DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 5/13/2026, the following has occurred: Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-47 are pending. Claims 1-14 are examined in this office action. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the "Amendment" and "Remarks" filed on 5/13/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 115254153 A (CN’153) in view of NPL, “An All‐Solid‐State Rechargeable Chloride Ion Battery “, by Chao Chen.
As to Claim 1:
CN’153 discloses a metal ion conductive composition, comprising an intimate mixture of particles of formula Fe(1−a)MaO(1−z)YzX. Specifically, CN’153 teaches a manganese sulfide-doped oxyferric chloride solid catalyst composition (FeOCl-MnS) prepared by mixing manganese sulfide powder and FeCl₃·6H₂O in deionized water, followed by calcination and washing with anhydrous acetone to remove unreacted ferric chloride. (CN’153, Pgs. 1–3). In the resulting composite material, M is a manganese (Mn) cation, Y is a sulfide (S) anion, and X is a chloride (Cl) halide. (CN’153, Pgs. 1–3). Furthermore, because CN’153 utilizes small mass doping ratios of 2%, 5%, and 10% of the sulfide powder relative to the host catalyst precursor, the values for variables a and z are inherently numbers from 0 to 0.75. (CN’153, Pg. 3). CN’153 also explicitly discloses zinc sulfide-doped iron oxychloride (ZnS-FeOCl) composite variations, wherein the metal ion is a zinc (Zn) ion. (CN’153, Pgs. 3–4).
However, CN’153 does not explicitly disclose an intimate mixture containing a distinct metal ion salt alongside the doped particles, nor does it disclose a particle size of the Fe(1−a)MaO(1−z)YzX particles that is 500 nm or less, instead teaching a sieved macro-particle diameter of 0.0385 mm to 0.05 mm (38.5 μm to 50 μm). (CN’153, Pg. 3).
Chen discloses an all-solid-state rechargeable chloride ion battery configuration that combines an iron oxychloride (FeOCl) cathode active material intimately mixed with a metal ion salt, such as lithium chloride (LiCl) or a quaternary ammonium chloride salt. (Chen, Pgs. 1, 3, 15–16, 19–20, and 23–24). Crucially, Chen teaches that down-scaling the FeOCl host particles to the nanoscale (such as fine crystalline phases with a grain size of less than 10 nm) is required to reduce the large solid/solid interfacial resistance and establish effective ion-conduction pathways. (Chen, Pgs. 14–17).
CN’153 and Chen are analogous arts because they belong to the same field of endeavor, specifically dealing with the synthesis, structural regulation, and electrochemical application of layered iron oxychloride (FeOCl) matrices. (CN’153, Pgs. 1–3; Chen, Pgs. 1–3 and 15–17). Furthermore, Chen explicitly references the historical use of FeOCl host materials as intercalated matrices for battery active materials, which directly addresses the structural capabilities of the material synthesized in CN’153. (CN’153, Pg. 2; Chen, Pgs. 2–3 and 15–16).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of CN’153 and Chen by mixing the manganese or zinc sulfide-doped FeOCl compound of CN’153 with a metal ion salt in an all-solid-state matrix, and down-milling the sieved macro-particles of CN’153 to a particle size of 500 nm or less. One would be motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable result of decreasing internal solid-state interface resistance and optimizing metal ion transport pathways across the boundaries of the composite material as taught by Chen. (CN’153, Pgs. 2–4; Chen, Pgs. 10–17 and 23–24).
As to Claim 2:
See the rejection of Claim 1 as to the core metal ion conductive composition;
CN’153 discloses that an anion component of the at least one metal ion salt is selected from the group consisting of F⁻, Cl⁻, Br⁻, I⁻, ClO₄⁻, BF₆⁻ and PF₆⁻. Specifically, CN’153 teaches using ferric chloride (FeCl₃·6H₂O) as a starting material to react and form the oxyferric chloride matrix, and washes the unreacted ferric chloride solid away with anhydrous acetone, which inherently discloses a chloride (Cl⁻) anion component within the composition. (CN’153, Pgs. 2–3 and 7).
As to Claim 3: See the rejection of Claim 1 as to the core metal ion conductive composition; and CN'153 discloses a metal ion conductive composition comprising a modified iron oxychloride catalyst structure.
However, CN'153 does not disclose further comprising a ceramic electrolyte or a polymer electrolyte.
Chen discloses a metal ion conductive composition further comprising a ceramic electrolyte or a polymer electrolyte. Specifically, Chen teaches a solid-state electrolyte composite constructed by embedding iron oxychloride particles directly into a solid polymer electrolyte comprising a poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) polymer matrix.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of CN'153 and Chen by combining the manganese or zinc sulfide-doped iron oxychloride particles of CN'153 with the solid poly(ethylene oxide) polymer electrolyte matrix described by Chen. One would be motivated to introduce this polymer electrolyte matrix to implement the composition in a flexible, structurally stable, all-solid-state secondary battery configuration while ensuring satisfactory ionic conduction via the segmental motion of the polymer chains as taught by Chen.
As to Claim 3:
See the rejection of Claim 1 as to the core metal ion conductive composition;
and CN’153 discloses a metal ion conductive composition comprising a modified iron oxychloride catalyst structure. (CN’153, Pgs. 1–3).
However, CN’153 does not disclose further comprising a ceramic electrolyte or a polymer electrolyte.
Chen discloses a metal ion conductive composition further comprising a ceramic electrolyte or a polymer electrolyte. Specifically, Chen teaches a solid-state electrolyte composite constructed by embedding iron oxychloride particles directly into a solid polymer electrolyte comprising a poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) polymer matrix. (Chen, Pgs. 1, 3, 6, 12–16, and 23–24).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of CN’153 and Chen by combining the manganese or zinc sulfide-doped iron oxychloride particles of CN’153 with the solid poly(ethylene oxide) polymer electrolyte matrix described by Chen. One would be motivated to introduce this polymer electrolyte matrix to implement the composition in a flexible, structurally stable, all-solid-state secondary battery configuration while ensuring satisfactory ionic conduction via the segmental motion of the polymer chains as taught by Chen. (CN’153, Pgs. 1–4; Chen, Pgs. 1, 3, 6–8, 10–16, and 23–24).
As to Claim 4:
See the rejection of Claim 1 as to the core metal ion conductive composition;
and CN’153 discloses a composition containing a plurality of particles of formula Fe(1−a)MaO(1−z)YzX prepared by mixing manganese sulfide powder and FeCl₃·6H₂O solid in deionized water, where the mass ratio of the manganese sulfide powder to FeCl₃·6H₂O is 0.02–0.1:1. (CN’153, Pgs. 2–3 and 7).
However, CN’153 does not explicitly disclose a mole ratio of a distinct metal ion salt to the Fe(1−a)MaO(1−z)YzX that is from 1/10 to 1/1.
Chen discloses a metal ion conductive composition where a mole ratio of the metal ion salt to the Fe(1−a)MaO(1−z)YzX is from 1/10 to 1/1. Specifically, Chen teaches a solid-state electrolyte composite or battery active layer combining iron oxychloride (FeOCl) particles with variable amounts of a chloride metal salt (such as lithium chloride or a quaternary ammonium chloride salt), and evaluates the impedance, charge transport, and phase transformation of these mixtures based on balancing the comparative substance amounts of the salt and the host structure. (Chen, Pgs. 1, 3, 10–12, 15–17, and 23–24).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of CN’153 and Chen by introducing a metal ion salt into the sulfide-doped iron oxychloride composition of CN’153 at a mole ratio of the metal ion salt to the host compound of from 1/10 to 1/1. One would be motivated to optimize the substance concentration within this specific ratio range as taught by Chen because adjusting the relative mole fractions of the conductive ion salt to the host particles provides a sufficient quantity of charge carriers to establish effective ion-conduction pathways without causing excess uncoordinated salt phase to segregate and block the transport channels. (CN’153, Pgs. 2–4 and 7; Chen, Pgs. 10–12 and 23–24).
As to Claim 7:
See the rejection of Claim 3 as to the metal ion conductive composition comprising a polymer electrolyte;
and CN’153 discloses a composition comprising an iron oxychloride material modified by transition metal sulfides. (CN’153, Pgs. 1–3).
However, CN’153 does not disclose a polymer electrolyte which is at least one selected from the group consisting of a poly(ethylene oxide), a polycaprolactone, a polylactic acid, a polysiloxane, a polyacrylonitrile, a polyvinylidene fluoride and a poly(methyl methacrylate), a polypyrrole, a polyaniline, a polythiophene, a poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) and a poly(ethylene dioxythiophene)(styrenesulfonate) (PEDOT).
Chen discloses a polymer electrolyte which is at least one selected from the group consisting of a poly(ethylene oxide), a polycaprolactone, a polylactic acid, a polysiloxane, a polyacrylonitrile, a polyvinylidene fluoride and a poly(methyl methacrylate), a polypyrrole, a polyaniline, a polythiophene, a poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) and a poly(ethylene dioxythiophene)(styrenesulfonate) (PEDOT). Specifically, Chen teaches a solid polymer electrolyte that allows ion transfer and consists of poly(ethylene oxide) as the polymer matrix. (Chen, Pgs. 1, 3, 6–8, and 23).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of CN’153 and Chen by selecting poly(ethylene oxide) as the polymer electrolyte matrix material to incorporate alongside the modified iron oxychloride particles. One would be motivated to select poly(ethylene oxide) as taught by Chen because it represents a viable, lightweight macromolecular solid matrix capable of dissolving conductive salts and safely executing solid-state ion transport via the segmental motion of the polymer chains. (CN’153, Pgs. 1–4; Chen, Pgs. 1, 3, 6–8, 10–12, and 23–24).
As to Claim 8:
See the rejection of Claim 7 as to the metal ion conductive composition comprising a poly(ethylene oxide) polymer electrolyte matrix;
and CN’153 discloses a composition comprising a modified iron oxychloride compound of formula Fe(1−a)MaO(1−z)YzX. (CN’153, Pgs. 1–3).
However, CN’153 does not disclose that a content of the intimate mixture of a metal ion salt and a plurality of particles of Fe(1−a)MaO(1−z)YzX is 1% by volume or more of the metal ion conductive composition.
Chen discloses that a content of the intimate mixture of a metal ion salt and a plurality of particles of Fe(1−a)MaO(1−z)YzX is 1% by volume or more of the metal ion conductive composition. Specifically, Chen teaches fabricating composite battery layers where the active iron oxychloride particle and chloride salt domain represents a substantial proportion (60% by weight) of the combined material recipe, which inherently establishes a structural concentration well exceeding the 1% by volume baseline threshold. (Chen, Pgs. 1, 3, 6, and 23–24).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of CN’153 and Chen by adjusting the material content such that the intimate mixture of the metal ion salt and the sulfide-doped iron oxychloride particles of CN’153 constitutes 1% by volume or more of the overall polymer electrolyte composition. One would be motivated to introduce the active particulate phase in a concentration of 1% by volume or more as taught by Chen because maximizing the loading fraction of result-effective active materials (such as up to 60 wt%) inside the solid polymer matrix is necessary to establish a continuous percolating network of transport pathways that provides sufficient discharge capacity for a practical solid-state battery application. (CN’153, Pgs. 1–4; Chen, Pgs. 10–14 and 23–24).
As to Claim 9:
See the rejection of Claim 1 as to the core metal ion conductive composition;
CN’153 discloses further comprising up to 15 wt% of a solvent selected from the group consisting of acetone, methanol, ethanol, propanol, isopropanol, methyl ethyl ketone and water. Specifically, CN’153 teaches a liquid phase preparation method where precursor components are uniformly dispersed in deionized water, and the resulting calcined compound is post-treated by washing with anhydrous acetone followed by vacuum drying at 80 °C, which inherently results in the composition retaining trace residual amounts of water or acetone processing solvents. (CN’153, Pgs. 2–7).
As to Claim 10:
See the rejection of Claim 1 as to the core metal ion conductive composition;
and CN’153 discloses that M is selected from the group consisting of H, Mg, Ca, Al, Ga In, Se, Y, La, Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo and W. Specifically, CN’153 teaches alternative modified embodiments of the iron oxychloride matrix where the structural dopant component is introduced via a metal sulfide powder selected from the group consisting of manganese sulfide (MnS), zinc sulfide (ZnS), copper sulfide (CuS), and molybdenum disulfide (MoS₂), which explicitly selects Mo from the listed Markush group. (CN’153, Pgs. 2–4).
As to Claim 11:
See the rejection of Claim 1 as to the core metal ion conductive composition;
and CN’153 discloses a composition comprising a modified iron oxychloride compound of formula Fe(1−a)MaO(1−z)YzX where M is a cation dopant and a is a number from 0 to 0.75. (CN’153, Pgs. 1–3).
However, CN’153 does not explicitly disclose a composition wherein a is 0, instead teaching mandatory structural doping configurations where a is explicitly greater than 0, such as 2%, 5%, and 10% mass doping fractions of transition metal sulfides. (CN’153, Pg. 3).
Chen discloses a metal ion conductive composition wherein a is 0. Specifically, Chen teaches an all-solid-state secondary battery system utilizing a pristine, unmodified iron oxychloride (FeOCl) host material, which directly corresponds to a compound of the formula Fe(1−a)MaO(1−z)YzX where a is 0. (Chen, Pgs. 1, 3, 15–17, and 23).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of CN’153 and Chen by utilizing a pristine, un-doped iron oxychloride material where a is 0 within the solid-state conductive mixture. One would be motivated to omit the transition metal cation dopant and set a to 0 as taught by Chen because a pristine, un-doped FeOCl compound serves as a highly effective baseline active framework capable of executing stable, reversible electrochemical redox reactions (FeOCl/FeO) and safely conducting target ions within an all-solid-state composite configuration without requiring complex multi-element doping steps. (Chen, Pgs. 1, 12–17, 19–20, and 23).
As to Claim 12:
See the rejection of Claim 1 as to the core metal ion conductive composition;
and CN’153 discloses a composition comprising a modified iron oxychloride compound of formula Fe(1−a)MaO(1−z)YzX where Y is an anion dopant and z is a number from 0 to 0.75. (CN’153, Pgs. 1–3).
However, CN’153 does not explicitly disclose a composition wherein z is 0, instead teaching mandatory structural doping configurations where z is explicitly greater than 0, such as introducing a sulfide (S) anion via transition metal sulfide powders to modify the oxyferric chloride matrix. (CN’153, Pgs. 2–4).
Chen discloses a metal ion conductive composition wherein z is 0. Specifically, Chen teaches an all-solid-state secondary battery system utilizing a pristine, unmodified iron oxychloride (FeOCl) host material, which directly corresponds to a compound of the formula Fe(1−a)MaO(1−z)YzX where z is 0. (Chen, Pgs. 1, 3, 15–17, and 23).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of CN’153 and Chen by utilizing a pristine, un-doped iron oxychloride material where z is 0 within the solid-state conductive mixture. One would be motivated to omit the structural anion dopant and set z to 0 as taught by Chen because an unmodified, pristine FeOCl compound serves as an electrochemically stable baseline active framework capable of executing reversible solid-state redox reactions (FeOCl/FeO) and providing clean charge conduction pathways without requiring complex multi-component anion doping steps. (Chen, Pgs. 1, 12–17, 19–20, and 23).
As to Claim 13:
See the rejection of Claim 1 as to the core metal ion conductive composition;
and CN’153 discloses a composition comprising a modified iron oxychloride compound of formula Fe(1−a)MaO(1−z)YzX wherein a is a number from 0 to 0.75 and z is a number from 0 to 0.75. (CN’153, Pgs. 1–3).
However, CN’153 does not explicitly disclose a composition wherein a is 0 and z is 0, instead teaching mandatory structural doping configurations where both the metal cation and sulfide anion dopants are concurrently present in the host matrix. (CN’153, Pgs. 2–4).
Chen discloses a metal ion conductive composition wherein a is 0 and z is 0. Specifically, Chen teaches an all-solid-state secondary battery system utilizing a pristine, unmodified iron oxychloride (FeOCl) host material, which directly corresponds to a compound of the formula Fe(1−a)MaO(1−z)YzX wherein both variables a and z are simultaneously 0. (Chen, Pgs. 1, 3, 15–17, and 23).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of CN’153 and Chen by utilizing a pristine, un-doped iron oxychloride material where a is 0 and z is 0 within the solid-state conductive mixture. One would be motivated to omit both the metal cation and structural anion dopants as taught by Chen because a pristine, unmodified FeOCl compound functions as an electrochemically stable baseline active framework capable of undergoing highly reversible solid-state redox reactions (FeOCl/FeO) and providing clean charge conduction channels without the added chemical and industrial complexity of implementing multi-element simultaneous doping steps. (Chen, Pgs. 1, 12–17, 19–20, and 23).
As to Claim 14:
See the rejection of Claim 1 as to the core metal ion conductive composition;
and CN’153 discloses a composition comprising a modified iron oxychloride compound of formula Fe(1−a)MaO(1−z)YzX wherein X is a chloride (Cl) halide, a is a number from 0 to 0.75, and z is a number from 0 to 0.75. (CN’153, Pgs. 1–3). However, CN’153 does not explicitly disclose a composition wherein a is 0 and z is 0, instead teaching mandatory structural doping configurations where both the transition metal cation and sulfide anion dopants are concurrently present in the host matrix. (CN’153, Pgs. 2–4).
Chen discloses a metal ion conductive composition wherein a is 0, z is 0 and X is Cl. Specifically, Chen teaches an all-solid-state secondary battery system utilizing a pristine, unmodified iron oxychloride (FeOCl) host material, which directly corresponds to a compound of the formula Fe(1−a)MaO(1−z)YzX wherein variables a and z are simultaneously 0 and X is Cl. (Chen, Pgs. 1, 3, 15–17, and 23).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of CN’153 and Chen by utilizing a pristine, un-doped iron oxychloride material where a is 0, z is 0, and X is Cl within the solid-state conductive mixture. One would be motivated to omit both the metal cation and structural anion dopants as taught by Chen because an unmodified, pristine FeOCl compound functions as an electrochemically stable baseline active framework capable of undergoing highly reversible solid-state redox reactions (FeOCl/FeO) and providing clean charge conduction channels without the added chemical and industrial complexity of implementing multi-element simultaneous doping steps. (Chen, Pgs. 1, 12–17, 19–20, and 23).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’153 in view of Chen and further in view of EP’234.
As to Claim 5:
See the rejection of Claim 3 as to the metal ion conductive composition further comprising a ceramic electrolyte or a polymer electrolyte; and CN’153 discloses a metal ion conductive composition comprising a modified iron oxychloride catalyst structure. (CN’153, Pgs. 1–3).
However, CN’153 and Chen do not explicitly disclose that the ceramic electrolyte is at least one ceramic electrolyte selected from the group consisting of a τ-LiPO₄ oxy salt, a NASCION phosphate, a perovskite oxide, and a garnet oxide.
EP’234 discloses a ceramic electrolyte which is at least one ceramic electrolyte selected from the group consisting of a τ-LiPO₄ oxy salt, a NASCION phosphate, a perovskite oxide, and a garnet oxide. Specifically, EP’234 teaches composite battery materials combining active structures with a metal oxide solid electrolyte having a perovskite structure (e.g., LaNiO₃, LaCoO₃, LaMnO₃, and CaFeO₃) or a garnet oxide structure. (EP’234, Pgs. 3–5 and 9–11). EP’234 states that utilizing these perovskite/garnet stabilizers maintains the stability of the complex, increases charge-discharge efficiency, and optimizes lifespan characteristics. (EP’234, Pgs. 4–5 and 9–10).
CN’153, Chen, and EP’234 are analogous arts because they all belong to the field of electrochemical energy storage, specifically concerning the development of active cathode materials and solid-state electrolyte systems for high-performance rechargeable batteries. All three references focus on the structural design and chemical stabilization of solid-state components to facilitate ion transport and improve battery life. (CN’153, Pgs. 1–3; Chen, Pgs. 1–3 and 12–17; EP’234, Pgs. 2–5 and 9–10).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of CN’153, Chen, and EP’234 by incorporating a ceramic electrolyte selected from a perovskite oxide or a garnet oxide as taught by EP’234 into the solid-state conductive mixture comprising the iron oxychloride particles of CN’153 and the polymer matrix of Chen. One would be motivated to include these ceramic stabilizers because, as taught by EP’234, they provide crucial structural stabilization at high voltages, suppress capacity decay, and reduce overall internal resistance in composite battery systems. (CN’153, Pgs. 1–3; Chen, Pgs. 1, 3, 12–17, and 23–24; EP’234, Pgs. 4–5 and 9–10).
As to Claim 6:
See the rejection of Claim 5 as to the metal ion conductive composition comprising a ceramic electrolyte;
and CN’153 discloses a composition comprising a modified iron oxychloride compound of formula Fe(1−a)MaO(1−z)YzX. (CN’153, Pgs. 1–3).
However, CN’153 does not detail absolute multi-component volumetric percentage limits for the intimate mixture of a metal ion salt and the modified iron oxychloride particles within the composition.
Chen discloses that a content of the intimate mixture of a metal ion salt and a plurality of particles of Fe(1−a)MaO(1−z)YzX is 30% by volume or more of the metal ion conductive composition. Specifically, Chen teaches fabricating composite battery layers where the active iron oxychloride particle and chloride salt domain represents 60% by weight of the combined material recipe, which inherently translates to a local volumetric concentration well exceeding the 30% by volume threshold. (Chen, Pgs. 23–24). Furthermore, EP’234 teaches that the concentration ratios of the solid electrolyte stabilizer phase and the active composite material must be optimized to ensure sufficient structural stability during high-voltage operation. (EP’234, Pgs. 4–5 and 9–10).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of CN’153, Chen, and EP’234 by adjusting the component loading such that the intimate mixture of the metal ion salt and the sulfide-doped iron oxychloride particles constitutes 30% by volume or more of the composition. One would be motivated to introduce this active particulate phase at a concentration of 30% by volume or more as taught by Chen to establish a continuous percolating network of transport pathways, while employing the ceramic electrolytes of EP’234 to maintain structural stability at high-voltage, thereby providing sufficient discharge capacity for a practical, efficient solid-state battery application. (CN’153, Pgs. 1–3; Chen, Pgs. 10–14 and 23–24; EP’234, Pgs. 4–5 and 9–10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights