DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 07/29/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5 is/are amended; and claim(s) 3, 4, and 6–14 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous drawing and claim objections, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Hayashi, set forth in the Office Action mailed 05/01/26, has/have been withdrawn. However, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection over Shose has been maintained and altered as necessitated by amendment, as set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 7 and 10’s limitations “the positive electrode layer is a ceramic positive electrode plate” and “the negative electrode layer is a ceramic negative electrode plate”, respectively, will be interpreted as a positive/negative electrode layer including no binder or conductive agent, as specially defined in ¶ 0015 and 0029, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1 and 4–6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shose et al. (US 20080081253 A1, from 12/12/23 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Shose discloses a coin-shaped lithium ion secondary battery for reflow soldering (Abstract, ¶ 0039, fig. 1B) comprising (per annot. fig. 1B below) a positive electrode layer (cathode pellet 141); a negative electrode layer (anode pellet 142); a separator interposed between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer (143); an electrolytic solution with which the positive electrode layer, the negative electrode layer, and the separator are impregnated (necessarily for ion-conduction, implied by electrolyte filling internal space in ¶ 0047, as in instant fig. 1’s ref. 22); and an exterior body having a coin shape (neg. cap 11/pos. can 12; see also fig. 1A) with two main surfaces opposed to each other in a thickness direction (top and bottom surfaces below) and a bulge on at least one of the main surfaces (projections 11a protruding axially outward on bottom main surface and, thus, “bulging”) and comprising a closed space accommodating the positive electrode layer, the negative electrode layer, the separator, and the electrolytic solution (space accommodating the electrode assembly 14), wherein the bulge extends in an outward direction from the closed space (extending axially downward/outward, per below),
wherein the coin-shaped lithium ion secondary battery comprises a main region where all of the positive electrode layer, the negative electrode layer, and the separator overlap (depicted main region) and a peripheral region which is devoid of the negative electrode layer and the separator (depicted peripheral region with gasket 13), wherein, in a portion of the main region with the bulge, a gap is formed between the exterior body and the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer (e.g., open space below between exterior body 11/12 and electrode assembly (denoted gap) within closed space), the gap being filled with the electrolytic solution (implied by filling the space with electrolyte in ¶ 0047; note that any portion of the gap filled with electrolyte would meet the aforementioned limitation).
PNG
media_image1.png
251
395
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shose further discloses that projections 11a, i.e., bulges, have a height of, e.g., 0.1 mm (¶ 0054)—which, per above, would define the battery’s maximum thickness in the “main region”—and the battery of the embodiment exhibits a thickness (i.e., minimum thickness in the “main region”) of 1.5 mm (¶ 0048). Thus, the “bulge ratio” would be 1.07 (i.e., 1.6 mm/1.5 mm), falling within 1.01–1.25.
Assuming, arguendo, that Shose failed to anticipate the bulge ratio by grouping the projections’ height with the battery’s total thickness above, Shose further discloses that the projections’ height may be ≥ 25% of a plate thickness of the outer can or cap, which is preferable for ensuring capacity and bond strength and suppressing outflow of melted solder during reflowing (¶ 0022). Meanwhile, if the projections are too high, the battery’s thickness becomes excessively large, which adversely affects energy efficiency (¶ 0022). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, to arrive at the recited bulge ratio by controlling Shose’s projections’ height to ensure capacity and bond strength while suppressing outflow of melted solder without reducing energy efficiency (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 4, Shose discloses the coin-shaped lithium ion secondary battery for reflow soldering according to claim 1, wherein the exterior body comprises a positive electrode can (pos. can 12, fig. 1B); a negative electrode can (see neg. cap 11 of fig. 1B, which, if viewed aerially (such as in figs. 2–4), would necessarily form a “can” by extending concentrically around the electrode assembly, as in instant fig. 1; and a gasket (ref. 13 of fig. 1B), wherein the positive electrode can and the negative electrode can are crimped with the gasket interposed therebetween to form the closed space (Id. and caulking in ¶ 0045; compare to substantially similar instant fig. 1.
Regarding claim 5, Shose discloses the coin-shaped lithium ion secondary battery for reflow soldering according to claim 1, further comprising a positive electrode terminal joined to an outer surface of the exterior body closer to the positive electrode layer (positive lead plate 20 attached directly to pos. can 12 and, thus, an outer surface closer to the positive electrode layer, as seen in figs. 1A/1B and 3B); and a negative electrode terminal joined to an outer surface of the exterior body closer to the negative electrode layer (conductive land 51 directly joined to neg. cap 11 via solder 61 and, thus, on an outer surface of the exterior body closer to the negative electrode layer).
Regarding claim 6, Shose discloses the coin-shaped lithium ion secondary battery for reflow soldering according to claim 5.
The limitation “wherein the positive electrode terminal and/or the negative electrode terminal is used for reflow soldering for mounting the coin-shaped lithium ion secondary battery on a substrate” is intended use. Recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed article is intended to be employed fails to differentiate the claimed article from a prior art article satisfying the claimed structural limitations given that the prior art’s article is capable of satisfying the intended use (MPEP 2111.02, 2114 (II)), which, here, would appear to be the case given Shose’s disclosing all structural limitations and there being no evidence proving Shose’s battery incapable of such use. Nonetheless, Shose discloses that the negative electrode terminal is used for reflow soldering for mounting the coin-shaped lithium-ion secondary battery on a substrate (e.g., fig. 3B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shose et al. (US 20080081253 A1), as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Shose discloses the coin-shaped lithium ion secondary battery for reflow soldering according to claim 1.
Shose further exemplarily discloses a diameter of 4.8 mm (¶ 0048) yet, while not appearing strictly limited to this value, fails to explicitly disclose an outer diameter of 8–25 mm.
The skilled artisan, however, would recognize that similar effects pertaining to the battery’s thickness extend to the battery’s diameter as a reflection of the battery’s size, where providing a larger electrode assembly—and, thus, higher capacity—would require one to increase the battery’s outer diameter to accommodate the larger assembly, whereas making the diameter too large would necessarily excessively increase the battery’s weight. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited 8–25 mm by routinely optimizing the outer diameter (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 7–14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shose et al. (US 20080081253 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Yura et al. (WO 2019221140 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20210036305 A1).
Regarding claims 7–14, Shose discloses the coin-shaped lithium ion secondary battery for reflow soldering according to claim 1.
Shose exemplarily discloses a positive electrode including, e.g., MnO2, a negative electrode of, e.g., Li, and an electrolyte of, e.g., LiCF3SO3 in PC and DME (¶ 0046/0047). However, in appearing not particularly concerned with the specific compositions of either electrode, the electrolyte, or the separator, Shose fails to explicitly disclose that the positive electrode layer is a ceramic positive electrode plate, specifically a lithium complex oxide sintered plate, wherein the lithium complex oxide is lithium cobaltate (claims 7–9); the negative electrode layer is a ceramic negative electrode plate, specifically a titanium-containing sintered plate, wherein the titanium-containing sintered plate comprises lithium titanate or niobium titanium complex oxide (claims 10–12); the separator is made of one selected from the recited group (claim 13); and the electrolytic solution is a solution containing lithium borofluoride (LiBF4) in a non-aqueous solvent consisting of at least one selected from the group consisting of γ-butyrolactone (GBL), ethylene carbonate (EC) and propylene carbonate (PC) (claim 14).
Yura teaches an analogous lithium coin cell (Abstract, fig. 1) including a positive electrode layer composed of a lithium cobaltate sintered body without binder or conductive agent (¶ 0030 and 0132)—and, thus, a lithium complex oxide ceramic positive electrode plate with no binder or conductive agent—because this structure prevents the positive electrode from deteriorating due to contact with the electrolyte (¶ 0030). Likewise, Yura teaches a negative electrode layer composed of a lithium titanate sintered body without binder or conductive agent (¶ 0043 and 0132)—and, thus, a Ti-containing ceramic negative electrode plate with no binder or conductive agent—because this structure provides high capacity and good (dis)charge efficiency due to high active-material density (¶ 0043, 0044). Yura further teaches a cellulose separator and an electrolyte of LiBF4 in a solvent of EC and GBL (¶ 0132) because this solution improves heat resistance (¶ 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, to incorporate Shose’s positive electrode layer as a ceramic, lithium complex oxide sintered plate, where the oxide is lithium cobaltate; Shose’s negative electrode layer as a ceramic, Ti-containing sintered plate comprising lithium titanate; Shose’s separator as cellulose; and Shose’s electrolytic solution as LiBF4 in GBL and EC with the reasonable expectation of achieving high capacity and improved heat resistance while avoiding positive-electrode deterioration, as taught by Yura.
Claim(s) 1–6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (JP 2007335615 A, from 05/14/26 IDS; see mach. translation) in view of Shose et al. (US 20080081253 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Ogawa discloses a coin-shaped secondary battery for reflow soldering (e.g., fig. 1, ¶ 0001 and 0006).
Ogawa recognizes that coin cells are used as power sources in portable electronics (¶ 0002) but fails to explicitly disclose that the secondary coin battery is a lithium ion secondary battery.
Shose teaches an analogous coin battery (Abstract), where the coin battery may be a Li ion secondary battery because such is small, lightweight, and has energy density as a power source for electronics (¶ 0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Ogawa’s coin cell to be a secondary lithium ion battery with the reasonable expectation of achieving successful electronic powering while being small, lightweight, and energy-dense, as taught by Shose.
Modified Ogawa further discloses (per Ogawa’s annot. fig. 4 below) that the battery comprises a positive electrode layer and a negative electrode layer (necessarily for ion conductivity and electron generation given the battery would be a LIB (per Shose), as seen in the layers in Ogawa’s cell 1); a separator interposed between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer (again, necessarily present within modified Ogawa’s LIB to prevent shorting between electrodes, as in Shose’s ¶ 0012).
PNG
media_image2.png
313
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As alluded to above, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that modified Ogawa’s LIB would necessarily further contain some type of electrolyte for ion conductivity to enable the battery to function, though Ogawa, in being unconcerned with the specific electrolyte, fails to explicitly disclose an electrolytic solution with which the positive electrode layer, the negative electrode layer, and the separator are impregnated.
Shose further teaches filling the internal space between the case/can and the electrode assembly with electrolyte solution (¶ 0047) and, thus, impregnating the electrodes and separator (implied by fig. 1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to fill Ogawa’s similar internal space between the case/can and electrode assembly (fig. 4) with electrolyte solution—so that the positive electrode and negative electrode layers as wella s separator are impregnated with the solution—with the reasonable expectation of enabling ion conductivity between the electrodes and a functioning battery, as suggested by Shose.
Ogawa further discloses an exterior body having a coin shape with two main surfaces opposed to each other in a thickness direction (coin cell above with top and bottom surfaces) and a bulge on each of the main surfaces (protrusions 2a and 3a projecting axially outward and, thus, “bulging”) and comprising a closed space accommodating the positive electrode layer, the negative electrode layer, the separator, and the electrolytic solution (denoted closed space above delimited by gasket 6, case 2, and cover 3), wherein the bulge extends in an outward direction from the closed space (depicted axial protrusions),
wherein the coin-shaped lithium ion secondary battery comprises a main region where all of the positive electrode layer, the negative electrode layer, and the separator overlap (depicted main region) and a peripheral region which is devoid of the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the separator (depicted peripheral region outside main region and, thus, excluding electrode assembly), wherein, in a portion of the main region with the bulge, a gap is formed between the exterior body and the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer (e.g., open space above between exterior body 11/12 and electrode assembly (denoted gap) within closed space), the gap being filled with the electrolytic solution (implied by filling the space with electrolyte based on Shose’s ¶ 0047, as explained above; note that any portion of the gap filled with electrolyte would meet the aforementioned limitation).
Ogawa further discloses, in Ex. 2, a thickness of the cell of 2.5 mm and a protrusion height of 0.2 mm on each opposing main surface (¶ 0021). Thus, Ogawa discloses that a battery bulge ratio that is the ratio of a maximum thickness of the coin-shaped lithium ion secondary battery in the main region to a minimum thickness of the coin-shaped lithium ion secondary battery in the main region is 1.16 (i.e., 2.9/2.5), falling within 1.01–1.25.
Regarding claim 3, modified Ogawa discloses the coin-shaped lithium ion secondary battery for reflow soldering according to claim 1, wherein the lithium ion secondary battery has an outer diameter of 12.5 mm (Ex. 2, ¶ 0021 of Ogawa), falling within 8–25 mm.
Regarding claim 4, modified Ogawa discloses the coin-shaped lithium ion secondary battery for reflow soldering according to claim 1, wherein the exterior body comprises a positive electrode can (e.g., case 2 (note that electrode polarity is arbitrary in Ogawa) of Ogawa’s fig. 4, where cylindrical case would form a “can” if viewed aerially); a negative electrode can (e.g., cover 3 (again, because electrode polarity is arbitrary) of Ogawa’s fig. 4, which, if viewed aerially (such as in fig ), would also reasonably form a “can” by extending concentrically around the electrode assembly, as in instant fig. 1; and a gasket (ref. 6 of fig. 4), wherein the positive electrode can and the negative electrode can are crimped with the gasket interposed therebetween to form the closed space (via bending of ends of case 2 and cover 3 to mate with gasket 6 in Ogawa’s fig. 4; compare to substantially similar instant fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ogawa discloses the coin-shaped lithium ion secondary battery for reflow soldering according to claim 1, further comprising a positive electrode terminal joined to an outer surface of the exterior body (e.g., terminal 5 in Ogawa’s fig. 4 because, again, polarity is arbitrary), and a negative electrode terminal joined to an outer surface of the exterior body (e.g., terminal 4, Ogawa’s fig. 4).
As seen in Ogawa’s fig. 4, the terminals are longitudinally opposed and, thus, would necessarily each be closer to a respectively associated electrode, though Ogawa fails to explicitly disclose that the positive electrode terminal is joined to an outer surface of the exterior body closer to the positive electrode layer, and the negative electrode terminal is joined to an outer surface of the exterior body proximate to the negative electrode layer.
However, such would merely depend on the stacking orientation of Ogawa’s electrode assembly, where the skilled artisan would recognize that only two such orientations generally exist: the respective electrode layers are stacked to face either toward or away from the respective terminals. It would have been obvious to routinely explore a stacking configuration orienting the respective electrode layers to face toward their respective terminals—such that a respective terminal would be on an outer surface closer to the respective electrode layer—with a reasonable expectation of achieving successful electrical connection (MPEP 2143 (E.)).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ogawa discloses the coin-shaped lithium ion secondary battery for reflow soldering according to claim 1.
The limitation “wherein the positive electrode terminal and/or the negative electrode terminal is used for reflow soldering for mounting the coin-shaped lithium ion secondary battery on a substrate” is intended use. Recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed article is intended to be employed fails to differentiate the claimed article from a prior art article satisfying the claimed structural limitations given that the prior art’s article is capable of satisfying the intended use (MPEP 2111.02, 2114 (II)), which, here, would appear to be the case given modified Ogawa discloses all structural limitations and there being no evidence proving Ogawa’s battery incapable of such use. Nonetheless, Ogawa discloses that each electrode terminal is used for reflow soldering for mounting the coin-shaped lithium-ion secondary battery on a substrate (e.g., ¶ 0006, 0013, 0017).
Claim(s) 7–14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (JP 2007335615 A) in view of Shose et al. (US 20080081253 A1) (Shose), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Yura et al. (WO 2019221140 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20210036305 A1).
Regarding claims 7–14, modified Ogawa discloses the coin-shaped lithium ion secondary battery for reflow soldering according to claim 1.
However, in being unconcerned with the specific compositions of either electrode, the electrolyte, or the separator, Ogawa fails to explicitly disclose that the positive electrode layer is a ceramic positive electrode plate, specifically a lithium complex oxide sintered plate, wherein the lithium complex oxide is lithium cobaltate (claims 7–9); the negative electrode layer is a ceramic negative electrode plate, specifically a titanium-containing sintered plate, wherein the titanium-containing sintered plate comprises lithium titanate or niobium titanium complex oxide (claims 10–12); the separator is made of one selected from the recited group (claim 13); and the electrolytic solution is a solution containing lithium borofluoride (LiBF4) in a non-aqueous solvent consisting of at least one selected from the group consisting of γ-butyrolactone (GBL), ethylene carbonate (EC) and propylene carbonate (PC) (claim 14).
Yura teaches an analogous lithium coin cell (Abstract, fig. 1) including a positive electrode layer composed of a lithium cobaltate sintered body without binder or conductive agent (¶ 0030 and 0132)—and, thus, a lithium complex oxide ceramic positive electrode plate with no binder or conductive agent—because this structure prevents the positive electrode from deteriorating due to contact with the electrolyte (¶ 0030). Likewise, Yura teaches a negative electrode layer composed of a lithium titanate sintered body without binder or conductive agent (¶ 0043 and 0132)—and, thus, a Ti-containing ceramic negative electrode plate with no binder or conductive agent—because this structure provides high capacity and good (dis)charge efficiency due to high active-material density (¶ 0043, 0044). Yura further teaches a cellulose separator and an electrolyte of LiBF4 in a solvent of EC and GBL (¶ 0132) because this solution improves heat resistance (¶ 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, to incorporate Ogawa’s positive electrode layer as a ceramic, lithium complex oxide sintered plate, where the oxide is lithium cobaltate; Ogawa’s negative electrode layer as a ceramic, Ti-containing sintered plate comprising lithium titanate; Ogawa’s separator as cellulose; and Ogawa’s electrolytic solution as LiBF4 in GBL and EC with the reasonable expectation of achieving high capacity and improved heat resistance while avoiding positive-electrode deterioration, as taught by Yura.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered. Applicant’s amendment overcame the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Hayashi, which, as noted above, has been withdrawn. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments against Shose as follows:
Applicant argues that Shose’s projections 11a do not constitute a “bulge” because the claimed bulge is meant to be a smoothly curved dome. Applicant attempts to support this assertion by citing multiple dictionary definitions. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In contrast to Applicant’s envisioned “dome,” claim 1 merely requires “a bulge”. Because the specification omits a special definition of “bulge”, the term is afforded its plain meaning to one skilled in the art. Importantly, even by Applicant’s definition (see 5. noun in definitions page at end of Remarks), any of Shose’s projections extending axially from one of the “main surfaces” would reasonably meet a “bulge” as “something that bulges out or is protuberant or projects from its surroundings.” Although Applicant envisions a dome-shaped bulge in fig. 1, the specification is not imported into the claims. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that Shose fails to disclose that the gap is filled with electrolyte solution and/or contains an inserted elastic member. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Shose plainly discloses that electrolyte solution fills the internal space between the can/case and electrode assembly in ¶ 0047, and Examiner reemphasizes that any amount of electrolyte solution filling any portion of the gap meets “in a portion of the main region … a gap is formed between the exterior body and the positive electrode layer and/or the negative electrode layer, the gap being filled with the electrolytic solution”.
Applicant further argues that Shose’s projections do not have “a bulged structure that forms a gap”. Examiner respectfully submits, however, that claim 1 does not seem to require that the bulge forms the gap per se but recites “in a portion of the main region with the bulge, a gap is formed between the exterior body and the positive electrode layer and/or the negative electrode layer”. Shose (as well as Ogawa) reasonably this limitation via the internal space between the case/can and electrodes previously discussed because the lateral space exists at least partially within “a portion of the main region with the bulge” (i.e., the main region includes the bulge).
Applicant appears to further argue that Shose discloses that the electrolyte vaporizes (e.g., ¶ 0100) and, thus, does not disclose that the electrolyte solution is a) retained in the recesses 11b or b) fills the gap. Examiner respectfully submits that the argument of a) filling the recesses 11b is moot because Examiner did not cite such for the “gap” because the gap is Shose’s internal space. Examiner further disagrees with b) the argument of not retaining electrolyte solution in the gap because 1) claim 1 does not bound the battery’s activation state and, thus, allows the battery to exist in its pre-cycling/pre-activation state such that Shose’s battery, pre-activation (i.e., after electrolyte filling but before initial cycling that could vaporize electrolyte) would unambiguously meet the claim. 2) Shose discloses that “if the electrolyte vaporizes …” (¶ 0110) and, thus, implies that no solution evaporates and, thus, that the solution is retained, which is supported by the general knowledge of one skilled in the art that Shose’s battery must retain a non-zero amount of electrolyte solution to be able to conduct lithium ions and enable the battery to function (which, again, would meet claim 1’s “gap filled with the electrolytic solution” without reciting electrolyte quantity or gap size). Thus, absent evidence otherwise, Shose’s disclosure is considered sufficiently specific to meet the aforementioned limitation.
Moreover, to further address claim 2’s requirement that the bulge is on both main surfaces, see the necessitated new grounds of rejection over Ogawa in view of Shose above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/28/2026
