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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on February 17th, 2026 have been
entered into the file.
Currently, claim 1 is amended and claims 2, 6-7 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1, 3-5, and 8-12 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed February 17th, 2026 have been received.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004131930 A1) in view of Li (Chinese Patent Publication No. 202454680 U) and Kim (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180123135 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakanishi teaches a secondary battery (Abstract) comprising:
an electrode wound body (rolled-up electrode unit) (Figure 4, Element 2) having a structure in which a positive electrode having a band (strip) shape (Figure 4, Element 23) and a negative electrode having a band (strip) shape (Figure 4, Element 21) are stacked and provided with a separator (Figure 4, Element 22) interposed therebetween, and are in a wound (spiral) configuration (Paragraphs 0100-0101);
a positive electrode current collector plate (Figure 1, Element 30)
a negative electrode current collector plate (Figure 1, Element 3)
and an outer package (battery can) containing the electrode wound body, the positive electrode current collector plate, and the negative electrode current collector plate (Paragraph 0054)
wherein the negative electrode includes, on a negative electrode foil (copper foil) having a band shape (Figure 4, Element 21),
a negative electrode active material covered part covered with a negative electrode active material layer (Figure 4, Element 24) (Paragraph 0100)
and a negative electrode active material uncovered part (uncoated portion of the rolled-up negative electrode) (Figure 4, Element 25) (Paragraph 0101)
the electrode wound body has a flat surface, in which portions of the negative electrode active material uncovered part that protrude (project outward) from one end of the electrode wound body (beyond the edge of the separator) (Paragraph 0101), and is coupled to the negative electrode current collector plate as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
482
731
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Nakanishi
Nakanishi teaches the negative electrode foil has a first major surface facing toward the central axis, and a second major surface facing away from the central axis, as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
445
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Nakanishi
Nakanishi is silent as to portions of the negative electrode active material uncovered part that protrude from one end of the electrode wound body are bent toward a central axis of the electrode wound body to form the flat surface.
However, Li discloses a wound lithium battery cell comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode, and separator, wherein the upper end of the positive electrode sheet and the lower end of the negative electrode sheet are provided with uncoated blank strips which contact the positive electrode collector plate and the negative electrode collector plate, respectively (Paragraph 9). Li teaches the uncoated portions (blank tapes) (Figures 6-7; Elements 41 and 51) of the positive and negative electrodes (Elements 4 and 5, respectively) are bent inward (toward the central axis of the wound body, as shown in the annotated Figure) to ensure each point of the uncoated portion is connected to the current collector in order to effectively conduct current (Paragraph 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the uncovered parts of the negative electrode active material of Nakanishi to incorporate the teachings of Li in which the flat surface is formed by bending portions of the uncoated part of the negative electrode active material toward a central axis of the wound body. Doing so would advantageously result in effective current conduction between the uncoated portion and the collector, as recognized by Li.
PNG
media_image3.png
482
743
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7 of Li
Nakanishi is silent as to a glossiness of the first major surface is denoted as G1 and a glossiness of the second major surface is denoted as G2, G1 > G2 is satisfied.
However, Kim discloses an electrolytic copper foil for a lithium secondary battery to minimize the generation of curls and wrinkles causing battery defects (Paragraph 0001-0002). Kim teaches the control of factors which influence curl characteristics of the electrolytic foil, including surface roughness, surface deposition amount, and glossiness, within a predetermined range in order to obtain desired performance (Paragraphs 0009-0010). Kim teaches a value ΔG corresponding to an absolute value of the difference between glossiness measured (according to JIS Z 8741, Paragraph 0078) on the first surface (first major surface) and the glossiness measured on the second surface (second major surface) of the electrolytic copper foil (Paragraph 0010). Kim teaches ΔG being between 0 to 350 in order to ensure curling of the foil is within a desirable reference level (Paragraphs 0038-0039, 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second major surfaces of the negative electrode foil of Nakanishi to incorporate the teachings of Kim in which the absolute value of the difference between glossiness measured on the first major surface and the glossiness measured on the second major surface of the electrolytic copper foil, ΔG, is between 0 and 350. Doing so would advantageously result in a curl indicator within the acceptable range for the foil, as recognized by Kim.
According to the teachings of Nakanishi in view of Kim, the difference in glossiness between the two surfaces of the negative electrode foil is within the range of -350 to 350, as the absolute value of the difference is taught by Kim. Therefore, Kim teaches three options regarding the glossiness parameters of the first major surface and the second major surface: the glossiness of the first major surface G1 is greater than the glossiness of the second major surface G2 (0 <ΔG ≤ 350), the glossiness of the first major surface G1 is less than the glossiness of the second major surface G2 (-350 ≤ ΔG ≤ 0), or glossiness of the first major surface G1 is equal to the glossiness of the second major surface G2 (ΔG = 0).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select the glossiness of the first major surface G1 is greater than the glossiness of the second major surface G2 (0 < ΔG ≤ 350)from the finite lists of possible combinations for the value of ΔG to arrive at the relation of glossiness between the first and second major surfaces of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results as an copper foil with minimal curling or wrinkling, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
An alternate rejection is presented under Nakanishi in view of Kim using the Examples of Kim. While the difference in glossiness between the two surfaces of the negative electrode foil is within the range of -350 to 350, Kim provides Examples 2-7 as seen in Table 2 below where the glossiness of the first (major) surface is larger than the glossiness of the second (major) surface. Kim specifically discloses the G1 > G2 (Paragraphs 0038-0039, 0045), therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Nakanishi to form the foil, wherein G1 > G2, as this is taught to be a suitable glossiness configuration for a rolled battery and would also be obvious in order to limit curls and wrinkles, as taught by Kim. Thus, Nakanishi in view of Kim teaches it is suitable for G1 > G2, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
PNG
media_image4.png
329
608
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Table 2 of Kim
As discussed above, it was established as obvious to consider the range of 0 < ΔG ≤ 350, i.e. when the glossiness of the first major surface G1 is greater than the glossiness of the second major surface G2. The range of Nakanishi in view of Kim teaches 0 < G1 - G2 ≤ 350, which overlaps the instant claimed range. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
An alternate rejection is presented under Nakanishi in view of Kim using the Examples of Kim. Kim specifically discloses ΔG is between 0 to 350 (Paragraphs 0038-0039, 0045), therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Nakanishi to form the foil, wherein G1 - G2 ≥ 350, as this is taught to be a suitable glossiness configuration for a rolled battery and would also be obvious in order to limit curls and wrinkles, as taught by Kim. Kim provides examples 4-6, as seen in Table 2, where the difference in glossiness G1 – G2 lies within the range of greater than or equal to 50, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
PNG
media_image5.png
324
608
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Table 2 of Kim
Kim further teaches the glossiness measured at both surfaces of the copper foil may be between 10 and 450 (Paragraph 0013), in order to prevent errors in sensing the copper foil during the coating process (Paragraph 0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Nakanishi to incorporate the teachings of Kim in which the glossiness G2 of the second major surface is between 10 and 450. Doing so would advantageously result in the prevention of sensing errors of the copper foil during the manufacturing process, as recognized by Kim.
The range of Nakanishi in view of Kim resulting from the modification teaches 10 ≤ G2 ≤ 450, which overlaps the instant claimed range. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
An alternate rejection is presented under Nakanishi in view of Kim using the Examples of Kim. Kim specifically discloses the glossiness G2 of the second major surface is between 10 and 450, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Nakanishi to form the foil, wherein G2 ≥ 130, as this is taught to be a suitable glossiness configuration for a rolled battery and would also be obvious in order to limit sensing errors, as taught by Kim. Kim provides example 4, as seen in Table 2, where the glossiness of the second major surface G2 is close to lying within the claimed range. Further, the disclosure is not limited to what is provided in the Examples. Therefore, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to tune the glossiness G2 of the second major surface to be 130 and above in order to obtain ΔG which lies within the instant claimed range so as to ensure the level of curl that is an acceptable range to prevent the wrinkling of the foil during the battery manufacturing process, as described by Kim.
Regarding claim 3, modified Nakanishi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, it was established as obvious to consider the range of 0 < ΔG ≤ 350, i.e. when the glossiness of the first major surface G1 is greater than the glossiness of the second major surface G2. The range of Nakanishi in view of Kim teaches 0 < G1-G2 ≤ 350, which overlaps the instant claimed range. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
An alternate rejection is presented under Nakanishi in view of Kim using the Examples of Kim. Kim specifically discloses ΔG is between 0 to 350 (Paragraphs 0038-0039, 0045), therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Nakanishi to form the foil, wherein G1 - G2 ≥ 80, as this is taught to be a suitable glossiness configuration for a rolled battery and would also be obvious in order to limit curls and wrinkles, as taught by Kim. Kim provides examples 4-6, as seen in Table 2 (above), where the difference in glossiness G1 – G2 lies within the range of greater than or equal to 80, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 4, modified Nakanishi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1.
As discussed above, the modification of Nakanishi by Kim resulted in the difference between the glossiness of the first major surface and the second major surface, ΔG between 0 and 350.
Kim further teaches the glossiness measured at both surfaces of the copper foil may be between 10 and 450 (Paragraph 0013), in order to prevent errors in sensing the copper foil during the coating process (Paragraph 0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Nakanishi to incorporate the teachings of Kim in which the glossiness G1 of the first major surface is between 10 and 450. Doing so would advantageously result in the prevention of sensing errors of the copper foil during the manufacturing process, as recognized by Kim.
The range of Nakanishi in view of Kim resulting from the modification teaches 10 ≤ G1 ≤ 450, which overlaps the instant claimed range. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
An alternate rejection is presented under Nakanishi in view of Kim using the Examples of Kim. Kim specifically discloses the glossiness G1 of the first major surface is between 10 and 450, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Nakanishi to form the foil, wherein G1 ≥ 150, as this is taught to be a suitable glossiness configuration for a rolled battery and would also be obvious in order to limit sensing errors, as taught by Kim. Kim provides examples 4-6, as seen in Table 2 below, where the glossiness of the first major surface G1 lies within the range of greater than or equal to 150, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
PNG
media_image6.png
324
608
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Table 2 of Kim
Regarding claim 5, modified Nakanishi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1.
As discussed above, the teaching of Kim regarding the glossiness measured at both surfaces of the copper foil between 10 and 450 modified Nakanishi in order to prevent sensing errors of the copper foil during the manufacturing process, as recognized by Kim.
The range of Nakanishi in view of Kim resulting from the modification teaches 10 ≤ G1 ≤ 450, which overlaps the instant claimed range. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
An alternate rejection is presented under Nakanishi in view of Kim using the Examples of Kim. Kim specifically discloses the glossiness G1 of the first major surface is between 10 and 450, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Nakanishi to form the foil, wherein G1 ≥ 200, as this is taught to be a suitable glossiness configuration for a rolled battery and would also be obvious in order to limit sensing errors, as taught by Kim. Kim provides examples 4 and 6, as seen in Table 2 below, where the glossiness of the first major surface G1 lies within the range of greater than or equal to 200, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
PNG
media_image7.png
324
608
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Table 2 of Kim
Regarding claim 8, modified Nakanishi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Nakanishi teaches the uncoated part of the negative electrode (Figure 4, Element 25) having a width (Figure 4, Element B) of about 10 mm (Paragraph 0102), which lies within the instant range and therefore meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 9, modified Nakanishi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Nakanishi teaches a material of the negative electrode foil includes copper (Paragraph 0100).
Nakanishi discloses in the examples of invention cells A, B, C, D, and E, the coating of a copper foil having a thickness of 20 µm with negative electrode active material (Paragraph 0160). Therefore, Nakanishi teaches a suitable thickness of the negative electrode foil being 20 micrometers, which falls within the claimed range, meeting the instant limitations.
Regarding claim 10, modified Nakanishi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Nakanishi teaches the electrode wound body has a second flat surface, in which portions of the positive electrode active material (Figure 4, Element 23) uncovered part (Figure 4, Element 27) that protrude (project outward) from one end of the electrode wound body (beyond the edge of the separator) (Paragraph 0101), and is coupled to the positive electrode current collector plate as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image8.png
922
744
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Nakanishi
Nakanishi is silent as to portions of the positive electrode active material uncovered part that protrude from one end of the electrode wound body are bent toward a central axis of the electrode wound body to form the second flat surface.
As discussed above, Li discloses a wound lithium battery cell comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode, and separator, wherein the upper end of the positive electrode sheet and the lower end of the negative electrode sheet are provided with uncoated blank strips which contact the positive electrode collector plate and the negative electrode collector plate, respectively (Paragraph 9). Li teaches the uncoated portions (blank tapes) (Figures 6-7; Elements 41 and 51) of the positive and negative electrodes (Elements 4 and 5, respectively) are bent inward (toward the central axis of the wound body, as shown in the annotated Figure) to ensure each point of the uncoated portion is connected to the current collector in order to effectively conduct current (Paragraph 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the uncovered parts of the positive electrode active material of Nakanishi to incorporate the teachings of Li in which the second flat surface is formed by bending portions of the uncoated part of the positive electrode active material toward a central axis of the wound body. Doing so would advantageously result in effective current conduction between the uncoated portion and the collector, as recognized by Li.
PNG
media_image9.png
461
713
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6 of Li
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi, Li, and Kim as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 8-10 above, and further in view of Meguro (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013241497 A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, modified Nakanishi the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Nakanishi is silent as to the secondary batteries described above being comprised in electronic equipment or electric tools.
However, Meguro discloses a secondary battery having a cylindrical battery can housing a spirally wound electrode body comprising a positive electrode and a negative electrode with a separator interposed between (Paragraph 0011). Meguro teaches secondary battery discloses can be used to provide electricity to apparatuses (equipment) such as electric tools (Paragraphs 0155-0157). Meguro teaches the secondary battery disclosed is advantageous to the portable electronic apparatus industry due to superior performance and safety (Paragraph 0140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the secondary battery comprising a wound electrode body of Nakanishi in view of Li and Kim to incorporate the teachings of Meguro in which the battery is implemented in electronic equipment such as electric tools. Doing so is known in the art and advantageously results in improved performance and safety of such apparatuses, as recognized by Meguro.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks submitted February 17th, 2026, applicant argues that the alleged teachings of Kim cannot be relied on as sufficiently teaching the claimed G1 and G2 features corresponding to the glossiness of the first and second major surface, as Kim does not teach that the glossiness of the first major surface facing the central axis is higher than the glossiness of the second major surface not facing the central axis.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents a proper obviousness rejection was set forth in the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 7 as it pertains to the limitations of the amended claim 1. As discussed above, Nakanishi teaches the negative electrode foil has a first major surface facing toward the central axis, and a second major surface facing away from the central axis, as shown in the annotated Figure 4 above.
Kim was relied upon to teach a value ΔG from 0 to 350 corresponding to an absolute value of the difference between glossiness measured (according to JIS Z 8741, Paragraph 0078) on a first surface and the glossiness measured on a second surface of the electrolytic copper foil (Paragraphs 0010, 0038-0039, 0045).
Thus, Kim teaches the negative electrode foil having two surfaces formed on either side of the foil which have different glossiness.
The first surface of Kim is arbitrarily associated with the first major surface of Nakanishi and the second surface of Kim is arbitrarily associated with the second major surface of Nakanishi. When placed in a wound battery such as the one taught by Nakanishi, one of the surfaces of Kim will face toward the central axis and the other surface (which is on the opposite side of the foil according to the teachings of Kim) would face away from the central axis. These equivalencies of the first and second surfaces of Kim to the first and second major surfaces of the instant claim are just naming conventions and assigned for the purposes of examination. The ordinary artisan would recognize that whatever surface (either first major or second major) is assigned to the first surface of the electrode foil of Kim, the second surface would face the opposite direction according to the orientation taught by Kim.
As discussed above, Kim teaches the difference in glossiness between the two surfaces of a negative electrode foil is within a range of -350 to 350. Thus there are three options regarding the glossiness parameter of the surfaces:
The glossiness of the first major surface G1 is greater than the glossiness of the second major surface
The glossiness of the first major surface G1 is equal than the glossiness of the second major surface
The glossiness of the first major surface G1 is less than the glossiness of the second major surface
As such it is equally as obvious for the surface facing the central axis to have a greater glossiness than the surface facing away from the central axis or for the surface facing away from the central axis to have a greater glossiness than the surface facing the central axis. The rejection of claim 1 above and as stated in the Non-Final Rejection found it obvious for the ordinary artisan to select option (a), G1 > G2 from the finite list of possible combinations since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results as an electrode foil with minimal curling or wrinkling.
For the sake of argument, in the scenario where the first surface of Kim was equated with the second major surface of Nakanishi and the second surface of Kim was equated with the fist major surface, it would have been equally as obvious to the ordinary artisan to select option (c), G1 < G2 from the finite list of possible combinations, which would meet the claimed limitations.
Thus, the Examiner emphasizes that Kim teaches two surfaces of an electrode foil, one on one side of the foil and the other surface on the other side of the surface, which have different glossiness parameters, including an embodiment in which the glossiness of one of the surfaces is greater than the other.
In the case where it is obvious to assign G1=glossiness of first major surface and G2=glossiness of second major surface, and to select G1 > G2 from the finite list of possible combinations for the relationship between the glossiness parameters, the examples 2-7 of Kim exemplify how the glossiness of G1 is larger than G2, the examples 4-6 of Kim exemplify how ΔG is greater than 50 which are suitable configurations of the electrode foil that meet the claimed limitation.
With respect to the limitation of the second glossiness being greater than 130, the above rejection establishes the teaching of Kim in which the glossiness G2 of the second surface is between 10 and 450, which overlaps the instant claimed range and establishes prima facie obviousness, further meeting the amended claim 1 limitations.
In the remarks submitted February 17th, 2026, applicant argues that the secondary battery features including the G1 and G2 as claimed are significant and contributes to enhanced battery characteristics.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
It is unclear to the Examiner from the arguments as filed if applicant is attempting to provide unexpected results of the battery whose G1 and G2 parameters are as claimed. If applicant wishes to submit evidence that the results of the aforementioned features are unexpected, the Examiner submits the following reminders:
It is the burden of Applicant to provide evidence that establishes that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b)(I). Applicants have the burden of explaining proffered data. See MPEP 716.02(b)(II).
It is further noted that in order to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d) II.
Additionally, the claims must be commensurate in scope with the proffered data to provide a nexus between the claims and the data establishing evidence of unexpected results. See MPEP 716.02(d).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789