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 .
Status
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendments and Arguments filed 10 March 2026. As directed by applicant, claims 1 and 16 are amended. No claims are newly added or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-21 are pending. This is a Final Office Action.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 limitation "a liquid melt pool" in the last line of the newly amended claim. It is not clear if this is a new liquid melt pool or a reference to the already introduced liquid melt pool in line 15 of the claim. For purposes of examination, the last limitation in understood to be “the liquid melt pool”. Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 13 and 16- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Capostagno (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0029163) in view of Kumazawa (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0245616) and Shioga (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0114429).
Regarding claim 1, Capostagno discloses a method for welding a copper/aluminum connection, the method comprising: providing a first workpiece comprising of a copper-containing material and a second workpiece comprising an aluminum-containing material (Capostagno, fig. 1, ¶¶0083, 0098, the first upper metal part is Copper and the lower part is Aluminum); and
welding the first workpiece and the second workpiece to one another in a surface region using a continuous wave (¶¶0007, 0065, “continuous wave”) laser beam (3) moved in relation to the first workpiece and the second workpiece along a welding path (Capostagno, focused spots 16, fig. 1, along a beam trajectory 117, fig. 11),
wherein the laser beam is directed onto a surface of the first workpiece from above and the second workpiece is arranged under the first workpiece with respect to a beam direction of the laser beam (Figs. 1, 12), the laser beam has a spot diameter (SD) on the surface of the first workpiece, where SD ≤ 120 µm (Capostagno, ¶0085, spot size 25 μm to 100 μm) , and
wherein the welding path is chosen 17) without penetrating into a liquid melt pool that has been previously created by the laser beam (Capostagno, ¶0095-96, continuous wave forms continuous weld 56 in fig. 15, and then weld as described in fig. 14, “The key hole 141 is surrounded by the molten metal 143, and moves with the laser beam 6 in the direction 142 that the laser beam 6 is scanned. The molten metal 143 solidifies behind the key hole 141 as it moves, forming a weld seam 144. The weld seam 144 is deep and narrow. The weld depth 145 may be up to ten times greater than the weld width 151 shown with reference to FIG. 15.” It is creating the weld and not going over a previously made weld pool. In his arguments, applicant argues that Capostagno does not meet the limitation because “the melt pools overlap”, paragraph 31, at least, but the “melt pools overlapping” does not mean that the steaks penetrate into a liquid melt pool, rather just that the resulting melt pools will connect/overlap, but not that the steak itself enters into a liquid melt pool.), and
Capostagno does not disclose that the laser beam is moved in relation to the first workpiece and the second workpiece with a relative feed rate (V), where 400 mm/s ≤ V ≤ 1000 mm/s nor wherein a welding-in depth in the second workpiece is less than 30% of a thickness of the second workpiece, so that a relatively small amount of alumnum is introduced into a liquid melt pool. Capostagno does teach, though, feed rates depending on laser application (Capostagno, ¶¶98,100, “50 mm/s”, “225 mm/s”, respectively). However, Kumazawa teaches wherein the laser beam is moved in relation to the first workpiece and the second workpiece with a relative feed rate (V), where 400 mm/s ≤ V ≤ 1000 mm/s (Kumazawa, 500 mm/s). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Capostagno with the teachings of Kumazawa, to meet the claimed limitation’s rate, in his welding method of welding copper and aluminum, order to affect a weld given time restraints or other desired outcomes of the operator, i.e. welded in a particular way (see Capostagno, ¶100, which describes that processes work differently with different materials), and the prior art is capable of meeting the feed speed limitation.
And while Capastagno in view of Kumazawa teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach wherein a welding-in depth in the second workpiece is less than 30% of a thickness of the second workpiece, so that a relatively small amount of aluminum is introduced into a liquid melt pool. It is noted that Capostagno, fig. 14, does seem to show that the depth penetration into the second workpieces is well below 50%, however, the exact percentage is not taught, and thus the reference does not read on the claims.
However, Shioga teaches, in his method for welding overlapping pieces, a welding depth “t” into the lower workpiece when welding overlapping copper and aluminum workpieces, and further he teaches that the depth is below 30% of the thickness of the lower workpiece (Shioga, ¶0026, 0027, where it is taught that “t” is in the range from less than 1% (.005mm/.8mm) to 6% (.03/.5)). Although SHioga does not teach the proper arrangement of the metals (in Shioga, the copper is below the Aluminum), it is already recognized in the art that it would be desirable to only have a certain amount of the lower layer within the weld bead, and that through routine experimentation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Capostagno in view of Kumazawa with the teaching of Shioga, having only a certain amount of the second layer within the welding bond, through routine experimentation, to limit the amount or have only a certain amount of the lower material within the weld, and it would be obvious to meet the limitations of the claim through routine experimentation, in order to create a strong weld bond.
Regarding claim 2, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the welding path is crossing-free (Capostagno, fig. 10).
Regarding claim 11, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the surface region is formed as a welding point (Capostagno, fig. 1,4, the welded surface regions are welding points).
Regarding claim 12, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the surface region is formed as circular-annular (Capostagno, the welded surface region is circular, 81 in fig. 8).
Regarding claim 13, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the welding path is at least partially in the form of an Archimedes spiral (Capostagno, figs. 11, 15) .
Regarding claim 16, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the welding of the first and second workpieces is performed as welding in, wherein the second workpiece is only melted as far as a maximum welding-in depth MT, where MT < 0.2 *D2, with D2: the thickness of the second workpiece. Here, the claim requires that the depth of the weld be through less than 20% of the thickness of the lower workpiece, not less than 30%, as in claim 1.
However, as noted in the rejection of claim 1, Shioga teaches, in his method for welding overlapping pieces, a welding depth “t” into the lower workpiece when welding overlapping copper and aluminum workpieces, and further he teaches that the depth is below 30% of the thickness of the lower workpiece (Shioga, ¶0026, 0027, where it is taught that “t” is in the range from less than 1% (.005mm/.8mm) to 6% (.03/.5)), which is also less than 20% of the thickness. Although SHioga does not teach the proper arrangement of the metals (in Shioga, the copper is below the Aluminum), it is already recognized in the art that it would be desirable to only have a certain amount of the lower layer within the weld bead, and that through routine experimentation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga, having only a certain amount of the second layer within the welding bond, through routine experimentation, to limit the amount or have only a certain amount of the lower material within the weld, and it would be obvious to meet the limitations of the claim through routine experimentation, even 20%, in order to create a strong weld bond.
Regarding claim 17, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the laser beam has a wavelength (λ) in an infrared spectral range, where 1000nm ≤ λ ≤ 1100nm (Capostagno, ¶¶0002,0005, wavelength of 1064 nm).
Regarding claim 18, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein
the first workpiece has a thickness (D1) where 0.2mm ≤D1≤0.4mm,
the second workpiece has a thickness (D2) where 0.2mm ≤ D2 ≤ 0.4mm,
the laser beam has a power output (P) where 300 W ≤ P ≤ 800 W,
the spot diameter (SD) of the laser beam on the surface of the first workpiece is in a range where 25µm ≤ SD ≤ 65µm,
and the laser beam has a relative feed rate V to the workpieces, where 400 mm/s ≤ V ≤ 1000 mm/s.
However, in view of the teachings of Capostagno, it would be obvious to meet the limitations of
the first workpiece has a thickness D1 where 0.2mm ≤ D1 ≤0.4mm (Capostagno teaches thickness, ¶0070, with thickness of less than .5mm),
the second workpiece has a thickness D2 where 0.2mm ≤ D2 ≤ 0.4mm (Capostagno teaches thickness, ¶0070, with thickness of less than .5 mm),
the laser beam has a power output P where 300 W ≤ P ≤ 800 W (Capostagno teaches beam power, ¶0098, with an average of 70 Watts and a peak of 5000 W; ¶0086, a large range), and
the laser beam has a spot diameter SD on the surface of the first workpiece where 25µm ≤ SD ≤ 65µm (Capostagno teaches, ¶0085, a spot diameter of “25 μm to 100 μm, and preferably 30 μm to 60 μm”).
Thus, although Capostagno does not teach precisely these limitation, he teaches the ability to do these limitations and speeds, and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of the filing of the invention to modify Capostagno, and, with conventional routine experimentation, effect a weld as claimed, according to the desired outcome, and the limitations, which Capostagno is capable of meeting, would be met.
Regarding claim 19, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the laser beam has a focus position that is defocused with respect to the surface of the first workpiece, with a defocusing (DF) where 0.3mm ≤ DF ≤ 0.7mm or -0.3mm ≤ DF ≤ -0.7mm. However, Capostagno does teach that the spot size on the surface can have a range (Capostagno, ¶0085) and that means that the actual minimum focused laser would be either above or below the surface, as claimed. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Capostagno, and adjust the focus of the laser beam, either higher or lower, depending on the desired welding and fluence desired by an operator, and it would be with routine experimentation with the capable device to meet the range and focusing requirements of the claim.
Regarding claim 20, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method wherein welding is performed under an argon atmosphere (Capostagno, ¶0058, argon).
Claims 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capostagno (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0029163) in view of Kumazawa (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0245616) and Shioga (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0114429), and further in view of Daimler (German Patent Publication DE102013015710; in applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 3, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein a method comprises at least two successive welding passes, wherein, in the at least two successive welding passes, at least two welded pass surface regions of the first workpiece and the second workpiece overlap at least partially, and that, within each of the at least two successive welding passes, the welding path is crossing-free.
However, Daimler teaches a method comprises at least two successive welding passes, wherein, in the at least two successive welding passes, at least two welded pass surface regions of the first and second workpieces overlap at least partially, and that, within each of the at least two successive welding passes, the welding path is crossing-free (Daimler, fig. 8, there is some overlap at the ends but there is no “crossing”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga with the teachings of Daimler, to have the welding make several passes and to have them overlap partially, at the ends, and to be crossing-free, in order to effect a strong weld over substantially all of the top welding surface, as desired, moving the weld over substantially the whole surface but not substantially interfering with previous welds too much.
Regarding claim 4, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga in view of Daimler teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the welding paths of the at least two successive welding passes correspond to one another (Capostagno, fig. 8, the passes are connected and thus correspond to each other).
Regarding claim 5, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga in view of Daimler teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as above, but does not explicitly further teach a method wherein the welding paths of the at least two successive welding passes are rotated with respect to one another by an angle α, where 30° < α < 150°. However, Daimler already teaches rotating an angle and going down another path (Daimler, fig. 8, angles at the ends are rotated back, and moving smoothly moves through that range). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga with Daimler, to have the passes rotated in order to effect a strong weld substantially over all the welding surface, as desired, to affect a strong weld in a conventional way.
Regarding claim 7, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the welding path comprises a multiplicity of adjacently lying welding path portions that lie adjacent to one another in a direction transverse to a local direction of extent of the welding path. However, Daimler teaches wherein the welding path comprises a multiplicity of adjacently lying welding path portions that lie adjacent to one another in a direction transverse to a local direction of extent of the welding path (Daimler, fig. 8). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga with the teachings of Daimler to have the weld surface cross the workpieces, keeping the weld lines next to and working with each other, to cover the surface, in a systematic, symmetrical way, to have strong welds throughout and also evenly spaced to affect a strong connection between the workpieces in an expected way.
Regarding claim 9, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga and Daimler teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as above, and further teaches a method wherein a spacing between the adjacently lying welding path portions in the direction transverse to the local direction of extent, are chosen such that welded partial surface regions that occur along the respective adjacently lying welding path portions remain separated by unwelded intermediate regions (Capostagno, figs. 1, 16, for separation of welding spots; this is something not unconventional, depending on the desired weld; unwelded regions can be seen in Daimler, fig. 8, which was already incorporated into the rejection above).
Regarding claim 10, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Daimler teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein, after welding one welding path portion, a further welding path portion that is further away is welded before a welding path portion alongside is welded. However, Daimler has an embodiment where a welding path is connected to a path farther away from it sooner than a path alongside it (Daimler, figs. 5,6.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and in view of Daimler, with routine experimentation or using conventional welding paths, to perform welding on a subsequent welding path farther than a path that will eventually be alongside the first path, in order to better delineate the boundaries of the surface area being welded, and to also perform welding in a way that is less impacted by the previous welds, whether by residual heat or cooling of those welds, and also to perform strong welding connections, having the paths traverse the surface regions in a conventional way.
Regarding claim 15, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the welding path comprises at least two straight-extending welding path portions lying parallel to one another. However, Daimler teaches wherein the welding path comprises at least two straight-extending welding path portions lying parallel to one another (Daimler, fig. 8, two straight parallel lines). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga with the teachings of Daimler to have the weld surface cross the workpieces, keeping the weld lines parallel and working with each other, to cover the surface, in a systematic, symmetrical way, to have strong welds throughout and also evenly spaced to affect a strong connection between the workpieces.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capostagno (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0029163) in view of Kumazawa (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0245616) and Shioga (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0114429) in view of Daimler (German Patent Publication DE102013015710; in applicant’s IDS) and further in view of Yang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 01441158)
Regarding claim 6, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga in view of Daimler teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the welding path is chosen, and the laser beam is moved along the welding path, such that a preheating from a respective previous welding pass has subsided to such an extent that a maximum welding-in depth into the second workpiece in a subsequent welding pass is at most 10% greater than in the respective previous welding pass. However, Yang teaches that wherein the welding path is chosen, and the laser beam is moved along the welding path, such that a preheating from a respective previous welding pass has subsided to such an extent that a maximum welding-in depth MT into the second workpiece in a subsequent welding pass is at most 10% greater than in the respective previous welding pass (Yang, ¶0030, Yang teaches that one path is in the heat affected zone of another path, but does not indicate that there is any different than the previous welding path, and therefore, presumably, would be less than 10% greater than the depth of the previous weld path). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Capostagno in view of Kumazawa, Shioga and Daimler with the teaching of Yang, to be sure that when having two welding paths close to each other, they are not affecting their neighbor’s welds, and order to create strong welds close to each other for a consistent weld surface between the different materials.
Regarding claim 8, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga and Daimler teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein a spacing between the adjacently lying welding path portions in the direction transverse to the local direction of extent, are chosen such that welded partial surface regions that occur along the respective adjacently lying welding path portions directly adjoin or overlap one another. However, Yang teaches wherein the adjacently lying welding path portions, in particular their spacing AB in the direction transverse to the local direction of extent, are chosen such that welded partial surface regions that occur along the respective adjacently lying welding path portions directly adjoin or overlap one another (Yang, ¶0009, pass goes over “resolidified material” of previous pass). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Capostagno in view of Kumazawa, Shioga and Daimler with the teaching of Yang, in order to effect strong welds between the workpieces, and go over at least some of the resolidified weld, in order to create a solid weld surface connection throughout the plates, in order to affect a strong weld in a conventional way with the expected result of a solid, resolidified composite of the metals.
Regarding claim 14, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the welding path comprises at least two concentric circular welding path portions. However, Yang teaches wherein the welding path comprises at least one concentric, circular welding path portion (Yang, figs. 4G, 4H, 4I, for instance). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Capostagno in view of Kumazawa with the teachings of Yang, to have welding paths be concentric circles, in order to well weld the surfaces in a conventional method (Capostagno already teaches one circle, fig. 8) in order to make conventional weld and secure the two workpieces together and wants to define the outer periphery of the welding surface (Yang, ¶0031), and then weld inside that so that the welding is secure.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capostagno (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0029163) in view of Kumazawa (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0245616) and Shioga (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0114429) in view of Capostagno ‘232 (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0045252, herein after “Capostagno ‘232”)
Regarding claim 21, Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shioga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the welding the first workpiece and the second workpiece produces electrical contacts on battery cells. However, in a related application, Capostagno ‘232 teaches forming these electrical contacts (¶0204) on battery cells (¶0012, ¶0026). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to add to Capostagno in view of Kumazawa and Shiogathe teachings of the related application Capostagno ‘232, in order to use this invention in order to create electrical contacts as desired, in this case, in a battery cell or other useful electrical component, as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached and previously filed forms PTO-892.
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 shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights