DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the December 30th, 2025 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on December 30th, 2025:
Claims 1-14 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 10 are amended.
Claims 1 and 10 are amended to further narrow the range of the plateau voltage to 4.1 V to 4.3 V.
Applicant’s amendment finds support in the disclosure as originally filed including the originally filed claims and specification.
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1, 3-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taek Oh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140000100 A1) in view of Piu Ho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123187 A1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment to Claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taek Oh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140000100 A1) in view of Piu Ho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123187 A1) as further evidenced by Akimoto et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10505189 B2). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment to Claim 10.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taek Oh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140000100 A1) in view of Piu Ho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123187 A1) and further in view of Viner et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190088958 A1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment to Claims 1 and 10, respectively.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taek Oh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140000100 A1) in view of Piu Ho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123187 A1) as further evidenced by Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123186 A1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment to Claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 30th, 2025 have been fully considered as further described below:
Applicant presents arguments to Claims 1 and 10 in which are based on the claims as amended. Applicant argues that primary reference Taek Oh et al. does not teach a plateau voltage ranging from 4.1 V to 4.3 V as amended (see pg. 5 of the “Remarks”). Further, applicant argues that the other applied references do not remedy the deficiencies of Taek Oh (see pg. 6 of the “Remarks”); however, the applicant does not specify the deficiencies of the other references or specifically challenge a particular reference. As the previous rejection of Claim 2 relies upon Viner et al. to teach a plateau voltage of 4.2 V in which is within the claimed range of 4.1 V to 4.3 V as recited in amended Claims 1 and 10, a new grounds of rejection of Claims 1 and 10 is made in view of Viner et al. Therefore, applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Taek Oh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140000100 A1) (“Taek Oh et al.”)
Previously cited Piu Ho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123187 A1) (“Piu Ho et al.”)
Previously Cited Akimoto et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10505189 B2) (“Akimoto et al.”)
Previously Cited Viner et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190088958 A1) (“Viner et al.”)
Previously Cited Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123186 A1) (“Kim et al.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taek Oh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140000100 A1) in view of Piu Ho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123187 A1), and further in view of Viner et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190088958 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Taek Oh et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (para. 86). The positive electrode active material of the positive electrode can include lithium manganese-nickel oxide (para. 24) analogous to a lithium nickel composite oxide. Taek Oh et al. further teaches the lithium secondary battery operating at a voltage (operating voltage) below the plateau potential (voltage) (configuration) (para. 85). The positive electrode active material can include a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide with a dopant M’y in an amount of 0.01 mol% to 20 mol% based on the total amount of metals (para. 23, 37) providing subscript y of 0.0001 to 0.2, within and overlapping the range of claimed subscript v (amount of dopant M1 v) of 0 to 0.2 inclusive (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). The dopant can include Fe (para. 64-65, 93).
Taek Oh et al. does not specifically teach a lithium nickel composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1 (Lix[NiyCozMnwM1v]Ou, wherein the limits of x (1.0 to 1.30), y (0.6 to 0.95), z (0.01 to 0.5), and w (0.01 to 0.5)).
Piu Ho et al. teaches a positive electrode material in which can be represented by Li1+zNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 wherein x is 0.3 to 0.8, y is 0.1 to 0.45, and z is 0 to 0.2 (para. 68) meeting the limitations of the claimed Formula 1 (Lix[NiyCozMnwM1v]Ou, wherein the claimed limits of x (1.0 to 1.30), y (0.6 to 0.95), z (0.01 to 0.5), w (0.01 to 0.5), and u (1.5 to 4.5) are within or overlap the corresponding limits of the prior art). Piu Ho et al. teaches lithium ternary transition metal oxides containing Ni, Mn, and Co providing high capacity per unit weight (para. 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode of Taek Oh et al. to include a lithium nickel composite oxide represented by Li1+zNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 wherein x is 0.3 to 0.8, y is 0.1 to 0.45, and z is 0 to 0.2 (para. 68) meeting the limitations of the claimed Formula 1 (Lix[NiyCozMnwM1v]Ou, wherein the limits of x (1.0 to 1.30), y (0.6 to 0.95), z (0.01 to 0.5), w (0.01 to 0.5), and u (1.5 to 4.5) are within or overlap the corresponding limits of the prior art) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a composite oxide for a cathode material in which exhibits high capacity as described above.
Taek Oh et al. does not teach the lithium/nickel composite oxide having a plateau voltage ranging from 4.1 V to 4.3 V of the charge/discharge profile.
Viner et al. teaches an electroactive material comprising a plateau voltage of 4.2 V, determined by evaluating the average voltage across plateau regions of a charge/discharge profile (para. 117, 119); the plateau voltage is a region in which the voltage is constant or substantially constant. Viner et al. teaches that the use of said teachings can result in improved capacity after repeated cycling of an electrochemical cell (para. 135).
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 electrode of Taek Oh et al. to include an electroactive material with a plateau voltage of 4.2 V of the charge/discharge profile as taught by Viner et al, within the claimed range of 4.1 V to 4.3 V. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an electrochemical cell with improved capacity after repeated cycling as described above.
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Claim 2 is dependent on Claim 1 and Claim 11 is dependent on Claim 10. Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claims 1 and 10, respectively. As applied to Claim 1, Taek Oh et al. teaches operation at a voltage (operating voltage) below the plateau potential in which would include below the provided potential range with a lower limit value of 4.4 V (para. 11, 84) equivalent to less than 4.4 V in which overlaps the claimed range of 3.0 V to 4.2 V. “‘[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.’ In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)” (see MPEP 2144.01).
Taek Oh et al. does not teach a plateau voltage at an average of 4.2 V of the charge/discharge profile as required by Claims 2 and 11.
Viner et al. teaches an electroactive material comprising a plateau voltage of 4.2 V, determined by evaluating the average voltage across plateau regions of a charge/discharge profile (para. 117, 119). Viner et al. teaches the use of said teachings can result in improved capacity after repeated cycling of an electrochemical cell (para. 135).
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 electrode of Taek Oh et al. to include an electroactive material with a plateau voltage at an average of 4.2 V of the charge/discharge profile as taught by Viner et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide an electrochemical cell with improved capacity after repeated cycling as described above.
Regarding Claim 3, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the positive electrode of Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. to include a lithium nickel composite oxide represented by Li1+zNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 wherein x is 0.3 to 0.8, y is 0.1 to 0.45, and z is 0 to 0.2 (para. 68) meeting the limitations of the claimed Formula 1 (Lix[NiyCozMnwM1v]Ou, wherein the limits of x (1.0 to 1.30), y (0.6 to 0.95), z (0.01 to 0.5), w (0.01 to 0.5), and u (1.5 to 4.5) are within or overlap the corresponding limits of the prior art) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). As further applied to Claim 1, Taek Oh et al. teaches the positive electrode active material including a dopant M’y in an amount of 0.01 mol% to 20 mol% based on the total amount of metals (para. 23) providing subscript y of 0.0001 to 0.2, within and overlapping the range of corresponding subscript v (amount of dopant M1v) of 0 to 0.2 inclusive (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). Therefore, the formula for the positive electrode active material of Taek Oh et al. as modified by Piu Ho et al. includes at least claimed formula Li(Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2)O2 if not all formulas listed. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Taek Oh et al. useful to reduce gas generation during subsequent repetitive charge and discharge cycles (para. 57).
Regarding Claim 4, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Taek Oh et al. does not teach Zr as the doping element.
Piu Ho et al. teaches that the positive electrode material can include a doping element such as Zr in an amount of 0.001% to about 2% by weight (equivalent to 10 ppm to 20000 ppm) based on the total weight of the positive electrode material (para. 71). Further, Piu Ho et al. describes Zr as a suitable dopant in suppressing the capacity fade and improving cycling stability at elevated temperatures (para. 70).
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 positive electrode active material of Taek Oh et al. to include Zr as the doping element as taught by Piu Ho et al. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select Zr as Piu Ho et al. describes Zr as a suitable dopant in suppressing the capacity fade and improving cycling stability at elevated temperatures as described above.
Regarding Claim 5, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 4 above.
Taek Oh et al. does not teach the doping element in an amount of 300 ppm to 7000 ppm of the lithium nickel composite oxide.
Piu Ho et al. teaches that the positive electrode material comprising a lithium nickel composite oxide can include a doping element in an amount of 0.001% to about 2% by weight (equivalent to 10 ppm to 20000 ppm) based on the total weight of the positive electrode material (para. 71). Further, Piu Ho et al. describes the provided range of the doping element is necessary to achieve the beneficial effects of the invention and an amount greater than the claimed range provides limitations in capacity and cycle stability of the battery (para. 63).
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 positive electrode active material of Taek Oh et al. to include a doping element in an amount of 0.001% to about 2% by weight (equivalent to 10 ppm to 20000 ppm) based on the total weight of the positive electrode material as taught by Piu Ho et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Piu Ho et al. to provide improved capacity and cycle stability of the battery as described above.
Regarding Claim 6, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Taek Oh et. teaches the positive electrode active material having a layered structure (para. 13, 58). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Taek Oh et al. useful to reduce gas generation during subsequent repetitive charge and discharge cycles (para. 57).
Regarding Claim 7, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” "’Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” (See MPEP 2112.01). Therefore, as the claimed and prior art products are substantially identical in structure and produced by a substantially identical process, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to observe a capacity retention of 90% or more after 3800 cycles at a temperature of 25 deg. C. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Taek Oh et al. useful to reduce gas generation during subsequent repetitive charge and discharge cycles (para. 57).
Regarding Claim 8, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As the claimed and prior art products are substantially identical in structure and produced by a substantially identical process, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to observe a capacity retention of 85% after 3400 cycles at a temperature of 45 deg. C (See MPEP 2112.01). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Taek Oh et al. useful to reduce gas generation during subsequent repetitive charge and discharge cycles (para. 57).
Regarding Claim 9, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As the claimed and prior art products are substantially identical in structure and produced by a substantially identical process, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to observe a DCIR increment of 10% or less after 3800 cycles at a temperature of 25 deg. C. (See MPEP 2112.01). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Taek Oh et al. useful to reduce gas generation during subsequent repetitive charge and discharge cycles (para. 57).
Regarding Claim 12, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Taek Oh et al. teaches a battery module comprising the lithium secondary battery (para. 29) and an electrolyte for the conduction of lithium ions (para. 86). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Taek Oh et al. useful to reduce gas generation during subsequent repetitive charge and discharge cycles (para. 57).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taek Oh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140000100 A1) in view of Piu Ho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123187 A1), and further in view of Viner et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190088958 A1) as further evidenced by Akimoto et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10505189 B2).
Regarding Claim 10, Taek Oh et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (para. 86). The positive electrode active material can include lithium manganese-nickel oxide (para. 24) analogous to a lithium nickel composite oxide. Taek Oh et al. further teaches allowing the lithium secondary battery to operate at a voltage (operating voltage) below the plateau potential (voltage) (para. 85) in which implies that the operating voltage is controlled below the plateau voltage analogous to a controlling or driving method. “‘[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.’ In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)” (see MPEP 2144.01).
Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the voltage below the plateau region as further evident by the teachings of Akimoto et al.; Akimoto et al teaches electrochemical activation of electrodes occurring in a plateau region wherein undesirable reactions (gas generation, structure change) occur to exhibit high capacity; Akimoto et al. further provides an electrode material in which does not require oxygen extraction and crystal structure change to occur in a plateau region to exhibit high capacity. Therefore, methods to suppress said gas generation and structure changes are well known in the field of endeavor (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). The positive electrode active material can include a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide with a dopant M’y in an amount of 0.01 mol% to 20 mol% based on the total amount of metals (para. 23, 37) providing subscript y of 0.0001 to 0.2, within and overlapping the range of claimed subscript v (amount of dopant M1 v) of 0 to 0.2 inclusive (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). The dopant can include Fe (para. 64-65, 93).
Taek Oh et al. does not specifically teach a lithium nickel composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1 (Lix[NiyCozMnwM1v]Ou, wherein the limits of x (1.0 to 1.30), y (0.6 to 0.95), z (0.01 to 0.5), and w (0.01 to 0.5)).
Piu Ho et al. teaches a positive electrode material in which can be represented by Li1+zNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 wherein x is 0.3 to 0.8, y is 0.1 to 0.45, and z is 0 to 0.2 (para. 68) meeting the limitations of the claimed Formula 1 (Lix[NiyCozMnwM1v]Ou, wherein the claimed limits of x (1.0 to 1.30), y (0.6 to 0.95), z (0.01 to 0.5), w (0.01 to 0.5), and u (1.5 to 4.5) are within or overlap the corresponding limits of the prior art). Piu Ho et al. teaches lithium ternary transition metal oxides containing Ni, Mn, and Co providing high capacity per unit weight (para. 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode of Taek Oh et al. to include a lithium nickel composite oxide represented by Li1+zNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 wherein x is 0.3 to 0.8, y is 0.1 to 0.45, and z is 0 to 0.2 (para. 68) meeting the limitations of the claimed Formula 1 (Lix[NiyCozMnwM1v]Ou, wherein the limits of x (1.0 to 1.30), y (0.6 to 0.95), z (0.01 to 0.5), w (0.01 to 0.5), and u (1.5 to 4.5) are within or overlap the corresponding limits of the prior art) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a composite oxide for a cathode material in which exhibits high capacity.
Taek Oh et al. does not teach the lithium/nickel composite oxide having a plateau voltage ranging from 4.1 V to 4.3 V of the charge/discharge profile.
Viner et al. teaches an electroactive material comprising a plateau voltage of 4.2 V, determined by evaluating the average voltage across plateau regions of a charge/discharge profile (para. 117, 119); the plateau voltage is a region in which the voltage is constant or substantially constant. Viner et al. teaches that the use of said teachings can result in improved capacity after repeated cycling of an electrochemical cell (para. 135).
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 electrode of Taek Oh et al. to include an electroactive material with a plateau voltage of 4.2 V of the charge/discharge profile as taught by Viner et al, within the claimed range of 4.1 V to 4.3 V. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an electrochemical cell with improved capacity after repeated cycling as described above.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taek Oh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140000100 A1) in view of Piu Ho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123187 A1) and further in view of Viner et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190088958 A1) as further evidenced by Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123186 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 12 above. It would be obvious to provide a battery pack in which includes a plurality of battery modules as further evident by Kim et al. (para. 91) for increased voltage and capacity. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 14, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. Taek Oh et al. teaches the battery module in which would be obvious to include in a battery pack as further evident by Kim et al. (para. 91) is used as a power source of a two-wheeled electric vehicle or an electric car (inherently comprising four wheels). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Taek Oh et al. useful to reduce gas generation during subsequent repetitive charge and discharge cycles (para. 57).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729