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 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) 1-2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ritchie et al. (US 20220093908 A1, hereinafter Ritchie).
Regarding claim 1, Ritchie discloses a secondary battery (Ritchie, [0018], electrochemical cell 100) comprising:
a positive electrode plate (Ritchie, [0018], cathode current collector 112) comprising a positive electrode film layer (Ritchie, [0018], cathode active material 114);
a negative electrode plate (Ritchie, [0018], anode current collector 102) comprising a negative electrode film layer (Ritchie, [0018], lithium alloy anode cap 106);
an electrolytic solution (Ritchie, [0026], liquid electrolyte 118); and
a solid electrolyte (Ritchie, [0018], polymer electrolyte lamination layer 108) disposed on a surface of the positive electrode film layer and/or the negative electrode film layer, the solid electrolyte comprising a polymer matrix (Ritchie, [0032], …crosslinked polymer backbone…) and a first additive (Ritchie, [0032], …anode additive…), and the first additive being configured to form an interface film (Ritchie, [0042], …LiBOB assists in SEI formation…) on the surface of the positive electrode film layer and/or the negative electrode film layer, wherein
a mass percentage of the polymer matrix relative to a total mass of the solid electrolyte is denoted as A%;
a mass percentage of the first additive relative to the total mass of the solid electrolyte is denoted as B%, and
the secondary battery satisfies: 0.1 ≤ B/A ≤ 19 (Ritchie, [0044], 4/33 = 0.1212); and optionally, 0.5 ≤ B/A ≤ 10.
Regarding claim 2, Ritchie discloses wherein the secondary battery satisfies: 5 ≤ A ≤ 99 (Ritchie, [0044], …33 wt % of crosslinked PVDH-HFP copolymer…); and/or 0.1 ≤ B ≤ 95 (Ritchie, [0044], …4 wt % of LiBOB as the anode additive…).
Regarding claim 15, Ritchie discloses an electrical device (Ritchie, [0016]).
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) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchie et al. (US 20220093908 A1, hereinafter Ritchie).
Regarding claim 3, Ritchie discloses wherein the first additive (Ritchie, [0037], The anode additive can be on or more of…) comprises:
a boron-containing lithium salt (Ritchie, [0037], …LiBF4…), a mass percentage of which is relative to the total mass of the solid electrolyte is denoted as B1%; and
a negative electrode film-forming additive (Ritchie, [0037], …LiBOB…), a mass percentage of which relative to the total mass of the solid electrolyte is denoted as B2%.
Ritchie does not directly disclose wherein the secondary battery satisfies: 0.002 ≤ B1/B2 ≤ 10.
Ritchie discloses that all anode additives can be added up to approximately 15 wt % with respect to the total weight of the lamination layer (Ritchie, [0037]) and an explicit disclosure of LiBOB with wt % of 4 (Ritchie, [0044]). Subsequently, this allows for another additive such as LiBF4 to take a range from 0 wt % to 11 wt %, using the claimed formula of B1/B2 this gives a range from 0/4 (0) to 11/4 (2.75) thereby overlapping the claimed range of 0.002 to 10. 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled it the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the disclosed range of additive B1 to B2 of 0 to 2.75 which overlaps the claimed range of 0.002 to 10.
Regarding claim 4, Ritchie discloses wherein the secondary battery satisfies: 0.1 ≤ B1 ≤ 50; and/or 0.1 ≤ B2 ≤ 50 (Ritchie, [0044], …4 wt % of LiBOB as the anode additive…).
Regarding claim 5, Ritchie discloses wherein the boron-containing lithium salt has a molecular formula of LiBFaObCcPd, wherein 0 ≤ a ≤ 4, 0 ≤ b ≤ 8, 0 ≤ c ≤ 4, and 0 ≤ d ≤ 4 (Ritchie, [0037], …LiBF4…, with a = 4, b = 0, c = 0, d = 0); and
optionally, the boron-containing lithium salt comprises one or more of lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4), lithium bisoxalate borate (LiBOB), and lithium difluorooxalate borate (LiDFOB).
Regarding claim 6, Ritchie discloses wherein the negative electrode film-forming additive comprises one or more of a carbonate additive (Ritchie, [0037], …fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC)…), a sulfate additive, and a sulfite additive.
Regarding claim 7, Ritchie discloses wherein the carbonate additive comprises a cyclic carbonate solvent (Ritchie, [0037], …fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC)…) and/or a linear carbonate solvent; optionally, the cyclic carbonate solvent comprises one or more of vinylidene carbonate (VC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), difluoroethylene carbonate (DFEC), vinyl ethylene carbonate (VEC), and dicaprylyl carbonate (CC); the linear carbonate solvent comprises one or more of allyl ethyl carbonate (AEC), diphenyl carbonate (DPC), methyl allyl carbonate (MAC), and polycarbonate (VA); and/or
the sulfate additive comprises a cyclic sulfonate additive and/or an hydrocarbyl sulfate additive; optionally, the cyclic sulfonate additive comprises one or more of 1,3-propane sultone (PS), propene sultone (PES), and 3-fluoro-1,3-propane sultone (FPS); and/or the hydrocarbyl sulfate additive comprises one or more of ethylene sulfate (DTD), diethyl sulfate (DES), and dimethyl sulfate (DMS); and/or
the sulfite additive comprises ethylene sulfite (ES) and/or vinyl ethylene sulfite (VES).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchie et al. (US 20220093908 A1, hereinafter Ritchie) in view of Cao et al. (US 20220115706 A1, hereinafter Cao).
Regarding claim 8, Ritchie does not disclose wherein the electrolytic solution comprises:
a cyclic carbonate solvent, a mass percentage of which relative to a total mass of the electrolytic solution is denoted as M1%; and
a linear carbonate solvent, a mass percentage of which relative to the total mass of the electrolytic solution is denoted as M2%, wherein
the secondary battery satisfies: 10-3 ≤ M1/M2 ≤ 2, and optionally, 0.1 ≤ M1/M2 ≤ 1; and
optionally, 1 ≤ M1 ≤ 20; and/or 50 ≤ M2 ≤ 85.
Cao teaches an electrolyte with lithium salt, nonaqueous solvent, diluent, and additive (Cao, claim 1, [0005]), for the stable cycling of lithium-ion batteries under harsh operating condition (Cao, [0003]). Cao additionally teaches that the nonaqueous solvent can comprise ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) (Cao, claim 3, [0006]) and that the additive can comprise ethylene carbonate (EC) (Cao, claim 6, [0006]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the liquid electrolyte of Ritchie with the electrolyte of Cao to provide the known benefit of improved stability during cycling because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substituted would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 9, Cao teaches wherein the cyclic carbonate solvent comprises one or more of ethylene carbonate (EC) (Cao, claim 6, [0006]), propylene carbonate (PC), vinylidene carbonate (VC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), difluoroethylene carbonate (DFEC), vinyl ethylene carbonate (VEC), and dicaprylyl carbonate (CC); and/or
the linear carbonate solvent comprises one or more of allyl ethyl carbonate (AEC), diphenyl carbonate (DPC), methyl allyl carbonate (MAC), polycarbonate (VA), diethyl carbonate (DEC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) (Cao, claim 3, [0006]), methyl propyl carbonate (MPC), ethyl propyl carbonate (EPC), methyl butyl carbonate (MBC), methyl acetate (MA), ethyl acetate (EA), methyl propionate (MP), and ethyl propionate (EP).
Regarding claim 10, Cao teaches wherein the electrolytic solution comprises:
an electrolytic solution film-forming additive (Cao, [0332], table 4, E-baselines VC), a mass percentage of which based on the total mass of the electrolytic solution is denoted as D1%; and
a lithium salt (Cao, [0332], table 4, E-baselines LiPF6), a mass percentage of which is based on the total mass of the electrolytic solution is denoted as D2%, wherein
the secondary battery satisfies: 0.2 ≤ E/(D1+D2) ≤ 2.95, wherein E represents a viscosity of the electrolytic solution, in mPa*s.
D1% is disclosed to be 2%. While to calculate D2% we must first calculate the mass of one liter of electrolyte as 1.39 g/mL * 1000 mL = 1390 g, then the mass of LiPF6 in that liter and since 1.0M would mean that 1 liter would contain 1 mol we have 1 mol * 151 g/mol = 151.90 g, overall getting (151.90 g of LiPF6 / 1390 g of electrolyte) * 100 giving 10.9281%. Plugging into the given formula and since 1 cP = 1 mPa*s we have (3.35/(2+10.9281)) = 0.2591 which falls within the claimed range of 0.2 to 2.95.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchie et al. (US 20220093908 A1, hereinafter Ritchie) in view of Yoshida et al. (US 20160013514 A1, hereinafter Yoshida), Zhang et al. (US 20200006750 A1, hereinafter Zhang), and Zheng et al. (CN 111430664 A, hereinafter Zheng).
Regarding claim 11, Ritchie does not disclose wherein a ratio of solution solid mass and liquid mass of the solid electrolyte on a percentage basis is denoted as m;
a compaction density of the positive electrode film layer is denoted as P1 g/cm3;
a thickness of the positive electrode film layer is denoted as h1 μm; and
the secondary battery satisfies: 5 ≤ h1 * P1/m ≤ 250.
However, Yoshida teaches a gel electrolyte layer for a secondary battery (Yoshida, [0001]) and that its gel electrolyte formulation might not undergo decomposition during high-temperature storage (Yoshida, [0009]). The gel electrolyte of Yoshida was prepared (Yoshida, [0086]) as 100 parts by mass of stock comprising 30 parts ethylene carbonate, 58 parts diethyl carbonate, and 12 parts LiPF6, 2 parts of polyvinylidene fluoride was then added to the stock. Additionally an additive within the preferred range of 0.01 – 5 wt% can be added to the gel electrolyte as well (Yoshida, [0031]), for this instance we can select 1 wt%.
We can determine the mass of this additive at 1 wt% with the following formula where q is the mass of the additive and 102 is the mass of the stock plus the PVDF,
((q)/(102 + q)) = 0.01 therefore q = 1.030303 g
Now calculating the solid and liquid mass of the solid electrolyte as follows. Since we do not know the phase of the additive we can try both cases. In case one where the additive is a solid we can add it to the mass of PVDF and LiPF6, 2 + 12 + 1.030303 which is the calculation for solid masses, the liquid masses would therefore be 30 + 58 where are finally ratio of solid to liquid would be 17.079890%. In the case where the additive is a liquid we just move the mass over to the liquid constituents, getting a ratio of 15.724983%.
Yoshida does not, however, teach a compaction density of the positive electrode film layer. However, Zhang teaches a lithium-ion battery with positive current collector and positive film provided on the current collector (Zhang, [0026]). Zhang further teaches an example (Zhang, Table 1 Example 13) with positive active material of type NCM811 with KYc = 3.22 cm3/g which since given the definition above of KYc = 10/ ρc (Zhang, [0026]) equates to a compaction density of 3.105590 g/cm3.
Zhang does not, however, teaches a positive-film thickness. However, Zheng teaches a coating with positive electrode active material NCM811 (Zheng, [0083]-[0085]) with final thickness of 380 μm.
Altogether, from Yoshida we have two ratios, either 17.079890% or 15.724983%, from Zhang we have a compaction density of 3.105590 g/cm3, and from Zheng we have a thickness of 380 μm. Computing the claimed formula with these numbers gives a range of 69.094370 to 75.047727 which falls within the claimed range of from 5 to 250.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate Zheng’s graded high-loading electrode construction (Zheng, [0019]) and Yoshida’s protective surface-gel system (Yoshida, [0015]) with Ritchie’s battery to increase active-material loading while addressing adhesion and electrolyte infiltration difficulties. In implementing the NCM811 positive electrode, one skilled in the art would have considered Zhang’s material selection teachings (Zhang, [0026]-[0031]) to preserve electrode integrity and electrolyte access during cylcling.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchie et al. (US 20220093908 A1, hereinafter Ritchie) in view of Yoshida et al. (US 20160013514 A1, hereinafter Yoshida), He (US 20210399301 A1), and Zheng et al. (CN 111430664 A, hereinafter Zheng).
Regarding claim 12, Ritchie does not disclose wherein a ratio of solution solid mass and liquid mass of the solid electrolyte on a percentage basis is denoted as m;
a compaction density of the negative electrode film layer is denoted as P2 g/cm3;
a thickness of the positive electrode film layer is denoted as h2 μm; and
the secondary battery satisfies: 25 ≤ h2 * P2/m ≤ 245.
However, Yoshida teaches a gel electrolyte layer for a secondary battery (Yoshida, [0001]) and that its gel electrolyte formulation might not undergo decomposition during high-temperature storage (Yoshida, [0009]). The gel electrolyte of Yoshida was prepared (Yoshida, [0086]) as 100 parts by mass of stock comprising 30 parts ethylene carbonate, 58 parts diethyl carbonate, and 12 parts LiPF6, 2 parts of polyvinylidene fluoride was then added to the stock. Additionally, an additive within the preferred range of 0.01 – 5 wt% can be added to the gel electrolyte as well (Yoshida, [0031]), for this instance we can select 1 wt%.
We can determine the mass of this additive at 1 wt% with the following formula where q is the mass of the additive and 102 is the mass of the stock plus the PVDF,
((q)/(102 + q)) = 0.01 therefore q = 1.030303 g
Now calculating the solid and liquid mass of the solid electrolyte as follows. Since we do not know the phase of the additive we can try both cases. In case one where the additive is a solid we can add it to the mass of PVDF and LiPF6, 2 + 12 + 1.030303 which is the calculation for solid masses, the liquid masses would therefore be 30 + 58 where are finally ratio of solid to liquid would be 0.17079890. In the case where the additive is a liquid we just move the mass over to the liquid constituents, getting a ratio of 0.15724983.
Yoshida does not, however, teach a compaction density of the positive electrode film layer. However, He teaches a secondary battery with negative electrode plate including negative electrode active material including artificial graphite (He, [0007]). He further teaches that the artificial graphite would preferably have a compacted density of between 1.68 g/cm3 and 1.83 g/cm3 (He, [0055]).
He does not, however, teaches a negative-film thickness. However, Zheng teaches a coating with artificial graphite anode active material (Zheng, [0088]-[0092]) with final thickness of 380 μm.
Altogether, from Yoshida we have two ratios, either 17.079890% or 15.724983%, from He we have a compaction density of between 1.68 g/cm3 and 1.83 g/cm3, and from Zheng we have a thickness of 380 μm. Computing the claimed formula with these numbers gives a range of 36.709839 to 44.705931 which falls within the claimed range of from 25 to 245.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate Zheng’s graded high-loading electrode construction (Zheng, [0019]) into Ritchie’s battery to increase active material loading while addressing adhesion and electrolyte infiltration difficulties. In implementing that construction, the one skilled in the art would have selected He’s artificial graphite (He, [0060]-[0062]) to improve packing and preserve particle integrity during rolling and cycling, while supporting ion transport. Yoshida’s surface-gel electrolyte (Yoshida, [0015]) and additive would be retained to provide electrode surface protection.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchie et al. (US 20220093908 A1, hereinafter Ritchie) in view of Yoshida et al. (US 20160013514 A1, hereinafter Yoshida), Xu et al. (CN 113889596 A, hereinafter Xu), and Zheng et al. (CN 111430664 A, hereinafter Zheng).
Regarding claim 12, Ritchie does not disclose wherein a ratio of solution solid mass and liquid mass of the solid electrolyte on a percentage basis is denoted as m;
a compaction density of the negative electrode film layer is denoted as P2 g/cm3;
a thickness of the positive electrode film layer is denoted as h2 μm; and
the secondary battery satisfies: 25 ≤ h2 * P2/m ≤ 245.
However, Yoshida teaches a gel electrolyte layer for a secondary battery (Yoshida, [0001]) and that its gel electrolyte formulation might not undergo decomposition during high-temperature storage (Yoshida, [0009]). The gel electrolyte of Yoshida was prepared (Yoshida, [0086]) as 100 parts by mass of stock comprising 30 parts ethylene carbonate, 58 parts diethyl carbonate, and 12 parts LiPF6, 2 parts of polyvinylidene fluoride was then added to the stock. Additionally an additive within the preferred range of 0.01 – 5 wt% can be added to the gel electrolyte as well (Yoshida, [0031]), for this instance we can select 1 wt%.
We can determine the mass of this additive at 1 wt% with the following formula where q is the mass of the additive and 102 is the mass of the stock plus the PVDF,
((q)/(102 + q)) = 0.01 therefore q = 1.030303 g
Now calculating the solid and liquid mass of the solid electrolyte as follows. Since we do not know the phase of the additive we can try both cases. In case one where the additive is a solid we can add it to the mass of PVDF and LiPF6, 2 + 12 + 1.030303 which is the calculation for solid masses, the liquid masses would therefore be 30 + 58 where are finally ratio of solid to liquid would be 17.079890%. In the case where the additive is a liquid we just move the mass over to the liquid constituents, getting a ratio of 15.724983%.
Yoshida does not, however, teach a compaction density of the positive electrode film layer. However, Xu teaches artificial graphite for the use on existing graphite anode materials (Xu, [0005]). Xu further teaches an example of artificial graphite material with a compaction density of between 1.67 g/cm3(Xu, [0057], example 1).
Xu does not, however, teaches a negative-film thickness. However, Zheng teaches a coating with artificial graphite anode active material (Zheng, [0088]-[0092]) with final thickness of 380 μm.
Altogether, from Yoshida we have two ratios, either 17.079890% or 15.724983%, from Xu we have a compaction density of 1.67 g/cm3, and from Zheng we have a thickness of 380 μm. Computing the claimed formula with these numbers gives a range of 37.154806 to 40.356165 which falls within the claimed range of from 25 to 245.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use Xu’s example 1 graphite composition in Zheng’s graded high-loading negative electrode construction (Zheng, [0019]) because Xu demonstrates improved liquid absorption and describes benefits to lithium-ion transport and cycling stability (Xu, [0060]-[0064]). The one skilled in the art would retain Yoshida’s electrode-surface gel (Yoshida, [0015]) and additive in Ritchie’s battery to provide interface protection.
Claim(s) 13-14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchie et al. (US 20220093908 A1, hereinafter Ritchie) in view of Hong et al. (US 20190366875 A1, hereinafter Hong).
Regarding claim 13, Ritchie does not disclose a battery module, comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1. However, Hong discloses a battery module including a cell stack (Hong, [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to group Ritchie’s electrochemical cells into a wider battery module to improve capacity and power (Hong, [0007]).
Regarding claim 14, Ritchie does not disclose a battery pack, comprising the battery module according to claim 13. However, Hong discloses a battery pack including at least one battery module (Hong, [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to group modified Ritchie’s battery modules into a wider battery pack to improve capacity and power (Hong, [0007]).
Regarding claim 16, Ritchie does not disclose an electrical device, comprising the battery module according to claim 13. However, Hong discloses the battery module may be applied to an electric vehicle (Hong, [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use modified Ritchie’s battery module in an electric vehicle to decrease pollutants (Hong, [0007]).
Regarding claim 17, Ritchie does not disclose an electrical device, comprising the battery pack according to claim 14. However, Hong discloses a vehicle powered by a battery pack (Hong, [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use modified Ritchie’s battery pack in a vehicle to increase fuel efficiency (Hong, [0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9591. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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 A Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights