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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action for application 17/893,044 in response to the amendment(s) filed on 02/05/2026. Claims 1-9 and 11-15 are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but were not found persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record for the reasons set forth below. See claims 1–9 and 11–15 rejections below.
Applicant argues that “the Office Action allegedly fails to provide a clear articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness and asserts that all claim limitations must be considered when evaluating patentability” (see e.g. page 7 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection clearly identifies where each limitation of the claims is taught or suggested by the cited references and provides reasoning supporting the combination. Lim discloses a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a positive electrode including a positive active material, a negative electrode including a negative active material, and a non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprising a lithium salt and an additive (see e.g. FIG. 1 and the paragraphs describing the positive electrode, negative electrode, and electrolyte composition). Lim further discloses the electrolyte additive 2-fluoro-1,3,2-dioxaphospholane (see e.g. Example 1), which corresponds to the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 in the instant claims in the case where R1–R6 are hydrogen and n = 0. Lim also discloses lithium composite oxide positive electrode materials having compositional ranges that overlap the ranges recited in the instant claims. As explained in the rejection, Lim discloses compositions that simplify to LiNi0.90Co0.05Mn0.05O2 when a = 1.0, b = 0.05, c = 0.05 and α = 2, which falls squarely within the compositional ranges recited for the lithium composite oxide in the instant claims. When the prior art discloses a point or range that lies within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Lim further discloses graphite as a suitable negative electrode active material and separately identifies Si-based materials including Si-C composites as suitable negative electrode active materials. Because Lim teaches both materials as suitable negative electrode materials for lithium batteries, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine graphite with a Si composite in the negative electrode active material layer to achieve predictable performance benefits associated with Si-containing materials while maintaining the structural stability provided by graphite. Accordingly, the rejection properly considers all claim limitations and provides a reasoned explanation for the conclusion of obviousness. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Lim does not teach the claimed electrolyte additive combination and therefore the claims should be allowable” (see e.g. page 8 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lim teaches the electrolyte system comprising the compound corresponding to Chemical Formula 1 as discussed above. Although Lim does not expressly disclose succinonitrile as an additional additive, the newly applied Kim reference (see e.g., claim 1 rejection below) teaches the use of succinonitrile as an additive in non-aqueous electrolytes for rechargeable lithium batteries (see e.g. paragraph [0033] of Kim). Kim further teaches that succinonitrile provides beneficial effects in lithium battery electrolytes by preventing dissolved metal ions from being reduced at the anode surface and forming metal dendrites which may penetrate the separator and cause internal short circuits (see e.g. paragraph [0036] of Kim). Because Kim teaches that succinonitrile is a known electrolyte additive that improves battery stability in the same type of rechargeable lithium battery system disclosed by Lim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the electrolyte system of Lim to further include succinonitrile as taught by Kim in order to obtain the known benefits associated with that additive. The combination merely involves the predictable use of known electrolyte additives performing their known functions within the same battery system. Therefore, Lim in view of Kim teaches or at least renders obvious the electrolyte additive system recited in the claims. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the rejection relies on impermissible hindsight reconstruction and that the cited references cannot be combined merely because their teachings could theoretically be combined” (see e.g. page 9 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not rely on hindsight reconstruction but rather on the explicit teachings of the cited references. Lim teaches a rechargeable lithium battery including the recited electrode materials and electrolyte additive corresponding to Chemical Formula 1. The newly applied Kim reference independently teaches that succinonitrile is a useful additive for non-aqueous electrolytes in rechargeable lithium batteries to improve stability and prevent dendrite formation. Because both references are directed to the same field of endeavor, non-aqueous electrolytes for rechargeable lithium batteries, and because Kim expressly teaches the functional advantages of including succinonitrile as an electrolyte additive, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to incorporate the additive taught by Kim into the electrolyte system of Lim. The modification represents the predictable use of known prior art elements according to their established functions and therefore provides the requisite articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for the combination. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In conclusion, the arguments and amendments filed were not found to be persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record. The rejections of the claims have been updated to reflect the amendments where appropriate. See claims 1–9 and 11–15 rejections below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (KR-2019-0127412-A) and further in view of Kim (US-20100015521-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lim discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (see e.g. "rechargeable lithium battery" in the paragraph starting with "1 is an exploded" on page 13 and FIG. 1 of Lim), comprising a positive electrode comprising: \
a positive active material (see e.g. FIG 1 and "The positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material layer" in the paragraph starting with "The positive electrode" on page 11 of Lim);
a negative electrode comprising a negative active material (see e.g. FIG. 1 and "The negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material layer" in the paragraph starting with "The negative electrode" on page 12 of Lim); and
an electrolyte solution comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (see e.g. "Solvent: Ethylene carbonate: Propylene carbonate: Ethyl propionate: Propyl propionate (volume ratio of EC: PC: EP: PP = 2: 1: 4: 3)... Salt: LiPF6 1.0 M..." in Example 1 on page 14 and "Lithium was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the contents of 1,3-propanesultone and 2-fluoro-1,3,2-dioxaphosphorane were changed to 0 wt% and 1 wt%, respectively" in Comparative Example 4 on page 15 of Lim; 2-fluoro-1,3,2-dioxaphosphorane is the only additive in this example),
wherein the additive comprises a compound represented by 2-fluoro-1,3,2-dioxaphospholane (see e.g. "0.5% by weight of 2-fluoro-1,3,2-dioxaphosphorane" in Example 1 on page 14 of Lim and 2-fluoro-1,3,2-dioxaphosphorale image from PubChem on NIH.gov below) (Here the prior art discloses the case when R1-R6 of the instant application is hydrogen and n is 0), and
the positive active material comprises LiaNi1-b-cMnbXcDα where (0.90 ≤ a ≤ 1.8, 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.5, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.05, 0 < α ≤ 2) wherein X is selected from the group consisting of Al, Ni, Co, Mn, Cr, Fe, Mg, Sr, V, rare earth elements and combinations thereof and D is selected from the group consisting of O, F, S, P, and combinations thereof (see e.g. the paragraph starting with "Examples of the positive" and onwards on page 11 of Lim).
In this case it is clear that the prior art discloses a lithium composite oxide that can simplify to LiNi0.90Co0.05Mn0.05O2 when a = 1.0, b = 0.05, c = 0.05 and α = 2 wherein X = Co and D = O. This further satisfies x + y + z = 1 as claimed by the instant application. The instant application also claims a lithium composite oxide of LiaNixCoyM1zM2tO2 where 0.9 ≤ a < 1.2, 0.8 ≤ x < 1.0, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.2, 0 < z ≤ 0.3, x + y + z =1, 0 ≤ t ≤ 0.1 M1 is Mn, Al or a combination thereof, and M2 is Ti, Mg, Zr, Ca, Nb, Fe, P, F, B or a combination thereof. It is clear that the instant application discloses a lithium composite oxide composition of Li0.9-1.2Ni0.8-1Co0-0.2(Mn or Al)0-0.30O2 when 0.9 ≤ a < 1.2, 0.8 ≤ x < 1.0, 0 < y ≤ 0.2 , 0 < z ≤ 0.3, and t = 0. When a = 1, x = 0.9, y = 0.05, z = 0.05, and M1 is Mn, the composition can simplify to become Li1.0Ni0.90Co0.05Mn0.05O2 which is the same composition as disclosed by the prior art.
Lim discloses a point or range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point or range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Lim further discloses a negative electrode comprising graphite (see e.g. “any carbon-based negative electrode active material generally used in a lithium ion secondary battery may be used… Examples of the crystalline carbon include graphite” in paragraph beginning with “As a material” on page 12 of Lim) and separately discloses Si-C composites as suitable negative active materials (see e.g. “The lithium doped and undoped materials include Si, Si-C composites, SiOx (0 < x < 2)” in the paragraph starting with “The lithium doped” on page 12 of Lim). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine graphite with a Si composite in the negative active material layer because the reference expressly contemplates mixing various known negative active materials to improve performance.
Lim does not disclose that the additive further comprises succinonitrile.
Kim, however, in the same field of endeavor, non-aqueous organic electrolytes for rechargeable batteries, discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte additive that comprises succinonitrile (“As used herein, when referring to the additives, e.g., succinonitrile” in paragraph [0033] of Kim).
Kim also teaches that a succinonitrile additive may serve to beneficially prevent metal ions, which may be dissolved in the electrolyte, from being reduced at an anode-active material surface and forming metal dendrites. These metal dendrites may consequently penetrate a separator, resulting in an undesirable short circuit between the cathode and the anode (see e.g. paragraph [0036] of Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the non-aqueous electrolyte additive of Lim et al. such that it includes succinonitrile as taught by Kim in order to prevent metal ions dissolved in the electrolyte from forming metal dendrites which cause undesirable short circuits in the battery as suggested by Kim.
PNG
media_image1.png
116
91
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(2-fluoro-1,3,2-dioxaphosphorale, chemical structure depiction, PubChem)
Regarding Claim 2, Lim in view of Kim discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Lim further discloses that the electrolyte additive compound is 2-fluoro-1,3,2-dioxaphospholane (see e.g., "1.0% by weight of 2-fluoro-1,3,2-dioxaphosphorane" in Comparative Example 4 on page 15 of Lim and 2-fluoro-1,3,2-dioxaphosphorale image from PubChem on NIH.gov below). Here the prior art discloses the case when R1-R6 of the instant application is hydrogen.
PNG
media_image1.png
116
91
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(2-fluoro-1,3,2-dioxaphosphorale, chemical structure depiction, PubChem)
Regarding Claim 3, Lim in view of Kim discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Lim further discloses that electrolyte additive compound can be formula 1-1A and 1-1B (see e.g., Formula 1-1A and 1-1B on page 23 and [Formula 1-1A] [Formula 1-1B] on page 3 of Lim). Lim further discloses that R1 to R6 are each independently hydrogen, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkoxy group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkenyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkynyl group (see e.g. "R1 to R6 are each independently hydrogen, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkoxy group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkenyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkynyl group." on page 7 of Lim). In this case Lim discloses a species where in Formula 1-1A R3 and R4 can each be hydrogen and R5 and/or R6 can be substituted with a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkoxy group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkenyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkynyl group.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Lim in view of Kim discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Lim further discloses that the electrolyte additive compound is 1.0 parts by weight (see e.g., "1.0% by weight of 2-fluoro-1,3,2-dioxaphosphorane" in Comparative Example 4 on page 15 and ""wt%" in the electrolyte composition is based on the total content of the electrolyte.)" in Example 1 on page 14 of Lim).
Lim discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 6, Lim in view of Kim discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Lim further discloses that the electrolyte additive compound is 2-fluoro-1,3,2-dioxaphospholane (see e.g., "1.0% by weight of 2-fluoro-1,3,2-dioxaphosphorane" in Comparative Example 4 on page 15 of Lim and 2-fluoro-1,3,2-dioxaphosphorale image from PubChem on NIH.gov below).
PNG
media_image1.png
116
91
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(2-fluoro-1,3,2-dioxaphosphorale, chemical structure depiction, PubChem)
Regarding Claim 7, Lim in view of Kim discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Lim further discloses that the additive further comprises vinylene carbonate (see e.g. "The electrolyte may further include vinylene carbonate or an ethylene-based carbonate compound" in the paragraph starting with "The electrolyte" on page 5 of Lim), fluoroethylene carbonate (see e.g. "fluoroethylene carbonate" in the paragraph starting with "Representative" on page 10 of Lim), difluoroethylene carbonate, chloroethylene carbonate, dichloroethylene carbonate, bromoethylene carbonate, dibromoethylene carbonate, nitroethylene carbonate, cyanoethylene carbonate (see e.g. "difluoro ethylene carbonate, chloroethylene carbonate, dichloroethylene carbonate, bromoethylene carbonate, dibromoethylene carbonate, nitroethylene carbonate, cyanoethylene carbonate" in the paragraph starting with "Representative" on page 10 of Lim), LiBF4 (see e.g. "LiBF4" in the paragraph starting with "The lithium salt" on page 11of Lim).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Lim in view of Kim discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Lim further discloses that Ni can be in the range of Ni0.45-1.0 (see e.g. " LiaNi1-b-cMnbXcDα (0.90 ≤ a ≤ 1.8, 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.5, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.05, 0 < α ≤ 2)" in the paragraph beginning with "Examples of" on page 11 of Lim). In the case where b is 0.01 - 0.07 and c is 0.05, Ni becomes Ni0.88-0.94.
Lim discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application and ranges that overlap or lie within the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range or the prior art ranges overlap or lie within the range disclosed by the instant application, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (KR-20190127412-A) in view of Kim (US-20100015521-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US-20200373617-A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim II.
Regarding Claim 11, Lim in view of Kim discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 10 rejection above).
Lim in view of Kim does not disclose that the Si composite comprises a core comprising at least one Si-based particle and an amorphous carbon coating layer.
Kim II, however, in the same field of endeavor, rechargeable lithium secondary batteries with Si-C composite negative active materials and non-aqueous electrolyte comprising an organic solvent, lithium salt, and additive, discloses a Si-C composite with a core comprising crystalline carbon and silicon particles and an amorphous carbon coating layer disposed on the surface of the core (see e.g. paragraph [0049] of Kim II).
Kim II teaches that a lithium secondary battery including the negative electrode active material may exhibit excellent room-temperature and high-temperature cycle-life characteristics (see e.g. paragraph [0051] of Kim II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the Si composite of Lim et al. in view of Kim such that it comprises a core comprising at least one Si-based particle and an amorphous carbon coating layer as taught by Kim II et al. in order to have a negative electrode active material that exhibits excellent room temperature and high temperature cycle life characteristics.
Regarding Claim 12, Lim in view of Kim and further in view of Kim II discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 11 (see e.g. claim 11 rejection above).
Lim in view of Kim II does not disclose that the core comprising the at least one Si-based particle comprises at least one selected from a Si particle, a Si-C composite, SiOx(0<x< 2), and a Si alloy.
Kim II, however, discloses that the core comprising the at least one Si-based particle comprises a silicon-carbon composite, a silicon particle, SiOx (0<x<2), and a Si-Q alloy (wherein Q is an element selected from an alkali metal, an alkaline-earth metal, a Group 13 element, a Group 14 element, a Group 15 element, a Group 16 element, a transition metal, a rare earth element, and a combination thereof, and not Si) (see e.g., paragraphs [0047 - [049] of Kim II).
Kim II teaches that a lithium secondary battery including the negative electrode active material may exhibit excellent room-temperature and high-temperature cycle-life characteristics (see e.g., paragraph [0051] of Kim II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the Si composite of Lim et al. in view of Kim such that the core comprises at least one Si-based particle comprises a silicon-carbon composite, a silicon particle, SiOx (0<x<2), and a Si-Q alloy as taught by Kim II et al. in order to have a negative electrode active material that exhibits excellent room temperature and high temperature cycle life characteristics.
Regarding Claim 13, Lim in view of Kim and further in view of Kim II discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 12 (see e.g. claim 12 rejection above).
Lim in view of Kim does not disclose that the Si composite comprises a core.
Kim II, however, discloses that the center region of the core comprises pores (see e.g. "In the silicon-carbon composite, the core may further include pores." in paragraph [0049] of Kim II).
Kim II teaches that a lithium secondary battery including the negative electrode active material may exhibit excellent room-temperature and high-temperature cycle-life characteristics (see e.g., paragraph [0051] of Kim II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the Si composite of Lim et al. in view of Kim such that it comprises a core as taught by Kim II et al. in order to have a negative electrode active material that exhibits excellent room temperature and high temperature cycle life characteristics.
Regarding Claim 14, Lim in view of Kim and further in view of Kim II discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 13 (see e.g. claim 13 rejection above).
Lim in view of Kim does not disclose that the Si composite comprises a core.
Kim II, however, discloses that the average diameter of the silicon particles is 10 nm to 200 nm (see e.g. "The average particle diameter (D50) of the silicon particles may desirably be 10 nm to 200 nm." in paragraph [0049] of Kim II). Kim II further discloses that the thickness of the amorphous carbon coating layer is 5 nm to 100 nm (see e.g., "the thickness of the amorphous carbon coating layer may be 5 nm to 100 nm" in paragraph [0049] of Kim II).
Assuming the radius of the silicon particle (5 nm to 100 nm) represents the radius of the center region of the core and the radius of the silicon particles and the radius of the amorphous carbon coating (2.5 nm to 50 nm) represent the total radius of the negative active material (in this case the total radius of the negative active material is between 7.5 nm to 150 nm), it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that if the radius of the silicon particle is 5 nm and the radius of the negative active material particle is 15 nm (i.e. the amorphous carbon coating is 10 nm thick) then the center region of the core would correspond to 30% of the total radius of the negative electrode active material (5/15 = 0.30). Similarly, if the radius of the silicon particle is 75 nm and the total radius of the negative active material is 150 nm (i.e., the amorphous carbon coating layer is 75 nm) then the center region of the core would correspond to 50% of the total radius of the negative electrode (75/150 = 0.50).
Kim II discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Kim II teaches that a lithium secondary battery including the negative electrode active material may exhibit excellent room-temperature and high-temperature cycle-life characteristics (see e.g., paragraph [0051] of Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the Si composite of Lim et al. in view of Kim such that the average diameter of the silicon particles is 10 nm to 200 nm and the thickness of the amorphous carbon coating layer is 5 nm to 100 nm as taught by Kim II et al. in order to have a negative electrode active material that exhibits excellent room temperature and high temperature cycle life characteristics.
Regarding Claim 15, Lim in view of Kim and further in view of Kim II discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 13 (see e.g. claim 13 rejection above).
Lim in view of Kim does not disclose that the Si composite comprises a core.
Kim II, however, discloses that the core is made up of crystalline carbon and silicon particles (see e.g. "The silicon-carbon composite may be a silicon-carbon composite including a core including crystalline carbon and silicon particles" in paragraph [0049] of Kim II) and that the amorphous carbon exists only on the surface of the core (see e.g., "an amorphous carbon coating layer disposed on the surface of the core." in paragraph [0049] of Kim II).
Kim II teaches that a lithium secondary battery including the negative electrode active material may exhibit excellent room-temperature and high-temperature cycle-life characteristics (see e.g. paragraph [0051] of Kim II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the Si composite of Lim et al. in view of Kim such that the core is made up of crystalline carbon and silicon and that the amorphous carbon exists only on the surface of the core as taught by Kim II et al. in order to have a negative electrode active material that exhibits excellent room temperature and high temperature cycle life characteristics.
Conclusion
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 JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.J.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723