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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/2025 on has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is a non-final Office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 12/31/2025. Claims 1, 4 – 7, 9, 13, and 15 – 17 are amended. Claims 2 – 3, 8, 10 – 12, and 14 are canceled. Claims 1, 4 – 7, 9, 13, and 15 – 17 are pending in the current Office action.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office action are withdrawn. A new grounds of rejection is established below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and the teachings of the previous primary reference Dai have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new primary reference applied in the new grounds of rejection below.
Applicant's arguments regarding the filed 12/31/2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that combination of Hwang and Lee II, as established in the previous Office would not provide the claimed protective layer because the cited references teach away from one another and further both references are silent to the core technical idea of forming a chemically integrated composite interface through reactive components.
The examiner respectfully reminds applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In the instant case, as established in the rejection previously and further in the rejection below, Hwang teaches a nanofiber layer with inorganic filler particles that has a protective function {i.e. inhibit dendrite growth/prevent overvoltage/short circuit (Hwang: [0027 – 0029]). Lee II teaches a protective layer for a metal anode including organic particles, an inorganic particles, an organic-inorganic particles, or a combination thereof [emphasis added} that are coated with a ion conductive material and, the coating, from a finite list of materials can be acrylate or methacrylate materials which would inherently include a double bond (Lee II: [0053];[0057];[0185]). The protective layer in Lee has a similar function to that in Hwang {i.e. suppress dendrite growth} while also allowing for improved ion conductivity (Lee II: [0138]), and the coating on the particles is taught to allows for the protective layer to have improved uniform current density and mechanical properties upon lithium deposition (Lee II: [0051]) which are similar properties desired by that of Hwang (Hwang: [0016 – 0017]). The coating of Lee II is further taught to provide increased mechanical strength ([0062]). Furthermore, the examiner notes that in the rejection, the modification was not to replace the mechanically passive fibrous barrier, as seemingly argued by the applicant (see pg. 7), but rather to enhance the protective layer of Hwang via the coating the inorganic particles by the material taught in Lee II, and as the layers in the prior art are analogous in function and Lee II teaches obtaining effects via the coating that would be desirable by Hwang {i.e. increased ion conductivity/strength} and further would not negatively impact the lithium dendrite suppressing function of the layer since Lee II also teaches achieving lithium dendrite suppression, the examiner maintains that the prior art rejection made in view of Hwang and Lee II seems to properly support prima facie obviousness [See MPEP 2123(I)].
Applicant’s argument about the prior art Hwang and/or Lee II failing to disclose oxides having surface double bonds is unpersuasive, because Lee teaches a layer including organic, inorganic, and/or organic-inorganic particles and further including a coating layer 14 on the particles ([0053]). Inorganic particles taught by Lee including oxide materials (Lee II: [0185 – 0186]]) and furthermore the coating on the particles of Lee, from a finite list of materials, include acrylate or methacrylate-containing materials which would inherently include a double bond (Lee II: [0057]]). Thus, Lee appears to at least suggest a inorganic particle structure that is applicable in a protective layer for a metal anode and further within the claimed scope of “an oxide having a double bond on its surface”.
Additionally, in response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s rationale relies on the unsupported assumption that ion-conductive polymer coating inherently suggest surface-functionalized oxides capable of crosslinking reactions”; the examiner respectfully reminds applicant that the claim is directed to a “an oxide having a double bond on its surface, wherein the double bond comprises one or more functional groups selected from the group consisting of a vinyl group, an acrylate group, and a methacrylate group”, and thus is subjected to the broadest reasonable interpretation so as not to be limited to “surface-functionalized oxides capable of crosslinking reactions” or “chemical reactive oxide surfaces” as seemingly argued by the applicant (Refer to arguments on pg. 7). Thus, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims, rendering them further unpersuasive, especially in light of the discussion above.
As such, based on the above discussion, the examiner maintains that Hwang and Lee II render obvious a protective layer structure that reads claimed protective layer.
Finally, in response to applicant's arguments with respect to the effects achieved by the chemically integrated structure formed by nanofibers containing reactive oxide surfaces, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6, the recitation “wherein the polymer gel electrolyte composition comprising” is awkwardly worded/unclear and should be –wherein the polymer gel electrolyte composition comprises--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "wherein the cross-linking agent" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. That is claim 1 from which claim 2 depends upon only recites that the composition is in a state of being thermally crosslinked not that the polymer gel electrolyte further comprises a cross-linking agent.
For the purpose of this Office action examiner, and in the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting claim 2 to recite “wherein the cross-linking agent comprises one or more from the group consisting of…” to recite –wherein the polymer gel electrolyte composition further comprises one or more of a cross-linking agent selected from the group consisting of…--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 4 –6, 13, and 15 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20190190068A1) in view of Mikhayik (US PG Pub. 2010/012945054 A1), Hwang (US PG Pub. 2018/0294513 A1), and Lee II (US PG Pub. 2018/0316051 A1) {Examiner Note: all prior art except of Lee (US20190190068A1) was cited in the previous Office action mailed 10/02/2025}.
Regarding Claims 1, 5 – 7, and 15, Lee discloses a lithium metal battery (Fig. 3C; [0105 – 0104];[0110]) comprising a cathode (positive electrode 21, Fig. 3C; [0104 – 0105]), an anode (negative electrode 22; [0104 – 0105]), and a separator disposed between the cathode and the anode (separator 24c, Fig. 3C; [0104 – 0105];[0110]); and a protective layer disposed between the anode and the separator (protective layer 23, Fig. 3C; [0104 – 0105];[0108]).
Lee teaches a negative electrolyte composition that is gelled or solidified and further teaches, prior to gelling or solidifying the composition, injecting the negative electrolyte into an electrochemical element, which, in the case of lithium metal battery embodiment shown in Fig. 3C, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to be the separator ([0104 – 0105];[0010];[0148 – 0149]). As such, Lee further appears to disclose a polymer gel electrolyte {i.e. negative electrolyte} disposed in the separator.
Lee further teaches the gelled or solidified negative electrolyte to be formed from a composition including a thermally-crosslinkable polymerizable oligomer and teaches subjecting the composition to thermal crosslinking for the purpose of forming a crosslinked product of the polymerizable oligomer that results in the gelation or solidification of the negative electrolyte composition ([0031];[0033 – 0034];[0048]); therefore Lee further discloses wherein the gel polymer electrolyte comprises a gel polymer electrolyte composition which is in the state of thermally crosslinked.
In working Example 3, Lee discloses an embodiment of the polymer gel electrolyte composition {i.e. negative electrolyte composition} that includes LiFSI {i.e. LiN(SO2F)2 } as the lithium salt, DME {i.e. 1,2-dimethoxyethane} as the ether-based solvent, and TEGDA as the thermally-crosslinkable polymerizable oligomer ([0038];[0042];[0046];[0178]). Therefore, Lee further discloses wherein the polymer gel electrolyte composition comprises a lithium salt comprising LiN(SO2F)2 (Claims 1 and 5) and an ether-based organic solvent comprising 1,2-dimethoxyethane (Claims 1 and 6).
Lee does not explicitly disclose the polymer gel electrolyte composition further comprising a nitrate and further wherein the nitrate comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of LiNO3, NaNO3, KNO3, Mg(NO3)2, Ca(NO3)2, and Ag(NO3)2 (Claim 7).
Mikhaylik teaches a polymer layer for a lithium ion battery that is in the form of a gel electrolyte ([0029];[0033];[0056];[0067]). In addition to lithium ion salts such as LiSCN, LiBr, LiI, LiClO4, LiAsF6, LiSO3CF3, LiSO3CH3, LiBF4, LiB(Ph)4, LiPF6, LiC(SO2CF3)3, and LiN(SO2CF3)2, Mikhaylik teaches including additives such as inorganic and organic nitrates ([0069 – 0070]). Mikhaylik particularly exemplifies utilizing the nitrate LiNO3 and further teaches that the inclusion of the nitrates can stabilize lithium/electrolyte reactivity within the battery (Example 1; [0101];[0070]). Mikhaylik further teaches gel electrolyte formed from compositions including ether-based solvents ([0059 – 0061]).
Since Lee is concerned with achieving increased electrolyte stability and teaches lithium salts also taught by Mikhaylik ([0004];[0046]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further a include a nitrate additive and more particularly the nitrate, LiNO3 in the electrolyte embodiment disclosed by Lee, as taught by Mikhaylik, with a reasonable expectation of success in furthering Lee’s goal in obtaining stabilized lithium/electrolyte reactivity.
While Lee teaches the lithium metal battery further including a protective layer between the polymer gel negative electrolyte and negative electrode (Fig. 3C; [0108]), Lee does not teach the particulars of the structure of protective layer.
Therefore, modified Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the protective layer comprises nanofibers comprising an oxide having a double bond on its surface.
Hwang teaches a passivation layer that suppresses lithium dendrite growth for a lithium secondary battery comprising a lithium metal electrode and is included between the negative electrode and separator of the battery ([0016];[0043];[0049 – 0050]). The passivation layer is taught to effectively prevent lithium dendrite formation and uniformly transfer lithium ions to the lithium metal electrode so as to prevent an overvoltage or short circuit during charging and discharging ([0027 – 0029]), and thus has a protective function with respect to the lithium metal electrode. The passivation layer Hwang is further taught to be formed from fibrous filler that is preferably a nanofiber and is selected from organic fillers, inorganic fillers and combinations thereof (Hwang: [0063 – 0064];[0116]).
Since Lee desires a protective layer so that the surface of the negative electrode 22 may become more mechanically and electrochemically stable {i.e. suppress dendritic formation} (Lee: [0108]), It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the passivation layer as taught by Hwang as the protective layer in Lee’s battery, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a protective layer with the desired function of preventing lithium dendrite formation as well as more uniform lithium ion transfer.
By including the passivation layer as taught by Hwang, modified Lee provides the claimed structure of wherein the protective layer comprises nanofibers (Hwang: [0063 – 0064];[0116]).
The passivation layer of modified Lee is further taught to include particulate filler in the network structure formed by fibrous filler (Hwang: Fig. 6; [0107 – 0108]). The particulate filler is taught to be selected from organic particles, inorganic particles and combinations thereof (Hwang: [0109]). The inorganic particles are taught to be selected from alumina, silica, titania, zirconia, zinc oxide, antimony oxide, ceria, talc, forsterite, potassium carbonate, aluminum hydroxide, talcum, clay, talcum, barium sulfate, zeolite, kaolin, mica, montmorillonite, silicon nitride, boron nitride, barium titanate and combinations thereof (Hwang: [0111]). The inclusion of the particulate filler provides increased strength to the passivation layer ([0108]).
Modified Lee does not particularly disclose an embodiment where the nanofibers comprise an oxide and further wherein the oxide comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of alumina, silica, titanium oxide, and oxide-based solid electrolytes (Claim 15)
However, since Hwang teaches from a finite list of options including inorganic particles within the network structure formed by nanofibers and further a selectin of inorganic particle materials that significantly overlaps in scope with the claimed selection of oxide materials, and further since Lee desires a protective layer with high strength (Lee: [0034]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed, when modifying Lee to include the passivation as taught by Hwang, to also include an inorganic particle and further select an inorganic particle that is an oxide within the overlapping scope of Hwang’s finite list and the claimed list, and thus obtain the claimed structure of a protective layer comprising nanofibers comprising an oxide, with a reasonable expectation of success that such a selection would be suitable for the passivation layer of modified Lee, and further would provide the desired benefit of increased strength (Hwang: [0108] and Lee: [0034]) [See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Modified Lee, as established above, does not explicitly disclose the oxide having a double bond on its surface and further wherein the double bond on the surface of the oxide comprises one or more functional groups selected from the group consisting of a vinyl group, an acrylate group, and a methacrylate group.
Lee II teaches a protective layer 12 for a lithium metal battery that includes a plurality of composite particles comprising a particles 13 that are organic, inorganic, and/or organic-inorganic particles and a coating layer 14 included on the particles (Fig. 1C – 1D; [0005];[0138];[0141 – 0142]). The protective layer functions to suppress lithium dendrite growth and improve conductivity ([0138]). The coating layer is taught to be an ion conducive material comprising an ion conductive oligomer including an ion conductive unit, an ion conductive polymer including an ion conductive unit, or a combination thereof ([0053]). Lee II includes acrylate and methacrylate-containing polymer/oligomers {i.e. diacrylate/methacrylate/dimethacrylate/tracrulate/trimethacrylate compounds} within their finite list of ion conducive materials for the coating layer of the particles ([0057]). Lee II teaches that coating the particles allows for the protective layer to have improved uniform current density and mechanical properties upon lithium deposition ([0051]). The particle coating is further taught to provide the protective layer with increased mechanical strength ([0062]).
Therefore, since Lee II teaches inorganic particles also taught in modified Lee’s protective layer (Lee II: [0185] and Hwang: [0111]) and further teaches a finite list of coating materials for the particles that includes acrylate/methacrylate-containing materials, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the oxide particles of modified Lee by coating the particles with an acrylate or methacrylate-containing material {i.e. refer to the di- or tri-acrylate, methacrylate, di- or tri-methacrylate compounds}, as taught by Lee II, with a reasonable expectation of success that such a selection of coating material would be suitable for coating the inorganic particles of modified Lee {i.e. maintain the desired function of suppressing lithium dendrite} and further that such a selection would provide the protective layer with improved strength, as desired by modified Lee (Hwang: [0108] and Lee: [0108]), as well as improved ion conductivity [See MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
By having the acrylate or methacrylate-containing coating on the surface of the oxide inorganic particles of the protective layer, modified Lee provides an oxide structure within the claimed scope of an oxide having a double bond on the surface that comprises one or more functional groups selected from an acrylate group and methacrylate. That is, as one with ordinary skill in the art would appreciate/recognize a coating material containing a methacrylate/acrylate group would necessarily and inherently includes a double bond and thus provide surface having a double bond.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Lee discloses all limitation as set forth above. In the polymer gel electrolyte composition of example 3, Lee further teaches using TEGDA as the thermally-crosslinkable polymerizable oligomer ([0038 – 0039];[0178]). Therefore, Lee further discloses wherein the polymer gel electrolyte composition further comprises a cross-linking agent.
However, TEGDA {i.e. triethylene glycol diacrylate} is not included within the claimed selection of cross-linking agents in claim 4; therefore, Lee does particularly disclose an embodiment comprising a cross-linking agent selected from the group consisting of trimethylolpropane triacrylate, di-trimethylolpropane tetraacrylate, ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate, butane diol diacrylate, tripropylene glycol diacrylate, and trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate.
Generally, Lee teaches selecting the thermally-crosslinkable polymerizable oligomer diethylene glycol diacrylate (DEGDA), triethylene glycol diacrylate (TEGDA), tetraethylene glycol diacrylate (TTEGDA), polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA), dipropylene glycol diacrylate (DPGDA), tripropylene glycol diacrylate (TPGDA), ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate (ETPTA), acrylate-functionalized ethylene oxide, 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate, ethoxylated neopentyl glycol diacrylate (NPEOGDA); propoxylated neopentyl glycol diacrylate (NPPOGDA), allyl methacrylate (ALMA), trimethylolpropane triacrylate (TMPTA), trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate (TMPTMA), pentaerythritol triacrylate (PETA), ethoxylated propoxylated trimethylol propane triacrylate (TMPEOTA)/(TMPPOTA), glyceryl/propoxylated triacrylate (GPTA)/(GPPOTA), tris(2-hydroxyethyl) isocyanurate triacrylate (THEICTA), pentaerythritol tetraacrylate (PETTA), dipentaerythritol pentaacrylate (DPEPA), or a combination thereof, which overlaps the claimed scope of crosslinking agents in claim 4.
Therefore, since Lee exemplifies a finite list cross-linking options, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely select and substitute TEGDA with a cross-linking agent within the overlapping portion of the taught last and claimed list for the polymer gel electrolyte composition of modified Lee, with reasonable expectation of success that such a selection would be suitable for the polymer gel electrolyte composition of Lee and further capable of providing the desired cross-linking function (Lee: [0038 – 0039]) [See MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
Regarding Claim 13, modified Lee discloses all limitation as set forth above. Modified Lee’s protective layer is a network formed from a fibrous filler, and the fibrous filler is further taught to be a nanofiber (Hwang: [0063 – 0064]). The nanofiber network is further taught to include a network of ion conductive polymer, and thus, form a double network of fibrous filler and ion conductive polymer (Hwang: Fig. 7; [0079 – 0080];[0116]). By teaching a structure where the fibrous filler and ion conductive polymer networks are combined to form a double network, modified Lee further discloses a structure that reads on the claimed structure of wherein the nanofiber comprises an ion conductive polymer.
The ion conductive polymer taught to be used by Hwang includes polyethylene oxide, polypropylene oxide, polydimethylsiloxane, polyacrylonitrile, polymethyl (meth)acrylate, polyvinyl chloride, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene, polyethylene imine, polyphenylene terephthalamide, polymethoxypolyethylene glycol (meth)acrylate, poly-2-methoxyethyl glycidyl ether and combinations thereof ([0081]). Hwang further teaches a preference for using polyethylene oxide ([0081]).
Since modified Lee teaches a finite list of ion conductive polymers, and further teaches a preference for using polyethylene oxide (Hwang: [0081]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select, as the ion conductive polymer material of modified Lee, an ion conductive polymer within the clamed selection of polymer materials {i.e. polyethylene oxide or polypropylene oxide}, with a reasonable expectation of success that such a selection would be suitable ion conductive polymer for modified Lee’s protective layer [See MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
Regarding Claim 16, modified Lee discloses all limitation as set forth above. The oxide of modified Lee has a diameter of 1 nm to 5 µm, and further 5 nm to 1 µm (Hwang: [0112]), which encompasses the claimed range of about 20 nm to 400 nm.
Hwang further teaches that, when the average particle diameter is less than the taught range, the particulate filler aggregates and makes it difficult to obtain uniform properties for the passivation layer ([0112]). When the average particle diameter is above the taught range, Hwang teaches that the particulate filler becomes difficult to insert in the fibrous filler network ([0112]).
Selection of a diameter within the overlapping portion of the taught range and the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the dispersion of the particulate filler without causing particulate filler aggregation within the nanofiber and ionic polymer network of modified Lee’s passivation layer, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 17, modified Lee discloses all limitation as set forth above. Lee further discloses a vehicle comprising the lithium metal battery (Refer to rejection of claim 1 and Lee: [0146 – 0147]).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20190190068A1), Mikhayik (US PG Pub. 2010/012945054 A1), Hwang (US PG Pub. 2018/0294513 A1), and Lee II (US PG Pub. 2018/0316051 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Itou (WO2007086396A1, cited in previous O.A. mailed 10/02/2025).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Lee discloses all limitation as set forth above. Lee further discloses obtaining the polymer gel electrolyte by heat treatment of the composition {i.e. heating after injecting to cross-link TEGDA} at a temperature of 80°C, which is within the claimed temperature range of about 60°C to 90°C (0152];[0182]) for 10 minutes ([0182]), which is outside the claimed range of for about 1 to 5 hours.
Itou, directed to thermally forming a gel polymer electrolyte that includes acrylic polymers ([0037 – 0039]), teaches that the heating temperature and duration of the process affects the film strength of the polymer electrolyte ([0041]). Itou further teaches setting the temperature to greater than 20°C and the time to be 5 minutes or more, and more specifically 10 minutes to 240 minutes, to allow for insolubilization due to thermosetting/heat to sufficiently advance ([0041]).
One with ordinary skill in the art would appreciate, since Itou teaching gelling/solidifying after injecting into the battery, that longer heat treatment times could negatively impact the other components of the battery/reduce manufacturing efficiency of the battery.
Therefore, since Lee does not explicitly limit the heat treatment duration, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the heat treatment duration of Lee’s example composition to be within the overlapping portion of the claimed range and the range taught by Itou, in the interest of optimizing the strength and insolubilization of the polymer gel electrolyte in view of manufacturing efficiency/thermal stability of the battery, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/A.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
