DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action addresses pending claims 1-4, 7, 10-11, 13, 15, 18, and 20-29. Claims 1-4, 7, 10-11, 13, 15, 18, and 20 were amended; claims 5-6, 8-9, 12, 14, 16-17, and 19 were cancelled; and claims 21-29 were added in the response filed 1/13/2026
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 1/13/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/28/2023 was filed after the mailing date of the final action 6/7/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the boron cluster anion of the metal salt" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claim presently depends from cancelled claim 5. It is recommended to amend claim 7 to depend from claim 3, which does recite a boron cluster anion for the metal salt.
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 1-4, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 20-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Udovic (US 2016/0372786) in view of Pez et al. (US 2007/0048605) and Zimmerman (US 2017/0018781).
Regarding claim 1, Udovic discloses a superionic conducting salt (electrolyte) including a plurality of salt cations, a plurality of salt anions dispersed among the salt cations to obtain charge neutrality of the salt cations, and a superionic conductive phase that is present in a solid state at ambient temperature ([0055]). The superionic conducting salt has formula (1): MxAy (reads on: claimed formula GpA), wherein M is the salt cation (reads on: G is an organic cation), A is the salt anion (reads on: A is a boron cluster anion), and x and y are integers whose relative values provide charge neutrality of the superionic conducting salt ([0055]). A ratio of x to y can be from 4:1 to 1:4, thus reading on the claimed “p is 1 or 2” when x=1 and y=1; x=2 and y=1; or x=4 and y=2.
The plurality of salt cations M can be all a same species or a combination of different species of salt cation M ([0056]), and can include a cation of alkali metals (e.g. Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs), alkaline earth metal, polyatomic cations (e.g. ammonium or substituted ammonium (e.g., tetraalkylammonium), or imidazolium, and the like); or a combination thereof ([0056]); reading on the claimed G is an ammonium organic cation or a phosphonium organic cation having a plurality of organic substituents, organic cations selected from the group consisting of an ammonium and phosphonium, having a plurality of organic substituents, each organic substituent thereof independently selected from the group consisting of: a linear, branched, or cyclic C1-C8 alkyl or fluoroalkyl group.
The plurality of salt anions A can be all the same species or a combination of different species of salt anion A ([0057]), and includes polyborate ([0057]); reading on the claimed boron cluster anion. In an embodiment, salt anion A includes closo-borate anion of formula BnHn-zRz2- ([0059])
With regards to the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of”, the phrase limits the scope of a claim to the specific materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. As stated in MPEP 2111.03(III), for the purpose of searching and applying prior art under 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." As applicant has not provided a clear indication what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, the "consisting essentially of" has been construed as equivalent to "comprising."
Udovic further teaches using a plurality of salt cations and a plurality of salt anions ([0055]), including a secondary salt ([0088]); reading on the claimed metal salt having a metal cation and a metal salt anion. In a secondary cation, Ms can be the all the same or different, and includes alkali metal, alkaline earth metal, transition metal, rare-earth metal, and polyatomic cations [e.g. NH4+, (CH3)3N4 and the like] ([0089]). A secondary anion G can be all the same or different, can include an anion of a polyborate, a monoatomic anions, polyatomic anions, a monovalent halide anion, or a combination thereof ([0090]). Thus, Udovic teaches a metal salt having a metal cation and a metal salt anion.
With regards the limitation of “non-polymer [electrolyte composition or soft solid matrix]”, Udovic teaches that the electrolyte composition optionally includes a binder ([0004], [0116], [0194], claim 5). Because Udovic teaches “optionally”, Udovic suggests instances where the binder is not present. Therefore, Udovic teaches and suggests the electrolyte composition and superionic conducting salt as not comprising or containing binder [a polymer], and is therefore considered “non-polymer”.
While Udovic teaches the salt cations M (reads on G) can be organic and includes a plurality of organic substituents [see polyatomic cations including ammonium or substituted ammonium (e.g., tetraalkylammonium), or imidazolium, [0056]], Udovic does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality has at least two different organic substituents.
Pez discloses electrolyte salts for electrochemical devices of improved physical, chemical, and electrochemical stability (abstract). The electrolyte can be used in batteries, capacitors, or fuel cell applications ([0036]). The electrolyte is of formula HaMbQ-nH2O, where H is a proton, M is a cation, and Q is a fluoroborate (a boron cluster) ([0037]). M can be any cation that is stable over the electrochemical window of the cells, and can be alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, tertiary and quaternary ammonium cations, which are also relatively oxidation and reduction resistance ([0038]). Pez teaches that M can be a tetraalkylammonium, +NR1R2R3R4, or tetralkyphosphonium, +PR1R2R3R4 salts where R1 to R4 are independently chosen from any linear or branched alkyl group such as methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, isopropyl and n-butyl groups, and provides examples of tetramethylammonium (+N(CH3)4), tetrabutylammonium (+N(nBut)4), and tripropylmethylammonium (+N(n-Pr)Me) ([0105]). Pez provides other examples including N(C2H5)3CH3 [triethylmethylammonium] ([0178]). Pez teaches the salts can function in both solid and liquid state as part of aqueous or non-aqueous solutions ([0046]), which have desirable thermal and chemical stability at high voltage ([0046]). Thus, Pez teaches organic cations having the same organic constituent or different organic constituents as equivalent in terms of thermal, chemical, and ionic conductivity in electrochemical cells at high voltages, in either solid and liquid states (and therefore are applicable to any state there and in-between).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an organic cation having at least one different organic constituent [therefore two different organic constituents] (e.g. tripropylmethylammonium or triethylmethylammonium) as the organic cation of Udovic to obtain predictable results as an electrolyte. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both the organic cations are also used with a boron cluster as an electrolyte in a battery in either solid or liquid state, which would encompass a soft solid matrix such as Udovic.
With regards to the limitation of “soft solid matrix (solid matrix)” and “the non-polymer solid electrolyte composition exhibiting an elastic modulus of 0.2 GPa to less than 10 GPa”, Udovic does not explicitly disclose the consistency or elastic modulus of the electrolyte composition. However, Udovic teaches an electrolyte 1) not comprising a polymer, 2) a superionic conducting salt of the formula MxAy (which reads on the claimed formula GpA), 3) where M can include ammonium ([0056]), 4) A is a polyborate (boron cluster anion), and 5) a secondary salt (metal salt), while Pez teaches a cation M of a boron cluster can have organic substituents that are all the same (tetraalkylammonium) or are different (tripropylmethylammonium or triethylmethylammonium). Therefore the combination of references renders obvious the same composition and formula GpA which makes the soft solid matrix.
With regards to the “the non-polymer solid electrolyte composition exhibiting an elastic modulus of 0.2 GPa to less than 10 GPa”, it is known within the art that solid electrolytes for a battery must be strong enough to withstand tension of any winding operation during battery assembly, or bending or other abuse of the battery (Zimmerman [0258]). As mechanical strength is defined in terms of tensile strength, tear resistance and puncture strength, these parameters are defined of terms of Young’s modulus (Zimmerman [0259]). Zimmerman further teaches the range of Young’s modulus for the electrolyte made from a solid polymer material is 3.0 MPa-4.0 GPa, and it can be engineered to be higher by utilizing additives such as glass fiber or carbon fiber ([0258]). Therefore, Zimmerman teaches that a solid electrolyte for a battery should have a Young’s modulus between 3.0 MPa-4.0 GPa in order to be strong enough to withstand tension of any winding operation during battery assembly, or bending or other abuse of the battery, and further teaches that the Young’s modulus can be engineered to these values using additives (e.g. glass fiber of carbon fiber).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Young’s modulus [elastic modulus] of the solid electrolyte of Udovic to have a Young’s modulus in the range of 0.2 GPa-4.0 GPa engineered using additives as taught by Zimmerman having a solid electrolyte for the purpose of making the electrolyte strong enough to withstand the tension of any winding operation during battery assembly, or bending or other abuse of the battery.
Regarding claim 2, modified Udovic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Udovic discloses closo- anions of the formula BnH-n-zRz2-, CBnH-n+1-zRz1-, and C2BnH-n+3-zRz1- ([0074]-[0076]) which read on the claimed formulas of [ByH(y-z-i)RzXi]2-, [CBy-1H(y-z-i)RzXi]-, [C2By-2H(y-t-j-1i)RtXj]-, [C2By-3H(y-t-j)RtXj]-, and [C2By-3H(y-t-j-1)RtXj]2-.
Further, Udovic discloses secondary anion being a closo- anions of the formula BnH-n-zRz2-, CBnH-n+1-zRz1-, and C2BnH-n+3-zRz1- ([0092]-[0095]) which read on the claimed formulas of [ByH(y-z-i)RzXi]2-, [CBy-1H(y-z-i)RzXi]-, [C2By-2H(y-t-j-1i)RtXj]-, [C2By-3H(y-t-j)RtXj]-, and [C2By-3H(y-t-j-1)RtXj]2-.
Regarding claim 3, modified Udovic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Udovic additionally discloses the boron clusters comprises a closo-boron cluster ([0059]-[0061]). Udovic additionally discloses the secondary anion as being boron clusters comprising a closo-boron cluster ([0091]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Udovic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Udovic additionally discloses the boron clusters is a closo-boron cluster of formula B12H122- or CB11H12- ([0080]). Udovic additionally discloses the secondary anion as a closo-boron cluster of formula B12H122- or CB11H12- ([0097]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Udovic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Udovic teaches that the salt cations can be all the same species or a combination of different species, including polyatomic cations ([0056]), modified Udovic does not explicitly disclose wherein the solid matrix comprises at least two different G.
However, because Udovic teaches that different species of salt cation can be used together, including the polyatomic actions of ammonium, substituted ammonium, tetraalkylammonium or imidazolium or the like ([0056]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine two different salt cations as the part of the plurality of salt cations of Udovic to obtain the benefit of a superionic conducting salt in an electrolyte.
Regarding claim 13, modified Udovic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Udovic teaches the salt cation M can include an alkali metal (e.g. Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs) or alkaline earth metal (e.g. Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba) ([0056]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an alkali metal or alkaline earth metal (including Li+, Na+, Mg2+, Ca2+) disclosed by Udovic as one of the salt cations of the superionic conductor to obtain the benefit of the electrolyte. In addition, Udovic teaches the salt can be LiCB11H12 and LiCB9H10 ([0069],[0098]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Udovic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Udovic discloses the organic cation can include an ammonium cation ([0056], [0071], [0089]). Udovic further provides an example of tetraalkylammonium, and thereby reasonably suggests an acyclic ammonium organic cation.
Regarding claim 18, modified Udovic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. With regards to the limitation of ”wherein G comprises N-methyl-N-ethylpyrrolidinium (Pyr12) organic cation, N-methyl-N-butylpyrrolidium (Pyr14) organic cation, N,N-diethyl-N-methyl-N-(2-methoxyethyl)-ammonium (DEME) organic cation, N,N,N-triethyl-N-hexylammonium (N2226) organic cation, triethylhexylphosphonium (P2226) organic cation, or N-ethyl-N,N-dimethyl-N-butylammonium (N4211) organic cation”, Udovic does not explicitly disclose these limitations.
However, Pez teaches that M can be a tetraalkylammonium, +NR1R2R3R4, or tetralkyphosphonium, +PR1R2R3R4 salts where R1 to R4 are independently chosen from any linear or branched alkyl group such as methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, isopropyl and n-butyl groups, and provides examples of tetramethylammonium (+N(CH3)4), tetrabutylammonium (+N(nBut)4), and tripropylmethylammonium (+N(n-Pr)Me) [N3331] ([0105]). Pez provides other examples including N(C2H5)3CH3 [triethylmethylammonium, N2221] ([0178]). That is, Pez suggests using any linear branched alkyl group as the R groups.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select other alkyl groups (including hexyl, 6) and alkyl combinations (including N2226 or N4211) of the alkylammonium, as taught by Pez, in the alkylammonium of Udovic to obtain predictable results as an electrolyte. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both the organic cations are also used with a boron cluster as an electrolyte in a battery in either solid or liquid state, which would encompass a soft solid matrix such as Udovic.
Regarding claim 20, modified Udovic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Udovic additionally teaches combining a primary salt with a secondary salt from 0 mole% to 100 mole % ([0111]). Because the range of 0-100 mole% encompasses about 1:100 to 100:1 inclusive, the disclosure of Udovic renders obvious the claimed molar ratio. Even further, Udovic teaches an example where the salts are milled in a ratio of 1:1 ([0139]), thus it would be obvious to select this amount as a molar ratio to obtain the benefits of the disclosed electrolyte.
Regarding claim 21, modified Udovic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. With regards to the limitation of the non-polymer solid electrolyte exhibit an ionic conductivity of greater than 10-10 S/cm to 10-2 S/cm, inclusive, in the solid state, because modified Udovic has the organic cation which reads on the (i), and Udovic teaches a boron cluster anion and having a metal salt having a metal cation and a metal salt anion (see at least secondary salt [0088]), the combination of reference meets the limitations of the soft solid matrix and the metal salt, is substantially the same as the claimed soft solid matrix and the metal salt, and would therefore display the recited properties of possessing ionic conductivity greater than 10-10 S/cm to 10-2 S/cm in the solid state. In addition, Udovic discloses ionic conductivities of salts within this range (see Figs 21, 24, and 31).
Regarding claim 22, modified Udovic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. With regards to the limitation of ”wherein the solid matrix comprises Pyr14:CB9H10, Pyr14:CB11H12, P2226:CB11H12, N2226:CB11H12, and combinations thereof”, while Udovic teaches the anions include CB11H12 ([0080]) and thereby reasonably suggests the CB11H12 portion, Udovic does not explicitly disclose the cation being Pyr14, P2226, or N2226.
However, Pez teaches that M can be a tetraalkylammonium, +NR1R2R3R4, or tetralkyphosphonium, +PR1R2R3R4 salts where R1 to R4 are independently chosen from any linear or branched alkyl group such as methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, isopropyl and n-butyl groups, and provides examples of tetramethylammonium (+N(CH3)4), tetrabutylammonium (+N(nBut)4), and tripropylmethylammonium (+N(n-Pr)Me) [N3331] ([0105]). Pez provides other examples including N(C2H5)3CH3 [triethylmethylammonium, N2221] ([0178]). That is, Pez suggests using any linear branched alkyl group as the R groups.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select other alkyl groups (including hexyl, 6) and alkyl combinations (including N2226) of the alkylammonium, as taught by Pez, in the alkylammonium of Udovic to obtain predictable results as an electrolyte. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both the organic cations are also used with a boron cluster as an electrolyte in a battery in either solid or liquid state, which would encompass a soft solid matrix such as Udovic.
Regarding claim 23, modified Udovic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Udovic additionally teaches combining a primary salt with a secondary salt from 0 mole% to 100 mole % ([0111]). Because the range of 0-100 mole% encompasses about 5:100 to 1:1 inclusive, the disclosure of Udovic renders obvious the claimed molar ratio. Even further, Udovic teaches an example where the salts are milled in a ratio of 1:1 ([0139]), thus it would be obvious to select this amount as a molar ratio to obtain the benefits of the disclosed electrolyte.
Regarding claim 24, modified Udovic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. With regards to the limitation of the non-polymer solid electrolyte exhibit an ionic conductivity of greater than 10-6 S/cm to 10-4 S/cm, inclusive, in the solid state, because modified Udovic has the organic cation which reads on the (i), and Udovic teaches a boron cluster anion and having a metal salt having a metal cation and a metal salt anion (see at least secondary salt [0088]), the combination of reference meets the limitations of the soft solid matrix and the metal salt, is substantially the same as the claimed soft solid matrix and the metal salt, and would therefore display the recited properties of possessing ionic conductivity greater than 10-6 S/cm to 10-4 S/cm in the solid state. In addition, Udovic discloses ionic conductivities of salts within this range (see Figs 21, 24, and 31).
Regarding claim 25, modified Udovic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Udovic additionally teaches combining a primary salt with a secondary salt from 0 mole% to 100 mole % ([0111]). Because the range of 0-100 mole% encompasses wherein the metal salt is present at a molar ratio, relative to the solid matrix, of greater than 1:1, the disclosure of Udovic renders obvious the claimed molar ratio. Even further, Udovic teaches an example where the salts are milled in a ratio of 1:1 ([0139]), and therefore reasonably suggests embodiments where one salt (including the metal salt) is slightly greater than the other (and thereby suggests the metal salt is present a molar ratio of greater than 1:1).
Regarding claim 26, modified Udovic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. With regards to the limitation of “an elastic modulus of less than 1.0 GPa”, it is known within the art that solid electrolytes for a battery must be strong enough to withstand tension of any winding operation during battery assembly, or bending or other abuse of the battery (Zimmerman [0258]). As mechanical strength is defined in terms of tensile strength, tear resistance and puncture strength, these parameters are defined of terms of Young’s modulus (Zimmerman [0259]). Zimmerman further teaches the range of Young’s modulus for the electrolyte made from a solid polymer material is 3.0 MPa-4.0 GPa, and it can be engineered to be higher by utilizing additives such as glass fiber or carbon fiber ([0258]). Therefore, Zimmerman teaches that a solid electrolyte for a battery should have a Young’s modulus between 3.0 MPa-4.0 GPa in order to be strong enough to withstand tension of any winding operation during battery assembly, or bending or other abuse of the battery, and further teaches that the Young’s modulus can be engineered to these values using additives (e.g. glass fiber of carbon fiber).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Young’s modulus [elastic modulus] of the solid electrolyte of Udovic to have a Young’s modulus in the range of 0.2 GPa-1.0 GPa engineered using additives as taught by Zimmerman having a solid electrolyte for the purpose of making the electrolyte strong enough to withstand the tension of any winding operation during battery assembly, or bending or other abuse of the battery.
With regards to the limitation of “ionic conductivity of 10-4 S/cm to 10-2 S/cm, inclusive in the solid state”, because modified Udovic has the organic cation which reads on the (i), and Udovic teaches a boron cluster anion and having a metal salt having a metal cation and a metal salt anion (see at least secondary salt [0088]), the combination of reference meets the limitations of the soft solid matrix and the metal salt, is substantially the same as the claimed soft solid matrix and the metal salt, and would therefore display the recited properties of possessing ionic conductivity greater than 10-4 S/cm to 10-2 S/cm in the solid state. In addition, Udovic discloses ionic conductivities of salts within this range (see Figs 21, 24, and 31).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Udovic (US 2016/0372786) in view of Pez et al. (US 2007/0048605) and Zimmerman (US 2017/0018781), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of either Chen et al. (US 2013/0078532) or Mohtadi (US 2015/0325881).
Regarding claim 10, modified Udovic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. With regards to the limitation “wherein the elastic modulus of the electrolyte composition is less than about 1.0 GPa”, Zimmerman further teaches the range of Young’s modulus for the electrolyte made from the solid polymer material is 3.0 MPa-4.0 GPa, and it can be engineered to be higher by utilizing additives such as glass fiber or carbon fiber ([0258]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Young’s modulus [elastic modulus] of the solid electrolyte of Udovic to have a Young’s modulus in the range of 3.0 MPa-4.0 GPa (including the range of 3.0 MPa-1.0 GPa) engineered using additives as taught by Zimmerman having a solid electrolyte for the purpose of making the electrolyte strong enough to withstand the tension of any winding operation during battery assembly, or bending or other abuse of the battery.
While Udovic teaches using a plurality of salts ([0055]), modified Udovic does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal salt anion comprises at least one of: (fluorosulfonyl)imide (FSI) anion; bis(trifluoromethanesulphonyl)imide (TFSI) anion; PF6 anion and BF4 anion.
Chen discloses a battery comprising an electrolyte having a lithium borate cluster salt of the formula Li2B12X12-nHn or LixX10-xHn ([0004], [0014]), and further includes a lithium salt such as LiPF6, LiBF4, Li[N(CF3SO2)2 [Li-TFSI], and Li[N(SO2CF3)2] [Li-FSI] ([0007]). Thus, Chen teaches anions of PF6, BF4, TFSI, and FSI.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lithium salt (including cations of PF6, BF4, TFSI, and FSI) of Chen with the electrolyte of Udovic for the purpose of promoting ionic conductivity.
Alternatively, Mohtadi discloses an electrolyte comprising a salt mixture including a magnesium borohydrate and a third salt ([0021]). The third salt can be LiFSI, LiTFSI, LiBF4, Mg(FSI)2, Mg(TFSI)2 and Mg(BF4)2 ([0021]). Thus, Mohtadi teaches anions of FSI, TFSI, and BF4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the third salt (including LiFSI, LiTFSI, LiBF4, Mg(FSI)2, Mg(TFSI)2 and Mg(BF4)2) of Mohtadi with the electrolyte of Udovic for the purpose of promoting ionic conductivity.
Claims 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Udovic (US 2016/0372786) in view of Pez et al. (US 2007/0048605).
Regarding claim 27, Udovic discloses a superionic conducting salt (electrolyte) including a plurality of salt cations, a plurality of salt anions dispersed among the salt cations to obtain charge neutrality of the salt cations, and a superionic conductive phase that is present in a solid state at ambient temperature ([0055]). The superionic conducting salt has formula (1): MxAy (reads on: claimed formula GpA), wherein M is the salt cation (reads on: G is an organic cation), A is the salt anion (reads on: A is a boron cluster anion), and x and y are integers whose relative values provide charge neutrality of the superionic conducting salt ([0055]). A ratio of x to y can be from 4:1 to 1:4, thus reading on the claimed “p is 1 or 2” when x=1 and y=1; x=2 and y=1; or x=4 and y=2.
The plurality of salt cations M can be all a same species or a combination of different species of salt cation M ([0056]), and can include a cation of alkali metals (e.g. Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs), alkaline earth metal, polyatomic cations (e.g. ammonium or substituted ammonium (e.g., tetraalkylammonium), or imidazolium, and the like); or a combination thereof ([0056]); reading on the claimed G is an ammonium organic cation or a phosphonium organic cation having a plurality of organic substituents, organic cations selected from the group consisting of an ammonium and phosphonium, having a plurality of organic substituents, each organic substituent thereof independently selected from the group consisting of: a linear, branched, or cyclic C1-C8 alkyl or fluoroalkyl group.
The plurality of salt anions A can be all the same species or a combination of different species of salt anion A ([0057]), and includes polyborate ([0057]); reading on the claimed boron cluster anion. In an embodiment, salt anion A includes closo-borate anion of formula BnHn-zRz2- ([0059])
With regards to the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of”, the phrase limits the scope of a claim to the specific materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. As stated in MPEP 2111.03(III), for the purpose of searching and applying prior art under 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." As applicant has not provided a clear indication what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, the "consisting essentially of" has been construed as equivalent to "comprising."
Udovic further teaches using a plurality of salt cations and a plurality of salt anions ([0055]), including a secondary salt ([0088]); reading on the claimed metal salt having a metal cation and a metal salt anion. In a secondary cation, Ms can be the all the same or different, and includes alkali metal, alkaline earth metal, transition metal, rare-earth metal, and polyatomic cations [e.g. NH4+, (CH3)3N4 and the like] ([0089]). A secondary anion G can be all the same or different, can include an anion of a polyborate, a monoatomic anions, polyatomic anions, a monovalent halide anion, or a combination thereof ([0090]). Thus, Udovic teaches a metal salt having a metal cation and a metal salt anion.
With regards the limitation of “non-polymer [electrolyte composition or soft solid matrix]”, Udovic teaches that the electrolyte composition optionally includes a binder ([0004], [0116], [0194], claim 5). Because Udovic teaches “optionally”, Udovic suggests instances where the binder is not present. Therefore, Udovic teaches and suggests the electrolyte composition and superionic conducting salt as not comprising or containing binder [a polymer], and is therefore considered “non-polymer”.
With regards to the limitation of the metal salt and non-polymer solid matrix (solid matrix) being “a solid melt product”, the limitation is interpreted as a product-by-product limitation. As such, only the structure implied by the steps is considered (see MPEP 2113). The structure implied is a mixture of the metal salt and non-polymer solid matrix.
As Udovic teaches mixing the salts, or mixing the salts in a solvent to make a solution and followed by full or partial desolvation with heat or vacuum ([0111]), Udovic meets the structure of the limitation of a solid melt product because the salts are mixed, and alternatively mixed in a solution and desolvated with heat or vacuum.
While Udovic teaches the salt cations M (reads on G) can be organic and includes a plurality of organic substituents [see polyatomic cations including ammonium or substituted ammonium (e.g., tetraalkylammonium), or imidazolium, [0056]], Udovic does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality has at least two different organic substituents.
Pez discloses electrolyte salts for electrochemical devices of improved physical, chemical, and electrochemical stability (abstract). The electrolyte can be used in batteries, capacitors, or fuel cell applications ([0036]). The electrolyte is of formula HaMbQ-nH2O, where H is a proton, M is a cation, and Q is a fluoroborate (a boron cluster) ([0037]). M can be any cation that is stable over the electrochemical window of the cells, and can be alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, tertiary and quaternary ammonium cations, which are also relatively oxidation and reduction resistance ([0038]). Pez teaches that M can be a tetraalkylammonium, +NR1R2R3R4, or tetralkyphosphonium, +PR1R2R3R4 salts where R1 to R4 are independently chosen from any linear or branched alkyl group such as methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, isopropyl and n-butyl groups, and provides examples of tetramethylammonium (+N(CH3)4), tetrabutylammonium (+N(nBut)4), and tripropylmethylammonium (+N(n-Pr)Me) ([0105]). Pez provides other examples including N(C2H5)3CH3 [triethylmethylammonium] ([0178]). Pez teaches the salts can function in both solid and liquid state as part of aqueous or non-aqueous solutions ([0046]), which have desirable thermal and chemical stability at high voltage ([0046]). Thus, Pez teaches organic cations having the same organic constituent or different organic constituents as equivalent in terms of thermal, chemical, and ionic conductivity in electrochemical cells at high voltages, in either solid and liquid states (and therefore are applicable to any state there and in-between).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an organic cation having at least one different organic constituent [therefore two different organic constituents] (e.g. tripropylmethylammonium or triethylmethylammonium) as the organic cation of Udovic to obtain predictable results as an electrolyte. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both the organic cations are also used with a boron cluster as an electrolyte in a battery in either solid or liquid state, which would encompass a soft solid matrix such as Udovic.
With regards to the limitation of “soft solid matrix (solid matrix)”, Udovic does not explicitly disclose the consistency or elastic modulus of the electrolyte composition. However, Udovic teaches an electrolyte 1) not comprising a polymer, 2) a superionic conducting salt of the formula MxAy (which reads on the claimed formula GpA), 3) where M can include ammonium ([0056]), 4) A is a polyborate (boron cluster anion), and 5) a secondary salt (metal salt), while Pez teaches a cation M of a boron cluster can have organic substituents that are all the same (tetraalkylammonium) or are different (tripropylmethylammonium or triethylmethylammonium). Therefore the combination of references renders obvious the same composition and formula GpA which makes the soft solid matrix.
Regarding claim 28, Udovic discloses a superionic conducting salt (electrolyte) including a plurality of salt cations, a plurality of salt anions dispersed among the salt cations to obtain charge neutrality of the salt cations, and a superionic conductive phase that is present in a solid state at ambient temperature ([0055]). The superionic conducting salt has formula (1): MxAy (reads on: claimed formula GpA), wherein M is the salt cation (reads on: G is an organic cation), A is the salt anion (reads on: A is a boron cluster anion), and x and y are integers whose relative values provide charge neutrality of the superionic conducting salt ([0055]). A ratio of x to y can be from 4:1 to 1:4, thus reading on the claimed “p is 1 or 2” when x=1 and y=1; x=2 and y=1; or x=4 and y=2.
The plurality of salt cations M can be all a same species or a combination of different species of salt cation M ([0056]), and can include a cation of alkali metals (e.g. Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs), alkaline earth metal, polyatomic cations (e.g. ammonium or substituted ammonium (e.g., tetraalkylammonium), or imidazolium, and the like); or a combination thereof ([0056]); reading on the claimed G is an ammonium organic cation or a phosphonium organic cation having a plurality of organic substituents, organic cations selected from the group consisting of an ammonium and phosphonium, having a plurality of organic substituents, each organic substituent thereof independently selected from the group consisting of: a linear, branched, or cyclic C1-C8 alkyl or fluoroalkyl group.
The plurality of salt anions A can be all the same species or a combination of different species of salt anion A ([0057]), and includes polyborate ([0057]); reading on the claimed boron cluster anion. In an embodiment, salt anion A includes closo-borate anion of formula BnHn-zRz2- ([0059])
With regards to the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of”, the phrase limits the scope of a claim to the specific materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. As stated in MPEP 2111.03(III), for the purpose of searching and applying prior art under 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." As applicant has not provided a clear indication what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, the "consisting essentially of" has been construed as equivalent to "comprising."
Udovic further teaches using a plurality of salt cations and a plurality of salt anions ([0055]), including a secondary salt ([0088]); reading on the claimed metal salt having a metal cation and a metal salt anion. In a secondary cation, Ms can be the all the same or different, and includes alkali metal, alkaline earth metal, transition metal, rare-earth metal, and polyatomic cations [e.g. NH4+, (CH3)3N4 and the like] ([0089]). A secondary anion G can be all the same or different, can include an anion of a polyborate, a monoatomic anions, polyatomic anions, a monovalent halide anion, or a combination thereof ([0090]). Thus, Udovic teaches a metal salt having a metal cation and a metal salt anion.
With regards the limitation of “non-polymer [electrolyte composition or soft solid matrix]”, Udovic teaches that the electrolyte composition optionally includes a binder ([0004], [0116], [0194], claim 5). Because Udovic teaches “optionally”, Udovic suggests instances where the binder is not present. Therefore, Udovic teaches and suggests the electrolyte composition and superionic conducting salt as not comprising or containing binder [a polymer], and is therefore considered “non-polymer”.
While Udovic teaches the salt cations M (reads on G) can be organic and includes a plurality of organic substituents [see polyatomic cations including ammonium or substituted ammonium (e.g., tetraalkylammonium), or imidazolium, [0056]], Udovic does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality has at least two different organic substituents.
Pez discloses electrolyte salts for electrochemical devices of improved physical, chemical, and electrochemical stability (abstract). The electrolyte can be used in batteries, capacitors, or fuel cell applications ([0036]). The electrolyte is of formula HaMbQ-nH2O, where H is a proton, M is a cation, and Q is a fluoroborate (a boron cluster) ([0037]). M can be any cation that is stable over the electrochemical window of the cells, and can be alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, tertiary and quaternary ammonium cations, which are also relatively oxidation and reduction resistance ([0038]). Pez teaches that M can be a tetraalkylammonium, +NR1R2R3R4, or tetralkyphosphonium, +PR1R2R3R4 salts where R1 to R4 are independently chosen from any linear or branched alkyl group such as methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, isopropyl and n-butyl groups, and provides examples of tetramethylammonium (+N(CH3)4), tetrabutylammonium (+N(nBut)4), and tripropylmethylammonium (+N(n-Pr)Me) ([0105]). Pez provides other examples including N(C2H5)3CH3 [triethylmethylammonium] ([0178]). Pez teaches the salts can function in both solid and liquid state as part of aqueous or non-aqueous solutions ([0046]), which have desirable thermal and chemical stability at high voltage ([0046]). Thus, Pez teaches organic cations having the same organic constituent or different organic constituents as equivalent in terms of thermal, chemical, and ionic conductivity in electrochemical cells at high voltages, in either solid and liquid states (and therefore are applicable to any state there and in-between).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an organic cation having at least one different organic constituent [therefore two different organic constituents] (e.g. tripropylmethylammonium or triethylmethylammonium) as the organic cation of Udovic to obtain predictable results as an electrolyte. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both the organic cations are also used with a boron cluster as an electrolyte in a battery in either solid or liquid state, which would encompass a soft solid matrix such as Udovic.
With regards to the limitation of “soft solid matrix (solid matrix)”, Udovic does not explicitly disclose the consistency or elastic modulus of the electrolyte composition. However, Udovic teaches an electrolyte 1) not comprising a polymer, 2) a superionic conducting salt of the formula MxAy (which reads on the claimed formula GpA), 3) where M can include ammonium ([0056]), 4) A is a polyborate (boron cluster anion), and 5) a secondary salt (metal salt), while Pez teaches a cation M of a boron cluster can have organic substituents that are all the same (tetraalkylammonium) or are different (tripropylmethylammonium or triethylmethylammonium). Therefore the combination of references renders obvious the same composition and formula GpA which makes the soft solid matrix.
Regarding claim 29, modified Udovic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Udovic discloses a salt having a polyatomic cation with the example of tetraalkylammonium ([0056]), modified Udovic does not explicitly disclose wherein G is the phosphonium organic cation.
Pez teaches that M can be a tetraalkylammonium, +NR1R2R3R4, or tetralkyphosphonium, +PR1R2R3R4 salts where R1 to R4 are independently chosen from any linear or branched alkyl group such as methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, isopropyl and n-butyl groups, and provides examples of tetramethylammonium (+N(CH3)4), tetrabutylammonium (+N(nBut)4), and tripropylmethylammonium (+N(n-Pr)Me) ([0105]). Therefore, Pez teaches that a tetralkylphosphoniums and tetraalkylammoniums, which both have a polyatomic cation, can used as alternatives in a salt for electrochemical devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace or add to the ammonium cation salt of Udovic with the phosphonium cation salt as taught by Pez because Pez teaches that both polyatomic salts can be used as a salt in electrochemical devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with regards to claim 1, the amended limitations of “consisting essentially of” excludes additional elements from the claim. Specifically arguing the language excludes the additives of Zimmerman as they would change the Young’s modulus value of the non-polymer solid electrolyte composition, and thus “materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)”.
This is not considered persuasive. With regards to the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of”, the phrase limits the scope of a claim to the specific materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. As stated in MPEP 2111.03(III), for the purpose of searching and applying prior art under 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." As applicant has not provided a clear indication what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, the "consisting essentially of" has been construed as equivalent to "comprising." Therefore, the language does not exclude Zimmerman or its additives.
Applicant argues, with regards to claim 27, that the Udovic in combination with Pez and Zimmerman fails to teach or suggest at least “a solid melt product”.
This is not considered persuasive. Applicant does not describe the differences between the claimed “solid melt product” and the electrolyte composition of Udovic.
Further, with regards to the limitation of the metal salt and non-polymer solid matrix (solid matrix) being “a solid melt product”, the limitation is interpreted as a product-by-product limitation. As such, only the structure implied by the steps is considered (see MPEP 2113). The structure implied is a mixture of the metal salt and non-polymer solid matrix.
As Udovic teaches mixing the salts, or mixing the salts in a solvent to make a solution and followed by full or partial desolvation with heat or vacuum ([0111]), Udovic meets the structure of the limitation of a solid melt product because the salts are mixed, and alternatively mixed in a solution and desolvated with heat or vacuum.
Applicant argues, with regards to claim 28 (pages 14-15 of arguments), Udovic in light of Mohtadi 2 [Mohtadi US 9,455,473] does not meet the limitations.
This is not considered persuasive. Claim 28 is a new claim, and Mohtadi 2 [US 9,455,473] has not been applied.
Applicant argues, with regards to claim 28 (pages 16-17) and Udovic in light of Pez, that it would not have been obvious to replace the identically substituted cations of Udovic with differently substituted cations of Pez in the solid state. Applicant argues that Pez teaches “organic tertiary and quaternary ammonium cations…may be used” but is silent as to whether the cations are identically or differently substituted. Applicant argues Pez’s single mention of differently substituted organic cation “is specifically limited to liquid electrolytes in electrochemical capacitors” in paragraphs [0102] and [0105]. Applicant further argues that each of Udovic and Pez only teach organic cations with identical organic substituents in solid-state electrolytes.
This is not considered persuasive. Pez does not limit the differently substituted organic cation to liquid electrolytes in the cited paragraphs. Pez merely provides an example where the ammonium or phosphonium cation is used with an electrical double layer supercapacitor, and that example includes tripropylmethylammonium or triethylmethylammonium (Pez [0105]). That is, Pez does not limit the ammonium or phosphonium cation to only uses in an electrical double layer supercapacitor.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, Pez states in [0038] that “M is any cation which is stable over the electrochemical window of the electrochemical cell” and “organic tertiary and quaternary ammonium cations, which are also relatively oxidation and reduction resistant may be used and are common in capacitor applications”. Therefore, Pez refers to the tertiary and quaternary ammonium cations as being used in the broad disclosure of the electrochemical cells, which include “lithium and lithium ion batteries, electrochemical capacitor, and fuel cell applications” ([0036]). Therefore, because of Pez’s teachings of electrochemical cells including lithium and lithium ion batteries, Pez’s teaching of the ammonium cation is not solely used for an electrical double layer supercapacitor with a liquid electrolyte.
With regards to Udovic only teaching organic cations with identical organic substituents, Udovic broadly teaches “substituted ammonium (e.g., tetraalkylammonium)” ([0056]), which includes the alkyls being the same or the alkyls being different. That is, Udovic merely does not disclose the specific substituents (the alkyls) of the substituted ammonium, but instead includes a broad disclosure which can include all the alkyls being the same or at least one of the alkyls being different from another. Therefore, Udovic does not only teach organic cations with identical organic substituents.
Applicant argues, with regards to Udovic in light of Pez or Mohtadi 2 [US 9,455,473] (pages 17-19), that each of Udovic, Pez, and Mohtadi 2 fail to enable the ionic conductivity of either type of substituted cation salts in the solid state, and thus any 102 or 103 rejection based on the disclosure by Udovic in combination with Pez and/or Mohtadi 2 fails. Applicant argues that the references do not describe the claimed subject matter in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. The declaration specifically notes that it is of the opinion that none of the references of Udovic, Pez, and/or Mohtadi 2 allow a person skilled in the to make and use a boron cluster salt of a substituted organic cation as a solid state electrolyte without undue experimentation.
Applicant provides Experimental Evidence in the form of a declaration by Dr. Rana Mohtadi, an inventor of the present application, that demonstrates that boron cluster salts of certain identically substituted organic cations fail to exhibit ionic conductivity in the solid state, even where such salts display high ionic conductivity in the liquid state, or where corresponding differently substituted organic cations exhibit such solid state ionic conductivity.
The declaration provides three figures demonstrating ionic conductivity via impedance spectrum measurements.
Figure 1 is P4444:CB11H12 [symmetrical] with 20 molar percent Li:CB11H12 in a solid state
Figure 2 is P4444:CB11H12 [symmetrical] with 20 molar percent Li:CB11H12 in a liquid state with propylene carbonate
Figure 3 is P2226:CB11H12 [asymmetrical] with 50 molar percent Li:CB11H12 in a solid state.
Applicant argues that Figure 1 shows no ionic conductivity and unpredictability in solid state, whereas Figure 2 shows ionic conductivity in a liquid state but unpredictable because the solid and liquid state conductivity properties are opposite, and Figure 3 demonstrates that asymmetry in the organic substituent appears to be required to achieve solid state conductivity.
This is not considered persuasive. Prior art is presumed to be operable/enabling (see MPEP 2121). Therefore, it is presumed that the prior art is operable and enabling.
Because Applicant argues that the prior art does not allow a person to make and use a boron cluster salt [a composition] of a substituted organic cation as a solid state electrolyte (see declaration filed 1/13/2026 at paragraph number 10), MPEP 2121.02 is relevant.
MPEP 2121.02 is directed to compounds and compositions and what constitutes enabling prior art. As stated in the section, Applicant must provide evidence showing that a process for making [the compound or composition] was not known at the relevant time (MPEP 2121.02(I)). Applicant does not provide this evidence. Instead, Applicant argues properties of the prior art, but does not argue or provide evidence that a process for making the compound/composition was not known at the time. Therefore, the argument that the prior art is not operable or enabling is not considered persuasive.
Even further, in the declaration, the tests were performed at different metal salt amounts (20% metal salt with 80% symmetrical, and 50% metal salt with 50% asymmetrical). Because the tests were performed with different metal salt amounts, it cannot be determined whether any alleged undue experimentation and/or unpredictability stems from the symmetric/asymmetric structure or from the amount of additional metal salt. Therefore, the argument that the prior art is not operable or enabling is not considered persuasive because Applicant does not present direct comparisons because the amount of metal salts are different.
From the data provided, a reasonable conclusion could be that the resulting ionic conductivity is affected by the amount of additional metal salt. Therefore, it cannot be determined whether a certain amount of metal salt is required or is instead the enabling factor.
While Applicant argues that “asymmetry in the organic substituents appears to be required to achieve solid state conductivity”, Udovic clearly demonstrates ionic conductivities of salts within the disclosed and claimed range (see Figs 21, 24, and 31). Therefore, asymmetry does not appear to be required to achieve solid state conductivity.
Further, if a certain amount of metal salt is required for conductivity, then all the independent claims which broadly require any amount of the asymmetric salt (including small amounts of 1% or 0.01%), may also be not enabled for the argued ionic conductivity.
With regards to the amount of metal salt being relevant to the ionic conductivity and being enabled, the Examiner notes that Udovic teaches combining a primary salt [the boron cluster salt of a substituted organic cation] with a secondary salt from 0 mole% to 100 mole % ([0111]). Even further, Udovic teaches an example where the salts are milled in a ratio of 1:1 ([0139]). Therefore, Udovic discloses ranges which encompass the range disclosed in the claimed invention, and thereby further suggests the disclosure of the prior art is enabling.
Further, as best understood by the specification and declaration, only a few different examples using different metal salt amounts have been provided.
A mixture of the solid matrix (Pyr14:CB9H10) and 80% metal salt (paragraph [0029])
A mixture of the solid matrix (Pyr14:CB9H10) and 45% metal salt (paragraph [0029])
A mixture of lithium salt (LiCB9H10:LiCB11H12) and solid matrix (Pyr14:CB9H10 or Pyr14:CB11H12) in a molar ratio of 1:1 (paragraph [0039], Fig 6), which appears to have the lithium salt in an amount of 80% as seen in Fig 6.
The declaration at Example 3, having P2226:CB11H12 with 50 molar percent Li:CB11H12 in a solid state.
However, all of these examples have a metal salt amount more than the comparisons [Figs 1 and 2] in the declaration, and therefore no direct comparison has been made.
Therefore, as a whole, the argument that the prior art is not enabling is not considered persuasive for the reasons stated above.
Finally, it is noted that Dr. Rana Mohtadi appears to be the same Rana Mohtadi of US Patent 9,455,473. That is, Rana Mohtadi appears to be arguing, under declaration and with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like are made punishable by fine or imprisonment, that the granted US Patent 9,455,473, of which they were part of, does not have an enabling disclosure to make and use a boron cluster salt of a substituted organic cation (see declaration filed 1/13/2026, at paragraph number 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BUCHANAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM (ET).
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JACOB BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725