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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/15/2025 has been entered.
Support for amended claim 1 is found in at least Fig. 3.
Support for amended claim 4 is found in at least [0038].
Support new claim 9 is found in at least [0038].
Support for new claim 10 is found in at least [0031, 0037].
Support for new claim 11-12 is found in at least Fig. 1.
Support for new claim 14-15 is found in at least [0033].
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection (within the previous Office action) of claims 4-7 are overcome by the amendment and is withdrawn. Examiner recognizes that at least PVDF, acrylic acid, and rubber-based adhesives are known in the art as organic solvents; claims 4-6 are interpreted in light of the specification [0014, 0038] and claim 7 (as noted in the previous Office action) such that “organic solvent” as claimed is satisfied by the exemplary materials of “PP, PE, PTFE, EPDM, PVdF, acrylic, a rubber-based adhesive” as disclosed.
However, new 35 USC 112(b) rejections are made below in light of the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
As noted above in light of the amendment, claims 4-6 are interpreted in light of the specification [0014, 0038] and claim 7 (as noted in the previous Office action) such that “organic solvent” as claimed is satisfied by any of the exemplary materials of “PP, PE, PTFE, EPDM, PVdF, acrylic, a rubber-based adhesive” as disclosed. Also per instant specification [0038], any of the exemplary materials of “PP, PE, PTFE, EPDM, PVdF, acrylic, a rubber-based adhesive” are interpreted to satisfy the claimed properties (e.g., “an insulating property, a non-reactive property that does not react with an electrolyte, and an adhesive property” as in claim 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (remarks pg. 5) that the Heo reference fails to meet the limitations in instant claim 1 regarding the arrangement of the shock absorbing portion and separators. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees because Heo is still applied in the rejection below to meet all limitations of claim 1 including the instant amendments.
Applicant argues (remarks pg. 6) against Heo Fig. 1; however, this figure does indeed show shock absorbing portion 200 on at least one side of the electrode assembly 100 (portions of 200 are on portions of all four sides/edges of separators 30 within assembly 100, Heo Fig. 1). Examiner points to Heo Fig. 5 (corresponding to Fig. 1 per [0032]) for showing this absorbing portion 201 as a singular member which is in contact not only with the surfaces of the separators 30 facing each other, but also with the ends of the separators 30 (Heo [0068]). The Heo Fig. 5 embodiment is applied in the below grounds of rejection as necessitated by the amendment to independent claim 1.
Remarks (pg. 6) against Otsuka are moot because Otsuka is not used in rejecting limitations of claim 1, to which arguments were directed. Remarks (pg. 6-7) regarding new claims 9-16 are moot because any new ground of rejection applied below regarding these new claims was necessitated by the amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the " the separator is accommodated in a recess of the case in a state in which an end of the separator is folded, and the shock absorbing portion is arranged in a region of a folded portion of the end of the separator" (of claim 9) and "the shock absorbing portion is arranged in a direction opposite to an arrangement direction of the first electrode substrate tabs and the second electrode substrate tabs" (of claim 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 13 introduces "wherein the shock absorbing portion is arranged in a direction opposite to an arrangement direction of the first electrode substrate tabs and the second electrode substrate tabs", which is not supported by the original disclosure and is deemed new matter. The drawings do not show this arrangement, and the specification instead discloses “the shock absorbing portion 400 may be provided between the first electrode substrate tab 212 and the separator 250 disposed at an opposite end of the second electrode substrate tab 232” at [0037].
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.
Claims 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Antecedent basis is unclear since a plurality of first electrode plates and a plurality of second electrode plates were introduced previously in the claim.
Claims 2-16 are rejected for their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Antecedent basis is unclear since a plurality of first electrode plates and a plurality of second electrode plates were introduced in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the separator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Antecedent basis is unclear since a plurality of separators were introduced in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the end of the separator and an end of another separator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Antecedent basis is unclear since a plurality of separators were introduced in claim 1, but “an end of the separator” was introduced in claim 3, and claim 5 depends on both claims 3 and 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the separator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Antecedent basis is unclear since a plurality of separators were introduced in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Antecedent basis is unclear since a plurality of first electrode plates and a plurality of second electrode plates were introduced in claim 1, but “the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate” was also recited in claim 2 upon which claim 10 depends.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the separator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Antecedent basis is unclear since a plurality of separators were introduced in claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the separator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Antecedent basis is unclear since a plurality of separators were introduced in claim 1.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “one side” twice (lines 2 and 3), such that it is unclear whether the second recitation refers to the same one side or a different one side as the first recitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heo (US 2020/0161617 A1, as cited in the 06/13/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 1, Heo teaches a secondary battery (stacked electrode assembly within secondary battery, [0006]; rechargeable battery per [0010]) comprising:
an electrode assembly (stacked electrode assembly, [0006, 0066]; 101 in Fig. 5) including
a plurality of first electrode plates (repeatedly stacked negative electrode 10, [0066]; in the form of plates 10 shown in Fig. 5; plurality of negative electrodes per Abstract),
a plurality of second electrode plates (repeatedly stacked positive electrode 20, [0066]; in the form of plates 20 shown in Fig. 5; plurality of positive electrodes per Abstract), and
a plurality of separators (the separators 30, [0068]) between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate, respectively (plurality of separators between the positive electrodes and the negative electrodes, respectively, Abstract and Fig. 5);
a case accommodating the electrode assembly (electrode assembly may be assembled as a rechargeable battery by being inserted into a can-shaped case, [0094]); and
a shock absorbing portion (fixing member 201, [0037, 0066]) on at least one side of the electrode assembly (201 in contact with ends of separators 30, [0068]; 201 at left and right sides of stacked electrode assembly in X direction as shown in Fig. 5; fixing member 201 formed in a continuous linear shape in the direction Y across a sidewall of the electrode assembly 101 per [0075]) to absorb shock (201 prevents deformation of electrode assembly by absorbing shock like corresponding member 200 per [0037, 0056, 0060, 0072]), wherein
the shock absorbing portion is provided between separators arranged to face each other (201 in contact with the surfaces of the separators 30 facing each other, [0068]) with the first electrode plate in between (201 between 30 with 10 between in Y direction, Fig. 5), and between separators arranged to face each other (201 in contact with the surfaces of the separators 30 facing each other, [0068]) with the second electrode plate in between (201 between 30 with 20 between in Y direction, Fig. 5), respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Heo teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches a size of the separator is larger than a size of the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (30 larger in X direction than both 10 and 20 per Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Heo teaches the limitations of claim 2 above and teaches the shock absorbing portion is located at an end of the separator (201 in contact with the ends of the separators 30, [0068]; 201 at ends of 30 in X direction, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Heo teaches the limitations of claim 3 above and teaches the shock absorbing portion is made of an organic solvent (201 made of polypropylene or polyethylene per [0072]; PP or PE meet “organic solvent” per instant [0014, 0038] as noted above in Claim Interpretation section).
Regarding claim 5, Heo teaches the limitations of claim 4 above and teaches the shock absorbing portion adheres (per [0071-0074]) the end of the separator and an end of another separator (the fixing member 201 is in contact not only with the surfaces of the separators 30 facing each other, but also with the ends of the separators 30, [0068] and Fig. 5; the solution-type adhesive is applied to the end of the separator 30 by using a nozzle-type applicator 300, and then is cured to form the fixing member 201, [0071] and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Heo teaches the limitations of claim 4 above and teaches the shock absorbing portion has an insulating property (inherently met by PP or PE of Heo [0072], per instant specification [0038] as referenced above in Claim Interpretation section), a non-reactive property that does not react with an electrolyte (inherently met by PP or PE of Heo [0072], per instant specification [0038] as referenced above in Claim Interpretation section), and an adhesive property (201 formed as adhesive coating per [0071-0074]).
Regarding claim 7, Heo teaches the limitations of claim 6 above and teaches wherein the shock absorbing portion comprises any of PP, PE (polypropylene or polyethylene as listed in Heo [0072]).
Regarding claim 8, Heo teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches the electrode assembly is a stack-type electrode assembly (stacked electrode assembly, [0006, 0066]; 101 in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Heo teaches the limitations of claim 2 above and teaches the plurality of separators is at least larger than a size of the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate in a longitudinal direction of the separator (all of separators 30 are longer than each electrode 10 and 20 in X direction, Fig. 5).
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo (US 2020/0161617 A1, as cited in the 06/13/2025 Office action) as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 11, Heo teaches the limitations of claim 4 above but fails to explicitly teach, within the same embodiment of Fig. 5, each of the plurality of first electrode plates comprises a first electrode substrate tab, and each of the plurality of second electrode plates comprises a second electrode substrate tab.
However, Heo does teach in [0048-0049] and Fig. 2 a stacked electrode assembly embodiment in which each of the plurality of first electrode plates comprises a first electrode substrate tab (uncoated region 3 of thin metal current collectors of electrodes 10, [0048] and Fig. 2), and each of the plurality of second electrode plates comprises a second electrode substrate tab (uncoated region 4 of thin metal current collectors of electrodes 20, [0049] and Fig. 2). Heo [0050] teaches that these first and second electrode substrate tabs 3 and 4 are useful for connecting to outer terminals. Heo [0095] also welcomes modifications to disclosed embodiments.
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode assembly of Heo Fig. 5 with the uncoated tabs extending from each respective electrode as taught by Heo Fig. 2 and [0048-0050] with the motivation of achieving the ability to connect the tabs to respective outer terminals, to predictably achieve desired functionality of the rechargeable battery being electrically connected to a charger or power-user (see also Heo [0003] describing such functionality).
Thus, the instant claim 11 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Heo teaches the limitations of claim 11 above and teaches the first electrode substrate tabs and the second electrode substrate tabs are arranged at one end in a longitudinal direction of the separator (tabs 4 of electrode 20 and tabs 3 of electrode 10 may protrude in a same direction to be spaced apart from each other, Heo [0050]).
Regarding claim 13, Heo teaches the limitations of claim 12 above and teaches the shock absorbing portion is arranged in a direction (the fixing member 201 may be formed in a continuous linear shape in the direction Y across a sidewall of the electrode assembly 101, but the present invention is not limited thereto; [0075]) opposite to an arrangement direction of the first electrode substrate tabs and the second electrode substrate tabs (tabs 3 and 4 protrude in one X direction per [0050], as cited above in regards to claim 12, and Fig. 2).
Further, Heo Figs. 1-2 show embodiment of shock absorbing portion 200 opposite from tabs 3, 4 in X direction, and [0067-0068] teach the embodiment 201 of the shock absorbing portion being positioned at an ends of the separators 30 in the X direction (see also Fig. 5), such that when tabs 3 and 4 protrude along an X direction, shock absorbing portion would at least be positioned at an opposite side of the electrode stack in the X direction.
Rearrangement of parts is an obvious design choice within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art per MPEP 2144.04 VI C, such that positioning the tabs and the shock absorbing portion in an arrangement taught toward within Heo would have been an obvious choice.
Thereby, claim 12 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Heo teaches the limitations of claim 11 above and teaches further comprising a first lead terminal electrically connected to the first electrode substrate tabs (plurality of respective uncoated regions 3 a same polarity electrically connected to an outer terminal, [0050]), and a second lead terminal electrically connected to the second electrode substrate tabs (plurality of respective uncoated regions 4 of a same polarity electrically connected to an outer terminal, [0050]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo (US 2020/0161617 A1, as cited in the 06/13/2025 Office action) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0393225 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Heo teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to teach the separator is accommodated in a recess of the case in a state in which an end of the separator is folded, and the shock absorbing portion is arranged in a region of a folded portion of the end of the separator.
Kim, analogous in the art of stacked electrode assemblies, teaches electrode assembly 10 having separators 12 between stacked electrodes 11 ([0031-0032] and Fig. 1). Kim teaches the separator is accommodated in a recess of the case (electrode assembly including separator layer is accommodated within pouch case, [0005-0006]) in a state in which an end of the separator is folded (both side portions of the plurality of separators, which protrude from the electrodes, in a full width direction may be bent to sequentially overlap each other, [0023] and Fig. 1), and the shock absorbing (deformation prevention, [0024]) portion is arranged in a region of a folded portion of the end of the separator (both the side portions of the plurality of separators, which are bent to sequentially overlap each other, are adhered to each other by an adhesive layer 13, [0023, 0033] and Figs. 1 and 6). Kim teaches in [0024, 0033] that folding/bending of separators at their ends and securing with adhesive is beneficial to prevent deformation of the separator, prevent foreign substances from being introduced, and prevent occurrence of the short circuit.
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the separators of Heo to be bent/folded at their ends before being accommodated into the external case, and specifically folded in the regions of the shock-absorbing adhesive layer such that the folded ends of the separators are adheres to one another, with the motivation of preventing deformation, foreign substance intrusion, and short circuiting of the electrode assembly when held within a case, as taught by Kim.
Thus, the instant claim 16 is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo (US 2020/0161617 A1, as cited in the 06/13/2025 Office action) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Jo et al. (US 2017/0309871 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Heo teaches the limitations of claim 14 above but fails to teach wherein a plurality of the first electrode substrate tabs are gathered to one side and welded to the first lead terminal, and a plurality of the second electrode substrate tabs are gathered to one side and welded to the second lead terminal.
As cited above, Heo [0050] does teach like-polarity tabs 3 can extend from one side and like-polarity tabs-are gathered to an opposite side, each connected to a respective-polarity outer terminal, but is silent toward a connection technique such as welding.
Jo, analogous in the art of secondary batteries, teaches stacked electrode assembly 100 fixed by member 50 and including first and second electrode plates 20 and 30 with separators 40 stacked therebetween (Fig. 3). Jo teaches tabs 21 extending from each electrode plate 20 and tabs 31 extending from each electrode plate 30, in an opposite direction from 21 (Figs. 1 and 3-4), and further that that a plurality of the first electrode substrate tabs are gathered to one side (tabs 21 at one side of 100, Figs. 1 and 4) and welded to the first lead terminal (tabs 21 converge and attached to respective lead 25 by a welding method, [0036]), and a plurality of the second electrode substrate tabs are gathered to one side (tabs 31 at other side of 100, Figs. 1 and 4) and welded to the second lead terminal (tabs 31 converge and attached to respective lead 35 by a welding method, [0036]).
Since Heo is silent toward the connection technique of the electrode tabs and their respective outer leads, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to turn to the teaching of Jo to modify Heo by using a known welding method (e.g., resistance welding, ultrasonic welding, and laser welding per Jo [0036]) to expectedly achieve desired electrical connection between the like-polarity tabs at the opposite sides of the electrode assembly and their respective outer terminal.
Thereby, claim 15 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Heo teaches the limitations of claim 14 above but fails to teach wherein a first insulating tape and a second insulating tape are attached to the first lead terminal and the second lead terminal, respectively.
Jo, analogous in the art of secondary batteries, teaches stacked electrode assembly 100 fixed by member 50 and including first and second electrode plates 20 and 30 with separators 40 stacked therebetween (Fig. 3). Jo teaches tabs 21 extending from each electrode plate 20 and tabs 31 extending from each electrode plate 30, in an opposite direction from 21 (Figs. 1 and 3-4), where tabs 21 are converged and welded to electrode lead 25 and tabs 31 are converged and welded to electrode lead 35 ([0036] and Fig. 1). Jo further teaches a first insulating tape and a second insulating tape (insulation tapes 23 and 33, [0036]) are attached to the first lead terminal and the second lead terminal (lead 25 has attached tape 23, lead 35 has attached tape 33; [0036] and Fig. 1), respectively. Jo [0083] teaches that the insulation tapes impart insulating properties between electrode leads and the pouch case, and improves the adhesion property thereof.
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Heo with a first insulating tape and a second insulating tape are attached to the first lead terminal and the second lead terminal, respectively, as taught by Jo with the motivation of improving the adhesion of the electrode leads and the pouch case.
Thus, the instant claim 16 is rendered obvious.
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 Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728