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 .
Drawings
The amendment to the instant Fig. 8 filed 11/04/2025 is acknowledged and accepted. The previous objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed 11/04/2025 is acknowledged and accepted. Support for the amendments is found in at least Figs. 8-10. The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are 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 1 recites, “the first partition wall portion and the second partition wall portion being integrally formed and alternately arranged in the first direction” (emphasis added). Although the instant specification supports that the first partition wall portion 260 is continuous in the Z-direction (Pg. 10, lines 11-12), and that the second partition wall portions 270 are continuous in the Z-direction (Pg. 10, lines 15-16), the instant specification does not appear to support that the first partition wall portion 260 and the second partition wall portion 270 are “integrally formed”, as claimed. Indeed, there is no mention of “integral” in the instant specification. Accordingly, Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-10 are rejected as introducing new matter.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 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 first partition wall portion and the second partition wall portion being integrally formed and alternately arranged in the first direction” (emphasis added). Here, it is unclear which structures are intended to be integrally formed with each other. It could be interpreted that the first partition wall portion and the second partition wall portion are each integrally formed with themselves (i.e. an integrally formed first partition wall portion and a separate, integrally formed second partition wall portion). It could also be interpreted that the first partition wall portion and the second partition wall portion are integrally formed with one another (i.e. one integral piece containing the first partition wall portion and the second partition wall portion). As such, Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-10 are rejected as being indefinite. The instant specification does not appear to provide support for either interpretation (the word “integral” is not found in the instant specification). Therefore, for the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that this limitation means that the first partition wall portion is continuous in the Z-direction (i.e. height direction of the battery cells; see instant Figs. 8-10), and that the second partition wall portion is continuous in the Z-direction (i.e. height direction of the battery cells; see instant Figs. 8-10), as supported by the instant specification (Pg. 10: lines 11-12, lines 15-16).
Claim 1 further recites “partition wall portions provided between the two or more battery cells to secure electrical insulation” (lines 9-10; emphasis added). Here, in the instance where only two battery cells are provided, it is unclear whether “the partitions wall portions” are intended to each be provided between the two battery cells, whether this claim limitation should indicate that at least one partition wall portion is provided between the two or more battery cells in each unit, or whether this limitation is intended to require more than two battery cells. As such, Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-10 are rejected as being indefinite. The intended interpretation of this claim is convoluted by the wording of further dependent claims (i.e. Claims 5 and 7) which appear to suggest that exactly two battery cells are provided within the case. Since Claim 1 recites that each case can accommodate two battery cells, and since further dependent claims (Claims 5 and 7) appear to suggest that the case contains only two battery cells, the second interpretation will be applied to Claim 1, and it will be interpreted that this limitation should indicate that at least one partition wall portion is provided between the at least two battery cells in each unit. Such an interpretation appears to be consistent with the instant specification (Pg. 9, line 28 – Pg, 10, line 7; Fig. 8).
Claims 2, 3 and 8 each recite “the cooling space”. Since Claim 1 indicates that each case includes partition wall portions, that the partition wall portions include a second partition wall portion, and that the second partition wall portion forms the cooling space, it is understood that multiple cooling spaces are present (i.e. at least one in each case). Therefore, it is unclear which particular cooling space is referenced in Claims 2, 3 and 8. Accordingly, these claims are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that this limitation refers to any one of the multiple cooling spaces.
Claim 3 recites “the second partition wall portion”. Since Claim 1 indicates that each case includes partition wall portions, and that the partition wall portions include a second partition wall portion, it is understood that multiple second partition wall portions are present. Therefore, it is unclear which particular second partition wall portion is referenced in Claim 3, and Claim 3 is rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that this limitation refers to any one of the multiple second partition wall portions.
Claims 5 and 7 each recite “the case” and “the second partition wall portion”. However Claim 1 indicates that there are multiple cases present in the battery module (i.e. one for each unit), and multiple second partition wall portions. Therefore, it is unclear which case and which second partition wall portion are referenced in Claims 5 and 7. As such, the claims are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that “the case” refers to any one of the cases present in the battery module, and that “the second partition wall portion” refers to a second partition wall portion included in the respective “case”.
Claims 5 and 7 each recite “ wherein the case directly supports two battery cells” (emphasis added). Since Claim 1 has been amended to recite that the case accommodates “two or more of the plurality of battery cells” (line 5), as well as to recite “each of two of the two or more battery cells located on the opposite sides of the second partition wall” (last three lines; emphasis added), it is unclear whether Claims 5 and 7 are intended to reference one of these previously recited groups of two battery cells, or whether Claims 5 and 7 are intended to reference distinct battery cells. As such, the claims are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that the recitation of “two battery cells” is intended to reference the “two of the two or more battery cells” as supported by the later limitations of Claims 5 and 7, which indicate that the second partition wall portion is provided between the two battery cells.
Additionally, Claim 7 recites that “the case directly supports two battery cells” (emphasis added), and then requires “each” of the plurality of units to include “the two battery cells”. However, since it is understood from Claim 1 that each unit has a respective case which accommodates a respective “two or more” battery cells, the structure of “the two battery cells” in relation to the units is unclear. It could be interpreted that each unit should include the same two battery cells, it could be interpreted that this limitation should refer to “a respective two battery cells”, or it could be interpreted that this limitation should read “each of the plurality of units includes two or more battery cells”, as recited in Claims 6 and 9. As such, Claim 7 is rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the third interpretation will be applied to the claims, as supported by the wording of Claims 6 and 9.
Claim 10 recites, “the first partition wall portion” and “the second partition wall portion”. However, since Claim 1 indicates that multiple first partition wall portions and multiple second partition wall portions are present (i.e. at least one of each per case), it is unclear exactly which structures are reference in Claim 10. As such, the claim is rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that these limitations refer to a respective first partition wall portion and a respective second partition wall portion within a case.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurokawa et al. (JP-2015088236-A; see Applicant provided NPL filed 04/29/2024 for citations).
Regarding Claim 1, Kurokawa discloses a battery module (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (11, Fig. 2) arranged side by side in a first direction (X-direction, Fig. 3; [0006, 0012]), each of the plurality of battery cells having a prismatic shape (see Fig. 3; [0014]); wherein
the battery module includes a plurality of units (corresponds to a portion of the plurality of battery cells; see annotation of Kurokawa Figs. 4-5, below), and
each of the plurality of units is formed by a case (the outer walls of the case correspond to a combination of certain heat dissipation plates 12A and 12B as depicted in the annotation of Kurokawa Figs. 4-5, below; [0025]) that accommodates two or more of the plurality of battery cells and supports the two or more battery cells at least in the first direction (X-direction; [0024, 0050]).
PNG
media_image1.png
525
843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
572
725
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Left: Annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 5; Right: Annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 4
Specifically, Kurokawa discloses that heat dissipation plates 12A and 12B are formed in an “L shape” [0024] so as to sandwich adjacent battery cells (11, Fig. 4) in the first direction (X-direction) ([0019, 0029, 0033, 0050]; see Figs. 4-5). Therefore, the heat dissipation plates are understood to support the two or more battery cells “at least in the first direction”.
Kurokawa further discloses a restraint member (pressurizing section 16, Figs. 1-2; [0048]) that restrains the plurality of units in the first direction [0048, 0050, 0057, 0087].
Kurokawa further discloses that each case includes:
partition wall portions (corresponds to the combination of first insulating plates 13 and second insulating plates 14; Fig. 4) provided between the two or more battery cells (see 112(b) interpretation, above; interpreted as at least one partition wall portion is provided between the at least two battery cells in each unit; see annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 4, above) to secure electrical insulation between the two or more battery cells [0010, 0034, 0042, 0083],
the partition wall portions include:
a first partition wall portion (second insulating plate 14, Fig. 4), and
a second partition wall portion (first insulating plate 13, Fig. 4),
the first partition wall portion and the second partition wall portion being integrally formed (see 112(b) rejection, above; interpreted as provided continuously in the height direction of the battery cells; see Fig. 5; [0010]), and alternately arranged in the first direction (see Fig. 4; [0041]),
the second partition wall portion having a shape different from a shape of the first partition wall portion (see Fig. 5; [0035, 0041-0042]),
the second partition wall portion forming a cooling space (corresponds to ventilation paths 56 and 58; [0035-0036, 0038]) between a portion of each of the opposites sides of the second partition wall portion in the first direction (i.e. X-direction of Fig. 5) and each of two of the two or more battery cells located on the opposite sides of the second partition wall portion in the first direction (see annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 5, below).
PNG
media_image3.png
633
877
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 5.
Regarding Claim 2, Kurokawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Kurokawa further discloses that:
each of the plurality of battery cells has two electrode terminals (25 and 26, Fig. 3) arranged side by side along a second direction (Y-direction, Fig. 3) orthogonal to the first direction, and
the cooling space (ventilation paths 56 and 58) extends in the second direction (recesses 53 and 54 which form ventilation paths 56 and 58 “extend in the direction along the Y-axis”; [0036, 0038]; see Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Kurokawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Kurokawa further discloses that the cooling space (ventilation paths 56 and 58) is formed to extend across a whole of a width direction of the second partition wall portion in the second direction (see Fig. 6; [0053]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kurokawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Kurokawa further discloses that the case directly supports two battery cells (see annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 4, below), and the second partition wall portion is provided between the two battery cells. Here, a case that “directly supports” is interpreted as directly contacting two battery cells. Notably, since the case includes the second partition wall portion (see Claim 1), and the second partition wall portion directly contacts two battery cells, the limitation of a case which “directly supports” two battery cells is interpreted as being met.
PNG
media_image4.png
670
819
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 4.
Regarding Claim 8, Kurokawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Kurokawa further discloses that:
each of the plurality of battery cells has two electrode terminals (25 and 26, Fig. 3) arranged side by side along a second direction (Y-direction, Fig. 3) orthogonal to the first direction,
the cooling space (ventilation paths 56 and 58) extends in the second direction (recesses 53 and 54 which form ventilation paths 56 and 58 “extend in the direction along the Y-axis”; [0036, 0038]; see Fig. 6), and
the restraint member (pressurizing section 16, Figs. 1-2; [0048]) is provided with an opening (ventilation holes 69, Figs. 1-2 in side plate 65 of restraint member 16; [0048, 0052]) continuous to the cooling space in the second direction (Y-direction; see Figs. 2 and 6; [0052-0053]).
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under an alternative interpretation of the “case” and the “partition wall portions”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Kurokawa discloses a battery module (10, Fig. 1) comprising the following limitations as required by Claim 1:
a plurality of battery cells (11, Fig. 2) arranged side by side in a first direction (X-direction, Fig. 3; [0006, 0012]), each of the plurality of battery cells having a prismatic shape (see Fig. 3; [0014]); wherein
the battery module includes a plurality of units (corresponds to a portion of the plurality of battery cells; see annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 4, below), and
each of the plurality of units is formed by a case (corresponds to certain heat dissipation plates 12B as depicted in the annotation of Kurokawa Figs. 4-5, below; [0025]) that accommodates two or more of the plurality of battery cells and supports the two or more battery cells at least in the first direction (X-direction; [0024, 0050]).
PNG
media_image5.png
797
1097
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 4.
Specifically, Kurokawa discloses heat dissipation plates 12A and 12B which are formed in either an “L” shape (plates 12A) or a “mirrored L” shape (plates 12B) (see Fig. 5; [0024-0025]) so as to sandwich sets of battery cells in the first direction (X-direction) ([0019, 0029, 0033, 0050]; see Figs. 4-5). Therefore, a combination of heat dissipation plates formed in the “mirrored L” shape (i.e. plates 12B) read on the outer portions of a case, and are understood to support the two or more battery cells “at least in the first direction”. The Examiner notes that this interpretation of outer members of a “case” differs from the previous interpretation applied to Claim 1 (see first rejection of Claim 1, above).
Kurokawa discloses a restraint member (pressurizing section 16, Figs. 1-2; [0048]) that restrains the plurality of units in the first direction [0048, 0050, 0057, 0087].
Kurokawa also discloses that each case includes:
partition wall portions (corresponds to the combination of heat dissipation plates 12A, first insulating plates 13, and second insulating plates 14; see Figs. 4-5) provided between the two or more battery cells secure electrical insulation between the two or more battery cells [0010, 0034, 0042, 0083],
the partition wall portions include:
a first partition wall portion (corresponds to heat dissipation plates 12A, Fig. 4), and
a second partition wall portion (first insulating plate 13, Fig. 4).
Specifically, the combination of the heat dissipation plates formed in an “L” shape (i.e. heat dissipation plates 12A), the first insulating plates (13), and the second insulating plates (14) are provided between the “two or more battery cells” (see 112(b) rejection, above; interpreted as at least one partition wall portion is provided between two battery cells in each unit; see Figs. 4-5). The combination of these structures reads on the claimed “partition wall portions”. Since the first insulating plates and second insulating plates each provide electrical insulation [0010, 0034, 0042, 0083], the combination of the partition wall portions thereby “secure electrical insulation between the two or more battery cells” as required. The Examiner notes that this interpretation of the “partition wall portions” differs from the previous interpretation applied to Claim 1 (see first rejection of Claim 1, above).
PNG
media_image6.png
997
1142
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 5
Kurokawa further discloses:
the first partition wall portion and the second partition wall portion being integrally formed (interpreted as provided continuously in the height direction of the battery cells; see 112(b) rejection, above; see Fig. 5; [0010, 0025-0027]), and alternately arranged in the first direction (see Figs. 4-5; [0041]),
the second partition wall portion having a shape different from a shape of the first partition wall portion (see Fig. 5; [0035, 0041-0042]),
the second partition wall portion forming a cooling space (corresponds to ventilation paths 56 and 58; [0035-0036, 0038]) between a portion of each of the opposites sides of the second partition wall portion in the first direction (i.e. X-direction of Fig. 5) and each of two of the two or more battery cells located on the opposite sides of the second partition wall portion in the first direction (see annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 5, below).
PNG
media_image7.png
868
758
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 5.
Regarding Claim 10, Kurokawa further discloses (see annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 5, below):
the first partition wall portion (heat dissipation plate 12A) is in direct abutment [0025-0027] with an adjacent battery cell with a first area in the first direction,
the second partition wall portion is in direct abutment with an adjacent battery cell with a second area in the first direction.
Since Kurokawa discloses that the second partition wall portion includes a cooling space (ventilation paths 56 and 58) which extend along the entire width of the second partition wall portion in the second direction (see Fig. 6), the second area is smaller than the first area.
PNG
media_image8.png
675
1094
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa et al. (JP-2015088236-A; see Applicant provided NPL filed 04/29/2024 for citations) as applied to Claims 1 and 8, above, and in further view of Son et al. (US-20160181604-A1).
Regarding Claims 6-7, Kurokawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above in the first interpretation of the “case” and the “partition wall portions” of Claim 1. Kurokawa discloses that the case directly supports two battery cells (see annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 4, below), and the second partition wall portion is provided between the two battery cells as required by Claim 7. Here, a case that “directly supports” is interpreted as directly contacting two battery cells. Notably, since the case includes the second partition wall portion (see Claim 1), and the second partition wall portion directly contacts two battery cells (see Figs. 4-5), the limitation of a case which “directly supports” two battery cells is interpreted as being met.
Kurokawa further discloses that each of the plurality of the units includes two or more battery cells (see annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 4, below) as required by Claims 6 and 7.
PNG
media_image9.png
632
819
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 4.
Kurokawa discloses that the battery module is designed to evenly cool the battery cells such that it can be installed in a variety of devices [0004-0005, 0086-0087]. The battery cells are lithium ion secondary battery cells [0014]. Kurokawa does not disclose the output density of the battery cells, and therefore does not teach that each of the battery cells has an output density of 8000 W/L or more as required by Claims 6 and 7.
Son teaches a battery module comprising lithium ion battery cells for use in various types of electric vehicles and other high voltage energy storage/expending applications [0008, 0038]. Each lithium ion battery cell has a power density of greater than about 7000 W/L [claim 33] and up to 8800 W/L [0041]. Advantageously, Son teaches that such a power density represents a battery cell with excellent discharge power and charge power which is suitable for use in various electric vehicles [0041].
Therefore, in seeking to form a battery module which is applicable to various high voltage energy storage/expending applications, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have provided the power density of each battery cell of Kurokawa to be 8000 W/L to 8800 W/L, with a reasonable expectation that such a power density would result in successful battery cells with excellent charge/discharge power (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 9, Kurokawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth in Claim 8, above. Kurokawa discloses that each of the plurality of the units includes two or more battery cells (two battery cells, see annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 4, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
572
725
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Kurokawa Fig. 4.
Kurokawa discloses that the battery module is designed to evenly cool the battery cells such that it can be installed in a variety of devices [0004-0005, 0086-0087]. The battery cells are lithium ion secondary battery cells [0014]. Kurokawa does not disclose the output density of the battery cells, and therefore does not teach that each of the battery cells has an output density of 8000 W/L or more.
Son teaches a battery module comprising lithium ion battery cells for use in various types of electric vehicles and other high voltage energy storage/expending applications [0008, 0038]. Each lithium ion battery cell has a power density of greater than about 7000 W/L [claim 33] and up to 8800 W/L [0041]. Advantageously, Son teaches that such a power density represents a battery cell with excellent discharge power and charge power which is suitable for use in various electric vehicles [0041].
Therefore, in seeking to form a battery module which is applicable to various high voltage energy storage/expending applications, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have provided the power density of each battery cell of Kurokawa to be 8000 W/L to 8800 W/L, with a reasonable expectation that such a power density would result in successful battery cells with excellent charge/discharge power (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued (Remarks Pgs. 11-13) that the prior art Kurokawa does not disclose the newly added limitations of Claim 1. The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that the newly added limitations are mapped to the prior art, as laid out above. Additionally, with regards the first partition wall portion and the second partition “being integrally formed”, the Examiner notes that there does not appear to be sufficient 112(a) support for this limitation, as noted in the 112 rejections (see above).
Other References Considered
The following prior art, although not relied upon in the rejections of record, is considered relevant to the claims:
Smith et al. (US-20090169978-A1) teaches a battery (multi-cell monoblock battery) including a case (monoblock container) formed on a non-conductive material [0048-0050]. The case (monoblock container) includes cell partitions [0052]. In a particular embodiment (Fig. 8E), the partitions include divider partitions (807) and coolant partitions (809) [0095] which can be integrally formed [0086]. The divider partitions (807) and the coolant partitions (809) are alternately provided (see Fig. 8E), and have a different shape (see Fig. 8E).
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 DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/17/2026