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 .
Claim Status
Claims 11-12 have been canceled.
Claims 1-10, and 13-14 are amended; support for the amendment can be found in Fig. 2, and original claims 11 and 12.
Claims 1-10 and 13-14 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sugawara fails to disclose the amended limitations of claim 1 (pg. 7-8). This argument is not found persuasive because a new grounds of rejection has been made in view of Sugawara wherein Sugawara discloses:
an upper sensing block (Fig. 5; 130, 150) and a lower sensing block (Fig. 5; 131, 150; “side plate 131 is configured basically the same as the side plate 130”; [0086]) respectively provided on an upper side (Fig. 5; side of 111-113, 118 facing 130) and a lower side (Fig. 5; side of 111-113, 118 facing 131) of the case (111-113, 118), each comprising at least one bus bar (Fig. 5; 150; 150 is present in 130 and 131 per [0086]) configured to electrically connect ([0094]) the electrodes ([0084]) of the plurality of battery cells (140), the upper sensing block (130, 150) and the lower sensing block (131, 150) being installed to restrain (Fig. 4 and 5) the plurality of battery cells (140) accommodated in the case (111-113, 118),
PNG
media_image1.png
492
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
478
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein a block connection unit (“a voltage detection connector 912” and “control device 900”; [0091]) is provided between ([0091] teaches connection of terminals 810, which are present in both sensing blocks to 900; [0086] teaches 131 and 130 are basically the same) the upper sensing block (130, 150) and the lower sensing block (131, 150), wherein the upper sensing block (130, 150) and the lower sensing block (131, 150) are formed to be integrated (“connected”; [0091]) with each other by the block connection unit (900, 912), and wherein the upper sensing block (130, 150), the block connection unit (900, 912), and the lower sensing block (131, 150) are connected to each other by a bending line (annotated Fig. 3; BL) having a reduced (annotated Fig. 3; reduced relative to the diameter of 800) cross-sectional thickness (annotated Fig. 3; diameter of BL) and being interposed therebetween (Fig. 3), so as to be folded
PNG
media_image3.png
699
537
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 3) onto each other.
Regarding the limitation “to be integrated with each other”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the upper and lower sensing blocks to be integrated with each other by the block connection unit because the blocks and block connection unit are disclosed as connected to each other and integrating them would have been an obvious engineering choice. The examiner notes that the courts have held that integrating connected elements is an obvious engineering choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, the limitation “so as to be folded onto each other” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 2 “each comprises” should read “each comprise”
In claim 8, line 6 “first two” should read “a first two”
In claim 8, line 8 “second two” should read “a second two”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 and 13-14 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 “reduced cross sectional thickness” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reduced cross-sectional thickness” 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. The limitation “reduced” renders the term “cross-sectional thickness” indefinite because it is not clear what “reduced” is relative to. For examination, “reduced” is interpreted as “reduced” relative to a cross sectional thickness of the block connection unit. Claims 2-10 and 13-14 are rejected as dependent on claim 1.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation of “an upper side” refers to the previously recited upper side…of the case recited in claim 1 or to another side. For examination, the former interpretation is used. Claims 4-10 are rejected for dependence on claim 3.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation of “a lower side” refers to the previously recited lower side…of the case recited in claim 1 or to another side. For examination, the former interpretation is used. Claims 4-10 are rejected for dependence on claim 3.
Claim 4 is indefinite because it is not clear what the recitation “thereof” in line 3 refers to. For examination, “of the battery cells thereof” is interpreted as “of the battery cells”. Claims 5-10 are rejected for dependence on claim 3.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “the at least one bus bar” refers to the at least one bus bar of the upper sensing block, the lower sensing block or both. For examination, the last interpretation is used.
Claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “the at least one bus bar” refers to the at least one bus bar of the upper sensing block, the lower sensing block or both. For examination, “the at least one bus bar protrudes from the upper sensing block and the lower sensing block” is interpreted as “the at least one bus bar of the upper sensing block protrudes from the upper sensing block and the at least one bus bar of the lower sensing block protrudes from the lower sensing block”. Claims 7-10 are rejected for dependence on claim 6.
Claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “the opening” in line 6 refers to the opening of the upper sensing block, the lower sensing block or both. For examination, the last interpretation is used. Claims 7-10 are rejected for dependence on claim 6.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “four openings” are a part of the previously recited “opening” or if they refer to a different opening altogether. For examination, this recitation is interpretated as “the opening of the upper sensing block comprises four openings which”. Claim 8-9 are rejected for dependence on claim 7.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “the at least one bus bar” refers to the at least one bus bar of the upper sensing block, the lower sensing block or both. For examination, the former interpretation is used. Claims 8-9 are rejected for dependence on claim 7.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the outmost battery cells" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is interpreted as “outmost battery cells of the four battery cells”. Claims 8-9 are rejected for dependence on claim 7.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “the at least one bus bar” refers to the at least one bus bar of the upper sensing block, the lower sensing block or both. For examination, the second interpretation is used. Claim 9 is rejected for dependence on claim 8.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the electrodes of first two adjacent battery cells" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is rejected for dependence on claim 8.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it is not clear if the first two adjacent battery cells are a part of the plurality of battery cells, the four battery cells or neither. For examination, the first two adjacent battery cells are interpreted as a part of the four battery cells. Claim 9 is rejected for dependence on claim 8.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it is not clear if the first two adjacent battery cells are a part of the plurality of battery cells, the four battery cells or neither. For examination, the first two adjacent battery cells are interpreted as a part of the four battery cells. Claim 9 is rejected for dependence on claim 8.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the electrodes of second two adjacent battery cells" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is rejected for dependence on claim 8.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it is not clear if the second two adjacent battery cells are a part of the plurality of battery cells, the four battery cells or neither. For examination, the second two adjacent battery cells are interpreted as a part of the four battery cells. Claim 9 is rejected for dependence on claim 8.
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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara (US 20100248008 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Sugawara discloses a battery module (Fig. 3; 800, 900, 912; Fig. 4; 100a) for a vehicle ([0025]), the battery module (100a) comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 5; 140) having electrodes (“negative-pole terminal”; “positive-pole terminal”; [0084]), each of the electrodes ([0084]) being provided on a corresponding one (annotated Fig. 5; one of E1, E2) of opposite ends (annotated Fig. 5; E1, E2) of each of the plurality of battery cells (140);
a case (annotated Fig. 4; 111-113, 118; [0070-0071]) configured to surround and accommodate cylindrical portions (Fig. 5; cylindrical housing of 140) of the plurality of battery cells (140) so that the electrodes ([0084]) of the plurality of battery cells (140) are disposed in the same plane (annotated Fig. 5; plane containing X and Y, i.e. plane in parallel with the surface of a carrier per [0138]); and
an upper sensing block (Fig. 5; 130, 150) and a lower sensing block (Fig. 5; 131, 150; “side plate 131 is configured basically the same as the side plate 130”; [0086]) respectively provided on an upper side (Fig. 5; side of 111-113, 118 facing 130) and a lower side (Fig. 5; side of 111-113, 118 facing 131) of the case (111-113, 118), each comprising at least one bus bar (Fig. 5; 150; 150 is present in 130 and 131 per [0086]) configured to electrically connect ([0094]) the electrodes ([0084]) of the plurality of battery cells (140), the upper sensing block (130, 150) and the lower sensing block (131, 150) being installed to restrain (Fig. 4 and 5) the plurality of battery cells (140) accommodated in the case (111-113, 118),
PNG
media_image1.png
492
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
478
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein a block connection unit (“a voltage detection connector 912” and “control device 900”; [0091]) is provided between ([0091] teaches connection of terminals 810, which are present in both sensing blocks to 900; [0086] teaches 131 and 130 are basically the same) the upper sensing block (130, 150) and the lower sensing block (131, 150), wherein the upper sensing block (130, 150) and the lower sensing block (131, 150) are formed to be integrated (“connected”; [0091]) with each other by the block connection unit (900, 912), and wherein the upper sensing block (130, 150), the block connection unit (900, 912), and the lower sensing block (131, 150) are connected to each other by a bending line (annotated Fig. 3; BL) having a reduced (annotated Fig. 3; reduced relative to the diameter of 800) cross-sectional thickness (annotated Fig. 3; diameter of BL) and being interposed therebetween (Fig. 3), so as to be folded
PNG
media_image3.png
699
537
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 3) onto each other.
Regarding the limitation “to be integrated with each other”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the upper and lower sensing blocks to be integrated with each other by the block connection unit because the blocks and block connection unit are disclosed as connected to each other and integrating them would have been an obvious engineering choice. The examiner notes that the courts have held that integrating connected elements is an obvious engineering choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Sugawara discloses a module cover (Fig. 4; 160; [0077]) configured to surround (Fig. 4) the upper sensing block (130, 150) and lower sensing block (131, 150).
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara (US 20100248008 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Cournoyer (US 20220109131 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Sugawara fails to disclose wherein the case comprises a plurality of support protrusions configured to respectively protrude toward the battery cells, and wherein the case is configured to avoid a surface contact with a cylindrical portion of battery cells and support each of the battery cells by a point contact or a line contact at two or more positions of each of the battery cells.
Cournoyer discloses a case (Fig. 7; 115, 701) configured to accommodate a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 7; 103), wherein the case (115, 701) includes a carrier tray (Fig. 7; 115) that comprises a plurality of support protrusions (Fig. 3A; 304) configured to respectively protrude (Fig. 3A) toward the battery cells (103), and wherein the case (115, 170) is configured to avoid (Fig. 3A; 304 blocks direct contact with the surface of 302) a surface contact (Fig. 3A; direct contact with 302) with a cylindrical portion (Fig. 7; cylindrical portion of 103) of the battery cells (103) and support (“interference fit”; [0042]) each of the battery cells (103) by a line contact (Fig. 3A; contact along a vertical line of 304a-304d) at two or more positions (Fig. 3A; positions of 304a-304d) of each of the battery cells (103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Sugawara by adding the carrier tray of Cournoyer to the case of Sugawara, such that the carrier tray was between the bottom end (end of battery cells 140 at 131) of the battery cells and side plate 131 in Sugawara, in order to maintain the position of each battery cell during the assembly process without requiring additional machinery or manufacturing time as taught by Cournoyer ([0001]).
PNG
media_image4.png
560
704
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Sugawara discloses wherein the case (111-113, 118) includes: an upper side (annotated Fig. 5; US) configured to be open (Fig. 5) to receive the battery cells (140) in a longitudinal direction (annotated Fig. 5; Z) of the battery cells (140), and a lower side (annotated Fig. 5; LS) configured to be open (Fig. 5; 131 is configured the same as 130 per [0086]) to allow the electrodes ([0084]) of the battery cells (140) to be exposed. Sugawara fails to disclose wherein the lower side includes a locking protrusion formed on the lower side, and the locking protrusion is configured to prevent the battery cells from passing through the lower side.
PNG
media_image5.png
310
532
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Cournoyer discloses a case (Fig. 7; 115, 701) configured to accommodate a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 7; 103), wherein the case (115, 701) includes an upper side (annotated Fig. 7; US) configured to be open (Fig. 7) to receive battery cells (Fig. 7; 103) in a longitudinal direction (annotated Fig. 7; Z) of the battery cells (103), and a lower side (annotated Fig. 7; LS) configured to be open (Fig. 3B; [0041]) to allow electrodes (“terminals”; [0041]) of the battery cells (103) to be exposed ([0041]), and wherein the lower side (LS) includes a carrier tray (Fig. 7; 115) that includes a locking protrusion (Fig. 3A; 306) formed one the lower side, and the locking protrusion (306) is configured to prevent the battery cells (103) from passing through the lower side (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sugawara by adding the carrier tray of Cournoyer to the case of Sugawara, such that the carrier tray was between the bottom end (end of battery cells 140 at 131) of the battery cells and side plate 131 in Sugawara, in order to maintain the position of each battery cell during the assembly process without requiring additional machinery or manufacturing time as taught by Cournoyer ([0001]).
PNG
media_image6.png
358
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Sugawara in view of Cournoyer discloses wherein: the battery cells (140) inserted into the case (111-113, 118 and Cournoyer 115) are disposed in a line (annotated Fig. 5; L) so that adjacent electrodes ([0084]; Fig. 5; adjacent terminals of 140) of the battery cells (140) have opposite polarities ([0084]) from each other, and the at least one bus bar (150) in the upper sensing block (130, 150) and the lower sensing block (131, 150) is configured to connect all of the battery cells (140) inserted into the case in series ([0079]).
Regarding claim 5, Sugawara in view of Cournoyer discloses wherein: the at least one bus bar (150) is connected ([0092-0093]) to a corresponding one of a plurality of sensing wires (Fig. 6; 806), each of the sensing wires (806) configured to sense a voltage ([0092]) of a corresponding battery cell ([0092]) among the battery cells (1540), and the sensing wires (806) are connected to a sensing connector (Fig. 4 and 6; 810) fixed to an outside (Fig. 4; outside of 111) of the case (111-113, 118 and 115 of Cournoyer).
Regarding claim 6, Sugawara in view of Cournoyer discloses wherein: the upper sensing block (130, 150) and the lower sensing block (131, 150) each comprises an opening (Fig. 5; 132) to expose the electrode ([0088]) of the battery cells (Fig. 5; 140), and the at least one bus bar (150) protrudes (Fig. 8) from the upper sensing block (130, 150) and the lower sensing block (131, 150) toward the battery cells (150) so as to be in contact (Fig. 8; [0098]) with the electrodes (“terminals”; [0092]) of the battery cells (140) through the opening (132).
Regarding claim 7, Sugawara in view of Cournoyer discloses wherein:
four battery cells (annotated Fig. 5; 4BC) of the plurality of battery cells (140) are inserted into the case (111-113, 118 and 115 of Cournoyer) in a first line (annotated Fig. 5; 1L),
four openings (annotated Fig. 5; 1O-4O) are disposed in a second line (annotated Fig. 5; 2L) in the upper sensing block (130, 150), and
the at least one bus bar (150) includes:
a first bus bar (annotated Fig. 8; 1BB) provided in the upper sensing block (130, 150) and connected to the electrodes (“terminal”; [0141]) of two central battery cells (annotated Fig. 5; central batteries of 4O) , among the four battery cells (4BC), through two central openings (annotated Fig. 5; 2O, 3O) of the four openings (1O-4O), and
a second bus bar (annotated Fig. 8; 2BB) and a third bus bar (annotated Fig. 8; 3BB), each of which is connected to a corresponding one of the electrodes (“terminal”; [0141]) of the outmost battery cells (annotated Fig. 5; outmost battery cells at opposite ends of 4BC) at opposite ends (annotated Fig. 5; opposite ends of 4BC in 1L) of the first line (1L) through two outermost openings (annotated Fig. 5; 1O, 4O) among the four openings (1O-4O) and is connected to a corresponding one of output terminals (Fig. 5; 180, 181).
PNG
media_image7.png
514
593
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
578
587
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Sugawara in view of Cournoyer discloses wherein:
another four openings (annotated Fig. 5; A1O-A4O is used to illustrate corresponding openings of 131) are disposed in a third line (annotated Fig. 5; 3L) in the lower sensing block (131, 150), and
the at least one bus bar (150) further includes:
a fourth bus bar (annotated Fig. 5; bus bar of 131 (not shown) directly connected to 1BC and 2BC at 131; “4BB”; as evidenced by series connection [0092] and bus bar configuration at 130) provided in the lower sensing block (131, 150) and connected to the electrodes (“terminal”; [0141]) of first two adjacent battery cells (annotated Fig. 5; 1BC, 2BC) through two adjacent openings (annotated Fig. 5; A1O, A2O) among the another four openings (A1O-A4O), and
a fifth bus bar (annotated Fig. 5; bus bar directly connected to 3BC and 4BC at 131; “5BB”; as evidenced by series connection [0092] and bus bar configuration at 130) connected to the electrodes (“terminal”; [0141]) of second two adjacent battery cells (annotated Fig. 5; 3BC, 4BC) through remaining openings (annotated Fig. 5; A3O and A4O) among the another four
PNG
media_image9.png
533
595
media_image9.png
Greyscale
openings (A1O-A4O).
Regarding claim 9, Sugawara in view of Cournoyer wherein each sensing wire of a plurality of sensing wires (Fig. 6; 806; [0093]) is connected, from a sensing connector (Fig. 6; 810), to ([0093]) a corresponding bus bar (Fig. 5; 150 on 130 and 131 per [0086]) among the first (1BB), second (2BB), third (3BB), fourth (4BB) and fifth bus bars (5BB).
Regarding claim 10, Sugawara in view of Cournoyer wherein the opening (132) in the upper sensing block (130, 150) accommodates an electrode (“terminal”; [0088]) protruding upwards from a battery cell (Fig. 5; 140) among the plurality of the battery cells (140), and a portion (“inner wall surface”; [0089]) other than the opening (132) is formed to keep an upper end (annotated Fig. 5; end of 140 at 130) of the battery cell (140) in the case (111-113, 118, and Cournoyer 115).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara (US 20100248008 A1) in view of Cournoyer (US 20220109131 A1) as applied to 12 above and further in view of Makabe (US 20180375068 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Sugawara in view of Cournoyer disclose wherein the upper sensing block (130, 150) and the lower sensing block (131, 150) are coupled to the case (111-113, 118 and 115 of Cournoyer) by a fixing means ([0075]). Sugawara in view of Cournoyer fails to disclose in a snap-fit manner.
Makabe teaches a snap-fit manner (Fig. 1; connection between 7 and 8 is a “snap-fit structure”; [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Sugawara in view of Cournoyer by using the snap-fit manner of Makabe as the fixing means of Sugawara in view of Cournoyer in order to join ([0014]) the sensing blocks to the case while decreasing a manufacturing cost ([0033]).
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 GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights