DETAILED ACTION
This is the second non-final office action for 17/797,116, filed 8/3/2022, which is a national stage entry of PCT/CN2021/080568, filed 3/12/2021, after the request for continued examination filed 12/4/2025.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11, 14, 16, 19, 22, 24-26, and 28-29 are pending, and are considered herein.
The prior art rejections of record are withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
Lee, et al. Journal of Power Sources 269 (2014) 418-423: This reference teaches the different properties of PAA, PAN, PVA, and PVdF binders.
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 1, 3, 7, 11, 14, 16, 19, 22, 24-26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0225792 A1), in view of Okada, et al. (WO2020017515 A1, with reference made to patent family document U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0287234 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Zhang teaches a cathode slurry for a secondary battery (Embodiment 22, paragraphs [0088]-[0091]).
The slurry of Zhang comprises a cathode active material (lithium iron phosphate, paragraphs [0088] and [0090]), a polymeric binder (i.e. the binder of Embodiment 6, paragraphs [0088] and [0060]), and an aqueous solvent (water, paragraph [0090]).
Zhang teaches that the binder is a water-compatible copolymeric binder (paragraph [0090]).
Zhang teaches that the binder is a copolymer of carboxymethyl cellulose (paragraph [0054]), acrylic acid, and acrylonitrile (paragraph [0060]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the binder comprises a structural unit (a) derived from a monomer selected from a carboxylic acid group-containing monomer (i.e. acrylic acid), a structural unit (b) derived from a hydroxyl-group containing monomer (i.e. carboxymethylcellulose), and a structural unit (c) derived from a nitrile-group containing monomer (i.e. acrylonitrile), and wherein the binder does not comprise a structural unit derived from an ester-group containing monomer nor an olefin.
The slurry of Zhang does not comprise the lithium compound recited in Claim 1.
To solve the same problem of providing a positive electrode material for a battery, Okada teaches that including a lithium compound including lithium hydroxide, lithium formate, lithium acetate, lithium fluoride, lithium chloride, lithium bromide, lithium iodide, lithium nitrate, lithium sulfite, at 0.1-10 wt% in a positive electrode provides the benefit of contributing to improved energy density (paragraph [0137]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have included an amount of lithium hydroxide, lithium formate, lithium acetate, lithium fluoride, lithium chloride, lithium bromide, lithium iodide, lithium nitrate, or lithium sulfite in the cathode slurry of Zhang, at an amount suitable to achieve an amount of this material of 0.1-10 wt% in the final positive electrode, based on the disclosure of Okada.
Including an amount of lithium hydroxide, lithium formate, lithium acetate, lithium fluoride, lithium chloride, lithium bromide, lithium iodide, lithium nitrate, or lithium sulfite in the cathode slurry of Zhang, at an amount suitable to achieve an amount of this material of 0.1-10 wt% in the final positive electrode of Zhang, based on the disclosure of Okada, teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the slurry comprises a lithium compound having the formula [A+]aBa-, wherein A is Li+, a is an integer from 1-10, the lithium compound is water soluble, and the solubility ratio of the lithium compound is greater than or equal to 1.
It is noted that all of these materials are specifically recognized by the instant specification as being suitable for use as the lithium compound of the instant invention (see paragraph [0091] of the original specification).
This disclosure further teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the aqueous solvent is water (Zhang, paragraph [0090]).
In reference to Claim 3, it is the Examiner’s position that, because the lithium compounds of modified Zhang are the same as those recognized as suitable lithium compounds in the instant specification, then there is reasonable basis to conclude that they have the decomposition properties required by Claim 3.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
As described in the rejection of Claim 1 above, the lithium compound is included in the slurry in an amount that corresponds to 0.1-10 wt% of the final electrode mass (i.e. 0.00045-0.045 wt% of the slurry, because the slurry is 45 wt% solids).
This corresponds to a molarity range of 0.019-1.9 M for LiOH, 0.0087-0.87 M for lithium formate, 0.0068-0.68 for lithium acetate, 0.017-1.7 M for LiF, 0.011-1.1 M for LiCl, 0.0052-0.52 M for LiI, 0.0065-0.65 M for lithium nitrate, and 0.0048-0.48 M for lithium sulfite.
Therefore, modified Zhang teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the concentration of the lithium compound in the slurry is from about 0.005M to about 2.0 M.
The molar ranges for LiOH, lithium formate, lithium acetate, LiF, LiCl, LiI, and lithium nitrate lie within, and therefore teach, the molar range recited in Claim 3.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of about 0.005M to about 2.0 M overlaps with the taught range of 0.0048-0.48 M for lithium sulfite.
In reference to Claim 7, Zhang teaches that the weight ratio of the active material:conductive agent:binder is 90:5:5 in the slurry, and that the solid content of the slurry is 45% (paragraph [0090]).
Zhang further teaches that the active material of the slurry is LiFePO4 (paragraph [0090]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the cathode active material is LiMPO4, wherein M is Fe.
This disclosure teaches that the proportion of cathode active material in the cathode slurry is 0.9*0.45 = 0.405 = 40.5 wt% of the slurry.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the proportion of cathode active material within the cathode slurry is about 20-70%, based on the total weight of the cathode slurry (i.e. 40.5 wt%).
In reference to Claim 11, the binder of Embodiment 6 (as applied to Claim 1) does not teach the limitations of Claim 11.
However, Zhang teaches another embodiment (Embodiment 3, paragraph [0057]) of a binder, which comprises 1 g sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (paragraph [0054]), 2.5 g acrylic acid, 0.84 g acrylonitrile, and 1 g acrylamide (paragraph [0057]).
This binder contains 5.6 mol% sodium carboxymethylcellulose, 51 mol% acrylic acid, 23 mol% acrylonitrile, and 21 mol% acrylamide.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to use the binder polymer of Embodiment 3 of Zhang in the cathode slurry of modified Zhang, because Zhang teaches that this is a suitable binder material for the cathode slurry of his invention.
Using the binder polymer of Embodiment 3 of Zhang in the cathode slurry of modified Zhang teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 11, wherein the binder comprises structural unit (a) comprising acrylic acid, structural unit (b) comprising acrylamide, and structural unit (c) comprising acrylonitrile.
Using the binder polymer of Embodiment 3 of Zhang in the cathode slurry of modified Zhang teaches the limitations of Claim 11, wherein the proportion of structural unit (a) within the binder is 15-80 mol% of the total monomeric units in the polymeric binder (i.e. 51 mol%).
Using the binder polymer of Embodiment 3 of Zhang in the cathode slurry of modified Zhang teaches the limitations of Claim 11, wherein the carboxylic acid group containing monomer is acrylic acid.
In reference to Claims 14 and 16, these claims merely modify an optional limitation of Claim 1. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that modified Zhang as applied to Claim 1 further teaches the limitations of Claims 14 and 16.
In reference to Claim 19, the binder of Embodiment 6 (as applied to Claim 1) does not teach the limitations of Claim 19.
However, Zhang teaches another embodiment (Embodiment 3, paragraph [0057]) of a binder, which comprises 1 g sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (paragraph [0054]), 2.5 g acrylic acid, 0.84 g acrylonitrile, and 1 g acrylamide (paragraph [0057]).
This binder contains 5.6 mol% sodium carboxymethylcellulose, 51 mol% acrylic acid, 23 mol% acrylonitrile, and 21 mol% acrylamide.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to use the binder polymer of Embodiment 3 of Zhang in the cathode slurry of modified Zhang, because Zhang teaches that this is a suitable binder material for the cathode slurry of his invention.
Using the binder polymer of Embodiment 3 of Zhang in the cathode slurry of modified Zhang teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 19, wherein the binder comprises structural unit (a) comprising acrylic acid, structural unit (b) comprising acrylamide, and structural unit (c) comprising acrylonitrile.
Using the binder polymer of Embodiment 3 of Zhang in the cathode slurry of modified Zhang teaches the limitations of Claim 19, wherein the proportion of structural unit (b) within the binder is about 5-35 mol% of the total monomeric units in the polymeric binder (i.e. 21 mol%).
Using the binder polymer of Embodiment 3 of Zhang in the cathode slurry of modified Zhang teaches the limitations of Claim 19, wherein the amide group-containing monomer is acrylamide.
In reference to Claim 22, the binder of Embodiment 6 (as applied to Claim 1) does not teach the limitations of Claim 22.
However, Zhang teaches another embodiment (Embodiment 3, paragraph [0057]) of a binder, which comprises 1 g sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (paragraph [0054]), 2.5 g acrylic acid, 0.84 g acrylonitrile, and 1 g acrylamide (paragraph [0057]).
This binder contains 5.6 mol% sodium carboxymethylcellulose, 51 mol% acrylic acid, 23 mol% acrylonitrile, and 21 mol% acrylamide.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to use the binder polymer of Embodiment 3 of Zhang in the cathode slurry of modified Zhang, because Zhang teaches that this is a suitable binder material for the cathode slurry of his invention.
Using the binder polymer of Embodiment 3 of Zhang in the cathode slurry of modified Zhang teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 22, wherein the binder comprises structural unit (a) comprising acrylic acid, structural unit (b) comprising acrylamide, and structural unit (c) comprising acrylonitrile.
Using the binder polymer of Embodiment 3 of Zhang in the cathode slurry of modified Zhang teaches the limitations of Claim 22, wherein the proportion of structural unit (c) within the binder is about 15-75 mol% of the total monomeric units in the polymeric binder (i.e. 23 mol%).
Using the binder polymer of Embodiment 3 of Zhang in the cathode slurry of modified Zhang teaches the limitations of Claim 22, wherein the nitrile group-containing monomer is acrylonitrile.
In reference to Claim 24, Zhang teaches that the weight ratio of the active material:conductive agent:binder is 90:5:5 in the slurry, and that the solid content of the slurry is 45% (paragraph [0090]).
Therefore, the proportion of the polymeric binder within the cathode slurry is 0.05*0.45 = 0.0225 = 2.25 wt% of the slurry as a whole.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 24, wherein the proportion of polymeric binder within the cathode slurry is about 0.1-10%, based on the total weight of the cathode slurry (i.e. 2.25 wt%).
This disclosure further teaches the limitations of Claim 24, wherein the solid content of the cathode slurry is from 40-80% (i.e. 45%).
In reference to Claim 25, the cathode slurry of Zhang further comprises a conductive agent, carbon black (acetylene black, which is a form of carbon black, Zhang, paragraph [0090]).
In reference to Claim 26, Zhang teaches that the weight ratio of the active material:conductive agent:binder is 90:5:5 in the slurry, and that the solid content of the slurry is 45% (paragraph [0090]).
Therefore, the weight percentage of the conductive agent in the slurry as a whole is 0.05*0.45 = 0.0225 = 2.25 wt% of the slurry as a whole.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 26, wherein the proportion of conductive agent within the cathode slurry is 0.5-5%, based on the total weight of the cathode slurry (i.e. 2.25 wt%).
In reference to Claim 28, Zhang teaches a cathode for a secondary battery (Embodiment 22, paragraphs [0088]-[0091]).
The cathode of Zhang comprises a cathode active material (lithium iron phosphate, paragraphs [0088] and [0090]), and a polymeric binder (i.e. the binder of Embodiment 6, paragraphs [0088] and [0060]).
Zhang teaches that the binder is a water-compatible copolymeric binder (paragraph [0090]).
Zhang teaches that the binder is a copolymer of carboxymethyl cellulose (paragraph [0054]), acrylic acid, and acrylonitrile (paragraph [0060]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 28, wherein the binder comprises a structural unit (a) derived from a monomer selected from a carboxylic acid group-containing monomer (i.e. acrylic acid), a structural unit (b) derived from a hydroxyl-group containing monomer (i.e. carboxymethylcellulose), and a structural unit (c) derived from a nitrile-group containing monomer (i.e. acrylonitrile), and wherein the binder does not comprise a structural unit derived from an ester-group containing monomer nor an olefin.
The cathode of Zhang does not comprise the lithium compound recited in Claim 28.
To solve the same problem of providing a positive electrode material for a battery, Okada teaches that including a lithium compound including lithium hydroxide, lithium formate, lithium acetate, lithium fluoride, lithium chloride, lithium bromide, lithium iodide, lithium nitrate, lithium sulfite, at 0.1-10 wt% in a positive electrode provides the benefit of contributing to improved energy density (paragraph [0137]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have included an amount of lithium hydroxide, lithium formate, lithium acetate, lithium fluoride, lithium chloride, lithium bromide, lithium iodide, lithium nitrate, or lithium sulfite in the cathode slurry of Zhang, at an amount suitable to achieve an amount of this material of 0.1-10 wt% in the final positive electrode, based on the disclosure of Okada.
Including an amount of lithium hydroxide, lithium formate, lithium acetate, lithium fluoride, lithium chloride, lithium bromide, lithium iodide, lithium nitrate, or lithium sulfite in the cathode slurry of Zhang, at an amount suitable to achieve an amount of this material of 0.1-10 wt% in the final positive electrode of Zhang, based on the disclosure of Okada, teaches the limitations of Claim 28, wherein the slurry comprises a lithium compound having the formula [A+]aBa-, wherein A is Li+, a is an integer from 1-10, the lithium compound is water soluble, and the solubility ratio of the lithium compound is greater than or equal to 1.
It is noted that all of these materials are specifically recognized by the instant specification as being suitable for use as the lithium compound of the instant invention (see paragraph [0091] of the original specification).
In reference to Claim 29, it is the Examiner’s position that, because the lithium compounds of modified Zhang are the same as those recognized as suitable lithium compounds in the instant specification, then there is reasonable basis to conclude that they have the decomposition properties required by Claim 29.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
It is the Examiner’s position that, because the lithium compound and the active material are disposed in the same composition, the “lithium compound is attached onto the surface of the particles of cathode active material particles,” as required by Claim 29.
Zhang is silent regarding the diameter of the cathode active material particles. Therefore, modified Zhang as applied to Claim 28 does not teach that the ratio of the average cathode active material diameter to average lithium compound grain length is from 100:1 to 1:1.
To solve the same problem of providing a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion battery, Okada teaches that the mean particle diameter of a cathode active material should be 1-20 microns, to optimize capacity and discharge rate (paragraph [0128]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the cathode active material of modified Zhang to have a mean diameter of 1-20 microns, based on the disclosure of Okada.
Okada further teaches that the mean particle diameter of the lithium compound is 0.1-10 microns.
Therefore, modified Zhang teaches that the ratio of the average cathode active material diameter to average lithium compound grain length is from 0.1:1 (for a cathode diameter of 1 micron and a lithium compound diameter of 10 microns) to 200:1 (for a cathode diameter of 20 microns and a lithium compound diameter of 0.1 micron).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 29, wherein the ratio of the average cathode active material diameter to average lithium compound grain length is from 100:1 to 1:1.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, the claimed range of 100:1 to 1:1 lies within the taught range of from 0.1:1 to 200:1
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0225792 A1), in view of Okada, et al. (WO2020017515 A1, with reference made to patent family document U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0287234 A1), and further in view of Hagiyama, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0056419 A1).
In reference to Claim 6, modified Zhang does not teach that the aqueous solvent comprises water and a minor component, as recited in Claim 6. As described in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Zhang teaches that the solvent is water (paragraph [0090]).
To solve the same problem of providing a battery active layer with a binder, wherein the binder comprises a water-compatible binder (Hagiyama, paragraph [0049]), Hagiyama teaches that suitable solvents for preparing active material slurries with binders and active materials include water and mixtures of 90-99.5 wt% water mixed with methanol, ethanol, or ethyl acetate (paragraph [0098]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used a mixture of 90-99.5 wt% water mixed with methanol, ethanol, or ethyl acetate as the solvent in the cathode slurry of modified Zhang, based on the disclosure of Hagiyama.
Using a mixture of 90-99.5 wt% water mixed with methanol, ethanol, or ethyl acetate as the solvent in the cathode slurry of modified Zhang teaches the limitations of Claim 6, wherein the aqueous solvent comprises water as the major component and a minor component, wherein the proportion of water in the aqueous solvent is 51-100% by weight, and wherein the minor component is methanol, ethanol, or ethyl acetate.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0225792 A1), in view of Okada, et al. (WO2020017515 A1, with reference made to patent family document U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0287234 A1), and further in view of Shen, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0207443 A1).
In reference to Claim 8, modified Zhang as applied to Claim 1 does not teach the limitations of Claim 8.
Instead, as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above, he teaches that the cathode active material is LiFePO4.
To solve the same problem of providing a cathode active material for a lithium battery, Shen teaches that suitable materials for such an active material include core-shell structures, wherein the core and shell are independently selected from LiCoO2, LiNiO2, LiNixMnyO2, Li1+zNixMnyCo1-x-yO2, LiNixCoyAlzO2, LiV2O5, LiTiS2, LiMoS2, LiMnO2, LiCrO2, and LiMn2O4, wherein x is 0.3-0.8, y is 0.1-0.45, and x is 0-2 (paragraph [0101]). Shen further recognizes that LiFePO4 (which is the active material of Zhang) is a suitable cathode material (paragraph [0101]).
Shen further teaches that each of the core and shell may be independently doped with Fe, Ni, Mn, Al, Mg, Zn, Ti, La, Ce, Sn, Zr, Ru, Si, Ge, and combinations thereof (paragraph [0102]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the active material of the slurry of modified Zhang to have the core-shell structure taught by Shen, because Shen teaches that this is a suitable configuration for the cathode active material for a lithium ion battery.
Forming the active material of the slurry of modified Zhang to have the core-shell structure taught by Shen teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein the cathode active material comprises a core-shell structure comprising a core comprising a lithium transition metal oxide selected from the group consisting of Li1+xNiaMnCocAl(1-a-b-c)O2, LiCoO2, LiNiO2, LiMnO2, LiMn2O4, LiCrO2, LiV2O5, LiTiS2, LiMoS2, and combinations thereof, wherein -0.2<x<0.2,0<a<1,0<b<1,0<c<1, and a+b+c<1; and the shell comprises a lithium transition metal oxide different to the core and is selected from the group consisting of Li1+xNiaMnCocAl(1-a-b-c)O2, LiCoO2, LiNiO2, LiMnO2, LiMn2O4, LiCrO2, LiV2O5, LiTiS2, LiMoS2, and combinations thereof, wherein --0.2<x<0.2,0<a<1,0<b<1,0<c<1, and a+b+c<1; and wherein each of the core and shell is independently doped with a dopant selected from the group consisting of Fe, Ni, Mn, Al, Mg, Zn, Ti, La, Ce, Sn, Zr, Ru, Si, Ge, and combinations thereof.
Response to Arguments
Without conceding any particular point of the arguments filed 5/29/2026, the prior rejections have been withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights