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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/03/2024, 07/03/2024, and 09/16/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. Specifically, claim 28 refers to a ratio between a “surface” and volume of an electrochemical cell. It is unclear/indefinite to examiner what “surface” is referring to, whether it means surface area or area of a single surface, or what the requisite units are for the desired ratio. There is very little in the specification related to this claim, and it also does not further define what the surface is referring to. Claim needs to be amended to clarify what the required ratio is in reference to in order to be properly examined in regards to anticipation/obviousness rejections. If it would require new matter to do so, examiner would recommend canceling the claim in order to expedite prosecution.
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) 14-18, 22, 26-27, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forlino (US 20040146777 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Forlino teaches all of the following elements:
An energy supply device for a power tool, the energy supply device comprising: (“In one aspect, the invention comprises an electrochemical device having an electrochemical cell located within the sealed first enclosure.” Forlino [0015]. The electrochemical device of Forlino functions as the energy supply device, and it would be capable of being used in a power tool.)
at least one cell, the at least one cell of the energy supply device having no pressure relief valve. (“In one aspect, the invention comprises an electrochemical device having an electrochemical cell located within the sealed first enclosure.” Forlino [0015]. The electrochemical cell of Forlino functions as the cell. In the first few embodiments of Forlino there is no pressure relief valve present in the electrochemical device.)
Regarding claim 15, Forlino teaches all of the following elements:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 14 wherein the at least one cell has a flexible outer shell, at least in some section. (“In one aspect, the invention comprises an electrochemical device having an electrochemical cell located within the sealed first enclosure. The first enclosure has at least a portion that is flexible.” Forlino [0015]. In this case, the first enclosure acts as the outer shell of the at least one cell, and is taught to be flexible.)
Regarding claim 16, Forlino teaches all of the following elements:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 14 wherein the at least one cell has an outer surface, (“In one aspect, the invention comprises an electrochemical device having an electrochemical cell located within the sealed first enclosure. The first enclosure has at least a portion that is flexible.” Forlino [0015]. In this case, the first enclosure acts as the outer surface of the at least one cell.)
Regarding claim 17, Forlino teaches all of the following elements:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 14 wherein the at least one cell has a volume, (This is inherently the case of a cell or any physical structure.)
wherein a size of the volume can be changed in accordance with at least one cell parameter. (“The atmospheric pressure exerted on the flexible enclosure 304 of the electrochemical device 300 applies a uniform fluidic pressure to the electrochemical cell 302 instead of the rigid mechanical restraint applied by a clamping arrangement that uses end plates and tie rods. This allows an electrochemical cell 302 in an electrochemical device 300 according to the present invention to expand and contract as the electrodes expand and contract,” Forlino [0054]. The flexible outer enclosure of Forlino increases and decreases in volume as the internal pressure of the cell changes.)
Regarding claim 18, Forlino teaches all of the following elements:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 16 wherein the at least one cell parameter is selected from the group consisting of temperature, pressure and chemical parameters. (“When the pressure inside the package or enclosure 304 exceeds atmospheric pressure, the package begins to expand because it is flexible, to a degree.” Forlino [0057]. The volume increases/the flexible enclosure expands in response to a change in pressure parameter within the cell, thus meeting the above limitation.)
Regarding claim 22, Forlino teaches all of the following elements:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 17 wherein the at least one cell parameter is selected from the group consisting of temperature, pressure and chemical parameters. (“When the pressure inside the package or enclosure 304 exceeds atmospheric pressure, the package begins to expand because it is flexible, to a degree.” Forlino [0057]. The volume increases/the flexible enclosure expands in response to a change in pressure parameter within the cell, thus meeting the above limitation.)
Regarding claim 26, Forlino teaches all of the following elements:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 14 wherein the flexible outer shell comprises an elastic material. (While Forlino does not explicitly state the material used in its flexible outer shell, the fact that is can expand and contract based on the amount of pressure would imply that it is inherently an elastic material. If it were not an elastic material, it would not be able to reform its original positioning after expanding due to increased pressure. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Regarding claim 27, Forlino teaches all of the following elements:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 14 wherein the at least one cell has a cylindrical or cuboidal basic shape. (“For example, an electrochemical device 400 comprising a cylindrical electrochemical cell 402 is illustrated in FIGS. 4A-C. The electrochemical device 400 includes a core structure 408 forming a cavity 406. The electrochemical cell 402 and the core 408 are sealed in an enclosure 404.” Forlino [0059]. This embodiment of Forlino meets the limitations requiring a cylindrical or cuboidal shape.)
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 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) 19-21 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forlino (US 20040146777 A1) in view of Fischer (US 20180151856 A1)
Regarding claim 19, Forlino teaches all of the elements of claim 16, as shown above. Forlino is silent on the following elements of claim 19:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 16 wherein the outer surface of the at least one cell is changeable in a range of +/- 12% with respect to a reference outer surface.
However, Fischer teaches all of the elements of claim 19 that aren’t found in Forlino:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 16 wherein the outer surface of the at least one cell is changeable in a range of +/- 12% with respect to a reference outer surface. (“Embodiments of the rechargeable battery include housing for an assembly of battery cells, wherein the housing is constructed to reversibly accommodate greater than 5% expansion and contraction (i.e., elastic—rather than plastic—compliance) of the battery during a charge and discharge cycling.” Fischer [0011]. Fischer teaches that it is desirable for a flexible housing/shell to expand 5% or more in an energy supply device. 5% or greater would overlap with +/- 12%, thus meeting the limitation of the claim.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of greater than 5% for the expansion parameter of the outer surface overlaps the claimed range of +/- 12 % for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Forlino and Fischer are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of energy storage devices with elastic/flexible outer casings, designed to respond to expansion and contraction of battery cells during use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Forlino, which doesn’t explicitly given an amount/percentage for its expansion, to expand and contract based on the teachings of Fischer in order to avoid capacity fade and loss of power density, and to improve characteristics (“Battery assemblies comprising housing of materials and construction that exhibit inelastic compliance (or an inability to reversibly accommodate >5% expansion and contraction of the battery during charge and discharge cycling) can suffer rapid capacity fade and loss of power density. While not being limited by any particular mode of operation, it is thought that the greater than 5% volume expansion/contraction of battery assemblies formed of inelastic compliant materials can correspond with increased inter-electrode gap, electrode thickness, and cell resistance, thus resulting in rapid capacity fade, and loss of rate capability.” Fischer [0011])
By modifying Forlino with Fischer to meet the limitations of claim 19, the additional limitations of claims 20-21 and 23-25 would all be met without requiring further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 20, Forlino teaches all of the elements of claim 16, as shown above. Forlino is silent on the following elements of claim 20:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 16 wherein the outer surface of the at least one cell is changeable in in a range of +/- 8% with respect to a reference outer surface.
However, Fischer teaches all of the elements of claim 20 that aren’t found in Forlino:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 16 wherein the outer surface of the at least one cell is changeable in in a range of +/- 8% with respect to a reference outer surface. (“Embodiments of the rechargeable battery include housing for an assembly of battery cells, wherein the housing is constructed to reversibly accommodate greater than 5% expansion and contraction (i.e., elastic—rather than plastic—compliance) of the battery during a charge and discharge cycling.” Fischer [0011]. Fischer teaches that it is desirable for a flexible housing/shell to expand 5% or more in an energy supply device. 5% or greater would overlap with +/- 8%, thus meeting the limitation of the claim.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of greater than 5% for the expansion parameter of the outer surface overlaps the claimed range of +/- 8 % for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 21, Forlino teaches all of the elements of claim 16, as shown above. Forlino is silent on the following elements of claim 21:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 16 wherein the outer surface of the at least one cell is changeable in a range of +/-5% with respect to a reference outer surface.
However, Fischer teaches all of the elements of claim 21 that aren’t found in Forlino:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 16 wherein the outer surface of the at least one cell is changeable in a range of +/-5% with respect to a reference outer surface. (“Embodiments of the rechargeable battery include housing for an assembly of battery cells, wherein the housing is constructed to reversibly accommodate greater than 5% expansion and contraction (i.e., elastic—rather than plastic—compliance) of the battery during a charge and discharge cycling.” Fischer [0011]. Fischer teaches that it is desirable for a flexible housing/shell to expand 5% or more in an energy supply device. 5% or greater would overlap with +/- 5%, thus meeting the limitation of the claim.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of greater than 5% for the expansion parameter of the outer surface overlaps the claimed range of +/- 5 % for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 23, Forlino teaches all of the elements of claim 17, as shown above. Forlino is silent on the following elements of claim 23:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 17 wherein the volume of the at least one cell is changeable in a range of +/- 12% with respect to a reference volume.
However, Fischer teaches all of the elements of claim 23 that aren’t found in Forlino:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 17 wherein the volume of the at least one cell is changeable in a range of +/- 12% with respect to a reference volume. (“Embodiments of the rechargeable battery include housing for an assembly of battery cells, wherein the housing is constructed to reversibly accommodate greater than 5% expansion and contraction (i.e., elastic—rather than plastic—compliance) of the battery during a charge and discharge cycling.” Fischer [0011]. Fischer teaches that it is desirable for a flexible housing/shell to expand 5% or more in an energy supply device. 5% or greater would overlap with +/- 12%, thus meeting the limitation of the claim.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of greater than 5% for the expansion parameter of the outer surface overlaps the claimed range of +/-12 % for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 24, Forlino teaches all of the elements of claim 17, as shown above. Forlino is silent on the following elements of claim 24:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 17 wherein the volume of the at least one cell is changeable in a range of +/- 8% with respect to a reference volume.
However, Fischer teaches all of the elements of claim 24 that aren’t found in Forlino:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 17 wherein the volume of the at least one cell is changeable in a range of +/- 8% with respect to a reference volume. (“Embodiments of the rechargeable battery include housing for an assembly of battery cells, wherein the housing is constructed to reversibly accommodate greater than 5% expansion and contraction (i.e., elastic—rather than plastic—compliance) of the battery during a charge and discharge cycling.” Fischer [0011]. Fischer teaches that it is desirable for a flexible housing/shell to expand 5% or more in an energy supply device. 5% or greater would overlap with +/- 8%, thus meeting the limitation of the claim.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of greater than 5% for the expansion parameter of the outer surface overlaps the claimed range of +/- 8 % for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 25, Forlino teaches all of the elements of claim 17, as shown above. Forlino is silent on the following elements of claim 25:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 17 wherein the volume of the at least one cell is changeable in a range of +/- 5% with respect to a reference volume.
However, Fischer teaches all of the elements of claim 25 that aren’t found in Forlino:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 17 wherein the volume of the at least one cell is changeable in a range of +/- 5% with respect to a reference volume. (“Embodiments of the rechargeable battery include housing for an assembly of battery cells, wherein the housing is constructed to reversibly accommodate greater than 5% expansion and contraction (i.e., elastic—rather than plastic—compliance) of the battery during a charge and discharge cycling.” Fischer [0011]. Fischer teaches that it is desirable for a flexible housing/shell to expand 5% or more in an energy supply device. 5% or greater would overlap with +/- 5%, thus meeting the limitation of the claim.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of greater than 5% for the expansion parameter of the outer surface overlaps the claimed range of +/- 5 % for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forlino (US 20040146777 A1) in view of Hald (US 20220037692 A1)
Regarding claim 29, Forlino teaches the following elements:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 14 wherein the at least one cell has a cell core, (“For example, an electrochemical device 400 comprising a cylindrical electrochemical cell 402 is illustrated in FIGS. 4A-C. The electrochemical device 400 includes a core structure 408 forming a cavity 406. The electrochemical cell 402 and the core 408 are sealed in an enclosure 404.” Forlino [0059])
Forlino is silent on the following elements of claim 29. Specifically, Forlino does not specify the dimensions of its cell and core:
wherein no point within the cell core is more than 5 mm away from a surface of the energy supply device.
However, Hald teaches all of the elements of claim 29 that are not found in Forlino:
wherein no point within the cell core is more than 5 mm away from a surface of the energy supply device. (“For example, the outer diameter of the winding core for a button cell may be 2 to 3 mm, for example, 2.1 mm.” Hald [0169] and “Just like cylindrical round cells, button cells are also cylindrical. However, they have a height (preferably 4 mm to 15 mm) which is equal to or preferably less than their diameter (preferably 5 mm to 25 mm).” Hald [0145]. In this case, if the height and diameter of Hald were 5mm or less, then every point within the cell core would be within 5mm from a surface of the energy supply device.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 4mm-15mm for the height of the cell and 5mm-25mm for the diameter of the cell overlaps the claimed range of less than 5mm from the center in terms of either height or diameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Hald and Forlino are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of rechargeable batteries containing a cell which further contains a cell core. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cell and core of Forlino to have the dimensions of Hald, which meet the limitations of claim 29, as this is a known size in the art for a secondary battery for use in a power tool, among other uses. Therefore, it would be within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Forlino in relation to a cell having the size parameters/diameter of both core and cell as taught by Hald. Hald teaches that the button cell, which has the desired height and diameter, is suitable for smaller electronic devices, such as a power tool (as opposed to something such as a motor vehicle, which might require a larger battery)—(“[button cells] are suitable, in particular, for supplying small electronic devices” Hald [0145]).
Claim(s) 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forlino (US 20040146777 A1) in view of Subramanian (US 20220376248 A1)
Claim 30 (new):
Regarding claim 30, Forlino teaches all of the elements of claim 14, as shown above. Forlino is silent on the following elements of claim 30:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 14 wherein the cell/energy supply device has an internal resistance DCR_I of less than 10 milliohms.
However, Subramanian teaches all of the elements of claim 30 that are not found in Forlino. Specifically, Subramanian teaches the a lithium ion battery with an internal resistance of less than 10 milliohms.
The energy supply device as recited in claim 14 wherein the cell/energy supply device has an internal resistance DCR_I of less than 10 milliohms. (“According to the present invention, the lithium ion battery has no more than 10 mOhms in internal resistance.” Subramanian [0044]. This anticipates the claimed range.)
Subramanian and Forlino are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of secondary batteries used for powering electronic devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the energy supply device of Forlino to have the internal resistance of Subramanian in order to provide an effective battery for use in power tools without sacrificing safety (“a pouch cell … having low ACIR of less than 5 mOhms and low DCIR of less than 10 mOhms and with external connecting electrical contact located in opposite ends of the cell. In order to provide an improved performance of the lithium ion battery for power tools with consideration of higher energy density and higher power as well as relieved safety issues, material used for each elements of the lithium ion battery will be described hereinafter.” Subramanian [0027-0027])
By modifying Forlino to have the internal resistance of Subramanian, and by using the teachings of Subramanian to render obvious the use of such a battery in a power tool, the additional limitations of claims 31-33 would all be met without requiring any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 31, Forlino teaches all of the elements of claim 14, as shown above. Forlino is silent on the following elements of claim 31:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 14 wherein the cell/energy supply device has an internal resistance DCR_I of less than 8 milliohms.
However, Subramanian teaches all of the elements of claim 31 that are not found in Forlino. Specifically, Subramanian teaches the a lithium ion battery with an internal resistance of less than 10 milliohms.
The energy supply device as recited in claim 14 wherein the cell/energy supply device has an internal resistance DCR_I of less than 8 milliohms. (“According to the present invention, the lithium ion battery has no more than 10 mOhms in internal resistance.” Subramanian [0044].)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of ------less than 10 Mohms for the internal resistance of the energy supply device encompasses the claimed range of less than 8 Mohms. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 32, Forlino teaches all of the elements of claim 14, as shown above. Forlino is silent on the following elements of claim 32:
The energy supply device as recited in claim 14 wherein the cell/energy supply device has an internal resistance DCR_I of less than 6 milliohms.
However, Subramanian teaches all of the elements of claim 32 that are not found in Forlino. Specifically, Subramanian teaches the a lithium ion battery with an internal resistance of less than 10 milliohms.
The energy supply device as recited in claim 14 wherein the cell/energy supply device has an internal resistance DCR_I of less than 6 milliohms. (“According to the present invention, the lithium ion battery has no more than 10 mOhms in internal resistance.” Subramanian [0044].)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of ------less than 10 Mohms for the internal resistance of the energy supply device encompasses the claimed range of less than 6 Mohms. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 33, Forlino teaches all of the elements of claim 14, as shown above. Forlino is silent on the following elements of claim 33:
A power tool comprising the energy supply device as recited in claim 14.
However, Subramanian teaches all of the elements of claim 33 that are not found in Forlino. Specifically, Subramanian teaches the a lithium ion battery for use in a power tool:
A power tool comprising the energy supply device as recited in claim 14. (“According to one embodiment, the lithium ion battery is provided for use in a power tool” Subramanian [0043])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights