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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/04/2026 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, 11-13, 15-18, 20, and 22-23 rejections below.
Applicant argues “Yushin is silent with regards to a C-rate and an electrode body having an average thickness of at least greater than 100 µm.” (see e.g. page 6 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, while Yushin does not explicitly recite a C-rate, Yushin discloses an electrode structure and composition that are not structurally distinguishable from the claimed electrode. The recited area-specific capacity is an inherent property of such an electrode when operated at a finite current. In the absence of any disclosure that Yushin’s electrode operates exclusively above 1C, it would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed capacity loading is achievable at C-rates up to 1C (see MPEP 2112.01). Furthermore, although Yushin discloses a thickness of 50–100 µm, Matsuzaki explicitly discloses an electrode thickness range of 4–200 µm, which overlaps with the claimed “greater than 100 µm” limitation. It would have been obvious to modify Yushin’s electrode thickness in view of Matsuzaki to achieve improved electrolyte absorption and high power density. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Yushin does not disclose or suggest an electrode including an electrode body having an average thickness of at least greater than 100 µm and a rate capability of at least 2.2 mAh/cm² at a C-rate of up to 1C.” (see e.g. page 6 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Yushin discloses an area-specific capacity range of 2–6 mAh/cm², which overlaps with and encompasses the claimed minimum of at least 2.2 mAh/cm². As set forth in MPEP 2144.05(I), overlapping ranges establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Additionally, as discussed above, the claimed C-rate limitation is inherently satisfied by Yushin. The thickness limitation is rendered obvious by Matsuzaki’s disclosure of 4–200 µm, which overlaps and includes values greater than 100 µm. Therefore, the combination of Yushin and Matsuzaki teaches or suggests all limitations of claim 1. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “the Office has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” (see e.g. page 7 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, a prima facie case of obviousness has been properly established. Yushin discloses the claimed electrode structure and overlapping capacity range, while Matsuzaki provides a thickness range that overlaps with the claimed limitation and teaches benefits such as improved electrolyte absorption and high power density. The combination is supported by articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. Accordingly, all claim limitations are taught or suggested by the applied prior art. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “neither Matsuzaki, Yang, nor Take cures the deficiencies of Yushin.” (see e.g. page 7 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, this argument is predicated on the incorrect assumption that Yushin fails to disclose the claimed limitations. As explained above, Yushin inherently discloses the claimed rate capability and explicitly discloses an overlapping capacity range. Matsuzaki provides the claimed thickness range, while Yang discloses specific binder compositions and electroactive material features within the claimed ranges. Each secondary reference addresses the respective limitations for which it is applied. Therefore, there is no deficiency requiring “curing” beyond what is already taught or suggested by the combination. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “increasing electrode thickness beyond 100 µm is challenging and leads to poor rate capability in Li-ion batteries.” (see e.g. pages 7-8 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, statements regarding general challenges in the art do not negate the teachings of Matsuzaki, which explicitly discloses electrode thicknesses up to 200 µm and teaches advantageous properties such as improved electrolyte absorption and high power density. A reference is not limited to preferred embodiments and may be relied upon for all that it teaches. The fact that certain design choices may present trade-offs does not render the modification non-obvious where the prior art provides motivation to pursue such modifications. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “the Examples demonstrate superior rate capability and charge capacity due to the channels.” (see e.g. page 8 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claims do not recite “superior” performance, improved retention, or any comparative limitation relative to the prior art. Alleged advantages described in the specification cannot be imported into the claims. Furthermore, the presence of channels was already recited and addressed in the prior rejections, and applicant has not amended the structural features of the channels in a manner that distinguishes over Yushin. Additionally, any asserted unexpected results are not commensurate in scope with the claims, which broadly encompass electrodes within overlapping ranges disclosed by the prior art. 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, 11-13, 15-18, 20, and 22-23 rejections below.
Summary
This is a continued examination non-final office action for application 17/909,647 in response to the amendments filed on 05/04/2026. Claims 1-9, 11-13, 15-18, 20 and 22-24 are under examination. Claim 24 still remains withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for national priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). The certified copy has been filed in provisional Application No. 62/986,044 filed on 03/06/2020 and PCT/US21/21361 filed on 03/08/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2022 is being considered
by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-9, 11, 13, 15-18, 20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US-20180151884-A1) and further in view of Matsuzaki (US-20170104215-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yushin discloses an electrode for an electrochemical device (see e.g. "an anode… for a metal-ion battery" in Abstract and FIG. 2) comprising:
an electrode body (see e.g. FIG. 4) having a first surface (see e.g. part number 403 in FIG. 4) and second surface opposite the first surface (see e.g. part number 406 in FIG. 4),
wherein the second surface of the electrode body is affixed to a current collector (see e.g. part numbers 404b and 406 in FIG. 4; in this figure the second surface (406) is affixed to the current collector (404b)),
wherein the electrode body comprises a plurality of channels and wherein at least a portion of the channels extend from the first surface to the second surface of the electrode body (see e.g. FIG. 13 and FIG. 4; within this figure it is clear there are pathways between the particles (part number 403) that stretch from the first surface (403) to the second surface of the electrode body (406)), and
wherein the electrode has a rate capability (area specific capability) of 2-6 mAh/cm2 (see e.g. "the capacity loading is moderate or moderate-high (e.g. 2-6 mAh/cm2)" in paragraph [0063]).
Yushin does not explicitly recite a C-rate at which the disclosed capacity loading is measured. However, Yushin discloses an electrode structure and composition that have no compositional or structural distinction from the electrode claimed in the instant application. Area-specific capacity is a property that necessarily results from the disclosed electrode structure when the electrode is charged and discharged at a finite current. In the absence of any disclosure that Yushin’s electrode operates exclusively at C-rates greater than 1C, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed capacity loading is achieved at C-rates that include values up to 1C. Accordingly, the claimed rate capability is inherent in the electrode disclosed by Yushin. When the prior art structure is the same as the claimed structure, and the claimed property necessarily flows from that structure, the property is inherent even if not expressly disclosed. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01(I).
Thus Yushin discloses an area-specific capacity range of 2–6 mAh/cm² which overlaps with and encompasses the claimed minimum value of at least 2.2 mAh/cm². Yushin discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Yushin does not disclose that the electrode body has an average thickness (distance from the first surface to the second surface of the electrode body) of at least greater than 100 µm.
Matsuzaki, however, in the same field of endeavor, high energy electrodes with controlled microstructures, discloses an electrode body that has an average thickness of 4 to 200 µm (see e.g. "the thickness of the compressed mixture layer is typically approximately from 4 to 200 μm" in paragraph [0075] of Matsuzaki).
Matsuzaki discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Matsuzaki also teaches that this type of electrode is excellent in speed absorption of an electrolytic solution and in amount of retention and application of this electrode to secondary batteries allows for high power density of the batteries to be achieved and can be manufactured at low cost with high productivity (see e.g. paragraph [0145] of Matsuzaki). Therefore, it would have been to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrode body of Yushin et al. such that the electrode body has an average thickness of 4 to 200 µm as taught by Matsuzaki in order to have an electrode in a secondary battery that allows for high power density to be achieved and for this battery to be manufactured at a low cost but still have a high productivity as suggest by Matsuzaki.
Regarding Claim 2, Yushin in view of Matsuzaki discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the electrochemical device is an energy storage device (see e.g. "an example metal-ion (e.g., Li-ion) battery" in paragraph [0039]).
Regarding Claim 3, Yushin in view of Matsuzaki discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin does not disclose that the electrode body has an average thickness of at least about 200 µm, from about 200 µm to about 500 µm, or from about 200 µm to about 400 µm.
Matsuzaki, however, in the same field of endeavor, high energy electrodes with controlled microstructures, discloses an electrode body that has an average thickness of 4 to 200 µm (see e.g. "the thickness of the compressed mixture layer is typically approximately from 4 to 200 μm" in paragraph [0075] of Matsuzaki).
Matsuzaki discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Matsuzaki also teaches that this type of electrode is excellent in speed absorption of an electrolytic solution and in amount of retention and application of this electrode to secondary batteries allows for high power density of the batteries to be achieved and can be manufactured at low cost with high productivity (see e.g. paragraph [0145] of Matsuzaki). Therefore, it would have been to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrode body of Yushin et al. such that the electrode body has an average thickness of 4 to 200 µm as taught by Matsuzaki in order to have an electrode in a secondary battery that allows for high power density to be achieved and for this battery to be manufactured at a low cost but still have a high productivity as suggest by Matsuzaki.
Regarding Claim 4, Yushin in view of Matsuzaki discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the channels have a length of the channels may be in the range of 20% of the electrode thickness to 100% of the electrode thickness (see e.g. "In an example, a suitable length of such pores may be in the range from about 20% of the electrode thickness to around 100% of the electrode thickness (e.g., from 50% to 100%)" in paragraph [0169]). Yushin discloses that the electrode is 50-100 µm thick (see e.g. "50-100 micron thick electrodes" in paragraph [0159]), therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the channels can also be between 50-100 µm in length).
Yushin discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 5, Yushin in view of Matsuzaki discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that a portion of the plurality of channels are isolated from each other (see e.g. FIG. 14A). In FIG. 14A Yushin discloses a random layering of particles as well as patterned channels, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that multiple patterned channels would be a plurality of channels isolated from each other.
Regarding Claim 6, Yushin in view of Matsuzaki discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that a portion of the plurality of channels are interconnected (see e.g. FIG. 13; channels between particles are interconnected).
Regarding Claim 7, Yushin in view of Matsuzaki discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the plurality of channels is present in an amount of 0.01 vol% to 20 vol% (see e.g. "the volume fraction of such pores in the electrode may range from around 0.01% to around 20% of the electrode volume." in paragraph [0169]).
Yushin discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 8, Yushin in view of Matsuzaki discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the electrode body further comprises pores (see e.g. "porous fibers may be uniformly distributed within the electrode" in paragraph [0159]) wherein the pores have a porosity volume of 10 vol. % to 97 vol. % (see e.g. "the pore fraction in such porous fibers may range from around 10 vol. % to around 97 vol. %" in paragraph [0159]).
Yushin discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 9, Yushin in view of Matsuzaki discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the electrode body further comprises a solid binder (see e.g. "the active material coating may comprise a first binder and the interlayer may comprise a second binder" in paragraph [0015] and "(e.g. polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)" in paragraph [0063]).
Regarding Claim 11, Yushin in view of Matsuzaki discloses the electrode of claim 9 (see e.g. claim 9 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the binder comprises a conducting polymer (see e.g. "(e.g. polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)" in paragraph [0063]).
Regarding Claim 13, Yushin in view of Matsuzaki discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 15, Yushin in view of Matsuzaki discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the electrode comprises an electroactive material comprising lithium (see e.g. “ lithium sulfide (Li2S, in a fully lithiated state)” in paragraph [0048]).
Regarding Claim 16, Yushin in view of Matsuzaki disclose the electrode of claim 15 (see e.g. claim 15 rejection above).
Yushin does not explicitly disclose that the electroactive material is present in an amount of from 50% to 96% by weight or from 60% to 85% by weight of the electrode body.
Yushin, however, discloses that the electrode comprises a binder and conductive additives, wherein the conductive additives within the electrode may be present in amounts less than 7 wt.% including less than 3 wt.% (see e.g. “the fraction of all conductive additive particles within the electrode may be less than 7 wt. % (e.g., less than 3 wt. %)” in paragraph [0158]) and a 0.002-0.200 g conductive additive per g binder may be used (see e.g. “a 0.002-0.200 g SWCNT per g of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) binder may be used” in paragraph [0150]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art that if 0.200 g of conductive additive is used and this corresponds to 2.5 wt. % of the electrode the equivalent amount of binder would be 12.5 wt. %. Thus the total amount of conductive additive and binder would be 15 wt. % and the remaining amount of electroactive material would be 85 wt. %.
Yushin discloses a point that lies within the ranges 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 17, Yushin in view of Matsuzaki discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the electrode further comprises a binder (see e.g. “the active material coating may comprise a first binder” in paragraph [0015]) and a conductive additive (see e.g. “conductive additives” in paragraph [0057]).
Yushin further discloses that the conductive additives within the electrode may be present in amounts less than 7 wt.% including less than 3 wt.%. (see e.g. “the fraction of all conductive additive particles within the electrode may be less than 7 wt. % (e.g., less than 3 wt. %)” paragraph [0158]). Thus, Yushin teaches conductive additive amounts overlapping the claimed conductive additive range of 2.5-30 wt.%.
Yushin additionally teaches that less than 10 vol.% (in some cases less than 5 vol.%) of the binders and conductive additives (combined) are used in such electrode (see e.g. “, less than 10 vol. % (in some cases less than 5 vol. %) of the binders and conductive additives (combined) is used in such electrodes to facilitate formation of the colloidal crystals during the electrode preparation” in paragraph [0165]). Thus, Yushin teaches relatively low combined quantities of binder and conductive additives, with the remaining composition necessarily comprising electroactive material.
Furthermore, Yushin teaches that a 0.002-0.200 g of conductive additive per g of) binder may be used (see e.g. “a 0.002-0.200 g SWCNT per g of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) binder may be used” in paragraph [0150]). Therefore, Yushin expressly teaches varying relative proportions of conductive additive and binder as result-effective variables.
For example, assuming a conductive additive amount of about 2.5 wt.% as expressly encompassed by the disclosure of less than 3 wt.% conductive additive and further assuming a conductive additive:binder ratio within the disclosed range, the corresponding binder amount would have been a predictable result-effective variable readily optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The remainder of the electrode composition would necessarily comprise electroactive material.
For instance, assuming a binder amount of about 7.5 wt.% together with 2.5 wt.% conductive additive, the remaining electrode composition attributable to electroactive material would be:
100-7.5-2.5=90
Thus, the resulting composition would comprise: 90 wt.% electroactive material, 7.5 wt.% binder, and 2.5 wt.% conductive additive, which falls within the claimed weight ratio of 60-95:2.5-10:2.5-30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the relative amounts of electroactive material, binder, and conductive additive because Yushin expressly teaches that these parameters affect electrode mechanical stability, conductivity, ionic transport, volumetric capacity, and cycle stability (see e.g. paragraphs [0150], [0158], and [0165]).
Yushin discloses overlapping or adjacent ranges to the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 18, Yushin in view of Matsuzaki discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the electrode body comprises an electrolyte (see e.g. "an electrolyte (not shown) impregnating the separator 104" in paragraph [0039] and FIG. 1). The separator (104) is in between the negative electrode (102) and positive electrode (103); it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the electrolyte impregnating the cell would necessarily be present within the pores/channels of the electrode body, since electrolyte infiltration into pores and channels is an inherent and well-understood result of fabricating and operating porous/channel-containing electrodes.
Regarding Claim 20, Yushin in view of Matsuzaki discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the current collector is a metal current collector (see e.g. "the current collector may be a copper alloy" in paragraph [0013]).
Regarding Claim 22, Yushin in view of Matsuzaki discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the electrode has a rate capability (area specific capability) of 2-6 mAh/cm2 (see e.g. "the capacity loading is moderate or moderate-high (e.g., 2-6 mAh/cm2)" in paragraph [0063]).
Yushin does not explicitly recite a C-rate at which the disclosed capacity loading is measured. However, Yushin discloses an electrode structure and composition that have no compositional or structural distinction from the electrode claimed in the instant application. Area-specific capacity is a property that necessarily results from the disclosed electrode structure when the electrode is charged and discharged at a finite current. In the absence of any disclosure that Yushin’s electrode operates exclusively at C-rates greater than 1C, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed capacity loading is achieved at C-rates that include values up to 1C. Accordingly, the claimed rate capability is inherent in the electrode disclosed by Yushin. When the prior art structure is the same as the claimed structure, and the claimed property necessarily flows from that structure, the property is inherent even if not expressly disclosed. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01(I).
Thus Yushin discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 23, Yushin in view of Matsuzaki discloses a cell having a positive electrode (see e.g. "a positive cathode 103" in paragraph [0039] and part number 103 in FIG. 1 of Yushin) and a negative electrode (see e.g. " a negative anode 102" in paragraph [0039] and part number 102 in FIG. 1 of Yushin) and an electrolyte in ionic communication with the positive and negative electrodes (see e.g. " an electrolyte (not shown) impregnating the separator 104" in paragraph [0039] of Yushin; the separator (104) is in between the negative electrode (102) and positive electrode (103) an electrolyte impregnating the separator in between would have to have ionic communication with both electrodes as ions flow during operation), wherein at least one of the positive and negative electrodes comprises an electrode according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US-20180151884-A1) in view of Matsuzaki (US-20170104215-A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US-20150125747-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Yushin in view of Matsuzaki discloses the electrode of claim 9 (see e.g. claim 9 rejection above).
Yushin in view of Matsuzaki does not disclose that the binder comprises polyacrylic acid and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) in a weight ratio from 1:4 to 4:1.
Yang, however, in the same field of endeavor, electrodes for high power batteries, discloses a binder that comprises polyacrylic acid and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) in a weight ratio of 7:3 (see e.g. "the content of the binder was controlled such that the styrene-butadiene rubber and the polyacrylic acid were present in a weight ratio of 7:3." in paragraph [0089] of Yang).
Yang 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).
Yang also teaches that this binder can improve the durability of an anode and enhance the life characteristics of an electrochemical device (see e.g. paragraph [0002] of Yang). 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 binder of Yushin et al. in view of Matsuzaki et al. such that it comprises polyacrylic acid and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) in a weight ratio of 7:3 as taught by Yang et al. in order to improve the durability of the anode and enhance the life characteristics of the electrochemical device as suggested by Yang.
Conclusion
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
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
