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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1: where the solvent comprises a compound having a monovalent group represented by Formula A and not Formula B in the reply filed on 1-29-2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1-29-2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 7-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 is objected to because the claim should cite “a negative electrode comprising a current collector that is free of a negative electrode active material…”. Claim 1 is objected to because the claim should cite “the electrolyte solution contains a solvent comprising a compound having at least one of the monovalent group represented by Formula A in in an amount of 60% by volume or more relative to the total amount of the solvent components in the electrolytic solution and contains asecond solvent comprising a diether compound that is free of a fluorine-substituted alkyl group,…”. Claim 7 is objected to because the claim should cite “wherein the electrolyte solution consists of a compound having at least one of the monovalent group represented by Formula A and the diether compound that is free of a fluorine substituted alkyl group”. Claim 8 is objected to because the claim should cite “wherein after the battery is charged and discharged, a lithium metal is deposited on a surface of the negative electrode current collector by electrolytically dissolving the deposited lithium”. Claim 9 is objected to because the claim should cite “wherein the negative electrode current collector consists of…”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-2 and 7-12 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 is rejected because an electrolytic solution is not present in claim 1 because no lithium salt is claimed in claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected because the electrolytic solution containing the compound having at least one of the monovalent group represented by Formula (A) has 2 been present in an amount of 60% by volume or more in the electrolyte solution as claimed in claim 1 from which the claim depends from claim 7 claims wherein the compound is present in an amount of 20% by volume or less. Therefore, this claim does not further limit claim 1 from which the claim depends. Claim 8 is rejected because a lithium metal cannot be formed on the surface of the negative electrode because no lithium compound is claimed in claim 1 or claim 8. This makes the claim vague and indefinite. Claim 10 is rejected because the claim does not further limit claim 1 from which the claim depends. Claim 1 claims a negative electrode that is free of the negative electrode active material therefore no lithium foil active material would have been formed before the initial charging. Therefore, this claim does not further limit claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (EP 3 509 150) in view of Chang et al. (US 2016/0344063). Chang et al. teaches in claim 1, an anodeless lithium metal battery comprising a cathode; an anode current collector on the cathode and an electrolyte solution comprising a first liquid electrolyte. Chang et al. teaches in [0085-0086], that the anodeless lithium metal battery may further include a separator which may be a multi-layer structure comprising polyvinylene fluoride, [teaching claim 12], etc. Chang et al. teaches in claims 4-5, where the first liquid electrolyte comprises a lithium salt and an organic solvent comprising at least one of an ether compound, a fluorinated ether compound, etc. with a fluorinated ether compound is at least one of 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2, 2, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropyl ether and the ether compound can comprise ethylene glycol dimethyl ether (1, 2-dimethoxyethane, DME). Chang et al. teaches in [0057-0058] that the amount of the fluorinated ether compound may comprise 50 vol% and teaches in [0059], that the fluorinated ether compound has a structure in which fluorinated functional groups are bonded to a -CH2-O moiety and has a small polarity, giving the fluorinated ether compound excellent miscibility with the ether solvent capable of solvating lithium ions and having high dissolution capability such as dimethyl ether (DME). Chang et al. teaches in Example 1, an anodeless lithium metal battery comprising an anode current collector comprising a copper foil [teaching claim 9]; a cathode and an electrolyte solution comprising LiFSI in DME. Chang et al. teaches the specified lithium secondary battery as explained above teaching an electrolyte including at least one fluorinated ether compound and at least one non-fluorinated ether compound [0052]-[0053] and the fluorinated ether compound may be 50% or less [0058], the reference does not expressly disclose: at least 60% by volume (vol%) of a solvent mixture with respect to the total volume of the electrolyte composition, comprising at least one fluorinated ether compound and at least one non-fluorinated ether compound. Chang et al. ‘063 teaches in [0043-0044] overlapping ranges for the fluorinated and non-fluorinated based solvent, where non-fluorinated ether compound is about 15%, and the fluorinated ether compound is about 55%. The high-rate charge and discharge characteristics may be improved along with improving ion conductivity without deteriorating oxidation resistance [0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ at least 60% by volume (vol%) of a solvent mixture with respect to the total volume of the electrolyte composition, comprising at least one fluorinated ether compound and at least one non-fluorinated ether compound (claim 1) as taught by Chang ‘063; in the electrolyte of Chang, in order to increase the ion conductivity between electrodes without deteriorating oxidation resistance, and high-rate charge and discharge characteristics may be improved.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). In addition, the presently claimed property of the energy density of the lithium secondary battery of 350 Wh/kg or more would have obviously been present once the Chang et al. in view of Chang et al.’063 product is provided. See MPEP 2122.01, I.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (US 20190140322 A1) in view of Honda et al. (US 2014/0363726).
Regarding claim 1, Ren et al. teaches embodiments for an electrolyte comprising a lithium-containing active salt, an ether-based solvent A and a diluent [0006]. In any or all of these electrolyte embodiments, the diluent can be a fluoroalkyl ether, a fluorinated carbonate, a fluorinated orthoformate or a combination thereof. Among other possibilities, the diluent can be 1, 1, 2, 2-tetrafluoroethyl-2, 2, 2, 3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) [0006 and 0148].
PNG
media_image1.png
157
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In some embodiments, a rechargeable battery comprises an electrolyte embodiment as disclosed herein, a cathode, an anode and a separator [0164]. Among possible exemplary anodes, polyacrylonitrile (PAN)-sulfur composites (free of a negative electrode active material) are mentioned [0166]. Ren et al. further teaches that in any, or all, of the electrolyte embodiments, the ether-based solvent A is DME, diglyme, triglyme, dimethyl ether, diethyl ether, etc. or a combination thereof [0006]. Ren et al. teaches in [0006 and 0142], that the electrolyte can comprise lithium bis (fluorosulfonyl) imide (LiFSI) [LiN(SO2F)2]. Ren et al. teaches in [0154], in an embodiment, a volumetric ratio of solvent A to the diluent in the electrolyte ranges from 0.2-10. Thus, taking a total solvent arbitrary value of 1 L and a volumetric ratio of 0.2, the solvent A could be 0.17 L and the diluent 0.83 L, which for the diluent (fluorine solvent) it represents a 83% by volume of the “overall amount of solvent components in the electrolytic solution” [teaching the amount of the compound having at least one of a monovalent group of Formula (A) in an amount of 60% by volume].
Ren et al. teaches the claimed invention as explained above but does not teach that one or both surfaces of the separator is coated with a polyvinylidene fluoride. Honda et al. teaches a separator for a secondary battery includes a porous substrate and an adhesive layer comprising aggregate layer of particles containing polyvinylidene fluoride formed on at least one side of the porous substrate. Honda et al. teaches in [0031-0032], that the separator has excellent adhesion to electrodes as compared with conventional separators and ensures favorable ion permeability and handling property and provides a battery which has a high energy density and exhibits excellent cycle characteristics. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a porous substrate and an adhesive layer comprising aggregate layer of particles containing polyvinylidene fluoride formed on at least one side of the porous substrate instead of a conventional separator because Honda et al. teaches that the separator has excellent adhesion to electrodes as compared with conventional separators and ensures favorable ion permeability and handling property and provides a battery which has a high energy density and exhibits excellent cycle characteristics. In addition, the presently claimed property of the energy density of the lithium secondary battery of 350 Wh/kg or more would have obviously been present once the Ren et al. in view of Honda et al. product is provided. See MPEP 2122.01, I.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 7 and 10-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,555,818. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12,555,818 claims in claims 1-2, an anode-less lithium ion battery comprising: a cathode; an anode current collector; a separator and a liquid electrolyte composition comprising a solvent mixture comprising 80 to 90 vol% of at least one fluorinated ether compound and 10 to 20 vol% of at least one non-fluorinated either compound. U.S. Patent No. 12,555,818 claims in claim 4, where the non-fluorinated ether compound comprises dimethoxyethane (DME) and claims in claim 3:
PNG
media_image2.png
67
349
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. U.S. Patent No. 12,555,818 claims in claim 9, where the separator comprises polyimide, etc. In addition, the presently claimed property of the energy density of the lithium secondary battery of 350 Wh/kg or more would have obviously been present once the U.S. Patent No. 12,555,818 product is provided. See MPEP 2122.01, I.
Claims 1-2 and 7-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-8 of copending Application No. 18/196,291 in view of Iwahori et al. (2015/0004481) and Honda et al. (US 2014/0363726).
Application No. 18/196,291 claims in claim 1, the same battery of instant claims 1-2 and 7, comprising a negative electrode not having a negative electrode active material and an electrolyte solution comprising a solvent comprising compounds represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
90
443
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and Formula 2:
PNG
media_image4.png
90
433
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and claims in claim 4, where the electrolyte solution further contains a non-fluorine solvent. Application No. 18/196,291 claims in claims 5-8, the exact same as claimed in instant claims 8-11.
Application No. 18/196,291 claims the claimed invention as explained above but does not teach that the non-fluorine solvent is a diether compound that is free of a fluorine-substituted alkyl group and that one or both surfaces of the separator is coated with a polyvinylidene fluoride. Iwahori et al. teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a negative electrode (anode), a positive electrode (cathode), and an electrolyte solution (paragraphs 110-111), wherein the electrolyte solution comprises a compound such as 1,2-dimethoxypropane, 1,2-diethoxypropane, or 1,2-dimethoxybutane for improving the high-temperature continuous charging properties (paragraph 29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such ether compound in the electrolyte solution before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Iwahori et al. discloses that such modification can form an electrolyte solution for a battery having improved storage and cycle characteristics (paragraphs 29-30). In addition, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Iwahori et al. specifies that the amount of the compound (1,2-diethoxypropane) is at least 0.25 ppm (paragraph 30). Honda et al. teaches a separator for a secondary battery includes a porous substrate and an adhesive layer comprising aggregate layer of particles containing polyvinylidene fluoride formed on at least one side of the porous substrate. Honda et al. teaches in [0031-0032], that the separator has excellent adhesion to electrodes as compared with conventional separators and ensures favorable ion permeability and handling property and provides a battery which has a high energy density and exhibits excellent cycle characteristics. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a porous substrate and an adhesive layer comprising aggregate layer of particles containing polyvinylidene fluoride formed on at least one side of the porous substrate instead of a conventional separator because Honda et al. teaches that the separator has excellent adhesion to electrodes as compared with conventional separators and ensures favorable ion permeability and handling property and provides a battery which has a high energy density and exhibits excellent cycle characteristics. In addition, the presently claimed property of the energy density of the lithium secondary battery of 350 Wh/kg or more would have obviously been present once the Application No. 18/196,291 in view of Iwahori et al. and Honda et al. product is provided. See MPEP 2122.01, I.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-2, 7 and 10-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/119,000 in view Honda et al. (US 2014/0363726).
Application No. 18/119,000 claims in claims 1 and 4, the same battery of instant claim 1 comprising a negative electrode that is free of a negative electrode active material and an electrolyte solution comprising a solvent comprising the same fluorine compound having a monovalent group represented by Formula (A) and a chain-like ether compound that is free of a fluorine atom and has a branched chain and claims in
PNG
media_image5.png
84
635
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Application No. 18/119,000 claims in
PNG
media_image6.png
145
634
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Application No. 18/119,000 claims the claimed invention as explained above but does not teach further comprising one or both surfaces of a separator is coated with a polyvinylidene fluoride. Honda et al. teaches a separator for a secondary battery includes a porous substrate and an adhesive layer comprising aggregate layer of particles containing polyvinylidene fluoride formed on at least one side of the porous substrate. Honda et al. teaches in [0031-0032], that the separator has excellent adhesion to electrodes as compared with conventional separators and ensures favorable ion permeability and handling property and provides a battery which has a high energy density and exhibits excellent cycle characteristics. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a porous substrate and an adhesive layer comprising aggregate layer of particles containing polyvinylidene fluoride formed on at least one side of the porous substrate instead of a conventional separator because Honda et al. teaches that the separator has excellent adhesion to electrodes as compared with conventional separators and ensures favorable ion permeability and handling property and provides a battery which has a high energy density and exhibits excellent cycle characteristics. In addition, the presently claimed property of the energy density of the lithium secondary battery of 350 Wh/kg or more would have obviously been present once the Application No. 18/119,000 in view of Honda et al. product is provided. See MPEP 2122.01, I.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-2, 7 and 10-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4 and 9-10 of copending Application No. 18/119,082 in view of Iwahori et al. (2015/0004481) and Honda et al. (US 2014/0363726). Application No. 18/119,082 claims in claim 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
119
644
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
200
356
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, etc. and claims in claim 4:
PNG
media_image9.png
87
638
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Application No. 18/119,082 claims in claims 9-10:
PNG
media_image10.png
223
607
media_image10.png
Greyscale
. Application No. 18/119,082 claims the claimed invention as explained above but does not teach that the non-fluorine solvent is a diether compound that is free of a fluorine-substituted alkyl group and that one or both surfaces of the separator is coated with a polyvinylidene fluoride. Iwahori et al. teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a negative electrode (anode), a positive electrode (cathode), and an electrolyte solution (paragraphs 110-111), wherein the electrolyte solution comprises a compound such as 1,2-dimethoxypropane, 1,2-diethoxypropane, or 1,2-dimethoxybutane for improving the high-temperature continuous charging properties (paragraph 29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such ether compound in the electrolyte solution before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Iwahori discloses that such modification can form an electrolyte solution for a battery having improved storage and cycle characteristics (paragraphs 29-30). In addition, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Iwahori et al. specifies that the amount of the compound (1,2-diethoxypropane) is at least 0.25 ppm (paragraph 30). Honda et al. teaches a separator for a secondary battery includes a porous substrate and an adhesive layer comprising aggregate layer of particles containing polyvinylidene fluoride formed on at least one side of the porous substrate. Honda et al. teaches in [0031-0032], that the separator has excellent adhesion to electrodes as compared with conventional separators and ensures favorable ion permeability and handling property and provides a battery which has a high energy density and exhibits excellent cycle characteristics. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a porous substrate and an adhesive layer comprising aggregate layer of particles containing polyvinylidene fluoride formed on at least one side of the porous substrate instead of a conventional separator because Honda et al. teaches that the separator has excellent adhesion to electrodes as compared with conventional separators and ensures favorable ion permeability and handling property and provides a battery which has a high energy density and exhibits excellent cycle characteristics. In addition, the presently claimed property of the energy density of the lithium secondary battery of 350 Wh/kg or more would have obviously been present once the Application No. 18/119,082 in view of Iwahori et al. and Honda et al. product is provided. See MPEP 2122.01, I.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nakane et al. (US 2001/0036577) teaches the use of 2,2,3,3 terafluoropropyl difluoromethyl ether as an organic solvent of a lithium secondary battery. Nakane et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: a cathode (positive electrode); an anode and a liquid electrolyte (paragraph 11), wherein the liquid electrolyte comprises a lithium salt and an organic solvent (paragraphs 43-44), and wherein the organic solvent is an ether such as 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl difluoromethyl ether [i.e., fluorine compound of formula A] (paragraph 44). Nakane et al. further teaches that the liquid electrolyte comprises a chain-like ether compound such as 1,2-dimethoxyethane or 1,3-dimethoxypropane (paragraph 44).
Zhang et al. (US 2018/0251681) teaches embodiments of low flammability and nonflammable localized super concentrated electrolytes (LSEs) which are useful in batteries, such as rechargeable lithium ion batteries (lithium secondary batteries) [0004 and 0171]. In some embodiments, a rechargeable battery comprises a low flammability or nonflammable LSE as disclosed herein, a cathode, an anode and optionally a separator [0172]. Among exemplary anodes for lithium ion batteries (lithium secondary batteries) polyacrylonitrile (PAN)-sulfur composites (not considered negative active materials) are mentioned [0174]. Embodiments of the LSEs comprise an active salt, a solvent A comprising a flame retardant compound and a diluent [0174]. Diluent exemplary fluorinated solvents include 1, 1, 2, 2-tetrafluoroethyl-2, 2, 2, 3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) [0157], which correspond to Chemical Formula B if “X” is the tetrafluoroethyl group. If one hydrogen is removed from the tetrafluoroethyl group to create a bond with oxygen, this group is a monovalent group
PNG
media_image1.png
157
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/LAURA S. WEINER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723