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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to teach a positive electrode material comprising the claimed composition for the core particle further comprising a first coating layer comprising phosphate and pyrophosphate wherein the phosphate and pyrophosphate have the claimed interplanar spacing and crystal orientation angle in addition to all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claims 1 – 8, 14, 17, 19 – 20, 36, 38, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Armand, US20100065787A1.
Regarding claim 1, Armand teaches a positive electrode active material having LiMPO4, wherein M includes Mn and a non-Mn element [0003][0004], and the non-Mn element satisfies at least one of the following conditions:
the ionic radius a of the non-Mn element and the ionic radius b of manganese element satisfy that |a−b|/b is not greater than 10%; the valence alternation voltage U of the non-Mn element satisfies 2 V < U < 5.5 V (non-Mn elements selected from the list of first dopants inherently possessing the claimed property)[0004];
the chemical activity of a chemical bond formed by the non-Mn element and O is not less than that of a P—O bond; and the highest valence of the non-Mn element is not greater than 6 (non-Mn elements selected from the list of second dopants inherently possessing the claimed property)[0004];.
Regarding claim 2, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein the non-Mn element includes one or two of a first doping element and a second doping element, the first doping element is doped at the manganese site, and the second doping element is doped at the phosphorus site (non-Mn elements comprising elements from the listed first and second dopants)[0004]
Regarding claim 3, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 2, wherein the first doping element satisfies at least one of the following conditions:
the ionic radius a of the first doping element and the ionic radius b of manganese element satisfy that |a−b|/b is not greater than 10%; and the valence alternation voltage U of the first doping element satisfies 2 V<U<5.5 V (non-Mn elements selected from the list of first dopants inherently possessing the claimed property)[0004].
Regarding claim 4, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 2, wherein the second doping element satisfies at least one of the following conditions:
the chemical activity of a chemical bond formed by the second doping element and O is not less than that of a P—O bond; and the highest valence of the second doping element is not greater than 6 (non-Mn elements selected from the list of second dopants inherently possessing the claimed property)[0004].
Regarding claim 5, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 2, wherein the positive electrode active material contains at least two first doping elements [0004].
Regarding claim 6, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 2, wherein the first doping element includes one or more elements selected from Zn, Al, Na, K, Mg, Mo, W, Ti, V, Zr, Fe, Ni, Co, Ga, Sn, Sb, Nb and Ge [0004].
Regarding claim 7, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 6, wherein the first doping element includes at least two selected from Fe, Ti, V, Ni, Co, and Mg [0004].
Regarding claim 8, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 2, wherein the second doping element includes one or more elements selected from B (boron), S, Si and N [0004].
Regarding claim 14, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 13, wherein C, R and D are each independently any element within the respective ranges above, and A is at least two elements within the range thereof [0004].
Regarding claim 17, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein the surface oxygen valency of the positive electrode active material is −1.89 to −1.98 (inherently present in the formula of Armand).
Regarding claim 19, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein the positive electrode active material further has a coating layer (carbon coating)[0095].
Regarding claim 20, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 19, wherein the coating layer comprises carbon (carbon coating)[0095].
Regarding claim 36, Armand teaches a positive electrode plate, comprising a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode film layer provided on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector, wherein the positive electrode film layer comprises the positive electrode active material according to claim 1 [0020].
Regarding claim 38, Armand teaches a secondary battery, comprising the positive electrode active material according to claim 1 [0020].
Regarding claim 41, Armand teaches a power consuming device (load)[0135], comprising the secondary battery according to claim 38 [0020].
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 9 – 13, 37, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Armand, US20100065787A1.
Regarding claim 9, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein the positive electrode active material comprises Li1+x Mn1-y Ay P1-z Rz O4, where:
x is any numerical value in a range of −0.100-0.100,
y is any numerical value in a range of 0.001-0.500,
z is any numerical value in a range of 0.001-0.100,
A includes one or more elements selected from Zn, Al, Na, K, Mg, Mo, W, Ti, V, Zr, Fe, Ni, Co, Ga, Sn, Sb, Nb, and Ge, and
R includes one or more elements selected from B (boron), S, Si and N [0004].
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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 10, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 9, wherein the ratio of y to 1−y is 1:10 to 1:1 [0004]. 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 11, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 9, wherein the ratio of z to 1−z is 1:9 to 1:999 [0004]. 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 12, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 9, wherein x is selected from a range of 0.001 to 0.005; and/or, y is selected from a range of 0.01 to 0.5; and/or, z is selected from a range of 0.001 to 0.005; and/or, n is selected from a range of 0.001 to 0.005 [0004]. 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 13, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein the positive electrode active material comprises Li1+xCmMn1-yAyP1-zRzO4-nDn, where:
C includes one or more elements selected from Zn, Al, Na, K, Mg, Nb, Mo and W,
A includes one or more elements selected from Zn, Al, Na, K, Mg, Mo, W, Ti, V, Zr, Fe, Ni, Mg, Co, Ga, Sn, Sb, Nb and Ge,
R includes one or more elements selected from B (boron), S, Si and N,
D includes one or more elements selected from S, F, Cl and Br,
x is any numerical value in a range of −0.100-0.100, y is any numerical value in a range of 0.001-0.500, z is any numerical value in a range of 0.001-0.100, n is any numerical value in a range of 0.001 to 0.1, and m is any numerical value in a range of 0.9 to 1.1 [0004].
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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 37, combined Armand teaches the positive electrode plate according to claim 36.
Further, Armand teaches wherein the content of the positive electrode active material in the positive electrode film layer is 10 wt % or more, based on the total weight of the positive electrode film layer (93% or higher)[0056]. 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 39, Armand teaches the secondary battery according to claim 38 [0020].
Armand does not teach a battery module.
However, it is known in the art to combine a plurality of cells to increase the capacity of the energy storage. Then, multiplying the number of cells to create a battery module is considered to be an obvious duplication of parts which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04 B].
Regarding claim 40, Armand teaches the battery module according to claim 39 [0020].
Armand does not teach a battery pack.
However, it is known in the art to combine a plurality of cells to increase the capacity of the energy storage. Then, multiplying the number of cells to create a battery pack is considered to be an obvious duplication of parts which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04 B].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Armand, US20100065787A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park, US20240222619A1
Regarding claim 15, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1.
Armand does not teach wherein the lattice change rate of the positive electrode active material is 8% or less.
Park teaches a positive electrode active material wherein the lattice change rate of the positive electrode active material is 8% or less (2 – 3 %)[0107]. Further, Park teaches that the lattice change rate within the claimed range suppresses structural collapse or cracks due to charge and discharge, and it is understood that the cycle-life characteristic of the battery is improved accordingly [0103]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the lattice change rate of Park into the material of Armand to improve cycle life.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Armand, US20100065787A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma, US20230025348A1
Regarding claim 16, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1.
Armand does not teach wherein the Li/Mn antisite defect concentration of the positive electrode active material is 4% or less.
Ma teaches a positive electrode active material wherein the Li/Mn antisite defect concentration of the positive electrode active material is reduced [0030]. Further, Ma teaches reducing the antisite defect amount increases the battery lifespan [0030]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed range of antisite defect in view of the teachings of Ma as a matter of routine optimization.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Armand, US20100065787A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zeng, US20220336793A1.
Regarding claim 18, the positive electrode active material according to claim 1.
Armand does not teach wherein the positive electrode active material has a compacted density under 3T of 2.0 g/cm3 or more.
Zeng teaches a positive electrode active material wherein the positive electrode active material has a compacted density under 3T of 2.0 g/cm3 or more [0047]. Further, Zeng teaches the compact density within the claimed range increases the energy density of the battery [0035].
Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the density of Zeng into the material of Armand to increase the energy density.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Armand, US20100065787A1 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Wang, CN107394152B.
Regarding claim 21, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 20.
Armand does not teach wherein the carbon in the coating layer is a mixture of SP2-form carbon and SP3-form carbon.
Wang teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a carbon coating layer wherein the carbon in the coating layer is a mixture of SP2-form carbon and SP3-form carbon [pg. 1 para. 9]. Further, Wang teaches that carbon coating having a mixture of SP2-form carbon and SP3-form carbon increases the conductivity [pg. 1 para. 9]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the forms of Wang into the coating layer of Armand to improve conductivity.
Claims 22, 23, 25, 27, 30 – 31 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Armand, US20100065787A1 as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Wu, CN109301174B.
Regarding claim 22, Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 19.
Armand does not teach wherein the coating layer includes an inorganic coating layer and a carbon coating layer, with the inorganic coating layer being provided to be closer to the inner core.
Wu teaches a positive electrode active material [pg. 1 para. 3] wherein the coating layer includes an inorganic coating layer and a carbon coating layer, with the inorganic coating layer being provided to be closer to the inner core (core with transition layer and carbon surface coating)[pg. 1 para. 9]. Further, Wu teaches the positive electrode material has a higher lithium ion diffusion rate and electronic conductivity, and uses the positive electrode material. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the coating layers of Wu into the positive active material of Armand to improve conductivity.
Regarding claim 23, combined Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 22.
Further, Wu teaches wherein the inorganic coating layer contains at least one of a phosphate and a pyrophosphate (lithium pyrophosphate)[pg. 1 para. 9]
Regarding claim 25, combined Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 23.
Further, Wu teaches wherein: the coating layer includes a first coating layer coating the inner core and a second coating layer coating the first coating layer the first coating layer comprises a pyrophosphate of QP2O7 and a phosphate of XPO4 [pg. 3 para. 3], where Q and X are each independently selected from one or more of Li, Fe, Ni, Mg, Co, Cu, Zn, Ti, Ag, Zr, Nb, or Al; and the second coating layer comprises carbon [pg. 1 para. 9].
Regarding claim 27, combined Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 25.
Further, Armand teaches wherein the coating amount of the first coating layer is greater than 0 wt % and less than or equal to 7 wt % (less than 7%)[0056].
Regarding claim 30, combined Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 24.
Further, Armand teaches wherein the coating amount of the second coating layer is greater than 0 wt % and less than or equal to 6 wt %, based on the weight of the inner core (less than 5%)[0056].
Regarding claim 31, combined Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 23.
Further, Wu teaches wherein: the positive electrode active material comprises a first coating layer coating the inner core, the first coating layer, and a third coating layer coating the second coating layer; the first coating layer comprises a crystalline pyrophosphate of LiaQP2O7 and/or Qb(P2O7)c, where 0≤a≤2, 1≤b≤4, 1≤c≤6, the values of a, b, and c satisfy the condition of keeping the crystalline pyrophosphate of LiaQP2O7 or Qb(P2O7)c electrically neutral, and Q in the crystalline pyrophosphates of LiaQP2O7 and Qb(P2O7)c is each independently selected from one or more elements of Fe, Ni, Mg, Co, Cu, Zn, Ti, Ag, Zr, Nb, or Al; the third coating layer is carbon [pg. 1 para. 9].
Combined Armand does not teach a second coating layer coating wherein the second coating layer comprises crystalline phosphate XPO4 in which X is one or more elements selected from Li, Fe, Ni, Mg, Co, Cu, Zn, Ti, Ag, Zr, Nb, or Al.
However, Wu teaches wherein the first coating layer comprises XPO4 in which X is one or more elements selected from Li [pg. 3 para. 3]. Then, the separation of the components of the first layer of Wu to be instead a first and second layer is considered to be within the skill of an ordinary artisan as an obvious rearrangement of parts [MPEP 2144.04 VI C].
Regarding claim 35, combined Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 31.
Further, Armand teaches wherein based on the weight of the positive electrode active material, the content of manganese element is in a range of 10 wt %-35 wt %; the content of phosphorus element is in a range of 12 wt %-25 wt %; and the weight ratio of manganese element to phosphorus element is in a range of 0.90-1.25 [0004][0039]. 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Claims 26, 28, and 33 – 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Armand, US20100065787A1 and Wu, CN109301174B as applied to claim 25 and 31 above, and further in view of Park, US20170365859A1.
Regarding claim 26, combined Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 25.
Combined Armand does not teach wherein Q includes Li and one or more selected from Fe, Ni, Mg, Co, Cu, Zn, Ti, Ag, Zr, Nb or Al.
Park teaches a positive electrode active material [0002] coating layer disposed on at least a portion of the lithium composite oxide and including a composite including ZrP2O7 and LiZr2(PO4)3 [0009]. Further, Park teaches the cathode and which exhibits an enhanced capacity retention rate [0008]. Then, it would have been obvious to combine the coating composition of Park into the positive electrode active material of combined Armand to improve the capacity retention rate.
Regarding claim 28, combined Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 25.
Combined Armand does not teach wherein the weight ratio of the pyrophosphate to the phosphate in the first coating layer is 1:3 to 3:1.
Park teaches a positive electrode active material [0002] coating layer disposed on at least a portion of the lithium composite oxide and including a composite including ZrP2O7 and LiZr2(PO4)3 [0009] wherein the ratio of each is varied [0058][0061]. 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Further, Park teaches the cathode and which exhibits an enhanced capacity retention rate [0008]. Then, it would have been obvious to combine the coating composition of Park into the positive electrode active material of combined Armand to improve the capacity retention rate.
Regarding claim 33, combined Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 31.
Further, Armand teaches the coating amount of the third coating layer is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 6 wt %, based on the weight of the inner core (less than 5%)[0056].
Combined Armand does not teach wherein: the coating amount of the first coating layer is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 6 wt %, based on the weight of the inner core; and/or the coating amount of the second coating layer is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 6 wt %, based on the weight of the inner core; and/or the coating amount of the third coating layer is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 6 wt %, based on the weight of the inner core.
Park teaches a positive electrode active material [0002] coating layer disposed on at least a portion of the lithium composite oxide and including a composite including ZrP2O7 and LiZr2(PO4)3 [0009] the coating amount of the first coating layer is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 6 wt %, based on the weight of the inner core; and/or the coating amount of the second coating layer is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 6 wt %, based on the weight of the inner core (0.2 – 7.5%)[0056]. 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Further, Park teaches the cathode and which exhibits an enhanced capacity retention rate [0008]. Then, it would have been obvious to combine the coating composition of Park into the positive electrode active material of combined Armand to improve the capacity retention rate.
Regarding claim 34, combined Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 31.
Combined Armand does not teach wherein: the first coating layer has a thickness of 1-10 nm; and/or the second coating layer has a thickness of 2-15 nm; and/or the third coating layer has a thickness of 2-25 nm.
Park teaches a positive electrode active material [0002] coating layer disposed on at least a portion of the lithium composite oxide and including a composite including ZrP2O7 and LiZr2(PO4)3 [0009] wherein: the first coating layer has a thickness of 1-10 nm; and/or the second coating layer has a thickness of 2-15 nm; and/or the third coating layer has a thickness of 2-25 nm (1 nm – 1um)[0090]. Further, Park teaches when the total thickness of the coating layer is within the above range, a lithium battery with enhanced capacity retention rate and capacity characteristics may be manufactured [0090]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the thicknesses of Park into the positive electrode material of combined Armand to improve capacity.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Armand, US20100065787A1 and Wu, CN109301174B as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Watanabe, US20200119342A1.
Regarding claim 29, combined Armand teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 25.
Combined Armand does not teach wherein: the pyrophosphate and the phosphate each independently have a crystallinity of 10% to 100%.
Watanabe teaches positive electrode active material comprising a coating [0006][0007] wherein the coating layer has a crystallinity of 50 – 95% [0024]. Further, Watanabe teaches the crystallinity within the claimed range sufficiently reduces occurrence of the side reactions upon charge/discharge cycles [0048]. Then. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the crystallinity of Watanabe into the positive electrode material coating of combined Armand to improve resistance to side reactions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights