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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 08/11/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 14 is/are amended; and claim(s) 1–13 and 15 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous claim objections, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 103 rejections, and provisional, non-statutory double-patenting rejection over co-pending 18/559673 set forth in the Office Action mailed 05/11/26 has/have been withdrawn. Additionally, because new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are presented below without being necessitated by amendment, this action is non-final.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to for the following informalities:
In claim 10, in lines 2 and 3, “the negative electrode active material is a mixture of a silicon-based active material and a carbon-based active material” should read “the negative electrode active material is a mixture of [[a]] the silicon-based active material and a carbon-based active material” for proper antecedence based on claim 1’s “silicon-based active material (as clearly intended in the instant specification, e.g., p. 16, line 10, given only one Si-based material is envisioned).
In claim 13, line 3, “a battery using lithium as a counter electrode” should read “in [[a]] the battery using lithium as a counter electrode” for proper antecedence based on parent claim 12 (as clearly intended in instant spec., p. 11, lines 3–7).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “the positive electrode active material is doped with a dopant” (line 6). Such doping will be interpreted as “a different concept from substitution, and it does not replace a part of the transition metal crystal lattice, but is located between the crystal lattices”, as specially defined on p. 7, lines 21 and 22, of the instant specification.
Claim 1 further recites “the positive electrode has a ratio (initial efficiency) of an initial discharge capacity to an initial charge capacity in the secondary battery using lithium as a counter electrode of 85% to 89%” (lines 14–16). Such initial efficiency will be interpreted as “a ratio of an initial discharge capacity to an initial charge capacity when the positive electrode and lithium metal are used as counter electrodes, a half-coin cell is manufactured using a carbonate-based electrolyte, and charging and discharging proceed at 0.2C to 4.2V to 2.5", as specially defined on p. 9, lines 23–26.
Claim 7 recites “the lithium transition metal oxide is a single particle” in line 2. The “single particle” will be interpreted as “a state in which the primary particles exist individually, or less than 10 primary particles are aggregated,” as specially defined on p. 8, lines 21 and 22.
Claim 12 recites “the negative electrode has an initial efficiency ratio of an initial discharge capacity to an initial charge capacity in a secondary battery using lithium as a counter electrode” in lines 2 and 3. Such initial efficiency will be interpreted as “a ratio of an initial discharge capacity to an initial charge capacity when the positive electrode and lithium metal are used as counter electrodes, a half-coin cell is manufactured using a carbonate-based electrolyte, and charging and discharging proceed at 0.2C to 4.2V to 2.5", as specially defined on p. 9, lines 23–26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1–13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20150228979 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20160156027 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Lee discloses a secondary battery (LIB, ¶ 0117, 0118), comprising a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (e.g., ¶ 0117), wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode mixture layer on at least one surface of a positive electrode current collector (e.g., ¶ 0114, 0118), wherein the positive electrode mixture layer comprises a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide (NCM, Id.), wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode mixture layer on at least one surface of a negative electrode current collector (e.g., ¶ 0115), wherein the negative electrode mixture layer comprises a negative electrode active material comprising a silicon-containing active material (Id.).
Lee generally discloses that the lithium transition metal oxide positive electrode active material may be represented by LixCoaNibMcO2+α, where 0.9 < x < 1.5, 0 < a < 0.5, 0 < b < 1, 0 < c < 1, -0.1 ≤ α ≤ 0.1, and M comprises at least one element such as Mn, Al, or Zr (¶ 0020). Lee further desires the cathode to exhibit thermal stability and reduce gas generation to improve battery lifespan (¶ 0045) but fails to explicitly disclose that the positive electrode active material is doped with a dopant, wherein a molar ratio of Ni is 88% or more based on a total amount of transition metals excluding Li present in the positive electrode active material.
Kim teaches an analogous, Ni-based lithium metal oxide positive active material (¶ 0094–0096), where the material may be Lia(NixCoyMnz)O2, where 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.2, 0.6 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.4, and x + y+ z ≤ 1.2 (¶ 0095, 0096). Kim teaches that such material may facilitate excellent battery performance via combination of high capacity from the Ni, thermal stability and economic efficiency from the Mn, and electrochemical stability from the Co (¶ 0097).
Further, Kim teaches that the active material may include core 51 surrounded by coating layer 53 including a metal component of Zr (¶ 0080, 0083), where diffusion layer 53 may form between the core and coating through a small infiltration of the metal component into the core (¶ 0081). The diffusion layer may include a lithium metal oxide as the metal component—i.e., lithium zirconium oxide—as a reaction product between the infiltrated Zr and lithium present on or within the core (¶ 0084). This lithium zirconium oxide may be present between atoms of a crystal lattice without contributing to the core’s structure and may increase the battery’s capacity by (de)intercalating Li+ (¶ 0085).
Additionally, Kim teaches that Zr in the coating reduces gas generation by reducing electrolytic side reactions as well as dissipates heat to the outside of the active material to inhibit exothermic reactions inside the battery (¶ 0078). Moreover, as seen in the examples (e.g., Prep. Ex. 1, ¶ 0151), the Zr is incorporated at 0.5 wt% of the active material (see also ¶ 0115), i.e., 5000 ppm, and, thus, reasonably constitutes a “dopant” in light of the instant specification’s definition by being included at such a small amount and infiltrating into the core yet not substituting into but sitting between the crystal lattices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adopt Kim’s oxide composition as Lee’s Ni-based oxide—such that the material would be “doped” with a dopant of Zr—with the reasonable expectation of reducing gas generation by mitigating electrolytic side reactions, inhibiting exothermic reactions, and improving capacity, as taught by Kim.
Regarding the requirement of ≥ 88 mol% Ni based on a total amount of transition metals excluding Li present in the positive electrode active material, as noted above, Kim’s formula, in allowing 60–100 mol% Ni based on the moles of transition metal, overlaps this range. Importantly, as further explained above, Kim teaches that such material may facilitate excellent battery performance via combination of high capacity from the Ni, thermal stability and economic efficiency from the Mn, and electrochemical stability from the Co (¶ 0097).
Although modified Lee may fail to explicitly disclose ≥ 88 mol% Ni based on a total amount of transition metals excluding Li present in the positive electrode active material, it would have been obvious to arrive at this range by routinely optimizing the above metals’ molar ratios to balance capacity, thermal stability, economic efficiency, and electrochemical stability, as taught by Kim (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Lee further discloses that the positive electrode has an initial efficiency ratio of an initial discharge capacity to an initial charge capacity in the secondary battery using lithium as a counter electrode of, e.g., 89.7% (Table 2, Ex. 3). Such is determined by manufacturing a half-cell using the positive electrode and Li metal alongside a carbonate-based electrolyte (¶ 0117, 0139) and subjecting the cell to constant-current charging of half-cell at 0.1C to 4.3V vs. Li, constant-voltage charging until current reaches 0.01C, and then discharging at 0.1C until 3.0V vs Li (¶ 0140), substantially similar to instant spec. (e.g., p. 9, lines 23–26).
Even if slightly outside the instant 85–89%, the skilled artisan would recognize that Lee’s 89.7% is so close to the instant range that each electrode would be expected to perform substantially similarly. Specifically, Lee includes 89.7% as one of the inventive examples (Table 2) and never appears to test below the instant 85% to determine that such is a poorer example. Further, the instant specification only tests comp. exs. at ≥ 90% (Comp. Exs. 1–3). Thus, absent demonstrated criticality, the skilled artisan would have expected substantially similar performance at Lee’s ~ 89.7% as within the instant 85–89% (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Further, Lee generally discloses that the positive electrode’s initial efficiency may be ≤ 91.5%, most preferably ≤ 87%, because higher rates may reduce discharge capacity (¶ 0066). Such appears to overlap the recited 85–89% such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful electrode with maintained discharge capacity (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium transition metal oxide is doped with [[a]] the dopant in an amount of 4975 ppm based on the total weight of the lithium transition metal oxide (i.e., 0.5 parts by weight Zr/(0.5 parts by weight Zr + 100 parts by weight oxide) in Kim’s Ex. 1, ¶ 0151, which yields 0.4975 wt%, or 4975 ppm), falling within 4000–5000 ppm.
Assuming, arguendo, that such failed to satisfy claim 2’s range because the 0.5 parts Zr were only in terms of the coating solution in Kim’s ¶ 0151, Kim generally teaches that the coating solution may include 0.05~5 wt%, preferably 0.5~1.5 wt%, of the metal component/Zr dopant based on 100 wt% of the active material’s core because this range allows sufficient inhibition of electrolytic side reactions while preventing capacity from declining (¶ 0115). Such accords with the general understanding of one skilled in the art, where enough dopant must be present to achieve its effects (inhibiting side reactions, allowing additional Li+ intercalation) without subtracting from the bulk active material’s capacity. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the dopant’s wt% (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claims 4–6, modified Lee discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Regarding the requirement that the lithium transition metal oxide is represented by the formulae of claims 4 and 5 and that a is 0.90 ≤ a < 1 (claim 6), again, although modified Lee may not explicitly disclose such, Kim’s formula of Lia(NixCoyMnz)O2, where 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.2, 0.6 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.4, and x + y+ z ≤ 1.2, yields metals encompassing the ones of claims 4 and 5’s formulae as well as molar ratios overlapping the recited ranges (while noting that M in claim 4/Al in claim 5 would be absent because the instant a + b + c would equal 1, and A in claims 4 and 5 would be absent because 7 would equal 0, similar to Kim’s Ex. 1, ¶ 0151). Further, Kim suggests balancing each metal’s molar ratio for capacity, thermal stability, economic efficiency, and electrochemical stability (see above).
To ensure suitable capacity, thermal stability, economic efficiency, and electrochemical stability, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited formulae/molar ratios by routinely optimizing each metal’s ratio in Kim’s formula (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Lee discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium transition metal oxide is a single particle (see one body—i.e., non-aggregated primary particles—NCM in Lee’s ¶ 0103 and 0114 and fig. 1) and has an average diameter D50 of preferably 3~5 μm (Lee, ¶ 0055), falling within 1–5 μm.
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Again, Lee generally discloses a positive electrode’s initial efficiency of ≤ 91.5%, most preferably ≤ 87%, because higher rates may reduce discharge capacity (¶ 0066). Such appears to overlap the recited 86–87% such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful electrode with maintained discharge capacity (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified Lee discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the negative electrode active material further comprises a carbon-containing material (graphite in Lee’s ¶ 0115), and the silicon-containing active material is present in an amount of 10% by weight based on a total weight of the negative electrode active material (see 90:10 graphite:SiOx weight ratio in Lee’s ¶ 0115), falling within 1–10%.
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Similar to above, Lee embodies a negative electrode initial efficiency of, e.g., 85% (Table 2, Exs. 1–3), which appears to be determined substantially similarly as the instant specification (compare Lee’s ¶ 0141 to spec.’s p. 11, lines 8 and 9). Even if, arguendo, this range fell slightly outside 85–89% based on the slight discrepancies in (dis)charging current and voltage between Lee and the instant disclosure, the skilled artisan would recognize that Lee’s ~ 85% is so close to the instant range that the two electrodes would be expected to perform substantially similarly. Specifically, Lee includes 85% in the inventive examples versus comp. exs. at, e.g., 81% and 79% (Table 2), and the instant specification purports no criticality to 85–89%. Thus, absent demonstrated criticality, the instant range is considered merely an obvious variant of Lee’s (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
More generally, however, Lee discloses that the anode’s initial efficiency may be ≤ about 88.0% because this range allows the cathode with low initial efficiency to be used without any loss in discharge capacity (¶ 0068). It would have been obvious to routinely select within the apparent overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful negative electrode with maintained discharge capacity (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee discloses the secondary battery according to claim 12.
Again, even if Lee’s ~ 85% falls slightly outside 86 to 87%, the skilled artisan would have expected substantially similar performance from Lee’s electrode as the instant spec.’s given how close these values are and without any demonstrated criticality, as discussed above. Further, based on Lee’s broader ≤ 88.0%, it would have been obvious to select within the apparent overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful negative electrode with maintained discharge capacity (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20150228979 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20160156027 A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Dillon et al. (US 20020081380 A1, from 10/24/23 IDS).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, modified Lee discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the positive electrode mixture layer further comprises a conductive material (Lee, e.g., ¶ 0072, 0114).
Lee further discloses that the conductive material is not limited and lists carbon nanotubes as one possibility (¶ 0073) but fails to explicitly disclose that the conductive material comprises [[of]] a single-walled carbon nanotube having an impurity content of 300–5000 ppm (claim 14) or 3000–4000 ppm (claim 15).
Dillon teaches highly pure SWCNTs for applications in, e.g., batteries due to their unique electronic, optical, and mechanical properties (Abstract, ¶ 0004). Thus, Dillon pertains to a reasonably pertinent problem-solving area of selecting a suitable conductive material for the positive electrode mixture layer. Dillon recognizes that SWCNTs often include impurities such as metals and non-nanotube carbon fractions, and high-purity SWCNTs must be produced before the nanotubes’ advantages can be effectively realized (¶ 0004). Dillon teaches SWCNTs with purity ≥ 98 wt% and with metal content < 0.5 wt% (¶ 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ Dillon’s SWCNTs as Lee’s positive electrode conductive material with the reasonable expectation of achieving high-purity nanotubes with effectively realized electronic, optical, and mechanical properties, as taught by Dillon.
The metal content < 0.5 wt% yields an impurity content < 5000 ppm. This range overlaps claim 14’s 300–5000 ppm with sufficient specificity to satisfy this range given the specification’s apparent lack of criticality (MPEP 2131.03 (II)). Moreover, this range significantly overlaps claim 15’s 3000–4000 ppm such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful SWCNT with minimal impurities and advantageous properties (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 of claim 1 are persuasive, and, thus, this rejection is withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection under 103 are implemented above, and Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments against Lee as well as Dillon, alongside any arguments that would be relevant to new reference Kim, as follows:
Applicant argues that Kuroda’s Zr coating element does not correspond to the instant “dopant” based on the specification’s special definition. Examiner submits that Kim remedies this deficiency by including Zr in a very small amount (falling within or encompassing claim 2’s range), where the Zr may slightly infiltrate into the core and form a lithium zirconium oxide reaction product within the diffusion layer and sit between crystal lattices of the core active material rather than substitute for one of the transition metals (and, thus, is not in Kim’s material’s general formula).
Applicant further argues that one skilled in the art would not combine Lee with Kuroda (now Kim) because Lee adjusts the initial efficiency by mixing the Ni-based lithium oxide with lithium cobalt oxide, so the artisan would just adjust this ratio versus doping the Ni oxide. Examiner respectfully disagrees because such does not negate Lee and Kim’s combined suggestions. Lee generally desires that the cathode be thermally stable to improve battery lifespan, while Kim teaches the “dopant” Zr incorporated into a similar Ni-based lithium oxide not only for inhibiting electrolytic side reactions and reducing exothermic reactions via heat dissipation but also improving capacity by (de)intercalating Li+ through the reaction-product lithium zirconium oxide within the diffusion layer. Until Applicant persuasively rebuts this assertion, this combination appears proper to constitute a case of obviousness (see MPEP 2145 (IV), where obviousness hinges not on individual teachings but on the prior art’s combined suggestions).
Applicant further argues that Lee’s general disclosure of ≤ 91% initial efficiency (IE) never achieves 85–89%, and Lee’s Ex. 3 of 89.7% is still outside the range. Examiner agrees that 89.7% is outside 85–89% but observes no criticality based on the data of record from transitioning from 89% to 89.7%. Lee does not attribute poorer performance to 89.7% (as such is an inventive ex.), and the instant comp. exs. only test outside the range beginning at 90%. Thus, because the data do not show a difference between 89% and 89.7%, the skilled artisan would have expected substantially similar performance based on MPEP 2144.05 (I) such that this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues, as an auxiliary to above, that Lee requires that IE of the cathode is ≥ IE of the anode and, thus, points to higher cathode IE outside the claimed range. Such does not refute the above lack of criticality of the cathode’s IE and allows the anode IE to be equal—slightly outside claim 12’s range, which also appears to lack criticality for the same reasons as explained above and in claim 12.
Applicant further argues that instant Comp. Ex. 1 and 2, testing at 91% cathode IE and 90% cathode IE, respectively, prove criticality, though Examiner echoes that such do not appear to compare to the closest prior art, Lee’s 89.7%, to determine a difference (see MPEP 716.02(e)). Thus, absent additional evidence, this argument is unpersuasive.
In response to Applicant’s auxiliary argument that the instant cathode IE is intentionally controlled to 85–89% to allow omitting a sacrificial positive active material, which improves mixing uniformity by allowing one active material as well as reduces gas generation, while matching the Si-based anode, which is allegedly “contrary” to Lee’s teaching, Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant’s recognizing another effect that would flow naturally from following the teachings of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious (MPEP 2145 (II)). Here, Lee and Kim each recognize to reduce gas generation via the cathode (¶ 0045 of Lee, ¶ 0077 of Kim), and Lee allows the cathode’s IE to match the anode’s (¶ 0013), where the anode includes Si (e.g., ¶ 0012 and exs.). Further, Lee never appears to use a sacrificial active material, and, thus, it appears that this effect of omitting such is moot.
Applicant further argues that the claimed battery achieves unexpectedly superior capacity retention and reduced gas generation. Examiner first reiterates the above responses, specifically about the lack of criticality of 90/91% versus Lee’s 89.7% as well as Lee and Kim’s apparent recognition of reduced gas generation. Additionally and importantly, Lee’s Ex. 3, with IE 89.7%, achieves the highest capacity retention after 100 cycles (96%, Table 3), which further supports that the skilled artisan would have expected substantially similar performance at 89% versus 89.7%.
Further, again, Comp. Ex. 1 uses a sacrificial positive active material, whereas Lee does not, so it is unclear that this example compares to the closest prior art. Additionally, although Comp. Ex. 2 (90% IE, undoped) achieves poorer performance, it is unclear if the performance is due to the lack of doping, the IE ratio outside the recited range, both, or some other factor(s). Likewise, although Comp. Ex. 3 (91% IE, doped with Zr at 4500 ppm, Ni content < 88 mol%) achieves poorer performance, it is unclear if such is due to the IE ratio outside the recited range, the Ni content outside its range, both, or some other factor(s). Moreover, Applicant’s general statement of the dopant content’s criticality appears unsupported by the specification because claim 1 allows any dopant content, and the data do not appear to test both above and below claim 2’s 4000–5000 ppm to determine if criticality extends across the range (MPEP 716.02(d)). Thus, because these arguments are unpersuasive.
Assuming, arguendo, that the data supported unexpectedly superior capacity retention and reduced gas generation, it appears that such are incommensurate with claim 1 at least as follows:
Claim 1 allows any doped lithium transition metal oxide positive active material as long as the Ni content is ≥ 88 mol% based on non-Li metals, whereas the results appear tailored to a more specific formula based on NCMA (see Ref. Ex., p. 16). It is unclear if the results would occur using any lithium transition metal oxide with Ni content ≥ 88 mol%.
Claim 1 allows any dopant, whereas the results appear tailored to Zr for reducing gas generation from electrolytic side reactions (e.g., p. 26). It is unclear if the results would occur with any dopant.
Claim 1 allows any dopant content, whereas the results appear tailored to dopant content within a specific range for balancing irreversible capacity with lifespan (p. 24). It is unclear if the results would occur using, e.g., 1 ppb dopant.
Claim 1 allows any concentration of the positive and negative active materials, whereas the skilled artisan would understand that capacity retention and output characteristics depend on active-material concentration as the amount of active material available to react with the electrolyte. It is unclear if the results would occur using any concentration of either active material.
Claim 1 allows a negative active material of only Si-based material, whereas the results stem from graphite:SiO mixed at 95:5 (p. 16). It is unclear if the results would occur using purely Si-based material.
Claim 1 allows any electrolyte at any concentration, whereas the instant results stem from 1.3 M LiPF6 dissolved in EC:EMC:DMC at 20:10:70 (p. 16). It is unclear if the results would occur using any electrolyte at any concentration, particularly because electrolyte type and concentration affect capacity retention by dictating the amount and reactivity of the electrolyte relative to each active material.
Thus, per MPEP 716.02(d), this argument is further unpersuasive.
Applicant finally argues that Dillon’s ≤ 5000 ppm includes no floor that would lead the skilled artisan to 300–5000 ppm (claim 14) or 3000–4000 ppm (claim 15). However, there appears to be no criticality of record to 300 ppm such that Dillon’s 5000 ppm is considered to overlap with sufficient specificity to read on claim 14’s range, which Applicant has not appeared to refute. Further, Dillon’s range plainly overlaps claim 15’s range, creating a case of obviousness under MPEP 2144.05 (I), as noted above. Examiner further observes no criticality to 3000–4000 ppm based on the data of record, and, thus, this rejection is maintained (see also MPEP 2145 (I), where Applicant’s arguments—here, the cited rhetoric from spec.’s p. 10 of the MWCNT content’s “criticality”—cannot substitute for evidence).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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 on 571-270-192. 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.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/29/2026
