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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 25-49, as filed 4 August 2025, are examined herein. Claim 25 is amended. No new matter is included.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest surface doping with Mn as in the amended claim 25. This is moot in light of a newly cited reference, Xia, which teaches surface doping.
Applicant further argues that Liu only discussed Mn content in relation to Mg, where Mn and Mg are in equal amounts. This is not persuasive, as instant claim 25 contemplates NMC where M’’ may be Mg.
Applicant further argues that Liu’s materials only retained less than 50% of their capacity after 50 cycles. This in not persuasive, the person of ordinary skill is motivated to use Liu’s teaching to obtain improvement in specific properties, some of the improvement in capacity retention may come from the electrolyte chemistry as taught by DuBois.
Applicant further argues that Liu did not incorporate protocols to optimize high voltage cycling through alteration of the particle properties. Again, the person of ordinary skill is motivated to use Liu’s teaching to obtain improvement in specific properties, Liu does not need to optimize the properties, just provide a reasonable expectation of successfully improving them.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 25-44 and 47-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DuBois (US 20170117586 A1), in view of Liu (see 892) and Xia (US 20180034045 A1) or alternatively, over DuBois in view of Liu and Xia and in further view of Murai (US 20120301760 A1).
DuBois teaches [0004], [0026] a liquid electrolyte secondary battery cell that has improved cycling performance at cathode potentials higher than 4.5 V. (reads on “operating voltage superior or equal to 4.4 V”) DuBois further teaches [0099] improved performance at higher temperatures.
DuBois teaches [0119, 0122] a positive electrode including cathode active powder. However, DuBois does not explicitly teach that the positive active material is Li1-x(Co1-a-b-cNiaMnbM"c)1+x02 with -0.01<x<0.01, 0.00<a<0.09, 0.01<b<0.05, and 0.00<c<0.03, wherein M" is one or more metals selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ti and Zr. (Examiner notes that in the claimed formula, nickel is optional.) DuBois teaches [0077-0085] that suitable positive electrode materials for a lithium-ion battery include “without limitation electroactive compounds comprising lithium and transition metals” and provides several examples including LiCoO2 and LiaCoGbO2 (0.90≦a≦1.8, and 0.001≦b≦0.1), where G is Al, Mn, or Mg or a combination thereof. These candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives. The formula of DuBois teaches is essentially doped LiCoO2, the only difference being the Co subscript is fixed at 1 in DuBois’s formula. For example, if b=0.02 and the dopant is a mixture of Al and Mn, DuBois’ formula is LiaCoMn0.01Al0.01O2, where the instant claimed formula is LiaCo0.98Mn0.01Al0.01O2. For low values of b, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, that the doped material of DuBois is so close to the claimed doped material of the instant claim 1 that the skilled artisan would have expected it to have substantially the same properties and thus render obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the selection of the active material according to the instant claim limitation.
Liu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a positive active material comprising doped LiCoO2. Liu specifically discloses (abstract) doping with 1% to 5% Mg/Mn to create positive active materials including LiCo0.9Mg0.05Mn0.05O2. (This meets the claimed formula) FIG. 5(a) and FIG. 5(b) of Liu demonstrate improved cell voltage as a function of capacity and improved charge capacity for the 5% doped material as compared to undoped LiCoO2. At FIG. 9, LiCoO2 doped with 1-5% Mg/Mn retained 25-35% capacity after 51 cycles, as compared to 0% for undoped material. At page A1659, Liu proposes that Mg/Mn improved cycling performance by minimizing growth of resistance as cells cycle. While Liu has not tested the specific electrolyte of the instant claim 1 with this doped material, the dramatic capacity improvement at 51 cycles demonstrated by Liu is so significant that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to select LiCoO2 doped at 1% to 5% Mn/Mg, with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining the desirable result of improved cycle performance, thus rendering obvious the selection of material meeting the claimed formula.
Liu does not explicitly teach surface doping, and does not explicitly teach wherein the powderous positive active material comprising particles having a core and a surface layer thereon, said surface layer having a Mn concentration that is higher than in the core of said particles and higher than the overall Mn concentration.
Xia, in the field of (abstract) surface doped NMC positive active materials, discloses [0010-0011] a powderous NMC material with a gradient of Mn content that increases continuously from the core to the outer surface. The increased Mn/Ni ratio in the surface layer suppressed the undesirable dissolution of Ni. At [0078] this material achieves improved cycle stability when charged up to 4.35V and 4.4V in full cells at elevated temperature. At [0079], the Mn gradient helps to reduce side reactions between the cathode material and the electrolyte.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify DuBois in view of Liu with the Mn gradient of Xia, with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving the desirable result of reduced side reactions between the positive active material and the electrolyte.
DuBois further teaches an electrolyte composition comprising:
(1) [0034] “dimethyl carbonate” [0035] “non-fluorinated carbonates …about 5% to about 10%. This falls within the instant claim limitation: “from 5.0% to 17.0% of a non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate”
[0051] “fluorinated cyclic carbonate” “0.5 to about 10 weight percent.” This falls within the instant claim limitation “from 0.5% to 10% of a fluorinated cyclic carbonate”.
(2) [0047] fluorinated acyclic carboxylic acid ester” [0048] “fluorinated solvent … about 0.5% to about 95% by weight” This overlaps within the instant claim limitation “from 70.0% to 95.0% of a fluorinated acyclic carboxylic acid ester” DuBois further teaches [0035] changing the composition depending on the desired properties of the electrolyte.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the amount of fluorinated acyclic carboxylic acid ester in the electrolyte composition of DuBois, with a reasonable expectation of arriving at an electrolyte having improved performance at higher temperatures, and falling withing the overlapping part of the range.
(3) [0107] “at least electrolyte salt”
(4) [0053] “at least one lithium borate salt” … “0.1 to about 5 percent by weight” This falls within the instant claim limitation “from 0.10% to 5.0% of a lithium boron compound”
(5) [0052] “cyclic sulfate … about 1 weight percent to about 3 weight percent” This falls within the instant claim limitation “from 0.20% to 10.0% of a cyclic sulfur compound”
DuBois teaches additional gas-reduction additives such as succinic anhydride that may be included in the electrolyte. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add at least succinic anhydride as the at least one cyclic carboxylic acid anhydride to the electrode as a gas-reduction additive.
Alternatively, Murai in a similar field of endeavor teaches [0027] the use of vinylene carbonate, vinylethylene carbonate, phenyl ethylene carbonate, or cyclic carboxylic anhydrides in an amount of not less than 0.1% by mass and not more than 2% by mass relative to the total mass of the electrolyte, and teaches that this addition can reduce hydrogen gas generated during initial charging.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add the vinylene carbonate of Murai to the electrolyte of modified DuBois, with a reasonable expectation of reducing hydrogen gas generated during initial charging, for the motivation of enhanced safety.
Regarding claim 26, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and DuBois further. teaches [0054] wherein the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate can include ethylene carbonate, which has the structure of formula (I) wherein R1 to R6 are independently hydrogen. (Applicant’s formula I and II are reproduced below for reference.)
PNG
media_image1.png
256
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. DuBois further teaches wherein the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate of the electrolyte composition is selected from [0012] “ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate”, [0034] “vinylene carbonate, ethyl propyl vinylene carbonate, vinyl ethylene carbonate, dimethylvinylene carbonate, … and mixtures thereof”
Regarding claim 28, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and DuBois further teaches [0050] wherein the fluorinated cyclic carbonate of the electrolyte composition is fluoroethylene carbonate, which is represented by of formula (I) of the instant claim (reproduced here for convenience)
PNG
media_image2.png
250
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and wherein at least one of R1 to R6 is fluorine.
Regarding claim 29, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. DuBois further teaches [0050] wherein the fluorinated cyclic carbonate of the electrolyte composition is selected from the group consisting of 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one; 4,5-difluoro-1,3- dioxolan-2-one; 4,5-difluoro-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-one; 4,5-difluoro-4,5-dimethyl-1,3- dioxolan-2-one; 4,4-difluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one; 4,4,5-trifluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one; 4,4,5,5- tetrafluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one; and mixtures thereof.
Regarding claim 30, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. DuBois further teaches [0051] wherein the fluorinated cyclic carbonate is present in the electrolyte composition in an amount ranging from 0.5% to 10%, by weight relative to the total weight of the electrolyte composition.
Regarding claim 31, Dubois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. DuBois further teaches [0036-0040] wherein the fluorinated acyclic carboxylic acid ester of the electrolyte composition is R1-COO-R2, for example [0041] 2,2-difluoro ethyl acetate (CH3 COO CH2CF2H) where R1 is an alkyl group and R2 comprises fluorine.
Regarding claim 32, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. DuBois further teaches [0041] wherein the fluorinated acyclic carboxylic acid ester of the electrolyte composition is selected from the group consisting of 2,2-difluoroethyl acetate, 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate, 2,2-difluoroethyl propionate, 3,3-difluoropropyl acetate, 3,3-difluoropropyl propionate, ethyl 4,4-difluorobutanoate, and mixtures thereof.
Regarding claim 33, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. DuBois further teaches ([0056] “LiPF6”, [0067] “lithium bis(oxalato)borate”) which reads on wherein the electrolyte salt of the electrolyte composition is a lithium salt.
Regarding claim 34, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and DuBois further teaches [0053] wherein the electrolyte salt is present in the electrolyte composition in an amount ranging from 0.1 to about 10 percent by weight relative to the total weight of the electrolyte composition, which overlaps the range of the instant claim limitation, 5% to 20% by weight. DuBois further teaches [0035] changing the composition depending on the desired properties of the electrolyte.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the amount of fluorinated acyclic carboxylic acid ester in the electrolyte composition of DuBois, with a reasonable expectation of arriving at an electrolyte having improved performance at higher temperatures and falling withing the overlapping part of the range.
Regarding claim 35, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches [0057-0069] wherein said lithium boron compound of the electrolyte composition is selected from the group consisting of lithium tetrafluoroborate, lithium bis(oxalato)borate, lithium difluoro(oxalato) borate, and Li2B12F12-xHx, wherein x is an integer ranging from 0 to 8.
Regarding claim 36, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and DuBois further teaches [0053] wherein the lithium boron compound (“at least one lithium borate salt”) is present in the electrolyte composition in an amount ranging from 0.3% to 4% by weight, which falls within the limitation “0.2% to 4% by weight” of the instant claim limitation.”
Regarding claim 37, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. DuBois further teaches [0161] wherein the cyclic sulfur compound is 1,3 -propane sultone (PS), which fulfills the limitation of the instant claim “wherein the cyclic sulfur compound of the electrolyte composition is represented by the formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
269
251
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein Y is oxygen; wherein each A is independently hydrogen…and n is 1.
Regarding claim 38, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. DuBois further teaches [0052] wherein the cyclic sulfur compound of the electrolyte composition is selected from the group consisting of 1,3,2-dioxathiolane-2,2-dioxide, 1,3,2-dioxathiolane-4-ethynyl-2,2-dioxide, 1,3,2- dioxathiolane-4-ethenyl-2,2-dioxide, 1,3,2-dioxathiolane-4,5 -diethenyl-2,2-dioxide, 1,3,2- dioxathiolane-4-methyl-2,2-dioxide, 1,3,2-dioxathiolane-4,5-dimethyl-2,2-dioxide and mixtures thereof. These candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 39, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. DuBois further teaches [0052] wherein the cyclic sulfur compound is present in the electrolyte composition in an amount ranging from about 0.5 weight percent to less than about 5 weight percent, which falls within the instant claim limitation 0.3% to 7%, by weight.
Regarding claim 40, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. DuBois further teaches [0072] the electrolyte further comprising suitable gas-reduction additives…including succinic anhydride (reads on cyclic carboxylic acid anhydride, as represented by one of the formulas (IV)
PNG
media_image4.png
258
849
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein R7 to R14 is each independently hydrogen.
Regarding claim 41, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and DuBois further teaches [0073], [0161] wherein the cyclic carboxylic acid anhydride of the electrolyte composition is selected from succinic anhydride, which is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 42, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. DuBois further teaches [0072] suitable gas-reduction additives…including succinic anhydride (reads on cyclic carboxylic acid anhydride) comprise from about 0.5 weight % to about 2 weight %. This falls within the range of the instant limitation, 0.10% to 5%, by weight.
Regarding claim 43, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. At [0078] DuBois teaches the compound LiaCoGbO2, where 0.90≤a≤1.8 and 0.001≤b≤0.1, where G is Al, Cr, Mn, Fe, Mg, La, Ce, Sr, V, or a combination thereof. If Mn is selected for G, and b = 0.01, this creates the compound Li(CoMn0.1)O2, which meets the limitation of claim 43, “wherein c ≤ 0.02.”
Regarding claim 44, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. At [0078] DuBois teaches the compound LiaCoGbO2, where 0.90≤a≤1.8 and 0.001≤b≤0.1, where G is Mn. If a=1 and b = 0.01, this creates the compound Li(CoMn0.1)O2, which meets the limitation of claim 44, wherein -0.005 ≤ x ≤ 0.005.
Regarding claim 47, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. At [0078] DuBois teaches the compound LiaCoGbO2, where 0.90 ≤ a ≤ 1.8 and 0.001 ≤ b ≤ 0.1, where G is Mn. If a=1 and b = 0.01, this creates the compound Li(CoMn0.1)O2, which meets the limitation of claim 47, wherein a=0.
Regarding claim 48, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches a device comprising the liquid electrolyte lithium secondary battery cell according to claim 25 ([0005] electrolyte solvents … lithium ion battery”. [0023] “secondary (i.e. rechargeable) battery”)
Regarding claim 49, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and DuBois further teaches [0056-0071] wherein the electrolyte salt of the electrolyte composition is selected from the group consisting of hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), lithium bis(trifluromethyl)tetrafluorophosphate (LiPF4(CF3)2), lithium tris(pentafluoroethyl)trifluorophosphate (LiPF3(C2F5)3), lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiN(CF3SO2)2), lithium bis(perfluoroethanesulfonyl)imide LiN(C2F5SO2)2, lithium (fluorosulfonyl) (nonafluorobutanesulfonyl)imide, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, lithium tetrafluoroborate, lithium perchlorate, lithium hexafluoroarsenate, lithium trifluoromethanesulfonate, lithium tris(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)methide, lithium bis(oxalato)borate, lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate, Li2B12F12-xHx where x is an integer equal to 0 to 8, and mixtures of lithium fluoride and anion receptors such as B(OC6F5)3. These candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Claim(s) 45 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DuBois (US 20170117586 A1), in view of Liu (see 892), Xia (US 20180034045 A1), and Murai (US 20120301760 A1), as set forth in claim 25, above, and in further view of Yanagihara (US 20170207444 A1).
Regarding claims 45 and 46, DuBois in view of Liu, Xia, and Murai teaches all of the limitations as considered above, and DuBois further teaches [0004], [0026] a liquid electrolyte secondary battery cell that has improved cycling performance at cathode potentials higher than 4.1 – 4.25 V. (reads on “operating voltage superior or equal to 4.4 V”) DuBois further teaches [0005] improved performance at higher temperatures.
DuBois teaches [0122-0123] a positive electrode including [0119] cathode active powder. DuBois teaches [0077] suitable positive electrode materials for a lithium ion battery include (without limitation) electroactive compounds comprising lithium and transition metals, and provides several examples including LiCoO2, LiNiO2, and LiMn2O4.
At [0078] DuBois teaches the compound LiaCoGbO2, where 0.90≤a≤1.8 and 0.001≤b≤0.1, where G is Al, .. Mn, … Mg, … or a combination thereof. If Mn, Ni, and Al are selected for G, where a=1, b1= 0.033, b2 = 0.033, and b3 = 0.033, this creates the compound Li(CoNi0.03Mn0.03Al0.03)O2.
DuBois teaches that G may be a combination of Al, Mn, and Mg, but does not explicitly provide a motivation for selecting this combination. Yanagihara teaches (Table 4 examples 2 and 38) and teaches (Table 4 examples 37 and 39) that doping Nickel, Mn, or Aluminum into LiCo2 produces a positive active material with good crystallinity and high-capacity retention rate after 100 cycles.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to replace some of the Mn with Al and Ni, creating the compound Li(CoNi0.03Mn0.03Al0.03)O2, with a reasonable expectation of creating a positive active material with good crystallinity and high capacity retention rate after 100 cycles.
The taught Li(CoNi0.03Mn0.03Al0.03)O2 from DuBois is so close to the claimed Li(1-x)(Co(1-a-b-c) NiaMnb M** (c))1+xO2 with -0.01≤x≤0.01, 0.00≤a≤0.09, 0.01≤b≤0.05, and 0.00≤c≤0.03 wherein M** is one or more metals selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ti and Zr, such that the skilled artisan would have expected it to have substantially the same properties and thus render obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the selection of the compound as taught by DuBois. [Assuming x=0, a =0, b=0.01, c=0, the compound of the instant claim is Li(Co0.99Mn0.1)1.01O2]
DuBois further teaches an electrolyte composition comprising:
(1) [0034] “dimethyl carbonate” [0035] “non-fluorinated carbonates …about 5% to about 10%. This falls within the instant claim limitation: “from 5.0% to 17.0% of a non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate”
[0051] “fluorinated cyclic carbonate” “0.5 to about 10 weight percent.” This falls within the instant claim limitation “from 0.5% to 10% of a fluorinated cyclic carbonate”.
(2) [0047] fluorinated acyclic carboxylic acid ester” [0048] “fluorinated solvent … about 0.5% to about 95% by weight” This overlaps within the instant claim limitation “from 70.0% to 95.0% of a fluorinated acyclic carboxylic acid ester” DuBois further teaches [0035] changing the composition depending on the desired properties of the electrolyte.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the amount of fluorinated acyclic carboxylic acid ester in the electrolyte composition of modified DuBois, with a reasonable expectation of arriving at an electrolyte having improved performance at higher temperatures, and falling withing the overlapping part of the range.
(3) [0107] “at least electrolyte salt”
(4) [0053] “at least one lithium borate salt” … “0.1 to about 5 percent by weight” This falls within the instant claim limitation “from 0.10% to 5.0% of a lithium boron compound”
(5) [0052] “cyclic sulfate … about 1 weight percent to about 3 weight percent” This falls within the instant claim limitation “from 0.20% to 10.0% of a cyclic sulfur compound”
The final limitation, “optionally at least one cyclic carboxylic acid anhydride” is not provided as the limitation is optional.
The compound Li(CoNi0.03Mn0.03Al0.03)O2 as set forth above teaches the limitation of claim 45, wherein c ≥ 0.002, further teaches the limitation of claim 46, wherein 0.02 ≤ a ≤ 0.09.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 11/25/2025