DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 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 argument.
Cao (CN-105895854-A) is the new primary reference. Lee (US-20180212282-A1) is a secondary reference that modifies Cao. Cao discloses thermal treatment process to separate the active material from current collector as evidenced by a subsequent sieving step which simply filters out the already separated materials (see e.g., Cao; [0040]). Cao discloses using a resistance furnace (see e.g., Cao; [0047]), which commonly uses air, and does not disclose any further gases or special substances. Cao also discloses washing with alkaline solutions which are basic, such as LiOH. Lee is used to modify Cao primarily for teaching adding lithium precursor and annealing step (c). Therefore, the arguments regarding Lee are considered moot.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: “is added” is repeated and produces a grammatical error. The claim is interpreted as “wherein the lithium precursor is added in an amount as much as a ratio of lithium lost…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-10, 13-15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN-105895854-A), and in further view of Lee (US-20180212282-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cao discloses a method of reusing a positive electrode active material (see e.g., Cao; [0012]), comprising:
(a) thermally treating a positive electrode scrap comprising an active material layer on a current collector in air (see e.g., Cao; [0047], [0053], [0059] regarding using a resistance furnace which is a type of furnace that commonly heats components in a chamber of air; moreover, no other gases are disclosed, so air is the only presumed medium) for thermal decomposition of a binder and a conductive material in the active material layer to separate the current collector from the active material layer during the thermal decomposition, and collecting an active material in the active material layer (see e.g., Cao; [0013]-[0020]; [0016] and [0020] describe the positive electrode scrap comprising of aluminum and at least one of lithium cobalt oxide and lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, which corresponds with the active material layer on current collector scrap that is crushed in [0014]; [0015] describes the calcination step which corresponds to the thermal decomposition that separates the current collector from the active material; [0016] regarding the sieving process corresponding with collecting, and wherein the sieving process is further evident that the aluminum current collector is separated from the active material during the calcination process because no further mechanical processes are needed for the aluminum particles to remain above the sieve and for the positive electrode active material powder to be collected below the sieve—in other words, the active material and current collector is evidently separated during the calcination process in order for the sieve to simply filter the active material from the aluminum current collector as further described in [0040]);
(b) washing the active material collected from the step (a) with a cleaning solution (see e.g., Cao; [0017]);
and wherein the cleaning solution is a lithium compound aqueous solution which is basic in an aqueous solution state (see e.g., Cao; [0022], regarding alkaline solution may be lithium hydroxide solution).
Cao does not explicitly disclose (c) annealing the active material washed from the step (b) with an addition of a lithium precursor to obtain a reusable active material, wherein a molar ratio of lithium to other metals in the active material after the thermal treatment step (a) or a molar ratio of lithium to other metals in the active material after the washing step (b) has a decreased range of 20% or less when compared with a molar ratio of lithium to other metals in the positive electrode scrap before the thermal treatment step (a).
However, Lee discloses a similar recycling process wherein a lithium precursor may be added in an amount of 1-10 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the resultant particularly to supplement insufficient lithium (see e.g., Lee; [0034]-[0035]), and annealed (see e.g., Lee; [0036]). The addition of 1-10 parts by weight of lithium precursor means that only 1-10% by weight of lithium is lost in the previous processes. This overlaps with the claimed molar ratio of lithium to other metals in the active material having a decreased range of 20% or less when compared with a molar ratio of lithium to other metals in the positive electrode scrap before a first thermal process. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the recycling process disclosed by Cao by adding lithium precursor in an amount of 1-10 parts by weight and annealing as disclosed by Lee after the thermal treatment and washing steps of Cao in order to supplement insufficient lithium and reform a positive electrode active material that also achieves excellent resistive characteristics, electrical conductivity characteristics, and capacity characteristics without deteriorating electrochemical performance (see e.g., Lee; [0036], [0008]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Cao teaches the method of claim 1. Cao also discloses wherein the thermal treatment in step (a) is performed for 450-650 °C at 90-150 minutes (see e.g., Cao; [0015]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 minutes to 24 hours at 300 to 650 °C.
Regarding claim 4, modified Cao teaches the method of claim 1. Cao also discloses a cleaning solution that is a lithium compound aqueous solution which is basic in an aqueous solution state, LiOH solution, in an amount of 1.0-8.0 mol/L (see e.g., Cao; [0042]), which is approximately 2.4%-19.1%. In example 1, 500 mL of 2.0 mol/L LiOH solution, which is approximately 4.5%, was used to wash the positive electrode active material (see e.g., Cao; [0049]), which falls within the claimed lithium compound included in the lithium compound aqueous solution in an amount of more than 0% and equal to or less than 15%.
Cao also discloses the washing step (b) performed in 30 min (see e.g., Cao; [0049], regarding example 1), which falls within the claimed time period of one week.
Regarding claim 5, modified Cao teaches the method of claim 1. Cao a cleaning solution that is a lithium compound aqueous solution which is basic in an aqueous solution state, LiOH solution, in an amount of 1.0-8.0 mol/L (see e.g., Cao; [0042]), which is approximately 2.4%-19.1%. In example 1, 500 mL of 2.0 mol/L LiOH solution, which is approximately 4.5%, was used to wash the positive electrode active material (see e.g., Cao; [0049]), which falls within the claimed lithium compound included in the lithium compound aqueous solution in an amount of more than 0% and equal to or less than 15%. Because Cao teaches an identical lithium compound aqueous solution with overlapping concentrations to those provided in the instant specifications, it is the examiners position that the resulting cleaning solution comprises LiF having a dissolving amount of 0.127g/100ml at 18 °C and 0.134g/100mI at 25 °C (see MPEP 2112 I.).
In example 1, Cao discloses cleaning 42.4 grams of remaining positive electrode material powder (see e.g., Cao; [0047]-[0048], regarding starting with 50 grams of cathode scrap and filtering out 7.6 grams of aluminum to have 42.4 grams of remaining active material powder) using 500 mL of 2.0 mol/L LiOH solution (see e.g., Cao; [0049]), which is about 523.9 grams, to have a ratio of active material to cleaning solution of 42.4:523.9 which equates to 1:12.36, which falls within the claimed range of equal to or less than 1:200.
MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'."
Regarding claim 7, modified Cao teaches the method of claim 1. Cao does not explicitly disclose the lithium precursor used in the annealing step comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of LiOH, Li2CO3, LiNO3, and Li2O. However, Lee teaches that the lithium precursor used in the annealing step (c) comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of LiOH and Li2CO3 (see e.g., Lee; [0035]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added LiOH or Li2CO3 as the lithium precursor as disclosed by Lee to the annealing step of modified Cao in order to supplement lithium due to drop-off during previous processes to reform a lithium transition metal oxide having excellent resistive characteristic, electrical conductivity characteristic, and capacity characteristic without deteriorating electrochemical performance (see e.g., Lee; [0034], [0008]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Cao teaches the method of claim 1. As above regarding claim 1, modified Cao with Lee teaches the lithium precursor is added in an amount that as much as a ratio of lithium lost compared to a ratio of lithium to other metals in a raw material active material used in the active material layer, described as adding preferably 1-10 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the resultant in order to supplement insufficient lithium due to drop-off during the previous steps (see e.g., Lee; [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Cao teaches the method of claim 1. As above regarding claim 1, modified Cao with Lee discloses the lithium precursor is added most preferably in an amount of 1-10 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the resultant (see e.g., Lee; [0035]), which is a range that falls within the claimed amount of lithium at a molar ratio of 0.001 to 0.4 relative to an amount of lithium in the active material before the thermal treatment step (a).
MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'."
Regarding claim 10, modified Cao teaches the method of claim 1. As above regarding claim 1, modified Cao with Lee discloses the lithium precursor is added most preferably in an amount of 1-10 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the resultant (see e.g., Lee; [0035]), which overlaps with the claimed amount of lithium at a molar ratio of 0.0001 to 0.1 relative to an amount of lithium in the active material before the thermal treatment step (a).
MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'."
Regarding claim 13, modified Cao teaches the method of claim 1. Cao does not explicitly disclose wherein the annealing is performed at 400 to 1000 °C in air. However, Lee discloses in example 1 a temperature of firing corresponding to the annealing is 800 °C, which exceeds a melting point of the lithium precursor Li2CO3 that has a melting point of 723 °C (see e.g., Lee; [0045]). Lee discloses the process is a firing process, which is most commonly a process involving oxygen or air. Additionally, no special gases or other specialty substances are described as used in the firing process, so air is the only medium. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the annealing process in air at 800 °C as disclosed by Lee to the recycling process of Cao to achieve an excellent resistive characteristic, an electrical conductivity characteristic, and a capacity characteristic without deteriorating electrochemical performance (see e.g., Lee; [0008]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Cao teaches the method of claim 1. Cao does not explicitly disclose wherein a temperature of the annealing exceeds a melting point of the lithium precursor. However, Lee discloses in example 1 a temperature of firing corresponding to the annealing is 800 °C, which exceeds a melting point of the lithium precursor Li2CO3 that has a melting point of 723 °C (see e.g., Lee; [0045]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the annealing process at 800 °C with a temperature higher than the melting point of the lithium precursor as disclosed by Lee to the recycling process of Cao to achieve an excellent resistive characteristic, an electrical conductivity characteristic, and a capacity characteristic without deteriorating electrochemical performance (see e.g., Lee; [0008]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Cao teaches the method of claim 1. Cao discloses wherein the active material in the active material layer is collected in a form of powder (see e.g., Cao; [0035]), and a carbon component generated by carbonization of the binder or the conductive material does not remain on a surface of the powder (see e.g., Cao; [0042], [0044] regarding how carbon is removed from the powder during the washing process).
Regarding claim 17, modified Cao teaches the method of claim 1. Cao also discloses the battery cathode scrap is preferably lithium cobalt oxide or lithium cobalt manganese oxide, and gives examples of LCO, NCM, and a composite of the two (see e.g., Cao; [0020], [0047], [0053], [0059]). Cao does not explicitly disclose the resulting reusable active material of chemical formula 1 as claimed.
However, Lee discloses the reusable active material may be a lithium transition metal oxide represented by the formula: LiaNixMnyCozMwO2+d wherein M includes or more selected from the group consisting of B, Al, Mg, and Ti among others, and 0.9<a<2.0, O<x<0.95, O<y<0.8, O<w<0.1, -0.2<d<0.02, x+y+z<1 (see e.g., Lee; [0038]-[0039]), which overlaps with the claimed formula 1. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the had the recycling process of modified Cao with Lee result in a lithium transition metal oxide of the formula disclosed by Lee in order to have a positive electrode active material that achieves an excellent resistive characteristic, an electrical conductivity characteristic, and a capacity characteristic without deteriorating electrochemical performance (see e.g., Lee; [0008]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Cao teaches the method of claim 1. Cao does not disclose that the resulting active material has any fluorine content, so by absence, Cao discloses that the reusable active material has a content of fluorine of 0, which overlaps with the claimed range of equal to or less than 100 ppm. Moreover, the LCO, NCM, and composite positive electrode scraps disclosed by Cao are not disclosed as being doped by fluorine.
Still, Lee may be applied to Cao as Lee discloses that the recovered positive active material may have a content of fluorine of preferably less than 0.05 wt% (see e.g., Lee; [0040]), which overlaps with the claimed range of equal to or less than 100 ppm. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have resulted with a recovered positive electrode material having less than 0.05 wt% of fluorine as disclosed by Lee in order to have excellent resistance characteristic, electrical conductivity characteristic, and capacity characteristics (see e.g., Lee; [0041]).
MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'."
Regarding claim 19, modified Cao teaches the method according to claim 1. As above regarding claim 1, modified Cao with Lee also teaches wherein lithium precursor is added in an amount corresponding to an amount of lithium depleted during the steps (a) and (b) (see e.g., above regarding claim 1, Lee [0034]-[0035], regarding how 1-10 parts by weight of lithium precursor is added based off of how much lithium is dropped-off).
Claim(s) 2, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN-105895854-A) and Lee (US-20180212282-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kwak (US-20150030928-A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Cao teaches the method of claim 1. Cao does not explicitly. Cao does not explicitly disclose (d) surface coating the active material annealed from the step (c). However, Kwak teaches surface coating a positive electrode active material (see e.g., Kwak; [0041]-[0047]). Kwak is equivalent analogous art because Kwak similarly teaches a lithium manganese oxide as the positive electrode active material. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material disclosed by modified Cao after annealing in step (c) by providing a lithium boron oxide coating disclosed by Kwak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a protective layer that prevents direct contact between the cathode active material and the electrolyte solution of a secondary battery, provide advantages particularly in vehicles, and reduce swelling phenomenon to improve battery life characteristics (see e.g., Kwak; [0042]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Cao teaches the method of claim 2. Cao does not explicitly disclose wherein the surface coating step (d) includes coating at least one of a metal, an organic metal or a carbon component on a surface of the active material annealed from the step (c) by a solid or liquid phase process and then performing heat treatment at 100 to 1200 °C.
However, Kwak teaches coating layer of lithium boron oxide on a surface of the active material (see e.g., Kwak; [0042]-[0043]) by a solid-liquid separation process and heat treatment of about 120 to 300 °C (see e.g., Kwak; [0068]-[0072]), which overlaps with the claimed solid or liquid phase process and performing heat treatment at 100 to 1200 °C. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material disclosed by modified Cao and providing a lithium boron oxide coating by a solid or liquid phase process and then performing heat treatment at 120 to 300 °C disclosed by Kwak after the recycling and annealing processes from step (c). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a protective layer that prevents direct contact between the cathode active material and the electrolyte solution of a secondary battery, provide advantages particularly in vehicles, and reduce swelling phenomenon to improve battery life characteristics (see e.g., Kwak; [0042]).
MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'."
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN-105895854-A) and Lee (US-20180212282-A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Tsuchida (US-8557412-B2).
Regarding claim 6, modified Cao teaches the method of claim 4. Cao also discloses immersing the cathode powder in the alkaline solution such as LiOH (see e.g., Cao; [0017], [0049]), which correlates to the claimed washing step performed by impregnating the active material collected from step (a) in the lithium compounds aqueous solution.
Cao does not explicitly disclose stirring at the same time. However, Tsuchida teaches a battery recovery method wherein battery elements immersed in solution and stirred at the same time (see e.g., Tsuchida; (14), (28), (39), (48), (53), figs. 1-2). Tsuchida is equivalent analogous art because Tsuchida similarly teaches a recovery method fora lithium battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the washing step (b) disclosed by Cao by providing an immersion and stirring function disclosed by Tsuchida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to efficiently recover the active material by achieving a large area of contact between the battery member and the process solution and promoting the reaction between the battery member and the process solution (see e.g., Tsuchida; (21), (28)).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN-105895854-A) and Lee (US-20180212282-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Nakayama (WO-2012029673-A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Cao teaches the method of claim 1. Cao does not explicitly disclose wherein without drying after the washing step (b), the lithium precursor is added in the step (c) by mixing the washed active material in a lithium precursor solution and spray drying the active material.
However, Lee discloses without drying after the washing step (b), the lithium precursor is added in the step (c) by mixing the washed active material in a lithium precursor solution (see e.g., Lee; [0036]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cathode material recycling process of Cao with mixing the washed active material with the lithium precursor solution of Lee before drying to achieve an excellent resistive characteristic, an electrical conductivity characteristic, and a capacity characteristic without deteriorating electrochemical performance (see e.g., Lee; [0008]).
Modified Cao with Lee does not teach spray drying the active material. However, Nakayama teaches spray drying an active material (see e.g., Nakayama; page 3 paragraph 2). Nakayama is equivalent analogous art to Lee because Nakayama similarly teaches a method for producing a positive electrode active material wherein the raw material for the lithium element can be lithium hydroxide or lithium carbonate, and wherein the solvent includes water. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material processing steps disclosed by Lee by providing a spray drying step of the active material after lithium precursor is added disclosed by Nakayama in order to remove the solution to obtain a dried active material product, provide an active material with superior uniformity, and control the BET specific surface area, size, and shape of the active material (see e.g., Nakayama; page 3 paragraph 2, page 4 paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 12, modified Cao teaches the method of claim 11. Cao does not explicitly disclose a temperature of the spray drying is 100 to 300 °C. However, Nakayama teaches spray drying in the temperature range of most preferably 100 to 350 °C (see e.g., Nakayama; page 3 paragraph 2), which overlaps with the claimed range of 100 to 300 °C. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material processing steps disclosed by modified Cao by providing a spray drying step of the active material after lithium precursor is added in the temperature range of 100 to 300 °C disclosed by Nakayama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to remove the solution to obtain a dried active material product, provide an active material with superior uniformity, and control the BET specific surface area, size, and shape of the active material (see e.g., Nakayama; page 3 paragraph 2, page 4 paragraph 2).
MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728