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 of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are amended. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 04/17/2026 has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuramitsu et al. (WO-2018061894-A1; US-20200058912-A1 cited as English equivalent) in view of Tanaka (JP-2013202834-A), 3M Scotch-Weld (Technical Data Sheet, Urethane Adhesive DP640), and Seto (JP-2014010983-A; see attached machine translation), as evidenced by Lee (Battery dimensional changes occurring during charge/discharge cycles—thin rectangular lithium ion and polymer cells) and PowerStream (Engineering Guidelines for Designing with Batteries) (copies and translations of Tanaka, 3M, PowerStream, and Lee in the 04/17/2026 Office Action):
Claim 1 recites a “maximum expansion amount of the insulating heat-shrinkable film shrunk by heat”. Examiner notes that ¶[0029] of the instant specification defines this parameter as a “maximum expansion amount by which heat-shrunk heat-shrinkable film 5 is stretched without being broken”.
Regarding claim 1, Kuramitsu discloses a power source device (1, “battery module”) comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (212, “batteries”) ([0186], FIG. 20B), each including an exterior can (18) in a prism shape (“flat rectangular parallelepiped shape”) ([0164]), the exterior can (18) including main surfaces opposing each other ([0186, 0190], FIG. 20B);
and a flexible insulating heat-shrinkable film (42, “insulating film”, “shrink tube”) covering a corresponding one of the plurality of battery cells (12) ([0167], FIG. 19A).
Structures of a heat transfer suppression member (40) and a spacer (60) are interposed between (i.e., are separating) a corresponding pair of adjacent battery cells (212) covered by the insulating heat-shrinkable film (42) ([0186], FIG. 20B); this structure is thus broadly and reasonably interpreted as a separator (40, 60) as recited in claim 1. Both components of the separator (40, 60) are disclosed having a definite shape ([0190]); thus, the plurality of separators (40, 60) between corresponding pairs of cells are each solid as claimed in claim 1.
Kuramitsu discloses a battery stack (2, “battery assembly”) including the plurality of battery cells (212) being stacked together with the separators (40, 60) ([0037, 0176], FIGs. 2, 20B);
a pair of end plates (4) disposed on both end surfaces of the battery stack (“plurality of batteries 12”) ([0042], FIGs. 1, 2); and
a plurality of bind bars (6, “restraint member”) each being disposed on a corresponding one of opposing side surfaces of the battery stack (12) and fastening the end plates (4) to each other ([0046-0047], FIGs. 1, 2).
Kuramitsu further discloses an adhesive layer (46′, 62) disposed between each of the plurality of separators (40, 60) and an insulating heat-shrinkable film (42) of a battery cell (212a) adjacent to a corresponding separator (40, 60) among the separators ([0182], [0186]; FIG. 20B). While Kuramitsu does not appear limited to a particular identity of adhesive, which may be any conventionally known adhesive in the adhesive layer ([0182], [0186]), Kuramitsu fails to specify the use of a urethane-based adhesive layer as claimed.
3M Scotch-Weld, directed to a commercially available urethane-based adhesive, teaches that the adhesive advantageously provides tough and flexible bonds, with good adhesion to plastic surfaces (3M Scotch-Weld, pp. 1, section “Product Description”). A skilled artisan would recognize these properties as advantageous for Kuramitsu’s adhesive layer (46′, 62), which must be sufficiently tough to prevent deviation of the heat transfer suppression member (40) of the separator (40, 60) (Kuramitsu [0183]) and suitably bond to the spacer (60) made of resin materials, i.e., plastic ([0187]) while able to withstand expansion, i.e., flexion, of batteries (12) during use ([0181]).
As such, in seeking to allow Kuramitsu’s adhesive layer to have sufficient durability, flexibility, and material compatibility to prevent deviation of the separator and withstand battery expansion during operation, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to select 3M’s urethane adhesive to form a urethane-based adhesive layer. Such a selection would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Kuramitsu discloses a suitability of using adhesives conventionally known in the art, such as the urethane adhesive of 3M Scotch-Weld (MPEP 2144.07).
Kuramitsu further discloses that the corresponding separator (40) is bonded to the insulating heat-shrinkable film (42) via the adhesive layer (46′, 62) (Kuramitsu [0167-0169], FIG. 19A).
A maximum expansion amount of the adhesive layer when the insulating heat-shrinkable film is deformed is larger than a maximum expansion amount of the main surfaces of the exterior can when the battery cell is expanded as claimed in claim 1 as an inherent property; 3M’s adhesive has an elongation potential of 100% (3M Scotch-Weld pp. 2, table “Typical Cured Physical Properties”), and Lee, a study of battery thickness change during charging (Lee, abstract) evidences that a battery expansion is generally at least an order of magnitude smaller (around 6%, pp. 837 col. 1 ¶3).
Kuramitsu does not explicitly state that a maximum expansion amount of the insulating heat-shrinkable film shrunk by heat is larger than a maximum expansion amount of the main surfaces of the exterior can when the battery cells expand as claimed in claim 1. However, Kuramitsu’s insulating heat-shrinkable film (42) remains capable of preventing contact between cells after being shrunk to form the cell housing (44’) ([0167]), and as evidenced by PowerStream, would lose this capability if shredded or damaged (PowerStream pp. 1, §“Mechanical Considerations”, 5). Moreover, a skilled artisan must design for some maximum expansion of the film (42) shrunk by heat to produce Kuramitsu’s cell housing structure ([0167]), and Kuramitsu recognizes that battery cells undergo expansion during routine usage ([0181]).
Therefore, absent evidence that Kuramitsu deliberately selects an insulating heat-shrinkable film with a maximum expansion amount smaller than that battery cell expansion, and intentionally renders the insulating film inoperable through routine use of the battery cells, a maximum expansion amount of the insulating heat-shrinkable film shrunk by heat must inherently be larger than a maximum expansion amount of the main surfaces of the exterior can when the battery cells expand.
Kuramitsu further discloses the heat transfer suppression member (40) of the separators (40, 60) comprises a hybrid material of an inorganic powder (“porous material”) and a fibrous reinforcing material (“fibers of a fiber sheet”), wherein the inorganic powder is silica xerogel provided as a heat-insulating material (Kuramitsu [0170-0171]); while not the claimed silica aerogel, silica xerogel has extremely similar thermal insulating performance (silica xerogel at 0.018 W/m·K to 0.024 W/m·K, Kuramitsu [0170]; silica aerogel at 0.02 W/m-K, inst. spec. [0004]).
Tanaka, an aerogel blanket (Tanaka [0015], FIG. 1) analogous as a hybrid material of an inorganic powder and a fibrous reinforcing material (Tanaka [0016]), teaches silica aerogel and silica xerogel as interchangeable materials as an inorganic powder for use in thermal insulation ([0008-0009]). It would thus be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute silica aerogel for silica xerogel in Kuramitsu’s separators (40, 60) for the same purposes of thermal insulation according to Tanaka, with a reasonable expectation of success as no apparent change to thermal conductivity would appear to result from this substitution (Kuramitsu [0170]; inst. spec. [0004]) (MPEP 2144.06 II).
PNG
media_image1.png
766
1075
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kuramitsu FIG. 20A
Each of Kuramitsu’s separators (40, 60) comprise a quadrangular outer shape (see dashed line in annotations), but the four corner portions are angular surfaces with the same curvature radius as the angular corner portions of the exterior can (18) (see Annotated Kuramitsu FIG. 20A above), where claim 1 recites curved surfaces on the four corner portions with a larger curvature radius relative to the exterior can corner portions.
Seto (JP2014010983A, see machine translation) is directed to a power source device utilizing analogous separators (2) interposed between battery cells (1) (Seto machine translation [0029]). Both Kuramitsu and Seto’s separators comprise a spacer (Kuramitsu: 60, FIG. 20A; Seto: 8, “joining portion”, FIG. 11) on the periphery which is pressed to adjacent battery cells and resists cell expansion (Kuramitsu [0187]; Seto [0009], [0029]). Equivalent embodiments of Seto’s spacers (2) are shown using spacers (8) formed with angular corners (Seto [0051], FIG. 13) or with curved corners ([0052], [0053], FIGs. 14, 16) without changing an intrinsic functionality of the spacer (8) or the separator (2) ([0049-0050, 0055).
It would therefore be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to change a shape Kuramitsu’s angular corners on the spacer (60) of the separator (40, 60) (Annotated Kuramitsu FIG. 20A) to curved corners as taught by Seto, with a reasonable expectation of success as Seto demonstrates an equivalency of both structures in a spacer having equivalent functionality to Kuramitsu’s spacer (MPEP 2144.06 II). Providing the curved corners would also increase a curvature radius of the curved surfaces larger than a curvature radius of the angular corner portions as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kuramitsu discloses the power source device according to claim 1, wherein each of the separators (40, 60) is disposed outside the insulating heat-shrinkable film (42) covering each of the adjacent battery cells (12) (Kuramitsu [0169], FIG. 20A).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuramitsu (WO-2018061894-A1) in view of Tanaka (JP-2013202834-A), 3M Scotch-Weld ([…] Urethane Adhesive DP640), and Seto (JP-2014010983-A) evidenced by Lee (Battery dimensional changes […]) and PowerStream (Engineering Guidelines […]) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hart (Heat Shrink Glossary; copy with 04/17/2026 Office action) and PowerStream:
Regarding claim 7, modified Kuramitsu discloses the power source device of claim 1. While Kuramitsu fails to expressly disclose a material of the insulating heat-shrinkable film (Kuramitsu [0167]) where claim 7 recites the use of a polyethylene film, one of ordinary skill in the art must select some identity of film material. It is also known in the art that brittle shrink wrap is prone to shredding under stress or high temperatures (PowerStream pp. 1, §“Mechanical Considerations”, 5). Hart, a directory of commercially available heat shrink polymer products (Hart pp. 1), teaches polyolefins such as polyethylene and polypropylene are frequently selected as heat-shrinkable film materials for their flexibility, shrink rate, and wide operating temperature range (Hart pp. 5, § “Polyolefin”).
Thus, in seeking to provide appropriate flexibility and operating temperature range in modified Kuramitsu’s insulating heat-shrinkable film to avoid a brittle film and ensure the insulating function, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to select a polyolefin film material for Kuramitsu’s insulating heat-shrinkable film, and to routinely explore the selection of a polyethylene film from the named species of polyolefin taught by Hart and PowerStream, thus producing Kuramitsu’s insulating heat-shrinkable film as a polyethylene film (MPEP 2144.07, MPEP 2143 I. E).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuramitsu (WO-2018061894-A1) in view of Tanaka (JP-2013202834-A), 3M Scotch-Weld ([…] Urethane Adhesive DP640), and Seto (JP-2014010983-A) evidenced by Lee (Battery dimensional changes […]) and PowerStream (Engineering Guidelines […]) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Bessho et al. (US-20180138473-A1; cited in 04/21/2023 IDS):
Regarding claim 8, modified Kuramitsu discloses use of a vehicle including the power source device (“battery module”) according to claim 1 as a power supply (i.e., an electric vehicle) (Kuramitsu [0002]), but fails to further disclose that the electric vehicle further comprises a motor for travelling that receives electric power from the power source device; a vehicle body that incorporates the power source device and the motor; and wheels driven by the motor to cause the vehicle body to travel.
Bessho, directed to an analogous power source device (100, power supply device) (Bessho FIG. 1, [0044-0045]), further teaches an electric vehicle comprising the power source device (100), a motor (93) for travelling that receives electric power from the power source device (100) ([0037], [0076]), and a vehicle body that incorporates the power source device (100) and the motor (93) ([0076]); and wheels driven by the motor (93) to cause the vehicle body to travel (FIG. 10).
As both Kuramitsu and Bessho discuss the same intended purpose of using the respective power storage devices as a power supply for an electric vehicle, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide modified Kuramitsu’s battery with the electric vehicle structure taught by Bessho with a reasonable expectation of success; see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 9, modified Kuramitsu further discloses a power storage device (“power supply”) including the power source device (“battery module”) according to claim 1 (Kuramitsu [0002]), but fails to explicitly disclose that the power storage device further comprises a power supply controller that controls charging and discharging of the power source device, wherein the power supply controller enables charging of the secondary battery cell with electric power supplied from an outside, and performs control to charge the secondary battery cell.
Bessho, directed to an analogous power source device (100, power supply device) (Bessho FIG. 1, [0044-0045]), further teaches a power source device (combination of inverter 95 and power supply device 100 in FIG. 10) including the power source device (100) with an analogous intended purpose of use in a vehicle ([0076]).
Bessho further teaches a power supply controller (95, “DC/AC inverter”) that controls charging and discharging of the power source device (100; [0074]-[0076]),
wherein the power supply controller (95) enables charging of the secondary battery cell (1) with electric power supplied from an outside from power generator (94) ([0076]) and performs control (i.e., voltage control for DC current) to charge the secondary battery cell ([0074], FIG. 10).
As the power source devices disclosed and taught by modified Kuramitsu and Bessho share analogous features, and because modified Kuramitsu discloses an intended purpose of using the power source device within an electric vehicle, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide modified Kuramitsu’s battery with the electric vehicle structure taught by Bessho with a reasonable expectation of success; see MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant traverses Examiner's application of prior art 3M Scotch-Weld and evidentiary reference Lee with respect to Kuramitsu's disclosure. Applicant asserts that 3M (a urethane-based adhesive having an elongation value of 100%) and Lee's (a 6% dimensional change rate observed in a battery) numerical disclosures are improperly reconstructed within specific structural and functional context of Kuramitsu, with insufficient reasoning to lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to select and apply specific elongation values from the cited references within Kuramitsu to establish a proper motivation to combine under MPEP 2145 (p. 6-8).
This argument has been respectfully considered but is not found persuasive. As applied in the rejection of record, Kuramitsu expresses a suitability of using conventionally known adhesives, and one must select some type of adhesive in order to manufacture the power source device (Kuramitsu [0186]). 3M’s adhesive has desirable flexibility, durability, material compatibility, and adhesion properties (see 3M Scotch-Weld, pp. 1, section “Product Description”), where these particular properties form the motivation to select 3M’s adhesive (MPEP 2144.07). One of ordinary skill in the art would not need to recognize or seek to optimize a specific relationship of expansion values between the adhesive and the battery to appreciate these benefits.
Additionally, 3M and Lee demonstrate that an expansion amount of a typical conventionally available adhesive is more than an order of magnitude greater than that of a typical battery. Such a significant difference in expansion values suggests that one of ordinary skill in the art would not need to expressly seek to match the relative size of these parameters to arrive at an adhesive composition which inherently reads on the claimed relation.
Applicant expresses concern at Examiner’s remarks in the previous Office action reciting “Kuramitsu discloses […] a plurality of separators (40, “heat transfer suppression member”) each being solid (?) and […]” (see non-final Office action filed 04/17/2026 p. 3). Applicant suggests the “(?)” is an admission that Kuramitsu fails to definitively provide a solid separator (remarks pp. 8-9).
Examiner notes that the '(?)' was an editing oversight to mark where any special definition of 'solid' by Applicant was intended to be discussed with respect to Kuramitsu’s separator. Examiner apologizes for any confusion from this typographic oversight.
For clarity of record, Applicant's specification does not appear to require a special definition of 'solid', and claim 1's "a plurality of separators each being solid" does not use the term ‘solid’ in a manner indefinite or inconsistent with the accepted meaning. Moreover, Kuramitsu's separator (40, 60), which comprises and maintains a defined shape (Kuramitsu [0190], FIGs. 20A), is solid.
Claim 1 recites “… a maximum expansion amount of the insulating heat-shrinkable film shrunk by heat is larger than a maximum expansion amount of the main surfaces of the exterior can when the battery cells expand…”. Applicant asserts that the cited teachings of PowerStream and previously cited art MechaniCalc fail to teach or recognize the maximum expansion amount of the film after it has been shrunk by heat as a result-effective variable, or teach comparing the specific post-shrink parameter to the maximum expansion amount of the exterior can (Remarks pp. 6-8).
Although PowerStream and MechaniCalc are no longer relied upon as teaching references with respect to amended claim 1, Applicant’s remarks remain pertinent to the rejection of record and have been respectfully considered but is not found persuasive. ¶[0029] of the instant specification defines the maximum expansion amount of the insulating heat-shrinkable film as the expansion value where the insulating film breaks. It is known in the art that an insulating heat-shrinkable film loses its insulating functionality if shredded, i.e., broken (see PowerStream pp. 1, §“Mechanical Considerations”, 5).
Moreover, it is also known that the insulating heat-shrinkable film is attached to the battery in a state of being shrunk by heat (Kuramitsu [0167]), where batteries are known to expand during routine operation ([0181]). That is, a skilled artisan seeking to insulate a cell using an insulating heat-shrinkable film would have no reason to deliberately select an insulating heat-shrinkable film with a maximum expansion amount smaller than that battery cell expansion and thus intentionally render the insulating film inoperable through routine use of the battery cells, such that the cited relation of maximum expansion amounts is necessarily present simply for an insulating heat-shrinkable film to function as an insulator.
As a corollary, the instant specification does not specify a maximum expansion amount of the main surfaces of the battery cell’s exterior can relative to a maximum expansion of the electrode body, but one of ordinary knowledge in the art would still understand to select a properly sized exterior can capable of expanding at least as much as the electrode body, despite a lack of instructions to do so.
Examiner additionally emphasizes the broadness of the claimed maximum expansion relationship, which does not positively require a specific structure (e.g., dimensions of the insulating heat-shrinkable film) or property (e.g., film expandability, material), or limit when or how long the maximum expansions are compared, and would still be met by an insulating film which eventually becomes too brittle to expand or by a film which is irreversibly, i.e., plastically deformed, but not broken upon the first cycle.
While Examiner notes that specific features to obtain a suitable insulating heat-shrinkable film expansion amount (e.g., the use of a polyethylene film for improved expandability, inst. spec. [0031], claim 4) can be more clearly shown as distinctive over the prior art, the claimed relation of the maximum expansion amount of the insulating heat-shrinkable film appears to be a precondition for a functioning insulating heat-shrinkable film.
Applicant submits that the previously applied combination of Kuramitsu, Tanaka, 3M Scotch-Weld, PowerStream, and MechaniCalc as evidenced by Lee does not teach or suggest the newly recited features of claim 1 wherein “each of the separators has a quadrangular outer shape having curved surfaces on four corner portions, and a curvature radius of the curved surfaces is larger than a curvature radius of a corner portion of the exterior can” (Remarks p. 11-12).
These admissions have been respectfully considered but are moot because the arguments are drawn to the claim amendment which has necessitated new grounds of rejection under Seto et al. (JP2014010983A) as discussed above.
Applicant cites advantageous effects of the curved corners of the separator as claimed in amended claim 1 over the angular structures of the prior art, which prevent damage and stress of the heat-shrinkable film. This solution solves the problem through a physical, structural design which is novel over Examiner’s cited attempts to prevent film breakage in the prior art through altering material properties of the insulating film in the prior art (p. 12-13).
Examiner agrees that the cited prior art does not appear to suggest a solution of utilizing a curved corner portion to solve the problem of reducing stress applied to the insulating film throughout expansion and contraction, as recited in ¶[0037] of the instant specification, this effect being unexpected over the prior art.
However, the specification also indicates these benefits apply to a separator (2) “entirely made of hybrid material 2X of an inorganic powder and a fibrous reinforcing material” ([0032]), where silica aerogel (the inorganic powder) at the edges is attributed to stress and breakage of the heat-shrinkable film ([0038]). Claim 1 recites that each of the separators “comprise a hybrid material of an inorganic powder and a fibrous reinforcing material”, encompassing separator structures such as Kuramitsu’s where the inorganic powder of the hybrid material (50’) is wrapped and contained inside a laminate film (51) (Kuramitsu [0172], FIG. 19A) and therefore do not contact the heat-shrinkable film as would a corner of a separator consisting of the hybrid material.
Moreover, ¶[0037] of the inst. spec. recites “by forming the corner portion with curved surface 2a […] heat-shrinkable film 5 is prevented from being damaged in a state of being contact with the corner portion”. In configurations where the corner portion does not contact the heat-shrinkable film (e.g., if blocked by an intervening layer, or if positioned beyond the area of the exterior can’s main surface, as non-limiting examples), such benefits would not apply.
Thus, while Examiner acknowledges the beneficial effects of the curved corner portion are unexpected over the cited prior art, the separator structure recited in claim 1 does not currently appear commensurate in scope with the structure of the specification which enables these effects; see MPEP 716.02 (d).
Applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not describe or suggest the subject matter of claims 4, 7, and 8-9, and are thus believed to be patentable (remarks p. 14-15).
These assertions have been respectfully considered but are not found persuasive without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant submits, based on the remarks presented, that claims 1, 4, and 7-9 are in condition for allowance, and requests that the Examiner contact the attorney of record to conduct an interview for any outstanding matters to be resolved in the present application (Remarks p. 16).
While Applicant’s request has been respectfully considered, currently, it does not appear that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration, as per MPEP 713.09. Examiner also notes that such requests do not constitute a formal request for an interview, and should Applicant seek to conduct an interview, the Applicant is kindly redirected to the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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 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 EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/1/2026
Prosecution Insights