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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 15, and 19 recite “a cathode having a nickel content of at least 80%”. This is understood in light of paragraph [0078], which implies that “80%” means that 80% of atomic content of non-Li metal in a cathode active material is nickel, as in the specific material LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 used in many Examples in the instant disclosure. Paragraph [0092] lists other active materials with a nickel content of at least 80%, accounting for different anions: LiNixMnyCoyO2 (x+y+z=1), LiNiPO4, LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2, and LiNi1-x-yCoxAlyO2. The cathode can comprise elements other than the cathode active material (graphene additives, ¶0090; carbon nanotubes and PVDF binder, ¶0116); these other elements are not interpreted as contributing to or subtracting from the nickel content.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 5, 11, and 17 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 2 recites “wherein the cathode includes active material comprising a transition metal oxide, a lithium metal transition metal nitride, a lithium transition metal fluoride, a lithium transition metal sulfide, a lithium transition metal phosphate, or a mixture thereof” (emphasis added). Claim 1 recites “a cathode having a nickel content of at least 80%”.As noted in the claim interpretation section above, the claim to a particular nickel content, when read in light of the instant disclosure, applies only to the active material of the cathode. The disclosure does not illustrate how to determine if a mixture of a lithium transition metal oxide and a lithium transition metal nitride, for instance, has a nickel content of at least 80%. More generally, it is unclear how a nickel content is to be determined for a cathode which has an active material that is a combination of compounds with different anion valences. As an example, how is a nickel content of a mixture of LiNixMnyCozO2 and Li2MnO3-LiMO2 calculated?
Similarly, claim 5 recites a specific list of active materials, but is also indefinite based on the same principle.
Claims 11 and 17 each recite “the lithium metal anode”, which lacks antecedent basis.
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, 3-5, 7, 9-12, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Improved cycling of Li||NMC811 batteries under practical conditions by a localized high-concentration electrolyte” to Guo (included in Applicant’s 9/4/2025 IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9-12, Guo teachers a lithium-ion battery comprising
A cathode having a nickel content of at least 80% (Abstract describes a cathode with an active material of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2; 4 Experimental Section: “NMC cathode laminates”)
An anode (“50 μm Li foil”)
An electrolyte (referred to as “LHCE” in the text), located between the anode and the cathode, that includes a fluorinated solvent (1 Introduction: fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), an additive (lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate (LiDFOB)), and a lithium salt (lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) salt)
A separator (“Celgard 2400”) providing a barrier between the anode and the cathode.
Per claim 2, the cathode includes active material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide (Ibid.).
Per claims 3 and 4, the cathode includes Ni-rich LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 (NMC811) as an active material (Ibid.), but does not teach the redox potential of the material. However, it is expected that such a material necessarily has the claimed property because the specification as originally filed recites that material as having such a redox potential (paragraphs [0010], [0011], [0091], [0092]). The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification – the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. See, e.g., In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149-50, 104 USPQ2d 1337, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2012). MPEP §2111.01.III.
Per claim 5, the cathode includes high redux active material comprising Ni-rich LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 (NMC811) (Ibid.).
Per claim 7, the anode includes anode active material comprising lithium metal (Ibid.).
Per claims 9 and 10, the fluorinated solvent comprises a fluorinated carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate (Ibid.).
Per claim 11, the claim recites “the additive is a passivation film on the lithium metal anode and comprises… lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate…”. This is interpreted in light of the instant disclosure. Paragraph [0017] of the instant specification recites “the additive can further comprise passivation film on the lithium metal anode coated in-situ comprising… LiDFOB…” (emphasis added). Paragraph [0106] recites “this is in the form of a passivation layer called the solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) that is formed on the electrode surfaces from the decomposition products of electrolytes…. Therefore, the SEI film-forming additives will help form a protective layer on the lithium anode in-situ to minimize electrolyte decomposition….” Paragraph [0107] recites: “the preferred additive forms a passivation film on the lithium metal anode (in-situ coating method). This additive can include… LiDFOB: Lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate….”. Paragraph [0098] recites “The combination of LiTFSI and LiDFOB helps attain stable cyclic performance with high-voltage Ni-rich cathodes which is achieved by protecting both the anode and cathode through the formation of a stable interfacial layer.”. Paragraph [0117] recites: “The HVE was prepared by dissolving 1.0M LiTFSI and 0.1 M LiDFOB in fluoroethylene carbonate….”
A skilled artisan would understand from the disclosure that, in the claimed invention, a passivation film is formed if the additive is included in the electrolyte. The disclosure does not explicitly confirm the presence of additive in passivation film.
Guo very clearly teaches the inclusion of LiDFOB as an additive in the electrolyte (Ibid.), and confirms the in-situ formation of a passivation film on the lithium metal anode that reduces decomposition of electrolyte. 2.3 Electrochemical performance of the Li||NMC811 cells: “ LiDFOB was leveraged as an electrolyte additive, which has been proved to be favorable for the formation of a robust and ion-conductive SEI layer by regulating the contents of LixPOyFz and LiF in the SEI layer.”; “With the addition of LiDFOB, more C-C and C-H compounds were detected, which has previously been proved to be probably the decomposition of LiDFOB on the LMAs. A significant difference can also be found in the F 1s spectra in Figure 6c,d. Compared to the carbonate-based electrolyte, an enhancement of LiF (Li-F, 687.7 eV, F 1s) was found on the LMAs deposited from the HCE and the LHCEs. The intensity of the Li-F group is the highest in the LiDFOB-added LHCE, which confirms that the decomposition of LiDFOB does participate in the SEI layer formation and changes the composition of the SEI layer with more LiF. This LiF-rich SEI layer has previously been found to effectively suppress Li dendrite formation and render long-term stability of LMAs. Therefore, enrichment of LiF on the Li metal with LiDFOB can effectively reduce the amount of dead Li with high CE, prolonging the cycling life of the Li||NMC811 cells.”; “When the LiDFOB was added, the intensity of the CO peak increases slightly, which can be explained by the decomposition of LiDFOB and the incorporation of more CO compounds in the surface layer on the Li metal. It was reported that the DFOB− anion can react with other components of the SEI layer such as lithium semi-carbonates that generate stable oligomers, which are believed to make the SEI layer more elastic to suppress Li dendrite formation, and that Li can deposit beneath the surface layer, providing Li metal with better protection.”; “we assume that F from both the FSI− anions and the LiDFOB contributes to the benign SEI formation.”.
Therefore a passivation film is formed on Guo’s lithium metal anode due to the inclusion of LiDFOB in the electrolyte. Guo discusses that the film at least comprises decomposed fragments of LiDFOB. Within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, and when read in light of the instant disclosure, the additive is a passivation film on the lithium metal anode and comprises lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate.
Per claim 12, the lithium salt comprises lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) (Ibid.).
Regarding claims 15-17, Guo teachers a lithium-ion energy storage system comprising
A cathode having a nickel content of at least 80% (Abstract describes a cathode with an active material of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2; 4 Experimental Section: “NMC cathode laminates”)
An anode (“50 μm Li foil”)
An electrolyte (referred to as “LHCE” in the text), located between the anode and the cathode, that includes a fluorinated solvent (1 Introduction: fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), an additive (lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate (LiDFOB)), and a lithium salt (lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) salt)
A separator (“Celgard 2400”) providing a barrier between the anode and the cathode.
Per claim 16, the fluorinated solvent comprises a fluorinated carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate (Ibid.).
Per claim 17, the claim recites “the additive is a passivation film on the lithium metal anode and comprises… lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate…”. This is interpreted in light of the instant disclosure. Paragraph [0017] of the instant specification recites “the additive can further comprise passivation film on the lithium metal anode coated in-situ comprising… LiDFOB…” (emphasis added). Paragraph [0106] recites “this is in the form of a passivation layer called the solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) that is formed on the electrode surfaces from the decomposition products of electrolytes…. Therefore, the SEI film-forming additives will help form a protective layer on the lithium anode in-situ to minimize electrolyte decomposition….” Paragraph [0107] recites: “the preferred additive forms a passivation film on the lithium metal anode (in-situ coating method). This additive can include… LiDFOB: Lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate….”. Paragraph [0098] recites “The combination of LiTFSI and LiDFOB helps attain stable cyclic performance with high-voltage Ni-rich cathodes which is achieved by protecting both the anode and cathode through the formation of a stable interfacial layer.”. Paragraph [0117] recites: “The HVE was prepared by dissolving 1.0M LiTFSI and 0.1 M LiDFOB in fluoroethylene carbonate….”
A skilled artisan would understand from the disclosure that, in the claimed invention, a passivation film is formed if the additive is included in the electrolyte. The disclosure does not explicitly confirm the presence of additive in passivation film.
Guo very clearly teaches the inclusion of LiDFOB as an additive in the electrolyte (Ibid.), and confirms the in-situ formation of a passivation film on the lithium metal anode that reduces decomposition of electrolyte. 2.3 Electrochemical performance of the Li||NMC811 cells: “ LiDFOB was leveraged as an electrolyte additive, which has been proved to be favorable for the formation of a robust and ion-conductive SEI layer by regulating the contents of LixPOyFz and LiF in the SEI layer.”; “With the addition of LiDFOB, more C-C and C-H compounds were detected, which has previously been proved to be probably the decomposition of LiDFOB on the LMAs. A significant difference can also be found in the F 1s spectra in Figure 6c,d. Compared to the carbonate-based electrolyte, an enhancement of LiF (Li-F, 687.7 eV, F 1s) was found on the LMAs deposited from the HCE and the LHCEs. The intensity of the Li-F group is the highest in the LiDFOB-added LHCE, which confirms that the decomposition of LiDFOB does participate in the SEI layer formation and changes the composition of the SEI layer with more LiF. This LiF-rich SEI layer has previously been found to effectively suppress Li dendrite formation and render long-term stability of LMAs. Therefore, enrichment of LiF on the Li metal with LiDFOB can effectively reduce the amount of dead Li with high CE, prolonging the cycling life of the Li||NMC811 cells.”; “When the LiDFOB was added, the intensity of the CO peak increases slightly, which can be explained by the decomposition of LiDFOB and the incorporation of more CO compounds in the surface layer on the Li metal. It was reported that the DFOB− anion can react with other components of the SEI layer such as lithium semi-carbonates that generate stable oligomers, which are believed to make the SEI layer more elastic to suppress Li dendrite formation, and that Li can deposit beneath the surface layer, providing Li metal with better protection.”; “we assume that F from both the FSI− anions and the LiDFOB contributes to the benign SEI formation.”.
Therefore a passivation film is formed on Guo’s lithium metal anode due to the inclusion of LiDFOB in the electrolyte. Guo discusses that the film at least comprises decomposed fragments of LiDFOB. Within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, and when read in light of the instant disclosure, the additive is a passivation film on the lithium metal anode and comprises lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate.
Per claim 18, the lithium salt comprises lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) (Ibid.).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Guo teachers a method of manufacturing a lithium-ion battery comprising
Inserting an electrolyte (referred to as “LHCE” in the text) that includes a fluorinated solvent (1 Introduction: fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), an additive (lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate (LiDFOB)), and a lithium salt (lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) salt) carrying positively charged (Li+) ions between a cathode having a nickel content of at least 80% (Abstract describes a cathode with an active material of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2; 4 Experimental Section: “NMC cathode laminates”) and an anode (“50 μm Li foil”), within a casing (“coin cell”, “coin-cell parts”, “coin cell cases” described in 2.3 Electrochemical performance of the Li||NMC811 cells, 4 Experimental section: Electrochemical characterization)
Inserting a separator (“Celgard 2400”) between the anode and the cathode to block the flow of electrons inside the lithium-ion battery.
Per claim 20, the method further comprises a step of applying the additive comprising a passivation film, to the anode as a coating in-situ (2.3 Electrochemical performance of the Li||NMC811 cells: “LiDFOB was leveraged as an electrolyte additive, which has been proved to be favorable for the formation of a robust and ion-conductive SEI layer by regulating the contents of LixPOyFz and LiF in the SEI layer.”; “enrichment of LiF on the Li metal with LiDFOB can effectively reduce the amount of dead Li with high CE, prolonging the cycling life of the Li||NMC811 cells.”; “comparison between the result with LiDFOB and that without LiDFOB shows that the residue of Ni observed in the electrolyte without LiDFOB disappears in the electrolyte with LiDFOB, which proves that the electrolyte addition helps stabilize the interface.”).
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) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112652818A to Chen.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8-14, Chen teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising
A cathode having a nickel content (bottom of p. 4 of translation; seemingly mislabeled as “Anode sheet”)
An anode (middle p. 5; seemingly mislabeled as “Cathode sheet”)
An electrolyte (bottom of p. 3-p. 4), located between the anode and the cathode (bottom p. 6: “Preparation of Lithium Ion Battery: the positive plate, a diaphragm, a negative plate according to the order, winding to obtain naked battery core, aluminium-plastic film packaging, and then baking, injecting, standing, forming, clamp shaping, two sealing, capacity test, finishing the preparation of lithium ion soft-packaged battery.”), that includes a fluorinated solvent (top p. 4, p. 6:“3 % of FEC”), an additive (top p. 4, p. 6: “1.5% of SN”), and a lithium salt (LiPF6)
A separator (“Diaphragm” on p. 5, 6) providing a barrier between the anode and the cathode.
In the particular example “Embodiment 1”, the cathode does not have an active material with a nickel content of at least 80%. However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the cathode to be formed of LiNiO2 (bottom p. 4 of translation), as it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Per claim 2, modified-Chen teaches the limitations of claim 1. The cathode includes active material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide (Ibid.).
Per claim 5, modified-Chen teaches the limitations of claim 1. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the cathode to be formed of LiNixCoyMnzM11-x-y-zO2 (bottom p. 4 of translation), where x, y, and z are between 0 and 1 inclusive (bottom p. 4 of translation) as it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose. Such a material renders several of the claimed active materials obvious, due to the overlap in ranges of the stoichiometry of each element in the compound. 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Per claim 6, modified-Chen teaches the limitations of claim 1. The separator comprises a polymer film (bottom p. 5 of translation).
Per claim 8, modified-Chen teaches the limitations of claim 1. The anode includes anode active material selected from carbonaceous materials (middle p. 5 of translation: graphite, carbon) or SiO (SiOx).
Per claims 9 and 10, modified-Chen teaches the limitations of claim 1. The fluorinated solvent comprises a fluorinated carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate (Ibid.).
Per claim 11, modified-Chen teaches the limitations of claim 1. The additive is succinonitrile (Ibid.).
Per claim 12, modified-Chen teaches the limitations of claim 1. The lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate (Ibid.).
Per claims 13 and 14, modified-Chen teaches the limitations of claim 1. The fluorinated solvent is combined with an organosilicon-based solvent (MTMSMC), methyl (trimethylsilylmethyl) carbonate (¶0053 of the document).
Regarding claims 15-18, Chen teaches a lithium-ion energy storage system comprising
A cathode having a nickel content (bottom of p. 4 of translation; seemingly mislabeled as “Anode sheet”)
An anode (middle p. 5; seemingly mislabeled as “Cathode sheet”)
An electrolyte (bottom of p. 3-p. 4), located between the anode and the cathode (bottom p. 6: “Preparation of Lithium Ion Battery: the positive plate, a diaphragm, a negative plate according to the order, winding to obtain naked battery core, aluminium-plastic film packaging, and then baking, injecting, standing, forming, clamp shaping, two sealing, capacity test, finishing the preparation of lithium ion soft-packaged battery.”), that includes a fluorinated solvent (top p. 4, p. 6:“3 % of FEC”), an additive (top p. 4, p. 6: “1.5% of SN”), and a lithium salt (LiPF6)
A separator (“Diaphragm” on p. 5, 6) providing a barrier between the anode and the cathode.
In the particular example “Embodiment 1”, the cathode does not have an active material with a nickel content of at least 80%. However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the cathode to be formed of LiNiO2 (bottom p. 4 of translation), as it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Per claims 16, modified-Chen teaches the limitations of claim 15. The fluorinated solvent comprises a fluorinated carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate (Ibid.).
Per claim 17, modified-Chen teaches the limitations of claim 15. The additive is succinonitrile (Ibid.).
Per claim 18, modified-Chen teaches the limitations of claim 15. The lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate (Ibid.).
Regarding claim 19, Chen teaches a method of manufacturing a lithium-ion battery comprising
Inserting an electrolyte (bottom of p. 3-p. 4) that includes a fluorinated solvent (p. 6:“3 % of FEC”), an additive (p. 6: “1.5% of SN”), and a lithium salt (LiPF6) carrying positively charged ions between a cathode having a nickel content (bottom of p. 4 of translation; seemingly mislabeled as “Anode sheet”) and an anode (middle p. 5; seemingly mislabeled as “Cathode sheet”), within a casing (bottom p. 6: “Preparation of Lithium Ion Battery: the positive plate, a diaphragm, a negative plate according to the order, winding to obtain naked battery core, aluminium-plastic film packaging, and then baking, injecting, standing, forming, clamp shaping, two sealing, capacity test, finishing the preparation of lithium ion soft-packaged battery.”)
Inserting a separator (“Diaphragm” on p. 5, 6) between the anode and the cathode to block the flow of electrons inside the lithium-ion battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights