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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 9 is 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. Claim 9 recites the limitation " the lithium cobaltate " in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. I t is unclear if “the lithium cobaltate ” is referring to the lithium cobaltate in claim 5 or another lithium cobaltate . 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. 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 9 , 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kong et al. (US 2020/0295368) With respect to claim 1, Kong et al. discloses a positive electrode material, comprising several particles having a polymeric single crystal morphology, wherein the particle having a polymeric single crystal morphology is formed by nesting several primary particles [Abstract ; 0041-0043 ] ; and the positive electrode material meets a relational expression shown in Formula 1 as follows: D 50 3 = K × n × d 50 3 Formula 1, Kong et al. discloses wherein the primary particles each include polycrystalline primary particles composed of 2 to 10 single crystals and wherein each of the single crystals has a particle diameter of about 0.5 μm to about 3 μm [0007; Abstract] , wherein the polycrystalline primary particles are about 30% or more of the total number of primary particles [0008] wherein the primary particle may have a particle diameter of about 2 μm to about 5 μm [0009] , The secondary particle may have a particle diameter of about 10 μm to about 15 μm [ 0045 ] If 2 to 10 is 30% of the total number of the primary particles the total number of primary particles would be 7 to 33. Therefore 7 ≤ n ≤ 33. T herefore 7 ≤ n ≤ 33 and d 50 = 3.5 μm , wherein K is a coefficient having a range of 0.2 ≤ K ≤ 2 Wherein the positive active material included a primary particle (a single crystal having a particle diameter of 3 μm to 5 μm) and a secondary particle having a particle diameter of 5 μm to 7 μm, [0127] D 50 3 = median of 0.5 μm – 15 μm = 8 µm D 50 3 = K × n × d 50 3 D 50 = 8, K=1.706, n = 7, d 50 = 3.5 8 3 = 1.706 x 7 x 3.5 3 512= 1.706 *7*42.875 With respect to claim 2, Kong et al. discloses wherein the primary particles each include polycrystalline primary particles composed of 2 to 10 single crystals and wherein each of the single crystals has a particle diameter of about 0.5 μm to about 3 μm [0007; Abstract], wherein the polycrystalline primary particles are about 30% or more of the total number of primary particles [0008] wherein the primary particle may have a particle diameter of about 2 μm to about 5 μm [0009], If 2 to 10 is 30% of the total number of the primary particles the total number of primary particles would be 7 to 33. Therefore 7 ≤ n ≤ 33 and therefore Kong et al. discloses wherein 5 ≤ n ≤ 100. "[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp.v . Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In rePetering , 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) See MPEP 2131.03 With respect to claim 4, Kong et al. discloses wherein the primary particle may have a particle diameter of about 2 μm to about 5 μm [0009], The secondary particle may have a particle diameter of about 10 μm to about 15 μm [0045] therefore D 50 3 = median of 0.5 μm – 15μm = 8µm. Therefore Kong et al. discloses wherein a median particle size D 50 of the positive electrode material ranges from 0.2 μm to 20 μm. "[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp.v . Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In rePetering , 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) See MPEP 2131.03 With respect to claim 5, Kong et al. discloses wherein the primary particles are a ternary material; Kong et al. does not disclose wherein the ternary material comprises at least one of a ternary material on which doping and/or encapsulation processing is performed and a ternary material on which doping and/or encapsulation processing is not performed; However the following limitations are considered product-by-process claim limitation “ wherein the ternary material comprises at least one of a ternary material on which doping and/or encapsulation processing is performed and a ternary material on which doping and/or encapsulation processing is not performed ”. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). With respect to claim 6, Kong et al. discloses wherein a chemical formula of the ternary material is Li a Ni 1–x–y–p Co x M 1 y M 2 p O 2 , wherein 0.95 ≤ a < 1.08, 0.5 ≤ 1 – x – y – p < 1.0, 0 < x ≤ 0.3, 0 < y ≤ 0.2, and 0 < p ≤ 0.005; and M 1 is Mn or Al, and M 2 is one or more of Mg, Sr, Ba, Y, W, Nb, or Mo. [Claim 7] With respect to claim 7, Kong et al. discloses wherein 0≤c≤0.1 which overlaps 0.0005 ≤ p ≤ 0.005. "[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp.v . Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In rePetering , 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) See MPEP 2131.03 With respect to claim 9 , as the lithium cobaltate is not positively required by claim 4 (as long as a ternary material is available ) claims 9 fail s to further positively distinguish the claim from the prior art as only these claims further limit options which are not necessarily present. With respect to claim 18, Kong et al. discloses a positive electrode plate, comprising the positive electrode material according to claim 1. [Claim 6] With respect to claim 20, Kong et al. discloses a battery, comprising the positive electrode material according to claim 1. [Abstract] 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. 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 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 3 , 8 , 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. (US 2020/0295368). With respect to claim 3, Kong et al. discloses wherein the primary particles each include polycrystalline primary particles composed of 2 to 10 single crystals and wherein each of the single crystals has a particle diameter of about 0.5 μm to about 3 μm [0007; Abstract], wherein the polycrystalline primary particles are about 30% or more of the total number of primary particles [0008] wherein the primary particle may have a particle diameter of about 2 μm to about 5 μm [0009], Therefore a median particle size d 50 of the primary particles is around 3 .5 Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (MPEP 2144.05). Although Kong et al. does not specifically disclose wherein a median particle size d 50 of the primary particles ranges from 0.1 μm to 3 μm. , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a modified the a median particle size d 50 of the primary particles to the claimed range given that claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (MPEP 2144.05). Thus, the precise claimed median particle size for the primary particles would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed time range of the median particle size cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the median particle size of the primary particles to obtain a desired particle uniformity. (In re Boesch , 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). With respect to claim 8 , Kong et al. discloses wherein the primary particles each include polycrystalline primary particles composed of 2 to 10 single crystals and wherein each of the single crystals has a particle diameter of about 0.5 μm to about 3 μm [0007; Abstract], wherein the polycrystalline primary particles are about 30% or more of the total number of primary particles [0008] wherein the primary particle may have a particle diameter of about 2 μm to about 5 μm [0009], Therefore a median particle size of a positive electrode material D 50 of the primary particles is around 8µm. Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (MPEP 2144.05). Although Kong et al. does not specifically disclose wherein a median particle size D 50 of the particle size of a positive electrode material is D 50 < 7 μm , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a modified D 50 to the claimed range given that claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (MPEP 2144.05). Thus, the precise claimed median particle size for a positive electrode material would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed time range of the median particle size cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the median particle size of the positive electrode material to obtain a desired particle uniformity. (In re Boesch , 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). With respect to claim 17, Kong et al. does not specifically disclose wherein in a differential scanning calorimetry spectrum of the positive electrode material at a voltage ranging from 4.1 V to 4.4 V, a start exothermic temperature of a main exothermic peak is 278°C or more, and an integral area of the main exothermic peak is 98 J/g or less. However, regarding limitations recited in claim 17 which are directed to the voltage and a start exothermic temperature and integral area of the main exothermic peak at a certain voltage for the positive electrode active material, an exothermic temperature and exothermic peak at a certain voltage value, it is noted that once A positive electrode material, comprising several particles having a polymeric single crystal morphology, wherein the particle having a polymeric single crystal morphology is formed by nesting several primary particles; and the positive electrode material meets a relational expression shown in Formula 1 are disclosed (see Kong et al [Abstract; 0041-0043; 0007-0009] ), it is therefore substantially the same as the system of claim 1, it will, inherently, display recited properties. See MPEP 2112. Additionally, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, regarding limitations recited in claim 17 which are directed to specific properties of the electrode material recited in said claim, Given the teachings of Kong et al. disclose an identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, the claimed property would be expected and thus render the claim obvious. With respect to claim 19, Kong et al. does not specifically disclose wherein when the positive electrode plate is charged from 10% SOC to 80% SOC at a rate of 0.1C, in a differential scanning calorimetry spectrum of the positive electrode plate, a start exothermic temperature of a main exothermic peak is 220°C or more, and an integral area of the main exothermic peak is 98 J/g or less. However, regarding limitations recited in claim 1 9 which are directed to the SOC and a start exothermic temperature and integral area of the main exothermic peak at a certain SOC for the positive electrode active material, an exothermic temperature and exothermic peak at a certain SOC value, it is noted that once a positive electrode material, comprising several particles having a polymeric single crystal morphology, wherein the particle having a polymeric single crystal morphology is formed by nesting several primary particles; and the positive electrode material meets a relational expression shown in Formula 1 are disclosed (see Kong et al [Abstract; 0041-0043; 0007-0009] ), it is therefore substantially the same as the system of claim 1, it will, inherently, display recited properties. See MPEP 2112. Additionally, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). \ Further, regarding limitations recited in claim 1 9 which are directed to specific properties of the electrode material recited in said claim, Given the teachings of Kong et al. disclose an identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, the claimed property would be expected and thus render the claim obvious. Claim(s) 10 -1 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. (US 2020/0295368) as applied to claim 1 and 4 above in further view of Du et al. CN110165205 With respect to claim 10, Kong et al. does not disclose wherein the positive electrode material further comprises a coating layer, and the coating layer covers a surface of the particles having a polymeric single crystal morphology. Du et al. discloses wherein the positive electrode material further comprises a coating layer, and the coating layer covers a surface of the cathode particles. [0010; claims 1-10; 0029-0035] Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the positive electrode of Kong et al. to include a coating layer as disclosed in Du et al. in order to improve the problem of cathode material being easily broken under pressure, effectively reduce the side reaction between cathode material and electrolyte, reduce the gas production of battery and to improve battery storage performance. With respect to claim 11, Kong et al. does not disclose wherein a mass of the coating layer accounts for 0.05 wt %–1 wt % of a total mass of the positive electrode material. Du et al. discloses wherein the positive electrode material further comprises a coating layer, and the coating layer covers a surface of the cathode particles. [0010; claims 1-10; 0029-0035] wherein a mass of the coating layer accounts for 0.05 wt %–1 wt % of a total mass of the positive electrode material. [0035-0037; Claim 3] In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, Section I . In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the positive electrode of Kong et al. to include a coating layer as disclosed in Du et al. in order to improve the problem of cathode material being easily broken under pressure, effectively reduce the side reaction between cathode material and electrolyte, reduce the gas production of battery and to improve battery storage performance. With respect to claim 12, Kong et al. does not disclose wherein the mass of the coating layer accounts for 0.05 wt %–0.5 wt % of the total mass of the positive electrode material. Du et al. discloses wherein the positive electrode material further comprises a coating layer, and the coating layer covers a surface of the cathode particles. [0010; claims 1-10; 0029-0035] wherein a mass of the coating layer accounts for 0.05 wt %– 0.5 wt % of a total mass of the positive electrode material. [0035-0037; Claim 3] In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, Section I . In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the positive electrode of Kong et al. to include a coating layer as disclosed in Du et al. in order to improve the problem of cathode material being easily broken under pressure, effectively reduce the side reaction between cathode material and electrolyte, reduce the gas production of battery and to improve battery storage performance. With respect to claim 13, Kong et al. does not disclose wherein a material forming the coating layer is a metal compound and/or a non-metal compound; and/or the metal compound is selected from at least one of aluminum oxide, tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, zirconium oxide, or titanium oxide; and/or the non-metal compound is selected from boron oxide. Du et al. discloses wherein the positive electrode material further comprises a material forming the coating layer is a metal compound and/or a non-metal compound; and/or the metal compound is selected from at least one of aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, or titanium oxide; and/or the non-metal compound is selected from boron oxide. [Claim 1 ; 0035-0037 ] Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the positive electrode of Kong et al. to include a coating layer as disclosed in Du et al. in order to improve the problem of cathode material being easily broken under pressure, effectively reduce the side reaction between cathode material and electrolyte, reduce the gas production of battery and to improve battery storage performance. With respect to claim 14, Kong et al. does not disclose wherein the coating layer comprises a first coating layer and a second coating layer, the first coating layer covers a surface of the several particles having a polymeric single crystal morphology, the second coating layer covers an outer surface of the first coating layer, the first coating layer is a metal compound, and the second coating layer is a metal compound and/or a non-metal compound; and/or the metal compound is selected from at least one of aluminum oxide, tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, zirconium oxide, or titanium oxide; and/or the non-metal compound is selected from boron oxide. Du et al. discloses wherein the coating layer comprises a first coating layer and a second coating layer, the first coating layer covers a surface of the several cathode particles, the second coating layer covers an outer surface of the first coating layer, the first coating layer is a metal compound, and the second coating layer is a metal compound and/or a non-metal compound; and/or the metal compound is selected from at least one of aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, or titanium oxide; and/or the non-metal compound is selected from boron oxide. [Claim 1; 0035-0037] Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the positive electrode of Kong et al. to include a coating layer as disclosed in Du et al. in order to improve the problem of cathode material being easily broken under pressure, effectively reduce the side reaction between cathode material and electrolyte, reduce the gas production of battery and to improve battery storage performance. With respect to claim 15, Kong et al. does not disclose wherein a mass of the first coating layer accounts for 0.05 wt %–0.5 wt % of a total mass of the positive electrode material. Du et al. discloses wherein a mass of the first coating layer accounts for 0.05 wt %–0.5 wt % of a total mass of the positive electrode material. [0035-0037] In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, Section I . In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the positive electrode of Kong et al. to include a coating layer as disclosed in Du et al. in order to improve the problem of cathode material being easily broken under pressure, effectively reduce the side reaction between cathode material and electrolyte, reduce the gas production of battery and to improve battery storage performance. With respect to claim 16, Kong et al. does not disclose wherein a mass of the second coating layer accounts for 0.05 wt %–0.5 wt % of the total mass of the positive electrode material. Du et al. discloses wherein a mass of the second coating layer accounts for 0.05 wt %–0.5 wt % of a total mass of the positive electrode material. [0035-0037] In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, Section I . In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the positive electrode of Kong et al. to include a coating layer as disclosed in Du et al. in order to improve the problem of cathode material being easily broken under pressure, effectively reduce the side reaction between cathode material and electrolyte, reduce the gas production of battery and to improve battery storage performance. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7589 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 9AM-7PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jonathan Leong can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1292 . 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. /KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751