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 .
Response to Amendment and Claim Status
The amendment filed 8 December 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to Claims 17 and 22 have overcome the 35 USC § 112(b) Rejections of those claims set forth in the Office Action mailed 8 August 2025. Claims 1–13 and 15 are canceled. Claims 14 and 16–36 are pending in the application. Claims 24–36 are withdrawn from consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because:
they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: 140 and 100 (FIG. 2B); and
they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: 212b.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0024] reads “Reference Number – 218a cathode connector 118, and” which should instead read “Reference Number – 218a cathode connector, and”;
[0029] refers to “current collector 206a”, however in other parts of the Specification, the reference numeral 206a is used to designate the anode;
[0030] and [0031] refer to “base material 206a/206b”, however in other parts of the Specification, the reference numerals 206a and 206b are used to designate the anode.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14 and 16–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein sidewalls of said vertically aligned carbon nanotubes are essentially without openings along longitudinal of said sidewalls between distal ends of said vertically aligned carbon nanotubes”, while Claim 19 recites a similar limitation “wherein sidewalls of said vertically aligned carbon nanotubes are essentially without openings”. The Instant Specification does not properly describe the subject matter of these limitations. While Applicant states that support for these limitations comes from [0023], [0027], and FIG. 3 of the Instant Specification, neither [0023] nor [0027] appear to explicitly or implicitly refer to the state of the sidewalls of the vertically aligned carbon nanotubes, and FIG. 3 is a basic schematic that does not show the sidewalls in detail; such disclosures are not sufficient to indicate that the “sidewalls of said vertically aligned carbon nanotubes are essentially without openings” as claimed.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “interiors of said vertically aligned carbon nanotubes are filled to about a same level with the lithium”. The Instant Specification does not properly describe the subject matter of this limitation. While the Instant Specification discloses in e.g. [0029] that “The CNTs are filled with Li metal. The filling behavior of the CNTs with Li metal is governed by the density, height, and diameter of the CNTs in the forest”, such a disclosure is not sufficient to indicate that all of the carbon nanotubes are filled “to about a same level” as claimed.
Claims 16–18 and 20–23 are further rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) as they depend upon Claims 14 or 19.
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.
Claims 14 and 16–23 are 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.
The term “essentially” in Claims 14 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the Instant Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “about” in Claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the Instant Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 16–18 and 20–23 are further rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) as they depend upon Claims 14 or 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 14, 16, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unalan et al. (US 2010/0178568 A1) in view of Lu (US 2009/0246625 A1), as evidenced by Shimoda et al. (Shimoda, H.; Gao, B.; Tang, X.P.; Kleinhammes, A.; Fleming, L.; Wu, Y.; Zhou, O. Lithium intercalation into etched single-wall carbon nanotubes, Physica B, vol. 323, p. 133-134, published 11 April 2002), and as further evidenced by Mielke et al. (Mielke, S.L.; Diego, T.; Zhang, S.; Li, J.-L.; Xiao, S.; Car, R.; Ruoff, R.S.; Schatz, G.C.; Belytschko, T. The role of vacancy defects and holes in the fracture of carbon nanotubes, Chemical Physics Letters, vol. 390, p. 413-420, published 2004).
Regarding Claim 14, Unalan discloses a lithium-ion battery (see lithium ion battery 200, [0045], FIG. 4), comprising:
a cathode (see cathode 220, [0045], FIG. 4),
an anode (see anode 210, [0045], FIG. 4), and
a forest of vertically aligned carbon nanotubes (see CNT layer 212, [0045], FIG. 4; see also densely packed, vertically aligned carbon nanotubes, [0033], FIG. 1, which one of ordinary skill in the art will understand constitutes a forest of vertically aligned carbon nanotubes) grown directly on said anode (210) ([0045], FIG. 1 and 4).
Unalan does not explicitly disclose wherein interiors of said vertically aligned carbon nanotubes are filled with lithium.
Lu teaches a lithium-ion battery (see electrochemical battery 100, [0122], FIG. 1, identified in [0228] as a lithium-ion battery), comprising: a cathode (see cathode 108, [0122], FIG. 1), an anode (see anode 106, [0122], FIG. 1), and a forest of vertically aligned carbon nanotubes (see graphene nanoribbons 134, [0230], FIG. 15, which can be carbon nanotubes (CNT) 118, [0230], FIG. 15, and which can be aligned, i.e. vertically aligned, [0243], FIG. 15) grown directly on said anode ([0242]). Lu further teaches that having open ends on carbon nanotubes doubles their electrolyte-accessible surface area ([0244]). Furthermore, it is well-known in the field of carbon nanotubes that lithium diffuses into, i.e. fills the interiors of, carbon nanotubes via their open ends, as evidenced by Shimoda (p. 134 ¶ “The factor of…”).
Unalan and Lu are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of lithium-ion batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium-ion battery of Unalan such that the vertically aligned carbon nanotubes have open ends, as taught by Lu, for the purpose of doubling their electrolyte-accessible surface area. As evidenced by Shimoda, due to their open ends, the interiors of the vertically aligned carbon nanotubes of modified Unalan will be filled with lithium.
Unalan does not explicitly disclose wherein sidewalls of said vertically aligned carbon nanotubes are essentially without openings along longitudinal of said sidewalls between distal ends of said vertically aligned carbon nanotubes.
However, it is well-known in the field of carbon nanotubes that openings in the sidewalls substantially reduce the failure stresses and failure strains of carbon nanotubes, reducing their strength, as evidenced by Mielke (p. 419 ¶ “We have explored…”). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium-ion battery of modified Unalan such that the sidewalls of said vertically aligned carbon nanotubes are essentially without openings along longitudinal of said sidewalls between distal ends of said vertically aligned carbon nanotubes, in order to ensure their strength and avoid substantial reductions in failure stresses and failure strains which, as evidenced by Mielke, are caused by openings in the sidewalls.
Regarding Claim 19, Unalan discloses an anode (see anode 210, [0045], FIG. 4) for a lithium-ion battery (see lithium ion battery 200, [0045], FIG. 4), comprising:
a current collector (see metal foil substrate 214, [0045], FIG. 4), and
a forest of vertically aligned carbon nanotubes (see CNT layer 212, [0045], FIG. 4; see also densely packed, vertically aligned carbon nanotubes, [0033], FIG. 1, which one of ordinary skill in the art will understand constitutes a forest of vertically aligned carbon nanotubes) grown directly on said current collector (214) ([0045], FIG. 1 and 4).
Unalan does not explicitly disclose wherein interiors of said vertically aligned carbon nanotubes are filled with lithium.
Lu teaches an anode (see anode 106, [0122], FIG. 1) for a lithium-ion battery (see electrochemical battery 100, [0122], FIG. 1, identified in [0228] as a lithium-ion battery), comprising: a current collector (see second current collector 104, [0122], FIG. 1), and a forest of vertically aligned carbon nanotubes (see graphene nanoribbons 134, [0230], FIG. 15, which can be carbon nanotubes (CNT) 118, [0230], FIG. 15, and which can be aligned, i.e. vertically aligned, [0243], FIG. 15) grown directly on said current collector ([0242]). Lu further teaches that having open ends on carbon nanotubes doubles their electrolyte-accessible surface area ([0244]). Furthermore, it is well-known in the field of carbon nanotubes that lithium diffuses into, i.e. fills the interiors of, carbon nanotubes via their open ends, as evidenced by Shimoda (p. 134 ¶ “The factor of…”).
Unalan and Lu are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of lithium-ion batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anode of Unalan such that the vertically aligned carbon nanotubes have open ends, as taught by Lu, for the purpose of doubling their electrolyte-accessible surface area. As evidenced by Shimoda, due to their open ends, the interiors of the vertically aligned carbon nanotubes of modified Unalan will be filled with lithium.
Unalan does not explicitly disclose wherein sidewalls of said vertically aligned carbon nanotubes are essentially without openings.
However, it is well-known in the field of carbon nanotubes that openings in the sidewalls substantially reduce the failure stresses and failure strains of carbon nanotubes, reducing their strength, as evidenced by Mielke (p. 419 ¶ “We have explored…”). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anode of modified Unalan such that the sidewalls of said vertically aligned carbon nanotubes are essentially without openings, in order to ensure their strength and avoid substantial reductions in failure stresses and failure strains which, as evidenced by Mielke, are caused by openings in the sidewalls.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Unalan discloses the lithium-ion battery of Claim 14. Unalan further discloses ([0014]) wherein the anode (210) is a copper foil anode.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Unalan discloses the lithium-ion battery of Claim 19. Unalan further discloses ([0014]) wherein said current collector (214) is a copper foil current collector.
Claims 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unalan et al. (US 2010/0178568 A1) in view of Lu (US 2009/0246625 A1), as evidenced by Shimoda et al. (Shimoda, H.; Gao, B.; Tang, X.P.; Kleinhammes, A.; Fleming, L.; Wu, Y.; Zhou, O. Lithium intercalation into etched single-wall carbon nanotubes, Physica B, vol. 323, p. 133-134, published 11 April 2002), and as further evidenced by Mielke et al. (Mielke, S.L.; Diego, T.; Zhang, S.; Li, J.-L.; Xiao, S.; Car, R.; Ruoff, R.S.; Schatz, G.C.; Belytschko, T. The role of vacancy defects and holes in the fracture of carbon nanotubes, Chemical Physics Letters, vol. 390, p. 413-420, published 2004) as applied to Claims 14 and 19 above, in further view of Hiraoka et al. (Hiraoka, T.; Yamada, T.; Hata, K.; Futaba, D.N.; Kurachi, H.; Uemura, S.; Yumura, M.; Iijima, S. Synthesis of Single- and Double-Walled Carbon Nanotube Forests on Conducting Metal Foils, J. Am. Chem. Soc., vol. 128, p. 13338-13339, published 22 September 2006), as further evidenced by Hiraoka Supplementary Information Document (Supplementary Information Document for Hiraoka, T.; Yamada, T.; Hata, K.; Futaba, D.N.; Kurachi, H.; Uemura, S.; Yumura, M.; Iijima, S. Synthesis of Single- and Double-Walled Carbon Nanotube Forests on Conducting Metal Foils, J. Am. Chem. Soc., vol. 128, p. 13338-13339, published 22 September 2006).
Regarding Claims 17 and 22, modified Unalan discloses the lithium-ion battery of Claim 14 and the anode of Claim 19, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the anode (210) is a metal alloy anode comprising Ni, Cr, and Fe, wherein the Ni, Cr, and Fe are present in the highest amounts in the metal alloy of the anode relative to other components of the metal alloy (Claim 17), nor wherein said current collector (214) is a metal alloy current collector comprising Ni, Cr, and Fe, wherein the Ni, Cr, and Fe are present in the highest amounts in the metal alloy of the anode relative to other components of the metal alloy (Claim 22). However, Unalan does disclose ([0014]) that the current collector (214) of the anode (210) can be an alloy of Fe.
Hiraoka teaches (p. 13338 ¶ “Here, we report…” and ¶ “Importantly, we did find…”) a forest of vertically aligned carbon nanotubes grown directly on Inconel 601. Inconel 601 is a metal alloy comprising Ni, Cr, and Fe, wherein the Ni, Cr, and Fe are present in the highest amounts (61%, 23%, and 16%, respectively) in the metal alloy relative to the other components of the metal alloy, as evidenced by Hiraoka Supplementary Information Document (Table S1). Hiraoka teaches (p. 13338 ¶ “Importantly, we did find…”) that Ni-based alloys with Cr or Fe such as Inconel 601 possess high durability towards chemical vapor deposition (CVD), and that carbon nanotube forests grown thereon are dense, catalyst-free, vertically aligned, and growable to millimeter-scale heights.
Hiraoka is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of carbon nanotubes. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium-ion battery of modified Unalan such that the anode is a metal alloy anode such as Inconel 601 comprising Ni, Cr, and Fe, wherein the Ni, Cr, and Fe are present in the highest amounts in the metal alloy relative to other components of the metal alloy (Claim 17), and to modify the anode of modified Unalan such that the current collector is a metal alloy current collector such as Inconel 601 comprising Ni, Cr, and Fe, wherein the Ni, Cr, and Fe are present in the highest amounts in the metal alloy relative to other components of the metal alloy (Claim 22), for the purpose of ensuring that the anode possesses high durability towards chemical vapor deposition (CVD), and that carbon nanotube forests grown thereon are dense, catalyst-free, vertically aligned, and growable to millimeter-scale heights.
Claims 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unalan et al. (US 2010/0178568 A1) in view of Lu (US 2009/0246625 A1), as evidenced by Shimoda et al. (Shimoda, H.; Gao, B.; Tang, X.P.; Kleinhammes, A.; Fleming, L.; Wu, Y.; Zhou, O. Lithium intercalation into etched single-wall carbon nanotubes, Physica B, vol. 323, p. 133-134, published 11 April 2002), and as further evidenced by Mielke et al. (Mielke, S.L.; Diego, T.; Zhang, S.; Li, J.-L.; Xiao, S.; Car, R.; Ruoff, R.S.; Schatz, G.C.; Belytschko, T. The role of vacancy defects and holes in the fracture of carbon nanotubes, Chemical Physics Letters, vol. 390, p. 413-420, published 2004) as applied to Claims 14 and 19 above, in further view of Tour et al. (US 2018/0358618 A1).
Regarding Claims 18 and 23, modified Unalan discloses the lithium-ion battery of Claim 14 and the anode of Claim 19, but does not disclose wherein the anode is a graphene anode (Claim 18), nor wherein said current collector is a graphene current collector (Claim 23).
Tour teaches a lithium-ion battery (see battery 50, [0034], [0081]) comprising: a cathode (see cathode 52, [0034]), an anode (see anode 56, [0034]), and a forest of vertically aligned carbon nanotubes grown directly on said anode ([0033]; note that [0034] teaches that the electrode can be an anode; note that [0040] teaches that the vertically aligned carbon nanotubes can be in the form of a forest). Tour further teaches wherein the anode comprises a current collector (see substrate 40, [0033], [0044]), wherein said current collector is a graphene current collector ([0044] teaches that the substrate 40 can include a graphene film 38 and serves as a current collector). Tour teaches ([0104]) that seamless growth of carbon nanotubes on graphene, wherein the graphene is in intimate contact with Cu, eliminates electrode-current collector resistance.
Tour is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium-ion batteries. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium-ion battery of modified Unalan such that the anode is a graphene anode (Claim 18), and to modify the anode of modified Unalan such that the current collector is a graphene current collector (Claim 23), for the purpose of eliminating electrode-current collector resistance due to the seamless growth of carbon nanotubes on graphene in intimate contact with Cu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC § 112(a) rejection of Claim 20 in the Remarks filed 8 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons below:
Applicant argues on p. 6 of Remarks that “FIG. 3 of the application as filed shows CNTs having about the same fill level”. This argument is not persuasive, because FIG. 3 is a basic schematic that does not appear to show the presence of lithium in general or any details of lithium filling level in the CNTs.
Applicant argues on p. 7 of Remarks that original Claim 10 describes “filling the CNTs via chemical vapor deposition (CVD), which is well known for producing uniform growth on all surfaces, at the atomic level”. This argument is not persuasive. While it is true that originally presented Claim 10 does appear to disclose filling the CNTs with lithium via CVD, the Instant Specification does not appear to ever describe filling the CNTs with lithium via CVD. Instead, the Instant Specification only appears to describe growing the CNTs themselves via CVD (see e.g. [0017]). Furthermore, the Instant Specification does not appear to explicitly describe CVD as producing uniform growth on all surfaces.
Applicant argues on p. 7 of Remarks that [0023] of the Instant Specification describes “capillary filling”. This is indeed the case, however [0023] nor any other part of the Instant Specification appears to disclose what effect “capillary filling” would have on the filling behavior of lithium in the CNTs.
Applicant argues on p. 7 of Remarks that the present application includes embodiments where the CNTs exhibit nearly invariant structural properties ([0037]), so that all CNTs are essentially the same size. While the Instant Specification does disclose that the CNTs have nearly invariant structural properties ([0037]), and that the filling behavior of the CNTs with Li metal is governed by the density, height, and diameter of the CNTs in the forest ([0017]), the Instant Specification never explicitly states that the above will result in a situation where the “interiors of said vertically aligned carbon nanotubes are filled to about the same level with the lithium” as claimed, and also never points to such a situation being desirable.
In summary, while the Instant Specification does make a connection between CNT structural properties and Li metal filling behavior, it does not make the necessary connection that an ideal filling behavior would mean lithium being filled to the same level in all CNTs, and that invariant structural properties would result in this being the case. Finally, Applicant does not disclose any evidence that the CNTs of the application specifically possessed the feature of being filled to a same level with lithium. Thus, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC § 112(a) rejection of Claim 20 are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection of Claim 20 in the Remarks filed 8 December 2025 as relying on unsupported inherency to allege that the interiors of the CNTs are filled to the same level (p. 7 of Remarks) has been fully considered and is persuasive. The 35 USC § 103 rejection of Claim 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of Claim 20 in the Remarks filed 8 December 2025 as to the rejection being obviated by an amendment (p. 8 of Remarks) has been fully considered but is not persuasive, as the Applicant does not appear to have amended Claim 20 to cure the deficiency.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC § 102 and 103 rejections of Claims 14 and 16–23 in the Remarks filed 8 December 2025 as described in p. 9–13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725