DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted January 4, 2024, January 15, 2025, and April 20, 2026, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 2-3 and 9-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims include grammar that makes them difficult to read. For example, claim 2 recites “the projection of the two ends of the first layer is connected to a projection of an end, close to the bending region, of the negative tab” but the claim would be easier to read if it were written, “the projection of the two ends of the first layer is connected to a projection of an end of the negative tab, said end being close to the bending region”. Claim 3 recites “a recessed portion is disposed on a side, away from the negative electrode single-sided region uncoated with the active layer, of the first tape layer” but the claim would be easier to read if it were written, “a recessed portion is disposed on a side of the first tape layer, said side being away from the negative electrode single-sided region uncoated with the active layer.” Claims 9-14 have analogous issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 2-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
7. Claim 2 recites “an end close to the bending region” but there are two issues with this limitation. First, the term “close to” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Second, “the bending region” lacks antecedent basis because there are two bending regions recited in Claim 1 and it is unclear which bending region (first bending region or second bending region) is referred to in Claim 2. Claim 9 also recites “the bending region” and is rejected for the same reason as Claim 2.
Claims 3-19 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
8. Claims 15 and 16 recite “a difference between the first thickness value and the second thickness value ranges from 80% to 120%” and “a difference between the third thickness value and the fourth thickness value ranges from 80% to 120%”, respectively. These limitations are indefinite because they appear to be nonsensical in terms of the claimed ranges. The instant disclosure recites this limitation but exemplifies the relationship between the values of thickness as, e.g.: “the first thickness value may be equal to the second thickness value, or the first thickness value may be less than the second thickness value, or the first thickness value may be greater than the second thickness value…” However, a difference between values of, e.g., 100% (a value in the claimed range) is NOT the same as being equal. It is unclear what is embodied by the numerical values of the claimed ranges. In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation of Claim 15 is interpreted in accord with the instant disclosure, e.g. “the first thickness value may be equal to the second thickness value, or the first thickness value may be less than the second thickness value, or the first thickness value may be greater than the second thickness value” (and an analogous interpretation for Claim 16).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
9. Claims 1-2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi US PG Publication 2019/0140241.
Regarding Claims 1 and 20, Takahashi discloses a pouch cell 21 comprising a housing (outer package member) 22 (a pouch as seen in Fig. 1 made of laminate, paras 0032-0034) comprising a jelly roll 10 packaged within the housing (meeting Claim 20) comprising a negative electrode plate (negative electrode) 12, wherein along a winding direction, an inner surface of a second bending region of the negative electrode plate 12 is covered by a first tape layer (insulator, pressure sensitive adhesive tape, para 0093/Ex 10) 20A/20B (two parts of first tape layer), and in a thickness direction of the jelly roll, a projection of two ends of the first tape layer is partially overlapped with a projection of a winding head of the negative electrode plate 12 since both ends of 20C project such that they overlap with the winding head projection of 12 (meeting Claim 20) (see annotated Fig. 12 below) (see entire disclosure and especially all figs and e.g. paras 0072-0082).
PNG
media_image1.png
677
1017
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Takahashi further discloses a negative tab 17, wherein the negative plate 12 comprises a negative electrode current collector 12a and a negative active material layer 12b and the negative electrode active layer is coated on two opposite sides of the negative electrode current collector 12a (see Figs), and a winding head of the negative electrode current collector 12a (see annotated Fig 12 above) is exposed along the winding direction to form a negative electrode double-sided region uncoated with active layer and a negative electrode single-sided region uncoated with the active layer (see annotated Fig. 12 above), and the negative tab 17 is disposed within the negative electrode double-sided region uncoated with active layer (Fig 12), and the first tape layer is located within the negative electrode single-side region uncoated with active layer (portion 20B of 20A/20B) and in the thickness direction of the jelly roll 100, the projection of the two ends of the first tape layer 20A/20B is indirectly connected to a projection of an end of the negative tab 17 which is close to the first and second bending region (see annotated Fig 12).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
10. Claims 3-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi US PG Publication 2019/0140241, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Kobayashi JP2019-067653.
Regarding Claim 3, Takahashi discloses the claimed jelly roll as described in the rejection of Claim 2, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Takahashi fails to specifically disclose wherein a recessed portion of the first tape layer is disposed on a side of the first tape layer away from the negative electrode single-sided region uncoated with the active layer. However, in the same field of endeavor of insulating wound electrode body layers, Kobayashi teaches the use of an insulation sheet having a recess 18 opposite to tape 86 wherein the recess 18 is provided to accommodate the thickness of the tape 86 to avoid an increase in thickness due to the use of such tape (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0024-0027 and Fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the first tape layer of Takahashi such that there is a recessed portion disposed on a side of said first tape layer away from the negative electrode single-sided region uncoated with the active layer because Kobayashi teaches the use of an insulation sheet having a recess opposite to tape can help avoid an increase in thickness due to the use of such tape.
While Kobayashi refers to use of insulation and tape, and Takahashi refers to use of insulation which can be tape, the skilled artisan would understand that the desired benefit, avoidance of an increase in thickness by using recesses in the tape/insulation elements, would be applicable to Takahashi’s invention. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”Id. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 4, Takahashi modified by Kobayashi teaches a recess in the first tape layer, as described in the rejection of Claim 3. Although Takahashi modified by Kobayashi does not specifically disclose a shape of recess such that a thickness of a middle region of the recessed portion is less than a thickness of another region of the recessed portion, the middle region of the recessed portion is a middle region of the recessed portion in a length direction of the negative electrode plate, and a thickness of the recessed portion gradually increase from the middle region towards both sides of the recessed portion, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to shape the recess of Takahashi modified by Kobayashi in the best shape to accommodate the paired structures such that e.g. that a thickness of a middle region of the recessed portion is less than a thickness of another region of the recessed portion, the middle region of the recessed portion is a middle region of the recessed portion in a length direction of the negative electrode plate, and a thickness of the recessed portion gradually increase from the middle region towards both sides of the recessed portion because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Takahashi modified by Kobayashi does not specifically discloses a thickness of the middle region of the recessed portion such that it ranges from 3 microns to 8 microns or wherein in the length direction of the negative electrode plate, a size of an opening of the recessed portion ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the recess of Takahashi modified by Kobayashi with a thickness to accommodate the paired structures such that e.g. that a thickness of a middle region of the recessed portion is 3 microns to 8 microns (meeting Claim 5) and to design the opening of the recessed portion to have a size that properly accommodates the paired structures such that the opening ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm (meeting Claim 6) because the size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 7, Takahashi modified by Kobayashi does not specifically discloses wherein the middle region of the recessed portion corresponds to a middle region of the negative electrode single-sided region uncoated with active layer in the length direction of the negative electrode plate. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the recess of Takahashi modified by Kobayashi such that the positioning of the recessed portion corresponds with an element that has any needed positioning, including being at a middle region of the negative electrode single-sided region uncoated with active layer in the length direction of the negative electrode plate in order to carry out the needed function and benefit of avoiding an increase in thickness since the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 8, Takahashi does not specifically disclose a negative tab tape layer, wherein a surface of the negative tab 17 is covered by the negative tab tape layer, and in the length direction of the negative electrode plate, a length of the negative tab tape layer is equal to a first length value, and the first length value is greater than or equal to the second length value. However, Takahashi discloses the use of positive tab tape layer (covering material which can be insulating tape, para 0042, Fig 12) 18a which covers the positive tab 16 which prevents internal short circuit by foil cutting burrs or the like (see paras 0042, 0069). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a negative tab tape layer in the jelly roll of Takahashi modified by Kobayashi to cover the surface of the negative tab because Takahashi teaches that this tape covering prevents foil cutting burrs and the like.
Although Takahashi modified by Kobayashi does not specifically disclose a size of the tape, e.g. does not teach in the length direction of the negative electrode plate, a length of the negative tab tape layer is equal to a first length value, and the first length value is greater than or equal to the second length value. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the negative tab tape layer such that it provides the best coverage of the area that needs protection without using excess material, for example, since the size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 9, Takahashi discloses wherein the jelly further comprises a positive electrode plate 11 and positive tab assembly (lead) 16, wherein the positive electrode plate 11 comprises positive electrode current collector 11a and positive electrode active layer 11b (para 0036), and the positive electrode active layer is coated on two opposite sides of the positive electrode current collector (see Figs and e.g. para 0036), and a winding head of the positive electrode current collector is exposed to form a positive electrode double sided region uncoated with the active layer, the positive tab assembly 16 is disposed within the positive electrode double sided region uncoated with the active layer and necessarily has a preset distance from the negative tab since it is formed intentionally, and the negative tab 17 is located between the positive tab assembly 13 and the bending region (see annotated Fig 12 below), and two opposite sides of the positive electrode double-sided region uncoated with active layer are both provide with a second tape layer 18a, first ends of the two second tape layers are respectively overlapped at first ends of the positive electrode active layers located on the two opposite sides of the positive electrode current collector and second ends of the two second tape layers are both connected to an end (away from the negative tab) of the positive tab assembly since the positive tab assembly includes the section of the collector 11b (see annotated Fig 12 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
864
1286
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Takahashi discloses wherein the positive tab assembly (see annotated Fig above) comprises a positive tab 16, a first positive tab tape layer 18a, a second positive tab tape layer 18a, a surface of the positive tab is covered by the first positive tab tape layer, and a side, away from the positive tab of the positive electrode double-sided region uncoated with the active layer, is covered by the second positive tab tape layer with the position of the second positive tab tape layer being opposite to the position of the first positive tab tape layer (see annotated Fig above).
Regarding Claims 11-13, taking into consideration the portions of 18a of Takahashi that are designated first and second positive tape layers 18a as separately labeled (but integrally formed/connected) elements from the claimed second tape layers that are respectively formed with and away from the positive tab (meeting Claims 12 and 13), Takahashi discloses wherein second ends of the two second tape layers are respectively connected to the first positive tab tape layer and an end, away from the negative tab, of the second positive tab tape layer. See annotated Fig 12 above.
