1, in order to meet the requirement x+y+z=1, y and z (coefficient of M) must both be 0, such that the inclusion of M and consequently its identity as Mn or Al is not positively recited in this scenario.
Ohkubo, disclosing LixNi1O2 (Ohkubo [0074]) where x=1 thus reads on the claimed composition.
Claim 1 recites a compacted density of the positive and negative electrode plate. Applicant argues that Ohkubo, which refers to a bulk density measurement of the electrodes (e.g., Ohkubo [0070], [0059]), does not disclose or define the compacted density (Remarks pp. 5). Applicant also argues that the claimed compacted density is obtained without the addition of carbon fiber, which is included as an additive in Ohkubo's electrode plates (Remarks pp. 5).
While Examiner acknowledges that a bulk density typically refers in the art to a density of an uncompressed material, Ohkubo appears to instead define the bulk density as a density of the finished electrode plate after compression.
Support for this interpretation is found in Ohkubo [0136], which reads "The bulk density of the electrode was calculated from the dimensions and mass of the electrode", where the electrode formation process involves pressing the electrodes to achieve a target electrode density prior to drying and subsequently evaluating the electrodes ([0120]). In other words, Ohkubo’s disclosed measurements of bulk density are of an already compressed component, and are thus a compacted density.
Furthermore, claim 1 as presented does not exclude carbon fiber in the measurement; claim 1 recites “a compacted density of the [positive/negative] electrode plate” which includes other components of the plate (i.e., a binder, a conductive additive) in addition to the positive/negative electrode active material.
Applicant asserts that the combination of Ohkubo and Minami et al. (WO2013047016A1) fails to teach or suggest an electrolyte wherein an amount of the electrolyte in the secondary battery is 0.7-1.5 g/Ah and an amount of electrolytic solution outside a bare cell in the secondary battery is 0.1 g/Ah (remarks pp. 5).
While considered, this assertion has not been found persuasive without a showing of how the combination of Ohkubo and Minami specifically fails to disclose either feature.
Ohkubo necessarily comprises some amount of electrolyte solution in the battery in order to function, though fails to specify a numerical amount. Minami is relied upon to teach optimizing the amount of electrolyte between 1.0-3.0 g/Ah (Minami [0022]), this amount overlapping with the claimed range (between 1.0-1.5 g/Ah) such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the overlap through routine optimization under Minami’s teaching (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Additionally, Ohkubo does not disclose the presence of electrolytic solution outside the bare cell, and deliberately includes a carbon fiber additive in the electrode plates for the purpose of improving electrolytic solution retention (Ohkubo [0008]), where the instant specification indicates electrolyte solution freely present outside the bare cell results from a failure to retain the electrolytic solution inside the electrode plates (Instant specification, [0041], [0063]).
In light of both of these considerations, one having ordinary skill in the art would not expect Ohkubo’s battery to possess any electrolytic solution outside the bare cell, such that an inherent amount of electrolytic solution outside a bare cell in the secondary battery is less than or equal to 0.1 g/Ah.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 6, 8-10, 12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo et al. (US-20070111101-A1; cited in 12/10/2025 Office action) in view of Minami et al. (WO-2013047016-A1; cited with machine translation in 12/10/2025 Office action).
Regarding claims 1, 9-10, 12, and 14, Ohkubo discloses a secondary battery ([0002]) comprising a positive electrode plate ([0094]), wherein the positive electrode plate has a positive electrode active material selected from a finite list of positive electrode active materials including LixNiO2 inter alia, wherein 0.02≤x≤1.2 ([0074]). One having ordinary skill in the art would necessarily select at least one of the positive electrode active materials disclosed by Ohkubo produce the positive electrode, the list of active materials disclosed by Ohkubo being a finite number of identified suitable materials which one having ordinary skill in the art could routinely explore with a reasonable expectation of suitability (MPEP 2143 I. E). LixNiO2 wherein 0.02≤x≤1.2 ([0074]) further closely encompasses a portion of the claimed formula LiaNixCoyMzO2 wherein 0.2≤a≤1.2, x=1, y=0, x+y+z=1, M being Mn or Al (the claimed formula including the selection of z=0 such that inclusion of M is not positively recited) such that one having ordinary skill in the art would have routinely selected a positive electrode active material within the overlap with the claimed formula with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing the positive electrode active material (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Ohkubo desires to increase a compacted bulk density of the positive electrode plate beyond 3.2 g/cm3 to improve the volumetric density of the secondary battery ([0004], [0070]). Although this increase in density has the effect of reducing porosity and impairing electrolytic solution permeability ([0006]), Ohkubo’s electrodes include a carbon fiber additive to ensure electrolytic solution permeability up to 3.5 g/cm3 ([0070]).
As such, in seeking to balance improving the volumetric density and electrolytic solution permeability of modified Ohkubo’s battery, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a compacted density of the positive electrode plate within a range of 3.2-3.5 g/cm3, which is within the claimed range of 3.2-3.8 g/cm3 (claim 1), and overlaps at an endpoint with the claimed range (3.5-3.7 g/cm3, claim 10) at 3.5 g/cm3 such that a skilled artisan would have selected at the overlap through routine optimization under Ohkubo’s disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Ohkubo provides an experimental example of a positive electrode plate having a 75 µm thickness ([0120], see below). An electrode of this thickness optimized within a density of 3.2-3.5g/cm3 through seeking to balance volumetric density and electrolytic solution permeability (see above) has a corresponding coating weight of 24-26.3 mg/cm2, which is within the claimed range of 19-45 mg/cm2 (claim 1) and is overlapping with a portion of the claimed range (25-35 mg/cm2 , claim 9) between 25-26.3 mg/cm2 such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the overlap through routinely optimizing a positive electrode plate density of the working embodiment of Ohkubo’s positive electrode with a reasonable expectation of providing a suitable positive electrode for use in Ohkubo’s secondary battery (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Positive electrode plate thickness ([0120]): 100µm(electrode)-25µm(foil) = 75 µm(plate)
Positive electrode coating weight ([0070], [0120]): (3200 to 3500) mg/cm3 *0.0075cm = 24-26.3 mg/cm2
Ohkubo further discloses a negative electrode plate including a negative electrode material, wherein a carbon material incorporated with Si may be selected as the active material to advantageously improve an electric capacity of the negative electrode ([0094], [0053-0055]).
The instant specification defines the silicon-based material as including silicon-carbon composites (Instant specification, [0091]); thus, Ohkubo’s carbon material with incorporated Si is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a silicon-carbon composite being a silicon-based material.
Ohkubo discloses that the silicon-based material (“non-graphite carbon material”) is a primary component of the active material comprising 50% or more (i.e., 50-100%) of the active material by mass (Ohkubo [0053-0055]) is thus within the claimed range of silicon-based material mass percentage between 20-100% (claim 1) and 40-100% (claim 14).
Ohkubo discloses a compacted bulk density of the negative electrode plate is at least 1.5 g/cm3 to improve the energy density of the battery ([0059], [0004]). This range overlaps with a portion of the claimed range between 1.5 to 1.9 g/cm3 (claim 1) and encompasses the claimed range of 1.6-1.8 g/cm3 (claim 12), such that one having ordinary skill in the art could have routinely selected within the overlapping or encompassed portions of the claimed ranges with the reasonable expectation of successfully improving the energy density of Ohkubo’s battery (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Ohkubo provides an experimental example of a negative electrode plate having an 82 µm thickness ([0120], see below). An electrode of this thickness having a density of 1.5 g/cm3 or higher has a corresponding coating weight of 12.3 mg/cm2 -or higher, overlapping with the claimed range (5-13 mg/cm2, claim 1) between 12.3-13 mg/cm2 such that one having ordinary skill in the art could have routinely selected within the overlap with the reasonable expectation of successfully improving the volumetric density of the secondary battery (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Negative electrode plate thickness ([0120]): 100µm(electrode)-18µm(foil) = 82 µm(plate)
Negative electrode coating weight ([0059], [0120]): 1500mg/cm3 *0.0082cm = 12.3 mg/cm2
Ohkubo’s secondary battery further comprises an electrolyte comprising an electrolytic solution ([0096]), and addresses a need to provide sufficient electrolytic solution in the electrodes having an increased electrode density ([0005-0008]) necessitating some minimum amount of electrolyte solution, but does not explicitly quantify an amount of electrolyte used in the secondary battery.
Minami is directed to a secondary battery wherein a hollow particle additive is provided to improve electrolyte retention in the negative electrode plate (Minami [0007-0008], [0035]) similar to Ohkubo’s carbon fiber additive to ensure electrolyte permeation and retention in the electrodes (Ohkubo [0008]). Minami further teaches the amount of electrolyte in the secondary battery should be optimized within a range of at least 1.0 g/Ah to provide sufficient electrolyte to the electrodes, while less than 3.0 g/Ah to prevent gas generation from electrolyte decomposition (Minami [0022]).
As such, in seeking to balance providing sufficient electrolyte to Ohkubo’s electrodes without causing electrolyte decomposition, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize an amount of electrolyte in a range of 1.0 to 3.0 g/Ah overlapping with a portion of the claimed ranges (0.8 g/Ah to 1.5 g/Ah, claim 1; 0.9-1.4 g/Ah, claim 13) between 1.0-1.5 g/Ah and 1.0-1.4 g/Ah such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the overlap through routine optimization under Minami’s teaching. Such an optimization would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Ohkubo and Minami similarly envision the use of an electrode material additive to ensure electrolyte retention, and as Ohkubo necessarily requires at least some amount of electrolyte to be provided to ensure electrode wetting (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Ohkubo does not indicate the presence of electrolytic solution outside a bare cell in the secondary battery, wherein the instant specification notes that the electrolyte solution freely present outside the bare cell results from a failure to retain the electrolytic solution inside the electrode plates (Instant specification, [0041], [0063]). Ohkubo discloses the inclusion of carbon fiber into the electrodes with the express purpose of maintaining retention of the electrolytic solution (Ohkubo [0008]); therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would not expect Ohkubo’s battery to possess any electrolytic solution outside the bare cell, which thus reads on the claimed limitation of an amount of electrolytic solution outside a bare cell in the secondary battery is less than or equal to 0.1 g/Ah (claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ohkubo discloses that the secondary battery wherein the electrolyte further comprises a solid polymer electrolyte formed of an organic electrolyte solution and a polymer, i.e., a gel polymer electrolyte in addition to the electrolytic solution. Alternatively, Ohkubo discloses a suitability of employing solely the electrolytic solution or a gel polymer electrolyte ([0096-0099], [0105-0108]).
While Ohkubo does not explicitly specify a preferred ratio of gel polymer electrolyte to electrolytic solution, Ohkubo notes the ability of crosslinked polymers as a component of the gel polymer electrolyte to provide strength and electrode adhesion ([0104]) while experimental results with a gel polymer electrolyte indicate a slower permeation rate of the gel polymer electrolyte when compared to an electrolytic solution (pp. 15 Table 2), [0209]) which is recognized as a disadvantageous effect corresponding to reduced electrode performance ([0006]). Furthermore, a range of mass ratio of gel electrolyte to liquid electrolyte in Ohkubo’s electrolyte is necessarily constrained between 0:1 to 1:0 where the electrolyte comprises only the electrolytic solution or a gel polymer electrolyte ([0096-0099], [0105-0108]).
As such, in seeking to balance improving the strength and electrode adhesion of modified Ohkubo’s battery and improving the permeation rate of Ohkubo’s electrolytic solution, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a ratio of gel electrolyte to electrolytic solution within a range of 0:1 to 1:0, encompassing the claimed range (1:(0.05 to 0.4), claim 6) such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the encompassed range through routine optimization under Ohkubo’s teaching (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ohkubo discloses the secondary battery according to claim 6. In an experimental example, Ohkubo selects an organic peroxide initiator (“bis(4-t-butylcyclohexyl)peroxydicarbonate”) to form the gel electrolyte (Ohkubo [0130]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ohkubo discloses use of the secondary battery in an electric apparatus (“small-sized portable apparatuses…employing a lithium ion battery”) (Ohkubo [0002-0006]).
Claims 2, 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo (US-20070111101-A1) and Minami (WO-2013047016-A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hayakawa et al. (US-20130224557-A1; cited in 12/10/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ohkubo discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a separator is disposed between the positive electrode plate and negative electrode plate (Ohkubo [0098]). While Ohkubo discloses a suitability of employing the separator in combination with additional species or with another type of separator ([0098]), Ohkubo does not specifically disclose providing a surface of the separator with a first high liquid-absorbent polymer layer having an equilibrium swelling ratio of a high liquid-absorbent polymer of 150% to 300% for this purpose.
Hayakawa, directed to a separator for a non-aqueous battery (Hayakawa [0014]), teaches
a first high liquid-absorbent polymer layer (“liquid-electrolyte-swellable resin layer”) provided on a surface of a separator ([0021]), the separator comprising a polypropylene film base ([0086-0088]) analogous to Ohkubo’s separator (Ohkubo [0098]), which advantageously reduces the separator’s resistance by swelling the separator with a liquid electrolyte while ensuring a strength of the separator (Hayakawa [0021]).
Thus, in seeking to maintain or improve the resistance and strength of modified Ohkubo’s separator, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art provide a surface of Ohkubo’s separator with a first high liquid-absorbent polymer layer as taught by Hayakawa. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success because Hayakawa suitably provides the absorbent polymer layer on the same polypropylene film base as Ohkubo’s separator, and because Ohkubo discloses a suitability of combining the polypropylene film of the separator with additional species or separators.
Hayakawa further teaches that a liquid absorption capacity of the separator is at least 1.5 g/g to decrease battery internal resistance of the battery (Hayakawa [0011], [0139]), while less than 8 g/g to maintain strength and workability of the separator ([0139], [0205], pp. 12 Table 2).
While Hayakawa’s liquid absorption capacity is not measured identically to the equilibrium swelling ratio of the instant specification, measuring a total weight ratio of the coated separator before and after immersion in the liquid electrolyte (Hayakawa [0162]) while the equilibrium swelling ratio measures only the liquid absorbent polymer before and after immersion in the electrolyte (Instant specification [0057]), these measurements are necessarily correlated because both measurements are dependent on the ability of the liquid-absorbent polymer to swell and absorb an electrolyte solution.
As such, in seeking to balance considerations of decreased resistance and workability, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a liquid absorption capacity of Ohkubo’s modified separator within a range of 1.5-8 g/g as taught by Hayakawa. Given the inherent correlation between liquid absorption capacity and equilibrium swelling ratio, a skilled artisan performing the above optimization would expect to inherently utilize a range of equilibrium swelling ratio between approximately 150% to 800% and thus arrive at a portion encompassing the claimed range of 150-300% through routine experimentation with respect to the liquid absorption capacity (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ohkubo discloses the secondary battery according to claim 2. While a skilled artisan would necessarily select at least some measure of coating weight of the high liquid-absorbent polymer in order to modify Ohkubo’s separator with Hayakawa’s high liquid-absorbent polymer coating, Ohkubo by itself does not specify a range of coating weight of the high liquid-absorbent polymer as being 0.1-1.4 mg/cm2.
Hayakawa, teaching the high liquid-absorbent polymer provided on the separator base layer (Hayakawa [0021]), further provides experimental examples where a coating weight (“basis weight”) is 14 g/m2, equivalent to 1.4 mg/cm2 (Hayakawa pp. 11-12, Tables 1-2), evidencing suitability of this coating weight to successfully form the high liquid-absorbent polymer.
As such, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to select a coating weight of 1.4 mg/cm2 for the intended purpose of providing the high liquid-absorbent polymer on the separator base layer as exemplified by Hayakawa, with a reasonable expectation of success as Hayakawa evidences a suitability of this coating weight to provide a functional modified separator.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ohkubo discloses the secondary battery according to claim 2. While Ohkubo discloses considerations of improving the ionic conductivity of the separator and discloses a suitability of employing the polyethylene base layer of the separator in combination with additional species (Ohkubo [0098]), Ohkubo does not explicitly disclose the selection of electrolytes recited in claim 5 in the high liquid-absorbent polymer.
Hayakawa, teaching the high liquid-absorbent polymer provided on the separator base layer (Hayakawa [0021]), further teaches the high liquid-absorbent polymer includes a vinyl polymer component ([0024]) wherein selecting a polyacrylate (“polyoxyethylene monomethyl ether (meth)acrylate”) for this component improves the ion conductivity of the high liquid-absorbent polymer layer ([0065]). As the polyacrylate must inherently comprise some measure of ion conductivity itself, the polyacrylate is broadly and reasonably understood to be a polyacrylate electrolyte.
Thus, in seeking to improve the ionic conductivity of modified Ohkubo’s battery, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to select the polyacrylate electrolyte species taught by Hayakawa as a component of modified Ohkubo’s high liquid-absorbent polymer. Such a selection would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Hayakawa desires to improve the ionic conductivity of the separator, and discloses a suitability of employing the polyethylene base layer of the separator in combination with additional species (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo (US-20070111101-A1) and Minami (WO-2013047016-A1) as applied to claim 6, further in view of Ajekwene et al. (Properties and Applications of Acrylates pp. 35-43; cited with copy in 12/10/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ohkubo discloses the secondary battery according to claim 6. Ohkubo discloses a finite list of suitable polymers for the gel electrolyte including poly(meth)acrylic acid ester, i.e., poly(meth)acrylate inter alia (Ohkubo [0102]).
One having ordinary skill in the art would necessarily select at least some type of polymer in order to form Ohkubo’s gel polymer electrolyte, Ohkubo’s finite set of suitable monomers recognized as predictable solutions within the technical grasp of a skilled artisan such that it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application to explore the selection of at least polymethacrylate as a gel electrolyte polymer with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143 I. E).
It is further known in the art as taught by Ajekwene that suitable monomers for producing a (meth)acrylate polymer include ethylene acrylate, ethylene methylacrylate, methyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, n-butyl methacrylate, butyl acrylate (Ajekwane pp.3 5-38) as species recited in claim 7, such that it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to select one of these monomers based on its suitability for an intended purpose of forming modified Ohkubo’s (meth)acrylate polymer in the gel polymer electrolyte (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo (US-20070111101-A1) and Minami (WO-2013047016-A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Gallagher et al. (Optimizing Areal Capacities through Understanding the Limitations of Lithium-Ion Electrodes; cited with copy in 12/10/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ohkubo discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1. While Ohkubo envisions considerations improving characteristics of the battery under a large current load ([0002]) and of optimizing gravimetric and volumetric energy density ([0004]), Ohkubo does not explicitly indicate a coating weight of the negative electrode active material of 7-10 mg/cm2.
Gallagher, discussing considerations of mass loading of the electrodes (Gallagher, abstract), teaches that larger mass loadings improve the gravimetric and volumetric density of the electrode (pp. A138 col. 2, ¶2) but consequentially increase the current density based on a surface area of the electrode (pp. A138 col. 2 ¶4). Experimental examples of cells with a negative electrode active material loading increased from 7.3 to 12.5 mg/cm2 (pp. A140 Table 1, see cells with reversible capacity 2.2, 3.3 mAh/cm2) had improved energy density but slightly worsened reliability and capacity retention at high current (pp. A140 col. 2 ¶2-3, pp. A146 col. 1 ¶3), and cells with mass loadings of 15.9 mg/cm2 or more underwent large irreversible capacity loss under the same conditions (A146 col. 1 ¶3).
Ohkubo’s experimental example of a negative electrode electrode is provided at a mass loading of about 12.3 mg/cm2 or more, which is appreciably similar in scope to Gallagher’s negative electrode having a mass loading of 12.5 mg/cm2.
As such, in seeking to balance considerations of battery characteristics under high current loads and of the energy density, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a coating weight of Ohkubo’s negative electrode plate within a range of 7.3 to 12.5 mg/cm2 according to considerations taught by Gallagher, overlapping with a portion of the claimed range (7-10.5 mg/cm2, claim 11) between 7.3-10.5 mg/cm2 such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the overlap through routine optimization. Such an optimization would be made with a reasonable expectation of success given the similar range of coating weight to Ohkubo’s example negative electrode; additionally, Ohkubo envisions varying the electrode thickness as necessary with battery architecture, and would thus at least be open to optimizing a coating weight of the electrodes through adjusting the electrode thickness (MPEP 2144.05 II).
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 EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 4/7/2026