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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/10/25 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 11/10/2025, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 2, 12, 15, 17, and 18 is/are amended; and claim(s) 3–11, 13, 14, and 16 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 08/15/2025 has/have been withdrawn. However, the pending 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been maintained and altered as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, as established below.
Claim Objections
It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims as follows:
In claim 6, line 2, “and the second adhesive layer is a double-sided adhesive” should be deleted because such is recited in claim 1.
In claim 11, lines 1–4, “the outermost surface of the electrode assembly comprises a first surface, a first cambered surface, a second surface opposite the first surface, and a second cambered surface opposite the first cambered surface that are joined sequentially” should be deleted because such is recited in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1–9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (CN 105449255 A, from 11/30/22 IDS; citations to English equivalent US 20160043361 A1) (Bao) in view of Kim (US 20100291432 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Bao discloses a battery cell (Abstract, Fig. 1), comprising (via annot. FIG. 1 below) an electrode assembly (cell 1 with pos. electrode, separator, and neg. electrode, ¶ 0006) and a packaging bag for accommodating the electrode assembly (package 2; see also ¶ 0006); wherein the battery cell further comprises: a first adhesive layer adhered to a side of the electrode assembly (adhesive paper 4 (1AL in annot. FIG. 7)); and a second adhesive layer disposed on an outermost surface of the electrode assembly to bond the packaging bag and the electrode assembly (binding material 3 (2AL in annotated FIGS. 1 and 7) indirectly disposed; see also, e.g., ¶ 0028, 0034, and 0238), wherein,
the outermost surface of the electrode assembly comprises a first surface, a first cambered surface, a second surface opposite the first surface, and a second cambered surface opposite the first cambered surface, where the first surface, first cambered surface, second surface, and second cambered surface are joined sequentially (annot. FIGS. 1 and 7); the second adhesive layer is disposed on the first surface (Id.) wherein, along a thickness direction of the electrode assembly, the first adhesive layer is disposed between the electrode assembly and the second adhesive layer (Id.).
PNG
media_image1.png
328
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
180
356
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per the above figures, Bao appears to further disclose equal lengths of the “first” and “second” adhesive layers in the electrode assembly’s length direction yet, while not appearing necessarily limited to equal lengths to achieve the desired adherence, fails to explicitly disclose that the first adhesive layer is longer than the second adhesive layer.
Kim, in teaching a sealing tape for a battery electrode assembly (Abstract), teaches that the tape includes base material 51 over adhesive layer 52 (e.g., Abstract, FIG. 4), respectively corresponding to Bao’s second and first adhesive layers. Kim further teaches slightly shrinking the base material (51c) so that the adhesive layer is longer in the electrode assembly’s length direction and includes exposed portions (521c, FIG. 4B). Kim teaches that the exposed portions prevent the electrode assembly from moving inside the can (¶ 0044), which otherwise increases the battery’s internal resistance and breaks the electrode tabs (¶ 0033).
Kim and Bao are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery adhesives for electrode assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make Bao’s second adhesive layer slightly shorter than the first layer in the electrode assembly’s length direction to form exposed portions of the first layer, as taught by Kim, with the reasonable expectation of further preventing the electrode assembly from moving inside the packaging/container and increasing internal resistance and breaking the electrode tabs, as taught by Kim. Further, per MPEP 2144.04(IV.)(A.), changing size/proportion is generally prima facie obvious, absent secondary considerations or modification to the device’s operation. Here, there appear to be no unexpected results from the instant disclosure’s making the first layer longer, and making Bao’s second layer slightly shorter would not seem to affect the battery’s operation but would predictably maintain or improve the electrode assembly’s adherence to the container.
Bao further discloses that the second adhesive layer is a double-sided adhesive (in adhering to both the adhesive paper and the package (as in Bao’s FIGS. 1/7 and, e.g., ¶ 0238, binding material 3 is reasonably double-sided, as is conventional (per Bao’s ¶ 0004)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 1.
Bao further discloses that the binding material—which, per annot. FIG. 7 above, would be accompanied by adhesive paper 4, i.e., first adhesive layer—may be provided at any position of the cell’s outer surface facing the package, including being positioned across and surrounding the top and bottom of the cell (¶ 0032; note also positioning perpendicular to electrode assembly’s width direction in annotated FIG .1), but appears to fail to explicitly disclose an embodiment of wrapping along the assembly’s width direction and, thus, that the first adhesive layer is adhered to the first cambered surface or the second cambered surface; and the second adhesive layer is separately disposed on the first surface, the first cambered surface, the second surface, and the second cambered surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely wrap Bao’s adhesive paper plus binding material along the electrode assembly’s width direction with a reasonable expectation of forming a successfully adhered electrode assembly and cell (e.g., MPEP 2143 (A.)).
Thus, modified Bao would disclose that the first adhesive layer is adhered to the first cambered surface and the second cambered surface; and the second adhesive layer is separately disposed on the first surface, the first cambered surface, the second surface, and the second cambered surface (in wrapping both “adhesive layers” along the cell’s width direction, both layers would be independently adhered to each of the four recited surfaces; compare this modification to substantially similar instant FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 3, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 2, wherein (per Bao’s annot. FIG. 1) the electrode assembly further comprises an end surface opposite a tab of the electrode assembly (end surface), and the battery cell further comprises a third adhesive layer (e.g., adhesive layer 31, as part of binding material 3, in being on the end of the electrode assembly (as denoted by 3AL), could be the third adhesive layer), wherein one end of the third adhesive layer is adhered to the first surface (per figure), an opposite end of the third adhesive layer in the length direction of the electrode assembly is adhered to the second surface (per Bao’s figure and, e.g., ¶ 0032 and 0238) after bypassing the end surface (as adhesive layer 31 (3AL) is part of binding material 3—which, as noted in annot. FIG. 7, may be coupled to the intervening adhesive paper 4—the separate adhesive layer 31 could be considered a third layer that would reasonably not directly contact and, thus, bypass the end surface by being separated by the adhesive paper).
Bao fails to explicitly address the number of adhesive sides of adhesive layer 31 and, thus, that such is a single-sided adhesive. However, one skilled in the art would recognize that some number of adhesive surfaces must necessarily be chosen when installing adhesive layer 31 for the layer to bond properly to the neighboring components. The skilled artisan would further recognize, then, that only two solutions exist for the number of adhesive surfaces bonding Bao’s neighboring components: the adhesive may be single-sided or double-sided (as in ability for similar, intervening adhesive paper 4, i.e., first adhesive layer, to be single- or double-sided in Bao’s ¶ 0034). In investigating the suitable degree of adhesion in adhesive layer 31, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely investigate employing the “third adhesive layer” as a single-sided adhesive with a reasonable expectation of producing a successful adhesive layer and adhered electrode assembly (MPEP 2143 (E.)).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 2, wherein the first cambered surface and the second cambered surface are both provided with the first adhesive layer (by wrapping around, as in claim 2).
Bao further discloses an exemplary 8 mm width of adhesive paper 4 (e.g., ¶ 0236), i.e., first adhesive layer, and, thus, in wrapping fully around the electrode assembly, the total width would necessarily be > 16 mm (i.e., 8 mm on both of the cell’s flat surfaces plus additional width in wrapping the cambered surfaces), which would seemingly approach the recited total width of 20–40 mm (claim 4) and, by extension, the individual width of 10–20 mm (claim 5).
As such, though modified Bao fails to explicitly disclose widths falling within the recited ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges fail to overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Because Bao discloses the recited adhesive layers, as well as seemingly substantially similar material to form at least the first adhesive (compare Bao’s polymers (e.g., ¶ 0035, 0042, and 0044) to instant specification’s (¶ 0033)), the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected the prior-art and recited materials to exhibit the same properties (MPEP 2112.01 (I)). Thus, absent demonstrated criticality, it is submitted that the recited width ranges are obvious over Bao.
Additionally, one skilled in the art would recognize that each first adhesive layer's dimensions must be large enough to achieve the desired indirect adhesion between binding material 3, i.e., second adhesive layer, and the electrode assembly (note purpose of adhesive paper 4, ¶ 0034) while adequately covering the assembly, whereas making these dimensions too large would necessarily reduce the battery’s active-material content relative to the cell's total volume and, thus, the energy density. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the respectively recited ranges by routinely optimizing each first adhesive layer’s width (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 6, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 1, wherein the first adhesive layer is a single-sided adhesive (per Bao’s ¶ 0034, adhesive paper 4 may have one adhesive surface), and the second adhesive layer is a double-sided adhesive (per claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 1, wherein a difference between a length of the electrode assembly and a length of the first adhesive layer is 5 mm (see Bao’s Ex. 18, ¶ 0225–0238, where electrode assembly (as prepared in Exs. 1/4) is 80 mm long, and adhesive paper is 75 mm long), which falls within 4–10 mm.
Regarding claim 8, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 1.
As established in claim 1, modified Bao further discloses that the second adhesive layer is slightly shorter than the first adhesive layer (per Kim’s exposed portions) but fails to explicitly disclose the recited length difference of 4–10 mm.
The skilled artisan would recognize, however, that a minimum length difference must necessarily exist to form the exposed portions, whereas making Bao’s first layer too short would necessarily compromise the indirect attachment of the second layer to the electrode assembly, and making the second layer too short would necessarily compromise the attachment to the packaging. To balance these considerations, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited length difference by routinely optimizing the length difference between the first and second adhesive layers (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 9, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 1.
Bao further discloses exemplary lengths of the electrode assembly and second adhesive layer (binding material 3) of 80 mm and 75 mm, respectively (¶ 0061 and 0236, respectively) yet, while not appearing necessarily limited to these lengths to achieve the desired adhered electrode assembly, fails to explicitly disclose the recited length difference.
One skilled in the art, however, would recognize that the second adhesive layer's dimensions must necessarily be large enough to achieve the desired adhesion between the first adhesive layer and packaging, whereas making these dimensions too large would necessarily reduce the battery's energy density, i.e., active-material content relative to the cell's total volume. Likewise, lengthening the electrode assembly would necessarily impart higher capacity by including more active material, whereas shortening the electrode assembly would necessarily enable the assembly to be applied in smaller devices. To balance these considerations, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited length difference by routinely optimizing the lengths of the electrode assembly and second adhesive layer (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 10–18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (CN 105449255 A; citations to English equivalent US 20160043361 A1) (Bao) in view of Kim (US 20100291432 A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hur et al. (WO 2018088773 A1) (Hur).
Regarding claim 10, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 1.
Bao further discloses that the cell is applicable to electrical appliances and power devices (¶ 0003) but fails to explicitly articulate housing the battery in such.
Hur, in teaching an electronic device including a battery (Title), teaches wrapping cell 150 with packaging material 153 (FIG. 4A) and then accommodating the battery in phone case 110/120 (FIG. 1a).
Hur is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery packaging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Bao's cell, when powering a device such as a phone, must necessarily be housed in some manner, and, as demonstrated by Hur, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate the packaged cell into, e.g., a phone case as an appropriate housing.
Regarding claim 11, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 10, wherein the outermost surface of the electrode assembly comprises a first surface, a first cambered surface, a second surface opposite the first surface, and a second cambered surface opposite the first cambered surface that are joined sequentially (Bao’s annot. FIG. 1 and per claim 1).
Bao further discloses that the binding material—which, per annotated FIG. 7 above, would be accompanied by adhesive paper 4, i.e., first adhesive layer—may be provided at any position of the cell’s outer surface facing the package, including being positioned across and surrounding the top and bottom of the cell (¶ 0032; note also positioning perpendicular to electrode assembly’s width direction in annotated FIG .1), but appears to fail to explicitly disclose an embodiment of wrapping along the assembly’s width direction and, thus, that the first adhesive layer is adhered to the first cambered surface or the second cambered surface; and the second adhesive layer is separately disposed on the first surface, the first cambered surface, the second surface, and the second cambered surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely wrap Bao’s adhesive paper plus binding material along the electrode assembly’s width direction with a reasonable expectation of forming a successfully adhered electrode assembly and cell (e.g., MPEP 2143 (A.)).
Thus, modified Bao would disclose that the first adhesive layer is adhered to the first cambered surface and the second cambered surface; and the second adhesive layer is separately disposed on the first surface, the first cambered surface, the second surface, and the second cambered surface (i.e., in wrapping both “adhesive layers” along the cell’s width direction, both layers would be independently adhered to each of the four recited surfaces; compare this modification to substantially similar instant FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 12, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 11, wherein (per Bao’s annot. FIG. 1) the electrode assembly further comprises an end surface opposite a tab of the electrode assembly (end surface), and the battery cell further comprises a third adhesive layer (e.g., adhesive layer 31, as part of binding material 3, in being on the end of the electrode assembly (as denoted by 3AL), could be the third adhesive layer), wherein one end of the third adhesive layer is adhered to the first surface (per figure), an opposite end of the third adhesive layer in the length direction of the electrode assembly is adhered to the second surface (per Bao’s figure and, e.g., ¶ 0032 and 0238) after bypassing the end surface (as adhesive layer 31 (3AL) is part of binding material 3—which, as noted in annot. FIG. 7, may be coupled to the intervening adhesive paper 4—the separate adhesive layer 31 could be considered a third layer that would reasonably not directly contact and, thus, bypass the end surface by being separated by the adhesive paper).
Bao is silent to whether adhesive layer 31 is a single-sided adhesive. However, one skilled in the art would recognize that some number of adhesive surfaces must necessarily be chosen when installing adhesive layer 31 for the layer to bond properly to the neighboring components. The skilled artisan would further recognize, then, that only two solutions exist for the number of adhesive surfaces bonding Bao’s neighboring components: the adhesive may be single-sided or double-sided (as in ability for similar, intervening adhesive paper 4, i.e., first adhesive layer, to be single- or double-sided in Bao’s ¶ 0034). In investigating the suitable degree of adhesion in adhesive layer 31, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely investigate employing the “third adhesive layer” as a single-sided adhesive with a reasonable expectation of producing a successful adhesive layer and adhered electrode assembly (MPEP 2143 (E.)).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 12, wherein the first cambered surface and the second cambered surface are both provided with the first adhesive layer (by wrapping around, as in claim 2).
Bao further discloses an exemplary 8 mm width of adhesive paper 4 (e.g., ¶ 0236), i.e., first adhesive layer, and, thus, in wrapping fully around the electrode assembly, the total width would necessarily be > 16 mm (i.e., 8 mm on both of the cell’s flat surfaces plus additional width in wrapping the cambered surfaces), which would seemingly approach the recited total width of 20–40 mm (claim 13) and, by extension, the individual width of 10–20 mm (claim 14).
As such, though modified Bao fails to explicitly disclose widths falling within the recited ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges fail to overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Because Bao discloses the recited adhesive layers, as well as seemingly substantially similar material to form at least the first adhesive (compare Bao’s polymers (e.g., ¶ 0035, 0042, and 0044) to instant specification’s (¶ 0033)), the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected the prior-art and recited materials to exhibit the same properties (MPEP 2112.01 (I)). Thus, absent demonstrated criticality, it is submitted that the recited width ranges are obvious over Bao.
Additionally, one skilled in the art would recognize that each first adhesive layer's dimensions must be large enough to achieve the desired indirect adhesion between binding material 3, i.e., second adhesive layer, and the electrode assembly (note purpose of adhesive paper 4, ¶ 0034) while adequately covering the assembly, whereas making these dimensions too large would necessarily reduce the battery's energy density, i.e., active-material content relative to the cell's total volume. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the respectively recited ranges by routinely optimizing each first adhesive layer’s width (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 15, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 14, wherein the first adhesive layer is a single-sided adhesive (per Bao’s ¶ 0034, adhesive paper 4 may have one adhesive surface), and the second adhesive layer is a double-sided adhesive (in adhering to both the adhesive paper and the package (as in Bao’s FIGS. 1/7 and, e.g., ¶ 0238, binding material 3 is reasonably double-sided, as is conventional (per Bao’s ¶ 0004)).
Regarding claim 16, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 15, wherein a difference between a length of the electrode assembly and a length of the first adhesive layer is 5 mm (see Bao’s Ex. 18, ¶ 0225–0238, where electrode assembly (as prepared in Exs. 1/4) is 80 mm long, and adhesive paper is 75 mm long), which falls within 4–10 mm.
Regarding claim 17, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 16.
As established in claim 1, modified Bao further discloses that the second adhesive layer is slightly shorter than the first adhesive layer (per Kim’s exposed portions) but fails to explicitly disclose the recited length difference of 4–10 mm.
The skilled artisan would recognize, however, that a minimum length difference must necessarily exist to form the exposed portions, whereas making Bao’s first layer too short would necessarily compromise the indirect attachment of the second layer to the electrode assembly, and making the second layer too short would necessarily compromise the attachment to the packaging. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the length difference between the first and second adhesive layers (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 18, modified Bao discloses the battery cell according to claim 17.
Bao further discloses exemplary lengths of the electrode assembly and second adhesive layer (binding material 3) of 80 mm and 75 mm, respectively (¶ 0061 and 0236, respectively) yet, while not appearing necessarily limited to these lengths to achieve the desired adhered electrode assembly, fails to explicitly disclose the recited length difference.
One skilled in the art, however, would recognize that the second adhesive layer's dimensions must necessarily be large enough to achieve the desired adhesion between the first adhesive layer and packaging, whereas making these dimensions too large would necessarily reduce the battery's energy density, i.e., active-material content relative to the cell's total volume. Likewise, lengthening the electrode assembly would necessarily impart higher capacity by including more active material, whereas shortening the electrode assembly would necessarily enable the assembly to be applied in smaller devices. To balance these considerations, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited length difference by routinely optimizing the lengths of the electrode assembly and second adhesive layer (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments against Bao and Kim with respect to claim(s) 1 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Kim’s second tape layer (base material 51) is not an adhesive and, thus, cannot correspond to the second adhesive layer. Although Examiner agrees that Kim would make an unsuitable primary reference, Examiner respectfully notes that Bao discloses the second adhesive layer (binding material 3), and Examiner merely used Kim to teach a two-layered tape adhering an electrode assembly and container to demonstrate that the skilled artisan would seemingly make Bao’s second layer slightly shorter than the first and reasonably expect successful adherence. One cannot rebut obviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on the references’ combination; rather, the test for obviousness is whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious based on the prior art’s suggestions to the skilled artisan (MPEP 2145 (IV.)).
Examiner respectfully observes that Applicant is yet to demonstrate unexpectedly superior results or any other technical effect from making the first layer longer, and, per MPEP 2144.04 (IV.)(A.), absent unexpected results or modification to the device’s operation, changing size/proportion is generally prima facie obvious. Absent additional evidence, therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant then argues that Bao's first and second adhesive layers are together, so it is practically impossible to make the first adhesive layer longer than the second. Examiner respectfully notes that, as seen in Bao's fig. 7, the second layer, i.e., binding material 3, is discrete from adhesive paper 4, i.e., first layer, and the adhesive paper is able to be wider than the binding material. Thus, it appears that, as in Kim's structure, Bao could shorten the binding material's length so that the first layer would be longer and reasonably expect success, as discussed above.
Applicant then argues, against claim 8, that it would be nonobvious to optimize the length difference between the first and second adhesive layers under MPEP 2144.05 (II) because this variable is not recognized as result-effective. Per this MPEP section, however, characterization of a result-effective variable may be one of but not the only reason to optimize, post-KSR. Rather, one skilled in the art, when applying Kim's modification to Bao, would recognize that some minimum length difference would necessarily exist because Kim's "first layer "is longer than the "second layer." The artisan would further recognize, then, that making either of Bao's first or second layers too short would necessarily reduce the area or amount of adhesion between the electrode assembly and first layer and between the second layer and packaging (as gathered from Bao's fig. 7). To balance these considerations, then, the skilled artisan would necessarily have to account for and, therefore, optimize the length difference, per MPEPР 2144.05 (II).
Applicant further argues that the above statements are conclusory because "the Examiner fails to provide any evidence or scientific rationale to support the above conclusory statements." Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that one skilled in the art is not an automaton but one of ordinary creativity (MPЕР 2141, 2143) and would understand that making either of Bao's layers too short would necessarily decrease the bindable area of the respective component but that the layers must possess some length difference to conform to Kim's teaching. Thus, it appears that the skilled artisan would routinely achieve the recited difference via routine experimentation, absent demonstrated criticality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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 on 571-270-192. 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.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/2/2026