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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 lines 1-2 recite “comprising a binder resin for electrodes an electrode active material, and a solvent”. It should be corrected to “comprising a binder resin for electrode, an electrode active material, and a solvent” with the additional comma as shown. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 11-12 are 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 recites the limitation "the polyimide-based resin" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the claim limitation as “the binder resin”, which is consistent with line 1 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 depends on claims 1, 9, and 10. Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the electrode mixture layer is formed on a surface of a current collector consisting of a metal foil” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the electrode mixture layer” in the claim, which makes it indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the electrode mixture layer” as “the electrode mixture paste” , which is consistent with claim 9 and claim 1. Correction is required. Claim 9 also recites “a surface of a current collector consisting of a metal foil”. Thus, it is unclear if an additional surface, current collector, and metal foil is claimed in claim 11 or if the same surface, current collector, and metal foil of claim 9 is referenced, making the claim indefinite. Correction is required.
Claim 12 depends on Claim 1, 9, and 10 and also recites “the electrode mixture layer” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the electrode mixture layer” in the claim, which makes it indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the electrode mixture layer” as “the electrode mixture paste” , which is consistent with claim 9 and claim 1. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
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 11 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 11 depends on claim 9. Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the electrode mixture layer is formed on a surface of a current collector consisting of a metal foil” in lines 1-2. Claim 9 also recites “a surface of a current collector consisting of a metal foil”. Thus, the same subject matter is claimed in dependent claim 11 as in Claim 9 without additional limitations. 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 § 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) 1, 5-6, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama et al. US20170025671, hereinafter Nakayama, in view of Iida et al. US20130288120, hereinafter Iida, as evidenced by Lim et al. US20140370382A1, all prior art as provided on the IDS dated 6/14/24].
Regarding claim 1, Nakayama discloses electrode mixture paste [Nakayama 0025 and throughout], comprising a binder resin for electrodes [Nakayama abstract,0013, 0050, and throughout, polyimide resin as taught throughout], an electrode active material [Nakayama 0020 and throughout], and a solvent [Nakayama 0047],
the polyimide-based resin comprises a polyimide obtained from a tetracarboxylic acid component and a diamine component [Nakayama abstract, 0028-0051, and throughout], wherein at least one of the tetracarboxylic acid component or the diamine component comprises an aliphatic compound in an amount of 50 mol% or more [Nakayama 0030, 0039 and throughout, This limitation is treated as either the tetracarboxylic acid or the diamine is 50 mol% or more. Thus, it is not necessary for both to meet the limitation. Nakayama teaches tetracarboxylic acid or 10 to 90 mol% which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Further, Nakayama teaches diamine of 50-99 mol%, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Thus, Nakayama teaches where both can meet the limitation.],
and the polyimide is a polyimide consisting of one or more structural units represented by the following chemical formula (1) [Nakayama 0017 and throughout, formula 1]:
PNG
media_image1.png
133
305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 is a tetravalent group having one or two aromatic rings [Nakayama 0017-0020, formula 1 with A as any of formulas 2-4]; and
R2 is a divalent alkylene group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms [Nakayama 0017-0020, formula 1 with B as formulas 5-8, and
the R1 in the chemical formula (1) is one or more groups selected from the group consisting of tetravalent groups having the following chemical formulas (2) to (5) :
PNG
media_image2.png
382
238
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[Nakayama 0017-0020 and throughout, formula 1 with any of formula 2 (meets instant formula 5 above), formulas 3 (meets instant formula 5 above), formula 4 (meets instant formula 2 above);
Nakayama does not explicitly teach wherein the binder resin for electrodes consists of a polyimide-based resin having a melting point of 300 ° C or lower;
and the solvent is a non-polar solvent.
Iida teaches an electrode with an active layer mixture past comprising a polyimide binder resin [Iida claim 17 and throughout] made with a tetracarboxylic acid and diamine [Iida abstract and throughout] and a non-polar solvent [Iida 0075 Iida teaches toluene and xylene, which would be considered nonpolar solvents as evidenced by Lim [Lim 0076].] Iida further teaches polyimide melting points of 300 ° C or lower [Iida 0124, table 1, all samples melted at less than 300 °C.]. Further, Iida teaches polyimide resin in is sufficiently heat resistant [Iida 0144, table 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Iida’s teaching of using nonpolar solvents such as toluene and xylene in Nakayama’s polyimide resin for an electrode mixture for the predictable result of success of a polyimide resin with suitable coatability and heat resistance for use in an electrode mixture [Iida 0075-0076, 0144, table 1].
Regarding Claim 5, modified Nakayama discloses the electrode mixture paste according to claim 1, wherein the tetracarboxylic acid component is 4,4’-oxydiphthalic dianhydride (ODPA) [Nakayama 0030-0045, 0076-0172, Tables 1-4], and the diamine component is at least one aliphatic diamine component selected from the group consisting of 1,3 diamino propane [Iida 0059], 1,4-diamino butane [Nakayama 0038, Iida 0059], 1,3-diaminopentane [Nakayama 0038], 1,5-diamino pentane [Nakayama 0038, Iida 0059], 1,6-diamino hexane (hexamethylene diamine) [Nakayama 0038, Iida 0059], 1,7-diaminoheptane [Nakayama 0038, Iida 0059], 1,8-diamino octane [Nakayama 0038, Iida 0059], 1,9-diamino nonane [Nakayama 0038, Iida 0059], 1,10-diamino decane (decamethylene diamine) [Nakayama 0038, Iida 0059], 1,11-diaminoundecane [Iida 0059], and 1,12-diamino dodecane [Iida 0059]. Iida’s teaching of diamines overlaps with the diamines taught by Nakayama. Thus, the diamines taught by Iida would be considered as art recognized equivalents for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Iida’s diamines in Nakayama binder for the predictable result of a polyimide suitable for use as a binder.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Nakayama discloses the electrode mixture paste according to claim 1, wherein the polyimide-based resin does not include a polyimide obtained from a tetracarboxylic acid component which is 4,4’-oxydiphthalic dianhydride (ODPA) and a diamine component which is hexamethylene diamine (HMD) [Nakayama 0030-0045, 0076-0172, Tables 1-4 and throughout, Nakayama teaches ODPA and HMD can be used but also teaches tetracarboxylic acids other than ODPA and further teaches diamines other than HMD. Nakayama does not require either HMD or ODPA, and thus meets the limitation.], and the polyimide-based resin does not include a polyimide obtained from a tetracarboxylic acid component which is 4,4’-oxydiphthalic dianhydride (ODPA) and a diamine component which is 1,4-diamobutane (DAB) [Nakayama 0030-0045, 0076-0172, Tables 1-4 and throughout, Nakayama teaches ODPA and DAB can be used but also teaches tetracarboxylic acids other than ODPA and further teaches diamines other than DAB. Nakayama does not require either DAB or ODPA, and thus meets the limitation].
Regarding Claim 8, Nakayama discloses a binder resin composition for electrodes, comprising the binder resin for electrodes and a solvent; wherein the polyimide-based resin consists of a polyimide-based resin
comprising a binder resin for electrodes [Nakayama abstract, 0013, 0050, and throughout, polyimide resin as taught throughout] and a solvent [Nakayama 0047];
wherein the binder [see 112(b) above] resin consists of a polyimide-based resin [Nakayama abstract, 0013, 0050, and throughout, polyimide resin as taught throughout],
the polyimide-based resin comprises a polyimide obtained from a tetracarboxylic acid component and a diamine component [Nakayama abstract, 0028-0051, and throughout], wherein at least one of the tetracarboxylic acid component or the diamine component comprises an aliphatic compound in an amount of 50 mol% or more [Nakayama 0030, 0039 and throughout, This limitation is treated as either the tetracarboxylic acid or the diamine is 50 mol% or more. Thus, it is not necessary for both to meet the limitation. Nakayama teaches tetracarboxylic acid or 10 to 90 mol% which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Further, Nakayama teaches diamine of 50-99 mol%, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Thus, Nakayama teaches where both can meet the limitation.],
and the polyimide is a polyimide consisting of one or more structural units represented by the following chemical formula (1) [Nakayama 0017 and throughout, formula 1]:
PNG
media_image1.png
133
305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 is a tetravalent group having one or two aromatic rings [Nakayama 0017-0020, formula 1 with A as any of formulas 2-4]; and
R2 is a divalent alkylene group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms [Nakayama 0017-0020, formula 1 with B as formulas 5-8, and
the R1 in the chemical formula (1) is one or more groups selected from the group consisting of tetravalent groups having the following chemical formulas (2) to (5) :
PNG
media_image2.png
382
238
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[Nakayama 0017-0020 and throughout, formula 1 with any of formula 2 (meets instant formula 5 above), formulas 3 (meets instant formula 5 above), formula 4 (meets instant formula 2 above);
Nakayama does not explicitly teach wherein the binder resin for electrodes consists of a polyimide-based resin having a melting point of 300 ° C or lower;
and the solvent is a non-polar solvent.
Iida teaches an electrode with an active layer mixture past comprising a polyimide binder resin [Iida claim 17 and throughout] made with a tetracarboxylic acid and diamine [Iida abstract and throughout] and a non-polar solvent [Iida 0075 Iida teaches toluene and xylene, which would be considered nonpolar solvents as evidenced by Lim [Lim 0076].] Iida further teaches polyimide melting points of 300 ° C or lower [Iida 0124, table 1, all samples melted at less than 300 °C.]. Further, Iida teaches polyimide resin in is sufficiently heat resistant [Iida 0144, table 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Iida’s teaching of using nonpolar solvents such as toluene and xylene in Nakayama’s polyimide resin for an electrode mixture for the predictable result of success of a polyimide resin with suitable coatability and heat resistance for use in an electrode mixture [Iida 0075-0076, 0144, table 1].
Regarding claim 9, modified Nakayama teaches a method for producing an electrode [Nakayama 0017 and throughout], comprising: applying the electrode mixture paste according to claim 1 on a surface of a current collector [Nakayama 0017 and throughout] consisting of a metal foil [Nakayama 0023 and throughout]; and heating the applied electrode mixture paste to lower than 350 ° C [Nakayama abstract, 0014, and throughout]. Nakayama teaches the polyimide resin can be heat treated to remove a solvent and perform an imidization reaction of the polyamide acid [Nakayama abstract and throughout]; however, Nakayama’s specific application teaches the temperature is equal to 200 ° C or less to protect the thinner current collector [Nakayama 0014, 0061, and throughout]. Thus, Nakayama does not explicitly teach heating the electrode mixture paste to a temperature equal to or higher than the melting point of the polyimide-based resin. However, from Nakayama’s teaching, the skilled artisan would understand that the heat treatment temperature is a result-effective variable. If the temperature is too low, the solvent may not be removed effectively and the imidization reaction may be incomplete [Nakayama 0006 and throughout]. At a higher temperature, a thin (10 µm or less) current collector may have a reduction in mechanical strength or other problems may arise [Nakayama 0014, 0061, and throughout]. Thus, per Nakayama’s teaching, it would be obvious that higher temperatures could be considered for thicker current collectors if the mechanical strength or other problems are not affected by the higher temperature treatment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the workable range of heating temperature can be determined throughout routine experimentation in view of Nakayama’s teaching for the specific application/design of the electrode. Such experimentation is considered obvious per MPEP 2144.05II, A. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Nakayama discloses an electrode obtained by the method for producing the electrode according to claim 9 [Nakayama 0064 and throughout].
Regarding Claim 11, modified Nakayama discloses the electrode according to claim 10, wherein the electrode mixture paste [see 112(b) rejection above] is formed on a surface of a current collector consisting of a metal foil [Nakayama 0023 and throughout, see claim 9 and USC 112(b) and 112(d) rejections].
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Nakayama, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Meng et al. High Performance Polymers 2016, Vol. 28(8) 962–970, hereinafter Meng, as evidenced by academicpath.org/what-are-oligomers-importance.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Nakayama discloses the electrode mixture paste according to claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein the polyimide-based resin comprises an addition-reactive imide oligomer having an addition-reactive group at at least one of the ends of an imide oligomer having an average degree of polymerization of 50 or less. Meng teaches a polyimide based resin, which melts in the claimed temperature range of claim 1 [Meng Table 1] with an addition reactive imide oligomer having an addition-reactive group on two ends of an imide oligomer [Meng Fig. 1 and throughout, see below]. The skilled artisan would understand that an oligomer is a polymer with few structural units. Per academicpath.org, an oligomer is typically two to ten units and the degree of polymerization normally capped at ten units or up to 25 units at maximum. Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that since Meng teaches an oligomer as claimed, it would inherently have 25 or less units, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, the number-average molecular weights of Meng’s imide oligomer [Meng Table 1] would evidence that Meng’s oligomers would have a degree of polymerization less than 50 since Mn (number-average molecular weight)= degree of polymerization multiplied times the Mo (molar mass of one monomer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Meng’s teaching with Nakayama’s polyimide for the predictable result of a polyimide with good thermal and mechanical properties [Meng abstract and throughout].
PNG
media_image3.png
289
558
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, modified Nakayama (with Meng) discloses the electrode mixture paste according to claim 2, wherein the addition-reactive group is a phenylethynyl group, or a group containing an acetylene bond [Meng abstract, Fig. 1, and throughout, both are taught and are in both ends of Fig. 1]. Claim 3 is obvious for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Nakayama (with Meng) discloses the electrode mixture paste according to claim 3, wherein the addition-reactive imide oligomer is an addition-reactive imide oligomer represented by the following chemical formula (6):
PNG
media_image4.png
144
600
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein R3 is one or more groups selected from the group consisting of tetravalent groups having one or two aromatic rings [Nakayama as provided in claim 1 above. Also, Meng Fig. 1, Ar’ as a tetravalent group with two aromatic rings]; R4 is one or more groups selected from the group consisting of divalent hydrocarbon groups having 1 to 20 carbon atoms [Nakayama as provided in claim 1 above. Also, Meng Fig. 1, Ar divalent hydrocarbons with less than 20 carbon atoms are show.]; R5 is a monovalent group containing an acetylene bond [Meng Fig. 1, R5 is the acetylene bond shown on both ends]; and n is an integer of 1 to 15 [Meng Fig. 1, The skilled artisan would understand that an oligomer is a polymer with few structural units. Per academicpath.org, an oligomer is typically two to ten units and the degree of polymerization normally capped at ten units or up to 25 units at maximum. Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that since Meng teaches an oligomer as claimed, it would inherently have 25 or less units, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, the number-average molecular weights of Meng’s imide oligomer [Meng Table 1] would evidence that Meng’s oligomers would have a degree of polymerization less than 50 since Mn (number-average molecular weight)= degree of polymerization multiplied times the Mo (molar mass of one monomer). See MPEP 2112.], wherein the R3 and the R4 contained in each structural unit may be the same as, or different from each other [This limitation is treated as either the same as or different from meets the claim. Meng Fig.1 shows the R3 (Ar’) and R4 (Ar) are different]. Claim 4 is obvious for the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Nakayama, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Inoue et al. [US20160329554A1], hereinafter Inoue.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Nakayama discloses the electrode mixture paste according to claim 1 but is silent to further comprising a solid electrolyte. Inoue teaches a positive electrode or negative electrode slurry containing a positive or negative electrode active material, a solid electrolyte, and a binder [Inoue 0054, 0062-0064]. Inoue teaches the inclusion of the solid electrolyte is optional. Inoue further teaches the binder can be a polyimide resin [Inoue 0059]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Inoue’s teaching as described in modified Nakayama’s electrode mixture paste for the predictable result of a electrode mixture paste for an all-solid battery [Inoue 0002 and throughout].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Nakayama, as applied to claims 1, 9, and 10, and in further view of Inoue et al. [US20160329554A1], hereinafter Inoue.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Nakayama discloses electrode according to claim 10 but is silent to wherein the electrode mixture paste [see 112(b) rejection] further comprises a solid electrolyte. Inoue teaches a positive electrode or negative electrode slurry containing a positive or negative electrode active material, a solid electrolyte, and a binder [Inoue 0054, 0062-0064], where inclusion of the solid electrolyte is optional. Inoue further teaches the binder can be a polyimide resin [Inoue 0059]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Inoue’s teaching as described in modified Nakayama’s electrode mixture paste and electrode for the predictable result of an electrode mixture paste and electrode for an all-solid battery [Inoue 0002 and throughout].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fukahori US20140170484A1 teaches heat treatment of a binder at a temperature that is the binder melting point [Fukahori 0083-0088 and throughout] , which is considered relevant to at least claims 9-12.
Nakayama US20120168688A1, as provided on the IDS dated 6/14/24, teaches heat treatment of polyimide-based resin binders [Nakayama abstract and throughout] in a preferred temperature range of 150 ° C to 350 ° C to remove the solvent and cause imidization [Nakayama 0062 and throughout], which is considered relevant to at least claims 9-12.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday 9:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/M. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights