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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, filed 07/31/2026, with respect to claims 4-5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 4-5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 4 and 5 are persuasive. Kleinke does not disclose or teach wherein the valve core has a side wall contained in the central channel and an opening surrounded by the side wall, wherein the breathable membrane covers the opening, wherein the first gas channel is formed on the side wall. The upper half of component 20 is included in the claimed valve core, and an edge of the upper half of component 20 may correspond with a side wall contained in the central channel and an opening surrounded by the side wall, which is opening above channel 4, wherein the breathable membrane 8 covers the opening. However, in this configuration, the claimed first gas channel is not formed on the side wall. The first gas channel of Kleinke is the sealing lip 17 of screen 15 lifting up from sealing surface 19, which is not near the side wall of the upper half of component 20. Claim 5 is considered allowable if rewritten in independent form for at least depending on claim 4.
Applicant argues that the term “near” in claim 5 is not indefinite because the claim which recites “configured to move away from the base while the valve core moves from the first position to the second position such that the first gas channel is outside the central channel and configured to receive flow discharged from the central channel” and the supporting specification provides a skilled person in the art enough context to determine the appropriate amount of proximity. In view of these arguments, the 112(b) rejection regarding claim 5 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15-17, 19, and 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 15, applicant further argues that Kleinke does not provide a battery shell and opening as claimed in claim 15. In view of these arguments, Kleinke (US-20180292020-A1), is further combined with Albukrek (US-20180219200-A1) teach the battery shell and vent valve positioned in an opening of the shell.
Applicants’ arguments regarding claims 16-17 and 23 are further moot by the combination of Kleinke with Albukrek.
Regarding claim 19, Kleinke (US-20180292020-A1) and Albukrek (US-20180219200-A1), are further combined with Yamanaka (US-20190051951-A1) to teach a vehicle including the battery assembly. Therefore, applicants’ arguments regarding claim 19 are moot.
Applicants’ arguments filed 07/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Previously, regarding claim 1, the claimed base component corresponded to the part of component 20 which forms the central channel 4 of fig. 1 in Kleinke. As further clarified previously regarding claims 5, 7-8, 15, 17, and 20, the claimed base which forms the central channel 4 corresponds with only a lower half of component 20, and the valve core includes an upper half of component 20.
Applicant argues that the same structure cannot be both the case and the valve core, referring to component 20. However, as shown in fig. 1 of Kleinke, component 20 is divided into an upper portion and a lower portion. The upper portion of 20 holds the top of the screen 15 on the upper side of the figure, and the lower portion of 20 holds the bottom of the screen 15 on the lower side of the figure. A visible line is drawn between the upper and the lower portion, and the label of component 20 is provided with two separate lines that is connected individually to the upper and lower portions. Therefore, there is basis for dividing the component 20 into an upper and lower part.
Applicant argues that component 20 cannot be described as moving and not moving at the same time because they are the same component. However, as explained above, component 20 is comprised of two separate parts. The lower part of component 20 is the part that does not move, while the upper part of component 20 is the part that moves. That is, when the screen 15 lifts up, the upper half of component 20 would move in response because the base of the screen 15 would push up against the upper half of component 20. The lower half of component 20 would not move because the screen 15 moves away from the lower side and nothing is causing the lower half of component 20 to move. Thus, the base, which may correspond with a lower half of component 20, defines a central channel 4, the valve core includes the upper half of component 20, and the valve core moves relative to the base in response to gas pressure as claimed.
Applicant argues that membrane 8 is attached to the base 20. However as described above, the upper half of component 20 is not part of the base and is the part that is connected to membrane 8.
Applicant argues that the claimed valve core carries the valve core and moves with it, whereas the screen 15 does not carry membrane 8 such that the membrane stays where it is welded while the sealing lip of the screen lifts away from it. However, the membrane 8 is connected to the upper half of component 20 by welding. When screen 15 lifts, an upward force and movement is conveyed onto the upper half of component 20, and subsequently the membrane 8 moves with the movement of the upper half of component 20.
Applicant argues that the claimed first gas channel does not correspond with the sealed channel of sealing lip 17 on sealing surface 19 which opens during emergency degassing. Applicant further argues that the gap formed cannot move together with the valve core. However, claim 1 claims that the at least one first gas channel is at least partially opened to allow flow to bypass the breathable membrane; being in a state of “at least partially opened” implies that there is a state of closed. Furthermore, claim 2 claims that in the first position, flow through the at least one first gas channel is blocked. Therefore, the claimed gas channel having an opened and closed state, which allows and does not allow flow, does correspond to the sealing lip 17 opening and closing to allow gas flow.
Regarding claim 2, applicant argues that the first gas channel travels with the valve core from the first position to the second position. Kleinke similarly provides that the sealing lip 17, which bounds the first gas channel, moves from a first position to a second position. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected, and for the same reasons, claim 2 is rejected.
Regarding claim 3, applicant argues that outer half 21 which covers and protects membrane 8 does not correspond to the claimed limiting of displacement because Kleinke does not describe the upper half 21 limiting displacement. However, the placement of the upper half 21, as shown in fig. 1 of Kleinke, is such that it would limit displacement of the screen 15 because the upper half 21 is positioned above screen 15.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, for the same reasons as described above, claims 7 and 8 are rejected. That is, as shown in Kleinke fig. 1, there is an upper and lower half of component 20. The upper half of component 20 corresponds with a retaining member, which may also be considered as part of the valve core as described regarding claim 1. Regarding applicant’s arguments over the protrusion and recess as claimed, annotated fig. 1 below shows the protrusion and recess.
PNG
media_image1.png
584
1146
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Kleinke provides that the base of screen 15, which is part of the valve core, has a retaining part and the lower half of component 20 has a recess corresponding to a matching part. As shown in fig. 1, the base of the screen is held in the recess of the component 20, which corresponds with the claimed interference fit or friction fit. That is, while applicant argues the Kleinke does not disclose the interference fit or friction fit, as shown in at least fig. 1, the retaining part of the screen is situated to be in the matching part in a structure that corresponds with an interference fit or friction fit.
Regarding claim 15, applicant argues that Kleinke does not provide the gas channel as in the arguments regarding claim 1. For the same reasons as described above, Kleinke does provide the claimed first gas channel.
Regarding claim 20, applicant argues that the gas path is closed by the valve core rather than by the base. Applicant argues that the screen 15 is the component that blocks flow, and not the base of lower half of component 20. However, as shown in fig. 1, when the screen 15 is in the first position, both the screen 15 and the lower half of component 20 block the flow. That is, the lower half of component 20 makes up a boundary in which the gas passage is closed. While the screen 15 is the component that is moving and is the other boundary that blocks and unblocks flow, the lower half of 20 also contributes to the blocking and unblocking. When the screen 15 lifts up, gas can pass by the lower half of 20 which corresponds to the flow unblocked by the base.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As provided in the non-final office action dated 06/01/2026, claim 13 is allowable if rewritten in independent form including claim 1. Applicant has amended claim 13 to include the subject matter of claim 1, therefore claim 13 is allowed. Claim 14 is allowed for at least depending on claim 13.
Kleinke (US-20180292020-A1) is the closest prior art regarding claim 13. However, Kleinke does not disclose or teach wherein the valve core is configured to move within the central channel in a first direction relative to the base, and, when the valve core is in the second position, at least part of the flow flows through the first gas channel in a second direction different from the first direction, the flow through the first gas channel flow that is outside the central channel. Particularly, the screen 15 corresponding to the valve core does not move within the central channel and is not positioned to be within the central channel. Therefore, the screen 15 corresponding to the valve core cannot move within the central channel in a first direction relative to the base. Moreover, there is no further art or motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to move the screen 15 to be positioned within the central channel and move within the central channel in a first direction relative to the base because flow to the gas permeable membrane would be blocked, inhibiting a primary function of the provided pressure-compensation device.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 4-5 and 9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, Kleinke discloses the vent valve according to claim 1. Kleinke does not disclose or teach wherein the valve core has a side wall contained in the central channel and an opening surrounded by the side wall, wherein the breathable membrane covers the opening, wherein the first gas channel is formed on the side wall. The upper half of component 20 is included in the claimed valve core, and an edge of the upper half of component 20 may correspond with a side wall contained in the central channel and an opening surrounded by the side wall, which is opening above channel 4, wherein the breathable membrane 8 covers the opening. However, in this configuration, the claimed first gas channel is not formed on the side wall. The first gas channel of Kleinke is the sealing lip 17 of screen 15 lifting up from sealing surface 19, which is not near the side wall of the upper half of component 20. Therefore, Kleinke does not provide or teach claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is considered allowable if rewritten in independent form for at least depending on claim 4.
Regarding claim 9, Kleinke discloses the vent valve according to claim 8. Kleinke does not disclose or teach wherein the recess is configured to be separated from the protrusion when the valve core moves from the first position to the second position relative to the base. As shown below regarding annotated fig. 1 in claim 8, the protrusion is situated in the recess to connect components 20 together, and when the valve core including the screen 15 moves from a first position to a second position, while the upper half of component 20 may move in response to the movement of the screen 15, the protrusion of the upper half of component 20 does not move out of the recess of the lower half of component 20. Therefore, claim 9 is considered allowable if rewritten in independent form.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 10-11, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kleinke (US-20180292020-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kleinke discloses a vent valve including a breathable membrane (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, [0047], regarding gas-permeable membrane 8), comprising: a base defining a central channel (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, [0043], regarding lower half of component 20 being part of the base defining central channel 4); and a valve core (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1; [0043], regarding screen 15 and the upper part of inner half 20) having a breathable membrane (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, regarding gas-permeable membrane 8 connected to upper part of inner half 20) and at least one first gas channel (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, [0047], regarding the at least one first gas channel which is sealed by the screen 15 at sealing lip 17 on sealing surface 19, the channel which opens during emergency degassing), the valve core movably connected with the base (see e.g., Kleinke; [0040], regarding emergency degassing which is when the sealing lip lifts off the sealing surface), the valve core configured to move together with the at least one first gas channel from a first position to a second position relative to the base in response to gas pressure (see e.g., Kleinke; [0040], fig. 1, regarding when emergency degassing occurs, the sealing lip lifts from a first position to a second position, which is with the at least one first gas channel in the sense that the lip that forms the boundary of the gas channel is lifted, and is relative to the base 20), when the valve core is in the second position, the at least one first gas channel is at least partially opened to allow flow to bypass the breathable membrane ( see e.g., Kleinke; [0040], regarding when emergency degassing occurs, the sealing lip of the screen 15 lifts from a first position to a second position in response to gas pressure, which opens the first gas channel to allow airflow to go around and therefore bypass the breathable membrane).
Regarding claim 2, Kleinke discloses the vent valve according to claim 1, further comprising a cover connected with the base (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, [0043], regarding outer half 21 corresponding to a cover) and including at least one second gas channel (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, [0039], [0053], regarding lattice-like through-holes 14 so that the inner pressure and the outer pressure can be applied to the membrane and the screen), wherein, when the valve core is in the first position, flow through the at least one first gas channel is blocked (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, regarding the normal operation state wherein the lip 17 seals the first gas channel), wherein, when the valve core is in the second position, the central channel, the first gas channel and the second gas channel are in fluid communication (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, [0040], regarding the state when the lip 17 lifts off such that the first gas channel is open, and therefore the first gas channel, the second gas channel of the through holes 14, and the central channel 4 are in fluid communication).
Regarding claim 3, Kleinke discloses the vent valve according to claim 2, wherein the cover limits displacement of the valve core relative to the base (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, wherein the cover 21 is above the screen 15 such that the displacement of the screen 15 would be limited by the cover 21; during emergency degassing, the screen 15 would not be able to lift past the cover 21).
Regarding claim 7, Kleinke discloses the vent valve according to claim 1, further comprising a retaining member, the valve core movably connected with the base through the retaining member, the retaining member configured to maintain the valve core at least in the first position (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, wherein the upper half of 20 may correspond with the retaining member, the valve core screen 15 movable connected with the base, the lower half of part 20 through the retaining member; the upper and lower halves of 20 secure an end of the screen 15 so that the screen is maintained in a first position and movably connected with the base through the retaining member).
Regarding claim 8, Kleinke discloses the vent valve according to claim 7, wherein the retaining member comprises a connecting part and an extension part extending from the connecting part (see e.g., Kleinke; annotated fig. 1 below), the extension part having at least one protrusion (see e.g., Kleinke; annotated fig. 1), wherein the connecting part is connected to one of the valve core or the base (see e.g., Kleinke; annotated fig. 1, wherein the connecting part is connected to at least the screen 15 of the valve core), wherein the other of the valve core or the base includes at least one recess corresponding to the at least one protrusion (see e.g., Kleinke; annotated fig. 1), the protrusion is configured to engage with the recess to maintain the valve core in the first position (Kleinke; annotated fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
584
1146
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Kleinke discloses the vent valve according to claim 1, wherein one of the valve core or the base includes a retaining part (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, wherein the base 20 has a retaining part, which is the recess in which the root of the screen 15 sits), and the other of the valve core or the base includes a matching part corresponding to the retaining part (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, wherein the root of the screen 15 has a corresponding matching part situated in the parts 20).
Regarding claim 11, Kleinke discloses the vent valve according to claim 10, wherein the retaining part and the matching part are configured to maintain the valve core at least in the first position through interference fit or friction fit (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, wherein the end of the screen 15 is situated in the recesses of portions 20, which correspond with an interference or friction fit).
Regarding claim 20, Kleinke discloses the vent valve according to claim 1, wherein the base blocks flow through the at least one first gas channel when the valve core is in the first position (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, wherein the first gas channel is sealed by the screen 15 and the base lower half of 20, so the base which forms a boundary of the first gas channel is thus preventing flow), wherein flow through the at least one first gas channel is unblocked by the base when the valve core is in the second position (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, [0040], regarding emergency degassing which lifts the screen 15 to allow flow through the first gas channel and thus the lower half of 20 is no longer preventing the flow of gas).
Regarding claim 21, Kleinke discloses the vent valve according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first gas channel is completely outside the central channel of the base when the valve core is in the second position (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, [0040], regarding the operation of the valve such that when the screen 15 forming the borders of the at least one first gas channel is in the second position, the position is completely outside the central channel of the based).
Regarding claim 22, Kleinke discloses the vent valve according to claim 1, wherein, when the valve core is in the first position, flow moves through the breathable membrane when balancing a pressure internal to a battery assembly with a pressure external to the battery assembly (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, [0047], regarding a pressure compensation is carried out merely by the gas-permeable membrane).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15-17, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinke (US-20180292020-A1), and in further view of Albukrek (US-20180219200-A1).
Regarding claim 15, Kleinke discloses a vent valve including a breathable membrane (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, [0047], regarding gas-permeable membrane 8), wherein the vent valve comprises: a base defining a central channel (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, [0043], regarding component 20 being part of the base defining central channel 4); and a valve core movable connected with the base (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1; [0043], regarding screen 15 and the upper part of inner half 20, [0040], regarding emergency degassing which is when the sealing lip lifts off the sealing surface) and including at least one first gas channel (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, [0047], regarding the at least one first gas channel which is sealed at sealing lip 17 on sealing surface 19 which opens during emergency degassing, wherein the first gas channel opens when the sealing lip raises), the valve core is configured to move from a first position to a second position relative to the base in response to a gas pressure, wherein, when the valve core is in the second position, the first gas channel is at least partially opened to allow airflow to bypass the breathable membrane (see e.g., Kleinke; [0040], fig. 1, regarding when emergency degassing occurs, the sealing lip of the screen 15 lifts from a first position to a second position in response to gas pressure, which opens the first gas channel to allow airflow to go around and therefore bypass the breathable membrane).
Kleinke discloses the vent valve in the context of batteries (see e.g., Kleinke; [0013]- [0014]). Kleinke does not explicitly disclose a battery assembly, comprising: a battery cell shell configured to accommodate battery cells, the battery cell shell having an opening and the vent valve connected with the battery cell shell through the opening. However, Albukrek discloses a battery assembly, comprising: a battery cell shell configured to accommodate battery cells (see e.g., Albukrek; fig. 1, [0005], [0020], [0028], regarding the housing wall 32 of the battery shell for accommodating the battery), the battery cell shell having an opening and the vent valve connected with the battery cell shell through the opening (see e.g., Albukrek; fig. 1, [0028], regarding a housing opening 34 of where the vent valve is situated). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the vent valve of Kleinke to a battery assembly through an opening in the battery cell shell as disclosed by Albukrek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this application in order to allow high gas exchange volumes during normal operation of a battery and, at the same time, to discharge a large amount of gas within a very short time and considerably reduce the risk of the entire battery exploding, in the case of a sudden, explosive increase in the internal pressure of the battery (e.g. caused by the explosion of a faulty battery cell) (see e.g., Albukrek; [0014]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Kleinke teaches the battery assembly according to claim 15, wherein the vent valve further comprises a cover connected with the base (see e.g., Kleinke; [0043], regarding outer half 21 corresponding to a cover) and including at least one second gas channel (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, [0039], [0053], regarding lattice-like through-holes 14 so that the inner pressure and the outer pressure can be applied to the membrane and the screen) wherein, when the valve core is in the first position, flow through the first gas channel to the second gas channel is blocked (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, [0047], wherein under normal operation the first gas channel is not open to allow airflow from the first gas channel to the second gas channel), wherein, when the valve core is in the second position, the central channel, the first gas channel and the second gas channel are in fluid communication (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, [0040], regarding the state when the lip 17 lifts off such that the first gas channel is open, and therefore the first gas channel, the second gas channel of the through holes 14, and the central channel 4 are in fluid communication).
Regarding claim 17, modified Kleinke teaches the battery assembly according to claim 15, wherein the vent valve further comprises a retaining member, the valve core movably connected with the base through the retaining member, the retaining member configured to maintain the valve core at least in the first position (see e.g., Kleinke; fig. 1, wherein the upper half of 20 may correspond with the retaining member, the valve core screen 15 movable connected with the base, the lower half of part 20 through the retaining member; the upper and lower halves of 20 secure an end of the screen 15 so that the screen is maintained in a first position and movably connected with the base through the retaining member).
Regarding claim 23, modified Kleinke teaches the battery assembly according to claim 15, wherein the vent valve is configured to direct flow vented from within the battery cell shell through the breathable membrane when the valve core is in the first position (see e.g., Kleinke; [0047], [0050], regarding pressure compensation is carried out by the gas-permeable membrane).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinke (US-20180292020-A1), Albukrek (US-20180219200-A1), and in further view of Yamanaka (US-20190051951-A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Kleinke teaches the battery assembly of claim 15. Kleinke does not explicitly a vehicle including the battery assembly. However, Yamanaka discloses a vehicle including a battery pack with relief valves (see e.g., Yamanaka; abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery assembly and vent valve taught by modified Itoh by providing them in a vehicle disclosed by Yamanaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a vehicle with a battery pack and the safety measures of allowing gas to be exhausted from the vehicle battery pack (see e.g., Yamanaka; abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights