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 .
Request for Continued Examination
The request filed on April 8, 2026 for a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 based on parent Application No. 18/156178 is acceptable and a RCE has been established. An action on the RCE follows.
The following rejections are overcome:
Claim(s) 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vu et al. US 2009/0042072 A1.
Claims 1-19 are newly rejected as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marple et al. US 2012/0251860-A1.
With respect to claim 1, Marple teaches an alkaline electrochemical cell (the body of the claims do not necessitate any electrode chemistry therefore any battery chemistry may read. The preamble does not breathe life into the claims. The claims necessitate an interfacial spacing that is independent of material; See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett;Packard Co.), comprising: a container (12; Fig. 1; [0077]); an electrolyte (an organic, non-aqueous electrolyte 10; [0023]; Fig. 1); an anode (18; Fig. 1; [0075]); a cathode (cathode 20; Fig. 1; [0075]); a current collector (cathode 20 has a metal current collector 22; Fig. 1; [0075]); and a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode (separator 26 ; [0075]; Fig. 1). With respect to claim 4, Marple teaches an alkaline electrochemical cell (the body of the claims do not necessitate any electrode chemistry therefore any battery chemistry may read. The preamble does not breathe life into the claims. The claims necessitate an interfacial spacing that is independent of material; See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett;Packard Co.), comprising: a container (12; Fig. 1; [0077]); an electrolyte (an organic, non-aqueous electrolyte 10; [0023]; Fig. 1); an anode (18; Fig. 1; [0075]); a cathode (cathode 20; Fig. 1; [0075]); a current collector (cathode 20 has a metal current collector 22; Fig. 1; [0075]); and a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode (separator 26 ; [0075]; Fig. 1). With respect to claim 17, Marple teaches an alkaline electrochemical cell (the body of the claims do not necessitate any electrode chemistry therefore any battery chemistry may read. The preamble does not breathe life into the claims. The claims necessitate an interfacial spacing that is independent of material; See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett;Packard Co.comprising: a container (12; Fig. 1; [0077]); an electrolyte (an organic, non-aqueous electrolyte 10; [0023]; Fig. 1); an anode (18; Fig. 1; [0075]); a cathode (cathode 20; Fig. 1; [0075]); a current collector (cathode 20 has a metal current collector 22; Fig. 1; [0075]); and a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode (separator 26 ; [0075]; Fig. 1).
The electrode, separator, can and spacing of the instant claims appears identical to the battery of Marple, as Figure 1 for both are identical:
PNG
media_image1.png
797
387
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
745
375
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIGURE 1 OF 18/256178 FIGURE 1 OF MARPLE
Although Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]), the reference does not teach: a relation between the interfacial area y and the separator thickness x is defined between 26.532x-0.15≤y≤284.5x-0.675 (claim 1); the relation between the interfacial area y and the separator thickness x is defined between 32.432x-0.193≤y≤224.73x-0.63 (claim 2); the relation between the interfacial area y and the separator thickness x is defined between 39.195x-0.232≤y≤183.08x-0.592 (claim 3); the separator thickness is selected from a either a first group ranging between 0.1 mil and 1 mil, a second group ranging between 1 mil and 5 mil, a third group ranging between 5 mil and 10 mil, and a fourth group ranging between 10 mil and 18 mil (claim 4); the separator thickness is selected from the first group ranging between 0.1 mil and 1 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 27 and 1346 cm2 (claim 5); the separator thickness is selected from the first group ranging between 0.1 mil and 1 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 32 and 959 cm2 (claim 6); the separator thickness is selected from the first group ranging between 0.1 mil and 1 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 39 and 716 cm2 (claim 7); the separator thickness is selected from the second group ranging between 1 mil and 5 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 21 and 285 cm2 (claim 8); the separator thickness is selected from the second group ranging between 1 mil and 5 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 24 and 225 cm2 (claim 9); the separator thickness is selected from the second group ranging between 1 mil and 5 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 27 and 183 cm2 (claim 10); the separator thickness is selected from the third group ranging between 5 mil and 10 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 19 and 96 cm2 (claim 11); the separator thickness is selected from the third group ranging between 5 mil and 10 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 21 and 82 cm2 (claim 12); the separator thickness is selected from the third group ranging between 5 mil and 10 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 23 and 71 cm2 (claim 13); the separator thickness is selected from the fourth group ranging between 10 mil and 18 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 17 and 60 cm2 (claim 14); the separator thickness is selected from the fourth group ranging between 10 mil and 18 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 19 and 53 cm2 (claim 15); the separator thickness is selected from the fourth group ranging between 10 mil and 18 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 20 and 47 cm2 (claim 16); the electrochemical cell has an average ANSI performance within 8% of a maximum theoretical performance of the electrochemical cell, wherein the maximum theoretical performance defined by z=0.1191x2-4.9119x+178.16 is achieved by a theoretical electrochemical cell having an interfacial area defined according to the formula y=86.697x-0.423 (claim 17); the electrochemical cell has an average ANSI performance within 5% of the maximum theoretical performance of the electrochemical cell (claim 18); the electrochemical cell has an average ANSI performance within 3% of the maximum theoretical performance of the electrochemical cell (claim 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a relation between the interfacial area y and the separator thickness x being defined between 26.532x-0.15≤y≤284.5x-0.675 (claim 1); in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). Therefore, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the electrodes and separator components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). 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.). Further regarding the interfacial area, it would be reasonable to expect the areas to be similar as the structures in Figure 1 of Marple in the instant application are identical.
With respect to the relation between the interfacial area y and the separator thickness x being defined between 32.432x-0.193≤y≤224.73x-0.63 (claim 2); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the relation between the interfacial area y and the separator thickness x being defined between 39.195x-0.232≤y≤183.08x-0.592 (claim 3); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from a either a first group ranging between 0.1 mil and 1 mil, a second group ranging between 1 mil and 5 mil, a third group ranging between 5 mil and 10 mil, and a fourth group ranging between 10 mil and 18 mil (claim 4); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the first group ranging between 0.1 mil and 1 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 27 and 1346 cm2 (claim 5); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the first group ranging between 0.1 mil and 1 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 32 and 959 cm2 (claim 6); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the first group ranging between 0.1 mil and 1 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 39 and 716 cm2 (claim 7); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the second group ranging between 1 mil and 5 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 21 and 285 cm2 (claim 8); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the second group ranging between 1 mil and 5 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 24 and 225 cm2 (claim 9); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the second group ranging between 1 mil and 5 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 27 and 183 cm2 (claim 10); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the third group ranging between 5 mil and 10 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 19 and 96 cm2 (claim 11); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the third group ranging between 5 mil and 10 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 21 and 82 cm2 (claim 12); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the third group ranging between 5 mil and 10 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 23 and 71 cm2 (claim 13); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the fourth group ranging between 10 mil and 18 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 17 and 60 cm2 (claim 14); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the fourth group ranging between 10 mil and 18 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 19 and 53 cm2 (claim 15); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the fourth group ranging between 10 mil and 18 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 20 and 47 cm2 (claim 16); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the electrochemical cell having an average ANSI performance within 8% of a maximum theoretical performance of the electrochemical cell, wherein the maximum theoretical performance defined by z=0.1191x2-4.9119x+178.16 is achieved by a theoretical electrochemical cell having an interfacial area defined according to the formula y=86.697x-0.423 (claim 17); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the electrochemical cell has an average ANSI performance within 5% of the maximum theoretical performance of the electrochemical cell (claim 18); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the electrochemical cell has an average ANSI performance within 3% of the maximum theoretical performance of the electrochemical cell (claim 19); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marple et al. US 2012/0251860-A1 in view of Yushin US Pub. 2018/151884.
With respect to claim 1, Marple teaches an electrochemical cell, comprising; an electrolyte (an organic, non-aqueous electrolyte 10; [0023]; Fig. 1); an anode (18; Fig. 1; [0075]); a cathode (cathode 20; Fig. 1; [0075]); a current collector (cathode 20 has a metal current collector 22; Fig. 1; [0075]); and a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode (separator 26 ; [0075]; Fig. 1). With respect to claim 4, Marple teaches an electrochemical cell, comprising: a container (12; Fig. 1; [0077]); an electrolyte (an organic, non-aqueous electrolyte 10; [0023]; Fig. 1); an anode (18; Fig. 1; [0075]); a cathode (cathode 20; Fig. 1; [0075]); a current collector (cathode 20 has a metal current collector 22; Fig. 1; [0075]); and a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode (separator 26 ; [0075]; Fig. 1). With respect to claim 17, Marple teaches an electrochemical cell, comprising: a container (12; Fig. 1; [0077]); an electrolyte (an organic, non-aqueous electrolyte 10; [0023]; Fig. 1); an anode (18; Fig. 1; [0075]); a cathode (cathode 20; Fig. 1; [0075]); a current collector (cathode 20 has a metal current collector 22; Fig. 1; [0075]); and a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode (separator 26 ; [0075]; Fig. 1).
The electrode, separator, can and spacing of the instant claims appears identical to the battery of Marple, as Figure 1 for both are identical:
PNG
media_image1.png
797
387
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
745
375
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIGURE 1 OF 18/256178 FIGURE 1 OF MARPLE
Although Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]), the reference does not teach: a relation between the interfacial area y and the separator thickness x is defined between 26.532x-0.15≤y≤284.5x-0.675 (claim 1); alkaline electrochemical cell (claim 1); the relation between the interfacial area y and the separator thickness x is defined between 32.432x-0.193≤y≤224.73x-0.63 (claim 2); the relation between the interfacial area y and the separator thickness x is defined between 39.195x-0.232≤y≤183.08x-0.592 (claim 3); the separator thickness is selected from a either a first group ranging between 0.1 mil and 1 mil, a second group ranging between 1 mil and 5 mil, a third group ranging between 5 mil and 10 mil, and a fourth group ranging between 10 mil and 18 mil (claim 4); the separator thickness is selected from the first group ranging between 0.1 mil and 1 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 27 and 1346 cm2 (claim 5); the separator thickness is selected from the first group ranging between 0.1 mil and 1 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 32 and 959 cm2 (claim 6); the separator thickness is selected from the first group ranging between 0.1 mil and 1 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 39 and 716 cm2 (claim 7); the separator thickness is selected from the second group ranging between 1 mil and 5 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 21 and 285 cm2 (claim 8); the separator thickness is selected from the second group ranging between 1 mil and 5 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 24 and 225 cm2 (claim 9); the separator thickness is selected from the second group ranging between 1 mil and 5 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 27 and 183 cm2 (claim 10); the separator thickness is selected from the third group ranging between 5 mil and 10 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 19 and 96 cm2 (claim 11); the separator thickness is selected from the third group ranging between 5 mil and 10 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 21 and 82 cm2 (claim 12); the separator thickness is selected from the third group ranging between 5 mil and 10 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 23 and 71 cm2 (claim 13); the separator thickness is selected from the fourth group ranging between 10 mil and 18 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 17 and 60 cm2 (claim 14); the separator thickness is selected from the fourth group ranging between 10 mil and 18 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 19 and 53 cm2 (claim 15); the separator thickness is selected from the fourth group ranging between 10 mil and 18 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 20 and 47 cm2 (claim 16); the electrochemical cell has an average ANSI performance within 8% of a maximum theoretical performance of the electrochemical cell, wherein the maximum theoretical performance defined by z=0.1191x2-4.9119x+178.16 is achieved by a theoretical electrochemical cell having an interfacial area defined according to the formula y=86.697x-0.423 (claim 17); the electrochemical cell has an average ANSI performance within 5% of the maximum theoretical performance of the electrochemical cell (claim 18); the electrochemical cell has an average ANSI performance within 3% of the maximum theoretical performance of the electrochemical cell (claim 19).
Yushin teaches that it is well known in the art to employ similar construction n lithium batteries, rechargeable and primary batteries including alkaline batteries. See paragraph [0035].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the alkaline battery chemistry of Yushin, as the electrochemical chemistry in the cell configuration of Marple including interfacial area, as design features may be applied across multiple electrode chemistries See Yushin at paragraph [0035].,
With respect to a relation between the interfacial area y and the separator thickness x being defined between 26.532x-0.15≤y≤284.5x-0.675 (claim 1); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). Therefore, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the electrodes and separator components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). 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.). Further regarding the interfacial area, it would be reasonable to expect the areas to be similar as the structures in Figure 1 of Marple in the instant application are identical.
With respect to the relation between the interfacial area y and the separator thickness x being defined between 32.432x-0.193≤y≤224.73x-0.63 (claim 2); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the relation between the interfacial area y and the separator thickness x being defined between 39.195x-0.232≤y≤183.08x-0.592 (claim 3); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from a either a first group ranging between 0.1 mil and 1 mil, a second group ranging between 1 mil and 5 mil, a third group ranging between 5 mil and 10 mil, and a fourth group ranging between 10 mil and 18 mil (claim 4); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the first group ranging between 0.1 mil and 1 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 27 and 1346 cm2 (claim 5); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the first group ranging between 0.1 mil and 1 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 32 and 959 cm2 (claim 6); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the first group ranging between 0.1 mil and 1 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 39 and 716 cm2 (claim 7); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the second group ranging between 1 mil and 5 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 21 and 285 cm2 (claim 8); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the second group ranging between 1 mil and 5 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 24 and 225 cm2 (claim 9); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the second group ranging between 1 mil and 5 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 27 and 183 cm2 (claim 10); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the third group ranging between 5 mil and 10 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 19 and 96 cm2 (claim 11); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the third group ranging between 5 mil and 10 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 21 and 82 cm2 (claim 12); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the third group ranging between 5 mil and 10 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 23 and 71 cm2 (claim 13); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the fourth group ranging between 10 mil and 18 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 17 and 60 cm2 (claim 14); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the fourth group ranging between 10 mil and 18 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 19 and 53 cm2 (claim 15); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the separator thickness being selected from the fourth group ranging between 10 mil and 18 mil, and the interfacial area is selected from a group ranging between 20 and 47 cm2 (claim 16); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the electrochemical cell having an average ANSI performance within 8% of a maximum theoretical performance of the electrochemical cell, wherein the maximum theoretical performance defined by z=0.1191x2-4.9119x+178.16 is achieved by a theoretical electrochemical cell having an interfacial area defined according to the formula y=86.697x-0.423 (claim 17); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the electrochemical cell has an average ANSI performance within 5% of the maximum theoretical performance of the electrochemical cell (claim 18); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
With respect to the electrochemical cell has an average ANSI performance within 3% of the maximum theoretical performance of the electrochemical cell (claim 19); it would have been obvious in the electrochemical cell of Marple in view of Yushin, in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes. Marple teaches a first separator thickness of X= 16 microns to about 25 microns, which is 0.63 to 0.98mils ([0103]) and Y of interfacial area of 185 to 220 cm2 ([0103]). 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.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that the claims are not obvious under Vu et al. US 2009/0042072 A1, because Vu discloses a configuration that is fundamentally different from the present application, such that modifying the size of the electrodes and separator components in the electrochemical cell of Vu-in order to increase ion conductivity across electrodes-as asserted in the Office Action would require fundamentally altering the principal of operation of Vu. Vu discloses an hydrogen gas generation device 10. This assertion is correct and the previously pending rejection is overcome. Marple et al. US 2012/0251860-A1 has been applied to show conventionality of the configuration set forth in Figure 1 of the instant specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights