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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2025 and 12/19/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are not in compliance with 37 C.F.R 1.84(u)(1), which requires that when only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG.” must not appear. As the applicant’s drawings comprise only one view, and it is labeled “FIG. 1”, it is not in compliance with this requirement.
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 Objections
Claims 2, 3, 9, 12, and 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 is objected to due to the phrasing “wherein the conducting polymer comprises one or more selected from”, due to an omitted “polymer”. A suggested rephrasing is “wherein the conducting polymer comprises one or more polymer selected from”.
Claim 3 is objected to due to the phrasing “wherein the lithium salt comprises one or more selected from” due to an omitted “lithium salt”. A suggested rephrasing is “wherein the lithium salt comprises one or more lithium salt selected from”.
Claim 9 is objected to due to the phrasing “a method for preparing a solid electrolyte according, comprising”. Here, “according” should be deleted.
Claim 12 is objected to due to “wherein the substrate is stainless steel” as the claim does not specify what object is made of stainless steel. Based on specification page 20, a suggested rephrasing is “wherein the substrate is stainless steel foil”
Claim 13 is objected to due to the phrasing “wherein the solvent comprises one or more selected from” due to an omitted “solvent”. A suggested rephrasing is “wherein the solvent comprises one or more solvent selected from”.
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.
Claims 8 and 16 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 8 is indefinite, reciting “the solid electrolyte has a thickness”, due to having an ambiguous antecedent basis, as a solid electrolyte inherently has a thickness. Therefore, it is unclear if “a thickness” refers to the entire thickness of the electrolyte or any part of said thickness. For the purpose of examination “the solid electrolyte has a thickness” has been interpreted to mean “the solid electrolyte has the thickness”.
Claim 16 is indefinite, reciting “an all solid battery comprising the electrode of claim 13”. Claim 13 is directed towards the method of claim 9, and does not introduce an electrode. Claim 9 is directed towards a method of preparing a solid electrolyte, without any requirement for an electrode. Accordingly, there is no antecedent basis provided for “the electrode of claim 13”. For the purpose of examination, this claim will be interpreted as being dependent upon the broadest claim which is directed towards an electrode. Accordingly, Claim 16 is treated as being dependent upon claim 14.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 requires structure where the electrode is a positive electrode or a negative electrode. As an electrode can only be positive or negative, claim 15 does not further limit claim 14 which requires an electrode.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chae (US 20200350586 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chae discloses a solid electrolyte comprising a conducting polymer (Paragraph 0045, “The layer 13 containing the polymer material for the lithium secondary battery exhibits high ionic and electronic conductivity and is preferably used as an electrolyte,”), where the electrolyte is a solid electrolyte in an all-solid-state battery (Paragraph 0044, “The lithium secondary battery proposed in the present invention may preferably be an all-solid-state battery.”), and a lithium salt (Paragraph 0041, “The polymer material for the lithium secondary battery may further comprise a lithium salt.”). Chae further discloses that their conducting polymer has mixed conducting characteristics which include ionic conductivity and electrical conductivity (Abstract, “A polymer material for a lithium secondary battery having ionic conductivity and electronic conductivity at the same time,”).
Regarding Claim 2, Chae anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally Chae discloses that the conducting polymer comprises poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)”poly(styrenesulfonate) (PEDOT:PSS) (Paragraph 0016, “At this time, the conductive polymer is characterized by comprising poly-(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene):poly (styrenesulfonate) (PEDOT:PSS).”) and polythiophene (Paragraph 0014, “The present invention provides a polymer material for a lithium secondary battery comprising a polythiophene-based polymer represented by Formula 1 below and a conductive polymer.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Chae anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the lithium salt comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of LiTFSI, LiFSI, LiCl, LiBr, LiI, LiClO4, LiBF4, LiB10Cl10, LiPF6, LiCF3SO3, LiCF3CO2, LiAsF6, LiSbF6, LiAlCl4, CH3SO3Li, , LiSCN, LiC(CF3SO2)3 (CF3SO2)2NLi and (FSO2)2NLi, Chae discloses that the lithium salt comprises one or more of said lithium salts (Paragraph 0042).
Regarding Claim 4, Chae anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires 5 to 300 parts by weight of lithium salt relative to 100 parts of the conducting polymer, Chae discloses the solid electrolyte comprising 5 to 30 parts by weight of lithium salt per 100 parts by weight of conducting polymer (Paragraph 0043, “The lithium salt is preferably contained in an amount of 60 parts by weight or less, preferably 5 to 50 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the blend-type polymer contained in the polymer material.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Chae anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Che discloses structure wherein the solid electrolyte has a form of a matrix of the conducting polymer, through their disclosure that the method includes a dissolving and drying of their polymer (Paragraph 0095, “A polymer material solution was prepared by dissolving P3PEGT prepared in the above Preparation Example and PEDOT:PSS (3 wt. % in H2O, 200 S/cm, Sigma-Aldrich) as a conductive polymer at a weight ratio of 80:20 in dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO), a solvent, in the amount of 5 weight ratio relative to the total weight of the solvent.”), wherein the lithium salt is dissociated inside the matrix, through their disclosure of an inclusion of the lithium salt in the dissolved solution (Paragraph 0107, “A polymer material was prepared in the same manner as in the above Examples and Comparative Example by adding LiTFSI as a lithium salt to the solution of the polymer material prepared in the above Examples and Comparative Example at the ratios shown in Table 2 below.”) which meets the requirement of the lithium salt being dissociated, followed by a drying step which forms a solid that therefore comprises a matrix of the conducting polymer which the lithium salt is inside.
Regarding Claim 7, Chae anticipates the invention of claim 1. Additionally, Chae discloses that their solid electrolyte has a form of a solid electrolyte film (Paragraph 0096, “After that, the substrate was heat treated at 200° C. for 20 minutes and peeled off from the glass substrate to produce a polymer material in the form of a film.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Chae discloses a method for preparing a solid electrolyte comprising mixing a conducting polymer, a lithium salt, and a solvent to prepare a mixed solution (Paragraph 0095, “A polymer material solution was prepared by dissolving P3PEGT prepared in the above Preparation Example and PEDOT:PSS [as] a conductive polymer [in] dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO), a solvent,”; Paragraph 0107, “A polymer material was prepared in the same manner as in the above Examples and Comparative Example by adding LiTFSI as a lithium salt to the solution of the polymer material”), coating the mixed solution on a substrate to form a coating layer (Paragraph 0096, “Thereafter, the solution was spin-coated on a glass substrate”), and drying the coating layer (Paragraph 0096, “and then dried at 120° C. to completely dry the solvent”).
Regarding Claim 10, Chae anticipates the invention of Claim 9. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the coating is carried out by bar coating, roll coating, spin coating, slit coating, die coating, blade coating, comma coating, slot die coating, lip coating, or solution casting, Chae discloses that the coating is carried out by spin coating (Paragraph 0096, “Thereafter, the solution was spin-coated on a glass substrate at 3,000 rpm for 2 minutes”), as well as disclosing bar coating, roll coating, die coating, blade coating, and solution casting (Paragraph 0079).
Regarding Claim 11, Chae anticipates the invention of Claim 9. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the drying is carried out at 300 degrees Celsius or less, Chae discloses that the drying is carried out at 120 degrees Celsius (Paragraph 0096, “and then dried at 120° C. to completely dry the solvent).
Regarding Claim 12, Chae anticipates the invention of Claim 9. Additionally, Chae discloses that the substrate may be polyethylene terephthalate film, polytetrafluoroethylene film, polyethylene film, polypropylene film, vinyl chloride copolymer film, and polyimide film (Paragraph 0078).
Regarding Claim 13, Chae anticipates the invention of Claim 9. Additionally, Chae discloses that the solvent is dimethylsulfoxide (Paragraph 0095, “in dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO), a solvent”).
Regarding Claim 14, Chae discloses an electrode (Paragraph 0039, “One embodiment of the present invention may be a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery”) for an all-solid battery (Paragraph 0044, “The lithium secondary battery proposed in the present invention may preferably be an all-solid-state battery.”).
Additionally, Chae discloses that the electrode includes a coating layer comprising the solid electrolyte of claim 1 formed thereon (Paragraph 0045, “Referring to FIG. 1, the lithium secondary battery 10 may include a positive electrode 11, a negative electrode 17, a layer 13 containing the polymer material for the lithium secondary battery according to the present invention, and a separator 15 interposed therebetween.”).
Regarding Claim 15, Chae anticipates the invention of Claim 14. Additionally, Chae discloses that the electrode is a positive electrode (paragraph 0039, “One embodiment of the present invention may be a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery including the polymer material for the lithium secondary battery.”).
Regarding Claim 16, Chae discloses an all-solid battery (Paragraph 0044, “The lithium secondary battery proposed in the present invention may preferably be an all-solid-state battery.”) comprising the electrode of claim 14 (Paragraph 0039, “One embodiment of the present invention may be a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery”).
Claim(s) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (US 20200144666 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Choi discloses a method for preparing a solid electrolyte comprising mixing a conducting polymer (“Abstract, “A polymer solid electrolyte having high ion conductivity,”), a lithium salt, and a solvent to prepare a mixed solution (Paragraph 0103, “A solution was prepared by mixing fluorine-substituted polyphenylene sulfide having the following repeating unit, and LiTFSI in a weight ratio of 7:3, and dissolving the result in an NMP solvent.”), coating the mixed solution on a substrate to form a coating layer (Paragraph 0104, “The obtained solution was coated on a Teflon film using doctor blade coating to form a poly(phenylene sulfide-phenylene sulfoxide), and drying the coating layer (Paragraph 0105, “Then, a polymer solid electrolyte membrane was prepared for 24 hours at room temperature and for 24 hours in a 60° C. vacuum oven.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Choi anticipates the invention of claim 9. Additionally, Choi discloses that their coating is carried about by bar coating, roll coating, spin coating, die coating, blade coating, slot die coating (Paragraph 0063) or solution casting (Paragraph 0060, “As one example, a solution casting method may be used for preparing the film.”).
Regarding Claim 11, Choi anticipates the invention of Claim 9. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the drying is carried out at 300 degrees Celsius or less, Choi discloses that their drying is carried out at 60 to 100 degrees Celsius (Paragraph 0067, “The drying may vary depending on each constituent, the organic solvent type and the content ratio, but is preferably carried out for 30 seconds to 15 minutes at 60° C. to 100° C”).
Regarding Claim 12, Choi anticipates the invention of Claim 9. Additionally, Choi discloses that their substrate is polyethylene terephthalate film, poly tetrafluoroethylene film, polyethylene film, polypropylene film, or a polyimide film (Paragraph 0062).
Regarding Claim 13, Choi anticipates the invention of Claim 9. Additionally, Choi discloses that their solvent is dimethyl sulfoxide, N-methylpyrrolidone, acetone, or tetrahydrofuran (Paragraph 0053).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae (US 20200350586 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of O'Neill (US 20180006328 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Chae discloses all the claim limitations set forth above. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the solid electrolyte comprises 100 to 300 parts of lithium salt by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of conducting polymer, Chae fails to disclose said structure. Therefore, we look to O’Neill, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of solid electrolyte compositions (Abstract, “A solid-state electrolyte including a polymer, which can be ion-conducting or non-conducting; an ion-conducting inorganic material; a lithium salt; an additive salt and optionally a coupling agent.”).
O’Neill discloses a solid electrolyte which comprises an ion conducting polymer (Paragraph 0014, “The solid electrolyte includes a polymer, which can be ion-conducting”) and a lithium salt (Paragraph 0014, “In certain preferred embodiments, the solid-state electrolyte comprises PVdF, lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide,”). Here, O’Neill discloses that in their solid electrolyte, the polymer cab have a weight percentage of about 2% to about 15% and the lithium salt can have a weight percentage of about 5% to about 35% (Paragraph 0052, “For example, the polymer can be present in the electrolyte formulation at a weight percent of from about 2% to about 15%, the inorganic ion conductor can be present in the electrolyte formulation at a weight percent of from about 40% to about 95%, the lithium salt can be present in the electrolyte formulation at a weight percent of from about 5% to about 35%,”), specifically disclosing an embodiment which comprises 9 weight percent polymer and 7 to 30 weight percent lithium salt (Paragraph 0057, “9 weight percent PVdF, and from about 7 to about 30 weight percent LiTFSI.”). Further, O’Neill demonstrates that their electrolyte, which comprises lithium salt, polymer, and inorganic components has a conductivity of about 10-4 S/cm, based on their figure 1B (Paragraph 0062, “In each figure, the solid circles represent a solid-state electrolyte formed from PVdF and LiTFSI, and the solid triangles represent a solid-state electrolyte formed from PVdF, LiTFSI, and LTAP. Taken together, FIGS. 1A and 1B show that the solid-state electrolyte having a polymer/inorganic formulation (PVdF, LiTFSI, and LTAP) has improved conductivity as compared to the solid-state electrolyte having a polymer formulation (PVdF and LiTFSI).”), as well as demonstrating that their polymer electrolyte demonstrates superior conductivity over a polymer solid electrolyte which comprises only a polymer and a lithium salt.
Additionally, though Chae discloses that the lithium salt is preferably contained in an amount of 60 parts by weight or less per 100 parts by weight of the polymer, stating that when the content exceeds the above range there is not a large increase in effect (Paragraph 0043), this statement of Chae is limited to a solid electrolyte which comprises only a polymer and a lithium salt. In comparison, O’Neill teaches that their compositional ratio of a solid electrolyte comprising a polymer, a lithium salt, and an additive demonstrates superior conductivity to a solid electrolyte comprising only a polymer and a lithium salt. Therefore, the statement of Chae is limited solely to a solid electrolyte comprising only a conductive polymer and a lithium salt, and cannot be understood to apply to a solid electrolyte comprising a conductive polymer, a lithium salt, and a conductive additive.
Accordingly, it would be obvious to apply the conductive additive and compositional ratio of O’Neill to the invention of Chae, thereby making obvious the inclusion of the inorganic component and the compositional ratios of the polymer, lithium salt, and inorganic component. Therefore, O’Neill makes obvious a polymer content of 9 wt% and a lithium salt content of 5 to 35 weight percent. This represents a weight ratio of 55 parts by weight of lithium salt per 100 parts by weight of polymer to 333 parts by weight of lithium salt to 100 parts by weight of polymer. This range encompasses the claimed range of 100 to 300 parts by weight of lithium salt per 100 parts by weight of polymer.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
O’Neill is an analogous art to the instant application as it is in the same field of ionically conductive polymer solid electrolytes (see Abstract). It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Chae’s solid electrolyte such that it comprises the conductive additive of O’Neill, and the compositional ratio of the solid electrolyte which includes the conductive additive, as the ratio disclosed by O’Neill demonstrates superior conductivity for a solid electrolyte comprising the conductive additive compared to one without. It would further be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the compositional percentages of the polymer component and lithium salt with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in improved conductivity.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae (US 20200350586 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Chae discloses the solid electrolyte as set forth above. Chae further discloses ([0067]) wherein the lithium nickel-containing oxide has a primary particle diameter of 3 µm to 20 µm, but does not explicitly disclose the claimed range of 0.5 µm to 5 um.
Chae teaches ([0067]) that when the primary particle diameter lies within the disclosed range, good dispersibility, mechanical strength, and specific surface area can be achieved.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I), and thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the primary particle diameter of the lithium nickel-containing oxide with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in good dispersibility, mechanical strength, and specific surface area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights