RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application
Amendments to the specification and the claims, filed 9 March 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The objection to the drawings, made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025, page 2, has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response 9 March 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §112d rejection of claim 10 made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025, page 2-3, has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 9 March 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection of claims 1-4, 12, and 16 as being anticipated by Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025, page 4, has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 9 March 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 4 as unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) in view of Nishikawa (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2008/226502) made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025, pages 5-6, have has withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 9 March 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 5-6 as unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) in view of Kaito et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No.
2003/0224242) made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025, page 6, has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 9 March 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 7-8 and 17-18 as unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) in view of Hirakawa (Japanese Patent Application
Publication No. 2014/120273) made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025, page 7, has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 9 March 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 9-11 as unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) in view of Lin (Chinese Patent No. 108,098,044) and Li (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2010/149850) made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025, pages 8-10, has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 9 March 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 12-13, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) in view of Jung Han (Korean Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0141448) and Hirakawa (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2014/120273) made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025, pages 10-11, has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 9 March 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 14-15 as unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) in view of Balogh et. al. (US Patent Application
Publication No. 2019/0319259) made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025, pages 11-12, has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 9 March 2026.
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xie et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0313585).
Xie teaches a method for splicing multiple lithium strips into one spliced lithium strip and a method for making an anode electrode (negative electrode) with the spliced lithium strip (abstract). The method for making an anode electrode includes providing a current collector layer on a rolling surface ([0117], as the lithium and currently collector will be laminated by roll pressing they will be on a rolling surface), arranging N strips of lithium metal parallel to one another on the current collector layer so that adjacent edges of the N strips of lithium metal are in contact or overlap with each other, where N is an integer greater than one ([0071]-[0073] and [0117], as the width of the overlapping region for each lithium strip is a singular width the lithium strips must be parallel), and pressing the N strips of lithium metal against the rolling surface to create a laminated lithium metal anode layer on the current collector layer, which is done by a roller (by roll pressing) ([0117]).
Xie also teaches that the current collector comprises copper foil ([0114]).
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.
Claims 1-4, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) in view of Xie et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0313585).
Yanai teaches a method for manufacturing an electrode for use in a lithium-ion battery ([0012]). This involves providing a current collector (electrode plate) layer on a rolling surface, in which the current collector layer is a metal foil such as copper ([0110], fig. 2B ref. #301), arranging a plurality of strips of lithium metal parallel to one another on the current collector layer ([0110], fig. 2A ref. #302a and #302b), and using a roller to press the plurality of lithium metal strips against the rolling surface to create a laminated (roll-pressed) lithium metal electrode layer on the current collector ([0107], fig. 1 ref. #101, #300). The roller has N-1 cylindrical portions aligned with the N-1 interface portions (Fig. 2, portions of the roller than overlap with 301a and 301f when N=3).
Yanai also teaches a first one of the N strips of lithium metal is laminated by a first one of the N rollers, a second one of the N strips of lithium metal is laminated by a second one of the N rollers, and an Nth one of the N strips of lithium metal is laminated by an Nth one of the N rollers. The first strip is laminated by roller ref. # 101, and the second laminated by the roller ref. # 102.
Yanai also teaches using N rollers to do the pressing for N strips of lithium metal (fig. 1 ref. #101, #102 and fig. 2A, ref #302a, #302b).
Yanai is silent to the adjacent edges of the N strips of lithium metal being in contact or overlap with each other.
Xie teaches a method for making spliced lithium strip and a method for use in an electrode (electrode plate) (abstract). The spliced lithium strip is formed by overlapping the edges of a plurality of lithium strips, followed by lamination to compress the plurality of strips into a spliced lithium strip ([0071]). This spliced lithium strip is then placed onto a current collector and laminated by roll pressing ([0117]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the strips of lithium overlapping as taught by Xie in the method of Yanai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this positioning as it allows for an increased width of the electrode active material surface area, in turn resulting in increased capacity of the battery core (Xie, [0004]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) in view of Xie et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0313585) further in view of Nishikawa (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2008/226502). For prior art discussion see English translations for JP-2008226502-A.
Yanai and Xie are relied upon as described above
In the alternative that Yanai does not teach a first one of the N strips of lithium metal is laminated by a first one of the N rollers, a second one of the N strips of lithium metal is laminated by a second one of the N rollers, and an Nth one of the N strips of lithium metal is laminated by an Nth one of the N rollers.
Nishikawa teaches a method of producing an electrode plate with a plurality of individual strips of active materials by pressing the active materials into a current collector (electrode foil) with rollers (abstract). A first one of the N strips of lithium metal is laminated by a first one of the N rollers, a second one of the N strips of lithium metal is laminated by a second one of the N rollers, and an Nth one of the N strips of lithium metal is laminated by an Nth one of the N rollers ([0014], and fig. 1 ref. #21U-23U).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use one pressing roller per strip of lithium metal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use multiple rollers as the use of a single roller on a rolling surface for a plurality of strips of active material can result in unequal thickness of the pressed active material strips due to differences in the amount of compression throughout the roller and variations in the thickness of the active material coatings ([0008]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) in view of Xie et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0313585) further in view of Kaito et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0224242).
Yanai and Xie are relied upon as described above
Yanai does not teach a first coating on the current collector layer and a second coating on the current collector layer parallel to and spaced from the first coating, wherein the N strips of lithium metal are laminated to the current collector layer between the first coating and the second coating, wherein the first and second coating comprise a polymer coating.
Kaito teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery with positive and negative electrode plates comprising of a current collector carrying an active material (abstract). Kaito also teaches a first and second coating on the current collector layer parallel to and spaced from one another, between which the active material is coated on the current collector ([0122], and fig. 11 ref. #1102). The first and second coatings are a polymer material, such as polypropylene ([0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a first and second polymer coating between which the electrode active material is carried. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as the use of an insulating material on the electrode plate edges can suppress short-circuits in the assembled battery ([0047]).
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) in view of Xie et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0313585) further in view of Hirakawa (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2014/120273). For prior art discussion see English translations for JP-2014120273-A
Yanai and Xie are relied upon as described above
Yanai does not disclose the roller including a first cylindrical portion and a second cylindrical portion arranged at opposite axial ends of the roller, with the first cylindrical portion and the second cylindrical portion have a diameter that is greater than a diameter of a cylindrical body of the roller. Yanai also does not disclose the first cylindrical portion and the second cylindrical portion being made of a material that is softer than a material used for the cylindrical body of the roller.
Hirakawa teaches a roll-press manufacturing apparatus for an electrode (abstract). Hirakawa also teaches first and second cylindrical portions arranged at opposite axial ends of the roller, with the first cylindrical portion and the second cylindrical portion have a diameter that is greater than a diameter of a cylindrical body of the roller ([0033], and fig. 6 ref. #57). The first and second cylindrical portions are formed from rubber ([0032]), which is softer than the metal material used for the cylindrical body of the roller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use first and second cylindrical portions arranged at opposite axial ends of the roller with a greater diameter than the cylindrical body of the roller and made of softer material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this as the first and second cylindrical portions can press the ends of the electrode collector that are not coated in active material, which reduces the difference in elongation which would result from pressure differences between the portions of the electrode collector that are coated in the active material and the portions that are not coated in active material. The softer material used to make the axial cylindrical portions allows for a lower overall load acting on the non-coated electrode collector portions ([0009]-[0010]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) in view of Xie et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0313585) further in view of Lin (Chinese Patent No. 108,098,044) and Li (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2010/149850). For prior art discussion see English translations for CN-108098044-A
Yanai and Xie are relied upon as described above
Yanai does not teach the roller including a first cylindrical knife and a second cylindrical knife arranged at opposite axial ends of the roller, the diameter of the cylindrical knives ranging from 80% to 120% of the cylindrical body of the roller, or the diameter of the cylindrical knives ranging from 80% to 120% of a thickness of the laminated lithium metal anode layer. Yanai also does not teach the cylindrical knives cutting opposite sides of the laminated lithium metal anode layer without cutting the current collector layer.
Lin teaches a cutting device for production of lithium battery electrode sheets (abstract) . The cutting device includes a roller that presses the electrode sheet with a first cylindrical knife and a second cylindrical knife arranged at opposite axial ends of the roller (fig. 2 ref. # 206).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a first and a second cylindrical knife arranged at opposite axial ends of the roller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as in the production of lithium batteries, the electrode width required in the production process vary depending on the different requirements of customers and different models, and the edge cutting cylindrical knives allow for modification to a stock width of electrode sheet material (page 3 paragraph 3).
Yanai in view of Lin do not explicitly teach the first cylindrical knife and the second cylindrical knife cut opposite sides of the laminated lithium metal anode layer without cutting the current collector layer.
Li teaches a method for producing thin batteries made of laminated layers of electrode plates (abstract). Li also teaches cutting through only the first separator layer (fig. 2 ref. #5) without cutting through any of the layers underneath, resulting in a “kiss cut” (page 8 paragraph 2). This allows for the top layer to be cut to the desired shape, while the layers underneath remain unaltered.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first cylindrical knife and the second cylindrical knife to cut opposite sides of the laminated lithium metal anode layer without cutting the current collector layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as this avoids a need to cut then later align separate pieces with each other, as the necessary layers can be applied directly and cut into desired shapes later on, which in turn simplifies the production process and reduces the time needed for production (page 2 paragraph 3).
The diameter of the circular knives of Lin is approximately the same as the diameter of the circular body of the roller (fig. 2 ref. #206 and #210). In order to be able to cut through only the laminated lithium metal anode layer without cutting through the current collector layer, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to optimize the length of the blades to cut through only the desired layer, as well as optimizing the diameter of the blades to cut through varied widths of current collectors laminated with the lithium strips. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, as is shown in Lin, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 II A). Therefore, altering the diameter of the first and second cylindrical knives to be in a range from 80% to 120% of a diameter of a cylindrical body of the roller, and altering the diameter of the first and second cylindrical knives being greater than the diameter of the cylindrical body of the roller by 80% to 120% of a thickness of the laminated lithium metal anode layer, are obvious optimizations of the prior art without unexpected results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diameter of the first and second cylindrical knives to 80% to 120% of the diameter of the cylindrical body of the roller, or to be greater than the diameter of the cylindrical body of the roller by 80% to 120% of a thickness of the laminated lithium metal anode layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this change as the thickness of the electrode plates vary, ranging between 100 µm to 140 µm after lamination of the active material to the electrode plate (Yanai, [0110]), and varied diameter of the first and second cylindrical knives would allow for cutting through the different thicknesses of the laminated electrode plate.
Claims 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0194772) in view of Xie et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0313585) further in view of Jung Han (Korean Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0141448) and Hirakawa (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2014/120273). For prior art discussion see English translations for KR-20160141448-A and JP-2014120273-A.
Yanai and Xie are relied upon as described above
In the alternative if Yanai does not disclose the roller including (N-1) cylindrical portions aligned with (N-1) interface portions of the N strips of lithium metal.
Jung Han teaches a rolling apparatus for making an electrode by applying strips of an electrode composite to an electrode collector and press-rolling them using a roller (abstract). Jung Han also teaches the roller including (N-1) cylindrical portions aligned with (N-1) interface portions of the N strips of active material ([0018] and [0098], and fig. 3 ref. #126b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use (N-1) cylindrical portions aligned with (N-1) interface portions of the N strips of lithium metal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated do this as the occurrence of defects such as bulging, wrinkles, or folding of the uncoated portion due to the difference in elongation between the coated and uncoated portions of the electrode plate can be prevented ([104]).
Yanai and Jung Han do explicitly not teach the (N-1) cylindrical portions being made of a material that is softer than a material used for a cylindrical body of the roller.
Hirakawa teaches a roll-press manufacturing apparatus for an electrode using a roller (abstract). Hirakawa also teaches cylindrical portions on the roller that are formed from rubber ([0032), which is softer than the metal material used for the cylindrical body of the roller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the (N-1) cylindrical portions of a material that is softer than a material used for a cylindrical body of the roller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this as the softer material used to make the axial cylindrical portions allows for a lower overall load acting on the non-coated electrode collector portions ([0009]-[0010]).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) in view of Xie et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0313585) further in view of Balogh et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0319259).
Yanai and Xie are relied upon as described above
Yanai does not teach applying a lithium bond promoting coating on the current collector layer in a predetermined area where bonding of the N strips of lithium metal is desired, nor does Yanai teach the bond promoting coating comprising a carbon coating.
Balogh teaches methods for preparing lithium metal anodes including a metal current collector with lithium metal coated upon it (abstract). Balogh also teaches coating the electrode collector with an intermediate layer for the purpose of increasing bonding of the lithium metal and the metal current collector ([0056], and fig. 1 ref. # 54). The coating can be made of carbon ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, apply a lithium bond promoting coating on the current collector layer in an area where bonding of the N strips of lithium metal is desired. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated do this because if the bond between the lithium metal and current collector is not robust, resistance and impedance of the electrode will increase over time ([0045]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 9 March 2026 regarding the prior art rejections made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025 have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 9 March 2026 regarding the objection to the drawings made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025, page 2, have been considered but are moot since the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 9 March 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112b rejections made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025, pages 2-3, have been considered but are moot since the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 9 March 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections of claims 1-4, 12, and 16 as being anticipated by Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025, page 4, have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 9 March 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 4 as unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) in view of Nishikawa (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2008/226502) made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025, pages 5-6, have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 9 March 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 5-6 as unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) in view of Kaito et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0224242) made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025, page 6, have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 9 March 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 7-8 and 17-18 as unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) in view of Hirakawa (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2014/120273) made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025, page 7, have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 9 March 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 9-11 as unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) in view of Lin (Chinese Patent No. 108,098,044) and Li (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2010/149850) made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025, pages 8-10, have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 9 March 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 12-13, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) in view of Jung Han (Korean Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0141448) and Hirakawa (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2014/120273) made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025, pages 10-11, have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 9 March 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 14-15 as unpatentable over Yanai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194772) in view of Balogh et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0319259) made of record in the office action mailed on 23 December 2025, pages 11-12, have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571) 272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
/MAL/
Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788
04/02/2026