CTNF 18/283,370 CTNF 100118 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Summary This is a non-final office action for application 18/283,370 filed on 09/21/2023. Claims 1-11 are pending. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed in parent Application Nos. KR10-2021-0038784 filed on 03/25/2021 and PCT/KR2022/004182 filed on 03/25/2022. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 09/21/2023, 01/14/2025 and 08/11/2025 are being considered by the examiner. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-6 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application 18/712,932. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 of copending Application 18/712,932 recites a method for producing a positive electrode active material comprising preparing a lithium transition metal oxide, performing a first washing and filtering, and simultaneously performing a second washing and second filtering using a filtering device capable of washing and filtering simultaneously. The copending claim further recites drying and coating steps. The instant application claim 1 recites substantially the same method steps of first washing and filtering followed by concurrent second washing and second filtering using a filtering device. While the instant claim does not explicitly recite the drying and coating steps, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the method could include or omit such additional downstream processing steps as recited in the copending application. Furthermore, the instant claim recites that the second water-washing solution is in an amount of 10 parts by weight to 50 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the first water-washing solution, which is fully disclosed in claim 3 of the copending application. Accordingly, the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from the claims of the copending application. Regarding Claim 2, claim 2 of the instant application depends from claim 1 and recites that the lithium transition metal oxide contains nickel in an amount of 70 mol% or greater among all metals other than lithium. This limitation is fully disclosed in claim 2 of the copending application, which recites 70 mol% or more nickel. Accordingly, claim 2 does not recite a patentably distinct invention. Regarding Claim 3, claim 3 of the instant application recites a lithium transition metal oxide composition defined by a general formula encompassing nickel-rich layered oxides. The copending application claim 1, in view of claim 2, encompasses lithium transition metal oxides having high nickel content, and such compositional variations represent routine selection within a known genus of materials used for positive electrode active materials. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ such known compositions in the otherwise identical process. Accordingly, claim 3 does not recite a patentably distinct invention. Regarding Claim 4, claim 4 of the instant application recites that the first water-washing solution is present in an amount of 50 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal oxide. Claim 4 of the copending application recites a broader range of 50 parts by weight to 150 parts by weight. The instant range is fully encompassed within the range disclosed in the copending application, and therefore represents a mere narrowing of a known range. Accordingly, claim 4 does not recite a patentably distinct invention. Regarding Claim 5, claim 5 of the instant application recites that the second water-washing solution is present in an amount of 5 parts by weight to 50 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal oxide. This limitation is identical to claim 5 of the copending application. Accordingly, claim 5 does not recite a patentably distinct invention. Regarding Claim 6, c laim 6 of the instant application recites that the sum of the first and second water-washing solutions is 55 parts by weight to 150 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal oxide. This limitation is identical to claim 6 of the copending application. Accordingly, claim 6 does not recite a patentably distinct invention. Regarding Claim 11, claim 11 of the instant application recites further steps of drying the lithium transition metal oxide, mixing with a coating element-containing raw material, and heat-treating to form a coating layer. These steps correspond directly to step (D) of claim 1 of the copending application. While the copending application further specifies particular coating materials, the instant claim broadly recites a coating element-containing raw material. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use known coating materials, including those recited in the copending application, or to broadly recite such materials. Accordingly, claim 11 does not recite a patentably distinct invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liangliang et al. (CN 109713228 A) and further in view of Flett et al. (US-4956520-A) . Regarding Claim 1, Liangliang discloses a method of preparing a positive electrode active material (see e.g. " The method for washing that ion battery ternary material" in paragraph [40] on page 6), the method comprising: performing a first water-washing of a lithium transition metal oxide in a first waster-washing solution (see e.g. "tertiary cathode material and deionized water are put into agitator by a certain percentage, are followed by stirring and washing" in paragraph [42] on page 6); performing a first filtering to separate the lithium transition metal oxide from the first water-washing solution (see e.g. " it is preliminary to be separated by solid-liquid separation " in paragraph [42]); and performing, a second water-washing (see e.g. "Afterwards, filter cake is rinsed with a small amount of deionized water" in paragraph [42] on page 6) and a second filtering of the lithium transition metal oxide (see e.g. ", is separated by solid-liquid separation obtains powder body material again" in paragraph [42] on page 6), wherein the second water-washing solution is in an amount of 10 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the first water-washing solution (see e.g. "0.1m3 deionized water is added in agitator, in investment 811 tertiary cathode material of 100kg, 30min is stirred, by slurry Centrifuge is squeezed into, after preliminary separation of solid and liquid, moisturizing 0.01m3 rinses filter cake, and filtrate enters circulating storage tank" in paragraph [26] on page 3). The ratio of the second water-washing solution to the first water-washing solution is 0.01 m3 / 0.1 m3 x100 = 10 parts by weight of the second water-washing solution per 100 parts by of the first water-washing solution. Liangliang discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Liangliang does not disclose that a second water-washing and a second filtering of the lithium transition metal oxide is done concurrently with a second water-washing solution using a filtering device capable of concurrently water-washing and filtering. Flett, however, in the same field of endeavor, solid-liquid separation of crystalline particles, discloses a second water-washing and a second filtering of particles that is done concurrently with a second water-washing solution using a filtering device capable of concurrently water-washing and filtering (see e.g. "The slurry is separated in a filter 3 and the crystals are simultaneously washed with pentane wash liquid fed through pipe 4 at a temperature of about 10° C." in Column 2 lines 39-40 of Flett). This disclosure teaches that washing liquid is introduced to the solid material while filtration is actively occurring, thereby performing washing and filtering concurrently. Furthermore, the use of a “filter 3” to both separate the slurry and allow wash liquid to pass through the solid material during separation teaches a filtering device capable of concurrently water-washing and filtering, as required by the claim. Flett also teaches that this increases the efficiency of the process and thus at large-scale production levels the economic advantages are considerable (see e.g. Column 4 lines 11-22 of Flett). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the second water-washing and second filtering step of the method of Liangliang et al. such that it occurs concurrently using a filtering device capable as taught by Flett et al. in order to increase efficiency and take advantage of economic savings at large-scale production levels as suggested by Flett. Regarding Claim 4, Liangliang in view of Flett disclose the method of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above). Liangliang further discloses that the first water-washing solution is in an amount of 100 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal oxide (see e.g. “0.1 m 3 deionized water is added … for 100 kg tertiary cathode material” in paragraph [58] on page 7). This corresponds to approximately 100 kg of water (0.1 m 3 of water = 100 kg of water) per 100 kg of lithium transition metal oxide which is 100 parts by weight of water with respect to 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal oxide. Liangliang discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Regarding Claim 5, Liangliang in view of Flett disclose the method of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above). Liangliang further discloses that the second water-washing solution is in an amount of 10 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal oxide (see e.g. "811 tertiary cathode material of 100kg... 0.01m 3 rinses filter cake" in paragraph [58] on page 7). This corresponds to approximately 10 kg of water (0.01 m 3 of water = 10 kg of water) per 100 kg of lithium transition metal oxide which is 10 parts by weight of water with respect to 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal oxide. Liangliang discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Regarding Claim 6, Liangliang in view of Flett disclose the method of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above). Liangliang further discloses that the sum of the amount of the first water-washing solution and the amount of the second water-washing solution is 110 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal oxide (see e.g. “0.1 m 3 deionized water is added … for 100 kg tertiary cathode material... 0.01m3 rinses filter cake” in paragraph [58] on page 7). This corresponds to approximately 110 kg of water total (0.1 m 3 of first water-washing = 100 kg of water; 0.01 m 3 of second water-washing = 10 kg of water) per 100 kg of lithium transition metal oxide which is 110 parts by weight of water with respect to 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal oxide. Liangliang discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Regarding Claim 7, Liangliang in view of Flett disclose the method of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above). Liangliang further discloses that the first water-washing is performed for 30 minutes (see e.g. "0.1m 3 deionized water is added in agitator, in investment 811 tertiary cathode material of 100kg, 30min is stirred" in paragraph [58] on page 7). Liangliang discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 2-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liangliang et al. (CN 109713228 A) in view of Flett et al. (US-4956520-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoon et al. (KR 2017-0076222 A ) . Regarding Claim 2, Liangliang in view of Flett disclose the method of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above). Liangliang further discloses that the lithium transition metal oxide is an NCA-type material (lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide) (see e.g. "NCA" in paragraph [5]). However, Liangliang is silent as to the specific nickel content, and thus Liangliang in view of Flett fails to expressly disclose that the lithium transition metal oxide contains nickel in an amount of 70 mol% or greater among all metals other than lithium. Hoon, however, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a lithium transition metal oxide preparation method wherein the lithium metal oxide used is LiNi 0.8 Co 0.1 Mn 0.1 O 2 (see e.g. " Li(Ni 0.8 Co 0.1 Mn 0.1 )O 2 " in paragraph [127] on page 12 of Hoon). This composition contains nickel in an amount of 80 mol% among all metal elements other than lithium. Hoon discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Hoon also teaches that by using this type of lithium transition metal oxide in the preparation method it is possible to suppress the generation of gas by residual lithium during charging and discharging of the batter which improves battery safety (see e.g. paragraph [161] of Hoon). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lithium transition metal oxide of Liangliang et al. in view of Flett et al. such that it is LiNi 0.8 Co 0.1 Mn 0.1 O 2 as taught by Hoon et al. in order to suppress gas generation from residual lithium and improve battery safety as suggested by Hoon. Regarding Claim 3, Liangliang in view of Flett disclose the method of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above). Liangliang further discloses that the lithium transition metal oxide is an NCA-type material (lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide) (see e.g. "NCA" in paragraph [5]). However, Liangliang is silent as to the specific composition and molar ratios of the constituent metals, and thus Liangliang in view of Flett fails to disclose a lithium transition metal oxide having the composition as set forth in Formula 1 Hoon, however, discloses the lithium metal oxide used is LiNi 0.8 Co 0.1 Mn 0.1 O 2 (see e.g. " Li(Ni 0.8 Co 0.1 Mn 0.1 )O 2 " in paragraph [127] on page 12 of Hoon). This composition corresponds to a species encompassed by Formula 1, with a = 0, x₁ = 0.8, y₁ = 0.1, z₁ = 0.1 (where M₁ is Mn), and w₁ = 0, thereby satisfying the claimed compositional limitations, including x₁ + y₁ + z₁ + w₁ = 1. Hoon discloses points that lie within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Hoon also teaches that by using this type of lithium transition metal oxide in the preparation method it is possible to suppress the generation of gas by residual lithium during charging and discharging of the batter which improves battery safety (see e.g. paragraph [161] of Hoon). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lithium transition metal oxide of Liangliang et al. in view of Flett et al. such that it is LiNi 0.8 Co 0.1 Mn 0.1 O 2 as taught by Hoon et al. in order to suppress gas generation from residual lithium and improve battery safety as suggested by Hoon. Regarding Claim 8, Liangliang in view of Flett disclose the method of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above). Liangliang in view of Flett is silent as to the temperature of the first water-washing and thus does not disclose that the first water-washing is performed at 5 °C to 30 °C. Hoon, however, discloses that the first water-washing is performed at 10 to 15 °C (see e.g. paragraph [130] on page 12 of Hoon). Hoon discloses a range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Hoon also teaches that by using this preparation method it is possible to suppress the generation of gas by residual lithium during charging and discharging of the batter which improves battery safety (see e.g. paragraph [161] of Hoon). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the temperature of the first water-washing of Liangliang et al. in view of Flett et al. such that it is 10 to 15 °C as taught by Hoon et al. in order to suppress gas generation from residual lithium and improve battery safety as suggested by Hoon. Regarding Claim 9, Liangliang in view of Flett disclose the method of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above). Liangliang in view of Flett is silent as to the time of the second water-washing and thus does not disclose that the second water-washing is performed for 5 to 30 minutes. Hoon, however, discloses that the second water-washing is performed for 1 second to 10 minutes (see e.g. "The step of filtering the second slurry to obtain a secondary water-washed lithium composite oxide may be performed for 1 second to 10 minutes." in paragraph [56] of Hoon). Hoon discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Hoon also teaches that by using this preparation method it is possible to suppress the generation of gas by residual lithium during charging and discharging of the batter which improves battery safety (see e.g. paragraph [161] of Hoon). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the time of the second water-washing of Liangliang et al. in view of Flett et al. such that it is 1 second to 10 minutes as taught by Hoon et al. in order to suppress gas generation from residual lithium and improve battery safety as suggested by Hoon. Regarding Claim 10, Liangliang in view of Flett disclose the method of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above). Liangliang in view of Flett is silent as to the temperature of the second water-washing and thus does not disclose that the second water-washing is performed at 5 °C to 30 °C. Hoon, however, discloses that the second water-washing is performed at 10 °C (see e.g. paragraph [132] on page 12 of Hoon). Hoon discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Hoon also teaches that by using this preparation method it is possible to suppress the generation of gas by residual lithium during charging and discharging of the batter which improves battery safety (see e.g. paragraph [161] of Hoon). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the temperature of the second water-washing of Liangliang et al. in view of Flett et al. such that it is 10 °C as taught by Hoon et al. in order to suppress gas generation from residual lithium and improve battery safety as suggested by Hoon . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liangliang et al. (CN 109713228 A) in view of Flett et al. (US-4956520-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US-20150243970-A1). Regarding Claim 11, Liangliang in view of Flett disclose the method of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above) . Liangliang in view of Flett does not disclose that the method further comprises drying the lithium transition metal oxide after the second water-washing and second filtering; mixing the dried lithium transition metal oxide with a raw material containing a coating element; and heat-treating the mixture to form a coating layer on the lithium transition metal oxide. Choi, however, in the same field of endeavor, preparation of positive electrode active materials containing lithium metal oxides, discloses drying a lithium transition metal oxide after the water-washing and filtering (see e.g. "the core may be prepared by a method including... washing, filtering, and drying the mixture" in paragraph [0077] and "the core includes a lithium nickel composite oxide including a large amount of nickel," in paragraph [0078] and paragraph [0128] of Choi); mixing the dried lithium transition metal oxide with a raw material containing a coating element (see e.g. "the coating solution may be mixed with the core to coat a surface of the core with the coating solution" in paragraph [0092] of Choi); and heat-treating the mixture to form a coating layer on the lithium transition metal oxide (see e.g. "The coated core may be heat treated to form a coating layer including a sulfur component." in paragraph [0095] of Choi). Choi also teaches that including a coating layer in the positive electrode active material improves the structural stability of the positive active material and thus improves the lifespan properties of a lithium battery (see e.g. paragraph [0163] of Choi). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Liangliang et al. in view of Flett et al. such that it includes a drying step after the second water-washing and second filter, mixing the dried lithium metal oxide with a raw material containing a coating element and heat treating this mixture to form a coating layer on the lithium transition metal oxide as taught by Choi et al. in order to improve the structural stability of the active material and thus improve the lifespan properties of the battery as suggested by Choi. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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. /J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/283,370 Page 2 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/283,370 Page 3 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/283,370 Page 4 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/283,370 Page 5 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/283,370 Page 6 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/283,370 Page 7 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/283,370 Page 8 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/283,370 Page 9 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/283,370 Page 10 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/283,370 Page 11 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/283,370 Page 12 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/283,370 Page 13 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/283,370 Page 14 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/283,370 Page 15 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/283,370 Page 16 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/283,370 Page 17 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/283,370 Page 18 Art Unit: 1723
Prosecution Insights