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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 02/20/2026 has been fully considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claims 1 and 10 amended
Claims 24 and 25 withdrawn
New claims 26 and 27 added
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, examiner finds that the combination of Kim and Roev still meets all of the limitations of claim 1, and therefore the previously rejected dependent claims as well. Examiner will respond to applicant arguments in order.
First, applicant argues that Kim ‘537 does not teach a modified ordered mesoporous carbon. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive, as Kim ‘537 teaches the use of a mesoporous carbon, which, when modified by Roev, would be a modified mesoporous carbon with the desired oxygen content. The examiner finds that the motivation to combine is still sufficient. Examiner also cites Park (US 20150311489 A1) specifically for new claim 26, but it would also strengthen the obviousness of an ordered mesoporous carbon, as it explicitly uses an ordered mesoporous carbon in an anode. If applicant further argued that modified Kim ‘537 does not teach a modified ordered mesoporous carbon then Park could also be applied to claim 1.
Second, applicant argues that Roev is referring to a CNT rather than an a mesoporous carbon, and therefore would not provide sufficient motivation to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Kim ‘537. Examiner does not find this persuasive for two reasons. First, when discussing the surface content of oxygen atoms in a carbonaceous material, Roev is referring to the “modified carbonaceous material doped with a heterogeneous element,” not the oxygen-functionalized carbon nanotube, therefore, this argument is moot (“The modified carbonaceous material may include, but is not limited to, at least one selected from the group consisting of a carbon nanoparticle, mesoporous carbon,” Roev [0035]). Second, the motivation for oxygen doping the surface of a carbonaceous material would be sufficiently taught by Roev regardless, as Roev cites benefits of surface oxygen atoms on a porous carbonaceous material (“When the ratio of the number of surface oxygen atoms to the number of surface carbon atoms ranges from about 2 to about 15 atom %, the affinity between an electrolyte and a positive electrode including the porous carbonaceous composite material is increased to accelerate a charge reaction, thereby reducing polarization.” Roev [0029]). Even if the case were that Roev was teaching about a different porous carbonaceous material used as a conductive agent in an electrode, the reasoning is broad enough that one skilled in the art would still be capable of altering the oxygen surface content of a modified porous carbon in order to achieve these same benefits. Additionally, since the electrolyte is in between the anode and the cathode, the benefits of increased affinity would apply whether the modified carbonaceous material is in an anode or a cathode, which someone of ordinary skill in the art would understand. Based on the above arguments, examiner maintains that the combination of Kim ‘537 and Roev teaches all of the elements of previously presented claim 1. Specifically, that the teachings of Roev would render obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art the modification of the mesoporous carbon of Kim ‘537 to have an optimal surface oxygen content.
The last argument on this point by applicant, which is that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to seek an oxygen functionalized carbon nanotube of Roev for an anode active material, is not persuasive, as the oxygen surface content of Roev is being used to modify Kim ‘537, which is directed at a mesoporous carbon being used in a negative electrode.
The remaining arguments presented by applicant are related to the electrode active materials and the amendment of claim 1 to further specify that the active material contains a lithium composite oxide. The arguments presented by applicant regarding the difference between Kim ‘537 and the instant electrode are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that in example 1 of the specification the electrode assembly is vacuum sealed and therefore a greenhouse gas cannot be disposed between the electrode assembly and the pouch. This is not persuasive as this limitation is not included in the claim. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is what is used to determine patentability, and therefore arguments regarding details only included in the specification are not sufficient to overcome prior art. Additionally, examiner finds that Kim ‘537 additionally teaches the presence of a lithium transition metal oxide as the cathode active material (“Electrode active material 14 may include one or more metals, or a mixture of metals, present as a metallic solid or metal alloy. Where electrode active material 14 includes a metal or metal complex, the metal may include one or more of lithium, sodium, potassium, beryllium, magnesium, calcium, vanadium, iron, nickel, copper, zinc, and aluminum, or ions thereof. In one embodiment, electrode active material 14 includes a metal or metal complex that includes lithium.” Kim ‘537 [0053] and “ Electrode active material 14 may include one or forms of oxygen and/or sulfur, such as for example oxide or sulfide compositions.” Kim ‘537 [0054]).
Applicant arguments regarding dependent claims are not persuasive given that the rely on the same reasoning as that provided above.
Based on all of the above, the rejections for all previously presented claims remain in place and unchanged, other than to account for and additionally reject the amendments made to the claims.
After further search and consideration, new claims 26 and 27 are rejected further in view of Park (US 20150311489 A1) and Cho (US 20190036121 A1), respectively. There is currently not considered to be any allowable subject matter present in the claims.
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 10 and 27 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. Specifically, amended claim 10 reads “The all-solid secondary battery of claim 5, wherein the first metal of the first metal oxide and the first metal is present in an amount of about 0.1 weight percent to about 5 weight percent, based on a total weight of the modified ordered mesoporous carbon, when analyzed by inductively coupled plasma analysis.” This is indefinite because it is unclear whether the amount that is present in an amount of 0.1-5% is just the first metal or if it is the first metal of the first oxide, and additionally the first metal not contained in a metal oxide. For clarity and to match the limitations of claim 5, examiner recommends amending to state “wherein the first metal of the first metal oxide and/or the first metal are present in an amount of about 0.1… .” The claim will be examined as if that is how it were written, for examination purposes. The same goes for claim 27, which is worded the same way as amended claim 10 and therefore has the same issues.
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, 2, 3, 5, 6, 14, 17, 18, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘537 (US 20220352537 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim ‘537, in view of Roev (US 20130183592 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim ‘537 teaches all of the following limitations:
An all-solid secondary battery comprising: (“Where the electrodes of the present disclosure include a polymeric binder, the polymeric binder may be present to help form a solid electrode from an electrode active material.” Kim [0045], “The current collector can be solid or perforated.” Kim [0067], “This coating layer may act as a separator that is a solid-state electrolyte. “ Kim [0074] and “ FIG. 10 shows discharge capacities during cycling of an electrochemical cell prepared according to the above method. The cell demonstrates its superior rechargeability maintaining over 90% of its original discharge capacity at its 100.sup.th cycle.” Kim [0116]. In this case, if the electrode active material, current collectors, and electrolyte are all solid it would be an all-solid battery, and since it is rechargeable it would be an all-solid secondary battery.)
a cathode layer; an anode layer; (“Electrochemical cell 10 optionally further includes an additional electrode 24, that may include an additional electrode active material 26. Where electrochemical cell 10 includes both electrode 12 and additional electrode 24, typically one of electrode 12 and additional electrode 24 may be a negative electrode and function as a cathode, while the other of electrode 12 and additional electrode 24 may be a positive electrode and function as an anode.” Kim [0038])
and a solid electrolyte layer between the cathode layer and the anode layer. (“Electrochemical cell 10 may include electrolyte 16. Electrolyte 16 may include a solid electrolyte,” Kim [0075]. Figure 1 depicts solid electrolyte 16 in between electrodes 12 and 24.)
wherein the cathode layer includes a lithium transition metal oxide, (“Electrode active material 14 may include one or more metals, or a mixture of metals, present as a metallic solid or metal alloy. Where electrode active material 14 includes a metal or metal complex, the metal may include one or more of lithium, sodium, potassium, beryllium, magnesium, calcium, vanadium, iron, nickel, copper, zinc, and aluminum, or ions thereof. In one embodiment, electrode active material 14 includes a metal or metal complex that includes lithium.” Kim ‘537 [0053] and “ Electrode active material 14 may include one or forms of oxygen and/or sulfur, such as for example oxide or sulfide compositions.” Kim ‘537 [0054]. In this case, if the active material included an oxide including lithium and any of the listed transition metals, the limitation would be met.)
wherein the anode layer comprises an anode current collector and a first anode active material layer on the anode current collector (“Either electrode 12 or additional electrode 24, or both, of electrochemical cell 10 may include a current collector 32 that is in electrical contact with that electrode. At least a portion of the electrically-conductive material of each electrode is in contact with current collector for that electrode. Each current collector 32, which may be the same or different, can include any suitable and compatible conductive material.” Kim [0064].)
and the first anode active material layer comprises: a modified ordered mesoporous carbon (“Current collector 32 may be in contact with an electrically-conductive material, for example by being coated with the electrically-conductive material. In this embodiment, the electrically conductive material may be a porous inorganic carbon material that is carbon black, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, carbon dots, activated carbon, amorphous carbon, microporous carbon, mesoporous carbon,” Kim [0069])
Kim ‘537 fails to teach the following elements of claim 1:
and an oxygen content of a surface of the modified ordered mesoporous carbon is about 3 atomic percent to about 10 atomic percent, based on a total content of the surface, when determined by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy of a surface of the modified ordered mesoporous carbon
However, Roev teaches all of the elements of claim 1 that are not found in Kim ‘537. Specifically, Roev teaches:
and an oxygen content of a surface of the modified ordered mesoporous carbon is about 3 atomic percent to about 10 atomic percent, based on a total content of the surface, when determined by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy of a surface of the modified ordered mesoporous carbon (“According to an aspect of the present invention, a porous carbonaceous composite material includes an oxygen functionalized carbon nanotube (CNT); and a modified carbonaceous material doped with a heterogeneous element, wherein the ratio of the number of surface oxygen atoms to the number of surface carbon atoms ranges from about 2 to about 15 atom %.” Roev [0013] and “For example, the ratio of the number of the heterogeneous elements doped on the coating layer to the total number of atoms contained in the coating layer may be in a range of about 0.01 atom % to about 30 atom %.” Roev [0040]. Assuming that the only elements present in the surface of the mesoporous carbon are carbon, oxygen, and the heterogeneous dopant, the range of oxygen based on the total surface content would range from 1.4% O (in the case where there is 30% dopant and 2% oxygen based on carbon) to 14.998%O (in case where there is 0.01% dopant and 15% oxygen based on carbon))
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1.4-14.998% of oxygen surface content on a mesoporous carbon encompasses the claimed range of about 3 to about 10%. 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.
Roev and Kim ‘537 are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of mesoporous carbon containing positive electrode active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode active material of Kim ‘537 to include the oxygen surface content of Roev in order to optimize the affinity between the electrolyte and the positive electrode (Roev [0029]), without reducing the electronic conductivity of the surface of the porous carbonaceous composite material (Roev [0029]). This would be desirable in a positive electrode active material as the inclusion of oxygen increases the overall positive characteristics of the battery without sacrificing performance elsewhere or reducing safety. By substituting the mesoporous carbon of Kim ‘537 with that of Roev, a modified ordered mesoporous carbon would be present because by including oxygen content in the surface of the mesoporous carbon it would be modified, by definition the mesoporous carbon would be ordered.
All additional limitations of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 17-18, 21, and 23 are met by Kim ‘537, and therefore no further modification or motivation is required beyond what is described above regarding the surface oxygen content.
Regarding claim 2, Kim ‘537 teaches all of the following limitations:
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the modified ordered mesoporous carbon has an amorphous structure (“Current collector 32 may be in contact with an electrically-conductive material, for example by being coated with the electrically-conductive material. In this embodiment, the electrically conductive material may be a porous inorganic carbon material that is carbon black, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, carbon dots, activated carbon, amorphous carbon, microporous carbon, mesoporous carbon,” Kim [0069])
Regarding claim 3, Kim ‘537 teaches all of the following limitations:
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the modified ordered mesoporous carbon has a particle size of about 50 nanometers to about 2 micrometers (“The electrically-conductive material may have an average particle size or diameter of about 5 nm to about 50 μm.” Kim ‘537 [0049].)
and a pore having a pore size of about 2 nanometers to about 20 nanometers (“More preferably, the average pore size of the electrically-conductive material is greater than about 5 nm and less than about 200 nm.” Kim ‘537 [0050])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of 5nm-50μm of 5-200 nm for particle size and pore size, respectively, overlap the claimed ranges of 50nm-2μm and 2-20nm for the same parameters. 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.
Regarding claim 5, Kim ‘537 teaches all of the following limitations:
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the first anode active material layer further comprises a first metal oxide, a first metal, or a combination thereof, and the first metal oxide (“Electrode active material 14 may include one or more metals, or a mixture of metals, present as a metallic solid or metal alloy.” Kim ‘537 [0053] and “Electrode active material 14 may include one or forms of oxygen and/or sulfur, such as for example oxide or sulfide compositions.” Kim ‘537 [0054].)
the first metal, or a combination thereof is disposed on the modified ordered mesoporous carbon (“Electrode active material 14 may incorporate or be in contact with an electrically-conductive material of the electrode.” Kim ‘537 [0062].)
Regarding claim 6, Kim ‘537 teaches all of the following limitations:
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 5, wherein the first metal oxide has an amorphous structure (Kim [0053-0054] lists many optional metal oxides, which are capable of being amorphous. Since it is not specified, it is assumed that the listed metal oxides have an amorphous structure. For example, lithium, sodium, potassium, beryllium, magnesium ,calcium, etc. oxides.), and the first metal oxide has a particle size of about 1 nanometer to about 1 micrometer (“Electrode active material 14 may be present as a composition of solid particles. The average particle size of an appropriate electrode active material may vary from about 5 nm to about 50 μm,” Kim ‘537 [0058].)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 5nm to 50μm overlaps the claimed range of 1nm-1μm. 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.
Regarding claim 14, modified Kim ‘537 teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kim ‘537 teaches all of the additional elements of claim 14:
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the first anode active material layer further comprises a binder. (“The electrically-conductive material of the electrode, with additional conductive materials, polymeric binder, and plasticizers,” Kim ‘537 [0068])
Regarding claim 17, Kim ‘537 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above.
Kim ‘537 teaches all of the additional elements of claim 17:
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte layer comprises an oxide solid electrolyte, a sulfide solid electrolyte, a polymer solid electrolyte, or a combination thereof. (“Electrolyte 16 may be a solid electrolyte. Solid-state electrolytes may be electrically-insulating and ionically-conductive. In some embodiments, the solid-state electrolyte can include one or more polymers, glasses, phosphates, fluorophosphates, carbonates, amines, borates, fluoroborates, halides, halates, oxohalides, oxides, perovskites, antiperovskites, garnets, sulfides,” Kim ‘537 [0076])
Regarding claim 18, modified Kim ‘537 teaches all of the elements of claim 17, as shown above. Kim ‘537 teaches all of the additional limitations of claim 18:
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 17, wherein the oxide solid electrolyte comprises Li1.x~yAlxTi2-xSiyP3-yO12, wherein 0<x<2 and Oy<3, BaTiO3, PbZrxTi1.x)03 wherein Ox:1, Pb1.xLaxZr1-y TiyO3, wherein Ox<1, and Oy<1, Pb(Mg1i3Nb2i3)03-PbTiO3, HfO2, SrTiO3, SnO2, CeO2, Na20, MgO,NiO,CaO, BaO, ZnO, ZrO2, Y203, A1203, TiO2, SiO2, Li3PO4, LixTiy(PO4)3, wherein 0<x<2 and 0<y<3, LixAlyTiz(PO4)3. wherein 0<x<2, 0<y<1, and 0<z<3, Li1+x+y(AlaGa1-a)x(TibGe1. b)2-xSiyP3-yO12, wherein Ox:1,Oy<1,Oa:1, and Ob:1, LixLayTiO3, wherein 0<x<2 and 0<y<3, Li20, LiOH, Li2CO3, LiAIO2, Li20-AI203-SiO2-P205-TiO2-GeO2, Li3+xLa3M2012, wherein M is Te, Nb, Zr, or a combination thereof, and Ox:10, Li3+xLa3Zr2-yMyO12, wherein M is Ga, W, Nb, Ta, Al, or a combination thereof, O<x<10, and 0<y<2, Li7La3Zr2-xTaxO12, wherein 0<x<2, or a combination thereof (“ Where electrolyte 16 is a solid electrolyte, it may include oxygen. For example, electrolyte 16 may include one or more of SiO.sub.2, TiO.sub.2,” Kim ‘537 [0078])
Regarding claim 21, modified Kim ‘537 teaches all of the elements of claim 17, as shown above. Kim ‘537 teaches the additional elements of claim 21:
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 17, wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte is an argyrodite-type solid electrolyte represented by Formula 1: Li+12-n-xAn+X2-6-xZ-x wherein, in Formula 1, A is P, As, Ge, Ga, Sb, Si, Sn, Al, In, Ti, V, Nb, or Ta, X is S, Se, Te, or a combination thereof, Z is Cl, Br, I, F, CN, OCN, SCN, N3, or a combination thereof, 1:n:5, and Ox<2. (“Where electrolyte 16 is a solid electrolyte, it may include sulfur. For example, electrolyte 16 may include one or more of Li.sub.6PS.sub.5Cl,” Kim ‘537 [0077]. This is an argyrodite-type solid electrolyte by definition, and therefore meets the limitations of claim 21.)
Regarding claim 23, Kim ‘537 teaches the following
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the cathode layer comprises a cathode active material layer, (“Electrochemical cell 10 optionally further includes an additional electrode 24, that may include an additional electrode active material 26. Where electrochemical cell 10 includes both electrode 12 and additional electrode 24, typically one of electrode 12 and additional electrode 24 may be a negative electrode and function as a cathode, while the other of electrode 12 and additional electrode 24 may be a positive electrode and function as an anode.” Kim ‘537 [0038])
the cathode active material layer comprises a solid electrolyte, a liquid electrolyte, or a combination thereof (“Electrochemical cell 10 may include electrolyte 16. Electrolyte 16 may include a solid electrolyte, a liquid electrolyte, a gel electrolyte, a liquefied gaseous electrolyte, or any combination thereof. The electrolyte may be present in contact with electrode active material 14.” Kim ‘537 [0075])
the solid electrolyte comprises an oxide solid electrolyte, a sulfide solid electrolyte, a polymer solid electrolyte, or a combination thereof (“ Electrolyte 16 may be a solid electrolyte. Solid-state electrolytes may be electrically-insulating and ionically-conductive. In some embodiments, the solid-state electrolyte can include one or more polymers, glasses, phosphates, fluorophosphates, carbonates, amines, borates, fluoroborates, halides, halates, oxohalides, oxides, perovskites, antiperovskites, garnets, sulfides, LISICON-types, thio-LISICON types, oxynitrides, and nitrides, among others (LISICON is an acronym for Lithium Super Ionic CONductor).” Kim ‘537 [0076])
the liquid electrolyte comprises an ionic liquid, a lithium salt, or a combination thereof, and the liquid electrolyte is absent from the anode layer and the solid electrolyte layer. (The claim only requires one of a solid or liquid electrolyte. Therefore, by meeting the limitations of the solid electrolyte taught in claim 23, this limitation need not be explicitly taught.)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘537 (US 20220352537 A1) in view of Roev (US 20130183592 A1) and further in view of Yu (US 20140099553 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kim ‘537 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above.
Kim ‘537 fails to teach the following:
wherein the modified ordered mesoporous carbon has a specific surface area of about 600 square meters per gram to about 1500 square meters per gram, and the modified ordered mesoporous carbon has a pore volume of about 0.6 cubic centimeters per gram to about 2 cubic centimeters per gram.
Yu teaches the all-solid secondary battery wherein the modified ordered mesoporous carbon has a specific surface area of about 600 square meters per gram to about 1500 square meters per gram and the modified ordered mesoporous carbon has a pore volume of about 0.6 cubic centimeters per gram to about 2 cubic centimeters per gram (“the mesoporous carbon structures may have a length of 0.1-4.0 µm, diameter of 100-2500 nm, BET surface area of 500-3000 m2/g, and a total pore volume of 0.80-3.80 cm3/g.” Yu paragraph 11).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of 500-3000 m2/g and 0.80-3.80cm3/g encompass the claimed ranges of 600-1500 m2/g and 0.6-2cm3/g. 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.
Yu and ‘537 are considered analogous as they are both within the same field of secondary batteries containing mesoporous carbon. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all-solid secondary battery of Kim ‘537 with the mesoporous carbon having a specific surface area of about 500 square meters to about 3000 square meters per gram and having a pore volume of 0.8 cubic centimeters to about 3.8 cubic centimeters per gram, as taught by Yu, in order to have improved discharge capacity and/or high-rate characteristics. The instant application claims the use of a mesoporous carbon with a surface area of 600-1500 square meters and a pore volume of 0.6-2 cubic centimeters per gram, both of which are contained within the ranges taught by Yu and are therefore held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘537 (US 20220352537 A1) in view of Roev (US 20130183592 A1) and further in view of Wu (US 20140212755 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Kim ‘537 teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as shown above.
Kim ‘537 fails to teach the following—at least, fails to specifically state one of the above oxides with the specific stoichiometries to be present:
wherein the first metal oxide comprises FeOx, wherein 0<x:2,AIOx, wherein 0<x 2, SnOx, wherein 0<x 2, GeOx, wherein 0<x 2, SiOx, wherein 0<x 2, ScOx, wherein 0<x:2, CrOx, wherein 0<x:5, MnOx, wherein 0<x:3, CoOx, wherein 0<x:2, NiOx, wherein 0<x:2, CuOx, wherein 0<x:2, or a combination thereof.
Wu teaches the all-solid secondary battery wherein the first metal oxide comprises SnO, also known as tin oxide (“For the anode B a carbonaceous material, Si, Si--C, SiO, Sn, tin oxide, a composite tin alloy, a transition metal oxide, or a lithium metal nitride may be used.” Paragraph 51).
Kim ‘537 and Wu are considered analogous because they are both within the same field of secondary batteries, specifically, ones containing anode active materials containing metal oxides. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metal oxide containing anode active material layer of Kim ‘537 by using one of the metal oxides taught by Wu, for example SnO, as the usage of a metal oxide can improve cycle characteristics, which is desirable in a battery device.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, by combining the secondary battery and anode active material containing a modified ordered mesoporous carbon taught by Kim ‘537 with the metal oxide used in the anode active material of Wu in order to meet the limitations of claim 7, the limitations of claims 8 and 9 would be met as well.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim ‘537 teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as shown above. Additionally, Wu teaches
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 5, wherein the first metal oxide comprises FeO, Fe02, Fe203, Fe304, A1203, SnO, GeO, SiO, SiO2, Sc203, CrO, Cr203, Cr02, Cr03, CrO5, MnO, Mn203, Mn304, MnO2, MnO3,CoO, C0203, C0304, NiO, Ni203, CuO, CuO2, Cu203, Cu20, or a combination thereof (“For the anode B a carbonaceous material, Si, Si--C, SiO, Sn, tin oxide, a composite tin alloy, a transition metal oxide, or a lithium metal nitride may be used.” Paragraph 51).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim ‘537 teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as shown above. Additionally, Wu teaches
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 5, wherein the first metal comprises Fe, Al, Sn, Ge, Si, Sc, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, or a combination thereof, and the first metal oxide comprises an oxide of the first metal. (In this case, Wu explicitly teaches the usage of both Sn and SnO, or tin and tin oxide. Therefore, if by combining Kim ‘537 and Wu both a metal and metal oxide were used, this limitation would be met in its entirety).
Claim(s) 10-12 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘537 (US 20220352537 A1) in view of Roev (US 20130183592 A1) and further in view of Cho (US 20190036121 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Kim ‘537 teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as shown above.
Kim ‘537 fails to teach the following:
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 5, wherein the first metal of the first metal oxide and the first metal is present in an amount of about 0.1 weight percent to about 5 weight percent, based on a total weight of the modified ordered mesoporous carbon, when analyzed by inductively coupled plasma analysis.
However, Cho teaches all of the elements of claim 10 that are not found in Kim ‘537 or Roev. Specifically, Cho teaches an anode active material that comprises a porous carbon and a non-carbonaceous material, where the weight ratio of the non-carbonaceous material meets the limitations of claim 10:
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 5, wherein the first metal of the first metal oxide and the first metal is present in an amount of about 0.1 weight percent to about 5 weight percent, based on a total weight of the modified ordered mesoporous carbon, when analyzed by inductively coupled plasma analysis. (“According to one or more embodiments, a composite anode active material includes a porous carbon structure; a first coating layer on the porous carbon structure and including a non-carbonaceous material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium;” Cho [0013], “In the composite anode active material, the non-carbonaceous material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium may include at least one metal selected from silicon (Si), tin (Sn), aluminum (Al), germanium (Ge), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), silver (Ag), and gold (Au); an alloy, oxide, nitride, or oxynitride thereof; or a combination thereof.” Cho [0056] and “The amount of the non-carbonaceous material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium in the composite anode active material may range from about 1 wt % to about 80 wt % with respect to a total weight of the composite anode active material. … For example, the amount of the non-carbonaceous material may range from about 1 wt % to about 10 wt % with respect to the total weight of the composite anode active material.” Cho [0064])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of ------1-10% by weight of a metal or metal oxide with respect to a total weight of the electrode active material (which comprises only a porous carbon and a non-carbonaceous material), overlaps the claimed range of 0.1-5% of a metal or metal oxide based on a total weight of porous carbon. For an example calculation, 5% of metal oxide based on the total weight of porous carbon would end up being 3.33% by weight of the total electrode active material, which would fall within the range taught by Cho. 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.
Cho is considered to be analogous to Kim ‘537 because they are both within the same field of anodes for secondary batteries containing porous carbon materials and metal/metal oxides. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim ‘537 to include the metal/metal oxide in the weight ratio taught by Cho in order to avoid cracking in the active material while still including enough to effectively intercalate and deintercalate lithium ions (“When the amount of the non-carbonaceous material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium is too large, cracks may occur in the active material due to a change in volume of the non-carbonaceous material during charging and discharging.” Cho [0064]). It would additionally be obvious to use the metals/metal oxides of Cho as a non-carbonaceous active material component as this is clearly known in the art to provide a material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium in the active material (“A composite anode active material according to an embodiment may include: a porous carbon structure; a first coating layer on the porous carbon structure and including a non-carbonaceous material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium;” Cho [0047]). By using the non-carbonaceous material of Cho in the anode of Kim ‘537, the limitations of not just claim 10 but also claims 11, 12, and 27 would also be met.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kim ‘537 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above.
Kim ‘537 fails to teach the following:
wherein the first anode active material layer further comprises a second metal, a second metal oxide, or a combination thereof.
Cho teaches all of the elements of claim 11 that are not found in Kim ‘537:
wherein the first anode active material layer further comprises a second metal, a second metal oxide, or a combination thereof. (“In the composite anode active material, the non-carbonaceous material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium may include at least one metal selected from silicon (Si), tin (Sn), aluminum (Al), germanium (Ge), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), silver (Ag), and gold (Au); an alloy, oxide, nitride, or oxynitride thereof; or a combination thereof.” Cho [0056]. The wording of “at least one” of the listed metals implies that more than one can be used, which meets the limitations provided by claim 11)
Regarding claim 12, modified Kim ‘537 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above.
Kim ‘537 fails to teach the following:
wherein the second metal is a metal anode active material, and the metal anode active material comprise silver, tin, germanium, indium, silicon, gallium, aluminum, titanium, zirconium, niobium, antimony, bismuth, gold, platinum, palladium, magnesium, zinc, an alloy thereof, or a combination thereof (In this case, by meeting the limitations of claim 11 by using more than 1 of the listed metals, this limitation would be met as well. For example, Cho could use silicon and aluminum as the non-carbonaceous active material, and would meet the limitations of claims 11 and 12.)
Regarding claim 27, modified Kim ‘537 teaches all of the elements of claim 5, as shown above. Kim ‘537 and Roev are silent on the following elements of claim 27:
The all-solid secondary battery of The all-solid secondary battery of wherein the first metal of the first metal oxide and the first metal is present in an amount of about 0.1 weight percent to 2 weight percent, based on a total weight of the modified ordered mesoporous carbon, when analyzed by inductively coupled plasma analysis.
However, Cho teaches all of the elements of claim 27 that are not found in Kim ‘537 or Roev. Specifically, Cho teaches an anode active material that comprises a porous carbon and a non-carbonaceous material, where the weight ratio of the non-carbonaceous material meets the limitations of claim 27:
The all-solid secondary battery of The all-solid secondary battery of wherein the first metal of the first metal oxide and the first metal is present in an amount of about 0.1 weight percent to 2 weight percent, based on a total weight of the modified ordered mesoporous carbon, when analyzed by inductively coupled plasma analysis. (“According to one or more embodiments, a composite anode active material includes a porous carbon structure; a first coating layer on the porous carbon structure and including a non-carbonaceous material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium;” Cho [0013], “In the composite anode active material, the non-carbonaceous material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium may include at least one metal selected from silicon (Si), tin (Sn), aluminum (Al), germanium (Ge), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), silver (Ag), and gold (Au); an alloy, oxide, nitride, or oxynitride thereof; or a combination thereof.” Cho [0056] and “The amount of the non-carbonaceous material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium in the composite anode active material may range from about 1 wt % to about 80 wt % with respect to a total weight of the composite anode active material. … For example, the amount of the non-carbonaceous material may range from about 1 wt % to about 10 wt % with respect to the total weight of the composite anode active material.” Cho [0064])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of ------1-10% by weight of a metal or metal oxide with respect to a total weight of the electrode active material (which comprises only a porous carbon and a non-carbonaceous material), overlaps the claimed range of 0.1-2% of a metal or metal oxide based on a total weight of porous carbon. For an example calculation, 2% of metal oxide based on the total weight of porous carbon would end up being 1.33% by weight of the total electrode active material, which would fall within the range taught by Cho. 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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘537 (US 20220352537 A1) in view of Roev (US 20130183592 A1) and further in view of Yang (US 20180226641 A1)
Regarding claim 13, modified Kim ‘537 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above.
Kim ‘537 fails to teach the following:
wherein an amount of the modified ordered mesoporous carbon is about 90 weight percent to about 99 weight percent, with respect to a total weight of the first anode active material layer.
However, Yang teaches all of the elements of claim 13 that are not found in Kim ‘537:
wherein an amount of the modified ordered mesoporous carbon is about 90 weight percent to about 99 weight percent, with respect to a total weight of the first anode active material layer. (“The first active material layer may further include a conductive material and a binder. In this case, the carbon-based negative electrode active material particles, the conductive material, and the binder may be included in a weight ratio of 93 to 97:1 to 3:2 to 4.” Yang [0030])
Yang is considered to be analogous to Kim ‘537 because they are both within the same field of negative electrodes for secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the quantity of the carbon-based negative electrode active material of Kim ‘537 to be of the weight ratio taught by Yang in order to avoid lithium precipitation on the electrode and not degrade battery capacity (“When outside the above range, if the proportion of carbon-based negative electrode active material particles is greater than 97, lithium may be precipitated on a surface of a negative electrode, and if less than 93, battery capacity may be degraded.” Yang [0030])
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘537 (US 20220352537 A1) in view of Roev (US 20130183592 A1) and further in view of Suzuki (US 20190157723 A1)
Regarding claim 15, Kim ‘537 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above.
Kim ‘537 fails to teach the following:
wherein the cathode layer comprises a cathode active material layer, and a ratio of a charge capacity of the first anode active material layer to a charge capacity of the cathode active material layer satisfies Expression 1: 0.01<b/a<1 wherein in Expression 1, a is a charge capacity of the cathode active material layer, and b is a charge capacity of the first anode active material layer.
Suzuki teaches the all-solid secondary battery wherein the cathode layer comprises a cathode active material layer, and a ratio of a charge capacity of the first anode active material layer to a charge capacity of the cathode active material layer satisfies Expression 1: 0.01<b/a<1 wherein in Expression 1, a is a charge capacity of the cathode active material layer, and b is a charge capacity of the first anode active material layer (“A ratio of charge capacity of the anode active material layer 122 to a charge capacity of the cathode active material layer 112, i.e., a capacity ratio, may satisfy Equation 1: 0.01<(b/a)<0.5 Equation 1 wherein a is the initial charge capacity of the cathode active material layer 112, determined from a first open circuit voltage to a maximum charging voltage vs. Li/Li+, and wherein b is the initial charge capacity of the anode active material layer 122” Suzuki paragraph 88. In this case, the range of expression 1 as taught by Suzuki is entirely within that in the instant application, and therefore it anticipates the limitation taught in claim 15)
Kim ‘537 and Suzuki are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of lithium based secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode and anode active materials of Kim ‘537 with those of Suzuki, which satisfy the requirements of expression 1 related to charge capacity. Specifically, it would be obvious to have a charge capacity ratio such as that of Suzuki in order to reduce the amount of deposited lithium in the anode (which can occur when the ratio is too high) and to reduce the risk of the anode active material layer from collapsing (which can occur when ratio is too low), both of which would cause decreased overall performance from the battery.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘537 (US 20220352537 A1) in view of Roev (US 20130183592 A1) and further in view of Yun (WO0197304 A1)
Regarding claim 16, Kim ‘537 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above.
Kim ‘537 fails to teach the following:
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, further comprising a second anode active material layer arranged between the first anode active material layer and the anode current collector,
wherein the second anode active material layer is a lithium layer, a lithium-alloyable metal layer, or a combination thereof, and the second anode active material layer comprises lithium metal or a lithium alloy.
However, Yun teaches all of the elements of claim 16 that are not found in Kim ‘537. Specifically, Yun teaches a negative electrode that comprises an anode current collector, a lithium metal layer, and an additional active material layer on top of the lithium metal layer which comprises a porous carbon material:
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, further comprising a second anode active material layer arranged between the first anode active material layer and the anode current collector, (“The present invention relates to a multi-layered lithium electrode formed on a current collector with sequential stacks of … lithium or lithium alloy layer and … porous metal or porous carbon layer,” Yun [13])
wherein the second anode active material layer is a lithium layer, a lithium-alloyable metal layer, or a combination thereof, and the second anode active material layer comprises lithium metal or a lithium alloy. (“The present invention relates to a multi-layered lithium electrode formed on a current collector with sequential stacks of … lithium or lithium alloy layer and … porous metal or porous carbon layer,” Yun [13])
Yun is considered to be analogous to Kim ‘537 because it is within the same field of electrodes containing porous carbon materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode structure of Kim ‘537 to include a lithium metal or lithium alloy layer in between the current collector and the porous carbon containing layer in order to improve the electrical conductivity of the electrode by supplying lithium, and additionally to suppress local overcharging (“In the multi-layered lithium electrode of the present invention, the electrical conductivity of the electrode is improved, and accordingly current and potential distribution is made constant, resulting in the suppression of local overcharging.” Yun [17])
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘537 (US 20220352537 A1) in view of Roev (US 20130183592 A1) and further in view of Wang (US 20210028440 A1)
Regarding claim 19, modified Kim ‘537 teaches all of the elements of claim 17, as shown above. Additionally, Wang teaches the following elements of the claim 19 that are not taught by Kim ‘537.
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 17, wherein the oxide solid electrolyte comprises Li7La3Zr2O12, Li6.5La3Zr1.5Tao.5012, Li1.3Alo.3Ti1.7(PO4)3, Lio.34Lao.51TiO2.94, Li1.o7Alo.69Ti1.46(PO4)3, 50Li4SiO4-50Li2BO3, 90Li3BO3-1 OLi2SO4, Li2.9PO3.3No.46, or a combination thereof (“In some embodiments, the SSE is a lithium-containing SSE with a garnet structure. Wang [0172] and “In 2007, the cubic garnet Li.sub.7La.sub.3Zr.sub.2O.sub.12 (LLZO) was successfully synthesized by Murugan, R., et al., Angew. Chem. 119:7925 (2007) and was shown to have a lithium ionic conductivity of about 10.sup.−4 S/cm at room temperature. LLZO is a promising solid electrolyte as it is highly conductive, yet appears to be stable against reduction by lithium metal, even when in direct contact with molten or evaporated lithium.” Wang [0173])
Kim ‘537 and Wang are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of secondary batteries containing mesoporous carbon and solid electrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid electrolyte of Kim ‘537 to use the materials taught by Wang, including LLZO, Li7La3Zr2O12. This would only require the simple substitution of one solid electrolyte material 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.).
Claim(s) 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘537 (US 20220352537 A1) in view of Roev (US 20130183592 A1) and further in view of Mason (US 20210276875 A1)
Regarding claim 20, modified Kim ‘537 teaches all of the elements of claim 17, as shown above. Mason teaches the following elements of the claim 20 that are not taught by Kim ‘537.
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 17, wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte comprises Li2S-P2S5, Li2S-P2S5-LiX, wherein X is a halogen, Li2S-P2S5-Li20, Li2S-P2S5-Li2O-Lil, Li2S-SiS2, Li2S-SiS2-Lil, Li2S-SiS2-LiBr, Li2S-SiS2-LiCI, Li2S-SiS2-B2S3-Lil, Li2S-SiS2-P2S5-Lil, Li2S-B2S3, Li2S-P2S5-ZmSn, wherein m and n are each independently a positive number, and Z is Ge, Zn, Ga, or a combination thereof, Li2S-GeS2, Li2S-SiS2-LipMOq, wherein p and q are each independently a positive number, and M is P, Si, Ge, B, Al, Ga, or In, Li2S-SiS2-Li3PO4, or a combination thereof ((“Examples of inorganic solid electrolytes include nitrides, halides and sulfides of lithium salts such as Li.sub.5NI.sub.2, Li.sub.3N, LiI, LiSiO.sub.4, Li.sub.2SiS.sub.3,” Mason [0164]. In this case, Li2SiS3 is the same chemical composition as Li2S-SiS2 provided in claim 20, just written a different way. Therefore, it this were chosen to be the sulfide based solid electrolyte, the limitations of claim 20 would be met.)
Mason is analogous to Kim ‘537 because it is within the same field of secondary batteries containing solid electrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid electrolyte of Kim ‘537 with the sulfide type and/or oxide type solid electrolyte of Mason as this would be the simple substitution of one solid electrolyte known in the art 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.). This would apply to claim 22 as well, and therefore no further modification or motivation would be required.
Regarding claim 22, modified Kim ‘537 teaches all of the elements of claim 17, as shown above. Mason teaches the following elements of the claim 22 that are not taught by Kim ‘537.
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte layer comprises a liquid-impermeable ion-conductive composite membrane, and the liquid-impermeable ion-conductive composite membrane comprises an oxide solid electrolyte, a composite of the oxide solid electrolyte and an ion-conductive polymer, or a combination thereof. (“Examples of organic solid electrolytes include polyethylene derivatives polyethyleneoxide derivatives, polypropylene oxide derivatives, phosphoric acid ester polymers, polyester sulfide, polyvinylalcohols, polyvinylidine fluoride and polymers containing ionic dissociation groups.” Mason [0163] . Mason teaches the use of an oxide solid electrolyte in a solid electrolyte layer, which would meet this limitation given that the liquid-impermeable ion-conductive composite membrane need only comprise an oxide solid electrolyte.)
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘537 (US 20220352537 A1) in view of Roev (US 20130183592 A1) and further in view of Park (US 20150311489 A1)
Regarding claim 26, modified Kim ‘537 meets all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. It could be argued that the teachings of Kim ‘537 and Roev teach the additional limitations of claim 26, but it would be even more obvious if Kim ‘537 were combined with Park, which teaches the following limitations:
The all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the modified ordered mesoporous carbon exhibits a peak corresponding to a (100) plane as determined by small angle X-ray diffraction. (“The conductor may be one or more types selected from the group consisting of … ordered mesoporous carbon.” Park [0024] and “ The sulfur anode includes the sulfur, a conductor, and a binder.” Park [0014])
Specifically, Park teaches the used of an “ordered mesoporous carbon.” Which, if substituted for the “mesoporous carbon” of Kim ‘537 and modified with the teachings of Roev, would meet all of the limitations of claim 26. The 100 plane corresponds to ordered/crystalline/not amorphous structure according to the instant specification [00160-00161], and therefore the ordered mesoporous carbon of Park would have the same XRD pattern even if it is not explicitly mentioned.
Park and Kim ‘537 are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of lithium batteries containing mesoporous carbon in an anode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim ‘537 to substitute mesoporous carbon for explicitly “ordered mesoporous carbon” as this would be a simple substitution of one anode conductive agent 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.). Additionally, it is very possible the mesoporous carbon of Kim ‘537 is already ordered, this is further strengthening the argument that it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an ordered mesoporous carbon in an anode.
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 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