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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/01/2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
Claims 17-19, 22-23, 25, 27, 29, 32-34 are pending. Claims 1-16, 20-21, 24, 26, 28, 30-31 are canceled. Claim 17 is currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the newly added limitation of “the carbon layer comprises micropores classified according to IUPAC”, Zhou teaches a graphite foam for an anode comprising micropores to increase specific surface area of the foam (Pg 2, Results and Discussion section). See rejection below.
Regarding the argument that “Mani does not teach that its graphitized carbon foam can be used in an anode of an alkali metal secondary battery”, Examiner notes that Mani discloses that the carbon foam having meso-macropores can be used in a multiple industrial application. In particular, it can be used in the manufacture of electrodes, such as for example, of negative electrodes in lithium or sodium batteries [Mani 0115]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the pore volume to provide a carbon foam with improved electrical and thermal conductivity that is thermally stable even at temperatures higher than 500 °C [Mani 0046].
Regarding the argument that none of the cited prior arts teach or disclose that the sulphidic solid electrolyte has an ionic conductivity of at least 10-3 S·cm-1, Examiner notes that Liu teaches wherein the sulphidic solid electrolyte has an ionic conductivity exceeding 10-3 S·cm-1 [Liu 0155].
Regarding the argument for claim 34 that the Office Action merely speculates, Examiner notes that modified Zhamu discloses the alkali metal secondary battery comprising a cathode, an anode, an electrolyte arranged between the cathode and anode and having an alkali metal ion-conductive contact to the cathode and the carbon layer, wherein the carbon layer comprises the pores of the first type which are in the overlapping pore size range of 0.5 to 100nm with the pore volume in the overlapping range of ≥0.5 cm3/g (modified by Mani), and the pores of the second type (1-500 μm [0055]) larger than the pores of the first type (i.e., 0.5 to 100nm as claimed). Thus, the pores of the second type are 10-1,000,000 times larger than the pores of the first type.
Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would envisage the three-dimensional contact surface of the pores of the second type to the electrolyte to go into deeper layers of the carbon layer as the pores of the second type are much greater in size, and further envisage the three-dimensional contact surface to be at least “2 to <100 times as large as a two-dimensional contact” (note: “a two-dimensional contact surface” is not defined, thus Examiner interpreted it as any contacting surface; e.g., contacting surface of the pores of the first type) surface to the electrolyte”, as claimed.
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 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 obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 owned as of the 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 of the 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.
Claim(s) 17-19,22-23,27,29 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu (US20170352869A1, previously cited), in view of Zhou (Binder Free Hierarchical Mesoporous Carbon Foam for High Performance Lithium Ion Battery, copy attached), Su (US20180102543A1, previously cited), Liu (US20190027788A1, previously cited), Mani (US20150284252A1, previously cited), and Zhamu 663 (US20170194663A1).
Regarding claim 17, Zhamu discloses an alkali metal secondary battery (title, abstract) comprising:
a) a cathode; (abstract; [0040, 0165-0170])
b) an anode comprising a carbon layer (i.e., graphene-metal hybrid foam; abstract [0100-0101]); and
c) an electrolyte arranged between the cathode and anode and having an alkali metal ion-conductive contact to the cathode and to the carbon layer of the anode (“an electrolyte in ionic contact with the anode and the cathode” [0040]).
Zhamu further discloses that the solid graphene-carbon hybrid foam may contain meso-scaled pores having a pore size from 2nm to 50nm as well as micron-scaled pores (1-500 μm) [0055].
Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would select the meso-scaled pores having a pore size from 2nm to 50nm, which is fully within the claimed range of 0.5 to 100nm, as pores of a first type, with a reasonable expectation that when the pores size is in the overlapping range, Na+ or Li+ ions would diffuse through and reach the lithium- or sodium-attracting metal lodged inside the pores [0102].
Since Zhamu discloses a pore size (2-50nm [0055]) that is fully within the claimed range (0.5 to 100nm), a person having ordinary skill in the art would envisage that Zhamu’s pores are “not accessible to the electrolyte and are suitable for taking up electrochemically deposited alkali metal in metallic form during a charging process of the alkali metal secondary battery” as claimed.
However, Zhamu does not disclose wherein the carbon layer comprises micropores classified according to IUPAC (note: pore size less than 2nm), as claimed.
In this regard, Zhou is directed to a hierarchical mesoporous carbon foam with an interconnected micro-/mesoporous architecture used as an anode for lithium-ion batteries (abstract), wherein the carbon foam comprises micropores less than 2nm and mesopore (>2nm) (pg 3, paragraph 1) to achieve a high BET specific surface area thereby providing more electrochemical active sites to enhance lithium ion storage and adsorption capability (pg 2, see Results and Discussions section). As such, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included micropores (note: pore size less than 2nm) in the graphene-carbon foam of Zhamu, with a reasonable expectation to provide a high BET specific surface area and electrochemical active sites that transports and stores lithium ions (pg 2, Results and Discussion section).
Zhamu further discloses that the solid graphene foam can also be made to contain micron-scaled pores (1-500 μm) [0055] (i.e., pores of a second type in micrometer range) that have a spatial extent in all three spatial directions. Since Zhamu discloses a pore size in the micrometer range, a person having ordinary skill in the art would envisage the Zhamu’s pores to be accessible to the electrolyte, as claimed.
Alternatively, Su also teaches an anode electrode (e.g. a layer) comprising a layer of solid graphene foam composed of multiple pores [Su 0054], wherein the solid graphene foam contains two pore size ranges, one from 2 nm to 50 nm for cushioning volume expansion [0054] and the other from 200 nm to 20 μm to accommodate Si nanowires [Su 0057].
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the graphene-carbon hybrid foam of Zhamu, such that it comprises two different pore sizes, one having pore size from 2 nm to 50 nm (i.e., first type), and from 200 nm to 20 μm (i.e., second type which overlaps with the claimed range of “in the micrometer range”), as Su teaches that such solid graphene foam can effectively accommodate volume expansion and shrinkage of the anode active material particles during a battery charge-discharge cycle to avoid an expansion of the anode layer [Su 0054].
Zhamu further discloses that as an electrolyte, polymer, polymer gel, and solid-state electrolytes are preferred over liquid electrolyte [0155]. However, Zhamu does not explicitly disclose that the solid-state electrolyte is a sulphidic solid electrolyte, as claimed.
In this regard, Liu teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising an anode active material layer, a separator-electrolyte layer (gel or liquid electrolyte), a cathode active material layer, and graphene sheets as a conductive layer along with a discrete layer of an anode active material are laminated and wound into anode rolls [0102 Liu], wherein the conductive layer may be selected from a list comprising a carbon foam, graphite foam, and graphene foam [0107 Liu].
Liu further teaches that the electrolyte may be selected from a list comprising solid sulfide-type (e.g., Li2S-P2S5) [0155 Liu] and further teaches that the electrolyte has a lithium-ion conductivity from more preferably greater than 10−3 S/cm [0155 Liu], which overlaps with the claimed range of “at least 10−3 S cm-1”. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the solid sulfide-type electrolyte taught by Liu as the solid-state electrolyte of Zhamu, with a reasonable expectation that such selection of electrolyte would successfully exhibit a lithium-ion conductivity [0155 Liu].
Zhamu further discloses that a physical blowing agent (N2 gas) is injected into the wet graphene film while being case to exhibit high pore volumes or lower foam densities [0212 Zhamu] accommodate the lithium attracting metal or sodium attracting metal and facilitate fast entry and uniform deposition of lithium ions or sodium ions [0035 Zhamu]. However, Zhamu does not explicitly disclose that the pores of the first type (i.e., meso-porous type in 2-50nm) of carbon layer together “have a pore volume of ≥0.5 cm3/g carbon” as claimed.
In this regard, Mani is directed to a graphitized carbon foam comprising an interconnected microporous structure with an ordered mesoporous wall structure (abstract), wherein the mesoporous pore volume is equal or higher than 0.20 cm3/g, more preferably between 0.20 and 1.00cm3/g, even more preferably between 0.30 and 1.00 cm3/g, which overlaps with the claimed range of “≥0.5 cm3/g carbon” to provide a carbon foam with higher electrical and thermal conductivity, being thermally stable even at temperatures higher than 500 °C [Mani 0046]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping pore volume range, with a reasonable expectation to improve electrical and thermal conductivity and thermal stability at high temperatures.
Zhamu further does not disclose wherein the solid sulfide-type electrolyte (i.e., Li2S-P2S5 [0155 Liu]) has an ionic conductivity of “at least 10-3 S cm-1”, as claimed.
However, Liu teaches that the solid electrolyte has “a lithium-ion or sodium-ion conductivity from 10−8 S/cm to 10−2 S/cm, preferably greater than 10−5 S/cm, and more preferably greater than 10−3 S/cm” [0029 Liu], which is “at least 10-3 S cm-1, as claimed. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ionic conductivity with a reasonable expectation to enable fast alkali metal ion transport [0065 Liu].
Zhamu further discloses that the electrolyte is disposed in ionic contact with the anode layer 204 and the cathode layer 208 [0096] and the lithium or sodium metal battery has a thickness from 200nm to 10cm [Zhamu 0046], but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sulphidic solid electrolyte has a maximum extension in a range from 1µm to 100µm from the anode in the direction of the cathode, as claimed.
In this regard, Zhamu 663 teaches a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a working electrode comprising a sheet of porous non-woven, mat, paper, foam, or membrane of a carbon/graphite reinforcement material (e.g., graphene sheets, expanded graphite flakes etc) [0076- Zhamu 663] and a solid state electrolyte layer (e.g., comprising Li2S [0064- Zhamu 663]) having a thickness from 2 nm to 20 μm, more preferably from 10 nm to 10 μm, and most preferably from 100 nm to 1 μm [0094- Zhamu 663], which overlaps with the claimed extension range of 1 µm to 100µm. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping thickness range of solid electrolyte, with a reasonable expectation to provide high lithium-ion conductivity while also intercepting or stopping dendrite penetration [0064- Zhamu 663].
Regarding claim 18 and 19, modified Zhamu teaches the alkali metal secondary battery according to claim 17, wherein the pores of the first type are provided with a chemical modification which favors the uptake of metallic alkali metal generated (i.e., “lithium- or sodium-attracting metal material [0153]; Fig 3(B)) by deposition [0154 Zhamu].
Regarding claim 22, modified Zhamu teaches the alkali metal secondary battery according to claim 17, wherein the electrolyte is disposed in ionic contact with the anode and the cathode, wherein the anode contains the porous graphene-metal hybrid foam [Zhamu 0040]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that for an electrolyte to be disposed in ionic contact with an anode [0096], the electrolyte would necessarily have access to the pores of the anode, such that the pores “comprise” electrolyte.
Regarding claim 23, modified Zhamu teaches the alkali metal secondary battery according to claim 17, wherein the carbon layer, in an uncharged state (note: interpreted as when the grapheme foam is not loaded with a lithium- or sodium-attracting metal 64a or 64b; see Fig 3(A)), comprises an alkali metal [0040 Zhamu].
Regarding claim 27, modified Zhamu teaches the alkali metal secondary battery according to claim 17, wherein the carbon layer forms a carbon network that includes a lithium-attracting or sodium-attracting metal that would transport alkali metal ions (e.g., Li and Na) along the carbon network [0035-Zhamu].
Regarding claim 29, modified Zhamu teaches the alkali metal secondary battery according to claim 17, wherein the carbon layer is suitable for taking up metallic alkali metal produced by electrochemical deposition (e.g. as nano particles lodged in the pores or as a coating deposited on pore wall surfaces [Zhamu 0040])
Zhamu does not explicitly disclose that the electrochemical deposition is in an amount such that the carbon layer has a specific capacity of ≥400 mAh/g, based on the mass of the carbon material.
However, since the carbon layer of Zhamu has substantially similar pore sizes, also comprising a lithium-attracting metal or sodium-attracting metal residing in the pores, a person having ordinary skill in the art would envisage the carbon layer to also have a specific capacity of ≥400 mAh/g, based on the mass of the carbon material, as claimed.
Regarding claim 33, modified Zhamu teaches the alkali metal secondary battery according to claim 17, wherein the alkali metal secondary battery is a lithium secondary battery or a sodium secondary battery [0001, 0038-Zhamu].
Regarding claim 34, Zhamu discloses an alkali metal secondary battery (title, abstract) comprising:
a) a cathode; (abstract; [0040, 0165-0170])
b) an anode comprising a carbon layer (i.e., graphene-metal hybrid foam; abstract [0100-0101]); and
c) an electrolyte arranged between the cathode and anode and having an alkali metal ion-conductive contact to the cathode and to the carbon layer of the anode (“an electrolyte in ionic contact with the anode and the cathode” [0040]).
Zhamu further discloses that as an electrolyte, polymer, polymer gel, and solid-state electrolytes are preferred over liquid electrolyte [0155].
However, Zhamu does not explicitly disclose that the electrolyte is a sulphidic solid electrolyte, as claimed.
In this regard, Liu teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising an anode active material layer, a porous separator (or a solid-state electrolyte layer), a cathode active material layer, and graphene sheets as a conductive layer, along with a discrete layer of an anode active material are laminated and wound into anode rolls [0102 Liu], wherein the conductive layer may be selected from a list comprising a carbon foam, graphite foam, and graphene foam [0107 Liu].
Liu further teaches that the solid-state electrolyte may be selected from a list comprising solid sulfide-type (e.g., Li2S-P2S5) [0155 Liu]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the solid sulfide-type electrolyte taught by Liu as the solid-state electrolyte of Zhamu, with a reasonable expectation that such selection of electrolyte would successfully exhibit a lithium-ion conductivity [0155 Liu].
Zhamu further discloses that the solid graphene-carbon hybrid foam may contain meso-scaled pores having a pore size from 2nm to 50nm as well as micron-scaled pores (1-500 μm) [0055].
Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would select the meso-scaled pores having a pore size from 2nm to 50nm, which is fully within the claimed range of 0.5 to 100nm, as the claimed “pores of a first type”, with a reasonable expectation that when the pores size is in the overlapping range, Na+ or Li+ ions would diffuse through and reach the lithium- or sodium-attracting metal lodged inside the pores [0102].
Since Zhamu discloses a pore size (2-50nm [0055]) that is fully within the claimed range (0.5 to 100nm), a person having ordinary skill in the art would envisage that Zhamu’s pores are “not accessible to the electrolyte and are suitable for taking up electrochemically deposited alkali metal in metallic form during a charging process of the alkali metal secondary battery” as claimed.
Zhamu does not disclose “wherein the pores of the first type of carbon layer together have a pore volume of > 0.5 cm3/g carbon” as claimed.
In this regard, Mani is directed to a graphitized carbon foam comprising an interconnected microporous structure with an ordered mesoporous wall structure (abstract), wherein the mesoporous pore volume is equal or higher than 0.20 cm3/g, more preferably between 0.20 and 1.00cm3/g, even more preferably between 0.30 and 1.00 cm3/g, which overlaps with the claimed range of “≥0.5 cm3/g carbon” to provide a carbon foam with higher electrical and thermal conductivity, being thermally stable even at temperatures higher than 500 °C [Mani 0046].
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have controlled the pore size of Zhamu, such that it is in the overlapping pore volume, with reasonable expectation to improve electrical and thermal conductivity and thermal stability at high temperatures.
Zhamu further discloses that the solid graphene foam can also be made to contain micron-scaled pores (1-500 μm) [0055] (i.e., pores of a second type in micrometer range) that have a spatial extent in all three spatial directions. Since Zhamu discloses a pore size in the micrometer range (i.e., bigger than pores of the first type), a person having ordinary skill in the art would envisage the Zhamu’s pores to be accessible to the electrolyte, as claimed.
Alternatively, Su also teaches an anode electrode (e.g. a layer) comprising a layer of solid graphene foam composed of multiple pores [Su 0054], wherein the solid graphene foam contains two pore size ranges, one from 2 nm to 50 nm for cushioning volume expansion [0054] and the other from 200 nm to 20 μm to accommodate Si nanowires [Su 0057].
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the graphene-carbon hybrid foam of Zhamu, such that it comprises two different pore sizes, one having pore size from 2 nm to 50 nm (i.e., first type), and from 200 nm to 20 μm (i.e., second type which overlaps with the claimed range of “in the micrometer range”), as Su teaches that such solid graphene foam can effectively accommodate volume expansion and shrinkage of the anode active material particles during a battery charge-discharge cycle to avoid an expansion of the anode layer [Su 0054].
While Zhamu does not explicitly disclose “wherein the pores of the second type enable a deposition of metallic alkali metal via a three-dimensional contact surface to the electrolyte, wherein the three-dimensional contact surface to the electrolyte goes into deeper layers of the carbon layer of the anode and is 2 to <100 times as large as a two-dimensional contact surface to the electrolyte which does not go into deeper layers of the carbon layer of the anode”, since modified Zhamu discloses the alkali metal secondary battery comprising a cathode, an anode, an electrolyte arranged between the cathode and anode and having an alkali metal ion-conductive contact to the cathode and the carbon layer, wherein the carbon layer comprises the pores of the first type which are in the overlapping pore size range of 0.5 to 100nm with the pore volume in the overlapping range of ≥0.5 cm3/g (modified by Mani), and the pores of the second type (1-500 μm [0055]) larger than the pores of the first type (i.e., 0.5 to 100nm as claimed). Thus, the pores of the second type are 10-1,000,000 times larger than the pores of the first type.
Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would envisage the three-dimensional contact surface of the pores of the second type to the electrolyte to go into deeper layers of the carbon layer as the pores of the second type are much greater in size, and further envisage the three-dimensional contact surface to be at least “2 to <100 times as large as a two-dimensional contact” (note: “a two-dimensional contact surface” is not defined, thus Examiner interpreted it as any contacting surface; e.g., contacting surface of the pores of the first type) surface to the electrolyte”, as claimed (see MPEP 2112.01).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu (US20170352869A1, previously cited), in view of Zhou (Binder Free Hierarchical Mesoporous Carbon Foam for High Performance Lithium Ion Battery, copy attached), Su (US20180102543A1, previously cited), Liu (US20190027788A1, previously cited), Mani (US20150284252A1, previously cited), Zhamu 663 (US20170194663A1), and Herle (US20190058177A1).
Regarding claim 25, modified Zhamu teaches the alkali metal secondary battery according to claim 17, wherein the solid electrolyte may be a solid sulfide-type (e.g., Li2S-P2S5) [0155 Liu].
However, Zhamu does not disclose that the sulphidic solid electrolyte is Li6PS5Cl, as claimed.
In this regard, Herle is directed to a high-performance electrochemical device such as batteries, comprising a ceramic separator layer disposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode, wherein the ceramic separator layer comprises a lithium-ion conducting material selected from the group consisting of lithium containing sulfides (e.g., Li2S-P2S5) and lithium argyrodites (e.g., LiPS5X wherein x is Cl, Br or I) [Herle 0048].
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the solid sulfide-type electrolyte of Zhamu (modified in claim 17 rejection), such that it comprises lithium argyrodite such as the claimed Li6PS5Cl, as Herle teaches that such material is sufficiently conductive to allow ionic flow between the anode and cathode while preventing electronic shorting and dendrite growth [Herle 0045].
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al (US20170352869A1, hereinafter Zhamu), in view of Zhou (Binder Free Hierarchical Mesoporous Carbon Foam for High Performance Lithium Ion Battery, copy attached), Su (US20180102543A1), Liu (US20190027788A1), and Mani (US20150284252A1), Zhamu 663 (US20170194663A1), and Ryoji (JP2011258333A, translation attached).
Regarding claim 32, modified Zhamu teaches the alkali metal secondary battery according to claim 17, wherein the cathode comprises 10% PTFE by weight based on the total weight of the cathode [Zhamu 0227], which does meet the claimed limitation of “wherein the fibrillar polytetrafluoroethylene is present in a proportion of <1% by weight, based on the total weight of the cathode.”
In this regard, Ryoji is directed to an electrode composite for a secondary battery including polytetrafluoroethylene in the form of a fibril, wherein the content of binder is preferably 0.01 to 15% by mass in the total mass of the electrode composite to sufficiently support the electrode active material and ensure sufficient energy density and durability (see pg 5, last paragraph-pg 6 paragraphs 1-3), which overlaps with the claimed range of “<1% by weight based on the total weight of the cathode”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the PTFE binder of Zhamu, such that it is in the form of fibril and in the overlapping amount, with a reasonable expectation to provide sufficient support for the cathode while also providing sufficient energy density and durability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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 at (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.
/T.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751
5/14/2026
Prosecution Insights