DETAILED ACTION
Introductory Notes
Any paragraph citation of the instant is in reference to the U.S. published patent application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-14, 16-18, 20, and 22-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG (US 20210143511 A1).
Regarding claim 1, ZHANG discloses a separator, comprising a separator substrate and a coating layer disposed on a surface of the separator substrate (“coatings for porous substrates, including battery separators” [0002]), wherein the separator is configured to be adhered to an external component through the coating layer (“coatings having higher adhesion to battery electrodes” [0075]);
the coating layer comprising micromatrix particles and binder particles (“coating composition” [0043]; including “(1) a polymeric binder… (2) heat-resistant and/or compression resistant particles… (a) a cross-linker, (b) a low-temperature shutdown agent, (c) an adhesion agent, (d) a thickener, (e) a friction-reducing agent., and (f) a high-temperature shutdown agent” [0032]; as well as “the particles are a mixture of two or more particle types” [0164] meaning the particles reading on micromatrix particles are not limited to a single category, similar to the instant where the micromatrix particles include at least “a carbonate” compound per instant [0025] as well as “polyethylene” and similar compounds per instant [0027]), the binder particles bonding the micromatrix particles to the separator substrate (“Adhesion between the heat-resistant particles in the coating and adhesion of a coating layer formed from the coating compositions described herein to a porous substrate” [0075]).
Regarding “the coating layer is configured to decrease a peel force between the separator and the external component when a temperature is higher than a preset threshold”, ZHANG discloses “the low-temperature shutdown agent has a melting temperature that is lower than that of the porous film on which the coating composition is (or is meant to be) applied” [0069] and “ the low-temperature shutdown agent has a melting point in the range of 80° C. to 130° C” as well as “coating composition comprises CJ and polyethylene beads as a low-temperature shutdown agent” [0143] wherein CJ is “a polymer derived from a lactam” [0142]. The polyethylene specifically matches that of the instant in that the instant states “the micromatrix particles 2321 b are polyethylene” [0089] and that the “[s]oftening temperature of the polyethylene is 125° C-135° C., in other words, the preset threshold is approximately 130° C” [0089].
As noted by the instant in paragraphs [0088-0089], the decrease in peel force is a function of the softening/melting of the underlying structure. ZHANG discloses the underlying structure, including the same component that behaves in the same manner at the same temperature, therefore reading on the claimed limitation.
ZHANG further discloses the micromatrix particles comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, … (“polyethylene beads as a low-temperature shutdown agent” [0143]).
Regarding “a ratio of a maximum particle diameter of the binder particles to a maximum diameter of the micromatrix particles is less than 0.5”, ZHANG discloses a maximum particle diameter of “24 microns” per claim 974 and a maximum coating thickness of “25 microns” per claim 974, therefore the binder has a maximum size of 1 micron as the coating composition of claim 974 and the binder may be “polyurethane” or “polyimide” per [0165], which matches the instant binders of polyurethane or polyimide given in instant paragraph [0064]. Furthermore, ZHANG discloses “the particles are coated particles with the binder material as the coating” [0164]. ZHANG also discloses Fig. 3 as a graphical representation of the extremes of coating composition particles relative to the binder particles and in the left drawing the size of the binder (darkened circle) is less than half the size of the other particle.
While ZHANG does not explicitly disclose the ratio of particle diameters, the ratio is a variable that can be modified by adjusting the size of the composition particles, which ZHANG discloses in [0053] in regard to heat-resistant particles, [0071] in regard to low-temperature shut-down agent, [0092] in regard to high-temperature shut-down agent, and [0166] in regard to inorganic particles. Furthermore, in paragraph [0099] ZHANG discloses desirable factors of the coating including permeability, adhesion, and pin removal force. The precise ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed binder diameter ratio cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the binder diameter ratio in the coating of ZHANG to obtain the desired coverage of the particles with binder per paragraph [0046] as well as characteristics of [0099] (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 3, ZHANG discloses the micromatrix particles comprise an alkaline substance (“calcium carbonate” [0166], wherein calcium carbonate or CaCO3 is an alkaline/basic substance; notably the instant disclosure does not state the micromatrix particle is a homogenous compound, therefore separate particles of ZHANG that comprise the coating layer(s), of which calcium carbonate is one per [0166], read on the micromatrix).
Regarding claim 4, ZHANG discloses the micromatrix particles comprise a carbonate, and the carbonate comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of … calcium carbonate (“calcium carbonate” [0166], wherein calcium carbonate or CaCO3 is an alkaline/basic substance; notably the instant disclosure does not state the micromatrix particle is a homogenous compound, therefore separate particles of ZHANG that comprise the coating layer(s), of which calcium carbonate is one per [0166], read on the micromatrix).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, which state “the coating layer is configured to decrease in strength when the temperature is higher than the preset threshold” and “the micromatrix particles are configured to soften or melt when the temperature is higher than the preset threshold” respectively, ZHANG discloses “the low-temperature shutdown agent has a melting temperature that is lower than that of the porous film on which the coating composition is (or is meant to be) applied” [0069] and “ the low-temperature shutdown agent has a melting point in the range of 80° C. to 130° C” as well as “coating composition comprises CJ and polyethylene beads as a low-temperature shutdown agent” [0143] wherein CJ is “a polymer derived from a lactam” [0142]. The polyethylene specifically matches that of the instant in that the instant states “the micromatrix particles 2321 b are polyethylene” [0089] and that the “[s]oftening temperature of the polyethylene is 125° C-135° C., in other words, the preset threshold is approximately 130° C” [0089]. As noted by the instant, the decrease in peel force and strength is a function of the softening/melting of the underlying structure and ZHANG discloses an underlying structure capable of performing the claimed function, therefore reading on the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 8, ZHANG discloses the micromatrix particles are spherical, ellipsoidal, sheet-shaped, cuboidal, or pyramidal (Fig. 3 as well the “heat-resistant particles may be round” [0053], wherein the noted particles are part of the composition).
Regarding claim 9, ZHANG discloses a maximum length of the micromatrix particles is less than 5 µm (“average particle size of the heat-resistant material ranges from 0.01 to 5 microns” [0053], “low-temperature shut-down agent may be a particulate having an average particle size ranging from 0.1 to 5.0 microns” [0071], “high-temperature shut-down agent may be a particulate having an average particle size ranging from 0.1 to 5.0 microns” [0092], “In at least certain selected embodiments, the coating layer is less than 4 µm” [0127]; wherein ZHANG reads on the size limitation due to individual particle sizes being less than 5 µm and thickness of the layer itself being as low as 4µm or less).
Regarding claim 11, ZHANG discloses a part of a surface area of the micromatrix particles coated with the binder particles accounts for 10%-90% of the surface area of the micromatrix particles (“0.01 to 99.99% of the total surface area of the heat-resistant particles in the composition is coated with polymeric binder” [0047], wherein there is significant overlap, 80%, with the claimed range; both the claimed range and the reference range are large and lack criticality, indicating the surface area coated with the binder is reasonably a matter of engineering choice, such as to balance adhesion with permeability and pin removal, all listed in [0099] as design considerations).
Regarding claim 12, ZHANG discloses the coating layer further comprises a dispersing agent (“surfactant” [0011] reading on dispersing agent; a percentage of the micromatrix particles in the coating layer by mass is higher than 90% (“20% to 95% by weight of said heat-resistant particles” claim 958, wherein the heat-resistant particles are one of the particles reading on micromatrix particles and there is disclosed values above 90%); a percentage of the binder particles in the coating layer by mass is lower than 10% (“5% to 80% by weight of said matrix material or polymeric binder” claim 958, wherein the polymeric binder reads on binder and there is disclosed values below 10%); and a percentage of the dispersing agent in the coating layer by mass is lower than 2% (“surfactants” [0096], wherein ZHANG teaches the surfactant is “optionally added” [0096] and optional indicates a possible value of 0% which is lower than 2%). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549).
Regarding claims 13, ZHANG discloses an electric apparatus (“a device or vehicle” [0013]) and further discloses a lithium-ion cell (“lithium metal cylindrical cell” [0137]), comprising an electrode assembly (“composite, jelly roll, pancake, or system comprising any separator as described hereinabove and one or more electrodes” [0134]), wherein the electrode assembly comprises: a first electrode plate (“anode” [0137]); a second electrode plate (“cathode” [0137]);
and a separator comprising a separator substrate and a coating layer disposed on a surface of the separator substrate(“coatings for porous substrates, including battery separators” [0002]), wherein the separator is configured to be adhered to an external component through the coating layer (“coatings having higher adhesion to battery electrodes” [0075]);
the coating layer comprising micromatrix particles and binder particles, the binder particles bonding the micromatrix particles to the separator substrate;
the micromatrix particles comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of polyethylene … (“polyethylene beads as a low-temperature shutdown agent” [0143]);
wherein the separator is disposed between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate, and the separator is adhered to the adjacent first electrode plate or second electrode plate by bonding through the coating layer (“a composite comprising the separator described herein, in direct contact with an electrode for a lithium ion battery” [0013] wherein the composite being in contact combined with the coating being on at least one side indicates the separator is adhered to the component through the coating layer; furthermore “Adhesion of the coating layer of this Example to an anode” [0151]).
Regarding “the coating layer is configured to decrease a peel force between the separator and the external component when a temperature is higher than a preset threshold”, ZHANG discloses “the low-temperature shutdown agent has a melting temperature that is lower than that of the porous film on which the coating composition is (or is meant to be) applied” [0069] and “ the low-temperature shutdown agent has a melting point in the range of 80° C. to 130° C” as well as “coating composition comprises CJ and polyethylene beads as a low-temperature shutdown agent” [0143] wherein CJ is “a polymer derived from a lactam” [0142]. The polyethylene specifically matches that of the instant in that the instant states “the micromatrix particles 2321 b are polyethylene” [0089] and that the “[s]oftening temperature of the polyethylene is 125° C-135° C., in other words, the preset threshold is approximately 130° C” [0089]. As noted by the instant, the decrease in peel force is a function of the softening/melting of the underlying structure and ZHANG discloses an underlying structure capable of performing the claimed function, therefore reading on the claimed limitation.
Regarding “a ratio of a maximum particle diameter of the binder particles to a maximum diameter of the micromatrix particles is less than 0.5”, ZHANG discloses a maximum particle diameter of “24 microns” per claim 974 and a maximum coating thickness of “25 microns” per claim 974, therefore the binder has a maximum size of 1 micron as the coating composition of claim 974 and the binder may be “polyurethane” or “polyimide” per [0165], which matches the instant binders of polyurethane or polyimide given in instant paragraph [0064]. Furthermore, ZHANG discloses “the particles are coated particles with the binder material as the coating” [0164]. ZHANG also discloses Fig. 3 as a graphical representation of the extremes of coating composition particles relative to the binder particles and in the left drawing the size of the binder is less than half the size of the other particle.
While ZHANG does not explicitly disclose the ratio of particle diameters, the ratio is a variable that can be modified by adjusting the size of the composition particle, which ZHANG discloses in [0053] in regards to heat-resistant particles, [0071] in regards to low-temperature shut-down agent, [0092] in regards to high-temperature shut-down agent, and [0166] in regards to inorganic particles. Furthermore in paragraph [0099] ZHANG discloses desirable factors of the coating including permeability, adhesion, and pin removal force. The precise ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed binder diameter ratio cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the binder diameter ratio in the coating of ZHANG to obtain the desired coverage of the particles with binder per paragraph [0046] as well as characteristics of [0099] (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 14, ZHANG discloses the lithium-ion cell further comprises an electrolyte (“electrolyte” [0137]);
Regarding claim 16, ZHANG discloses the micromatrix particles comprise an alkaline substance (“calcium carbonate” [0166], wherein calcium carbonate or CaCO3 is an alkaline/basic substance).
Regarding claim 17, ZHANG discloses the micromatrix particles comprise a carbonate, and the carbonate comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium carbonate, sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, calcium carbonate, and magnesium carbonate (“calcium carbonate” [0166]).
Regarding claim 18 and “the micromatrix particles are configured to soften or melt when the temperature is higher than the preset threshold”, ZHANG discloses “the low-temperature shutdown agent has a melting temperature that is lower than that of the porous film on which the coating composition is (or is meant to be) applied” [0069] and “ the low-temperature shutdown agent has a melting point in the range of 80° C. to 130° C” as well as “coating composition comprises CJ and polyethylene beads as a low-temperature shutdown agent” [0143] wherein CJ is “a polymer derived from a lactam” [0142]. The polyethylene specifically matches that of the instant in that the instant states “the micromatrix particles 2321 b are polyethylene” [0089] and that the “[s]oftening temperature of the polyethylene is 125° C-135° C., in other words, the preset threshold is approximately 130° C” [0089]. As noted by the instant, the decrease in peel force and strength is a function of the softening/melting of the underlying structure and ZHANG discloses an underlying structure capable of performing the claimed function, therefore reading on the claimed limitation.
Regarding “the binder, used for bonding the micromatrix particles to the separator substrate”, ZHANG discloses “Adhesion between the heat-resistant particles in the coating and adhesion of a coating layer formed from the coating compositions described herein to a porous substrate” [0075].
Regarding claim 20, ZHANG discloses an electric apparatus (“a device or vehicle” [0013]) and further discloses a lithium-ion cell (“lithium metal cylindrical cell” [0137]), comprising an electrode assembly (“composite, jelly roll, pancake, or system comprising any separator as described hereinabove and one or more electrodes” [0134]) and an electrolyte (“electrolyte” [0137]), wherein the electrode assembly comprises: a first electrode plate (“anode” [0137]); a second electrode plate (“cathode” [0137]);
and a separator comprising a separator substrate and a coating layer disposed on a surface of the separator substrate(“coatings for porous substrates, including battery separators” [0002]), wherein the separator is configured to be adhered to an external component through the coating layer (“coatings having higher adhesion to battery electrodes” [0075]);
the coating layer comprising micromatrix particles and binder particles, the binder particles bonding the micromatrix particles to the separator substrate;
the micromatrix particles comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of polyethylene … (“polyethylene beads as a low-temperature shutdown agent” [0143]);
wherein the separator is disposed between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate, and the separator is adhered to the adjacent first electrode plate or second electrode plate by bonding through the coating layer (“a composite comprising the separator described herein, in direct contact with an electrode for a lithium ion battery” [0013] wherein the composite being in contact combined with the coating being on at least one side indicates the separator is adhered to the component through the coating layer; furthermore “Adhesion of the coating layer of this Example to an anode” [0151]).
Regarding “the coating layer is configured to decrease a peel force between the separator and the external component when a temperature is higher than a preset threshold”, ZHANG discloses “the low-temperature shutdown agent has a melting temperature that is lower than that of the porous film on which the coating composition is (or is meant to be) applied” [0069] and “ the low-temperature shutdown agent has a melting point in the range of 80° C. to 130° C” as well as “coating composition comprises CJ and polyethylene beads as a low-temperature shutdown agent” [0143] wherein CJ is “a polymer derived from a lactam” [0142]. The polyethylene specifically matches that of the instant in that the instant states “the micromatrix particles 2321 b are polyethylene” [0089] and that the “[s]oftening temperature of the polyethylene is 125° C-135° C., in other words, the preset threshold is approximately 130° C” [0089].
As noted by the instant in paragraphs [0088-0089] the “micromatrix particles … are configured to soften when the temperature is higher than the preset threshold” as well as “the micromatrix particles 2321 b are polyethylene” and “softening of the micromatrix particles 2321 makes the interface peel force f between the separator 230 b and the electrode plate significantly reduced”, the decrease in peel force is therefore a function of the softening/melting of the underlying structure. While it is recognized ZHANG does not use the phrase “peel force”, ZHANG discloses the underlying structure, including the same component that behaves in the same manner at the same temperature, therefore reading on the claimed limitation.
Regarding “a ratio of a maximum particle diameter of the binder particles to a maximum diameter of the micromatrix particles is less than 0.5”, ZHANG discloses a maximum particle diameter of “24 microns” per claim 974 and a maximum coating thickness of “25 microns” per claim 974, therefore the binder has a maximum size of 1 micron as the coating composition of claim 974 and the binder may be “polyurethane” or “polyimide” per [0165], which matches the instant binders of polyurethane or polyimide given in instant paragraph [0064]. Furthermore, ZHANG discloses “the particles are coated particles with the binder material as the coating” [0164]. ZHANG also discloses Fig. 3 as a graphical representation of the extremes of coating composition particles relative to the binder particles and in the left drawing the size of the binder is less than half the size of the other particle.
While ZHANG does not explicitly disclose the ratio of particle diameters, the ratio is a variable that can be modified by adjusting the size of the composition particle, which ZHANG discloses in [0053] in regards to heat-resistant particles, [0071] in regards to low-temperature shut-down agent, [0092] in regards to high-temperature shut-down agent, and [0166] in regards to inorganic particles. Furthermore in paragraph [0099] ZHANG discloses desirable factors of the coating including permeability, adhesion, and pin removal force. The precise ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed binder diameter ratio cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the binder diameter ratio in the coating of ZHANG to obtain the desired coverage of the particles with binder per paragraph [0046] as well as characteristics of [0099] (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claims 22, 23, and 24 ZHANG discloses the coating layer is configured to chemically react with an acidic substance to decrease the peel force between the separator and the external component (“calcium carbonate” [0166], wherein the basic carbonate and an acid will chemically react creating a salt, water, and carbon dioxide per standard reaction principles). Notably the component “calcium carbonate” is shared by both the instant in paragraph [0013] and ZHANG [0166]. The instant states in paragraph [0062] that the decrease in peel force is due to this reaction of carbonate and acid. Therefore, the calcium carbonate of ZHANG and the standard reaction of carbonates with acid reads on the limitation.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114.
Response to Arguments
Regarding art-based rejections, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the remarks of 11/20/2025:
On page 8 bridging to page 9 of the remarks applicant states “paragraph [0103] of Zhang, a shutdown window generally refers to the time/temperature window from initiation or onset of shutdown, e.g., the time/temperature at which the separator first begins to melt enough to close the pores thereof resulting in stopping or slowing of ionic flow” as well as “the claims require the coating layer is configured to decrease a peel force” (emphasis as used in the remarks). However, Zhang uses a polymer (specifically polyethylene) in a coating layer that softens and melts which directly correlates to the instant specification which states in paragraphs [0088-0089] that the “micromatrix particles … are configured to soften when the temperature is higher than the preset threshold” as well as “the micromatrix particles 2321 b are polyethylene” and “softening of the micromatrix particles 2321 makes the interface peel force f between the separator 230 b and the electrode plate significantly reduced”. In the instant it is therefore the softening of the polymer polyethylene that lowers the peel force. In teaching polyethylene and melting (i.e. softening), Zhang reads on decreasing the peel force with the same polymer and same mechanism at the same temperature. It is the examiner’s position that the prior art does not need to use the phrase “decrease a peel force”.
On page 10 of the remarks applicant states “Zhang teaches much broader ranges” in regards to the mass of the micromatrix particles and the binder particles. This is not persuasive as MPEP § 2144.05 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). Furthermore applicant has not provided unexpected results or secondary considerations in regards to the overlapping ranges.
Regarding the supplemental remarks of 1/8/2026:
In the supplemental remarks of 1/8/2026 applicant states in the final paragraph of page 2, with arguments bridging to page 5, that the “the micromatrix particles are not completely covered by binder in order to allow a decrease in the peel force”. It is the position of the examiner this is an unclaimed limitation not fully encompassed by either of the currently stated limitations “the coating layer is configured to decrease a peel force…” or “a ratio of a maximum particle diameter of the binder particles to a maximum diameter of the micromatrix particles is less than 0.5”. Specifically, regarding “the coating layer is configured to decrease a peel force…” it is noted the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, however limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. As such “the coating layer is configured to decrease a peel force…” is being given limited patentable weight.
The arguments to the dependent claims in the supplemental remarks of 1/8/2026 are addressed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Previously cited:
KWON (US 20180315971 A1) directed to a separator with an electrode adhesive layer including organic particles and an acrylic resin binder.
Zhang et al. “A polyethylene microsphere-coated separator with rapid thermal shutdown function for lithium-ion batteries”, Journal of Energy Chemistry, Volume 44, 2020, Pages 33-40. Notably Fig. 1(b) showing SEM image of polyethylene microspheres (PM) on a porous polypropylene (PP) membrane, following the use of a binder (section 2.1. Material Synthesis).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS L MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm CT.
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 on (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.
/T.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights