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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 Jul 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-6, and 12-14 under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable over Konishi (US 2010/0081055) in view of Hiratsuka (US 2015/0243982) and the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable over Park (WO 2016153239, as read via machine translation) in view of Park ‘999 (KR 101748999, as read via machine translation) and Hiratsuka, Applicant argues that the cited prior art references provide no motivation to arrive at the claimed crystallite size, which has been amended to now cover the range of 180 nm to 400 nm. Applicant points to Fig. 3 of Hiratsuka, which shows that the positive active materials Example 1 and Example 5 yield the highest initial capacity, despite having crystallite sizes of 149.6 nm and 110.5 nm, respectively, which both lie outside the claimed range of 180 nm to 400 nm. Therefore, argues Applicant, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to select a crystallite size of 180 nm to 400 nm.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that the cited reference Hiratsuka explicitly teaches a crystallite size range of 100 nm to 300 nm, and teaches that a crystallite size in this range provides a high energy density and an excellent cycle characteristic (see Hiratsuka: [0088]-[0089]). Further, as shown in Table 1 of Hiratsuka, the samples with the highest capacity retention rate are Samples 2 and 4, which both have crystallite diameters that lie within the claimed range of 180 nm to 400 nm.
Still further, the prior art reference Yamaguchi (US 2019/0051900), which is relied up in the instant rejection of claims 1 and 3-15 as set forth below, teaches a positive active material having a crystallite size in the range of 80 nm to 490 nm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 180 nm to 400 nm (see Yamaguchi: [0108]-[0109]). Yamaguchi further teaches that when the crystallite size is within the range of 80 nm to 490 nm, the ion conductivity of the crystallite can be increased and the gradual decrease of the discharge capacity of the material due to charging and discharging at high temperature can be prevented (see Yamaguchi: [0110]). The Examiner therefore maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found sufficient motivation in the teachings of Yamaguchi to arrive at a crystallite size in the range of 180 nm to 400 nm.
Applicant additionally argues that the data of the present application demonstrates that there is no reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the claimed invention over the prior art references. Applicant cites [0082]-[0084] and [0087]-[0088] of the Instant Specification, which shows dramatically enhanced high-temperature storage characteristics for Examples 1-3 with a crystallite size of 180 nm to 400 nm as compared with Comparative Examples 3-4, which have a crystallite size less that 180 nm.
Therefore, in Applicant’s view, the present application shows that the claimed crystallite size of 180 to 400 nm yields superior battery characteristics that are not taught by the cited art, and as such there would be no reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the claimed crystallite size of 180 to 400 nm based on the disclosure of Konishi, or in the alternative Park in view of Park '999, in view of Hiratsuka.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that, notwithstanding any benefits of the instantly-claimed crystallite size discovered by the Applicant, there is nothing in the prior art of record that would have discouraged or taught away from a crystallite size of 180 nm to 400 nm. To the contrary, as set forth in the claim rejections below, the prior art Yamaguchi teaches that when a crystallite size of a positive active material is within the range of 80 nm to 490 nm, the ion conductivity of the crystallite can be increased and the gradual decrease of the discharge capacity of the material due to charging and discharging at high temperature can be prevented. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found sufficient motivation to arrive at a crystallite size in the range of 180 nm to 400 nm.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi (US 2010/0081055) in view of Yamaguchi (US 2019/0051900).
As to claim 1, Konishi discloses a positive electrode material for a lithium secondary battery, comprising:
a first positive electrode active material (first cathode active material, see Konishi: [0020]) and a second positive electrode active material (second cathode active material, see Konishi: [0020]),
wherein the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material are lithium composite transition metal oxides containing transition metals comprising nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co) and manganese (Mn) (see Konishi: [0033], both first and second cathode active materials have the formula LixNiaMnbCocO2 and thereby are lithium composite transition metal oxides),
an average particle size (D50) of the first positive electrode active material is larger than an average particle size of the second positive electrode active material (see Konishi: [0047], the average secondary particle size for the first cathode active material is 1.5 times or more the average secondary particle size for the second cathode active material),
the average particle size (D50) of the first positive electrode active material is from 7 mm to 20 mm (see Konishi: [0041], the average secondary particle size for the first cathode active material is 5-30 mm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 7-20 mm),
the average particle size (D50) of the second positive electrode active material is from 1 mm to 7 mm (see Konishi: [0046], the average secondary particle size for the second cathode active material is 2-10 mm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 1-7 mm).
Konishi is silent as to the crystallite size of the second positive electrode active material, and does not disclose that the second positive electrode active material has a crystallite size ranging from 180 nm to
Yamaguchi, also working in the field of positive electrode material for a lithium secondary batteries, teaches a positive active material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide (lithium-manganese-containing complex oxide, see Yamaguchi: [0027]). Yamaguchi teaches that the crystallite size of this material is preferably in the range of 80 nm to 490 nm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 180 nm to 400 nm (see Yamaguchi: [0108]-[0109]). Yamaguchi further teaches that when the crystallite size is within the range of 80 nm to 490 nm, the ion conductivity of the crystallite can be increased and the gradual decrease of the discharge capacity of the material due to charging and discharging at high temperature can be prevented (see Yamaguchi: [0110]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode material of Konishi by setting the crystallite size to be within the range of 180 nm to
As to claim 3, Konishi in view of Yamaguchi teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the second positive electrode active material is a secondary particle formed by agglomerating primary particles (i.e., the second cathode active material is composed of primary particles, see Konishi: [0046] and Fig. 1), and the average particle size (D50) of the primary particles is 0.3 m or more ( the primary particle size of the second cathode active material is 0.05-0.5 m, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 0.3 m or more, see Konishi: [0046]).
As to claim 5, Konishi in view of Yamaguchi teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the average particle size (D50) of the first positive electrode active material is from 8 m to 17 m (see Konishi: [0041], the average secondary particle size for the first cathode active material is 5-30 m, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 8-17 m).
As to claim 6, Konishi in view of Yamaguchi teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the first positive electrode active material is represented by Formula 1, as shown below:
The instantly-claimed first positive active material has the formula
Li1+p1[Ni1-(x1+y1+z1)Cox1Mny1Maz1](1-p1)O2
Where 0 < p1 ≤ 0.2, 0 < x1 ≤ 0.5, 0 < y1 ≤ 0.5, 0 ≤ z1 ≤0.1. If p1 = 0.2 and z1 = 0 (these parameters lie within the instantly-claimed ranges), the formula becomes
Li1.2[Ni1-(x1+y1)Cox1Mny1](0.8)O2, or
Li1.2Ni0.8(1-(x1+y1))Co0.8x1Mn0.8y1O2
Further, if x1 = 0.125 and y1 = 0.125 (which both lie within the instantly-claimed ranges, note that 0 < x1+y1+z1 = 0.125+0.125+0 = 0.25 ≤ 0.7), the formula becomes
Li1.2Ni0.6Co0.1Mn0.1O2
Konishi discloses a first positive active material having the formula Lix1Nia1Mnb1Coc1O2, where 0.2 ≤ x1 ≤ 1.2, 0.6 ≤ a1, 0.05 ≤ b1 ≤ 0.3, 0.05 ≤ c1 ≤ 0.3 (see Konishi: [0019]). When x1 = 1.2, a1 = 0.6, b1 = 0.1, and c1 = 0.1 (which lie within the scope of Konishi’s disclosure). This results in a compound having the formula Li1.2N0.6Mn0.125Co0.125O2, or Li1.2N0.6Co0.125Mn0.125O2. This formula is identical to the formula derived from the instant claim above. That is to say, Konishi in view of Yamaguchi discloses a first positive active material that anticipates the instantly-claimed first positive active material.
As to claim 12, Konishi in view of Yamaguchi teaches positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of the average particle sizes (D50) of the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material may be 1.5:1 to 4:1 (i.e., the d50 of the first positive electrode active material is 5 mm to 30 mm and the d50 of the second positive active material is 2 mm to 10 mm, see Konishi: [0041]-[0046]. The ratio of the average particle sizes of Konishi in view of Yamaguchi’s first and second positive electrode active materials is therefore 0.5:1to 15:1 --i.e., 5/10:1 to 30/2:1--, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 1.5:1 to 4:1).
As to claim 13, Konishi in view of Yamaguchi teaches positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material are mixed in a weight ratio of 60:40 to 85:15 (Konishi in view of Yamaguchi discloses a first cathode active material that reads on the first positive electrode active material and a second cathode active material that reads on the second positive electrode active material wherein the first positive electrode active material and second positive electrode active material are mixed in a weight ratio of 70:30, which lies within and thereby anticipates the claimed range of 60:40 to 85:15, see Konishi: [0065]).
As to claim 14, Konishi in view of Yamaguchi teaches a positive electrode (cathode, see Konishi: [0062]) for a lithium secondary battery, comprising the positive electrode material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 (Konishi in view of Yamaguchi’s positive electrode material reads on the claimed positive electrode material as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Konishi in view of Yamaguchi’s positive electrode material is applied to a foil current collector to produce a cathode, see Konishi: [0062]).
Claim(s) 7-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi (US 2010/0081055) in view of Yamaguchi (US 2019/0051900) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2015/0090924).
As to claim 7, Konishi in view of Yamaguchi teaches positive the electrode material according to claim 6. However, this material does not satisfy the relationship 0.3 ≤ 1-(x1+y1+z1) ≤ 0.6, because for Konishi’s material, 1-(x1+y1+z1) = 0.8.
Lee, also working on the problem of LNCM positive active materials, teaches an alternative LNCM having the formula
Li1+aNibMncCo1-(a+b+c+d)MdO2-sAs
Where 0.1 ≤ a ≤ 0.2, 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 0.4, 0.3 ≤ c ≤ 0.7, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.1, and 0 ≤ s ≤ 0.2 (see Lee: Abstract and [0014]-[0015]). If a = 0.1, b = 0.35, c = 0.4, d= 0, and s = 0, Lee’s material can be given by the formula
Li1.1Ni0.35Co0.25Mn0.4O2
Which reads on the instantly-claimed positive electrode material as it satisfies both the inequality 0 < x1+y1+z1 ≤ 0.7 of claim 6 (since .25+.4+0 = .65) as well as the inequality 0.3 ≤ 1-(x1+y1++z1) ≤ 0.6 of claim 7 (since 1-[.25+.4+0] = 0.35).
Because Lee’s LNCM is an equivalent to Konishi in view of Yamaguchi’s LNCM that performs the same function of acting as a positive active material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Li1.1Ni0.35Co0.25Mn0.4O2 taught by Lee for Konishi in view of Yamaguchi’s first positive active material.
As to claim 8, Konishi in view of Yamaguchi teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1.
However, this material does not satisfy the requirement that the nickel (Ni) among metals excluding lithium of the lithium composite transition metal oxides is included in an amount of 30 mol% or more.
Lee, also working on the problem of LNCM positive active materials, teaches an alternative LNCM having the formula
Li1+aNibMncCo1-(a+b+c+d)MdO2-sAs
Where 0.1 ≤ a ≤ 0.2, 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 0.4, 0.3 ≤ c ≤ 0.7, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.1, and 0 ≤ s ≤ 0.2 (see Lee: Abstract and [0014]-[0015]). If a = 0.1, b = 0.35, c = 0.4, d= 0, and s = 0, Lee’s material can be given by the formula
Li1.1Ni0.35Co0.25Mn0.4O2
Which contains nickel (Ni) in an amount of 35 mol%, which lies within the claimed range of 30 mol% or more).
Because Lee’s LNCM is an equivalent to Konishi in view of Yamaguchi’s LNCM that performs the same function of acting s a positive active material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Li1.1Ni0.35Co0.25Mn0.4O2 taught by Lee for Konishi in view of Yamaguchi’s first positive active material.
As to claim 9, Konishi in view of Yamaguchi teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1.
Konishi in view of Yamaguchi’s second positive active material has the formula Lix2Nia2Mnb2Coc2O2, where 0.2 ≤ x2 ≤ 1.2, a2 ≤ 0.5, 0.05 ≤ b2 ≤ 0.5, 0.05 ≤ c2 ≤ 0.5 (see Konishi: [0019]). Konishi in view of Yamaguchi does not teach the instantly-claimed active material represented by Formula 2.
Lee, also working on the problem of LNCM positive active materials, teaches an alternative LNCM having the formula
LiNixMnyCo1-(x+y+z)M’zO2-tA’t
Where 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 0.8, 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.1, and 0 ≤ t ≤ 0.2 (see Lee: Abstract and [0014]-[0015]). If x = 0.6, y = 0.2, z = 0, and t= 0, Lee’s material can be given by the formula
LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2
Which reads on the instantly-claimed positive electrode material of claim 9 as it satisfies both the inequality 0 < x2+y2+z2 ≤ 0.7 of claim 9 (since 0.2+0.2+0 = 0.4).
Because Lee’s LNCM is an equivalent to Konishi’s LNCM that performs the same function of acting as a positive active material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 taught by Lee for Konishi’s second positive active material.
As to claim 10, Konishi in view of Yamaguchi teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 7.
However, Konishi in view of Yamaguchi’s positive active material does not satisfy the relationship 0.5 < 1-(x2+y2+z2) < 0.7.
Lee, also working on the problem of LNCM positive active materials, teaches an alternative LNCM having the formula
LiNixMnyCo1-(x+y+z)M’zO2-tA’t
Where 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 0.8, 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.1, and 0 ≤ t ≤ 0.2 (see Lee: Abstract and [0014]-[0015]). If x = 0.6, y = 0.2, z = 0, and t= 0, Lee’s material can be given by the formula
LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2
Which reads on the instantly-claimed positive electrode material of claim 10 as it satisfies the inequality 0.5 < x2+y2+z2 ≤ 0.7 of claim 10 (since 1-[0.2+0.2+0] = 0.6).
Because Lee’s LNCM is an equivalent to Konishi in view of Yamaguchi’s LNCM that performs the same function of acting as a positive active material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 taught by Lee for Konishi in view of Yamaguchi’s second positive active material.
As to claim 11, Konishi in view of Yamaguchi teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 7.
However, Konishi in view of Yamaguchi’s positive active material does not satisfy the requirement that the cobalt (Co) among metals excluding lithium of the lithium composite transition metal oxides is included in an amount of 50 mol% or less.
Lee, also working on the problem of LNCM positive active materials, teaches an alternative LNCM having the formula
LiNixMnyCo1-(x+y+z)M’zO2-tA’t
Where 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 0.8, 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.1, and 0 ≤ t ≤ 0.2 (Lee: Abstract and [0014]-[0015]). If x = 0.6, y = 0.2, z = 0, and t= 0, Lee’s material can be given by the formula
LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2
Lee’s positive electrode material therefore includes Co in an amount of 20 mol%, which lies within the claimed range of 50 mol% or less.
Because Lee’s LNCM is an equivalent to Konishi in view of Yamaguchi’s LNCM that performs the same function of acting as a positive active material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 taught by Lee for Konishi in view of Yamaguchi‘s second positive active material.
As to claim 15, Konishi in view of Yamaguchi and Lee teaches a lithium secondary battery (test battery, see Konishi: [0062]-[0063]) comprising the positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 10 (see Konishi: [0062]-[0063], disclosing a cathode that reads on the claimed positive electrode. Konishi in view of Yamaguchi and Lee’s positive electrode meets all the limitations of claim 10 as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above).
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (WO 2016153239, as read via machine translation) in view of Park ‘999 (KR 101748999, as read via machine translation) and Yamaguchi (US 2019/0051900).
As to claim 1, Park discloses a positive electrode material for a lithium secondary battery, comprising:
a first positive electrode active material (cathode active material, see Park: [0058]) wherein the first positive electrode active material is a lithium composite transition metal oxide containing transition metals comprising nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co) and manganese (Mn) (see Park: [0011]-[0015]), and the average particle size (D50) of the first positive electrode active material is from 7 mm to 20 mm (see Park: [0041], the average secondary particle size for the first cathode active material is 5-30 mm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 7-20 mm).
Park does not disclose a second positive electrode active material wherein an average particle size (D50) of the first positive electrode active material is larger than an average particle size of the second positive electrode active material and the average particle size (D50) of the second positive electrode active material is from 1 mm to 7 mm.
Park is silent as to the crystallite size of the second positive electrode active material, and does not disclose that the second positive electrode active material has a crystallite size ranging from 180 nm to of 400 nm.
Park ‘999, also working on the problem of positive active materials for lithium batteries, teaches a positive active material that comprises first and second materials (cathode active materials, which comprise a bimodal distribution of small particles and neutral particles, which read on the claimed first positive active material and second positive active material, respectively. See Park ‘999: [0003]) wherein an average particle size (D50) of the first positive electrode active material is larger than an average particle size of the second positive electrode active material (i.e., Park ‘999’s neutral particles, which read on the claimed first positive active material, are larger than Park ‘999’s small particles, which read on the claimed second positive active material, see Park ‘999: [0003]) and wherein the average particle size (D50) of the second positive electrode active material is from 1 mm to 7 mm (Park ‘999’s small particles have a D50 of 1 mm to 7 mm, see Park ‘999: [0003]).
Park ‘999 further teaches that the use of a bimodal positive active material improves the capacity of secondary batteries (see Park ‘999: [0003]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s positive active material to have a bimodal distribution in the manner taught by Park ‘999, such that it comprises a first active material having an average particle size of 1 mm to 7 mm and a second active material having an average particle size of 7 mm to 20 mm. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to improve the capacity of batteries made with the positive active material, as taught by Park ‘999.
Further regarding claim 1, Park in view of Park ‘999 as applied above is silent as to the crystallite size of the second positive electrode active material, and does not disclose that the second positive electrode active material has a crystallite size ranging from 180 nm to 400 nm.
Yamaguchi, also working in the field of positive electrode material for a lithium secondary batteries, teaches a positive active material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide (lithium-manganese-containing complex oxide, see Yamaguchi: [0027]). Yamaguchi teaches that the crystallite size of this material is preferably in the range of 80 nm to 490 nm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 180 nm to 400 nm (see Yamaguchi: [0108]-[0109]). Yamaguchi further teaches that when the crystallite size is within the range of 80 nm to 490 nm, the ion conductivity of the crystallite can be increased and the gradual decrease of the discharge capacity of the material due to charging and discharging at high temperature can be prevented (see Yamaguchi: [0110]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode material of Park in view of Park ‘999 by setting the crystallite size to be within the range of 180 nm to increase the ion conductivity of the positive active material and to prevent the gradual decrease of the discharge capacity of the material due to charging and discharging at high temperature, as taught by Yamaguchi.
As to claim 3, Park in view of Park ‘999 and Yamaguchi teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the second positive electrode active material is a secondary particle formed by agglomerating primary particles (the cathode active material is composed of primary particles, see Park: [0058]), and the average particle size (D50) of the primary particles is 0.3 mm or more (the primary particle size of Park is 0-3 mm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 0.3 mm or more, see Park: [0058]).
As to claim 4, Park in view of Park ‘999 and Yamaguchi teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 3, wherein the average particle size (D50) of the primary particle is from 0.6 mm to 4 mm or less (the primary particle size of Park is 0-3 mm, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 0.6 mm to 4 mm, see Park: [0058]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nishida (US 2001/0036578) teaches a lithium transition metal oxide active material, and teaches that the crystallite size of this material is preferably greater than 100 nm (1,000 Å) because high crystallinity prevents the deterioration of the lithium-containing transition metal complex oxide caused by charge-discharge cycling and improves the thermal stability of the material (see [0017]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)-272-1481. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
