www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/634,998
`
`01/29/2020
`
`Manabu Takijiri
`
`P200092US00
`
`7392
`
`WHDA, LLP
`8500 LEESBURG PIKE
`SUITE 7500
`TYSONS, VA 22182
`
`MCDERMOTT, HELEN M
`
`1727
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/28/2022
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`patentmail @ whda.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/634,998
`Takijiri et al.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`HELEN M MCDERMOTT
`1727
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 06/15/2022.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-3 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`Cj} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected.
`1) Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)( The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 01/29/2020 is/are: a)[¥) accepted or b)(. objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`_—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)¥) All
`1.4) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.4.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) ([] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20220618a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/634,998
`Art Unit: 1727
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
`
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction
`
`of the statutory basis 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.
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`3.
`
`Applicant’s amendmentfiled 06/15/2022 has been entered and fully considered. Claims
`
`1-3 are pending, of which claim 1 Is currently amended. No new matter has been added.
`
`4.
`
`The previous rejection under 35 USC 103 and double patenting rejection are maintained
`
`and made final.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`5.
`
`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 ordinaryskill in the art to which the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/634,998
`Art Unit: 1727
`
`Page 3
`
`claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention
`was made.
`
`6.
`
`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 obviousnessor
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`7.
`
`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
`
`ownedas ofthe 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 ofthe 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.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US
`
`2015/0221943 A1 (Nishioka) in view of US 2008/0213670 A1 (Okada).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Nishioka discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery 10
`
`comprising a positive electrode 12, a negative electrode 13, and a non-aqueous electrolyte
`
`[0013], wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte includes a non-aqueous solvent including a
`
`fluorine-containing cyclic carbonate [0034], the positive electrode includes a positive electrode
`
`active material including complex oxide particles, including Ni, Co and Li [0022] and including at
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/634,998
`Art Unit: 1727
`
`Page 4
`
`least either of Mn and Al [0023], wherein a ratio of Ni to a total number of moles of metallic
`
`elements exceptLi is 50 mol% or more (the ratio of Ni is in the range of 0.3<x<1.0,i.e. greater
`
`than or equal to 30 mol% and less than 100 mol%, for example 0.5, i.e. 50 mol%,in
`
`LiNio.sCoo.2Mo.302) [0022], and the complex oxide particles have a compressive strength of
`
`preferably 300 MPa or more and 500 MPa or less [0027]. The hard compressive strength
`
`suppresses breakage of the positive electrode active material particles and causes them to bite
`
`into the current collector, thereby enhancing peel strength and attaining better cycle
`
`characteristics [0027], [0056], [0057].
`
`Although Nishioka does not specifically teach a compressive strength of 570 MPa or
`
`more, the claimed range is considered to be close enough to Nishioka’s disclosed rangethatit
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art. A prima facie case of obviousness
`
`exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely
`
`close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore,one of ordinaryskill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to explore compressive strengths higher than Nishioka’s disclosed range becauseit
`
`would have been expected that further increasing the compressive strength would also further
`
`increase the benefits attributed to the hard compressive strength of suppressing breakage of
`
`the particles and causing them to bite into the current collector to improve peel strength and
`
`cycle characteristics.
`
`Nishioka does not teach that the complex oxide particles are unaggregated particles.
`
`Okada however teaches that by using a positive electrode active material in dispersed state as
`
`primary particles, the secondary particles with grain boundary are not present, and therefore
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/634,998
`Art Unit: 1727
`
`Page 5
`
`even though the primary particles are expanded and contracted during charge and discharge
`
`cycles, electrically non-conductive primary particles will not be generated, and thus, decline in
`
`battery capacity involved with charge and discharge cycles is minimized [0028]. Thereforeit
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art to use the positive active material of
`
`Nishioka in a dispersed state as unaggregated primary particles, as in Okada, because it could
`
`minimize decline in battery capacity involved with charge and discharge cycles.
`
`Regarding claim 2, although Nishioka does not specify the content of the fluorine-
`
`containing cyclic carbonate, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not
`
`support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless thereis
`
`evidence indicating such concentration or temperatureis critical. "[W]here the general
`
`conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
`
`workable ranges by routine experimentation." /n re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
`
`(CCPA 1955); Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. See MPEP 2144.05.
`
`Regarding claim 3, although Nishioka does not specifically teach that the ratio of Ni to
`
`the total number of moles of the metallic elements except Li is 80 mol% or more and 95 mol%
`
`or less in the complex oxide particles, the claimed range nevertheless would have been obvious
`
`to one ofordinaryskill in the art becauseit lies inside Nishioka’s disclosed range of 30 mol% or
`
`more and less than 100 mol%, and because Nishioka suggests that higher ratios of Ni are
`
`preferable in terms of cost saving and attaining higher capacity [0022]. In the case where the
`
`claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/634,998
`Art Unit: 1727
`
`Page 6
`
`Double Patenting
`
`9.
`
`The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine
`
`grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or
`
`improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent
`
`possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is
`
`appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined
`
`application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined
`
`application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference
`
`claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman,
`
`11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum,686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d
`
`438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
`
`A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be
`
`used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting
`
`provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the
`
`examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within
`
`the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to
`
`examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159.
`
`See MPEP § 2146 etseq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to
`
`file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR
`
`1.321(b).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/634,998
`Art Unit: 1727
`
`Page 7
`
`The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used.
`
`Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which
`
`the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or
`
`PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may befilled out completely
`
`online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-
`
`processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal
`
`Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
`
`10.
`
`Claims 1-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
`
`being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 16/763700 (reference
`
`application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct
`
`from each other becauseall of the limitations of the instant claims are either claimed in the
`
`reference application or are obvious over limitations claimed in the reference application. In
`
`particular, reference claim 1 recites composite oxide particles having the same composition as
`
`claimed except for an overlapping range of Ni ratio, reference claim 2 recites the particles in a
`
`non-aggregated state having an overlapping range of compressive strength, and reference
`
`claim 7 recites the claimed fluorine-containing cyclic carbonate with an overlapping range of
`
`content by volume.
`
`This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably
`
`indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/634,998
`Art Unit: 1727
`
`Page 8
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`11.
`
`Applicant's argumentsfiled 06/15/2022 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`12.
`
`The applicant argues that Nishioka is silent to a compressive strength of 570 MPa or
`
`more. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and
`
`the prior art is some rangeor other variable within the claims. ... In such a situation, the
`
`applicant must show that the particular rangeis critical, generally by showing that the claimed
`
`range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d
`
`1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, the applicant has failed to show that the
`
`claimed range of 570 MPa or more achieves unexpected results relative to Nishioka’s disclosed
`
`range of 300 to S00 MPa. Note that the evidence must compare the claimed subject matter
`
`with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. /n re
`
`Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). In this case, none of applicant’s examples or
`
`comparative examples fall within the closest prior art range of 300 to 500 MPa. Absent
`
`persuasive evidenceofcriticality, the claimed range is considered to be close enough to
`
`Nishioka’s range for obviousness. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed
`
`ranges or amounts do notoverlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals
`
`Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP
`
`2144.05, 716.02. Furthermore, Nishioka’s teachings in paragraphs [0027], [0056] and [0057] of
`
`the beneficial effects of hard compressive strength would suggest further increasing the
`
`compressive strength.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/634,998
`Art Unit: 1727
`
`Page 9
`
`13.
`
`The applicant further argues that Nishioka only teaches the compressive strength of
`
`secondaryparticles, not unaggregated particles as claimed, but has failed to adequately explain
`
`how dispersing Nishioka’s active material into its component primary particles, as taught by
`
`Okada, would not yield unaggregated primary particles that have at least the same compressive
`
`strength. Specifically, it appears that each of the primary particles making up Nishioka’s
`
`secondary particles must necessarily have a compressive strength at least as high as the
`
`compressive strength of the secondary particles, because any breakage of a component
`
`primary particle would also constitute breakage of the secondaryparticle that it is a part of. In
`
`other words, a secondaryparticle that does not break at less than 570 MPa must be made up of
`
`primary particles that also do not break at less than 570 MPa, and therefore dispersing
`
`secondaryparticles having the claimed compressive strength, as suggested by Nishioka, as
`
`unaggregated primary particles as taught by Okada, would yield unaggregated particles having
`
`the same compressive strength as claimed.
`
`14.
`
`In response to applicant’s argument that the unaggregated configuration may help
`
`prevent breakage of the complex oxide particles, while allowing improved protection against
`
`pulverization and deterioration in the event of particle breakage, which ultimately leads to
`
`increased capability to suppress a decrease in the capacity maintenance rate upon repeated
`
`charge and discharge cycles, it appears that these effects would have been expected from
`
`Okada’s disclosure that using a positive electrode active material in a dispersed state as primary
`
`particles curbs capacity decline due to the disintegration of the positive electrode active
`
`material [0010], [0105]. "Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/634,998
`Art Unit: 1727
`
`Page 10
`
`invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof." /n re Gershon,
`
`372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967).
`
`15.
`
`In response to applicant's argument that the unaggregated configuration leads to
`
`increased capability to suppress a resistance increase upon repeated charge and discharge
`
`cycles, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally
`
`from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the
`
`differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. &
`
`Inter. 1985).
`
`16.
`
`In response to applicant’s allegations of unexpected results,it is noted that any
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some
`
`differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the
`
`differenceis really unexpected. /In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1986). In this case, applicant’s data does not appear to show an unexpected differencein
`
`properties, or even a consistent improvementin properties. Specifically, examples outside of
`
`the claimed ranges show capacity maintenancerates as high as 90% and rates of increase in
`
`resistance as low as 122%, while examples within the claimed ranges show worsecapacity
`
`maintenancerates as low as 83% and barely improved rates of increase in resistance as high as
`
`120%. Furthermore, whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved
`
`results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness
`
`must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidenceis offered to support." In
`
`other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur
`
`over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/634,998
`Art Unit: 1727
`
`Page 11
`
`1980). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a
`
`sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to showthe criticality of
`
`the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). In this case, the
`
`provided data does not include enough examples to support the full scope of the claims.
`
`Notably, for example, the data only exemplifies one value within the claimed range of
`
`compressive strength, only one type of fluorine-containing cyclic carbonate, and no contents
`
`thereof higher than 10%.
`
`17.
`
`In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by
`
`combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where
`
`there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references
`
`themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See /n 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), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385
`
`(2007).
`
`In this case, the motivation to modify Nishioka with Okada is found in paragraph [0028]
`
`of Okada, which teaches that decline in battery capacity involved with charge and discharge
`
`cycles can be minimized. Furthermore, the motivation to increase the compressive strength is
`
`found in paragraphs [0027], [0056] and [0057] of Nishioka, which teach that hard compressive
`
`strength suppresses breakage of the positive electrode active material particles and causes
`
`them to bite into the current collector, thereby enhancing peel strength and attaining better
`
`cycle characteristics, combined with the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon
`
`what is already generally known. Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/634,998
`Art Unit: 1727
`
`Page 12
`
`18.
`
`With respect to the double patenting rejection, the applicant argues that the claims are
`
`distinguished by the recitation of the range of 570 MPa or more, however the claimed range
`
`would have been obvious becauseit overlaps with the range of 250 MPa or morerecited in
`
`claim 2 of the reference application. In the case wherethe claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside
`
`ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
`
`19.
`
`For the above reasons, the previous rejections are being maintained.
`
`Conclusion
`
`20.
`
`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 eventa 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 extension fee 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.
`
`21.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to HELEN M MCDERMOTT whosetelephone number is (571)270-
`
`7138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/634,998
`Art Unit: 1727
`
`Page 13
`
`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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached on 571-272-1330. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization wherethis 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
`
`moreinformation 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.
`
`/HMM/
`
`/BARBARA L GILLIAM/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
`
`