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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11 Feb, 2026, have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection now addresses the newly-amended claims, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 27-28, 35, 40, 43, 46, 69-70, 72, and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whear ‘810 (US 2017/0098810) in view of Miller (US 2017/0207434) and La (US 2011/0045339).
Regarding claims 1-2, Whear ‘810 discloses a battery separator that comprises a polymeric substrate (microporous polymer membrane) that comprises a polyolefin (i.e., polyethylene), comprises a filler, and has an oil content (i.e., residual oil is present in the membrane, [0012], [0014], and [0100]).
Whear 810’s battery separator further comprises a material layer (coating) that comprises a material (silica [0049]) and is provided on one surface of the polymeric substrate (Fig. 7). While Whear ‘810 is silent as to the oil absorption of this material layer, Whear ‘810’s material layer is composed of the same material as the instantly-claimed material layer (i.e., silica, see para [0049] of Whear ‘810 and see pg. 10, paras 3-4 of the instant specification), and as such Whear 810’s material layer inherently possesses an identical oil absorption value ranging from 15g of oil/100g of material to 300g of oil/100g of material, and from 25g of oil/100g of material to 100g of oil/100g (see MPEP §2112.01, “Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims”).
Further regarding claims 1-2, Whear ‘810 discloses a polymeric substrate (microporous polymer membrane, [0011]) but does not disclose a polymeric substrate that has a porosity greater than 62% as required by the instant claim.
Miller, also working on the problem of separators for lead-acid batteries, teaches a polymeric substrate (microporous material) for a battery separator that comprises a polyolefin (i.e., ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene), a filler, and has an oil content (i.e., a plasticizer, which may be a processing oil, see [0028], Abstract). Additionally, Miller’s polymeric substrate has a porosity of 30%-80%, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the instantly-claimed range of 62% or more (Claim 38). Miller teaches that this polymeric substrate functions as a material for a separator in a lead-acid battery (which is the same function as Whear ‘810’s polymeric substrate) and is dimensionally stable at high temperature ([0015] and [0057]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to use the polymeric substrate with a porosity of 30%-80% taught by Miller as the polymeric substrate for the battery separator of Whear ‘810. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a substation because Miller teaches that this polymeric substrate is dimensionally stable at high temperatures and is suitable for use in a battery separator.
Further regarding claims 1-2, Whear discloses a material layer comprising silica and a binder ([0011], [0049]), but Whear does not disclose the amount of binder present in the material layer.
La, also working in the field of microporous battery separators teaches a battery separator comprising a polymeric substrate (see microporous polymer web, La : [0018]) that comprises a binder (see sacrificial pore formers MgO or MG(OH)2, which meet the properties of the claimed binder material. La: [0019]) that is partially soluble in a battery acid such as H2SO4. La teaches that this separator comprises silica to polyethylene in a weight ratio of 1.8:1 to 3.5:1 and the binder in an amount that ranges from 5%-100% of the weight of the silica, implying that the binder is present in the material layer in an amount of approximately 3% when the silica:polyethylene ratio is 1.8 and the binder is present in a amount of 5% of the silica, which lies within and thereby anticipates the claimed range of 4% or less (i.e., if the composition is 62% silica, 35% polyethylene and 3% binder, the above conditions are satisfied). La further teaches that this binder enhances the properties of the separator by increasing separator porosity and enhancing the pore size distribution (see La [0009]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Whear’s separator by adding 4% by weight or less of a binder that is soluble in battery acid such as H2SO4 as taught by La. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to increase the porosity of the separator and to enhance the pore size distribution of the separator, as taught by La.
Regarding claim 27, Whear ‘810 discloses a material layer (coating) that is composed of the same material as the instantly-claimed material layer (i.e., silica, see para [0049] of Whear ‘810 and see pg. 10, paras 3-4 of the instant specification). As such, Whear ‘810’s material layer inherently possesses an identical bulk density that is in the range of 0.1 g/cm3 to 3.5 g/cm3, see MPEP §2112.01, “Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims”).
Regarding claim 28, Whear ‘810 in view of Miller and La as applied to claim 1 above teaches a battery separator wherein the binder is soluble in battery acid such as H2SO4 (see La: [0019])
Regarding claim 35, Whear ‘810 discloses a material layer (coating) provided on one surface of the polymeric substrate that comprises a material that is silica ([0043], [0049] Fig. 7). Additionally, Whear ‘810 further discloses that said material layer (coating) may be a mixture of materials that comprises a material (silica) and another material (glass fibers, [0048]-[0049]). Said material (silica) is an inorganic particle that is acid-stable (i.e., inert against oxidative attack that would be found in a lead acid battery, see [0050]). As any real-world collection of silica particles possess a distribution of particle sizes, the material of Whear ‘810 comprises particles of different sizes.
Regarding claim 40, Whear ‘810 further discloses a material layer (coating) provided on one surface of the polymeric substrate that comprises a material that is silica ([0043], [0049] Fig. 7). Additionally, Whear ‘810 further disclose another material layer (carbon structures) provided on top of the material layer ([0056]).
Regarding claim 43, the battery separator taught by the combined references of Whear ‘810 and Miller as set forth above comprises a polymeric substrate (microporous material) that has an oil content of 20% or less by weight (i.e., a plasticizer, which may be a processing oil and is present at less than 20% by weight, see Miller: [0028] and [0033]). This oil content substantially overlaps and thereby renders obvious the instantly-claimed oil content of 1% to 20%.
Regarding claim 46, Whear ‘810 further discloses separator comprising a polymeric substrate (ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene microporous material, see Miller: Abstract) that is non-woven and may be extruded to form a sheet (Miller: Abstract).
Regarding claim 69, the combined references of Whear ‘810, Miller, and La as applied to claim 1 above teach a battery separator comprising a polymeric substrate that meets all of the limitations of claim 1. Whear ‘810 further discloses that the thickness of said polymeric membrane can range from 0.1-5.0 mm (100-5,000 mm), which overlaps and thereby obviates the claimed range of 50-500 mm ([0142], see also MPEP §2144.05, “Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions”).
Regarding claim 70, the combined references of Whear ‘810, Miller, and La as applied to claim 1 above teach a battery separator comprising a polymeric substrate (microporous polymer membrane, Whear ‘810: [0011]) and material layers (coatings) provided on one surface of the polymeric substrate (Whear ‘810: [0043], Fig. 7). Whear ‘810 further discloses that the thickness of said polymeric membrane can range from 0.1-5.0 mm ([0142]), and the material layer (coating) can have a thickness ranging from 1-20 mm ([0076]), yielding a combined thickness of 1.01-5.02 mm, which overlaps and thereby obviates the claimed range of 0.1-4 mm (see MPEP §2144.05, “Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions”).
Regarding claim 72, Whear ‘810 discloses a battery separator that comprises a polymeric substrate (microporous polymer membrane) that comprises a polyolefin (i.e., polyethylene), comprises a filler, and has an oil content (i.e., residual oil is present in the membrane, [0012], [0014], and [0100]). Whear ‘810’s polymeric substrate does not have a porosity greater than 65% as required by the instant claim.
Miller, also working on the problem of separators for lead-acid batteries, teaches a polymeric substrate (microporous material) for a battery separator that comprises a polyolefin (i.e., ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene), a filler, and has an oil content (i.e., a plasticizer, which may be a processing oil, see [0028], Abstract). Additionally, Miller’s polymeric substrate has a porosity of 30%-80%, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the instantly-claimed range of 65% or more (Claim 38). Miller teaches that this polymeric substrate functions as a material for a separator in a lead-acid battery (which is the same function as Whear ‘810’s polymeric substrate) and is dimensionally stable at high temperature ([0015] and [0057]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to use the polymeric substrate with a porosity of 30%-80% taught by Miller as the polymeric substrate for the battery separator of Whear ‘810. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a substation because Miller teaches that this polymeric substrate is dimensionally stable at high temperatures and is suitable for use in a battery separator.
Regarding claim 75, the battery separator taught by the combined references of Whear ‘810 and Miller as set forth above comprises a polymeric substrate (microporous material) that has an oil content of 20% or less by weight (i.e., a plasticizer, which may be a processing oil and is present at less than 20% by weight, see Miller: [0028] and [0033]). This oil content overlaps and thereby renders obvious the instantly-claimed oil content of 1% to 5%.
Claims 48, 51, 56, 58, 61, 64, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whear ‘810 (US 2017/0098810) in view of La (US 2011/0045339) and Miller (US 2017/0207434) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rand (Rand, D. et al., Journal of Power Sources 59.1-2 (1996): 191-197).
Regarding claim 48, Whear ‘810 discloses a lead acid battery ([0218], claim 20) comprising a negative plate (negative electrode, [0020]), a positive plate (positive electrode), an acid-containing electrolyte (the battery is a lead-acid battery, which by definition has an acid electrolyte), and a battery separator between the positive and the negative plate ([0020], a battery separator by definition is disposed between positive and negative electrodes). The battery separator disclosed by the combined references of Whear ‘810, La, and Miller as applied to claim 1 above meets all of the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
While Whear ‘810 is silent as to whether the above lead acid battery is a flooded battery or a valve-regulated battery, Rand, working in the field of lead-acid battery design, teaches that both flooded and valve-regulated lead acid (VLRA) batteries were commonly-known battery designs before the filing date of the instantly-claimed invention (see Rand, pg. 1, col. 1, para. 1). In particular, Rand teaches that VLRA batteries offer improved vibration resistance (Rand, pg. 1, col. 1, para. 1).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the instantly-claimed invention to manufacture the battery of Whear ‘810 with the VLRA design taught by Rand, and said artisan would have been motivated to use a VLRA design in order to improve the vibration resistance of the battery, as taught by Rand.
Regarding claim 51, Whear ‘810 discloses a separator comprising a polymeric substrate (porous membrane) and a material layer (coating layer) in which said material layer is formed between the polymeric substrate and positive plate (i.e., the coating is on the surface of the membrane facing the positive electrode, [0020]).
Regarding claim 56, Whear ‘810 further discloses a material layer (coating) provided on one surface of the polymeric substrate that comprises a material that is silica ([0043], [0049] Fig. 7). Additionally, Whear ‘810 further disclose an additional layer material layer comprising carbon (carbon structures) provided on top of the material layer ([0056]). The coating layers of the polymeric substrate (porous membrane) of Whear ‘810 are formed between polymeric substrate and positive plate (i.e., the coating is on the surface of the membrane facing the positive electrode, [0020]).
Regarding claim 58, Whear ‘810 discloses a separator that provides improved oxidation resistance (abstract).
Regarding claim 61, the combined references of Whear ‘810, La, and Miller as applied to claim 1 above teach a lead acid battery (Whear ‘810: [0218], claim 20) comprising a battery separator that meets all of the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. While Whear ‘810 is silent as to whether the above lead acid battery is a valve-regulated battery, Rand, working in the field of lead-acid battery design, teaches that both flooded and valve-regulated lead acid (VLRA) batteries were commonly-known battery designs before the filing date of the instantly-claimed invention (see Rand, pg. 1, col. 1, para. 1). In particular, Rand teaches that VLRA batteries offer improved vibration resistance (Rand, pg. 1, col. 1, para. 1).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the instantly-claimed invention to manufacture the battery taught by the combined teachings of Whear ‘810, La, and Miller with the VLRA design taught by Rand, and said artisan would have been motivated to use a VLRA design in order to improve the vibration resistance of the battery, as taught by Rand.
Regarding claim 64, the combined references of Whear ‘810, La, and Miller as applied to claim 61 above teach a material layer (coating) provided on one surface of the polymeric substrate that comprises a material that is silica (Whear ‘810: [0043], [0049] Fig. 7). Additionally, Whear ‘810 further disclose an additional layer material layer comprising carbon (carbon structures) provided on top of the material layer ([0056]). The coating layers of the polymeric substrate (porous membrane) of Whear ‘810 are formed between polymeric substrate and positive plate (i.e., the coating is on the surface of the membrane facing the positive electrode, [0020]).
Regarding claim 66, the combined references of Whear ‘810, La, and Miller as applied to claim 61 above teach a separator that provides improved oxidation resistance (abstract). Additionally, the separator taught by the combined prior art is not infinitely compressible, as no real-world material is infinitely compressible.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whear ‘810 (US 2017/0098810) in view of La (US 2011/0045339) and Miller (US 2017/0207434) and Rand (Rand, D. et al., Journal of Power Sources 59.1-2 (1996): 191-197) as applied to claim 48 above, and further in view of Bhardwaj (US 2010/0304197).
Regarding claim 49, Whear ‘810 discloses a lead acid battery ([0218], claim 20), but is silent as to whether said battery is a cylindrical-cell type or a prismatic-type battery.
Bhardwaj, also working in the area of lead-acid battery design, teaches that a cylindrical-cell battery design allows for positive and negative plates to be tightly wound up in a spiral and thereby improves the efficiency and power of the battery ([0004]-[0005]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the battery of Whear ‘810 with the cylinder-cell design taught by Bhardwaj. Said artisan would have been motivated to use a cylinder-cell design due to the increased efficiency and power of this design, as taught by Bhardwaj.
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whear ‘810 (US 2017/0098810) in view of La (US 2011/0045339), Miller (US 2017/0207434), and Rand (Rand, D. et al., Journal of Power Sources 59.1-2 (1996): 191-197) as applied to claim 61 above, and further in view of Bhardwaj (US 2010/0304197).
Regarding claim 62, the combined references of Whear ‘810, La, Miller, and Rand as applied to claim 61 above teach a lead acid battery (Whear ‘810: [0218], claim 20), but are silent as to whether said battery is a cylindrical-cell type or a prismatic-type battery.
Bhardwaj, also working in the area of lead-acid battery design, teaches that a cylindrical-cell battery design allows for positive and negative plates to be tightly wound up in a spiral and thereby improves the efficiency and power of the battery ([0004]-[0005]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the battery taught by the combined references of Whear ‘810, Miller, La, and Rand as applied above with the cylinder-cell design taught by Bhardwaj. Said artisan would have been motivated to use a cylinder-cell design due to the increased efficiency and power of this design, as taught by Bhardwaj.
Claims 4, 12-14, 23, 26, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whear ‘810 (US 2017/0098810) in view of Miller (US 2017/0207434) and La (US 2011/0045339) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Whear ‘713 (US 2012/0070713).
Regarding claim 4, Whear ‘810 discloses a battery separator that is polymeric and porous and that has both a positive and negative face (i.e., top and bottom surfaces, see [0011] and Fig. 7). Whear ‘810 also discloses a material layer (coating) on the positive face of the separator ([0043] and Fig. 7). Whear ‘810 does not disclose ribs on either the positive or negative face of the separator.
Whear ‘713, also working on the problem of separator design, teaches continuous ribs that may be longitudinal or lateral on the positive face of the separator (cross-ribs, [0049]-[0050] and Fig. 4). Whear ‘713 teaches that these ribs improve the separator by acting as a barrier to acid stratification ([0049]-[0050]). Additionally, Whear ‘713 teaches ribs on the negative face of the separator substrate (negative ribs, [0017] and Fig.6).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to form the polymeric separator substrate of Whear ‘810 such that is has continuous longitudinal or latitudinal ribs. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify the polymeric substrate of Whear ‘810 in this manner in order to prevent acid stratification, as taught by Whear ‘713.
Regarding claim 12, Whear ‘810 discloses a battery separator a porous membrane (microporous polymer membrane) that has a flat back surface (i.e., the surface opposite the coated surface as seen in Fig. 7) that does not have ribs or protrusions ([0011] and Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 13-14, Whear ‘810 discloses a battery separator comprising a polymeric porous membrane (microporous polymer membrane, see [0011] and Fig. 7). Whear ‘810 also discloses a material layer (coating) on the positive face of the polymeric porous membrane ([0043] and Fig. 7). Whear ‘810 does not disclose at least two protrusions on polymeric porous membrane. Further, Whear ‘810 does not disclose a material layer that partially fills an area between two protrusions on the polymeric porous membrane.
Whear ‘713, also working on the problem of separator design, teaches at least two protrusions on the positive face of a porous polymer membrane (cross-ribs, [0049]-[0050] and Fig. 4). Whear ‘713 teaches that these protrusions improve the separator by acting as a barrier to acid stratification ([0049]-[0050]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to form the polymeric separator substrate of Whear ‘810 such that is has at least two protrusions on the polymeric porous membrane. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify the polymeric substrate of Whear ‘810 in this manner in order to prevent acid stratification, as taught by Whear ‘713.
Further regarding claims 13-14, the base reference Whear ‘810 comprises a conformal material layer that coats the surface of the polymeric porous membrane (Fig.7), and therefore modifying the shape of the polymeric porous membrane of Whear ‘810 such that is has two protrusions on the polymeric porous membrane as taught by Whear ‘713 as set forth above would necessarily result in a structure in which the material layer partially fills the area between two protrusions on the polymeric porous membrane.
Regarding claim 23, Whear ‘810 discloses a battery separator comprising a polymeric porous membrane (microporous polymer membrane, see [0011] and Fig. 7). Whear ‘810 also discloses a material layer (coating) that is provided on one face (positive face) of the polymeric porous membrane ([0043] and Fig. 7). Whear ‘810 does not disclose protrusions on a face of the polymeric porous membrane.
Whear ‘713, also working on the problem of separator design, teaches at least two protrusions on a face of a porous polymer membrane (cross-ribs, [0049]-[0050] and Fig. 4). Whear ‘713 teaches that these protrusions improve the separator by acting as a barrier to acid stratification ([0049]-[0050]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to form the polymeric separator substrate of Whear ‘810 such that is has protrusions on a face of the polymeric porous membrane. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify the polymeric substrate of Whear ‘810 in this manner in order to prevent acid stratification, as taught by Whear ‘713. Modifying the base reference Whear ‘810 in this fashion would result in a polymeric porous membrane possessing protrusions and a coating layer on the same face of the membrane.
Regarding claim 26, Whear ‘810 discloses a polymeric porous membrane in which both top and bottom faces of the polymeric porous membrane are provided with a material layer (coating, see Whear ‘810: [0020]). Whear ‘810 does not disclose protrusions on a face of the polymeric porous membrane.
Whear ‘713, also working on the problem of separator design, teaches at least two protrusions on a face of a porous polymer membrane (cross-ribs, [0049]-[0050] and Fig. 4). Whear ‘713 teaches that these protrusions improve the separator by acting as a barrier to acid stratification ([0049]-[0050]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to form the polymeric separator substrate of Whear ‘810 such that is has protrusions on a face of the polymeric porous membrane. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify the polymeric substrate of Whear ‘810 in this manner in order to prevent acid stratification, as taught by Whear ‘713. Modifying the base reference Whear ‘810 in this fashion would result in a polymeric porous membrane possessing a material layer that is provided on both the top face of the membrane that has protrusions, as well as on the back face of the membrane that does not have protrusions.
Regarding claim 41, Whear ‘810 discloses a separator in which the negative face (i.e., bottom surface) of the separator does not have any ribs or protrusions (Whear ‘810: Fig. 7).
Claim 74 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whear ‘810 (US 2017/0098810) in view of La (US 2011/0045339) and Miller (US 2017/0207434) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Young (US 6,132,899).
Regarding claim 74, Whear ‘810 discloses a separator for a lead-acid battery ([0007], Fig. 1), but does not disclose a separator having a variable overall thickness.
Young, also working on the problem of battery separators, teaches a battery separator (10) having a variable thickens due to the presence of ribs (14/15) on the separator (col. 3, lines 40-58, Fig. 4). Young further teaches that these ribs improve the separator by providing spacing between the plates of the battery and giving the electrolyte a space to reside (col. 1, lines 9-20).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to produce the separator of Whear ‘810 with the ribs taught by Young to give the separator a variable structure. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify Whear ‘810’s separator in this way in order to provide spacing between the electrode plates and to give the electrolyte a space to reside, as taught by Young.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723