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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US-2025-0357469-A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed 21JAN2025 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 6 and 19 recite the term “substantially.” The term "substantially" is often used in conjunction with another term to describe a particular characteristic of the claimed invention. It is a broad term. In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2173.05(b) III D. The specification as originally filed remains silent regarding a definition for the term “substantially.” For the purpose of examination limitations preceded by the term “substantially” are interpreted as including reasonable deviation/error associated with measurement as would be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11-16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elomari (“Sputtered Silicon-Coated Graphite Electrodes as High Cycling Stability and Improved Kinetics Anodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries”; “Elomari”).
Regarding Claim 1, Elomari teaches electrochemical properties of all Si-graphite electrodes were investigated using a coin cell type (a type of battery cell) (last paragraph of Page 6) and that the silicon-coated graphite electrode is then employed and evaluated as an anode material for LIBs (lithium-ion batteries) (second full paragraph of Page 4 and last paragraph of Page 2).
Elomari teaches that graphite electrodes were created by coating a copper foil (a metallic foil – in direct contact with active transition layer) with 80 wt% synthetic graphite (Sigma-Aldrich, <20 μm) powder as active material (active transition layer) (last paragraph of Page 4). Elomari also teaches that Si was deposited on the graphite electrode, creating the silicon layer (first full paragraph of Page 5) and covering the bare graphite electrodes (in direct contact with the active transition layer) (first full paragraph of Page 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Elomari teaches the battery cell of Claim 1, wherein the active transition layer comprises graphite (a graphite active material) and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) as a binder (last paragraph of Page 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Elomari teaches the battery cell of Claim 1, wherein the active transition layer comprises graphite (a carbonaceous material) and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) as a binder (last paragraph of Page 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Elomari teaches the battery cell of Claim 2, wherein acetylene black (a carbon conductive additive) is added to the slurry along with graphite and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) before mixing and coating the copper foil to make the graphite electrodes (last paragraph of Page 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Elomari teaches an electrode (last paragraph of Page 6) with a copper foil (a current collector) for a rechargeable (first paragraph of Page 7) lithium-ion battery (second full paragraph of Page 4). Elomari teaches lithium intercalation compounds reflecting a lithium-accepting host material. Moreover, Elomari teaches that Si undergoes delithiation, indicating that Si is a lithium-accepting host material (second full paragraph of Page 12). Moreover, Elomari teaches a graphite active material layer between the silicon layer and the current collector (last paragraph of Page 4).
Regarding Claim 12, Elomari teaches the electrode for the rechargeable battery of Claim 11, wherein the Si thin films mitigate volume change while maintaining structural integrity, enabling faster lithiation (lithium-accepting host material is a silicon layer) (last paragraph of Page 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Elomari teaches the electrode for the rechargeable battery of Claim 12, wherein the current collector is a metal foil composed of copper (first paragraph of Page 5).
Regarding Claim 14, Elomari teaches the electrode for the rechargeable battery of Claim 12, wherein the active transition layer comprises a graphite active material and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) as a binder (last paragraph of Page 4).
Regarding Claim 15, Elomari teaches the electrode for the rechargeable battery of Claim 14, wherein sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) is a binder (last paragraph of Page 4).
Regarding Claim 16, Elomari teaches the battery cell of Claim 14, wherein acetylene black (a carbon conductive additive) is added to the slurry along with graphite and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) before mixing and coating on the copper foil to make the graphite electrodes (last paragraph of Page 4).
Regarding Claim 18, Elomari teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising an anode (a negative electrode) (second full paragraph of Page 4). Elomari teaches that graphite electrodes were created by coating a copper foil (a metallic foil – in direct contact with active transition layer) with 80 wt% synthetic graphite (Sigma-Aldrich, <20 μm) powder as active material (graphite transition layer) and 10 wt % sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) as a binder (last paragraph of Page 4). Elomari also teaches that Si was deposited on the graphite electrode, creating the silicon layer (first full paragraph of Page 5) and covering the bare graphite electrodes (in direct contact with the graphite transition layer) (first full paragraph of Page 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 5-7, 9-10, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elomari (“Sputtered Silicon-Coated Graphite Electrodes as High Cycling Stability and Improved Kinetics Anodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries”; “Elomari”) in view of Yang (“Preparing ultra-thin copper foil as current collector for improving the LIBs performances with reduced carbon footprint”; “Yang”).
Elomari teaches the limitations of Claims 2, 14, and 18 as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 5, Elomari teaches the battery cell of Claim 2, wherein the thickness of the silicon layer is 3 μm, which falls within the claimed range of 1 μm and 20 μm (first full paragraph of Page 14). Elomari teaches that the thickness of the graphite transition layer is around 20 μm (first full paragraph of Page 9), which falls within the claimed range of 2 μm and 50 μm. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
Elomari does not teach the thickness of the copper foil.
Yang teaches an ultra-thin 4.5 µm copper foil (third full paragraph of Page 2) that is coated with graphite, conducting agent (super P) and binder (poly(vinylidene fluoride), PVDF) (first full paragraph of Page 4). This overlaps with the claimed range of 1 μm to 5 μm for the thickness of the metallic foil. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium-ion battery of Elomari by utilizing a 4.5 µm copper foil as taught by Yang. Elomari and Yang each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)) by falling in the same field of endeavor of batteries, directly pertaining as well to the problem that the applicant is trying to solve – enhancing the performance, operational life, and manufacturability of batteries ([0004], Specification). Yang specifically teaches an ultra-thin 4.5 µm copper foil (third full paragraph of Page 2) that is coated with graphite, conducting agent (super P) and binder (poly(vinylidene fluoride), PVDF) (first full paragraph of Page 4), wherein the only missing element from Claims 1 and 2 is the silicon layer that is taught by Elomari – this demonstrates that Elomari and Yang are directly analogous to the claimed invention and directly pertain to the problem the applicant is trying to solve through structural similarities between the anode of Elomari and the negative electrode of Yang.
Yang provides the adequate motivation for incorporating these features readily known in the art, by stating the advantages of utilizing ultra-thin 4.5 µm foil of Yang as the current collector (last full paragraph of Page 2). Yang teaches that graphite is progressively being replaced by the graphite/silicon composite (second full paragraph of Page 1), and that adopting ultra-thin copper foil would improve battery performance while also decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the 4.5 µm copper foils of Yang have an advantage of increased tensile strength and higher energy density (last full paragraph of Page 2). The increased tensile strength enables the stable mechanical assembly of lithium-ion batteries (first full paragraph of Page 2). Moreover, regarding decreased greenhouse gas emissions, 40.6% carbon emission is eliminated when the thickness of the copper foil is reduced from the prevailing 9 µm to the thinner 4.5 µm ones (last full paragraph of Page 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Elomari teaches that the Si film (layer) covers the bare graphite electrodes completely and uniformly and that the electrodes were mounted on a rotating cylinder to guarantee homogenous coating thickness (a substantially homogenous thickness conforming to a contour of the active transition layer) (first full paragraph of Page 2, first full paragraph of Page 5, and first paragraph of Page 9).
Regarding Claim 7, Elomari teaches that the silicon-coated graphite electrode is an anode (negative electrode) material in LIBs – lithium-ion batteries (second full paragraph of Page 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Elomari teaches coating on a copper foil that has not been roughened (a non-roughened surface) (first paragraph of Page 5).
Elomari does not explicitly state the surface properties of the copper foil.
Yang teaches that the copper foils have a very low surface roughness and extraordinarily high tensile strength (Abstract). Yang also teaches a binder, wherein the binder bonds the transition layer onto the non-roughened surface (first full paragraph of Page 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium-ion battery of Elomari by utilizing a non-roughened surface for the metallic foil as taught by Yang. Elomari and Yang each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)) by falling in the same field of endeavor of batteries, directly pertaining as well to the problem that the applicant is trying to solve – enhancing the performance, operational life, and manufacturability of batteries ([0004], Specification). Yang provides the adequate motivation for incorporating these features readily known in the art – Yang teaches that the low surface roughness enhances battery performance by lightening the weight of the lithium-ion battery and keeping the energy capacity nearly unchanged, contributing to increased mass density. Yang teaches that high surface roughness leads to internal resistance, an undesirable characteristic (first full paragraph of Page 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Elomari teaches magnetron sputtering may be used to deposit thin silicon films on graphite electrode substates (second full paragraph of Page 4). Elomari teaches that magnetron sputtering enables the deposition of films with higher adhesion properties and precise chemical composition (effectuates an intimate bond with the transition layer) (first full paragraph of Page 4).
Regarding Claim 17, Elomari teaches the battery cell of Claim 14, wherein the thickness of the silicon layer is 3 μm, which falls within the claimed range of 1 μm and 20 μm (first full paragraph of Page 14). Elomari teaches that the thickness of the graphite transition layer is around 20 μm (first full paragraph of Page 9), which falls within the claimed range of 2 μm and 50 μm. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). Elomari teaches that the Si film (layer) covers the bare graphite electrodes completely and uniformly and that the electrodes were mounted on a rotating cylinder to guarantee homogenous coating thickness (first full paragraph of Page 2, first full paragraph of Page 5, and first paragraph of Page 9).
Elomari does not teach the thickness of the copper foil current collector.
Yang teaches an ultra-thin 4.5 µm copper foil current collector (third full paragraph of Page 2) that is coated with graphite, conducting agent (super P) and binder (poly(vinylidene fluoride), PVDF) (first full paragraph of Page 4). This overlaps with the claimed range of 1 μm to 5 μm for the thickness of the metallic foil. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium-ion battery of Elomari by utilizing a 4.5 µm copper foil as taught by Yang. Elomari and Yang each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)) by falling in the same field of endeavor of batteries, directly pertaining as well to the problem that the applicant is trying to solve – enhancing the performance, operational life, and manufacturability of batteries ([0004], Specification). Yang specifically teaches an ultra-thin 4.5 µm copper foil (third full paragraph of Page 2) that is coated with graphite, conducting agent (super P) and binder (poly(vinylidene fluoride), PVDF) (first full paragraph of Page 4), wherein the only missing element from Claims 1 and 2 is the silicon layer that is taught by Elomari – this demonstrates that Elomari and Yang are directly analogous to the claimed invention and directly pertain to the problem the applicant is trying to solve through structural similarities.
Yang provides the adequate motivation for incorporating these features readily known in the art, by stating the advantages of utilizing ultra-thin 4.5 µm foil of Yang as the current collector (last full paragraph of Page 2). Yang teaches that graphite is progressively being replaced by the graphite/silicon composite (second full paragraph of Page 1), and that adopting ultra-thin copper foil would improve battery performance while also decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the 4.5 µm copper foils of Yang have an advantage of increased tensile strength and higher energy density (last full paragraph of Page 2). The increased tensile strength enables the stable mechanical assembly of lithium-ion batteries (first full paragraph of Page 2). Moreover, regarding decreased greenhouse gas emissions, 40.6% carbon emission is eliminated when the thickness of the copper foil is reduced from the prevailing 9 µm to the thinner 4.5 µm ones (last full paragraph of Page 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Elomari teaches the lithium-ion battery of Claim 18, wherein the thickness of the silicon layer is 3 μm, which falls within the claimed range of 1 μm and 20 μm (first full paragraph of Page 14). Elomari teaches that the thickness of the graphite transition layer is around 20 μm (first full paragraph of Page 9), which falls within the claimed range of 2 μm and 50 μm. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). Elomari teaches that the Si film (layer) covers the bare graphite electrodes completely and uniformly and that the electrodes were mounted on a rotating cylinder to guarantee homogenous coating thickness (first full paragraph of Page 2, first full paragraph of Page 5, and first paragraph of Page 9).
Elomari does not teach the thickness of the current collector.
Yang teaches an ultra-thin 4.5 µm copper foil (current collector) (third full paragraph of Page 2) that is coated with graphite, conducting agent (super P) and binder (poly(vinylidene fluoride), PVDF) (first full paragraph of Page 4). This overlaps with the claimed range of 1 μm to 5 μm for the thickness of the metallic foil. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium-ion battery of Elomari by utilizing a 4.5 µm copper foil current collector as taught by Yang. Elomari and Yang each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)) by falling in the same field of endeavor of batteries, directly pertaining as well to the problem that the applicant is trying to solve – enhancing the performance, operational life, and manufacturability of batteries ([0004], Specification). Yang specifically teaches an ultra-thin 4.5 µm copper foil current collector (third full paragraph of Page 2) that is coated with graphite, conducting agent (super P) and binder (poly(vinylidene fluoride), PVDF) (first full paragraph of Page 4), wherein the only missing element from Claims 1 and 2 is the silicon layer that is taught by Elomari – this demonstrates that Elomari and Yang are directly analogous to the claimed invention and directly pertain to the problem the applicant is trying to solve through structural similarities between the anode of Elomari and the negative electrode of Yang.
Yang provides the adequate motivation for incorporating these features readily known in the art, by stating the advantages of utilizing ultra-thin 4.5 µm foil of Yang as the current collector (last full paragraph of Page 2). Yang teaches that graphite is progressively being replaced by the graphite/silicon composite (second full paragraph of Page 1), and that adopting ultra-thin copper foil would improve battery performance while also decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the 4.5 µm copper foils of Yang have an advantage of increased tensile strength and higher energy density (last full paragraph of Page 2). The increased tensile strength enables the stable mechanical assembly of lithium-ion batteries (first full paragraph of Page 2). Moreover, regarding decreased greenhouse gas emissions, 40.6% carbon emission is eliminated when the thickness of the copper foil is reduced from the prevailing 9 µm to the thinner 4.5 µm ones (last full paragraph of Page 2).
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elomari (“Sputtered Silicon-Coated Graphite Electrodes as High Cycling Stability and Improved Kinetics Anodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries”; “Elomari”) in view of Yang (“Preparing ultra-thin copper foil as current collector for improving the LIBs performances with reduced carbon footprint”; “Yang”) as evidenced by Battery Design (“Areal Capacity” ; “Battery Design”).
Regarding Claims 8 and 20, Elomari in view of Yang teach the limitations of Claim 5 and Claim 19 as taught above.
Elomari teaches a capacitance of 510 mAh/g for Si-G with a Si thickness of 1 μm along with an active material loading of 1.89 mg/cm2 (first paragraph of Page 7), which generates an active transition layer including an areal capacity loading of:
(510 mAh/g) (1.89 mg/cm2) (1 g/1000 mg) = 0.96 mAh/cm2,
which falls within the claimed range of 0 to 5 mAh/cm2. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
Elomari teaches the gravimetric capacity of Silicon is 3572 mAh/g, and the Si thin films have an amorphous structure (last full paragraph of Page 7). Elomari teaches that the change in mass per unit area from the Si layer with a thickness of 3 µm is the following (please also see Figure 7(a) of Elomari below):
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
636
946
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 7(a), duplicated from Page 16 of Elomari
(2.66 mg/cm2 – 1.77 mg/cm2) = 0.89 mg/cm2 Silicon
(3572 mAh/g) (0.00089 g/cm2 Silicon) = 3.2 Ah/cm2, which is within 20% of the claimed value of about 4 Ah/cm2
Elomari teaches the effect of Si thickness on the electrochemical performance and cycling ability (first full paragraph of Page 22). Elomari teaches a linear relationship between the charge/discharge capacities and thickness of Si deposited on graphite as well as with the capacity fading and thickness (first full paragraph of Page 22). Elomari establishes Si thickness as a result-effective variable which directly affects areal capacity. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the silicon thickness for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Moreover, as evidenced by Battery Design, a Si-Gr anode, standard commercial blend has an areal capacity of 2.5–4.5 mAh/cm2 and target ~4.0 mAh/cm² in production (first table of Page 3), providing further justification for routine optimization.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
KR-20200044995-A, a machine translation of which is being made of record and is used as the citation copy throughout this rejection, except where otherwise noted
Teaches that the anode film has an energy capacity greater than or equal to 372 mAh/g (last paragraph of Page 5); teaches a ceramic coating containing silicon oxide (first paragraph of Page 7); teaches that the anode film 170 is a silicon graphite film (fourth full paragraph of Page 14); teaches an anode current collector such as copper in the form of a metallic foil (second full paragraph of Page 13); teaches a sputtering system for thin film deposition of silicon graphite (fourth full paragraph of Page 14)
KR-20130010733-A, a machine translation of which is being made of record and is used as the citation copy throughout this rejection, except where otherwise noted
Teaches that conventional negative electrode active materials may be added to the negative electrode including silicon thin film carbon material or graphite (first paragraph of Page 8); teaches carbon black as the conductive agent (fifth full paragraph of Page 8) and binders including vinylidene fluoride/hexafluoropropylene copolymer, polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyacrylonitrile, polymethylmethacrylate, polytetrafluoroethylene and mixtures thereof, or styrene butadiene rubber polymers (sixth full paragraph of Page 8)
DE-102016123977-A1, a machine translation of which is being made of record and is used as the citation copy throughout this rejection, except where otherwise noted
Teaches that the negative electrode contains the silicon-based material, the other active material (including graphite – first full paragraph of Page 5), the binder (listed in fourth full paragraph of Page 4), and conductive additives including Super P and acetylene (fourth full paragraph of Page 4 and third full paragraph of Page 5)
RU-2633529-C1, a machine translation of which is being made of record and is used as the citation copy throughout this rejection, except where otherwise noted
Teaches a metal foil with a film of silicon coated with another film of lithium nanotitanate; teaches a silicon composite with a multilayer structure wherein the thickness of the silicon film is from 0.1 to 5 microns (last paragraph of Page 2)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-0315. The examiner can normally be reached 8a.m.-5p.m..
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE/
Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights