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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/18/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 11/21/2025 has been considered by examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 1/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 4, 5, and 17 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 6-16, and 18-20 remain pending in the application.
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 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, 2, 6-10, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soga et al. (US 2022/0302451, hereinafter "Soga") in view of Nakanishi et al. (US 2013/0108923, hereinafter "Nakanishi") and Sasaki et al. (US 2014/0227522, hereinafter "Sasaki").
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Soga teaches a secondary battery and a negative electrode (“anode”) comprising a negative electrode active material [Abstract]. Soga teaches that the negative electrode active material includes a first carbon material (“second carbon-based active material”), a second carbon material (“first carbon-based active material”), and a silicon-containing material (“silicon-based active material”) [Abstract]. Soga teaches that the average particle diameter of the second carbon material may be 8 µm or less, and 2 µm or more, which overlaps the recited range of 1 µm to 4 µm [0024, “The average particle diameter B of the second carbon material may be … may be 8 μm or less. The average particle diameter B may be, for example, 2 μm or more”]. 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). Soga also teaches that the average particle diameter of the first carbon material is larger than the average particle diameter of the second carbon material [0015, “Here, the first carbon material has an average particle diameter A, the second carbon material has an average particle diameter B, and the silicon-containing material has an average particle diameter C, satisfying A>C≥B”]. Soga is silent regarding the specific surface area of the silicon-containing material, the silicon-containing material being non-porous, the second carbon material being hard carbon, and the crystallite size of the second carbon material.
Nakanishi teaches analogous art of an anode active material including silicon particles [0023, “manufacturing a negative electrode active material of silicon particles as an active material useful as a negative electrode of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery”]. Nakanishi teaches that the silicon particles most preferably have a specific surface area of 0.5 to 1.5 m2/g, which is within the recited range of 0.5 to 5 m2/g [0075, The BET specific surface area is more desirable to be 0.5 to 1.5 m2/g]. Nakanishi also teaches several specific examples wherein the silicon particles have a specific surface area within the claimed range [Table 1]. Nakanishi also teaches that the silicon particles do not have a porous structure [0060, “a crystallographic structure of the negative electrode active material is featured in being polycrystalline silicon particles having a random arrangement close to amorphous but do not taking a porous structure”].
Nakanishi teaches that for the examples of the negative electrode active material having a specific surface area within the claimed range, the electrode density, charge capacity, and other battery performance parameters were excellent [0153, “ … the BET specific surface area were in the range of the negative electrode active material of the invention, all of the electrode density, volume change magnification, and the electrode density after charge have excellent values, also the charge capacity is over 1500 mAh/cc, and the charge/discharge capacity is excellent”]. Nakanishi also teaches that the non-porous structure of the silicon particles increases the compressive strength of the particles [0060, “Since the negative electrode active material of the invention has a crystallographic structure like this, the compressive strength of particles increases by 100 MPa in comparison with that of single crystal silicon”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the silicon-containing material taught by Soga to have a non-porous structure and specific surface area within the range taught by Nakanishi, in order to increase its compressive strength and improve its electrode density, charge capacity, and other battery performance parameters.
Sasaki teaches analogous art of a negative electrode material for a lithium ion secondary battery, the negative electrode active material comprising graphite and hard carbon [Abstract, “The carbon material for the lithium ion secondary battery contains a graphite as a major component of the carbon material and a hard carbon”]. Sasaki also teaches that the carbon preferably has a crystallite size Lc in a c-axis direction in the range of 8 to 50 Å, 0.8 to 5 nm, which is within the recited range [0110], and that the crystallite size is obtained using an XRD analysis [0113].
Sasaki teaches that when hard carbon is added in a smaller amount to graphite in the carbon material, the stability and characteristics of the negative electrode material improve at high current while maintaining the same efficiency [0044]. Sasaki further discloses that when the crystallite size Lc is within the range of 8 to 50 Å, it is possible to add sufficient charge-discharge efficiency to the lithium ion secondary battery and suppress deteriorations of the charge-discharge efficiency and the charge-discharge cycle efficiency of the lithium ion secondary battery [0111].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the negative electrode taught by Soga to include hard carbon having a crystallite size within the range disclosed by Sasaki in the second carbon material, in order to improve the stability and characteristics of the negative electrode material at high current while maintaining the same efficiency, add sufficient charge-discharge efficiency, and suppress deteriorations of the charge-discharge efficiency of the lithium ion secondary battery.
Further regarding claim 15, Soga also teaches a positive electrode (“cathode”) facing the negative electrode [0100, “stacking the positive electrode and the negative electrode”].
Further regarding claims 2 and 16, Soga teaches that the average particle diameter of the first carbon material may be 10 µm or more and 26 µm or less, which overlaps the recited range of 8 µm to 20 µm [0023]. ”]. 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).
Further regarding claims 6 and 18, Soga teaches that the first carbon material may include graphite material such as natural graphite or artificial graphite [0031, “Examples of the first carbon material include graphite material”, 0033, “ The graphite material includes natural graphite, artificial graphite”].
Further regarding claims 7 and 19, Soga teaches a second composite material comprising SiOx, wherein x is 0.5 or greater and 1.5 or less, which is within the recited range [0075]. Soga teaches that the negative electrode active material may include the second composite material [0078, “When the negative electrode active material includes both the first composite material and the second composite material”].
Further regarding claim 8, Soga is silent regarding the true density of the silicon-containing material.
Nakanishi teaches that the silicon particles in the anode active material have a true density greater than 2.250 g/cm3 and less than 2.330 g/cm3 [0034, “It is preferable that the negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery is made of polycrystalline silicon having the true density of higher than 2.250 g/cm3 and less than 2.330 g/cm3”], which is within the claimed range (g/cc is equivalent to g/cm3).
Nakanishi discloses that when a silicon particle with a true density greater than 2.250 g/cm3 and less than 2.330 g/cm3 is used in the anode active material, the volume expansion, electrode density, and capacity of a battery are all improved [0153], compared to when a silicon particle with a true density that is too small is used [0154].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the silicon-based active material in the anode taught by modified Soga to have the true density taught by Nakanishi, in order to improve electrode density, volume expansion, and capacity of a battery using said anode.
Further regarding claim 9, Soga teaches that the content of the second carbon material in the negative electrode active material is 1 mass % or more to 15 mass % or less, which overlaps with the recited range [0026, “The content of the second carbon material in the negative electrode active material is 1 mass % or more and 15 mass % or less”]. 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).
Further regarding claim 10, Soga teaches that the content of the silicon-containing material in the negative electrode active material is 1 mass % or more to 15 mass % or less, which overlaps with the recited range [0027, “The content of the silicon-containing material in the negative electrode active material is 1 to 15 mass %”]. 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).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soga (US 2022/0302451) in view of Nakanishi (US 2013/0108923) and Sasaki (US 2014/0227522) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2002/0127172, hereinafter "Choi").
Regarding claim 3, modified Soga teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Soga is silent regarding the ratio of peak intensity of the (110) plane and the (002) plane I(110)/I(002) of the first carbon-based active material.
Choi teaches analogous art of an anode, or negative electrode, active material including a carbon material [0018]. Choi teaches that the carbon material may have an intensity ratio I(110)/I(002) obtained by X-ray diffraction of less than 0.2, which overlaps with the claimed range [0018]. 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).
Choi discloses that when a battery comprises anode active material with a carbon having a peak intensity ratio of I(110)/I(002) under 0.2, the battery has high capacity [0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first carbon-based active material in the anode taught by modified Soga to have the peak intensity ratio I(110)/I(002) taught by Choi, in order to ensure that the battery for which the anode was used had high capacity.
Claims 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soga (US 2022/0302451) in view of Nakanishi (US 2013/0108923) and Sasaki (US 2014/0227522) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0243848, hereinafter "Kim").
Regarding claims 11 and 20, modified Soga teaches the anode and the secondary battery of claims 1 and 15, respectively, as described in the rejections for instant claims 1 and 15. Soga is silent regarding an anode active material layer comprising a first anode active material layer and a second anode active material layer.
Kim teaches analogous art of an anode comprising an anode active material layer including silicon and carbon, wherein the anode includes an anode current collector (current collector 10), a first anode active material layer (first negative electrode active material layer 30) formed on the anode current collector, and a second anode active material layer (second negative electrode active material layer 40) formed on the first anode active material layer [Fig. 2, Abstract].
Kim teaches that having an anode active material layer with a bilayer structure in a battery allows for more control over the position of the different types of active materials so that their advantageous effects can be maximized, therefore improving the cycle characteristics of the battery [0021, “Thus, it is possible to control the position of the silicon-based active material and that of carbon nanotubes selectively, and thus to maximize the advantages of carbon nanotubes as a conductive material”, 0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode and secondary battery taught by modified Soga to have an anode active material layer on an anode electrode current collector, a first anode active material layer on the anode current collector, and a second anode active material layer on the first anode active material layer, in order to allow for more control over the position of the active material particles so that battery cycle characteristics can be improved.
Regarding claim 12, modified Soga teaches the anode of claim 11 as described in the rejection for instant claim 11.
Kim teaches an embodiment of the anode wherein the first anode active material layer does not include silicon-based active material [0031, Fig. 2 shows that there is no silicon-based active material in the first anode active material layer], which is less than 6 wt% of silicon-based active material based on a total weight of the first anode active material layer. Furthermore, Kim discloses that the carbonaceous active material and the silicon-based active material may be used at a weight ratio of 10:90-60:40 in the second anode active material layer [0033, “When the second negative electrode active material layer further includes a carbonaceous active material, the silicon-based active material and the carbonaceous active material may be used at a weight ratio of 1:99-99:1 or 10:90-60:40”]. Kim also teaches that the carbon nanotubes may be used in an amount of 1-20 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the silicon-based active material [0053]. At the low end of both ratios, the weight ratio of carbon nanotubes to silicon-based active material to carbonaceous active material would be 0.1:10:90, or 0.1% carbon nanotubes, 10% silicon-based active material, and 90% carbonaceous active material based on a total weight of the second anode active material layer. At the high end of both ratios, the ratio of carbon nanotubes to silicon-based active material to carbonaceous active material would be 12:60:40, or ~11% carbon nanotubes, ~54% silicon-based active material, and ~36% carbonaceous active material based on a total weight of the second anode active material layer. 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).
Kim teaches that silicon-based materials have high theoretical capacity but large volume change and low charge/discharge efficiency [0006, “Silicon has a theoretical capacity of 4010 mAh/g, which is at least 10 times higher than the theoretical capacity of the conventional carbonaceous material”, “However, a silicon-based material has a low charge/discharge efficiency of 80%”, “a silicon-based material shows a change in volume of 300% or more during charge/discharge”]. Kim discloses that keeping the silicon-based active material in one layer makes it possible to control the position of the silicon-based active material and prevent degradation of discharge capacity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode and secondary battery taught by modified Soga to include the content of the silicon-based active materials in the first and second anode active material layers as taught by Kim, in order to use a high-capacity material such as silicon while also preventing the degradation of the discharge capacity of the anode due to volume expansion.
Regarding claim 13, modified Soga teaches the anode of claim 12 as described in the rejection for instant claim 12.
Kim teaches an embodiment of the anode wherein the first anode active material layer does not include small carbon particles such as carbon nanotubes (or first carbon-based active material) [0031, Fig. 2 shows that there are no carbon nanotubes in the first anode active material layer], which is less than 2 wt% of first carbon-based active material based on a total weight of the first anode active material layer. Kim further discloses a range of content of carbon nanotubes in the second anode active material layer of 0.1% to ~11% based on the total weight of the second anode active material layer (explained in the rejection for instant claim 12), which overlaps the claimed range. 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).
Kim teaches that when the content of the carbon nanotubes is in the range disclosed, the conductivity between the silicon-based active material particles is retained despite the volume changes of the silicon-based active material, which improves cycle characteristics [0054]. The carbonaceous active material would not be able to accomplish this alone due to its size.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode and secondary battery taught by modified Soga to include the content of the first carbon-based active materials in the first and second anode active material layers as taught by Kim in order to provide a smaller carbon particle which can retain the conductivity between the silicon-based active material particles and thus improve the cycle characteristics of the battery.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soga (US 2022/0302451) in view of Nakanishi (US 2013/0108923), Sasaki (US 2014/0227522), and Kim (US 2020/0243848) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ryu et al. (WO 2019208959, referencing English translation provided in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 5/30/2025, hereinafter "Ryu").
Regarding claim 14, modified Soga teaches the anode of claim 11 as described in the rejection for instant claim 11. Soga and Kim are silent regarding a ratio of a weight of the second anode active material layer relative to a weight of the first anode active material layer.
Ryu teaches analogous art of an anode comprising an anode current collector, a first anode active material layer formed on the anode current collector, and a second anode active material layer formed on the first anode active material layer [0013, “The negative electrode comprises: a negative electrode current collector; a first negative electrode active material layer formed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector … and a second negative electrode active material layer formed on the first negative electrode active material layer”]. Ryu teaches that a weight ratio of the first anode active material layer relative to the second anode active material layer may satisfy, preferably, 30:70 to 50:50 [0076, “the first negative electrode active material layer and the second negative electrode active material layer may satisfy a weight ratio of 1:99 to 99:1, preferably 30:70 to 70:30, and more preferably 30:70 to 50:50”]. Thus, the ratio of a weight of the second anode active material layer relative to a weight of the first anode active material layer would be in a range of 50:50 to 70:30, which can also be written as 1 to 2.3, which lies within the claimed range of 1 to 4.
Ryu teaches that this range for a weight ratio of the anode active material layers to each other allows for battery performance to be changed according to what is needed [0076, “In this way, battery performance can be appropriately changed by changing the ratio of the negative active material layer”]. Depending on the anode active material contents in each layer, battery performance can be optimized by adjusting the weight ratio within the range taught by Ryu.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode and secondary battery taught by modified Soga to have the ratio of a weight of the second anode active material layer relative to a weight of the first anode active material layer in the range taught by Ryu, in order to optimize the battery performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Soga fails to disclose a first carbon-based active material comprising hard carbon [Remarks, pg. 7], and that Sasaki’s disclosure of hard carbon is limited to a carbon-only anode that does not include any silicon-containing active material with no teaching provided regarding how the hard carbon is structurally positioned in cooperation with a different active material containing silicon [Remarks, pgs. 8-9]. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As described in the rejection of instant claims 1 and 15 above, Soga teaches a negative electrode active material including a first carbon material (“second carbon-based active material”), a second carbon material (“first carbon-based active material”), and a silicon-containing material (“silicon-based active material”) [Abstract], and Sasaki teaches a negative electrode active material comprising hard carbon [Abstract]. All of the limitations of the claim are disclosed in either Sasaki, Nakanishi, or Soga, and the combination of the references renders the claimed invention obvious.
Furthermore, applicant alleges that Sasaki provides no teaching regarding hard carbon being structurally positioned in cooperation with a different active material containing carbon [Remarks, pgs. 8-9]. However, as described in the rejection of instant claims 1 and 15 above, Sasaki teaches a negative electrode active material comprising hard carbon and graphite [Abstract]. Applicant also alleges that Soga and Nakanishi fail to cure the deficiencies of Sasaki, but does not explain how Soga and Nakanishi fail to cure these deficiencies.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claims 1 and 15 as obvious over Soga in view of Nakanishi and Sasaki is maintained.
Applicant alleges that the crystallite size (Lc) in a C-axis direction of the first carbon-based active material measured by an XRD analysis recited in instant claim 1 of “less than 30 nm” yields unexpected results [Remarks, pgs. 10-12]. Applicant cites the data provided in Tables 1 and 3 for Examples 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 11 and Comparative Example 5 in the instant specification as objective evidence offered to support this allegation of unexpected results [Remarks, pgs. 10-11].
PNG
media_image1.png
202
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
517
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
428
406
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is respectfully submitted that there are multiple deficiencies with respect to Applicant’s allegation of unexpected results.
The first overarching issue is that whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” [MPEP 716.02(d)] (Examiner emphasis). In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). See also the following case law (MPEP 716.02(d)):
In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium);
In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.); and
In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972) (Evidence of nonobviousness consisted of comparing a single composition within the broad scope of the claims with the prior art. The court did not find the evidence sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness because there was "no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included in the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested composition.")
The objective evidence offered to support the allegation of unexpected results are the experiments as summarized in Tables 1 and 3 of the specification (shown above), which is not commensurate in scope with the claim. Regarding the range of “a crystallite size (Lc) in a C-axis direction of the first carbon-based active material measured by an X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis is less than 30 nm”, the evidence offered to support only provides examples at an Lc of 1 nm, 3 nm, and 5 nm inside the range, and at an Lc of 36 nm and 34 nm outside the range. As noted in the case law of In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980), the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. Thus, the evidence offered does not support the range of an Lc of “less than 30 nm” as claimed. For example, do the unexpected results occur when the Lc is greater than 5 nm and less than 30 nm? The answer is not clear as the data provided only covers a small portion of the lower end of the range. Additionally, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). The Lc value used for comparison closest to the upper limit of the range is 34 nm. There is no data for any Lc values from 30 nm to 34 nm, so it is unclear if the upper limit of the range of “less than 30 nm” is indeed critical. As such, the Examiner does not find the objective evidence offered to support the allegation of nonobviousness in terms of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support [MPEP 716.02(d)].
Furthermore, Example 10 has a first carbon-based active material with an Lc outside the claimed range, but its life-span and high temperature storage properties are higher than those of Examples 4-5, which have a first carbon-based active material with an Lc within the claimed range, and its initial resistance is lower than or equal to than the initial resistance of Examples 6-8, which have a first carbon-based active material with an Lc within the claimed range.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claims 1 and 15 as obvious over Soga in view of Nakanishi and Sasaki is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA F OROZCO whose telephone number is (571)272-0172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/M.F.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights