Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-9, 15-18), drawn to a process for the manufacture of an assembly, in the reply filed on 05/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the prior art cited in the restriction, Tikhonov et al. (US 20130288138 A1), hereinafter Tikhonov ‘138, does not disclose polymer (F) of the pending claims, as amended.
The examiner acknowledges that Tikhonov ‘138 does not disclose polymer (F) as amended, which further requires polymer (F) to comprise recurring units derived from at least one hydrogenated monomer comprising at least one carboxylic acid group [monomer (MA)]. However, the amendment made to the claims necessitated an updated restriction requirement and Groups 1-3 still lack unit of invention for the following reasons: Pras et al. (US 20180233751 A1), Ohmori (US 20140127574 A1) and Tikhonov et al. (US 20120121974 A1) demonstrate a lack of novelty and/or inventive step as set forth on pages 7-9 (i.e. rejection of claim 1) of this Office Action.
Groups 1-3 share the common technical feature of at most an assembly comprising at least one surface-modified metal foil (M), and directly adhered onto at least on surface of said surface-modified metal foil (M) at least one layer consisting of layer (L1) of a composition (C) comprising: from 0.5 wt. % to less than 20 wt. % of at least one semi-crystalline partially fluorinated polymer [polymer (F)] comprising recurring units derived from 1,1-difluoroethylene (VDF) and recurring units derived from at least one hydrogenated monomer comprising at least one carboxylic acid group [monomer (MA)]; from 2 wt. % to less than 40 wt. % of at least one liquid medium [medium (L)] characterized by a boiling point higher than 100° C.
Applicant further argues Tikhonov ‘138 discloses a Li-ion electrochemical cell characterized in that the electrolyte solution includes a Li compound whereas the metal salt as claimed is optional and not limited to Li imide salts. Examiner notes that medium (L) may optionally comprise at least one metal salt and thus, the prior art may or may not comprise a metal salt. Nevertheless, this argument is not found persuasive as Pras et al. (US 20180233751 A1), Ohmori (US 20140127574 A1) and Tikhonov et al. (US 20120121974 A1) meet this limitation as set forth on pages 7-9 (i.e. rejection of claim 1) of this Office Action.
Applicant further argues the process of the instant application can be performed in the absence of processing solvents for dissolving a binder polymer. The share technical feature does not include the limitation in which the medium (L) is free of any solvent suitable for dissolving polymer (F). Nevertheless, this argument is not found persuasive as Pras et al. (US 20180233751 A1), Ohmori (US 20140127574 A1) and Tikhonov et al. (US 20120121974 A1) meet this limitation as set forth on pages 7-9 and14 (i.e. rejection of claims 1, 7, and 19) of this Office Action.
Claims 10-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Groups 2 and 3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/15/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims and 8, lines 11 and 10, respectively, regarding the limitation “one metal salt [salt (M)]”, “M” should be changed as “a surface-modified metal foil (M)” is already established previously.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, line 10, the claim limitation, “wherein said medium (L) may optionally further comprise at least one metal salt [salt (M)]” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether applicant intends to claim the medium (L) comprising at least one metal salt (M) as part of their invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, line 13 and 12, respectively, the claim limitation “optionally, a polymer [polymer (P)] comprising a backbone complying with the following formula:…” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant intends to claim the composition (C) comprising polymer (P) as part of their invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 24, the claim limitation, “(v) optionally, laminating the sheet of composition (C) obtained in step (iv) to provide a sheet having a thickness in the range of from 50 to 300 microns” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant intends to claim step (v) as part of their invention.
Claims 2-9, and 15-19 are similarly rejected as being dependent from claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the surface” refers to a first or second of the surface-modified metal foil, a first or second surface of a metal foil, a surface of the surface-modified metal foil after at least a part of one side has been coated with layer (L1), or otherwise. For the purpose of this Office Action, the claim limitation is being interpreted as referring to “a surface of a metal foil” as is reasonable in light of [0026] of the instant specification.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the metal foil (M)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the metal foil (M)” is referring to “a surface-modified metal foil (M)” of claim 1, a metal foil that is not surface-modified, or otherwise. For the purpose of this office action, the limitation is interpreted to read, “wherein an average thickness of the surface layer (SL) of the surface of the surface-modified metal foil (M)”.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-7, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pras et al. (US 20180233751 A1) in view of Ohmori (US 20140127574 A1), Tikhonov et al. (US 20120121974 A1), and Barton et al. (US 20030054245 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Pras discloses a process of for the manufacture of an assembly (i.e. electrode, Abstract).
Pras further discloses the process includes providing metal substrate ([0043]), an electrode-forming composition [composition (C1)] ([0044]) consisting of at least one fluorinated fluoropolymer comprising recurring units derived from at least one functional hydrogenated monomer comprising at least one carboxylic acid [polymer (FF)] ([0029]), at least one electro-active compound [compound (EA)] ([0031]), at least one liquid medium [medium (L)] ([0032]), and at least one metal salt [salt (M)] ([0033]). Pras further discloses polymer (F) is preferably semi-crystalline ([0105]) and comprises recurring units derived from 1,1-dufluoroethylene (VDF) ([0109]) and recurring units derived from at least on hydrogenated monomer comprising at least one carboxylic acid end group ([0109]).
Pras further discloses an embodiment for manufacturing a positive electrode wherein a mixture of ethylene carbonate (EC) and propylene carbonate (PC) (1/1 by volume in in which LiTFSI (1 mol/L) and vinylene carbonate (V) (2% by weight) were added ([0233];[0248]). In light of [00165] of the instant specification in which applicant discloses a similar medium (L1), the medium disclosed by Pras must also possess a boiling point higher than 100°C, as claimed in claim 1, and higher than 150°C, as claimed in claim 16.
Examiner notes the claim includes metal salt (M) and polymer (P) in the alternative and the instant specifications do not indicate that the inclusion of either the metal salt (M) or polymer (P) is significant to the structure of the claimed assembly. Therefore, the limitations “at least one metal salt [salt (M)]” and “a polymer [polymer (P)] comprising a backbone complying with the following formula: -[(CH2)x-CHR1-R2)- “ are interpreted as being met.
Pras does not explicitly disclose a desired weight percentage for the electrode-forming composition (C).
Tikhonov teaches a similar electrode assembly ([0033]), further teaching a cathode is formed by mixing and forming a composition comprising by weight, 2-15%, preferably 4-8% polymer binder, 10-50%, preferably 15-25% of electrolyte solution, 40-85%, preferably 65-75% of an electrode-active material; and 1-12%, preferably 4-8% of a conductive additive ([0083]).
4-8% by weight polymer binder is fully within the claimed 0.5wt% to less than 20wt.% for polymer (F). 15-25% by weight electrolyte solution is fully within the claimed 2 wt.% to less than 40wt.% of at least one liquid medium [medium (L)]. 65-75% by weight of electrode-active material is fully within the claimed at least 50 wt.% of at least one electro-active compound [compound (EA)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived at the claimed ranges with reasonable expectation of achieving an electrode-forming composition (C) capable of use in an electrochemical cell.
Pras further discloses the metal substrate is generally a foil, mesh, or net, made from metal such as copper, aluminum, iron, stainless steel, nickel, titanium, or silver, thus reading on the claim limitation, “metal foil”.
Pras is silent regarding the metal substrate being surface-modified having at least one side that is at least partially chemically modified.
Ohmori teaches an aluminum foil and a film containing an ion-permeable compound and carbon fine particles formed on at least one side of the aluminum foil (Abstract, Fig. 1). Ohmori further teaches that such a current collector provided in a lithium secondary battery permits quick discharge and recharge and having a higher retention rate of initial battery capacity at a higher rate ([0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have chemically modified at least one side of the metal foil of Pras through a film containing an ion-permeable compound and carbon fine particles for the benefit of achieving a battery capable of quick discharge and recharge and having a higher retention rate, as taught by Ohmori.
Pras further discloses applying the composition (C) onto the metal substrate, thereby provided an assembly comprising a metal substrate coated with at least one layer consisting of composition (C) ([0045]), but does not disclose mixing composition (C) in a mixing device at a temperature lower than 50°C; extruding the resulting composition (C) through a die opening at temperature comprised between 40 and 130 °C to have provided a sheet of composition (C) prior to applying the composition on to the current collector.
Examiner notes the claim includes (v) laminating the sheet of composition (C) in the alternative. Therefore, the limitation, “(v) optionally, laminating the sheet of composition (C) obtained in step (iv) to provide a sheet having a thickness in the range of from 50 to 300 microns” is interpreted as being met.
Barton teaches a multilayer extrusion process for creating multilayered articles ([0011]). Barton teaches mixing to facilitate combining components with a mixing device in order to form a homogenous mass prior to introduction into the extruder (Abstract;[0026]). Furthermore, Barton teaches the mixing to occur at ambient temperature, wherein a skilled artisan would recognize ambient temperature to be around 20-25°C, which is within the claimed, “lower than 50°C”.
Barton further teaches examples in which electrode compositions containing fluorinated polymers (i.e. pVDF-HFP copolymer, pVDF homopolymer) are extruded through a die ([0018]), at temperatures ranging from 100-130°C, which is within the claimed range of 50 to 130°C (see example 2: [0102]-[0105], and example 6: [0110]).
Barton teaches such a method allows for lower investment and higher capital productivity compared to solvent coating processes ([0008]) and is suitable for materials sensitive to heat and/or shear stress ([0009]-[0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the method of mixing at ambient temperature prior to extrusion, and extruding at temperatures ranging from 100-130°C with reasonable expectation of achieving a satisfactory electrode as well as for the benefit of lower investment, higher capital productivity relative to solvent coating processes, and in consideration of materials sensitive to heat and/or shear stress, as taught by Barton.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Pras discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Pras discloses the surface-modified metal foil (M) having a surface layer (SL) (i.e. film containing an ion-permeable compound and carbon fine particles, Ohmori, [0018]) wherein the surface treatment include typical methods of preparing films such as casting, bar-coater coating, dip coating, printing, and the like (Ohmori, [0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected coating, as claimed in claim 2, and as suggested by Ohmori, as a method of modifying the metal foil with reasonable expectation of arriving at a satisfactory surface-modified metal foil.
Ohmori further teaches the ion-permeable compound is not particularly limited if the material allows permeation of ions and examples include polymers of cellulose and acrylamide ([0088]), satisfying the claim limitation of claim 3 of the composition comprising a binder.
Furthermore, Ohmori teaches the electron-conductive carbon fine particles are not particularly limited but fine particles of acetylene black and Ketjen black, gas-phase carbon fiber, graphite fine particles, and the like are favorable ([0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected from the finite list of favorable carbon fine particles as suggested by Ohmori, with reasonable expectation of success at achieving a satisfactory surface layer for the surface-modified metal foil.
Regarding claim 4, modified Pras discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Pras discloses the surface-modified metal foil (Ohmori, [0018]) but does not explicitly disclose an average thickness of the surface layer of the surface of the surface-modified metal foil (M).
Ohmori further teaches the thickness of the film on the metal foil is preferably 0.1 µm or more and 10 µm or less ([0096]), which is wholly within the claimed range of 0.5 nm to 50 µm of claim 4. Ohmori further teaches a thickness of 0.1 µm or less prohibits desirable effects which is undesirable, and a thickness of 10 µm or more leads to a relative drop of the ratio of the electroactive material in a particular volume of the battery ([0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected and optimized within the claim range to achieve the desired balance between a surface-modified current collector capable of achieving desirable effects without sacrificing the ratio of electroactive material in a particular volume of battery, as taught by Ohmori.
Regarding claims 5, 17, and 18, modified Pras discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Pras further discloses the polymer preferably comprises recurring units derived from at least 60%, more preferably at least 85%, by moles of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) (Pras, [0110]-[0111]), which is within the claimed range of at least 80% by moles of claim 5, and overlaps with the claimed range of at least 90% by moles of claims 17 and 18.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the mole percent of the vinylidene fluoride with a reasonable expectation of arriving at a satisfactory polymer and electrode-forming composition.
Modified Pras further discloses the polymer preferably comprises recurring units derived from 0.01% to 20% by moles, more preferably 0.10 to 10% by moles of at least one functional hydrogenated monomer comprising at least one carboxylic acid end group (Pras, [0112]) which is within the claimed range of 0.01% to 10% by moles of claim 5, and encompasses the claimed range of 0.1% to 1.5% by moles of claims 17 and 18.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected within the ranges for the mole percent of the functional hydrogenated monomer comprising at least one carboxylic acid end group with reasonable expectation of arriving at a satisfactory polymer and electrode-forming composition.
Modified Pras further discloses the polymer preferably comprises recurring units derived from 0.1% to 15% by moles, preferably 0.1 to 10% by moles of at least one fluorinated monomer selected from vinyl fluoride (VF1), chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE), hexafluoropropylene (HFP), tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), trifluoroethylene (TrFE) and perfluoromethylvinylether (PMVE) (Pras, [0113]) The disclosed range overlaps with the claimed range of 5% to 12% by moles of claim 5, and encompasses the claimed range of 6% to 10% by moles of claims 17 and 18.
Therefore, it would have been obvious, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have selected from the finite list of fluorinated monomers which are different from VDF suggested by Pras, with reasonable expectation of arriving at a satisfactory polymer as these are common fluorinated monomers utilized in copolymers in the art.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected within the ranges for the mole percent of the fluorinated monomer with reasonable expectation of arriving at a satisfactory polymer and electrode-forming composition.
Regarding claim 6, modified Pras discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Pras further discloses wherein the hydrogenated monomer comprising at least one carboxylic acid group [monomer (MA)] include notably, acrylic acid and methacrylic acid (Pras, [0115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected acrylic acid as monomer (MA) as it is a well-known hydrogenated monomer comprising at least carboxylic acid group, as suggested by Pras, and in using acrylic acid, a skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation of success in achieving a satisfactory polymer (F), a thus a satisfactory electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 7, modified Pras discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Pras discloses the liquid medium (EL-2) used to be a solution of LITFSI (1 mol/L) in ethylene carbonate (EC)/propylene carbonate (PC) (1/1 by volume) comprising vinylene carbonate (VC) (2% by weight) (Pras, [0238];[0248]).
As EC and PC are organic carbonates, modified Pras satisfies claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, modified Pras discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Pras discloses wherein composition (C) has a weight percent of 4-8 wt. % of polymer binder (Tikhonov, [0083]), as rendered obvious above, which is within the claimed range of less than 15 wt.%. Thus, modified Pras satisfies claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, modified Pras discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Pras discloses medium (L) as being free of one or more solvents (S) [0131] and the disclosed medium (EL-2) used which is a solution of LITFSI (1 mol/L) in ethylene carbonate (EC)/propylene carbonate (PC) (1/1 by volume) comprising vinylene carbonate (VC) (2% by weight)(Pras, [0238];[0248]) is similar to that used in the instant specification (see [00165]) which applicant discloses as part of their invention, and thus must satisfy the limitation “wherein medium (L) is free from solvent suitable for dissolving polymer (F)”.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pras et al. (US 20180233751 A1) in view of Ohmori (US 20140127574 A1), Tikhonov et al. (US 20120121974 A1), and Barton et al. (US 20030054245 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Suzuki et al. (US 20170256781 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Pras discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Pras discloses a process for the manufacture of an assembly, said process comprising steps (i)-(iv) and (vi), as rendered obvious in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Modified Pras does not explicitly disclose (v) laminating the sheet of composition (C) obtained after extruding to provide a sheet having at thickness in the rage of 50 to 300 microns, as claimed in claim 1.
Suzuki discloses a method of manufacturing lithium-ion secondary battery electrodes (Abstract).
Suzuki further discloses the rolling process (i.e. second rolling substep) which allows for the target density of the active material to be achieved ([0092]). Such a method allows for the density of the active material layer to increase while reducing cracking in the active material and enabling high storage characteristics ([0093]). Suzuki further teaches the rolling process is preferably “heat-rolling” in which rolling is performed within heated reduction rolls, which causes the binder to soften or melt ([0101]) and the heat-rolling may be performed in a temperature ranging from about 60 °C to about 180 °C in accordance to the binder comprised in the active material ([0102]). Thus, the method of heat-rolling as taught by Suzuki is similar to the lamination process disclosed in [00177] of the instant specification.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have laminated the sheet of composition (C) obtained in step (iv), as taught by Suzuki, as it is a common manufacturing method in the art, and for the benefits of achieving high density for the active material, enabling high storage characteristics.
Suzuki further discloses the thickness of the positive electrode active material layer is typically 20 to 200 µm, preferably 50 µm or more and preferably 100 µm or less ([0047]), which is within the claimed range of 50 to 300 microns. Furthermore, Suzuki teaches through meeting such conditions, the battery is able to deliver high performance ([0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived at the claimed range of the thickness of sheet of composition (C) through lamination, as a skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation of success that such a thickness would achieve a satisfactory electrode capable of high performance.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pras et al. (US 20180233751 A1) in view of Ohmori (US 20140127574 A1), Tikhonov et al. (US 20120121974 A1), and Barton et al. (US20030054245A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Zheng et al. (“Calendering effects on the physical and electrochemical properties of Li[Ni1/3Mn1/3Co1/3]O2 cathode”).
Regarding claim 9, modified Pras discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Pras does not disclose calendaring the assembly obtained after depositing composition (C) on the surface-modified metal foil.
Zheng teaches calendaring as an indispensable step used to press an electrode which is typically performed after the electrode casting and drying steps (pg. 52, col.1). Furthermore, Zheng teaches calendaring as improving particle-to-particle contact within the electrode and enhancing the adhesion between the electrode and the current collector, as well as contributing to improved volumetric energy density (pg. 52, col.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further calendared the assembly obtained at the end of step (vi) for the benefit of achieving an electrode with improved particle-to-particle contact, enhanced adhesion between the electrode and current collector, as well as improved volumetric energy density.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights