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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scordilis-Kelley et al. (US 20100035128 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Scordilis-Kelley teaches systems and methods for improving the performance of electrochemical cells via the application of force [0005]. The cell may be constructed and arranged to apply, during at least one period of time during charge and/or discharge of the cell, an anisotropic force with a component normal to the active surface of the anode [0006] A general embodiment of an electrochemical cell (10) can include a cathode (30), an anode (50), and an electrolyte layer (40) in electrochemical communication with the cathode and the anode [0025]. The cathode may comprise a sulfur containing material, wherein sulfur is the cathode active material and optionally the cell (10) may also include, in some embodiments, containment structure (56) [0025, 0026 and Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 2, Scordilis-Kelley further teaches that the anisotropic force described on its work may be applied using any method known in the art. As an example, one or more cells are arranged between two plates, while a device may be used to apply pressure to the ends of the cell or stack via the plates [0040]. Based on this description the feature “wherein applying the external pressure onto the electrochemical cell comprises disposing the compressible vessel between plates and moving at least one of the plates toward another of the plates to at least partially compress the compressible vessel between the plates” can be considered met.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Scordilis-Kelley further teaches that in some embodiments, the cell may be formed as part of a container which applies a force by virtue of a “load” applied during or after assembly of the cell or applied during use of the cell as a result of expansion and/or contraction of one or more portions of the cell itself [0034]. Based on this description and because it is taught that teaches that the anisotropic force described on its work may be applied using any method known in the art [0040], the feature “moving the at least one of the plates toward the another of the plates and before the at least one of charging and discharging of the electrochemical cell, fixing a distance between the plates” (claim 3) can be met. Because it is taught that the “load” can be applied during at least one period of time during charge and/or discharge of the cell [0037], the feature “maintaining the distance between the plates during the at least one of the charging and the discharging” (claim 4) can be met.
Regarding claim 5, Scordilis-Kelley further teaches that in some embodiments, the constricting element may be constructed and arranged to apply an anisotropic force with a component normal to at least one anode active surface within the cell or stack of cells defining a pressure of at least about 4.9 N/cm2 (49 kPa) [0043].
Claims 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scordilis-Kelley et al. (US 20100035128 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Scordilis-Kelley teaches an article (energy storage system) comprising a plurality of electrochemical cells [0009]. A general embodiment of an electrochemical cell (10) can include a cathode (30), an anode (50), and an electrolyte layer (40), comprising a porous separator material, in electrochemical communication with the cathode and the anode [0025]. The cathode may comprise a sulfur containing material, wherein sulfur is the cathode active material and optionally the cell (10) may also include, in some embodiments, containment structure (56) [0025, 0026 and Fig. 1]. It is taught that an anisotropic force can be applied to the electrochemical cell(s) using any method known in the art [0040]. From this description the feature “plates configured to be fixed at a distance separating a first plate of the plates from a second plate of the plates with the at least one electrochemical cell between the first plate and the second plate to compress the compressible vessel” can be met.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Scordilis-Kelley teaches that electroactive materials for use as cathode active materials in the cathode of the electrochemical cells of the invention include, but are not limited to, electroactive transition metal chalcogenides, electroactive conductive polymers, sulfur, carbon and/or combinations thereof [0067].The electroactive materials for use as cathode active materials in electrochemical cells described herein include electroactive sulfur-containing materials. It is further taught that suitable electroactive sulfur-containing materials may include, but are not limited to, elemental sulfur and organic materials comprising sulfur atoms and carbon atoms, which may or may not be polymeric [0070]. It is taught that in one embodiment the amount of electroactive sulfur containing material in the cathode active layer is in the range of 20% to 90% by weight of the cathode active layer [0072], where in one embodiment, the electro active sulfur containing material comprises greater than 90% by weight of sulfur [0071].
From all the above descriptions, the features “the sulfur-based active material consists substantially of elemental sulfur (S); and the cathode further comprises at least one host material supporting the sulfur-based active material” (claim 9) and where “the energy storage system further comprises carbon” (claim 10) can be met.
Regarding claim 12, Scordilis-Kelley teaches that the electrode layers may be prepared by methods known in the art, where it could comprise a conductive filler and/or binder [0074].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scordilis-Kelley et al. (US 20100035128) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Rhodes et al. (US 20160036037 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Scordilis-Kelley teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Scordilis-Kelley further teaches that in some embodiments, the cell may be formed as part of a container which applies a force by virtue of a “load” applied during or after assembly of the cell or applied during use of the cell as a result of expansion and/or contraction of one or more portions of the cell itself [0034]. From this description the feature “applying the external pressure onto the electrochemical cell prior the at least one of the charging and the discharging of the electrochemical cell” can be considered met. In addition, it is taught that that in some embodiments, the constricting element may be constructed and arranged to apply an anisotropic force with a component normal to at least one anode active surface within the cell or stack of cells defining a pressure of at least about 4.9 N/cm2 (49 kPa) [0043].
Scordilis-Kelley does not teach the features “wherein the sulfur-based cathode has a porosity of less than about 60 vol.%” (claim 6) and “wherein the sulfur-based cathode has a porosity of at least about 80 vol.%” (claim 7).
Rhodes teaches lithium-ion battery where the cathode may include sulfur, such as nanoparticles of elemental sulfur or Li2S (analogous to Scordilis-Kelley sulfur-based cathode) [0004]. Referring to the battery (300), the electrodes may have a porosity of at least 40% (meets both claim 6 and 7 porosity limitations) [0047]. It is taught that having a porosity range as the one taught above cell power may increase due to enhanced lithium-ion diffusion within the electrolyte and improved utilization of the active material in the electrodes [0047].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of operating an energy storage device of Scordilis-Kelley to include the features “wherein the sulfur-based cathode has a porosity of less than about 60 vol.%” (claim 6) and “wherein the sulfur-based cathode has a porosity of at least about 80 vol.%” (claim 7), because Rhodes teaches that that having a porosity range as the one taught above cell power may increase due to enhanced lithium-ion diffusion within the electrolyte and improved utilization of the active material in the electrodes.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scordilis-Kelley et al. (US 20100035128) as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20180077794 A, see machine translation for citation) and Chen, X., et al. (Ether-compatible sulfurized polyacrylonitrile cathode with excellent performance enabled by fast kinetics via selenium doping. Nature communications 10.1 (2019): 1021, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 11, Scordilis-Kelley teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 8, except “wherein the sulfur-based active material comprises sulfurized polyacrylonitrile (SPAN) comprising sulfur bonded to carbon”.
Lee teaches as part of its invention a battery module (energy storage system) including a lithium secondary battery, where the positive electrode includes sulfurized polyacrylonitrile (SPAN) as a cathode active material (analogous to Scordilis-Kelley) [0023, 0057]. In the present invention, the sulfurized polyacrylonitrile (SPAN) may include at least one of those represented by formulas (1) to (5) [0025]. Regarding the employment of SPAN as a cathode material, Chen teaches that it seems to be a promising cathode which exhibits good capacity, reasonable rate capability, nearly 100% Columbic efficiency, good cycling performance and presumably no polysulfides dissolution in carbonate electrolyte [pag. 2; par. 2].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the energy storage system of Scordilis-Kelley to include the feature “wherein the sulfur-based active material comprises sulfurized polyacrylonitrile (SPAN) comprising sulfur bonded to carbon”, because Lee teaches the referred feature and Chen teaches that SPAN containing positive electrodes seems to be a promising cathode which exhibits good capacity, reasonable rate capability, nearly 100% Columbic efficiency, good cycling performance and presumably no polysulfides dissolution in carbonate electrolyte.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scordilis-Kelley et al. (US 20100035128) as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Fanous et al. (DE 102015224204 A1, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Scordilis-Kelley teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 8. Scordilis-Kelley further teaches that the electroactive materials for use as cathode active materials comprise the element sulfur in any form (host material). It may include, but are not limited to, elemental sulfur and organic materials comprising sulfur atoms and carbon atoms, which may or may not be polymeric. Suitable organic materials include those further comprising heteroatoms, conductive polymer segments, composites, and conductive polymers [0068]. In some embodiments, the cathode may comprise one or more binder materials [0069]. In one embodiment the amount of electroactive sulfur-containing material in the cathode active layer is in the range of 20% to 90% by weight of the cathode active layer [0072].
Scordilis-Kelley does not teach “wherein the at least one electrically conductive host material comprises about 30 wt.% of the cathode; and the at least one binder comprises about 10 wt.% of the cathode” (claim 13) and “wherein: the sulfur-based active material comprises sulfurized polyacrylonitrile (SPAN), the SPAN comprising about 80 wt.% of the cathode; the at least one electrically conductive host material comprises about 10 wt.% of the cathode; and the at least one binder comprises about 10 wt.% of the cathode” (claim 15).
Fanous teaches an energy store comprising a lithium-sulfur cell or battery, where its employed cathode is a sulfur-based material (analogous to Scordilis-Kelley) [0046 and 0061]. The cathode may comprise 10-95 wt.% of polyacrylonitrile-sulfur (SPAN) composite material, 0.1-30 wt.% of electrically conductive additives and 0.1-30 wt.% of binders [0046]. The electrically conductive additives are selected from the group consisting of carbon black, graphite, carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes and mixtures thereof (can be considered host materials due to its porous and/or large surface area). In addition, the cathode material can further comprise at least one binder, for example polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and/or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) [0046]. From this description the amounts of SPAN, electrically conductive host material and binder of both claims 13 and 15 can be obtained.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the SPAN, electrically conductive host material and binder amount ranges disclosed by Fanous because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scordilis-Kelley et al. (US 20100035128) in view of Fanous et al. (DE 102015224204 A1, see machine translation for citation) as applied to claim 13 above, evidenced by Li, Z., et al. (Status and prospects in sulfur–carbon composites as cathode materials for rechargeable lithium–sulfur batteries. Carbon 92 (2015): 41-63, see NPL documents for citation) and Chen, H., et al. (Exploring chemical, mechanical, and electrical functionalities of binders for advanced energy-storage devices. Chemical reviews 118.18 (2018): 8936-8982, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 14, Scordilis-Kelley and Fanous teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 13.
Regarding the feature “the at least one electrically conductive host material comprises a conductive nanocarbon material”, Li teaches that fabricating sulfur/carbon composite cathodes with sulfur embedded within conductive carbon frameworks has been proven promising. Carbon-based materials, including nanoporous carbon, carbon nanotubes, graphene nanosheets and many other forms, possess excellent conductivity, robust chemistry, good mechanical stability, and great abundance. By constraining sulfur within carbon frameworks, the conductivity of the S electrode can be greatly enhanced, and the dissoluble loss of intermediate sulfur species in the liquid electrolyte can be also restrained due to the sorption properties of carbon, leading to a much-improved electrochemical performance [pag. 43; par. 1].
Regarding the feature “the at least one binder comprises polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)”, Chen teaches that PVDF is the most widely used binder because of its good electrochemical stability and adhesion to the electrode materials and current collector [pag. 8943; par. 2].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the energy storage system of Scordilis-Kelley to include the features “the at least one electrically conductive host material comprises a conductive nanocarbon material; and the at least one binder comprises polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)” as taught by Fanous on claim 13, because Li evidences that constraining sulfur within carbon frameworks, the conductivity of the S electrode can be greatly enhanced, and the dissoluble loss of intermediate sulfur species in the liquid electrolyte can be also restrained due to the sorption properties of carbon, leading to a much-improved electrochemical performance and Chen evidences that PVDF is the most widely used binder because of its good electrochemical stability and adhesion to the electrode materials and current collector.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scordilis-Kelley et al. (US 20100035128) as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Wijayawardhana et al. (US 20130323542 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Scordilis-Kelley teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 8, except where the energy storage system further comprises “within the compressible vessel, a reference electrode between the separator and an additional separator”.
Wijayawardhana teaches an electro chemical cell based on lithium technology comprising a positive electrode , containing a cathode material (analogous to Scordilis-Kelley cathode), a negative electrode, a separator and a liquid and/or solid ion conductor material for transportation of lithium ions between the positive and the negative electrode, being sealed within a casing [0012-0017]. The term “lithium technology” is explained to cover systems which include rechargeable lithium-sulfur (Si-S) cells (energy storage system analogous to Scordilis-Kelley) [0019]. The electro chemical cell further comprises a reference electrode which is electrically insulated from the positive and the negative electrode [0018]. On Fig. 10 is shown a structure where the reference electrode is placed between two separator layers [0089]. It is taught that placement of the reference electrode outside the planes of the cathode and the anode avoids electrical field effects arising from the anode and/or cathode which may disturb the reference potential, because, within the separator, the least fluctuations in Li concentration take place [0089].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the energy storage system of Scordilis-Kelley to include the feature where the energy storage system further comprises “within the compressible vessel, a reference electrode between the separator and an additional separator”, because Wijayawardhana teaches that placement of the reference electrode outside the planes of the cathode and the anode avoids electrical field effects arising from the anode and/or cathode which may disturb the reference potential, because, within the separator, the least fluctuations in Li concentration take place.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scordilis-Kelley et al. (US 20100035128) as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Rhodes et al. (US 20160036037 A1).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Scordilis-Kelley teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 8, except “wherein the cathode has a porosity of less than about 60 vol.%” (claim 17) and “wherein the cathode has a porosity of at least about 80 vol.%” (claim 18).
Rhodes teaches lithium-ion battery where the cathode may include sulfur, such as nanoparticles of elemental sulfur or Li2S (analogous to Scordilis-Kelley sulfur-based cathode) [0004]. Referring to the battery (300), the electrodes may have a porosity of at least 40% (meets both claim 6 and 7 porosity limitations) [0047]. It is taught that having a porosity range as the one taught above cell power may increase due to enhanced lithium-ion diffusion within the electrolyte and improved utilization of the active material in the electrodes [0047].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of operating an energy storage device of Scordilis-Kelley to include the features “wherein the sulfur-based cathode has a porosity of less than about 60 vol.%” (claim 6) and “wherein the sulfur-based cathode has a porosity of at least about 80 vol.%” (claim 7), because Rhodes teaches that that having a porosity range as the one taught above cell power may increase due to enhanced lithium-ion diffusion within the electrolyte and improved utilization of the active material in the electrodes.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scordilis-Kelley et al. (US 20100035128), further in view of Ji et al. (CN 106848375 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 19 Scordilis-Kelley teaches systems and methods for improving the performance of electrochemical cells via the application of force [0005]. The cell may be constructed and arranged to apply, during at least one period of time during charge and/or discharge of the cell, an anisotropic force with a component normal to the active surface of the anode [0006]. A general embodiment of an electrochemical cell (10) can include a cathode (30), an anode (50), and an electrolyte layer (40) in electrochemical communication with the cathode and the anode [0025]. The cathode may comprise a sulfur containing material, wherein sulfur is the cathode active material and optionally the cell (10) may also include, in some embodiments, containment structure (56) [0025, 0026 and Fig. 1].
The anisotropic force described on its work may be applied using any method known in the art. As an example, one or more cells are arranged between two plates, while a device may be used to apply pressure to the ends of the cell or stack via the plates [0040].
Scordilis-Kelley further teaches that in some embodiments, the cell may be formed as part of a container which applies a force by virtue of a “load” applied during or after assembly of the cell or applied during use of the cell as a result of expansion and/or contraction of one or more portions of the cell itself [0034]. Based on this description and because it is taught that teaches that the anisotropic force described on its work may be applied using any method known in the art [0040], the feature “the plates configured to be fixed at a distance separating a first plate of the pair of plates from a second plate of the pair of plates with the at least one electrochemical cell between the first plate and the second plate to compress the compressible vessel” can be met.
In some embodiments, the constricting element may be constructed and arranged to apply an anisotropic force with a component normal to at least one anode active surface within the cell or stack of cells defining a pressure of at least about 4.9 N/cm2 (49 kPa) [0043]. From all the above descriptions the feature “fixing the distance between the pair of plates at which a pressure measured by the at least one pressure sensor is within a range from greater than about 0 kPa (about 0 psi) to about 689 kPa (about 100 psi) above ambient pressure; and while maintaining the pair of the plates at the distance, charging or discharging the at least one electrochemical cell” can be met.
Scordilis-Kelley does not teach the feature of “at least one pressure sensor adjacent to the at least one electrochemical cell”.
Ji teaches a battery extrusion device containing eight extrusion plates (2) arranged in parallel where batteries (15) can be placed between the two extrusion plates (2) or between the extrusion plate (2) and the rear support plate (3) (analogous to the compression method of Scordilis-Kelley) [0021 and Fig. 1]. A pressure sensor (8) is mounted on the front extrusion plate (2) [0021 and Fig. 2]. From this description the feature “at least one pressure sensor adjacent to the at least one electrochemical cell” can be considered met. It is taught that through the signal feedback of the pressure sensor, the pressure value is read from the pressure display, and the pressure of the cylinder is adjusted in time through the pressure regulating valve, which can effectively avoid damage to the battery caused by excessive extrusion force, ensure battery quality, and reduce the differences between batches of batteries [0015].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of assembling an energy storage system of Scordilis-Kelley to include the feature “at least one pressure sensor adjacent to the at least one electrochemical cell”, because Ji teaches that through the signal feedback of the pressure sensor, the pressure value is read from the pressure display, and the pressure of the cylinder is adjusted in time through the pressure regulating valve, which can effectively avoid damage to the battery caused by excessive extrusion force, ensure battery quality, and reduce the differences between batches of batteries.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scordilis-Kelley et al. (US 20100035128) in view of Ji et al. (CN 106848375 A, see machine translation for citation) as applied to claim 19 above, further in view of Rhodes et al. (US 20160036037 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Scordilis-Kelley and Ji teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 19. From the description presented for claim 19 the features “fixing the distance between the pair of plates at which the pressure measured by the at least one pressure sensor is within a range from about 6.9 kPa (about 1.0 psi) to about 197 kPa (about 28.6 psi)” and “fixing the distance between the pair of plates at which the pressure measured by the at least one pressure sensor is within a range from about 6.9 kPa (about 1.0 psi) to about 98.5 kPa (about 14.3 psi)” are both met.
Scordilis-Kelley and Ji does not teach the feature “the cathode exhibiting a porosity of greater than about 80 vol.%” or “the cathode exhibiting a porosity of less than about 60 vol.%”.
Rhodes teaches lithium-ion battery where the cathode may include sulfur, such as nanoparticles of elemental sulfur or Li2S (analogous to Scordilis-Kelley sulfur-based cathode) [0004]. Referring to the battery (300), the electrodes may have a porosity of at least 40% (meets both porosity limitations) [0047]. It is taught that having a porosity range as the one taught above, the cell power may increase due to enhanced lithium-ion diffusion within the electrolyte and improved utilization of the active material in the electrodes [0047].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of assembling an energy storage system of Scordilis-Kelley and Ji to include the feature “the cathode exhibiting a porosity of greater than about 80 vol.%” or “the cathode exhibiting a porosity of less than about 60 vol.%”, because Rhodes teaches that having a porosity range as the one taught above, the cell power may increase due to enhanced lithium-ion diffusion within the electrolyte and improved utilization of the active material in the electrodes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725