Regarding Claim 14, Takahashi modified by Kobayashi discloses the claimed jelly roll as described in the rejection of Claim 10, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Takahashi disclose two third tape layers 18c are disposed on a winding tail of the positive electrode plate, first ends of the two third tape layers are respectively overlapped at second ends, located on two opposite sides of the positive electrode current collector, of the positive electrode active layer (Fig 12 shows one 18c disposed on one layer 11b and a second 18c disposed on the opposing layer 11b, and in the thickness direction of the jelly roll, projections of second ends of the two third tape layers are both connected to a projection of an end, away from the negative tab, of the positive tab, since they are both disposed on the outermost coils of the positive electrode plate 11.
Regarding Claim 15, although Takahashi modified by Kobayashi does not specifically discuss a sum of thickness of the two second tape layers and thicknesses of the two third tape layers such that this sum is equal to a first thickness value, a sum of a thickness of the positive tab, a thickness of the first positive tab tape layer, and a thickness of the second positive tab tape layer is equal to a second thickness value, and the first thickness value may be equal to the second thickness value, or the first thickness value may be less than the second thickness value, or the first thickness value may be greater than the second thickness value, Takahashi’s concern is with the thickness of the tape layers relative to the thickness of the battery (para 0101) and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to experiment to arrive at optimal thickness of each type of tape element, especially with respect to the tab thickness since the overall thickness of the jelly roll should be kept consistent. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 16, Takahashi discloses the jelly roll further comprising a separator 15 disposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate (see e.g. para 0067, figs). Although Takahashi modified by Kobayashi does not specifically discuss a sum of thickness of the positive tab, a thickness of the first positive tab tape layer, a thickness of the second positive tab tape layer, a twice thickness of the positive electrode current collector, and a twice thickness of the separator is equal to a third thickness value, an a twice thickness of the first tape layer is equal to a fourth thickness value, and a two second tape layers and thicknesses of the two third tape layers such that this sum is equal to a first thickness value, a sum of a thickness of the positive tab, a thickness of the first positive tab tape layer, and a thickness of the second positive tab tape layer is equal to a second thickness value, and a the first thickness value may be equal to the second thickness value, or the first thickness value may be less than the second thickness value, or the first thickness value may be greater than the second thickness value, Takahashi’s concern is with the thickness of the tape layers relative to the thickness of the battery (para 0101) and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to experiment to arrive at optimal thickness of each type of tape element, especially with respect to the tab thickness and separator thickness since the overall thickness of the jelly roll should be kept consistent. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 17, Takahashi does not specifically disclose a fourth tape layer, where in the fourth tape layer is adhered to at least one side of an outer surface of the jelly roll and in the thickness direction of the jelly roll, a projection of the fourth tape layer is located between projections of the positive and negative tabs. However, Kobayashi teaches the use of winding tape 86 which secures the wound electrode body from unraveling and is positioned between the projections of the positive and negative electrode tabs in the thickness direction of the jelly roll (see e.g. paras 0018, 0023-0024; Figs 3-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a fourth tape layer (winding tape) 86 adhered to at least one side of an outer surface of the jelly roll of Takahashi modified by Kobayashi because Kobayashi teaches that this tape positioned centrally in the wound electrode body (between the positive and negative electrode tabs) helps secure the jelly roll/wound electrode body from unraveling.
Regarding Claim 18, Takahashi further discloses a protective tape layer disposed on two opposites sides of a portion of the positive electrode current collector between the positive and negative electrode tabs, as shown below in another annotated clip of Fig. 12.
PNG
media_image3.png
377
757
media_image3.png
Greyscale
11. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi US PG Publication 2019/0140241 in view of Kobayashi JP2019-067653, as evidenced by Kim US PG Publication 2011/0064995.
Regarding Claim 19, Takahashi discloses wherein in the thickness direction of the jelly roll, an end of a winding tail of the positive electrode current collector extends and is provided with a sealing tape such as 18c which extends to a portion between the projections of positive and negative electrode tabs (see Figs. and e.g. para 0110) and Kobayashi teaches use of a sealing tape that ensures that the electrode assembly won’t unravel/unwind (see rejection of Claim 17). Although Takahashi modified by Kobayashi does not specifically call this tape “sealing tape”, Kim provides evidence that a tape on an outer surface of a wound electrode assembly is called a ”sealing tape” by the skilled artisan and does not require a direct sealing function (see at least paras 0044-0045).
Takahashi modified by Kobayashi does not recite that an end of a winding tail of the positive electrode current collector extends to a portion between the projections of positive and negative electrode tabs. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the jelly roll of Takahashi modified by Kobayashi such that the winding tail of the positive electrode current collector extends to a portion between the projections of positive and negative electrode tabs in order to place the sealing tape in an area where Kobayashi teaches to provide said tape because the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mizutani JP2005-222884 discloses a jelly roll battery having a plurality of insulating tape member 10a-f distributed throughout the wound assembly (see entire disclosure and especially figures and text describing these elements). Mizutani does not disclose the specific configuration that is claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights