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
`
`17/355,263
`
`06/23/2021
`
`KOSUKE NUNOO
`
`083710-3436
`
`5556
`
`Rimon PC - Pansonic Corporation
`8300 Greensboro Dr.
`Suite 500
`
`CONLEY, OI K
`
`1752
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`11/17/2023
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime 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):
`USPTOmail@rimonlaw.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/355,263
`NUNOOetal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`HELEN Ol CONLEY
`1752
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this 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 8/8/23.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J 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.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-13 and 15-30 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 2-13,16 and 20-21 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`[) Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1,15,17-19 and 22-30 is/are rejected.
`(1 Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s)
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`“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:/Awww.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)M The drawing(s)filed on 6/23/21 is/are: a) accepted or b)C) 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)0) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)() None ofthe:
`b)( Some**
`a)C) 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.
`3.2.) 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)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20231113
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/355,263
`Art Unit: 1752
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`Applicant’s amendments were received on 8/8/23. Claims 1, 15, 22-26 are
`
`currently amended. Claim 14 is cancelled.
`
`3.
`
`The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can
`
`be found in the prior Office Action.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`4.
`
`The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second
`
`paragraph on claims 25 and 26 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the
`
`claims.
`
`5.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`(bo) 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-AlA), second paragraph:
`The specification shall conclude with one or moreclaims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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. Specifically, claim 27
`
`discloses “the pore,” however, it is unclearif the limitation is referring to “the fuel
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/355,263
`Art Unit: 1752
`
`Page 3
`
`electrode side pore”or the “air electrode side pore” in claim 1. Appropriate corrections
`
`are required.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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. Specifically, claim 27
`
`discloses “the structural support,” however,it is unclearif the limitation is referring to
`
`“the fuel electrode structural support’ or the “air electrode structural support” in claim 1.
`
`Appropriate corrections are required.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`8.
`
`The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasui, on claims
`
`1, 27, 28 and 30 are withdrawn because the Applicant amendedthe claims.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`9.
`
`The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui
`
`(JP2013201061) in view of Inagaki (JP 2007035435), on claims 14, 15, 17-19, 22-24,
`
`26 are withdrawn, however, after reconsideration, the prior art is still applicable.
`
`10.
`
`—_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-AlA) 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/355,263
`Art Unit: 1752
`
`Page 4
`
`11.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousnessrejections 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 effectivefiling 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.
`
`12.
`
` Claim(s) 1, 15, 17-19, 22-24, 26, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Yasui (JP2013201061) in view of Inagaki (JP 2007035435).
`
`Regarding claim 1, the Yasui reference discloses a solid oxide fuel cell
`
`comprising the reactant gas is a hydrogen-containing gas and an oxidant gas. The
`
`electrode includes a fuel electrode in contact with the hydrogen- containing gas and an
`
`air electrode in contact with the oxidant gas. The air electrode (15), the solid electrolyte
`
`membrane (14) comprises an electrolyte, and the fuel electrode are in contact,
`
`respectively. The fuel electrode includes a fuel electrode side structural support
`
`including a ceramic member (12), and a fuel electrode side pore (16). The pore,
`
`extending from a fuel electrode side boundary surface in contact with the hydrogen-
`
`containing gas toward a solid electrolyte membrane side in the fuel electrode side
`
`structural support andfilled with a fuel electrode sidefiller with hydrogen oxidation
`
`activity and electrical conductivity (13, YSZ). The Yasui reference discloses the broad
`
`teaching of a cathode but is silent in disclosing the air electrode includes an air
`
`electrode side structural support comprising a ceramic member, and an air electrode
`
`side pore. As the pore, extending from an air electrode side boundary surface in contact
`
`with the oxidant gas toward the solid electrolyte membrane side in the air electrode side
`
`structural support andfilled with an air electrode side filler with oxygen reduction activity
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/355,263
`Art Unit: 1752
`
`Page 5
`
`and electrical conductivity. The Inagaki reference also discloses a solid oxide fuel cell
`
`comprising a specific air electrode. The air electrode includes an air electrode side
`
`structural support comprising a ceramic material (YSZ, [0054]), and an air electrode
`
`side pore. The air electrode side pore (6), extending from an air electrode side boundary
`
`surface in contact with the oxidant gas toward the solid electrolyte membrane side (3)
`
`in the air electrode side structural support and filled with an air electrode side filler with
`
`oxygen reduction activity and electrical conductivity (SSC, P[0079]) . The structure of
`
`the supported air electrode would support the mechanical strength of a solid electrolyte
`
`([0023]-[0032]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of
`
`the invention to incorporate air electrode including an air electrode side structural
`
`support comprising a ceramic material, and an air electrode side pore. The air electrode
`
`side pore (6), extending from an air electrode side boundary surface in contact with the
`
`oxidant gas towardthe solid electrolyte membrane side (3)
`
`in the air electrode side
`
`structural support comprising a ceramic and the pores filled with an air electrode side
`
`filler with oxygen reduction activity and electrical conductivity (SSC) disclosed by the
`
`Inagaki reference for the air electrode of the solid oxide fuel cell disclosed Yasui
`
`reference in order to strengthen the electrolyte and avoid compromise structural
`
`integrity that may hinder electrochemical reaction.
`
`Regarding claim 15, the Yasui in view of Inagaki reference discloses the fuel
`
`electrode side pore includes a first fuel electrode side opening on the fuel electrode side
`
`boundary surface into which the hydrogen-containing gas flows, and a second fuel
`
`electrode side opening opposite the first fuel electrode side opening at an end of the
`
`fuel electrode side pore on the solid electrolyte membrane side (Yasui: Fig. 1), and the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/355,263
`Art Unit: 1752
`
`Page 6
`
`air electrode side pore includes a first air electrode side opening on the air electrode
`
`side boundary surface into which the oxidant gas flows, and a second air electrode side
`
`opening opposite the first air electrode side opening at an end of the pore on the solid
`
`electrolyte membrane side (Inagaki; Fig. 2).
`
`Regarding claim 17, the Yasui and the Inagaki reference discloses a plane
`
`formed by a periphery of the second fuel electrode side opening includes a plane
`
`formed by a periphery of the second air electrode side opening when viewed from the
`
`top in a laminating direction of the membrane electrode assembly (Yasui: Fig. 1,
`
`Inagaki; Fig. 2 wherein all sides or plane periphery are the same when viewedin
`
`stacked direction).
`
`Regarding claim 18, the Yasui and the Inagaki reference discloses wherein a plane
`
`formed by a periphery of the second air electrode side opening includes a plane formed
`
`by a periphery of the second fuel electrode side opening when viewed from the top ina
`
`laminating direction of the membrane electrode assembly (Yasui: Fig. 1, Inagaki; Fig. 2
`
`wherein all sides or plane periphery are the same when viewedin stacked direction).
`
`Regarding claim 19, the Yasui in view of the Inagaki reference discloses the
`
`claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Yasui and the Inagaki
`
`references discloses that various shapes and arrangement of through holes can be
`
`used to support the cathode side and the air side electrode (Yasui and Inagaki; Figs. 3)
`
`but does not specifically disclose a periphery of the second fuel electrode side opening
`
`of the fuel electrode side pore and a periphery of the second air electrode side opening
`
`of the air electrode side pore are arrangedso asto at least partly overlap when viewed
`
`from the top in a stacking direction of the membrane electrode assembly. However, it
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/355,263
`Art Unit: 1752
`
`Page 7
`
`would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made a periphery of the second fuel electrode side opening of the fuel electrode
`
`side pore and a periphery of the second air electrode side opening of the air electrode
`
`side pore are arranged so asto at least partly overlap when viewedfrom the top in a
`
`stacking direction of the membrane electrode assembly, since it has been held that
`
`rearranging parts of an invention involvedonly routine skill in the art MPEP 2144.04 VI
`
`In the event that the combination does not teach a periphery of the second fuel
`
`electrode side opening of the fuel electrode side pore and a periphery of the second air
`
`electrode side opening of the air electrode side pore are arrangedso asto at least
`
`partly overlap when viewed from the top in a stacking direction of the membrane
`
`electrode assembly with sufficient specificity, it would have been indeed adequate and
`
`obvious, absent a showing of unexpected results and criticality.
`
`Regarding claim 22, the Yasui and the Inagaki reference discloses the fuel
`
`electrode side filler contains Ni.
`
`Regarding claim 23, the Yasui and the Inagaki reference discloses wherein the
`
`fuel electrode sidefiller is a cermet (a ceramic).
`
`Regarding claim 24, the Yasui in view of the Inagaki reference discloses the air
`
`electrode side filler is a compound containing at least one element selected from the
`
`group consisting of Mn, Fe, Co, and Ni (LaMnOs).
`
`Regarding claim 26, the Yasui in view of the Inagaki reference discloses the MEA
`
`wherein at least the fuel electrode side structural support and the air electrode side
`
`structural support includes the ceramic member wherein the ceramic member contains.
`
`The Yasui referenceis silent in specifying that the electrolyte material is in the ceramic
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/355,263
`Art Unit: 1752
`
`Page 8
`
`member, however the Inagaki reference discloses an electrolyte material in which the
`
`ceramic member contains the electrolyte material in the through holes with air electrode
`
`side paste in order for direct firm bonding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to on
`
`of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to
`
`provide
`
`electrolyte material in which the ceramic member contains the electrolyte
`
`material in the through holes with air electrode side paste disclosed by the Inagaki
`
`reference for tighter bonding between the electrolyte and cathode to prevent component
`
`movement that would compromisethe electrically efficiency of the fuel cell.
`
`13.
`
`Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Yasui (JP2013201061) in view of Inagaki (JP 2007035435) in further view of Yamashita
`
`et al. (EP1453128)
`
`Regarding claim 25, the Yasui in view of the Inagaki reference disclose the
`
`claimed invention above andfurther incorporated herein. Yasui in view of the Inagaki
`
`reference further discloses that the fuel electrode is made of ceramic. The Yasui in view
`
`of the Inagaki referenceis silent in disclosing that the MEA wherein the ceramic material
`
`is porous, however, the Yamashita reference discloses thatit is known that at least the
`
`fuel electrode side material is known to be porous ceramic materials (after “Fue/ cell
`
`layer 11’). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effectivefiling date of the
`
`invention to incorporate the porous ceramic material The substitution of known
`
`equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532
`
`(CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618
`
`(CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a
`
`structure already knownin the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/355,263
`Art Unit: 1752
`
`Page 9
`
`element for another knownin the field, the combination must do morethan yield a
`
`predictable result. KSR v. Teleflex
`
`14.
`
`Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Yasui (JP2013201061) in view of Inagaki (JP 2007035435) in further view ofIrvin etal.
`
`(WO003/036746)
`
`Regarding claim 29, the Yasui in view of the Inagaki reference discloses the
`
`claimed invention above and further incorporated here. The Yasui reference discloses
`
`the electrolyte for a solid oxide fuel cell is scandia stabilized zirconia or yttria zirconia,
`
`which is an ion conductor but is silent in an electrolyte material with proton conductivity.
`
`However, the Irvine reference disclose the electrolyte for solid oxide fuel cell should be
`
`an ionically conducting oxide capable of transporting either oxygen ions or protons or
`
`both. Typically, material in addition to scandia stabilized zirconia or yttria zirconia are
`
`oxide proton conductors such as barium cerate, strontium zirconate and other
`
`perovskite. Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the effectivefiling
`
`date of the invention to substitute known equivalent components. The substitution of
`
`known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout213 USPQ
`
`532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ
`
`618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a
`
`structure already knownin the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one
`
`element for another knownin the field, the combination must do morethan yield a
`
`predictable result. KSR v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/355,263
`Art Unit: 1752
`
`Page 10
`
`In the event that the combination does not teach the electrolyte comprising
`
`proton conductive materials with sufficient specificity, it would have been indeed
`
`adequate and obvious, absent a showing of unexpected results and criticality.
`
`Responseto Arguments
`
`15.
`
`Applicant's argumentsfiled 8/8/23 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`The Applicant argues, “
`
`To the reyection af claim f4. the (Nice Action: asserted that Yasui teaches the claimed
`
`feel electrade sud Inagaki teaches the clanmed av electrode. Howewer, there is no metivation or
`
`apaeestion to coxmiiae a Arel electrode of Yasut and an air electrode of Inagaki.
`
`However, the Applicant have not provided evidence why there is no motivation to
`
`compound the fuel electrode of Yasui and the air electrode Inagaki when the two
`
`reference discloses each component is used for a solid oxide fuel cell.
`
`A patent for a combination, which only unites old elements with no change in their
`
`respective functions, obviously withdraws whatis already knowninto the field of its
`
`monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men. Where the
`
`combination of old elements performed a useful function, but it added nothing to the
`
`nature and quality of the subject matter already patented, the patent failed under §103.
`
`Whena patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it
`
`had been knownto perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an
`
`arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/355,263
`Art Unit: 1752
`
`The Applicant argues,”
`
`Page 11
`
` aimedar
`The Office Action considered te support electralyie | of Inagaki as thec!
`
`
`alectrade side structuralapport.
`
`In ike aforementioned mterview, the Examiner further
`
`cousidered the gallate asideas the ceramic member. Applicant disagrees.
`
`In viewafparagraphs /OO00S{ and[805] of Inagaki (epresiuced beleay, emphasis added}.
`
`
`it is clear tat usinggallate oxide as the electralyte has dramatic drawbacks, for exarygle, §}
`
`
`
`mautficient mechanical streneth of the electrafyie and 2) lareer thickness atthe SOFCthan
`
`NOCESRATY,
`
`
`
`aninr ardeTWOseducethethicknessofthe gallate© oxide electrolyte
`. for example, i has
`
`
`ly fesupport the
`de exee
`
`SW Rex SOFC. However. the fuel
`: clocirolvte|iSsllnautficient
`aw
`
`
`SUES
`
`
`
`ectradyies, 1 is desired te
`fooG8! Prony the abewe, in SOPC'susing wallate-hased
`thatcas sufficiently ensuretthe p
`deveelop g techne
`
`
`Trance and smechanical
`
`
`
`e acti electratyte
`and further redace the
`strenatl of the sal
`electrolyte
`
`
`
`Therefore, in viewof the disclosure af Inagaki, one ofordinary skiia the ant would not
`
`use gallate oxide as che electratyte isolid oxideflict cell (SQEC), and would mot be motivated
`
`to combinethe air electrade of Inagaki with Vasul.
`
`However, the gallate oxide is the electrolyte, the structural support is ceramic
`
`porous support. Overall scope of the Inagaki reference discloses an improvement when
`
`using a gallate oxide, therefore the Inagaki reference does notlimit one of ordinary skill
`
`to not use gallate oxide but using gallate oxide with the discloses improvement would be
`
`an advantage over whatis knownin the art.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/355,263
`Art Unit: 1752
`
`Page 12
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
`
`this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP
`
`§ 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37
`
`CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortenedstatutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the eventafirst reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS ofthe mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTHshortened statutory period, then the
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to HELEN Ol CONLEYwhosetelephone number is
`
`(571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
`
`Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video
`
`conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-basedcollaboration tool. To schedule an
`
`interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
`
`(AIR) at http:/Avww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Pamela Weiss can be reached on (571)270-7057. The fax phone number
`
`for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/355,263
`Art Unit: 1752
`
`Page 13
`
`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:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-
`
`center for more information about Patent Center and
`
`httos:/Awww.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.
`
`/Helen Oi K CONLEY/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
`
`