www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/577,219
`
`09/20/2019
`
`Oose Okutani
`
`P190926US00
`
`5270
`
`WHDA, LLP
`8500 LEESBURG PIKE
`SUITE 7500
`TYSONS, VA 22182
`
`YANCHUK, STEPHEN J
`
`1723
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`05/12/2022
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`patentmail @ whda.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1.and 3-9 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s)
`1and3-9 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)____is/are objected to.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[M) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a) All
`1.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.4% Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 09/01/2021.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20220507
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/577,219
`Okutani etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`STEPHEN J YANCHUK
`1723
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 07/07/2021.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)L) This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/577,219
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`The present application,filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
`
`inventorto file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR
`
`1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this applicationis eligible for continued
`
`examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the
`
`finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's
`
`submission filed on 07/07/2021 has been entered.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's argumentsfiled 07/07/2021 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
`
`Applicant asserts the lower portion is capable of resisting the pressure of internal gas based
`
`upon the thickness of the wall. This comparison of the wall is only one sided. It appears more that the
`
`thickness of the wall facing towards the battery bottom should have an adequate thickness, but the
`
`relationship to the thickness of the top portion does not adequately show criticality. There is no showing
`
`of the top being thicker than the bottom wherebythe cell performs less desirable.
`
`It appears from the instant disclosure and applicant arguments that the combination of the
`
`thicknesses of the various aspects of claim 1 in combination with the angles between those walls appear
`
`to be morein line with the criticality nature argument presented. The angle between the thickness of T2
`
`and T1 is approximately 90°.
`
`No prior art rejection presented for claim 7. If writtenin independent form with dependencies,
`
`the combination of features would be allowable over the prior art of record.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/577,219
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 3
`
`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 fora claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed inventionis
`notidentically disclosed as set forth ins ection 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 ofthe claimed invention to a person having ordinary skillinthe art to which the
`claimed invention pertains. Pa tentability s hall not be negated by the mannerin which the invention
`was made.
`
`Claims 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teramoto (PGPUB
`
`2009/0151863) and further in view of Sakashita et al (WO2007/142270).
`
`Claim 1: Teramototeaches a method for forming a cylindrical battery assembly including a
`
`cylindrical batter case (5) [Abstract]. The battery can (5) comprises a cylindrical body that opens at one
`
`end of the body anda bottom section closing the other end of the body section such that an annularly
`
`groovedportion is formed by constriction near an open end of the opening section [Fig 3, 7]. It is
`
`interpreted that the driving rotation of the and the pushing elements of the prior art match substantially
`
`those required for the instant invention [Fig 3]; applicant’s clarification into the specific method
`
`limitations or elements utilized in assembly that differ from that of the prior art could help to advance
`
`prosecution as the resulting thicknesses of the various portions of the walls are dependent upon the
`
`method of assembly. Applicant depicts amethod control and formation that allows for a thickness “B”
`
`to be secure enough to not break [Fig 4A]. The manufacturing control allows the groove to be formed
`
`[0010-0011]. The control allows for the thickness of the groove to not be overly thinned down [0015].
`
`The control allows for a formation that has a groove shape with a high level of accuracy [0017]. Thefinal
`
`product can be controlled based upon the control method and devices utilized to form the casing
`
`[0041]. Since the manufacturing method and operation is substantially similar to that of the instant
`
`claim,it is interpreted the die pressed region and the resulting, applicant region of T1 and T3, operate in
`
`substantially the same manner and are not patentably distinguishable from each other. There is no
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/577,219
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 4
`
`presented criticality or discovery of the assembly that differentiates the features of the instant claim
`
`over that of the prior art; alternatively, if there is a slight dimensional change between the two, such
`
`change would have been obvious to one having ordinaryskill inthe artin order to create an
`
`engagement feature witha top cap so as to improvethefitting condition MPEP 2144.04, such condition
`
`is routine and experimental to onein the art.
`
`Teramotois silent to teacha thickness of T2 to be thinner thanT1.
`
`Sakashita teaches a thickness of an upper portion of a case assembly to have a starting thickness
`
`that is thicker thanthe case material [Abstract]. It is taught that the side case that is not impacted by the
`
`stresses of the die impact can be made thinner thanthe region of the die impact. This would lead toa T2
`
`region that is obviated to be made thin in order to lower cost and decrease weight, MPEP 2144.04 [Fig
`
`1]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of invention/filing to
`
`modify the sidewall thickness compared to the diecast region of Teramoto to include a thinner sidewall
`
`region as taught by Sakashita in order to conserve weight and improve the volumeinside the cavity of
`
`the batterycell.
`
`The upper-grove section T3 is determined to have twocurvature regions wherebythe thickest
`
`portion of the wall would be the original thickness portion as obviated by Sakashita to be thicker than
`
`the T2 region. The T1 regionis the portion which is being diecast such that it is interpreted that the
`
`region would be thinner than the maximum thickness of the area in order to account for the bend based
`
`upon the diecast.
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/577,219
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page5S
`
`Claim 3: Teramotois silent to explicitly recite the dimensions between the can and die region.
`
`Sakashita teachesathickness of the sidewall to be 0.1mmorless [0011]. The upper portion of
`
`the can which is associated with the region to be pressed is thicker and falls within the formula
`
`presented in the prior art [0012-0014]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
`
`in the art
`
`at the time of invention/filing to modify the sidewall thickness compared to the diecast region of
`
`Teramototo include a thinner sidewall region as taught by Sakashita in order to conserve weight and
`
`improve the volumeinside the cavity of the battery cell.
`
`Claims 4-5, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teramoto (PGPUB
`
`2009/0151863) and Sakashita et al (WO2007/142270) as applies to claim 1 above, further in view of
`
`Kazuteruet al (JP 2005-293922).
`
`Claim 4: Teramototeachesa die that creates an angle that is convex between the inner wall
`
`(applicant T1) and lower-group portion (applicant T2). Teramotois silent to teachthe angle tobe
`
`concave such that the claimed conditions are met.
`
`Kazuteruteachesa battery having a cylindrical shape wherein the uppermost portion comprises
`
`a groove [Fig 1-2]. Kazuteruteaches one ordinaryskill in the art to adjust the thickness of the wall,
`
`depth of the groove, and inclination of the groove portion [0019-0021]. The optimization of these
`
`features is to produce a battery casing which is capable of suppressing leakage of electrolyte fluid over a
`
`long period of time [0020]. The specific dimension of 0.2mm pertaining to the radius of curvature and
`
`the thickness of lower groove are not explicitly reported in Kazuteru. Kazuteruteachesa control of the
`
`thickness, groove depth, and inclination of the deformation [0046] whereby claimed range is obviated.
`
`One having ordinary skill in the art at the time offiling would be motivated to have as little material as
`
`possible in order to allow decreasecost and increased volume,while being thick enough to have the
`
`stability and reliability of the casing as motivated by Kazuteru. It would have been obvious to one having
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/577,219
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 6
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of invention/filing to modify the curvature of the final product groove
`
`of Teramototo include the concave configuration as taught by Kazuteruin order to prevent electrolyte
`
`leaking and having enhancedreliability [Problem to be solved].
`
`Claim 5: Teramototeaches the formation of the can for use in a battery butis silent to the
`
`specifics of the battery inner features required to operate.
`
`Kazuteruteachesa battery that is capable of preventing electrolyte leaking and having
`
`enhancedreliability [Problem to be solved]. The outer casing which holds the electrode body therein
`
`comprises a groove formed into it having an annular shape [Fig 4]. The electrode can comprises two
`
`separate insulating membersrelative to the different sides of the groove portion whereby oneis a
`
`located betweenthe annular groove and the end face of the electrode assembly and a secondis
`
`between the bottom surface and the end face of the electrode assembly [Fig 1-5, 8-12]. The electrode
`
`body comprises at least a positive electrode, negative electrode, and separator with electrolyte [0004].
`
`The casing material is taught to comprise an uppermost portion where the groove is formed to have an
`
`increased thickness [Fig 1-2]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of invention/filing to modify the curvature of the final product groove of Teramototo include the
`
`concave configuration as taught by Kazuteruin order to prevent electrolyte leaking and having
`
`enhancedreliability [Problem to be solved].
`
`Claim 9: Teramototeaches a method for forming a cylindrical battery assembly including a
`
`cylindrical batter case (5) [Abstract]. The battery can (5) comprises a cylindrical body that opens at one
`
`end of the body anda bottom section closing the other end of the body section such that an annularly
`
`groovedportion is formed by constriction near an open end of the opening section [Fig 3, 7]. It is
`
`interpreted that the driving rotation of the and the pushing elements of the prior art match substantially
`
`those required for the instant invention [Fig 3]; applicant’s clarification into the specific method
`
`limitations or elements utilized in assembly that differ from that of the prior art could help to advance
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/577,219
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 7
`
`prosecution as the resulting thicknesses of the various portions of the walls are dependent upon the
`
`method of assembly. Applicant depicts amethod control and formation that allows for a thickness “B”
`
`to be secure enough to not break [Fig 4A]. The manufacturing control allows the groove to be formed
`
`[0010-0011]. The control allows for the thickness of the groove to not be overly thinned down [0015].
`
`The control allows for a formation that has a groove shape with a high level of accuracy [0017]. Thefinal
`
`product can be controlled based upon the control method and devices utilized to form the casing
`
`[0041]. Since the manufacturing method and operation is substantially similar to that of the instant
`
`claim,it is interpreted the die pressed region and the resulting, applicant region of T1 and T3, operate in
`
`substantially the same manner and are not patentably distinguishable from each other. There is no
`
`presented criticality or discovery of the assembly that differentiates the features of the instant claim
`
`over that of the prior art; alternatively, if there is a slight dimensional change between the two, such
`
`change would have been obvious to one having ordinaryskill inthe artin order to create an
`
`engagement feature witha top cap so as to improvethefitting condition MPEP 2144.04, such condition
`
`is routine and experimental to onein the art.
`
`Teramotois silent to teacha thickness of T2 to be thinner thanT1.
`
`Kazuteruteachesa battery having a cylindrical shape wherein the uppermost portion comprises
`
`a groove [Fig 1-2]. Kazuteruteaches one ordinaryskill in the art to adjust the thickness of the wall,
`
`depth of the groove, and inclination of the groove portion [0019-0021]. The optimization of these
`
`features is to produce a battery casing which is capable of suppressing leakage of electrolyte fluid over a
`
`long period of time [0020]. Kazuteruteachesa control of the thickness, groove depth, and inclination of
`
`the deformation [0046] whereby claimed range is obviated. One having ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the
`
`time offiling would be motivated to have as little material as possible in order to allow decrease cost
`
`and increased volume,while being thick enough to havethe stability and reliability of the casing as
`
`motivated by Kazuteru. It would have been obvious to one having ordinaryskill in the art at the time of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/577,219
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 8
`
`invention/filing to modify the curvature of the final product groove of Teramototo include the concave
`
`configuration as taught by Kazuteruin order to prevent electrolyte leaking and having enhanced
`
`reliability [Problem to be solved].
`
`The relationship of the edges and the portions of the groove features are obviated by the
`
`combination of features of the prior art. The instant claim pertains to identifying regions along a straight
`
`material that has been pressed with a die to have a groove, the specific limitations are taught by the
`
`prior art when applying the same level of consideration of labeling. There is no structural difference
`
`between the instant claimed invention and the prior art invention that leads to an allowable difference
`
`as the operation of the cell is substantially the same.
`
`Claims 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teramoto (PGPUB
`
`2009/0151863) and Sakashita et al (WO2007/142270) and Kazuteruet al (JP 2005-293922) as applies to
`
`claim 5 above,further in view of Yukiko JP 2004/241251).
`
`Claim 6: Teramotois silent to teach relative diameters of insulating plates.
`
`Yukiko teaches an insulator (3) capable of operating asa filter [Solution]. The relative diameter
`
`of the insulating material is smaller than the inner diameter of the can [0049-0054]. It would have been
`
`obvious to optimize the relative diameters of the insulator to the outer casing to be within the claimed
`
`range in order toimprove the drainage within the cell. It would have been obvious to one having
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of invention/filing to modify the insulator of Teramoto to include the
`
`filtering capable insulator as taught by Yukiko in order to reduce the risk of short circuiting from
`
`conductive metal particles entering the battery element [Solution; 0005].
`
`Claim 7: Teramotois silent to teach the insulating plates.
`
`Yukiko teaches insulating plates respective to the top and bottom of the can. The specific
`
`selection of the size is interpreted to fall under MPEP 2144.04, whereby the specific dimensions are set
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/577,219
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 9
`
`by the environment of the can casing in order to maintain electrolyte and maintain structural integrity.
`
`The prior art being silent to the relative relationship of the material features does not mean one having
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the art, through routine assembly, would not create the structure having the dimensions
`
`as Claimed. The recordis silent to a relationship between the claimed feature of the L1/L2 and the
`
`thicknesses of the casing; such nexus of features would be considered favorable in overcoming an
`
`obviousness rejection presented herein. It would have been obvious to one having ordinaryskill in the
`
`art at the time of invention/filing to modify the insulator of Teramototo include thefiltering capable
`
`insulator as taught by Yukiko in order to reduce the risk of short circuiting from conductive metal
`
`particles entering the battery element (Solution; 0005].
`
`Claim 8: Teramototeaches a method for forming a cylindrical battery assembly including a
`
`cylindrical batter case (5) [Abstract]. The battery can (5) comprises a cylindrical body that opens at one
`
`end of the body anda bottom section closing the other end of the body section such that an annularly
`
`groovedportion is formed by constriction near an open end of the opening section [Fig 3, 7]. It is
`
`interpreted that the driving rotation of the and the pushing elements of the prior art match substantially
`
`those required for the instant invention [Fig 3]; applicant’s clarification into the specific method
`
`limitations or elements utilized in assembly that differ from that of the prior art could help to advance
`
`prosecution as the resulting thicknesses of the various portions of the walls are dependent upon the
`
`method of assembly. Applicant depicts amethod control and formation that allows for a thickness “B”
`
`to be secure enough to not break [Fig 4A]. The manufacturing control allows the groove to be formed
`
`[0010-0011]. The control allows for the thickness of the groove to not be overly thinned down [0015].
`
`The control allows for a formation that has a groove shape with a high level of accuracy [0017]. Thefinal
`
`product can be controlled based upon the control method and devices utilized to form the casing
`
`[0041]. Since the manufacturing method and operation is substantially similar to that of the instant
`
`claim,it is interpreted the die pressed region and the resulting, applicant region of T1 and T3, operate in
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/577,219
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 10
`
`substantially the same manner and are not patentably distinguishable from each other. There is no
`
`presented criticality or discovery of the assembly that differentiates the features of the instant claim
`
`over that of the prior art; alternatively, if there is a slight dimensional change between the two, such
`
`change would have been obvious to one having ordinaryskill inthe artin order to create an
`
`engagement feature witha top cap so as to improvethefitting condition MPEP 2144.04, such condition
`
`is routine and experimental to onein the art.
`
`Teramotois silent to teacha thickness of T2 to be thinner thanT1.
`
`Kazuteruteachesa battery having a cylindrical shape wherein the uppermost portion comprises
`
`a groove [Fig 1-2]. Kazuteruteaches one ordinaryskill in the art to adjust the thickness of the wall,
`
`depth of the groove, and inclination of the groove portion [0019-0021]. The optimization of these
`
`features is to produce a battery casing which is capable of suppressing leakage of electrolyte fluid over a
`
`long period of time [0020]. The specific dimension of 0.2mm pertaining to the radius of curvature and
`
`the thickness of lower groove are not explicitly reported in Kazuteru. Kazuteruteachesa control of the
`
`thickness, groove depth, and inclination of the deformation [0046] whereby claimed range is obviated.
`
`One having ordinary skill in the art at the time offiling would be motivated to have as little material as
`
`possible in order to allow decreasecost and increased volume,while being thick enough to have the
`
`stability and reliability of the casing as motivated by Kazuteru. It would have been obvious to one having
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of invention/filing to modify the curvature of the final product groove
`
`of Teramototo include the concave configuration as taught by Kazuteruin order to prevent electrolyte
`
`leaking and having enhancedreliability [Problem to be solved].
`
`Teramotois silent to teach the insulating plates.
`
`Yukiko teaches an insulator (3) capable of operating asa filter [Solution]. The relative diameter
`
`of the insulating material is smaller than the inner diameter of the can [0049-0054]. It would have been
`
`obvious to optimize the relative diameters of the insulator to the outer casing to be within the claimed
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/577,219
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 11
`
`range in order toimprove the drainage within the cell. Yukiko teaches insulating plates respective to the
`
`top and bottom of the can. The specific selection of the size is interpreted to fall under MPEP 2144.04,
`
`whereby the specific dimensions are set by the environment of the can casing in order to maintain
`
`electrolyte and maintain structural integrity. The prior art being silent to the relative relationship of the
`
`material features does not mean one having ordinaryskill in the art, through routine assembly, would
`
`not create the structure having the dimensions as claimed. The recordis silent to a relationship between
`
`the claimed feature of the L1/L2 and the thicknesses of the casing; such nexus of features would be
`
`considered favorable in overcoming an obviousness rejection presented herein. It would have been
`
`obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing to modify the insulator of
`
`Teramototo include thefiltering capable insulator as taught by Yukiko in order to reduce the risk of
`
`short circuiting from conductive metal particles entering the battery element [Solution; 0005].
`
`Conclusion
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to STEPHEN J YANCHUK whosetelephone number is (571)270-7343. The examiner
`
`can normally be reached M-Th 10a-8p.
`
`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 reachthe examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
`
`Milton Cano canbe reached on 313-446-4937. The fax phone number for the organization wherethis
`
`application or proceedingis 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/577,219
`Art Unit: 1723
`
`Page 12
`
`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 aboutfiling 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.
`
`/STEPHEN J YANCHUK/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
`
`