DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 2, 3, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 2 and 3 recite the limitation “one end of the vent member protruding to the outside of the case is joined to the outer side of the case”. It is not clear whether it is the same or different one end of the vent member as recited in claim 1 from which they depend. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “the one end of the vent member protruding to the outside of the case is joined to the outer side of the case”.
4. Claims 4-7 are rejected as depending from claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1, 2, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2010/0239895) as cited in IDS dated 4/8/25.
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a secondary battery(Fig. 1, [0042]), comprising: an electrode assembly (claim 1), a case for accommodating the electrode assembly(110, Fig. 1, [0049]); and a vent member(exhaust valve 200 and 202, Figs. 1 and 7, [0049], [0063]), wherein the vent member is configured to protrude to the outside of the case(Fig. 1), and one end of the vent member protruding to the outside of the case is joined to an outer side of the case(see first film 212 of exhaust valve 202 in Fig. 7, [0063]).
Regarding claim 2, Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yang further discloses a part of the vent member protruding to the outside of the case is bent so that the one end of the vent member protruding to the outside of the case is joined to the outer side of the case(see first film 212 of exhaust valve 202 bent in the vertical sectional direction of the sealed portion, Fig. 7, [0063]).
Regarding claim 22, Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yang further discloses the secondary battery is a pouch-type secondary battery([0020]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 nonobviousness.
9. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
10. Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2010/0239895) as cited in IDS dated 4/8/25 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kinuta et al. (US 2014/0120387) as cited in IDS dated 5/3/23.
Regarding claim 3, Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yang discloses the case includes an accommodation portion for accommodating the electrode assembly (electrode assembly receiving part 120, Fig. 1, [0049]) and a sealing portion containing a sealant resin and is formed to seal the electrode assembly within the case(sealed portion 130, Fig. 1, [0049], [0020]), but does not explicitly disclose the one end of the vent member protruding to the outside of the case is joined to the outer side of the case corresponding to a region inside the accommodation portion where the electrode assembly is not located.
Kinuta teaches an optimal self-return type safety vent for application to electrochemical devices such as secondary batteries, for example lithium secondary batteries and nickel-metal hydride secondary batteries([0001]). Kinuta teaches a safety vent that can be securely and firmly attached to a laminated exterior casing that is low in strength in a laminate type electrochemical device such as an electric double layer capacitor or a lithium secondary battery([0100]). Kinuta teaches the one end of the vent member protruding to the outside of the case is joined to the outer side of the case corresponding to a region inside the accommodation portion where the electrode assembly is not located (see safety vent 1 and casing 21 in Fig. 10, [0077]-[0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Yang with the one end of the vent member protruding to the outside of the case is joined to the outer side of the case corresponding to a region inside the accommodation portion where the electrode assembly is not located as taught by Kinuta in order to provide a safety vent that can be securely and firmly attached to a laminated exterior casing.
Regarding claim 4, modified Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yang further discloses the other end of the vent member is located in the sealing portion(Yang, sealed portion 130, Figs. 1 and 7, [0049]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yang further discloses an electrode lead is attached to the electrode assembly(Yang, Fig. 1 and Kinuta, Fig. 10), and the other end of the vent member is located in the sealing portion at a side of the case where the electrode lead is exposed to the outside(Kinuta, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yang further discloses an electrode lead is attached to the electrode assembly(Yang, Fig. 1, and Kinuta, Fig. 10), and the other end of the vent member is located in the sealing portion at a corner of the case adjacent to where the electrode lead is exposed to the outside(Kinuta, Fig. 10).
11. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2010/0239895) as cited in IDS dated 4/8/25, and further in view of Kinuta et al. (US 2014/0120387) as cited in IDS dated 5/3/23 as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, further in view of Lee et al. (KR20150055775) as cited in IDS dated 4/8/25 with citations from machine translation provided by Applicant.
Regarding claim 7, modified Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yang does not explicitly disclose the vent member has a lower melting point than the sealant resin, and wherein the melting point of the vent member is between 100° C and 130° C.
Lee teaches the battery case which includes a receiving unit to receive the electrode assembly (abstract). Lee teaches a sealing part thermally fusing the battery case is formed around the outer circumference of the receiving unit(abstract). Lee teaches a venting member composed of a blender of a second polymer resin which is immiscible with regard to a first polymer resin and the first polymer resin which is compatible with regard to the material of thermally fused battery case is interposed on the sealing part(abstract). Lee teaches the vent member (second polymer resin and first polymer resin forms venting member [0016]) has a lower melting point than the sealant resin(second polymer resin having a low melting point is melted first [0016]-[0017]), and wherein the melting point of the vent member is between 100° C. and 130° C ([0025]). Lee teaches a high temperature/ high pressure gas discharge device capable of effectively discharging a high temperature/ high pressure gas to a desired site by melting a polymer resin having a low melting point which provides a battery cell capable of securing improved safety ([0009], Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the battery of modified Yang with the vent member has a lower melting point than the sealant resin, and wherein the melting point of the vent member is between 100° C and 130° C as taught by Lee in order to have a battery cell capable of securing improved safety.
12. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2010/0239895) as cited in IDS dated 4/8/25 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR20150055775) as cited in IDS dated 4/8/25 with citations from machine translation provided by Applicant.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yang does not explicitly disclose the vent member is vented at a temperature between 100° C and 120° C., and/or wherein the vent member is vented at a pressure of 1.5 atm or above.
Lee teaches the battery case which includes a receiving unit to receive the electrode assembly (abstract). Lee teaches a sealing part thermally fusing the battery case is formed around the outer circumference of the receiving unit(abstract). Lee teaches a venting member composed of a blender of a second polymer resin which is immiscible with regard to a first polymer resin and the first polymer resin which is compatible with regard to the material of thermally fused battery case is interposed on the sealing part(abstract). Lee teaches the vent member (second polymer resin and first polymer resin forms venting member [0016]) has a lower melting point than the sealant resin(second polymer resin having a low melting point is melted first [0016]-[0017]), and wherein the melting point of the vent member is between 100° C. and 130° C ([0025]). Lee teaches a high temperature/ high pressure gas discharge device capable of effectively discharging a high temperature/ high pressure gas to a desired site by melting a polymer resin having a low melting point which provides a battery cell capable of securing improved safety ([0009], Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the battery of modified Yang with the vent member is vented at a temperature between 100°C and 120°C as taught by Lee in order to have a battery cell capable of securing improved safety.
13. Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2010/0239895) as cited in IDS dated 4/8/25 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamashita et al. (US 2016/0197318).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yang discloses the battery case is sealed by thermal welding, wherein the secondary battery has at least one valve, having a small thickness, mounted at a sealed portion, formed at the outer circumference of an electrode assembly receiving part of the battery case, for allowing internal high-pressure gas to be exhausted out of a battery cell([0001]) but does not explicitly disclose the vent member has a maximum sealing strength of less than 6 kgf/15 mm at 100° C or above (claim 10) and the vent member has a maximum sealing strength of greater than 6 kgf/15 between room temperature and 60° C (claim 12).
Yamashita teaches maximum sealing strength at 25 °C and 125 °C (Yamashita [0147]-[0150]) for battery packaging materials (Yamashita title and abstract). For polyethylene, Yamashita teaches a maximum sealing strength at 25 °C of 60 N/15mm or 6.11 kgf/15mm and a weaker maximum sealing strength at 125 °C of 10 N/15mm or 1.02 kgf/15mm (Tables 1A, 2A, comparative example 1A). Optimizing the maximum sealing strength for the vent member during normal operation (room temperature to 60°C ) and during a thermal event (100°C or more) is within the ambit of the skilled artisan and requires only routine optimization in combination with the disclosure of Yang since the maximum sealing strengths at operating and thermal event temperatures are result-effective variables for the battery. For example, if the sealing strength is too low at normal operating temperatures the battery will fail to operate safely and if the sealing strength is too high at a thermal event temperature the safety mechanism cannot unseal/vent to protect the battery (Yang [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the maximum sealing strength of the vent member of Yang at certain temperatures as taught by Yamashita, through routine experimentation to protect the battery from high pressure gas generated from the battery with an expectation of success (see MPEP 2144.05,II).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yang discloses the battery case is sealed by thermal welding, wherein the secondary battery has at least one valve, having a small thickness, mounted at a sealed portion, formed at the outer circumference of an electrode assembly receiving part of the battery case, for allowing internal high-pressure gas to be exhausted out of a battery cell([0001]) but does not explicitly disclose the vent member has an average sealing strength of less than 4.5 kgf/15 mm at 100° C or above(claim 11) and the vent member has an average sealing strength of 4.5 kgf/15 mm or more between room temperature and 60° C(claim 13).
Yamashita teaches maximum sealing strength at 25 °C and 125 °C (Yamashita [0147]-[0150]) for battery packaging materials (Yamashita title and abstract). For polyethylene, Yamashita teaches a maximum sealing strength at 25 °C of 60 N/15mm or 6.11 kgf/15mm and a weaker maximum sealing strength at 125 °C of 10 N/15mm or 1.02 kgf/15mm (Tables 1A, 2A, comparative example 1A). The skilled artisan would know the average sealing strength would be less than the maximum sealing strength. Optimizing the average sealing strength for the vent member during normal operation (room temperature to 60°C ) and during a thermal event (100°C or more) is within the ambit of the skilled artisan and requires only routine optimization in combination with the disclosure of Yang since the average sealing strengths at operating and thermal event temperatures are result-effective variables for the battery. For example, if the sealing strength is too low at normal operating temperatures the battery will fail to operate safely and if the sealing strength is too high at a thermal event temperature the safety mechanism cannot unseal/vent to protect the battery (Yang [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the average sealing strength of the vent member of Yang at certain temperatures as taught by Yamashita, through routine experimentation to protect the battery from high pressure gas generated from the battery with an expectation of success (see MPEP 2144.05,II).
14. Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2010/0239895) as cited in IDS dated 4/8/25 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gu (US2003/0148173) as cited in IDS dated 5/3/23, further in view of Yasuoka et al. (KR20190047104) as cited in IDS dated 5/3/23 with citations from machine translation provided by Applicant.
Regarding claim 14, Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yang does not explicitly disclose the vent member contains a linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more.
Gu teaches a secondary battery includes an electrode assembly; a laminated container laminated with flexible films, which encloses the electrode assembly while the electrode tabs are drawn out of the laminated container and is sealed by fusing resulting structure within a sealed portion; and a safety unit in the sealed portion, capable of being melted by excess heat generated from the secondary battery(abstract). Gu teaches as a safety unit, a tape 50 formed to a predetermined length using a material having a lower melting point than the material for the laminated container 40 is fused between the first binding portion 41 of the main body 42 and the second binding portion 43 of the upper cover 44, as shown in FIG. 4([0030]). Gu teaches the tape 50 is formed of a low melting point synthetic resin such as linear-low density polyethylenes having a melting point of 90-120° C ([0030]).
Yasuoka teaches a polypropylene based composite film having lubricity and impact resistance, a laminate using the same, a packaging pouch for battery exterior ([0001]). Yasuoka teaches using a linear low density polyethylene in which a copolymerizable component is 1-hexene ([0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the vent member of Yang, the vent member contains a linear low density polyethylene as taught by Gu as use in a safety unit.
And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the vent member of modified Yang, a linear low density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 as taught by Yasuoka as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 15, modified Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yang further discloses the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more is polymerized in the presence of a metallocene catalyst(Yasuoka [0053]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yang further discloses in the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more, a content of the comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more is 15 weight % or less, based on 100 weight % of the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more (Yasuoka, 10-15 wt%, Table 2).
15. Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2010/0239895) as cited in IDS dated 4/8/25, and further in view of Gu (US2003/0148173) as cited in IDS dated 5/3/23, further in view of Yasuoka et al. (KR20190047104) as cited in IDS dated 5/3/23 with citations from machine translation provided by Applicant as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, further in view of Ren, et al., “Different Dependence of Tear Strength on Film Orientation of LLDPE Made with Different Co-Monomer”, Polymers, vol. 11, 3, 434, 6 Mar. 2019, doi:10.3390/polym11030434 as cited in IDS dated 2/20/25.
Regarding claim 17, modified Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yang does not explicitly disclose the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more has a poly dispersity index (PDI) of 4 or less.
Ren teaches different dependence of tear strength on film orientation of LLDPE made with different co-monomer (title). Ren teaches LLDPE resins studied are octene based 2045 G (p. 2, 2.1 Materials). Ren teaches the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more has a poly dispersity index (PDI) of 4 or less (sample 2045 G with MWD 3.85, Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the linear low density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more of modified Yang with a poly dispersity index of 4 or less as taught by Ren as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 20, modified Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yang does not explicitly disclose the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more has a weight-average molecular weight of 100,000 g/mol to 400,000 g/mol.
Ren teaches different dependence of tear strength on film orientation of LLDPE made with different co-monomer (title). Ren teaches LLDPE resins studied are octene based 2045 G and hexene based 9030 (p. 2, 2.1 Materials). Ren teaches the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more has a weight-average molecular weight of 100,000 g/mol to 400,000 g/mol (Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the linear low density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more of modified Yang has a weight average molecular weight of 100,000 g/mol to 400,000 g/mol as taught by Ren as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
16. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2010/0239895) as cited in IDS dated 4/8/25, and further in view of Gu (US2003/0148173) as cited in IDS dated 5/3/23, further in view of Yasuoka et al. (KR20190047104) as cited in IDS dated 5/3/23 with citations from machine translation provided by Applicant as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, further in view of Konuma et al. (JP2020015221) as cited in IDS dated 2/20/25 with citations from machine translation provided by Applicant, further in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0136167).
Regarding claim 18, modified Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yang discloses the case includes a sealing portion containing a sealant resin (Yang sealed portion 130, Fig. 1, [0020]) and is formed to seal the electrode assembly within the case(Yang [0049]), but does not explicitly disclose a difference between a crystallization temperature of the sealant resin and a crystallization temperature of the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more is 10° C. or less.
Konuma teaches a sealant film 20 in which a base material 14 formed of a resin film is provided on a laminate layer side of a sealant layer having a seal layer 11 formed of a resin having heat sealability, an intermediate layer 12 formed of a resin having rigidity and a laminate layer 13 formed of a resin having impact resistance in this order, in which a degree C of crystallization of the resin of the intermediate layer is larger than a degree A of crystallization of the resin of the seal layer and a degree B of crystallization of the laminate layer, and the degrees have a relationship of A ≤B<C (abstract, Fig. 1). Konuma teaches the sealant layer includes linear low density polyethylene obtained by copolymerizing α-olefin and ethylene with α-olefin includes 1-hexene and the like (p. 3, lines 13-20). Konuma teaches heat sealing properties such as sealing strength to maintain, transportability when filling the contents, opening suitability of the packing material opening, etc., suitability for filling that involves rigidity, and resistance to damage of the bag when external force is applied to the packing material is necessary to satisfy impact properties, openability when opening the packaging material, shape retention, handling rigidity, and the like (p. 3, lines 1-5).
Park teaches a multi-layered electrode for a rechargeable battery including a binder having high crystallinity([0002]). Park teaches the crystallinity, which represents a weight ratio of a crystal part in the entirety of a polymer solid including the crystal part and a non-crystal part, is changed depending on a type and a structure of a polymer and varied depending on a crystallization temperature, a cooling rate, an external force, and the like([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of modified Yang with a difference in crystallinity of the sealant resin and the linear low density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more as taught by Konuma in order to provide heat sealing properties.
And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of modified Yang with a difference between a crystallization temperature of the sealant resin and a crystallization temperature of the liner low density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more is 10°C or less as Park teaches crystallization temperature affects crystallinity.
17. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2010/0239895) as cited in IDS dated 4/8/25, and further in view of Gu (US2003/0148173) as cited in IDS dated 5/3/23, further in view of Yasuoka et al. (KR20190047104) as cited in IDS dated 5/3/23 with citations from machine translation provided by Applicant, further in view of Konuma et al. (JP2020015221) as cited in IDS dated 2/20/25 with citations from machine translation provided by Applicant, further in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0136167) as applied to claims 1, 14, and 18 above, further in view of Brebion (US2012/0160728).
Regarding claim 19, modified Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yang does not explicitly disclose the linear low-density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more has a crystallization temperature of 90° C. to 115° C.
Brebion teaches multi-segment, heat shrinkable barrier film comprising a plurality of microlayers (title). Brebion teaches VLDPE-5: metallocene-catalyzed ethylene/hexene copolymer very low density polyethylene; Exceed 1012CJ from ExxonMobil, melt flow rate of 1.0 g/10 min (ASTM D1238), density of 0.912 g/cm3, melting point 116° C., crystallization temperature 101° C([0124]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use as the linear low density polyethylene having a comonomer with a carbon number of 6 or more of modified Yang, one with a crystallization temperature of 101°C as taught by Brebion as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST M-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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724