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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Rejection
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 17 is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are substantially maintained and modified only in response to the arguments and amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16-17, 19-21, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2018/0145327 A1) in view of Lei et al. (CN 104201388 A, machine translation) and Shin et al. (WO 2019151813 A1, machine translation). Evidentiary support for claim 1 provided by Barker (US 20180301696 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses a carbon-containing anode material (anode material having a carbonous pore structure that has enough space to intercalate/de-intercalate ions [abstract; Para. 0019]), comprising a core comprising one or more primary carbon-containing materials comprising hard carbon (a core formed at least one carbonaceous material selected from a group consisting of hard carbon [Para. 0005]), and an outer surface comprising one or more carbonized materials chemically bonded and deposited substantially uniformly on the one or more primary carbon-containing materials (a carbon shell coated on a surface of the core, the carbon shell containing amorphous carbon, cobalt element and tin element; the use of a ball mill during synthesis and the materials selected to include cobalt and tin meet the limitations of the “shell” being substantially uniform and chemically bonded [Paras. 0068-0086]), wherein the core does not consist or does not consist essentially of one or more primary carbon-containing materials selected from graphite and a material that has a fully graphitic structure (although graphite is taught as an optional core shell material, hard carbon and soft carbon are taught as other suitable alternatives. It follows that the selection of hard carbon or soft carbon meets the limitations of the core not consisting or not consisting essentially of graphite [Paras. 0018, 0029, 0046]).
Zhang is silent on the surface area of the material and thus fails to expressly teach wherein the carbon-containing anode material has an open micropore surface area of 0 m2/g to 0.9 m2/g, as determined using nitrogen gas BET analysis .
Lei discloses a core shell negative electrode material for an alkali metal intercalation battery [abstract] wherein the material preferentially has a low specific surface area between 2 m2/g to 5 m2/g [abstract; Para. 0036]. Lei teaches that a larger specific surface area is not conducive to the design and manufacture of the battery cell and affects the initial efficiency of the material because the finished battery would consume more lithium source provided by the positive electrode and would subsequently increase the irreversible capacity of the battery and reduce the initial efficiency of the material [Para. 0007, 0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the open micropore specific surface area of the core shell material disclosed by Zhang to have a surface area between 2-5 m2/g because Lei teaches that such specific area would aid in the design and manufacturing of the battery cell by reducing the amount of lithium consumed in the initial charge cycle and result in less consumed lithium provided by the positive electrode, subsequently improving the efficiency of the battery by reducing the irreversible capacity [Para. 0007, 0010]. Examiner holds the position that a specific surface area between 2-3 m2/g, as taught by Lei, directly corresponds to an open micropore surface area of 0-0.9 m2/g, as claimed, which is supported by the instant specification Pg. 28 that indicates all BET surface area values between 2-3 m2/g have an open micropore surface area that is between 0-0.9 m2/g. For instance, experimental materials 3 and 6-8 each have a BET specific surface area of between ~2 to 3 m2/g that corresponds to open micropore surface areas between 0-0.9 m2/g. However, assuming arguendo that Lei does not directly correspond to the claimed open micropore surface area, Lei teaches that the irreversible capacity/efficiency depends upon the surface area of the core shell material, which is recognized as a result-effective variable. Since this particular parameter is recognized as result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 U.S.P.Q. 215 (C.C.P.A. 1980). Thus, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the claimed invention to optimize the surface area of the negative electrode to yield an expected result of the lowest irreversible capacity and highest efficiency.
Zhang is further silent on the moisture content and thus fails to teach wherein the anode material has a maximum of 50 parts per million of moisture, of instant claim 16.
Shin discloses an anode active material [abstract] wherein the active material has a moisture content of less than 200 ppm, preferably 5 to 50 ppm of moisture [Para. 0064]. Shin further teaches that when moisture content satisfies this range, problems such as increased resistance, accelerated battery deterioration, and decreased life performance due to increased side reactions with the electrolyte due to high moisture content in the negative active material can be prevented [Para. 0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the anode material taught by modified Zhang to have a moisture content below 200 ppm, specifically between 5 to 50ppm, because Shin teaches that an electrode with a moisture content within this range can prevent problems such as increased resistance, accelerated battery deterioration, and decreased life performance due to increased side reactions with the electrolyte due to high moisture content in the negative active material [Para. 0064]. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art [MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Examiner notes that the method of measuring the moisture content has no patentable weight. The claims are drawn to a material, not a method of measuring a material. The limitation “as determined using Karl Fischer titration technique and after exposure to ambient atmosphere up to one hour” do not further limit the structure of the device and instead further limit how the device is analyzed. Examiner further notes, however, that Shin teaches the analysis of the moisture content using a Karl Fisher method [Para. 0064].
Examiner further notes the preamble “capable of the insertion and extraction of sodium ions" is a statement of intended use [MPEP 2111.02]. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function [MPEP 2114]. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the structure is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations of being “capable of the insertion and extraction of sodium”. This position is further supported by evidentiary reference Barker et al. (US 20180301696 A1) which states that “anodes using hard carbon materials are known to overcome some of the insertion issues for sodium ions”. It is the examiner’s position that the hard-carbon based anode material disclosed by modified Zhang is inherently capable of insertion and extraction of sodium ions as required by the preamble. Although not required by the claim language, it would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the hard-carbon based anode material in a sodium-ion battery as a sodium-ion anode material as Barker teaches that hard carbons are known in the art as suitable for sodium-ion active materials [Paras. 0005-0006].
Regarding claim 17, Zhang further discloses wherein the primary carbon-containing materials further comprise a graphitizable domain and a non-graphitised domain (Zhang teaches wherein the core comprises one or more primary carbon-containing materials that include soft carbon and hard carbon [Para. 0005]). The examiner takes the position that soft carbon inherently comprises graphitisable domains and a non-graphitised domain. This position is supported by the instant specification PG Pub Para. 0022 which states that “a soft carbon material is an example of a carbon-containing material that comprises a graphitizable domain and a non-graphitised domain”.
Regarding claim 19, The Applicant is advised that the limitation “wherein the one or more primary carbon-containing materials are derived from the pyrolysis of plant-based materials, animal-derived materials, hydrocarbon materials, carbohydrate materials and other carbon-containing materials” is a product-by-process limitation. There is no apparent difference between the apparatus as claimed and the prior art as taught by Zhang or Zhang in view of Lei. MPEP 2113. Examiner notes, however, that Zhang teaches wherein the carbon source material can be petroleum asphalt, coal pitch, saccharose, glucose, starch, phenolic resin and epoxy resin, which read upon the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 20, Zhang further teaches wherein the one or more primary carbon-containing materials comprise one or more carbon composite materials represented by (carbon)-X where X is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of…tin (the hard carbon or soft carbon are disposed into the solution containing the tin compound and precipitated such that the precipitate tin element adheres to the carbonaceous material [Para. 0032, 0034]).
Regarding claim 21, The Applicant is advised that the limitation “wherein the carbonized material is derived from one or more secondary carbon-containing materials selected from organic and hydrocarbon materials” is a product-by-process limitation. There is no apparent difference between the apparatus as claimed and the prior art as taught by Zhang or Zhang in view of Lei. MPEP 2113. Examiner notes, however, that Zhang teaches wherein the carbon source material can be petroleum asphalt, coal pitch, saccharose, glucose, starch, phenolic resin and epoxy resin, which read upon the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 24, Zhang further discloses wherein the one or more primary carbon-containing materials have a particle size from 1nm to 30 μm (the particle diameter is about 30 to 70 nm, about 20 to 50 nm, or about 8 to 18 μm, all of which fall within the claimed range [Paras. 0022, 0026, 0033]).
Regarding claims 25, Zhang discloses a process for the preparation of a carbon-containing anode material (anode material having a carbonous pore structure that has enough space to intercalate/de-intercalate ions [abstract; Para. 0019]) comprising: contacting a core comprising one or more primary carbon- containing materials in solid form with carbonised material at a temperature of up to 950°C (contacting at least one carbonaceous material including hard carbon with a cobalt and tin compound to form a first solid phase, then dispersing the first solid phase into a second solution containing a carbon source material to form a second solid phase, then treating the second solid phase with a high temperature decomposition treatment in inert atmosphere including temperatures from 850-1050°C including for example 900°C [Paras. 0029-0031; Para. 0082]), to thereby yield a carbon-containing anode material that has one or more carbonised materials chemically bonded and deposited substantially uniformly on an outer surface of the one or more primary carbon-containing materials (a carbon shell coated on a surface of the core, the carbon shell containing amorphous carbon, cobalt element and tin element; the use of a ball mill during synthesis and the materials selected to include cobalt and tin meet the limitations of the “shell” being substantially uniform and chemically bonded [Paras. 0068-0086]), wherein the core does not consist or consist essentially of one or more primary carbon-containing materials selected from graphite, and a material that has a fully graphitic structure (although graphite is taught as an optional core shell material, hard carbon and soft carbon are taught as other suitable alternatives. It follows that the selection of hard carbon or soft carbon meets the limitations of the core not consisting or not consisting essentially of graphite [Paras. 0018, 0029, 0046]).
Zhang is silent on the surface area of the material and thus fails to expressly teach wherein the carbon-containing anode material has an open micropore surface area of 0 m2/g to 0.9 m2/g, as determined using nitrogen gas BET analysis .
Lei discloses a core shell negative electrode material for an alkali metal intercalation battery [abstract] wherein the material preferentially has a low specific surface area between 2 m2/g to 5 m2/g [abstract; Para. 0036]. Lei teaches that a larger specific surface area is not conducive to the design and manufacture of the battery cell and affects the initial efficiency of the material because the finished battery would consume more lithium source provided by the positive electrode and would subsequently increase the irreversible capacity of the battery and reduce the initial efficiency of the material [Para. 0007, 0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the open micropore specific surface area of the core shell material disclosed by Zhang to have a surface area between 2-5 m2/g because Lei teaches that such specific area would aid in the design and manufacturing of the battery cell by reducing the amount of lithium consumed in the initial charge cycle and result in less consumed lithium provided by the positive electrode, subsequently improving the efficiency of the battery by reducing the irreversible capacity [Para. 0007, 0010]. Examiner holds the position that a specific surface area between 2-3 m2/g, as taught by Lei, directly corresponds to an open micropore surface area of 0-0.9 m2/g, as claimed, which is supported by the instant specification Pg. 28 that indicates all BET surface area values between 2-3 m2/g have an open micropore surface area that is between 0-0.9 m2/g. For instance, experimental materials 3 and 6-8 each have a BET specific surface area of between ~2 to 3 m2/g that corresponds to open micropore surface areas between 0-0.9 m2/g. However, assuming arguendo that Lei does not directly correspond to the claimed open micropore surface area, Lei teaches that the irreversible capacity/efficiency depends upon the surface area of the core shell material, which is recognized as a result-effective variable. Since this particular parameter is recognized as result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 U.S.P.Q. 215 (C.C.P.A. 1980). Thus, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the claimed invention to optimize the surface area of the negative electrode to yield an expected result of the lowest irreversible capacity and highest efficiency.
Zhang is further silent on the moisture content and thus fails to teach wherein the anode material has a maximum of 50 parts per million of moisture, of instant claim 25.
Shin discloses an anode active material [abstract] wherein the active material has a moisture content of less than 200 ppm, preferably 5 to 50 ppm of moisture [Para. 0064]. Shin further teaches that when moisture content satisfies this range, problems such as increased resistance, accelerated battery deterioration, and decreased life performance due to increased side reactions with the electrolyte due to high moisture content in the negative active material can be prevented [Para. 0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the anode material taught by Zhang or Zhang in view of Lei to have a moisture content below 200 ppm, specifically between 5 to 50ppm, because Shin teaches that an electrode with a moisture content within this range can prevent problems such as increased resistance, accelerated battery deterioration, and decreased life performance due to increased side reactions with the electrolyte due to high moisture content in the negative active material [Para. 0064]. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art [MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Examiner notes that the method of measuring the moisture content has no patentable weight. The claims are drawn to a material, not a method of measuring a material. The limitation “as determined using Karl Fischer titration technique and after exposure to ambient atmosphere up to one hour” do not further limit the structure of the device and instead further limit how the device is analyzed. Examiner further notes, however, that Shin teaches the analysis of the moisture content using a Karl Fisher method [Para. 0064].
Examiner notes the preamble “capable of the insertion and extraction of sodium ions" is a statement of intended use [MPEP 2111.02]. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function [MPEP 2114]. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the structure is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations of being “capable of the insertion and extraction of sodium”. This position is further supported by evidentiary reference Barker et al. (US 20180301696 A1) which states that “anodes using hard carbon materials are known to overcome some of the insertion issues for sodium ions”. It is the examiner’s position that the hard-carbon based anode material disclosed by modified Zhang is inherently capable of insertion and extraction of sodium ions as required by the preamble. Although not required by the claim language, it would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the hard-carbon based anode material in a sodium-ion battery as a sodium-ion anode material as Barker teaches that hard carbons are known in the art as suitable for sodium-ion active materials [Paras. 0005-0006].
Regarding claim 26, Zhang further discloses wherein the step of contacting the primary carbon-containing materials with the carbonised material is achieved by contacting the primary carbon-containing materials with one or more secondary carbon-containing materials and thereafter facilitating the formation of carbonised material from the one or more secondary carbon-containing materials (contacting at least one carbonaceous material including hard carbon or soft carbon with a cobalt and tin compound to form a first solid phase, then dispersing the first solid phase into a second solution containing a carbon source material to form a second solid phase, then treating the second solid phase with a high temperature decomposition treatment in inert atmosphere including temperatures from 850-1050°C including for example 900°C [Paras. 0029-0031, 0082]).
Regarding claim 27, Zhang further discloses wherein the one or more secondary carbon-containing materials comprise a vapour and/or a liquid and/or gaseous phase at, at least one temperature from 950°C or less (the second carbon source material comprises a solution (i.e., liquid phase) when it is used to disperse the first solid phase and before heating to high temperature (i.e., is less than 950°C) [Paras. 0029-0031, 0082]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Shin and Lei, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Barker et al. (US 20180301696 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the limitations of claim 19 have been rejected above as a product-by-process limitation that has no patentable weight. However, examiner notes that the synthesis of hard carbon from carbohydrate-containing materials is known in the art as taught by Barker and rejected below.
Zhang is silent on the synthesis of the hard carbon or soft carbon and thus fail to expressly teach wherein the one or more primary carbon-containing materials are derived from the pyrolysis of plant-based materials, animal-derived materials, hydrocarbon materials, carbohydrate materials and other carbon-containing organic materials.
Barker teaches a hard carbon composite material for alkali ion battery applications [abstract; Para 0003] wherein the hard carbon material can be derived from the pyrolysis of a carbohydrate-containing material including corn starch [Para. 0031; claim 12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the hard carbon material of Zhang using a process that includes the pyrolysis of a carbohydrate-containing material including corn starch because Barker teaches that such method is known in the art to yield the hard carbon material suitable for battery electrode applications [Para. 0031; Claim 12]. Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Lei and Shin, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (JP 2020047601 A, machine translation).
Regarding claim 22, modified Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 16 as outlined previously.
Zhang further teaches wherein during the high temperature reaction, inactive gas is introduced so as to reduce the oxygen content to less than 50 ppm , and further teaches where nitrogen is used as the inert gas and introduced to the oven at a rate such that the oxygen is expelled to be less than 50 ppm [Paras. 0047, 0070].
Although the teachings of Zhang imply the desire to have no oxygen present in the system, Zhang is silent on the exact oxygen content of the outer surface and thus fails to expressly teach “a maximum of 2.5 atomic percent of oxygen on its outer surface”.
Yamada teaches a carbon material for non-aqueous secondary batteries including lithium ion batteries [title; Paras. 0001-0002]. Yamada teaches that a large amount of oxygen functional groups present on the outer surface result in side reactions with the electrolyte, resulting in problems such as irreversible capacity and large amounts of gas generation [Para. 0007]. Yamada further teaches wherein the surface oxygen content is 2 mol % or less (overlapping the instant range of a maximum of 2.5 atomic percent) [Para. 0092, Claim 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the oxygen content on the outer surface of material disclosed by Zhang to have an oxygen content of 2 mol % or less (including values that overlap with the instant claimed range of < 2.5 atomic percent) because Yamada teaches that large amounts of oxygen functional groups result in side reactions with the electrolyte, resulting in problems such as irreversible capacity and large amounts of gas generation [Para. 0007]. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art [MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Claims 16, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Shin and Lei, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Barker et al. (US 20050238961 A1).
Regarding claims 16, 28 and 29, Modified Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 16 including an alkali metal-ion cell comprising the anode electrode as outlined previously.
Zhang is silent on the anode material being used in a sodium ion cell and thus fails to expressly teach “A sodium-ion cell comprising a cathode…and an electrolyte”, of instant claim 28, wherein the cathode and electrolyte are configured to reversibly cycle sodium ions (as outlined in instant claim 16). It follows that Zhang also fails to teach wherein the electrolyte comprises the materials outlined in instant claim 29.
Barker discloses a sodium ion battery including a cathode, electrolyte, and anode, where the anode includes a carbon material such as a hard carbon where the hard carbon is capable of inserting sodium ions and reversibly cycle sodium and/or lithium ions [Para. 0016]. Barker further discloses wherein the electrolytes would include, for example, LiPF6, LiBF4 for lithium ion batteries or sodium analogs for sodium ion batteries (i.e., NaPF6, NaBF4) with a concentration between preferably 1.0 to 2.0 M in a blended solvent including, for example, EC, PC, GBL, DMC, DEC, EMC, etc. [Paras. 0196-0201].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the hard carbon-based anode material outlined in the rejection of claim 16 above as taught by Zhang or Zhang in view of Lei in a sodium ion battery application that includes a sodium based cathode material and a sodium based salt (along with the solvents listed above at concentrations between 1-2 M) because Barker teaches that hard carbon based anode materials are capable of inserting sodium ions and reversibly cycling both sodium and lithium ions and thus would have a reasonable expectation of success when formed as a sodium ion battery. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pg. 5, filed 01/27/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 17 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pgs. 5-8, filed 01/27/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered and are partially persuasive as outlined below.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues on Pgs. 5-7 regarding that the open micropore surface area of the material is not inherent due to the different synthesis processes utilized by the instant application and the references of record.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner agrees. The 103 obviousness rational based on inherency has been withdrawn. However, the 103 rejection of record is maintained in view of the teachings of Lei as outlined in the updated rejection of record and argued below.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues that Lei teaches a specific surface area between 2 m2/g to 5 m2/g which is significantly higher than the claimed open micropore specific surface area of 0 m2/g to 0.9 m2/g. Applicant further argues that Lei does not teach or suggest that driving open micropore surface area down to almost zero while maintaining the required sodium insertion/extraction performance is recognized as a design goal or parameter that can simply be optimized by routine experimentation.
Examiner's Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to be comparing the specific surface area taught by Lei of 2-5 m2/g to the open micropore specific surface area of 0-0.9 m2/g as claimed. The property “open micropore surface area” is not a property that is commonly measured/calculated in the art. Applicant previously argued on Pg. 11 of the response filed 08/15/2025 that specific surface area and open micropore specific surface area are “two entirely different parameters”. Applicant argues that open micropore surface area values are at least 60x less than specific surface area values. With this argument in mind, and in view of the specific examples provided in the instant specification, the Examiner takes the position that the specific surface area values of 0-5 m2/g disclosed by Lei would naturally posses an open micropore surface area values within the claimed range of 0-0.9 m2/g. Furthermore, the result-effective variable/routine optimization rejection holds the position that it is obvious to optimize the specific surface area (and thereby inherently optimizing the open micropore surface area) for the benefit of minimizing the irreversible capacity and improving the efficiency as outlined by Lei [Paras. 0007, 0010].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3176. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-4:30pm ET Mon-Thurs, 7:30am-11:30pm Fri.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713