DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 02/18/2026:
Claims 1-11,13 and 15-19 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 10, 13, 16-17, and 19 have been amended.
The previous prior art-based rejection have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 6, filed 02/18/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered. The rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 6, filed 02/18/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. The rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 6, filed 02/18/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been fully considered. The rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot due to the amendment to the claims.
The Examiner disagrees that Han’s teaching would not be combinable with Choi to meet the amended limitation. See the rejection below.
However, it is noted that Applicant alleges “Han does not disclose, however, a system in which air is directed, via a singular flow, below the plurality of battery trays from a first side towards a second side, directed upward, and directed from the second end back to the first end across a top of the battery trays”.
Examiner notes the air flow of Han flows below the plurality of battery trays from a first side to a second side, reaches to the very last battery tray in a direction from the first side to second side, is directed upward through the very last battery tray in a direction from the first side to second side, and then is directed from the second end back to the first end across a top of each of the battery trays.
Applicant does not define “singular flow” nor does Applicant use this language in their claims.
As shown above, Han teaches the air flow set forth by Applicant in their Remarks. Further, as shown below, Choi in view of Han meets the claimed limitations of claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9 recites “frame-shaped”.
Applicant’s specification states:
[0161] As described above, the outer wall portion 53W of the structure 53 has a frame-shaped cross section perpendicular to the ventilation direction (see FIG. 5).
Therefore, from Applicant’s Fig. 5, “frame-shaped” is being interpreted as being rectangularly-shaped.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a storage battery compartment installed with plurality of storage batteries therein” when instead it should recite “a storage battery compartment installed with a plurality of storage batteries therein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to for being improperly formatted.
The most recent claim 16 in the claim set filed 02/18/2026 is found below:
PNG
media_image1.png
78
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 16 from the previous claim set filed 10/28/2025 is found below:
PNG
media_image2.png
60
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As seen above, the first addition of the word “structure” in the claim 16 filed with the 02/18/2026 claim set is not underlined.
MPEP 714 C (B) states:
“All claims being currently amended must be presented with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version. The changes in any amended claim must be shown by strike-through (for deleted matter) or underlining (for added matter) …”
Therefore, since the word “structure” has not been underlined in claim 16, the claim is improperly formatted and must be corrected. Given the Examiner is able to tell which term/phrase has been added to claim 16, the Examiner sends out this rejection with an objection to claim 16 rather than a non-compliant amendment in the interest of compact prosecution.
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.
Claims 1 and 17 are 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.
The term “near” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 17 depends from claim 12 which has been cancelled. It is unclear which claim that claim 17 is supposed to be dependent from. For this reason, prior art is not being applied to claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-11, 13, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (Development and demonstration of PEM fuel-cell-battery hybrid system for propulsion of tourist boat, as given in the 03/20/2025 IDS) in view of Han et al (US 20130017428 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a fuel cell ship (see Figs. 1, 6; see entire disclosure and especially the Abstract) comprising:
a fuel cell configured to generate electric power by an electrochemical reaction of fuel (PEM fuel cell in Figs. 1, 2, and 7; see entire disclosure and especially the Abstract and the Fuel-cell module section on pages 3593-3594);
a storage battery compartment installed with a plurality of storage batteries therein, the plurality of storage batteries configured to supply electric power different from the electric power generated by the fuel cell (three Li-ion battery packs in Figs. 1 and 7 are drawn to the storage battery; the section of the boat wherein Li-ion battery packs 6 sit within Fig. 7 is drawn to the storage battery compartment; see entire disclosure and especially the Abstract, the Battery pack and charger section on page 3595, and the Testing and demonstration section on page 3596), and
wherein the storage battery compartment is provided between a deck and a ship bottom portion of a hull (See Figs. 6-7).
However, Choi does not disclose wherein the storage battery compartment includes an air supply port, and an exhaust port, on a first side of the storage battery compartment; and a structure positioned in the storage battery compartment below the plurality of storage batteries and extending along a length of the storage battery compartment, wherein: the structure comprises an inlet configured to receive air flow from the air supply port, the structure comprises an outlet near a second side of the storage battery compartment that is opposite the first side; and the structure is configured such that air flow is directed from the air supply port, through the structure, to exit upward from the structure at the outlet, and toward the exhaust port such that the air flow passes across the plurality of storage batteries along the top of the storage battery compartment.
In a similar field of endeavor, Han teaches a unit energy storage apparatus (40 in Figs. 4-6) includes a row of battery trays (RB in Figs. 4 and 6), and first and second ducts (210 and 220 in Figs. 4 and 6) disposed substantially parallel with the row of battery trays arranged therebetween (P58). Han teaches each battery tray (100 in Figs. 4 and 6) includes batteries (110 in Figs. 4 and 6) that are disposed substantially parallel along a D1 direction in Figs. 4-6, and a tray housing (120 in Figs. 4 and 6) that accepts the batteries (P61). Han teaches the tray housing has a cubic shape, and has a first hole (112 in Figs. 4 and 6) and a second hole (122 in Figs. 4 and 6) that are formed on a lower surface and an upper surface of the tray housing, respectively (P61).
Han teaches the first hole may correspond to a first opening in the first duct so as to allow first air, which has passed through the first opening, to flow into the battery trays (P59-60, 62). Han teaches the second hole may correspond to a second opening of the second duct, so that the second air, which has absorbed heat from the batteries while flowing through the battery trays, may flow into the second duct (P63, 66).
Han teaches air is forcibly circulated through the ducts via an air intaking member (300 in Fig. 6) and air exhausting member (400 in Fig. 6), thereby efficient cooling the batteries (P68). Han teaches that the first and second ducts can be located on a single side of the energy storage apparatus (P71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Han and substituted the energy storage apparatus of Han (described by Figs. 4 and 6) with the storage battery installed within the storage battery compartment of Choi, given Han teaches this provides an energy storage apparatus/storage battery with efficient cooling.
Modified Choi would include the energy storage apparatus of Han in the storage battery compartment. The plurality of storage batteries of modified Choi would be the multiple sets of plurality of batteries for each battery tray of Han (the plurality of batteries 110 in Fig. 4 of Han; as seen in Fig. 6 of Han there are 7 battery trays having each a set of batteries, therefore, in modified Choi, there would be seven storage batteries). The length of the storage battery compartment can be drawn to the direction at which the plurality of battery trays of Han are stacked/aligned.
As seen in the annotated Han Figure below, the storage battery compartment includes an air supply port (motor 305 that rotates fan 307 that pulls air in through fan; there must be a hole/port for fan; see Han P50), and an exhaust port (motor 405 that rotates fan 407 that pulls air out through fan; there must be a hole/port for fan; see Han P52), on a first side of the storage battery compartment (see the annotated figure); and a structure positioned in the storage battery compartment below the plurality of storage batteries and extending along a length of the storage battery compartment (first duct 210; see Han P50), wherein: the structure comprises an inlet configured to receive air flow from the air supply port (area/opening of first duct 210 that receives air from first auxiliary duct 310; see Han P50), the structure comprises an outlet near a second side of the storage battery compartment that is opposite the first side (see the annotated figure below, the outlet can be drawn to the outlet wherein air flows from first duct 210 through the battery tray closest to ‘the second side’ of the storage battery compartment); and the structure is configured such that air flow is directed from the air supply port, through the structure, to exit upward from the structure at the outlet, and toward the exhaust port such that the air flow passes across the plurality of storage batteries along the top of the storage battery compartment (air is pulled in by the motor 305 and fan 307, air goes through first auxiliary duct 310 then through first duct 210, air exits upward from the ‘outlet’ and enters the respective battery tray, and finally air flows through the battery tray and toward the exhaust port as the air passes over the tops of the battery trays).
PNG
media_image3.png
534
884
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Han Fig. 6
Regarding claim 2, as seen in Fig. 7 of Choi, the deck is cut-out or made transparent to show the storage battery compartment underneath. Further, if the storage battery compartment was not provided above the ship bottom portion, the storage battery compartment would be in the water. Therefore, it can be said that the storage battery compartment is provided between the deck and the ship bottom portion.
While modified Choi does not meet the limitation wherein the storage battery compartment is provided between the deck and the ship bottom portion, at a position closer to the deck than the ship bottom portion (Choi does not show a side view of the ship wherein one could see where the storage battery compartment lies in relation to the deck and ship bottom portion), this is merely a rearrangement of the parts of modified Choi. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the parts of modified Choi as claimed in order to, for example, provide easier access to the batteries within the storage battery compartment for maintenance and troubleshooting, because the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 3, as seen in Fig. 7 of Choi, the deck is cut-out or made transparent to show the storage battery compartment underneath. Further, if the storage battery compartment was not provided above the ship bottom portion, the storage battery compartment would be in the water. Therefore, it can be said that the storage battery compartment is provided between the deck and the ship bottom portion.
While modified Choi does not meet the limitation wherein the storage battery compartment is provided between the deck and the ship bottom portion, at a position closer to the ship bottom portion than the deck (Choi does not show a side view of the ship wherein one could see where the storage battery compartment lies in relation to the deck and ship bottom portion), this is merely a rearrangement of the parts of modified Choi. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the parts of modified Choi as claimed in order to, for example, provide a space for storage and protection of personal belongings within the hull of the ship for those using the boat, because the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 4, modified Choi meets the limitation wherein the fuel ship further comprises one or more storage battery housings that house the plurality of storage batteries, and wherein the plurality of storage batteries are installed in the storage battery compartment together with the one or more storage battery housings (the plurality of storage batteries can be drawn to seven sets of the plurality of batteries, 110 in Fig. 4, of Han; therefore, there are seven storage batteries in modified Choi; the one or more battery housings can be drawn to the battery tray housings, 120 in Fig. 4, of Han house each set of batteries 110; see Figs. 4 and 6 of Han; therefore, there are seven storage batteries each having their own storage battery housing in modified Choi).
Regarding claim 5, modified Choi meets the limitation a storage battery compartment exhaust pipe configured to communicate with the storage battery compartment (the second duct, 220 in Figs. 4 and 6 or second auxiliary duct 410 in Fig. 6, of Han, can be drawn to the exhaust pipe; given the second duct would exhaust the heated air from the storage batteries out air exhausting member, 400 in Fig. 6, of Han, the air leaving the air exhausting mixture would communicate with the storage battery compartment).
Regarding claim 6, modified Choi meets the limitation an exhaust fan configured to evacuate inside of the storage battery compartment (fan 407 in Fig. 6; P52).
Regarding claim 7, modified Choi meets the limitation a storage battery compartment air supply pipe configured to communicate with the storage battery compartment (first auxiliary duct 310 in Fig. 6, of Han), and the structure is located between a bottom wall of the storage battery compartment and the one or more storage battery housings, and is configured to support the one or more storage battery housings at a position higher than the bottom wall of the storage battery compartment (see the rejections of claims 1 and 4 and Figs. 4 and 6 of Han).
While modified Choi does not meet the limitations wherein the storage battery compartment exhaust pipe and the storage battery compartment air supply pipe are each located on a stern side with respect to the storage battery compartment, this is merely a rearrangement of the parts of modified Choi. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the parts of modified Choi as claimed in order to, for example, allow air to be supplied to the storage battery compartment from the back of the ship and allow the pipes’ size to be minimized given the storage battery is shown to be located in the middle of a section adjacent to the stern side of the ship, because the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 8, modified Choi meets the limitation wherein the structure has an outer wall portion that forms an outer wall of a ventilation path through which, in the storage battery compartment, air supplied from the storage battery compartment air supply pipe flows below the one or more storage battery housings, from the stern side to a bow side of the storage battery compartment (the first duct 210 has multiple ‘outer walls’ such as the side walls or bottom walls seen in Fig. 4 of Han; these walls direct the air from the motor driven fan 307 through the first duct; therefore, the structure, first duct 210 (Han), of modified Choi would have an outer wall portion that forms an outer wall of a ventilation path through which the air flows below the storage batteries and their housings (batteries in battery trays) from the stern side to a bow side of the storage battery compartment).
Regarding claim 9, modified Choi meets the limitation wherein the outer wall portion has a frame-shaped cross section perpendicular to a ventilation direction of the air flowing from the stern side to the bow side through the ventilation path (see the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image4.png
607
585
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Han Fig. 4
Regarding claim 10, the ‘storage battery’ of modified Choi is drawn to the plurality of batteries, 110 in Fig. 4, of Han and the ‘one or more storage battery housings’ can be drawn to the battery tray housings, 120 in Fig. 4, of Han that house the batteries 110 (see Figs. 4 and 6 of Han). Therefore, the battery housing comprises a plurality of battery trays.
While modified Choi does not note how the storage battery compartment and its pieces are located in relation to the stern side/bow side of the fuel cell ship, one of ordinary skill in the art could rearrange the parts of modified Choi such that the first side of the battery storage compartment is the stern side (the air supply and air exhaust would be on the first side) and the second side of the battery storage compartment is the bow side. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the parts of modified Choi as claimed in order to, for example, allow air to be supplied to the storage battery compartment from the back of the ship and allow the pipes’ size to be minimized given the storage battery is shown to be located in the middle of a section adjacent to the stern side of the ship, because the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
While modified Choi does not meet the limitation wherein each of the storage battery housings has a storage battery housing air supply port on a bow side and storage battery housing exhaust portion on a stern side, this is merely a change in the form/shape of modified Choi, such as adding an opening to the battery tray housings 120 of modified Choi and changing the form/shape the ducts of modified Choi to allow air to pass through. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the parts of modified Choi as claimed in order to, for example, not only provide air flowing from the structure (first duct 210) between the battery cells but also allow for air to pass by the large sides of the battery cells covered by battery tray housings 120 so that all sides of each battery cell are able to be cooled, because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 11, modified Choi meets the limitation a fuel cell compartment installed with the fuel cell (where the fuel cell modules 1 sit in Fig. 7 can be considered the fuel cell compartment); and a tank compartment installed with a fuel tank that is configured to house the fuel to be supplied to the fuel cell (hydrogen storage 8 in Fig. 7 can be considered the fuel tank and where it sits within Fig. 7 can be considered the tank compartment; see entire disclosure and especially the Fuel-cell module section on Page 3593),
wherein in the hull, a tank isolation partition wall is provided between the fuel cell compartment and the tank compartment (see the annotated Fig. below), and
wherein in the hull, the storage battery compartment is located on a stern side or the bow side with respect to the tank isolation partition wall (see the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image5.png
552
1008
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Choi Fig. 7
While modified Choi does not meet the limitation wherein in the hull, the fuel cell compartment is located on a bow side with respect to the tank compartment, this is merely a rearrangement of the parts of modified Choi. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the parts of modified Choi as claimed in order to, for example, provide easier access to the fuel cell modules (and other structures) within the fuel cell compartment for maintenance and troubleshooting, because the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 13, as seen in Han Figs. 4-6, the first duct (which defines the passage of modified Choi) has a bottom wall, therefore, modified Choi currently would not meet the limitation wherein the structure and at least one wall of the storage battery compartment define the passage a ventilation path. However, this is merely changing the form/shape of the first duct of Han in modified Choi to remove the bottom wall such that the bottom wall of the passage is the bottom wall of the storage battery compartment in order to, for example, provide one less part that is needed to manufacture the duct, therefore saving money and time during manufacturing, because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 15, modified Choi meets the limitation wherein the structure contacts a bottom wall of the storage battery compartment (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, modified Choi meets the limitation wherein the inlet of the structure is oriented perpendicular to the outlet of the structure (see the annotated figure in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 19, as seen in Han Figs. 4-6, the first duct (which defines the passage of modified Choi) has a top wall, two side walls, and a bottom wall. Therefore, modified Choi currently would not meet the limitation wherein the structure includes three sides that together with one wall of the storage battery compartment define a ventilation path. However, this is merely changing the form/shape of the first duct of Han in modified Choi to remove the bottom wall such that the bottom wall of the passage is the bottom wall of the storage battery compartment in order to, for example, provide one less part that is needed to manufacture the duct, therefore saving money and time during manufacturing, because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (Development and demonstration of PEM fuel-cell-battery hybrid system for propulsion of tourist boat) in view of Han et al (US 20130017428 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Bruck et al (US 20030000758 A1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Choi meets the limitation a fire detector positioned within the storage battery compartment (“Each of the compartments was equipped with a fire detector and dual hydrogen sensors for safety monitoring”, see System installation section on Page 3595).
However, modified Choi does not meet the limitation wherein the ship comprises a control unit configured to stop a supply of fuel to the fuel cell in response to the fire detector detecting a fire within the storage battery compartment.
Bruck teaches a vehicle including a fuel cell (P32). Bruck teaches a fuel cell installation has a device for emergency shutdown so that, in the case of a risk due to short circuit and/or when a critical operating state is reached, all the devices for conducting current and/or voltage, such as the electrical lines, distributors, etc. are automatically disconnected from the vehicle and/or from the stack and/or the fuel supply is closed off (P34). Bruck teaches the device can include sensors and a measuring device to gather and process information relating to the operating state of the fuel cell and a control device for disconnection when needed (P10-11, 35). Bruck teaches one sensor can be a temperature sensor (P35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Bruck and provided to the ship of modified Choi a control unit configured to stop a supply of fuel to the fuel cell in response to the fire detector detecting a fire within the storage battery compartment, such as utilizing the device for emergency shutdown as taught by Bruck, given this would provide a device that is capable of being programmed to receive information from the fire detector and move forward with an emergency shutdown to the fuel cell and fuel cell supply line.
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 Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights