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
In response to the election/restriction response received on September 23rd, 2025, the applicant has elected Group II, claims 7-18, drawn to a negative electrode and a secondary battery comprising the negative electrode, without traverse. Therefore, due to being drawn to a non-elected invention, claims 1-6 are not examined in the present action.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: "based on total number of moles of the binder" in line 3 of the claim. It is unclear whether the total number of moles claimed is solely the moles of the polyacrylic acid-based binder of the claim or the combination of the moles of the polyacrylic acid-based binder and the moles of the styrene butadiene rubber binder, Examiner suggests amending claim 8 to recite “based on the total number of mols of the polyacrylic acid-based binder”. For purpose of this examination, it is considered to be solely the moles of the polyacrylic acid-based binder. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: "based on total number of moles of the binder" in line 3 of the claim. It is unclear whether the total number of moles claimed is solely the moles of the polyacrylic acid-based binder of the claim or the combination of the moles of the polyacrylic acid-based binder and the moles of the styrene butadiene rubber binder, Examiner suggests amending claim 8 to recite “based on the total number of mols of the polyacrylic acid-based binder”. For purpose of this examination, it is considered to be solely the moles of the polyacrylic acid-based binder. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al, US 20180219217 A1.
Regarding Claim 7, Park discloses a negative electrode (Park, 100; Figure 1) comprising a negative electrode current collector (Park, 10; Figure 1) with a first negative electrode active material layer (Park, 20; Figure 1), corresponding to the binder layer of the claim, located on the negative electrode current collector, and a second negative electrode active material layer (Park, 30; Figure 1), wherein the first active material layer includes a styrene-butadiene based rubber and the second negative electrode active material layer includes a (meth) acrylate-based polymer [Park, 0012], corresponding to the polyacrylic acid-based binder of the claim, in which the instant specification discloses the polyacrylic acid-based binder includes acrylic acid derived structure units, at least one selected from vinyl alcohol, acrylamide, acrylate, vinyl acetate [instant specification, 0033]. The second and the first negative electrode active materials may be the same [Park, 0055], the first negative electrode active material may be a compound capable of reversible intercalation and deintercalation of lithium, such as a carbonaceous material, or a metallic compound capable of forming an alloy with lithium such as Si, a metal oxide capable of doping and de-doping lithium, including SiO2, and a composite including metallic compounds and carbonaceous materials, including Si-C composites [Park, 0038].
Regarding Claim 13, Park discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode that is the same as described above, and a separator disposed between the positive and negative electrode [Park, 0076].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8-9, 11-12, 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by Park et al, US 20180219217 A1.
Regarding Claim 8, Park teaches the negative electrode of claim 7, but is silent to teach wherein the polyacrylic acid-based binder includes a 40 to 90 mol% of acrylic acid derived structural unit, based on a total moles of the binder.
While Park does not explicitly teach the 40 to 90 mol% of acrylic acid-derived structural unit based on the total moles of the binder, Park teaches the (meth) acrylate-based polymer includes a repeating unit of (meth) acrylic acid ester-derived with a content of the repeating unit in the polymer being 60 wt% to 90 wt% based on the total weight of the (meth) acylate-based polymer, because when the content of the repeating unit is less than 60 wt%, the effect of decreasing resistance in the electrode is insignificant and when the content of the repeating unit is greater than 90 wt%, there is a concern about deterioration in the cohesion between the active materials, therefore, it would be obvious to optimize the wt% of the (meth) acrylic acid ester derived structure unit when converted to mol% of the repeating unit of the (meth) acrylic acid ester-derivative to be within 40 to 90 mol% to allow the material to achieve the decreasing resistance in the electrode and improve the cohesion between the active materials [Park, 0047]. There are a finite number of identified predictable solutions for the mol% of the acrylic acid-derived structural unit based on the total moles of the binder, such that the wt% of the (meth) acrylic acid ester derived structure unit when converted it is between 40 and 90 mol%, or such that it is not. Therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified predictable solutions disclosed above, wherein the wt% of the (meth) acrylic acid ester derived structure unit when converted it is between 40 and 90 mol%, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, see MPEP 2143 (E).
Regarding Claim 9, Park teaches the negative electrode of claim 7, but is silent to teach wherein the styrene butadiene rubber includes 10 to 95 mol% of a butadiene-derived structural unit, based on a total number of moles of the styrene butadiene rubber.
While Park does not explicitly teach the styrene butadiene rubber includes 10 to 95 mol% of a butadiene-derived structural unit, based on a total number of moles of the styrene butadiene rubber, Park teaches the total content of the repeating unit of the styrene-derived structure and the repeating unit of the butadiene-derived structure, with respect to the total weight of the styrene-butadiene-based rubber may be 50 wt% or more, because when the total content of the repeating units of the styrene-derived structure and the butadiene-derived structure is less than 50 wt% the effect of improving adhesion between the negative electrode current collector and the active material may become insignificant [Park, 0026], it would be obvious to optimize the wt% of the repeating unit of the styrene-derived structure and the repeating unit of the butadiene-derived structure, when converted to mol% of the styrene-derived structure and the repeating unit of the butadiene-derived structure to be between 10 to 95 mol% to allow the material to achieve the improve adhesion between the negative electrode current collector and the active material [Park, 0026]. There are a finite number of identified predictable solutions for the mol% of the total content of the repeating units of the styrene-derived structure and the butadiene-derived structure, such that the wt% of the repeating units of the styrene-derived structure and the butadiene-derived structure when converted to mol% is between 10 to 95 mol% or such that it is not. Therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified predictable solutions disclosed above, wherein the wt% of the repeating units of the styrene-derived structure and the butadiene-derived structure when converted to mol% is between 10 to 95 mol%, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, see MPEP 2143 (E).
Regarding Claim 11, Park teaches the negative electrode of claim 7, but is silent to teach on wherein the amount of a butadiene-derived structural unit in the styrene butadiene and an amount of an acrylic acid-derived structural unit in the polyacrylic acid-based binder satisfy the relational expression: [amount of butadiene – derived structural unit (mol)] ≥
3
4
X [amount of acrylic acid – derived structural unit (mol)].
While Park does not explicitly teach the amount of the butadiene-derived structural unit in the styrene butadiene and an amount of an acrylic acid-derived structural unit in the polyacrylic acid-based binder satisfying the relational expression above, Park teaches the (meth) acrylate-based polymer includes a repeating unit of (meth) acrylic acid ester-derived with a content of the repeating unit in the polymer being 60 wt% to 90 wt% based on the total weight of the (meth) acylate-based polymer [Park, 0047] and the total content of the repeating unit of the styrene-derived structure and the repeating unit of the butadiene-derived structure, with respect to the total weight of the styrene-butadiene-based rubber may be 50 wt% or more [Park, 0026], because when the content of the repeating unit is less than 60 wt%, the effect of decreasing resistance in the electrode is insignificant and when the content of the repeating unit is greater than 90 wt%, there is a concern about deterioration in the cohesion between the active materials [Park, 0047] and when the total content of the repeating units of the styrene-derived structure and the butadiene-derived structure is less than 50 wt% the effect of improving adhesion between the negative electrode current collector and the active material may become insignificant [Park, 0026], therefore, it would be obvious to optimize the relationship between the amount of the butadiene-derived structural unit in the styrene butadiene and an amount of an acrylic acid-derived structural unit in the polyacrylic acid-based binder satisfying the relational expression above to achieve a material with the decreasing resistance in the electrode, improve the cohesion between the active materials [Park, 0047], and improve adhesion between the negative electrode current collector and the active material [Park, 0026]. There are a finite number of identified predictable solutions for the relationship between the amount of the butadiene-derived structural unit in the styrene butadiene and an amount of an acrylic acid-derived structural unit in the polyacrylic acid-based binder, such that it satisfies the relational expression above or such that it does not. Therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified predictable solutions disclosed above, wherein the relationship between the amount of the butadiene-derived structural unit in the styrene butadiene and an amount of an acrylic acid-derived structural unit in the polyacrylic acid-based binder, such that it satisfies the relational expression above, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, see MPEP 2143 (E).
Regarding Claim 12, Park teaches the negative electrode of claim 7, wherein the total thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer, corresponding to the primer layer, and second negative electrode active material layers may be less than 0.5 [Park, 0044], however, Park is silent to teach wherein the primer layer is 0.1 to 2 wt% of a total loading of the negative electrode.
While Park does not explicitly teach the primer layer having a loading amount of 0.1 to 2 wt% of a total loading of the negative electrode, Park teaches the total thickness of the first electrode active material layer, corresponding to the primer layer, and the second negative electrode active material layer have a thickness ratio that is less than 0.5, more specifically, 0.1 to 0.3, because when the thickness ratio of the layers is greater than 0.5, there is a concern regarding deterioration of adhesion between the negative electrode current collector and the active material due to migration of the styrene-butadiene based rubber in the first active material [Park, 0044], therefore, it would be obvious to optimize the loading amount of the first negative electrode active material layer to be between 0.1 to 2 wt% of the total loading of the negative electrode to achieve a material with decreased migration of the styrene-butadiene rubber to improve adhesion between the negative electrode current collector and the first negative electrode active material layer [Park, 0044]. There are a finite number of identified predictable solutions for the loading amount of the first negative electrode active material layer, corresponding to the primer layer of the claim, such that it is 0.1 to 2 wt% of the total negative electrode, or such that it is not. Therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified predictable solutions disclosed above, wherein the loading amount of the first negative electrode active material layer, corresponding to the primer layer of the claim, such that it is 0.1 to 2 wt% of the total negative electrode, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, see MPEP 2143 (E).
Regarding Claim 14, Park teaches the secondary battery of claim 13, but is silent to teach wherein the polyacrylic acid-based binder includes a 40 to 90 mol% of acrylic acid derived structural unit, based on a total moles of the binder.
While Park does not explicitly teach the 40 to 90 mol% of acrylic acid-derived structural unit based on the total moles of the binder, Park teaches the (meth) acrylate-based polymer includes a repeating unit of (meth) acrylic acid ester-derived with a content of the repeating unit in the polymer being 60 wt% to 90 wt% based on the total weight of the (meth) acylate-based polymer, because when the content of the repeating unit is less than 60 wt%, the effect of decreasing resistance in the electrode is insignificant and when the content of the repeating unit is greater than 90 wt%, there is a concern about deterioration in the cohesion between the active materials, therefore, it would be obvious to optimize the wt% of the (meth) acrylic acid ester derived structure unit when converted to mol% of the repeating unit of the (meth) acrylic acid ester-derivative to be within 40 to 90 mol% to allow the material to achieve the decreasing resistance in the electrode and improve the cohesion between the active materials [Park, 0047]. There are a finite number of identified predictable solutions for the mol% of the acrylic acid-derived structural unit based on the total moles of the binder, such that the wt% of the (meth) acrylic acid ester derived structure unit when converted it is between 40 and 90 mol%, or such that it is not. Therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified predictable solutions disclosed above, wherein the wt% of the (meth) acrylic acid ester derived structure unit when converted it is between 40 and 90 mol%, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, see MPEP 2143 (E).
Regarding Claim 15, Park teaches the secondary battery of claim 13, but is silent to teach wherein the styrene butadiene rubber includes 10 to 95 mol% of a butadiene-derived structural unit, based on a total number of moles of the styrene butadiene rubber.
While Park does not explicitly teach the styrene butadiene rubber includes 10 to 95 mol% of a butadiene-derived structural unit, based on a total number of moles of the styrene butadiene rubber, Park teaches the total content of the repeating unit of the styrene-derived structure and the repeating unit of the butadiene-derived structure, with respect to the total weight of the styrene-butadiene-based rubber may be 50 wt% or more, because when the total content of the repeating units of the styrene-derived structure and the butadiene-derived structure is less than 50 wt% the effect of improving adhesion between the negative electrode current collector and the active material may become insignificant [Park, 0026], it would be obvious to optimize the wt% of the repeating unit of the styrene-derived structure and the repeating unit of the butadiene-derived structure, when converted to mol% of the styrene-derived structure and the repeating unit of the butadiene-derived structure to be between 10 to 95 mol% to allow the material to achieve the improve adhesion between the negative electrode current collector and the active material [Park, 0026]. There are a finite number of identified predictable solutions for the mol% of the total content of the repeating units of the styrene-derived structure and the butadiene-derived structure, such that the wt% of the repeating units of the styrene-derived structure and the butadiene-derived structure when converted to mol% is between 10 to 95 mol% or such that it is not. Therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified predictable solutions disclosed above, wherein the wt% of the repeating units of the styrene-derived structure and the butadiene-derived structure when converted to mol% is between 10 to 95 mol%, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, see MPEP 2143 (E).
Regarding Claim 17, Park teaches the secondary battery of claim 13, but is silent to teach on wherein the amount of a butadiene-derived structural unit in the styrene butadiene and an amount of an acrylic acid-derived structural unit in the polyacrylic acid-based binder satisfy the relational expression: [amount of butadiene – derived structural unit (mol)] ≥
3
4
X [amount of acrylic acid – derived structural unit (mol)].
While Park does not explicitly teach the amount of the butadiene-derived structural unit in the styrene butadiene and an amount of an acrylic acid-derived structural unit in the polyacrylic acid-based binder satisfying the relational expression above, Park teaches the (meth) acrylate-based polymer includes a repeating unit of (meth) acrylic acid ester-derived with a content of the repeating unit in the polymer being 60 wt% to 90 wt% based on the total weight of the (meth) acylate-based polymer [Park, 0047] and the total content of the repeating unit of the styrene-derived structure and the repeating unit of the butadiene-derived structure, with respect to the total weight of the styrene-butadiene-based rubber may be 50 wt% or more [Park, 0026], because when the content of the repeating unit is less than 60 wt%, the effect of decreasing resistance in the electrode is insignificant and when the content of the repeating unit is greater than 90 wt%, there is a concern about deterioration in the cohesion between the active materials [Park, 0047] and when the total content of the repeating units of the styrene-derived structure and the butadiene-derived structure is less than 50 wt% the effect of improving adhesion between the negative electrode current collector and the active material may become insignificant [Park, 0026], therefore, it would be obvious to optimize the relationship between the amount of the butadiene-derived structural unit in the styrene butadiene and an amount of an acrylic acid-derived structural unit in the polyacrylic acid-based binder satisfying the relational expression above to achieve a material with the decreasing resistance in the electrode, improve the cohesion between the active materials [Park, 0047], and improve adhesion between the negative electrode current collector and the active material [Park, 0026]. There are a finite number of identified predictable solutions for the relationship between the amount of the butadiene-derived structural unit in the styrene butadiene and an amount of an acrylic acid-derived structural unit in the polyacrylic acid-based binder, such that it satisfies the relational expression above or such that it does not. Therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified predictable solutions disclosed above, wherein the relationship between the amount of the butadiene-derived structural unit in the styrene butadiene and an amount of an acrylic acid-derived structural unit in the polyacrylic acid-based binder, such that it satisfies the relational expression above, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, see MPEP 2143 (E).
Regarding Claim 18, Park teaches the secondary battery of claim 13, wherein the total thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer, corresponding to the primer layer, and second negative electrode active material layers may be less than 0.5 [Park, 0044], however, Park is silent to teach wherein the primer layer is 0.1 to 2 wt% of a total loading of the negative electrode.
While Park does not explicitly teach the primer layer having a loading amount of 0.1 to 2 wt% of a total loading of the negative electrode, Park teaches the total thickness of the first electrode active material layer, corresponding to the primer layer, and the second negative electrode active material layer have a thickness ratio that is less than 0.5, more specifically, 0.1 to 0.3, because when the thickness ratio of the layers is greater than 0.5, there is a concern regarding deterioration of adhesion between the negative electrode current collector and the active material due to migration of the styrene-butadiene based rubber in the first active material [Park, 0044], therefore, it would be obvious to optimize the loading amount of the first negative electrode active material layer to be between 0.1 to 2 wt% of the total loading of the negative electrode to achieve a material with decreased migration of the styrene-butadiene rubber to improve adhesion between the negative electrode current collector and the first negative electrode active material layer [Park, 0044]. There are a finite number of identified predictable solutions for the loading amount of the first negative electrode active material layer, corresponding to the primer layer of the claim, such that it is 0.1 to 2 wt% of the total negative electrode, or such that it is not. Therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified predictable solutions disclosed above, wherein the loading amount of the first negative electrode active material layer, corresponding to the primer layer of the claim, such that it is 0.1 to 2 wt% of the total negative electrode, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, see MPEP 2143 (E).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al, US 20180219217 A1, as applied to claim 7 above, in further view of Lee et al, US 20200365883 A1.
Regarding Claim 10, Park discloses the negative electrode of claim 7, wherein the (meth) acrylate-based polymer included in the second negative electrode active material [Park, 0047] corresponds to the polyacrylic acid-based binder of the claim, however, Park is silent to teach on the at least one selected from the group consisting of a vinyl alcohol-derived structural unit, an acrylamide-derived structural unit, an acrylate-derived structural unit, and a vinyl acetate-derived structural unit.
Lee teaches an anode with a first anode active material comprising a styrene-butadiene rubber based binder and a second anode active material comprising an acryl-based binder [Lee, 0010], wherein the acryl binder may include a copolymer of poly(acrylic acid) and poly(vinyl alcohol), a PAA-PVA copolymer [Lee, 0011], which may include the repeating unit represented by chemical formula 1 below [Lee, 0069], annotated with A showing the vinyl alcohol portion of the polymer, corresponding to the requirement of the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
167
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee and Park are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Park to include the repeating unit represented by chemical formula 1 taught by Lee because such modification would prevent excessive expansion of the silicon-based active material [Lee, 0067] and maintain a stable capacity and output of the secondary battery [Lee, 0066].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al, US 20180219217 A1, as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of in further view of Lee et al, US 20200365883 A1.
Regarding Claim 16, Park discloses the negative electrode of claim 13, wherein the (meth) acrylate-based polymer included in the second negative electrode active material [Park, 0047], corresponds to the polyacrylic acid-based binder of the claim, however, Park is silent to teach on the at least one selected from the group consisting of a vinyl alcohol-derived structural unit, an acrylamide-derived structural unit, an acrylate-derived structural unit, and a vinyl acetate-derived structural unit.
Lee teaches an anode with a first anode active material comprising a styrene-butadiene rubber based binder and a second anode active material comprising an acryl-based binder [Lee, 0010], wherein the acryl binder may include a copolymer of poly(acrylic acid) and poly(vinyl alcohol), a PAA-PVA copolymer [Lee, 0011], which may include the repeating unit represented by chemical formula 1 below [Lee, 0069], annotated with A showing the vinyl alcohol portion of the polymer, corresponding to the requirement of the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
167
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee and Park are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Park to include the repeating unit represented by chemical formula 1 taught by Lee because such modification would prevent excessive expansion of the silicon-based active material [Lee, 0067] and maintain a stable capacity and output of the secondary battery [Lee, 0066].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIAN ALICE ODOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/LILIAN ALICE ODOM/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights