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 Interpretation
Claims 5 and 7 recite “coating mass”, but the specification does not appear to ever explicitly state what the term means. The term is understood to be the mass of the electrode active material (i.e. coating weight, para. [0117]) coated onto foil.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0093] recites “the ratio of the coating mass of the positive electrode active material of the single electrode assembly 23 located in the first region 24 to the coating mass of the positive electrode active material of the single electrode assembly 23 located in the first region 24 is” and it appears one of the recitations of “first region 24” should be changed to “second region 25”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “the active material comprises” in line 5 and it seems that this should be changed to “the active materials comprise” as multiple active materials are previously recited.
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 1-10 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 1 recites “the first region being closer to the case than the second region” and it is unclear what is meant by this limitation because in multiple embodiments described in the specification, the first and second region both touch the case and are therefore the same distance from the case (see pars. [0066]-[0067]). Among other options, the Applicant could amend the claims to describe the position of the electrodes or regions of the case more clearly such as by specifying that the electrode assemblies are stacked in a row along a stacking direction and identifying ends of the stack as located in a first region of the case and a center of the stack as located in a second region of the case (and the third region being located between the first and second region).
Claim 2 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “the stacking direction” in line 2 and “the middle” in line 4 which lack explicit antecedent basis. The claim could be amended as, for example: “The battery cell according to claim 1, wherein the at least three electrode assemblies are stacked in the cavity, and along a stacking direction, the polarization parameters of the electrode assemblies located at both ends are PA, and the polarization parameters of the electrode assemblies located in a middle between the ends are PB.
Claim 4 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above in that it describes one region as being closer to the case than another region when the specification shows they are the same distance from the case (touching the case, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 6). For the purpose of examination, “closer to the case” is understood essentially to mean closer to an end of a cuboid case having the shortest dimension.
Claim 5 recites “the proportion” in line 3 which lacks explicit antecedent basis. This could be changed to “a proportion”. It is noted that the recited proportion could be multiple different proportions such as between positive electrodes or negative electrodes.
Claim 5 (see condition c.) recites “the electrode plate” in line 10, again in line 11 in reference to a different electrode plate and also in line 12 where it’s unclear which electrode plate it is referring to. It is also unclear if “a positive electrode plate” and “a negative electrode plate” in lines 12-13 are the same as those recited in claim 1.
It is recommended to change (the recitation of condition c) to “a compacted density of an electrode plate of the single electrode assembly located in the first region is greater than that of an electrode plate of the single electrode assembly located in the second region, and the electrode plates comprise [[a]] the positive electrode plates and/or [[a]] the negative electrode plates;” because “the electrode plate” lacks explicit and implicit antecedent basis in the claim or in claim 1 from which it depends, but “the positive electrode plates” and “the negative electrode plates” have implicit antecedent basis in claim 1.
Claims 6-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claims 1 or 5.
Claim 8 recites “the ratio” in line 1 which lacks antecedent basis. This should be changed to “a ratio”. It is noted that claim 8 also recites “the electrode plate” twice. If claim 5 were amended as above, these instances should not require amendment.
Claims 9-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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 4 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 4 includes the following: PB≥PC≥PA, which means the three values may be equal. The claim needs a further limitation to clarify that it includes the limitation of claim 1 such as by adding “and PB>PA” after “PB≥PC≥PA”.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim 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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyu et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 115084667A) in view of Han et al. (US 20230031275) and as evidenced by Nakamura et al. (US 20230420726).
Regarding claim 1, Lyu et al. discloses a battery cell (battery cell structure, Abstract), as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
565
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The battery cell of Lyu et al. presumably includes a case (not expressly disclosed, but the electrode assembly shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 2 or Fig. 3 would be inserted into a case) or otherwise Han et al. discloses electrode assemblies (electrodes 120 and 110 with separators 130, Fig. 1) having a case (case 200, Fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lyu et al. wherein the battery cell comprises a case.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a case in order to protect the electrode assembly and prevent accidental contact.
Lyu et al. in view of Han et al. discloses a cavity being defined within the case (shown in Han et al., Fig. 12), the cavity comprising a first region (corresponding to outer regions of Lyu et al., shown above) and a second region (corresponding to an inner region of Lyu et al., shown above), the first region being closer to the case than the second region (the first region is located on the ends of the case); and at least three electrode assemblies (Lyu et al., Fig. 1, having more than three negative electrode sheets 1, positive electrode sheets 2 and separators 3 as shown above), the at least three electrode assemblies being arranged in the cavity (Han et al., Fig. 12); wherein the electrode assemblies have polarization parameters P, P=(Rx × Ry)0.5, wherein Rx is the resistance of a positive electrode plate and Ry is the resistance of a negative electrode plate; the polarization parameter of a single electrode assembly located in the first region is PA, the polarization parameter of a single electrode assembly located in the second region is PB, and PA<PB in that Lyu et al. discloses using thinner electrode current collectors (foil layers, page 7, line 16) in the center and thicker ones on the outside in order to improve the polarization difference between the center and the outside (page 7, lines 16-24) and as evidenced by Nakamura et al. thinner current collectors (metal foil, para. [0044]) have higher resistance (“when the thickness of the negative current collector is reduced, the resistance increases”, para. [0031]). Thus, the electrode assemblies of Lyu et al. in the inner (second) region will have higher resistance due to having thinner foil than the outer electrodes and PA<PB.
Regarding claim 3, Lyu et al. in view of Han et al. discloses wherein the at least three electrode assemblies are stacked in the cavity (Lyu et al., Fig. 1, shown above), and along the stacking direction, the polarization parameters of the electrode assemblies located at both ends are PA (the first region shown above for claim 1), and the polarization parameters of the electrode assemblies located in the middle are PB (the second region shown above for claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Lyu et al. in view of Han et al. discloses wherein the cavity further comprises a third region, the third region is closer to the case than the second region, the first region is closer to the case than the third region, the polarization parameter of a single electrode assembly located in the third region is PC, and PB≥PC≥PA in that the first region (having PA) is the thinnest, the second region (having PB) is the thickest, and the third region (having PC) has a thickness between that of the first and second regions (Lyu et al., “the thickness of the positive electrode foil layer and the negative electrode foil layer gradually increases”, page 15, lines 5-6, Fig. 3 and shown below) which means PB≥PC≥PA because the resistance decreases with increasing thickness as discussed for claim 1 above.
PNG
media_image2.png
545
757
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Lyu et al. discloses a battery, comprising the battery cell according to claim 1 (Lyu et al., “a lithium ion battery”, page 1, line 19, see comments for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Lyu et al. discloses an electrical apparatus, comprising the battery according to claim 9, and the battery being configured to provide electric energy (Lyu et al., such for use in a hybrid electric/pure electric vehicles, page 1, line 24).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyu et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 115084667A) in view of Han et al. (US 20230031275) and as evidenced by Nakamura et al. (US 20230420726) and in further view of Fukuda et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2014112463A).
Regarding claim 2, Lyu et al. does not expressly disclose the relationship.
However, Lyu et al. teaches that the electrode plates are substantially the same except for the thickness of current collectors/foil (page 7, line 28 – page 8, line 6) such that factors affecting the resistance will be the same except the thickness of the foil and as such, the ratio PB / PA would presumably be greater than, but close to 1. Even assuming the resistance of the entire plate is inversely proportional to the thickness of the foil, the thickness values for example 1 (page 13, line 1 and line 8) would result in a ratio of about 1.14 (i.e. using RXA= 1/17, RYA= 1/10, RXB=1/13, RYB=1/10) which would mean the value of PB ln(V) / PA for Lyu et al. will be mostly due to case volume and it would have been obvious to change the size of the case to meet requirements of a given application and it would further seem that a conventional case size would fall within the range; for example: Fukuda et al. teaches batteries (Abstract) where the batteries occupy a volume of about 16,500 mm3 (using the dimensions on page 7, line 15) and ln(16,500) = 9.7 (and 9.7 X 1.14 = 11, which falls within the claimed range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lyu et al. by using a known battery cell volume to arrive at the claimed range.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a volume in order to meet requirements of a given battery application.
Thus, Lyu et al. in view of Fukuda et al. reasonably disclose the range or otherwise it would have been obvious to make modifications (in volume or factors affecting resistance such as foil thickness or active material composition) to Lyu et al. to arrive at the claimed range through routine optimization as "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Assuming, arguendo, that the above cited references do not meet the claimed range, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the relationship range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the apparatus of Lyu et al. with the range recited in the instant claims, which is now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyu et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 115084667A) in view of Han et al. (US 20230031275) and as evidenced by Nakamura et al. (US 20230420726) and in further view of Itou et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Role of conductive carbon in porous Li-ion battery electrodes revealed by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy using a symmetric cell”) and/or Han et al. (US 20110177378) hereinafter “MS Han et al.”.
Regarding claim 5, Lyu et al. does not explicitly disclose at least one of the listed conditions (a-e).
However, Lyu et al. discloses the conductive agent may be a conductive carbon (page 3, lines 17-18) and Itou et al. discloses the use of conductive carbon in electrodes (Abstract) and teaches the electrical resistance is dependent on the amount (concentration or ratio) of conductive carbon in the active material (page 5561, Fig. 3) where increasing conductive carbon decreases resistance (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lyu et al. wherein at least condition “a” is satisfied such that: the proportion of a conductive agent in an active material of the single electrode assembly located in the first region is greater than that of a conductive agent in an active material of the single electrode assembly located in the second region, and the active material comprises a positive electrode active material and/or a negative electrode active material.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use more conductive carbon in the first region to lower resistance (the first region of Lyu et al. being the lower resistance region due to thicker foil as discussed above for claim 1) relative to the second region in order to improve current distribution (Lyu et al., page 2, lines 7-10).
Lyu et al. does not expressly disclose a coating mass of the positive electrode active material of the single electrode assembly located in the first region is less than that of the positive electrode active material of the single electrode assembly located in the second region.
However, MS Han et al. discloses a battery having electrodes (Abstract, Fig. 2) and teaches a coating mass of the positive electrode active material (para. [0043]) of a single electrode assembly located in a first region (outer electrode assembly 60) is less than that of the positive electrode active material of a single electrode assembly (active material layer 64 is shown to be less than active material layer 14, Fig. 2) located in the second region (inner electrode 11, para. [0052], Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lyu et al. wherein a coating mass of the positive electrode active material of the single electrode assembly located in the first region is less than that of the positive electrode active material of the single electrode assembly located in the second region.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use more mass of active material in the second region in order to improve charge/discharge stability (MS Han et al., para. [0011]).
Regarding claim 6, Lyu et al. does not expressly disclose the ratio of the proportion of the conductive agent in the active material of the single electrode assembly located in the first region to the proportion of the conductive agent in the active material of the single electrode assembly located in the second region is 1.01-3:1.
However, Itou et al. teaches using different concentrations of conductive carbon which alters resistance (Fig. 3) including the use of 10% and 6% conductive carbon (Fig. 2) and the use of different concentrations of conductive carbon would have a predictable result on electrode resistance (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lyu et al. wherein the ratio of the proportion of the conductive agent in the active material of the single electrode assembly located in the first region to the proportion of the conductive agent in the active material of the single electrode assembly located in the second region is 1.01-3:1.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at a ratio such as 1.01-3:1 in order to optimize for the desired resistance of electrodes in the first and second region, such as to improve current distribution (Lyu et al., page 2, lines 7-10) as "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. See In re Aller, supra.
Moreover, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the conductive agent ratio range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the apparatus of Lyu et al. with the range recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyu et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 115084667A) in view of Han et al. (US 20230031275) and as evidenced by Nakamura et al. (US 20230420726) and in further view of Itou et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Role of conductive carbon in porous Li-ion battery electrodes revealed by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy using a symmetric cell”) and/or Han et al. (US 20110177378) hereinafter “MS Han et al.” as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Tanaka et al. (US 20220216508) and/or Ishii (US 20090142668).
Regarding claim 7, the above-cited references do not expressly disclose wherein the ratio of the coating mass of the positive electrode active material of the single electrode assembly located in the first region to the coating mass of the positive electrode active material of the single electrode assembly located in the second region is 0.7-0.99:1.
However, MS Han et al. teaches an example where the ratio is about 0.5 (pars. [0050]-[0051]), but states that “the present invention is not limited thereto” (para. [0052]) and Tanaka et al. discloses a battery electrode (Abstract) and teaches that an increase in the amount of electrode active material increases resistance (pars. [0006]-[0007]) and/or Ishii discloses a battery electrode (Abstract) and teaches that increasing the amount of electrode active material increases resistance (Fig. 3 or Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of the above-cited references wherein the ratio of the coating mass of the positive electrode active material of the single electrode assembly located in the first region to the coating mass of the positive electrode active material of the single electrode assembly located in the second region is 0.7-0.99:1 such as to adjust the resistance of the electrodes (increasing the ratio taught by MS Han et al. to increase the resistance of the single electrode assembly in the first region, but where the resistance is still less than the second region) to arrive at the claimed range through routine optimization as "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. See In re Aller, supra.
Assuming, arguendo, that the above cited references do not meet the claimed range, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra.
With respect to the limitation of the coating mass ratio range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the apparatus of Lyu et al. with the range recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyu et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 115084667A) in view of Han et al. (US 20230031275) and as evidenced by Nakamura et al. (US 20230420726) and in further view of Itou et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Role of conductive carbon in porous Li-ion battery electrodes revealed by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy using a symmetric cell”) and/or Han et al. (US 20110177378) hereinafter “MS Han et al.” as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Han et al. (US 20230420639) hereinafter “Y Han et al.”.
Regarding claim 8, Lyu et al. does not disclose a compacted density ratio.
However, Y Han et al. discloses an electrode (Abstract) and teaches that higher compacted density reduces resistance (para. [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lyu et al. wherein the ratio of the compacted density of the electrode plate of the single electrode assembly located in the first region to the compacted density of the electrode plate of the single electrode assembly located in the second region is 1.01-1.5:1 such as by adjusting the compacted density in order to achieve a desired or optimum level of resistance in the electrodes (lower resistance in the first region and higher resistance in the second region).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at a ratio such as 1.01-1.5:1 in order to optimize for the desired resistance of electrodes in the first and second region, such as to improve current distribution (Lyu et al., page 2, lines 7-10) as "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. See In re Aller, supra.
Moreover, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the compacted density ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the apparatus of Lyu et al. with the range recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Conclusion
Li et al. (US 20220416330) discloses battery cells which have different chemical systems (Abstract) and different resistances per unit area and where the battery cells are arranged in a battery module such that performance under low temperature of the battery module can be further improved while increasing the power output performance of the battery module (para. [0029]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights