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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claim 1 amended to specify diameter of pre-lithiation reagent
Claim 7 amended to overcome 35 USC 112 rejection
Claim 21 amended to further limit the cathode catalyst
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-11, 21, and 22 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the amendment to claim 1 to specify the D50 of the pre-lithiation reagent isn’t explicitly taught in the previously applied prior art and therefore overcomes the teachings. Additionally, the amendment to claim 21 to further limit the cathode catalyst overcomes the teachings of Hellring, and thus overcomes the previously applied rejection. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection of claims 1 and 4-11 is made further in view of Tian (US 20230133537 A1), which teaches a cathode pre-lithiation reagent with the desired particle diameter, and a new ground(s) of rejection of claims 21-22 is made further in view of Cui (US 20160365566 A1), which teaches the inclusion of a non-active metal oxide/metal phosphate additive in a pre-lithiation layer/context.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 in regards to the viscosity limitations present in the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that the chemical field is complex and that there are many kinds of slurries, but provides no specific reasoning for how the slurries in Drews and Hellring are different and would not be obvious to combine. Examiner does not find this reasoning persuasive, and maintains the reasoning that Drews and Hellring would be obvious to combine. Examiner also finds the arguments regarding the result-effective variable to not be persuasive as the viscosities taught in Hellring directly overlap all of the claimed viscosity ranges. Additionally, even if viscosity itself is not the variable being changed, it would be obvious based on the teachings of Hellring to modify the solids content of a slurry, which would therefore impact the viscosity of the slurry according to applicant arguments. Since there are no arguments made regarding the patentability of the dependent claims other than their dependency on claim 1, the dependent claims, including claim 10, remain rejected and the rejections remain unchanged other than now further relying on Tian. Thus, there is currently not considered to be any allowable subject matter present in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drews (US 20170309914 A1) in view of Hellring (US 20200227752 A1) and further in view of Tian (US 20230133537 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Drews teaches the following elements:
A slurry for forming a cathode pre-lithiation layer, the slurry comprising: a uniform dispersion of a nanoscale cathode pre-lithiation reagent in a solvent, (“The method may include adding the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 during the slurry deposition stage. The sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 is mixed with the cathode slurry so that the cathode material and the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 are blended and agglomerations of the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 are formed within the cathodic material 16.” Drews [0051] and “the under-porosity may be achieved by controlling the amount of solvent in the cathodic slurry,” Drews [0031].)
Drews is silent on the following elements of claim 1:
wherein the nanoscale cathode pre-lithiation reagent is formed of particles having a D50 of less than 300nm, and
wherein the slurry has a viscosity of 10-100 cP at a shear rate of 100 s-1.
Hellring teaches the following elements of amended claim 1 that are not found in Drews. Specifically, Hellring teaches a slurry with the desired viscosity at the desired shear rate of amended claim 1:
wherein the slurry has a viscosity of 10-100 cP at a shear rate of 100 s-1. (“and viscosity of this slurry was 260 cP under a shear rate of 10 reciprocal seconds and 88 cP under a shear rate of 100 reciprocal seconds.” Hellring [0193, example 26]. The viscosity of 88 cP anticipates the claimed viscosity range at the same shear rate.)
Hellring is considered to be analogous to Drews because they are both within the same field of electrode slurry compositions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slurry of Drews to have the viscosity at a specific shear rate of Hellring in order to optimize the solids content of the slurry composition (Hellring figures 2-4 demonstrate how viscosity impacts the solids content of the slurry.) Additionally, the teachings of Hellring demonstrate that changing the viscosity of a slurry composition is within the scope of routine optimization/testing, as they test a wide range of viscosities of under 5000 cP at the desired shear rate. This therefore meets the limitations of not only amended claim 1, but also new claims 21 and 22. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.05 II. A.).
Drews and Hellring are silent on the following elements of claim 1:
wherein the nanoscale cathode pre-lithiation reagent is formed of particles having a D50 of less than 300nm,
However, Tian teaches all of the elements of claim 1 that are not found in Drews or Hellring:
wherein the nanoscale cathode pre-lithiation reagent is formed of particles having a D50 of less than 300nm, (“Preferably, in the prelithiation material of the present invention, the lithium-containing compound has a particle size of 10 nm-20 μm;” Tian [0016], “Preferably, in the use of the present invention, the prelithiation material is used in the positive electrode of a lithium ion battery and/or in the positive electrode-facing surface of a separator of a lithium ion battery.” Tian [0032] and “In this example, Li.sub.4SiO.sub.4 and Li.sub.3PO.sub.4 were used as a lithium-containing compounds;” Tian [0051])
Tian and Drews are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of cathodes for lithium batteries containing lithium-containing pre-lithiation reagents that can include lithium oxides, among other options (“Exemplary sacrificial lithium-containing materials 24 include lithium oxides, lithium salts such as LiF, lithium peroxides such as Li.sub.2O.sub.2, lithium hydrides, lithium nitrates, lithium carbonates, the like, or a combination thereof.” Drews [0039] and “In this example, Li.sub.4SiO.sub.4 and Li.sub.3PO.sub.4 were used as a lithium-containing compounds;” Tian [0051]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Drews to substitute the sacrificial lithium-containing material to be the pre-lithiation reagent of Tian having a particle size within the claimed range, as this would be the simple substitution of one lithium-containing cathode pre-lithiation reagent for another, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claims 4-9 and 11 remain rejected and unchanged other than now being further in view of Tian.
Regarding claim 4, modified Drews meets all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Drews is silent on the following elements of claim 4:
The slurry of claim 1, wherein the slurry has a solids content of 10-70%.
However, Hellring teaches all of the elements of claim 4 that are not found in Drews. Specifically, Hellring teaches a solids content of a slurry that overlaps the claimed range.
The slurry of claim 1, wherein the slurry has a solids content of 10-70%. (“The use of the present conductive carbon having a surface area greater than 100 m.sup.2/g in a battery slurry also allows for the preparation of a slurry composition comprising the conductive carbon material, the electrochemically active material and binder to have a solids content of 55% and greater and a viscosity below 5,000 cp, such as a solids content of 55% to 85% by weight,” Hellring [0036])
Hellring is considered to be analogous to Drews for the reasons provided above. It would have additionally been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solids content to be within the range taught by Hellring in order to reduce manufacturing time and costs, among other benefits (“The increased solids content in electrode slurries can be desirable because it can allow for reduced manufacturing time, reduced manufacturing costs and increased film thickness when compared with a slurry composition using active carbon materials having a surface area less than 100 m.sup.2/g and lower solids content.” Hellring [0036])
Regarding claim 5, modified Drews teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Drews teaches all of the additional elements of claim 5:
The slurry of claim 1, wherein the nanoscale cathode pre-lithiation reagent is composed of one or more of Li3N, Li2O, Li2O2, Li2S, Li5FeO4, Li2CO3, Li2C204 a Li2S/M nanocomposite, a LiF/M nanocomposite, and a Li2O/M nanocomposite, where M is one or more metals. (“Adding any material to the electrode requires consideration of the impact of such addition on the final porosity of the electrodes. In at least one embodiment, the source of the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 may be lithium peroxide ( Li2O2), which is incorporated into the cathode 16 during fabrication and decomposed during the first charge to form Li ions and oxygen gas.” Drews [0033])
Regarding claim 6, modified Drews teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Drews teaches all of the additional elements of claim 6:
The slurry of claim 1, wherein the uniform dispersion further comprises a cathode catalyst which catalyzes decomposition of the nanoscale cathode pre-lithiation reagent, and wherein the cathode catalyst comprises an inactive cathode catalyst composed of one or more non-lithiated metal oxides or non-lithiated metal phosphates and/or an active cathode catalyst composed of one or more lithium metal oxides or lithium metal phosphates. (“In one or more embodiments, the initial decomposition of the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 may be facilitated by an introduction of one or more catalysts. The choice of the catalyst material is dependent on the type of the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 used. For example, when the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 is Li2O2, the catalyst may be a heterogeneous catalyst in the form of dispersed cobalt tetraoxide (Co3O4), MnOx, or the like.” Drews [0048])
Regarding claim 7, modified Drews teaches all of the elements of claim [see 112(b) rejection for why this is being examined as if it depends on claim 6 rather than claim 5], as shown above. Drews is silent on the following elements of claim 7:
The slurry of claim
However, Hellring teaches all of the elements of claim 7 that are not found in Drews. Specifically, Hellring teaches a ratio of active material that is within the claimed weight percentage in regards to the cathode slurry. Specification paragraph [0074] states that the cathode catalyst may include “an active cathode catalyst composed of one or more lithium metal oxides or lithium metal phosphates.” And claim 7 states that “no additional cathode active material is included. This implies that the cathode catalyst functions as an active material, and thus the active material of Hellring, which can comprise a lithium metal oxide, meets the limitation of being a cathode catalyst.
The slurry of claim (“The electrochemically active material may comprise a material for use as an active material for a positive electrode. The electrochemically active material may comprise a material capable of incorporating lithium (including incorporation through lithium intercalation/deintercalation), a material capable of lithium conversion, or combinations thereof. Non-limiting examples of electrochemically active materials capable of incorporating lithium include LiCoO.sub.2, LiNiO.sub.2, LiFePO.sub.4, LiCoPO.sub.4, LiMnO.sub.2, LiMn.sub.2O.sub.4,” Hellring [0071], “The electrochemically active material may be present in the slurry in amounts of 45% to 95% by weight, such as 50% to 90% by weight, such as 70% to 98% by weight, based on the total solids weight of the slurry.”, and “ Hellring [0073] and “the electrochemically active material and binder to have a solids content of 55% and greater and a viscosity below 5,000 cp, such as a solids content of 55% to 85% by weight, such as 60% to 85% by weight, such as 65% to 85% by weight, such as 71% to 85% by weight, such as 75% to 85% by weight, such as 65% to 75% by weight, such as 68% to 72% by weight, based on the total weight of the slurry composition.” Hellring [0036]. As an example, if there were a 55% solids content in the slurry of Hellring, and there were 50% by weight of active material within the solids content, there would be 27.5% of active material, or cathode catalyst, based on the total weight of the slurry, anticipating the claimed range.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 24.75-83.3% by weight of cathode catalyst in the positive electrode slurry overlaps the claimed range of less than 50% by weight of the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Hellring is considered to be analogous to Drews for the reasons provided above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weight ratio of cathode catalyst (in the case of Hellring, the cathode active material) present in the slurry in order to form a slurry with a high enough solids content to obtain beneficial effects such as increased thickness and reduced manufacturing time, while making sure there is still enough active material/cathode catalyst to maintain sufficient battery/charging characteristics (“The increased solids content in electrode slurries can be desirable because it can allow for reduced manufacturing time, reduced manufacturing costs and increased film thickness when compared with a slurry composition using active carbon materials having a surface area less than 100 m.sup.2/g and lower solids content.” Hellring [0036])
Regarding claim 8, modified Drews teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Drews teaches all of the additional elements of claim 8:
The slurry of claim 1, wherein no cathode catalyst is included. (“Two NMC electrodes A and B were prepared according to the method described below. Electrode A was prepared without the sacrificial lithium-containing material. Electrode B was prepared with Li2O2 as the sacrificial lithium-containing material. No catalyst was added to the electrodes.” Drews [0049])
Regarding claim 9, modified Drews teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Drews teaches all of the additional elements of claim 9:
The slurry of claim 1, wherein the uniform dispersion further comprises a binder, the binder being composed of one or more of PAN, PEG, PVDF, PTFE, PHFP, PMMA, PAA, poly(4-vinylpyridine), polyvinylpyrrolidone, a CMC derivative, or a copolymer thereof. (“The cathode active material is a hypothetical NMC with PVDF binder and amorphous carbon conductive additive. The sacrificial material is Li2O2.” Drews [0035])
Regarding claim 11, modified Drews teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Drews teaches all of the additional elements of claim 11:
The slurry of claim 1, wherein the uniform dispersion further comprises a conductive carbon additive, (“The cathode active material is a hypothetical NMC with PVDF binder and amorphous carbon conductive additive. The sacrificial material is Li.sub.2O.sub.2.” Drews [0035])
Drews is silent on the following elements of claim 11:
the conductive carbon additive being composed of one or more of carbon black, carbon fibers, carbon nanoparticles, CNTs, graphene oxide, and graphene, and wherein the solvent is composed of one or more of DMF, NMP, DMAc, DMSO, MeCN, THF, and toluene.
However, Hellring teaches all of the elements of claim 11 that are not found in Drews. Specifically, Hellring teaches a conductive carbon additive that meets the limitations of claim 11:
the conductive carbon additive being composed of one or more of carbon black, carbon fibers, carbon nanoparticles, CNTs, graphene oxide, and graphene, and wherein the solvent is composed of one or more of DMF, NMP, DMAc, DMSO, MeCN, THF, and toluene. (“The slurry composition of any one of Aspects 1 to 3, wherein the conductive carbon material is carbon black.” Hellring [0109])
Hellring is considered to be analogous to Drews for the reasons provided above. It would have additionally been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conductive carbon additive of Drews to specifically be carbon black, as Hellring teaches that this is a known material in the art used for this purpose. In order to meet the limitations of claim 11, only a simple substitution of one known conductive carbon additive for another would be required, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drews (US 20170309914 A1) in view of Hellring (US 20200227752 A1) further in view of Tian (US 20230133537 A1), and further in view of Ota (US 20190363351 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Drews meets all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Drews is silent on the following elements of claim 10:
The slurry of claim 1, wherein no binder is included.
However, Ota teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 that are not found in Drews. Specifically, Ota teaches that the use of a binder in the positive electrode slurry containing a sacrificial lithium source material is optional, and lists benefits of a binderless formation:
The slurry of claim 1, wherein no binder is included. (“In some embodiments, the semi-solid electrode materials described herein can be binderless.” Ota [0053])
Ota is considered to be analogous to Drews because it is within the same field of electrodes containing sacrificial lithium/pre-lithiation materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Drews to optionally not include a binder as Ota teaches, as Ota shows this can increase salt available for ion diffusion, among other possible benefits (“In some embodiments, the semi-solid electrode materials described herein can be binderless. Instead, the volume of the semi-solid electrode materials normally occupied by binders in conventional electrodes, is now occupied by: 1) electrolyte, which has the effect of decreasing tortuosity and increasing the total salt available for ion diffusion, thereby countering the salt depletion effects typical of thick conventional electrodes when used at high rate, 2) active material, which has the effect of increasing the charge capacity of the battery, or 3) conductive additive, which has the effect of increasing the electronic conductivity of the electrode, thereby countering the high internal impedance of thick conventional electrodes. The reduced tortuosity and a higher electronic conductivity of the semi-solid electrodes described herein, results in superior rate capability and charge capacity of electrochemical cells formed from the semi-solid electrodes.” Ota [0053])
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drews (US 20170309914 A1) in view of Hellring (US 20200227752 A1) and further in view of Cui (US 20160365566 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Drews teaches all of the following elements:
A slurry for forming a cathode pre-lithiation layer, the slurry comprising: a uniform dispersion of a nanoscale cathode pre-lithiation reagent in a solvent, (“The method may include adding the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 during the slurry deposition stage. The sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 is mixed with the cathode slurry so that the cathode material and the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 are blended and agglomerations of the sacrificial lithium-containing material 24 are formed within the cathodic material 16.” Drews [0051] and “the under-porosity may be achieved by controlling the amount of solvent in the cathodic slurry,” Drews [0031].)
Drews is silent on the following elements of claim 21:
wherein the slurry has a viscosity of up to 5000 cP at a shear rate of 100 s-1,
and wherein the uniform dispersion further comprises a cathode catalyst included at 50 wt.% or less of the slurry, and wherein the cathode catalyst is a non-lithium metal based inactive cathode catalyst.
Hellring teaches the following elements of claim 21 not found in Drews:
wherein the slurry has a viscosity of up to 5000 cP at a shear rate of 100 s-1, (“the electrochemically active material and binder to have a solids content of 55% and greater and a viscosity below 5,000 cp” Hellring [0036] and “and viscosity of this slurry was 1280 cP under a shear rate of 10 reciprocal seconds and 528 cP under a shear rate of 100 reciprocal seconds.” Hellring [0176])
Hellring and Drews are considered to be analogous for the same reasons as provided above, regarding claim 1, and the motivation of use the viscosity of Hellring remains the same.
Hellring and Drews are silent on the following elements of claim 21:
and wherein the uniform dispersion further comprises a cathode catalyst included at 50 wt.% or less of the slurry, and wherein the cathode catalyst is a non-lithium metal based inactive cathode catalyst.
However, Cui teaches all of the elements of claim 21 that are not found in Hellring or Drews. Specifically, Cui teaches the inclusion of an inactive metal oxide or phosphate additive, separate from the active material, in the desired weight ratio within a cathode slurry, in the context of prelithiation:
and wherein the uniform dispersion further comprises a cathode catalyst included at 50 wt.% or less of the slurry, and wherein the cathode catalyst is a non-lithium metal based inactive cathode catalyst. (“In some embodiments, a method includes combining the cathode additive with a cathode active material, a binder, and conductive additives to form a mixture, such as in the form of a slurry,” Cui [0085], “the cathode 102 includes one or more metal compounds selected from Fe.sub.3O.sub.4, Fe.sub.2O.sub.3, NiO, CoO, Co.sub.3O.sub.4, Mn.sub.3O.sub.4, Mn.sub.2O.sub.3, MnO, MnO.sub.2, MnO.sub.3, PbO.sub.2, RuO.sub.2, CuO, Cu.sub.2O, SiO, SiO.sub.2, Al.sub.2O.sub.3, B.sub.2O.sub.3, P.sub.2O.sub.5, CoS.sub.2, and CoF.sub.3.” Cui [0073] and “ In some embodiments, the inclusion of about 1 wt. % to about 10 wt. %, or about 1 wt. % to about 8 wt. %, or about 2 wt. % to about 8 wt. %, or about 3 wt. % to about 8 wt. %, or about 3 wt. % to about 5 wt. % of the cathode additive in the cathode 102 is sufficient to achieve a substantially complete Li compensation in the case of a LiFePO.sub.4/graphite full cell with an initial irreversible Li loss of about 30 mAh g.sup.−1.” Cui [0074] and “To achieve a substantially complete lithium compensation in a Li-ion battery, M/Li.sub.2O composites can be used as cathode prelithiation additives.” Cui [0017]. In this case, the metal compound functions as the non-lithium metal based inactive cathode catalyst, and the additive as a whole [the cathode catalyst and prelithiation reagent] is included at a weight ratio which anticipates the claimed range, and the mixture can be formed as a slurry.)
Cui is considered to be analogous to Drews because they are both within the same field of cathodes containing pre-lithiation methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Drews to include a cathode catalyst in the form of an inactive metal-based additive based on the teachings of Cui, which show that the inclusion of this additive can improve overall capacity and energy density within the cathode (“These results confirm that the first-cycle capacity loss of a full cell is effectively compensated by the released capacity from the N—Co/N—Li.sub.2O additive. The overall capacity and energy density of the entire lithium-ion battery are appreciably improved.” Cui [0095]). This would additionally be related to Drews since Drews teaches that its sacrificial lithium containing material can be a lithium oxide (“Exemplary sacrificial lithium-containing materials 24 include lithium oxides, lithium salts such as LiF, lithium peroxides such as Li.sub.2O.sub.2, lithium hydrides, lithium nitrates, lithium carbonates, the like, or a combination thereof.” Drews [0039]).
The additional limitations of claim 22 would be met without requiring any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 22, modified Drews teaches all of the elements of claim 21, as shown above. Drews is silent on the following elements of claim 22:
The slurry of claim 21, wherein the slurry has a viscosity of 100 to 5000 Cp at a shear rate of 100 s-1.
However, Hellring teaches all of the elements of claim 22 that are not found in Drews:
The slurry of claim 21, wherein the slurry has a viscosity of 100 to 5000 Cp at a shear rate of 100 s-1. (“the electrochemically active material and binder to have a solids content of 55% and greater and a viscosity below 5,000 cp” Hellring [0036] and “and viscosity of this slurry was 1280 cP under a shear rate of 10 reciprocal seconds and 528 cP under a shear rate of 100 reciprocal seconds.” Hellring [0176])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of less than 5000 cP at a shear rate of 100 reciprocal seconds for the viscosity of the active material slurry encompasses the claimed range of between 100-5000 cP of the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights