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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-8, 11-14 in the reply filed on Dec 29, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 10 has been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, Claim 10, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on Dec 29, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the adhesive tape and its features of an adhesive layer with a thick region and a thin region must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 2, 4, and 6 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “an area of the thick region” (line 3) and “an area of the thin region” (line 4). It is unclear whether these limitations are the same as the limitations in claim 1 reciting “a ratio of an area of the thin region to an area of the thick region” (line 9).
Claim 4 also recites the limitation "the through holes each have an aperture of 100 µm to 1000 µm" in lines 3-4. It is unclear as to which dimension of the aperture is being recited in the limitation, since it could read on a perimeter, a radius, or a diameter, for example. To advance prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted for an aperture diameter.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “an average deviation of the adhesive layer thickness of the thick region, extending from the side edge of the adhesive tape in the width direction, does not exceed 10%.” Deviations are defined with respect to departing from a standard or a fixed value, and it is unclear from the claim language as to from what standard or fixed value the average deviation is departing.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Iwanaga et al (JP 2005235414 A).
Supporting evidence is provided by “POLY(ETHYLENE-CO-ACRYLIC ACID),” Chemical Book, and “POLYPROPYLENE,” Chemical Book.
Regarding claim 1, Iwanaga teaches an adhesive tape 20, comprising a base-material layer and an adhesive layer (machine translation [0024] discloses the insulating tape 20, i.e. adhesive tape, may be made of a base material coated with a glue material; [0019] provides a specific example; although the adhesive tape 20 in Fig. 2 is not explicitly labeled with the adhesive layer and base-material layer, the adhesive layer coating is expected to span the width of the adhesive tape to adhere the tape to the electrode),
Wherein the electrode sheet of the battery comprises a current collector 11 and a tab 13 connected to at least one end of the current collector (Fig. 1), wherein the adhesive layer comprises a thick region and a thin region (Table 1 provides thicknesses of adhesive tape 20 across its width, and in combination with Fig. 2, which is annotated and shown below, indicate that adhesive tape 20 has a thick region spanning a width of a and a thin region spanning a width of c+d; the section of adhesive layer within the thick region of the adhesive tape, i.e. spanning width of a, corresponds to the claimed “a thick region,” and the section of adhesive layer within the thin region of the adhesive tape, i.e. spanning the width of c+d, corresponds to the claimed “a thin region”. Specifically, Table 1 provides values of regions a, c, and d, wherein a thickness of region a is greater than a thickness of region d within the thin region c+d for examples A-E) which extend from a side edge of the adhesive tape in a width direction of the adhesive layer (as shown in annotated Fig. 2, the thick and thin regions extend from a side edge of the adhesive tape towards the right direction of the page, corresponding to a width direction of the adhesive layer), the thick region is distributed along the side edge of the adhesive tape (annotated Fig. 2),
and an adhesive layer thickness of the thick region is greater than an adhesive layer of the thin region (Iwanaga teaches forming the insulating tape with a thinner thickness at the end facing the active material facilitates reduction of stress on the foil/current collector in the area where the thin insulating tape is applied, which prevents breakage of the foil/current collector ([0009] and [0029]; Table 1); therefore, the thickness of the section d is a result-effective variable. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to make a thickness of region d, part of the thin region, to be thinner than that of the other regions of the adhesive tape, including the thick region a, either by adjusting the thickness of the base-material layer or the thickness of the adhesive layer, or of both, of region d, in order to prevent breakage of the foil/current collector, and would have consequently satisfied the claimed limitation of “an adhesive layer thickness of the thick region is greater than an adhesive layer of the thin region”. Additionally, Iwanaga teaches that in order to reduce the thickness of regions of the adhesive tape, heat is applied via heating jigs to the insulating tape 20 to melt contacting portions of the insulating tape ([0037]-[0038]) and also that the base-material can be polypropylene (PP) with thickness 20 µm and the adhesive layer of material ethylene-acrylic acid ester copolymer (EEA) with thickness 10 µm ([0019]). Given that the melting point of PP can be significantly higher than that of EEA (PP: 189°C (Chemical Book); EEA: 108°C (Chemical Book)), conductive heat transfer across the insulating tape 20 is expected to first melt the lower melting point material EEA prior to the PP layer, and consequently reduce the thickness of the adhesive layer while the base-layer material remains constant in thickness. Thus, Example A suggests an adhesive layer thickness of the thick region can be 10 µm (that is, 30 µm (i.e., thickness a) – 20 µm (i.e., thickness of the base material, [0036]) = 10 µm) and an adhesive layer thickness within the thin region c + d can be 5 µm (that is, 25 µm (i.e., thickness d) - 20 µm (i.e., thickness of the base material, [0036]) = 5 µm, which would also satisfy the limitation of the adhesive layer comprising a thick region and a thin region which extend from a side edge of the adhesive tape and wherein “an adhesive layer thickness of the thick region is greater than an adhesive layer of the thin region”),
An area of the thin region can be the product of a width of c+d (Iwanaga teaches 3.5 mm per [0020]) and a length into the page, which can be denoted as L), or Athin = 3.5L, and an area of the thick region is the product of a width of a (Iwanaga teaches 0.5 mm per [0020]) and a length into the page, also corresponding to L; L is expected to be the same across the width of the adhesive layer based on Fig. 3 which shows the base-material layer is completely coated by the adhesive layer), or Athick = 0.5L. A ratio of an area of the thin region to an area of the thick region would thus be 3.5L: 0.5L or 1: 0.14, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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)
Annotated Fig. 2 of Iwanaga:
PNG
media_image1.png
171
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Iwanaga discloses their adhesive tape is applied to potential short-circuit locations to prevent short-circuits due to contact with the counter electrode at the potential short-circuit locations [0004] and also teaches their adhesive tape can be used for lithium ion batteries, which are secondary batteries ([0013]). The adhesive tape taught by Iwanaga has an adhesive layer that allows it attach to a substrate, and possesses the claimed structural features of the adhesive tape; therefore, it is structurally configured to be an adhesive tape for an electrode tab and for attaching to a tab of an electrode sheet of a secondary battery. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 2, Iwanaga teaches the adhesive tape of claim 1, and Iwanaga further teaches in the width direction of the adhesive layer (left/right of the page), a width of the thick region is 1% to 20% of a width of the adhesive tape (a width of the thick region a is 0.5 mm, and a width of the adhesive tape is 10 mm ([0019]-[0020]), thus a width of the thick region to a width of the adhesive tape is 0.5 mm/10mm = 0.05 or 5%, which overlaps with the claimed range). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
As pointed out previously in addressing the limitations of claim 1, an area of the thin region can be Athin = 3.5L and an area of the thick region can be Athick = 0.5L.
A surface area of the adhesive tape can be a sum of the area of the thin region and an area of the thick region, which would be 3.5L + 0.5L = 4L. Consequently, an area of the thick region to a surface area of the adhesive tape would be 0.5L/4L or about 13%, and an area of the thin region to a surface area of the adhesive tape would be 3.5L/4L or about 88%, each of which overlaps with the respectively claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Regarding claim 3, Iwanaga teaches the adhesive tape of claim 1.
As pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Iwanaga teaches a width of the adhesive tape is 10 mm ([0019]-[0020]).
Iwanaga also teaches that in order to reduce the thickness of regions of the adhesive tape, heat is applied via heating jigs to the insulating tape 20 to melt contacting portions of the insulating tape ([0037]-[0038]) and also that the base-material can be polypropylene (PP) with thickness 20 µm and the adhesive layer of material ethylene-acrylic acid ester copolymer (EEA) ([0019]). Given that the melting point of PP can be significantly higher than that of EEA (PP: 189°C (Chemical Book); EEA: 108°C (Chemical Book)), conductive heat transfer across the insulating tape 20 is expected to first melt the lower melting point material EEA prior to the PP layer, and consequently reduce the thickness of the adhesive layer while the base-layer material remains constant in thickness. Thus, Example A suggests the adhesive layer thickness of the thick region can be 10 µm (that is, 30 µm (i.e., thickness of a) – 20 µm = 10 µm), which overlaps with the claimed range of the adhesive layer thickness of the thick region. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Although Example A does not teach the adhesive layer thickness of the thin region is 15%-40% of the adhesive layer thickness of the thick region, Table 1 shows that varying the adhesive tape thickness d of the thin region (i.e., c+d) results in varying effects on foil breakage at various winding speeds. For example, per Table 1 and assuming a base-material thickness of 20 µm as discussed previously, a comparison of Examples A and B shows that a decrease in the adhesive layer thickness of the thin region from about 5 µm with an adhesive layer thickness of the thick region of about 10 µm (Example A) to below 1 µm at the same thickness of the thick region of about 10 µm (Example B), corresponds to a 50% adhesive layer thickness of the thin region to that of the adhesive layer thickness of the thick region (Example A) and about 10% in Example B) and results in improved foil robustness at a winding speed of 1000 rpm. Therefore, Table 1 suggests that the thickness d, including the adhesive layer thickness of the thin region, is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the adhesive layer thickness of the thin region to increase the robustness of the foil to breakage at the spectrum of winding speeds as suggested by Iwanaga in the conditions of Table 1, and would have arrived at the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Iwanaga teaches the adhesive tape of claim 1. Iwanaga discloses Table 1, which includes Examples A through D. An average deviation of the adhesive layer thickness of the thick region (i.e. the region spanning the width of a) for Examples A through D would be zero, because both the adhesive tape thickness and the base-material layer thickness remain fixed in value in each example of Examples A through D ([0019]; Table 1), and zero does not exceed 10%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). The thick region also extends from the side edge of the adhesive tape in the width direction, as seen in Fig. 2 of Iwanaga, as claimed. Thus, Iwanaga’s disclosure reads upon the claim as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Iwanaga teaches the adhesive tape of claim 1, and Iwanaga further discloses a secondary battery ([0013] describes use with a lithium ion battery which is a secondary battery) comprising a positive electrode sheet or a negative electrode sheet that is attached with the adhesive tape (“at least one of the positive electrode and the negative electrode has an exposed portion where the metal foil is exposed, and an insulating tape of a predetermined width is attached to at least one location near the end of the active material coating…” [0008]; Fig.2 provides an example of using the tape with a positive electrode sheet as disclosed in [0013]).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwanaga et al (JP 2005235414 A) in view of Yin et al (CN 209568040 U).
Regarding claim 4, Iwanaga teaches the adhesive tape of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the adhesive tape is formed with through holes. In the same field of endeavor, Yin teaches a similar adhesive tape 1 with an adhesive layer 11 and a fixing film layer 12 (i.e. a base-material layer) for wound battery cells wherein the adhesive tape has multiple through holes 2 which are evenly arrayed on the tape body 1 (machine translation [0031]). Fig. 2, annotated below, of Yin shows that the holes are distributed in rows which are parallel to a center line of the adhesive tape, either vertical rows parallel to a vertical center line running up/down the page or horizontal rows parallel to a horizontal center line running left/right on the page, and a parallel arrangement of the rows to the center line reads upon rows along a center line of the adhesive tape. Yin teaches that the spacing d of the through holes is 0.5 mm to 3 mm (Fig. 2; [0034]). Row spacing has not been defined in the specification or in the drawings, therefore a row spacing can correspond to the space between the two vertical rows of holes immediately adjacent to the vertical center line, or 2d, as shown below in annotated Fig. 2 of Yin. Thus, the row spacing of 2d would have a value of 1 mm to 6 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Yin also teaches a diameter r of the through hole is 0.01 mm to 0.1mm (10 µm to 100 µm) to effectively vent air and prevent tape wrinkles [0032], which overlaps with the claimed range of an aperture length of 100 µm to 1000 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). Yin teaches their tape design having multiple through holes ensures stable air release from the tape and prevents wrinkles from forming during the tape application process, which improves product quality and enhances battery safety ([0009], [0011]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the adhesive tape of Iwanaga to include the through holes as taught by Yin for the benefit of ensuring stable air release from the tape and preventing wrinkles from forming.
Annotated Fig. 2 of Yin:
PNG
media_image2.png
637
625
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Iwanaga teaches the adhesive tape of claim 1. Yin teaches a color of the adhesive tape can be green ([0006]), therefore the configuration is known in the prior art. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have made Iwanaga’s adhesive tape a green color given that Yin teaches it is a known option. Furthermore, the color of the adhesive tape is an aesthetic design choice and cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; see MPEP 2144.04, I.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwanaga et al (JP 2005235414 A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Edahiro et al (WO 2018216114 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Iwanaga teaches the adhesive tape of claim 1, but does not teach the adhesive strength of the adhesive tape.
In the same field of endeavor, Edahiro teaches that a thin adhesive tape with a substrate (i.e., base-material layer) and an adhesive layer on a surface of the substrate that has an adhesive strength of 0.50 N/10 mm or more (machine translation [0015]) can be sufficiently fixed to the attachment surface for an application such as securing the terminal, i.e. tab, of an electrode group ([0012]-[0013]), and the adhesive strength of 50 N/m overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify the adhesive tape of Iwanaga to have the adhesive strength of 50 N/m or more to allow the adhesive tape to be sufficiently fixed to the attachment surface for an application such as securing the terminal of an electrode group, as taught by Edahiro.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwanaga et al (JP 2005235414 A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Terajima et al (JP 2010205467 A).
Regarding claim 7, Iwanaga teaches the adhesive tape of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the thick region, extending from the side edge of the adhesive tape in the width direction, has discontinuous protrusions distributed in a dotted pattern.
In the same field of endeavor, Terajima teaches a similar adhesive tape used to insulate a battery electrode, wherein the adhesive tape has an adhesive layer applied to a surface of a base material-layer with a surface roughness (machine translation [0041]). The transparency of the tape increases where the adhesive is applied to the base material and enters the irregularities on the substrate of the base material, providing a means for adjusting the haziness of the tape for ease in detecting the tape’s bonding position ([0013]). Terajima further discloses the adhesive layer can be printed in a dot shape such that the adhesive sections have discontinuous protrusions distributed in a dotted pattern (Fig. 4; [0044]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the adhesive tape of Iwanaga to use the dotted pattern as taught by Terajima for the advantage of providing a visual means for checking the position of the adhesive tape after it has been applied. Consequently, the adhesive layer including its thick region would have discontinuous protrusions distribution in a dotted pattern. Also, as previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1 and shown in annotated Fig. 2 of Iwanaga, the thick region extends from the side edge of the adhesive tape in the width direction.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwanaga et al (JP 2005235414 A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Iwama et al (WO 2021199484 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Iwanaga teaches the secondary battery of claim 11 but does not teach a battery module comprising the secondary battery. In the same field of endeavor, Iwama teaches a plurality of secondary batteries (i.e., a battery module) may be used to power relatively large equipment such as electric vehicles, power storage systems, and electric tools (machine translation [0133]-[0134]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a plurality of secondary batteries of Iwanaga, i.e. a battery module, because Iwama teaches it is a suitable power source to power large electric equipment.
Regarding claim 13, the combination above teaches the battery module of claim 12. Iwama teaches an embodiment of a battery pack utilizing a secondary battery with a power supply and a circuit board to detect and control the usage state of the power supply as necessary ([0137], [0139], Fig. 10). Although their example uses a power source with one secondary battery ([0138]), they teach a battery pack may also use more than one cell ([0134]), i.e. a battery module. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify modified Iwanaga’s battery module to be used in a battery pack because Iwama teaches it provides the advantage of detecting and controlling the usage state of the power supply as necessary.
Regarding claim 14, Iwanaga teaches the secondary battery of claim 11, and the combination above teaches the battery module of claim 12, and the battery pack of claim 13. Iwama teaches it is known that a secondary battery, a battery module, and a battery pack can be used to supply power to powered devices such as electric vehicles, power storage systems, and electric tools ([0133]-[0134]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered either of the three to be suitable elements to be used to provide a driving source or a power storage source ([0132]), based on the device ([0134]), the advantage of controlling a power supply including the secondary battery ([0139], [0137]) and provided the advantages of a secondary battery as a small, lightweight, and high energy density power source ([0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 03/05/2026