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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 7, & 14 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutake et al. (Japanese Publication JP 2017147021 A – published Aug. 24, 2017), in view of Okamoto et al. (USPGPN 2021/0101504 – published Apr, 2021), Shirataki (Japanese Publication JP 2011055647 A – published Mar. 13, 2017), and Soga et al. (USPGPN 2015/0134282).
Regarding Claim 1, Tsutake (Figs.1 & 2) teaches a control device (12) for an electric vehicle (Pg.3, Para.4: load may be an electric vehicle, the electric vehicle including a drive battery pack (11) mounted therein, the drive battery pack having a battery case (112, 113, & 114) for storing the plurality of battery cells in a stacked state (horizontally stacked), the drive battery pack being capable of charging a plurality of battery cells (111-1 to 111-N) using an external power supply,
the control device comprising:
a storage device (control unit 12 executes processes, indicating a storage device storing a program) that has stored a program; and
a processor (Pg.2, Para.5: control unit 12 may be a processor) connected to the storage device,
wherein the processor executes the program stored in the storage device to:
acquire an indicator value regarding deterioration of the plurality of battery cells (Pg.3, Para.3: calculating unit 123 acquires cell expansion amounts and calculates a module expansion amount); and
perform processing for prohibiting charging of the drive battery pack from the external power supply (Pg.3, Para.5: switch 13 is opened, which prohibits charging of the battery cells when connected to an external power supply) when the indicator value has reached a first threshold value (Pg.3, Para.5: when the module expansion amount exceeds the module expansion threshold).
Tsutake fails to explicitly teach the indicator value being an internal resistance value of the plurality of battery cells, the internal resistance value being obtained by comparing an integrated value of a charging current of the drive battery pack and an amount of change in voltage in a predetermined period; and
wherein the processor performs processing for continuously charging the drive battery pack by regenerative power generated by the motor of the electric vehicle and causing an information output device capable of outputting information to an occupant in the electric vehicle to output first notification information when the indicator value has risen and reached a first threshold value.
However, Okamato teaches that electric vehicles commonly have a processor (Fig.1, 50) which performs processing for continuously charging the drive battery pack by regenerative power generated by the motor of the electric vehicle (¶0022: the motor unit converts kinetic energy to charge the battery; ¶0027: PCU 70 is controlled by vehicle ECU 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Tsutake to include continuously charging the drive battery pack by regenerative power generated by the motor of the electric vehicle. Doing so allows the vehicle to recover energy and extend the life of the braking system.
Moreover, Shirataki (Fig.1) teaches a battery controller (3) connected to a display (4) which measures an indication value (Pg.5, Para.3: internal resistance value) of a secondary battery (21) and displays a notification when the indication has reached a first threshold (Pg.5, Paras. 3 & 4: condition (3-3) the internal resistance is more than the third stop threshold; if (3-3) holds a notification that the secondary battery has significantly deteriorated is displayed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Tsutake to include a display and provide a notification when the indication value reaches a first threshold value and to have the indicator value of deterioration be an internal resistance, as taught by Shirataki. Doing so provides visual alert to a user allowing them to understand why the system may not be functioning as expected.
Lastly, Soga teaches that it is common in the art for an internal resistance of a battery to be obtained by comparing an integrated value of a charging current of the drive battery pack and an amount of change in voltage in a predetermined period (¶0035: internal resistance can be easily calculated based on the voltage change with respect to the current change, detected current integrated value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Tsutake, in view of Okamoto and Shirataki, with Soga to obtain an internal resistance of a battery by comparing an integrated value of a charging current of the drive battery pack and an amount of change in voltage in a predetermined period. Doing so helps improve the accuracy of estimating the residual capacity of a battery.
Regarding Claim 2, Tsutake, as modified, further teaches wherein the processor performs processing for prohibiting charging of the drive battery pack from the external power supply when the internal resistance value has risen and reached the first threshold value (Pg.3, Para.5: switch 13 is opened, which prohibits charging of the battery cells when connected to an external power supply, when the module expansion amount exceeds the module expansion threshold).
Regarding Claim 5, Tsutake, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor causes the information output device to output second notification information when the indicator value has risen and reached a second threshold value that is a value smaller than the first threshold value.
However, Shirataki further teaches a second threshold (Pg.3, Para.3: third warning threshold value) that is smaller than the first threshold value (Pg.3, Para.3: third stop threshold is larger than the third warning threshold value) which causes a second output notification to be displayed (Pg.3, Paras.3 & 4: condition (3-2) internal resistance value is greater than or equal to the third warning threshold value; if (3-2) holds a notification that the battery pack has deteriorated and a spare battery should be prepared is displayed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Tsutake, in view of Okamoto, Shirataki, and Soga, with Shirataki to further include a second threshold and second notification. Doing so allows a user to be notified that a battery is reaching a deteriorated state allowing them to replace a battery prior to a state in which the system may not be functioning as expected.
Regarding Claim 13, Tsutake, as modified, further teaches wherein the first threshold value is a value determined on the basis of a structural limit of the battery cells (Pg.3, Final Para.: cell expansion value is based on a state where the battery cell does not break due to expansion).
Claim(s) 3, 15, 16, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutake, in view of Okamoto, Shirataki, and Sugaya et al. (USPGPN 2020/0271731).
Regarding Claim 3, Tsutake teaches (Figs.1 & 2) teaches a control device (12) for an electric vehicle (Pg.3, Para.4: load may be an electric vehicle, the electric vehicle including a drive battery pack (11) mounted therein, the drive battery pack having a battery case (112, 113, & 114) for storing the plurality of battery cells in a stacked state (horizontally stacked), the drive battery pack being capable of charging a plurality of battery cells (111-1 to 111-N) using an external power supply,
the control device comprising:
a storage device (control unit 12 executes processes, indicating a storage device storing a program) that has stored a program; and
a processor (Pg.2, Para.5: control unit 12 may be a processor) connected to the storage device,
wherein the processor executes the program stored in the storage device to:
acquire an indicator value regarding deterioration of the plurality of battery cells (Pg.3, Para.3: calculating unit 123 acquires cell expansion amounts and calculates a module expansion amount), the indicator value being a reaction force given to the restraint by the plurality of battery cells (Pg.3, Para.3: module expansion amount); and
perform processing for prohibiting charging of the drive battery pack from the external power supply (Pg.3, Para.5: switch 13 is opened, which prohibits charging of the battery cells when connected to an external power supply) when the indicator value has reached a first threshold value (Pg.3, Para.5: when the module expansion amount exceeds the module expansion threshold).
Tsutake fails to explicitly teach the reaction force being acquired on the basis of a value acquired from a pressure sensor provided at a place of the drive battery pack where the reaction force acts; and
wherein the processor performs processing for continuously charging the drive battery pack by regenerative power generated by the motor of the electric vehicle and causing an information output device capable of outputting information to an occupant in the electric vehicle to output first notification information when the indicator value has risen and reached a first threshold value.
However, Okamato teaches that electric vehicles commonly have a processor (Fig.1, 50) which performs processing for continuously charging the drive battery pack by regenerative power generated by the motor of the electric vehicle (¶0022: the motor unit converts kinetic energy to charge the battery; ¶0027: PCU 70 is controlled by vehicle ECU 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Tsutake to include continuously charging the drive battery pack by regenerative power generated by the motor of the electric vehicle. Doing so allows the vehicle to recover energy and extend the life of the braking system.
Moreover, Shirataki (Fig.1) teaches a battery controller (3) connected to a display (4) which measures an indication value (Pg.5, Para.3: internal resistance value) of a secondary battery (21) and displays a notification when the indication has reached a first threshold (Pg.5, Paras. 3 & 4: condition (3-3) the internal resistance is more than the third stop threshold; if (3-3) holds a notification that the secondary battery has significantly deteriorated is displayed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Tsutake to include a display and provide a notification when the indication value reaches a first threshold value, as taught by Shirataki. Doing so provides visual alert to a user allowing them to understand why the system may not be functioning as expected.
Lastly, Sugaya teaches that it is common in the art for a reaction force to be acquired by a pressure sensor provided at a place of a drive battery pack where the reaction force acts (¶0005: monitor presence of deformation of a battery based on a pressure sensor output; Fig.4; ¶0057 & ¶0059: strain detecting unit is a sensor, and it may be a pressure sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Tsutake with Sugaya to obtain the reaction force on the basis of a value acquired from a pressure sensor. Doing so helps reduce the risk of ignition or explosion, as evidenced by Sugaya.
Regarding Claim 15, Tsutake, as modified, further teaches wherein the processor performs processing for prohibiting charging of the drive battery pack from the external power supply when the internal resistance value has risen and reached the first threshold value (Pg.3, Para.5: switch 13 is opened, which prohibits charging of the battery cells when connected to an external power supply, when the module expansion amount exceeds the module expansion threshold).
Regarding Claim 16, Tsutake, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor causes the information output device to output second notification information when the indicator value has risen and reached a second threshold value that is a value smaller than the first threshold value.
However, Shirataki further teaches a second threshold (Pg.3, Para.3: third warning threshold value) that is smaller than the first threshold value (Pg.3, Para.3: third stop threshold is larger than the third warning threshold value) which causes a second output notification to be displayed (Pg.3, Paras.3 & 4: condition (3-2) internal resistance value is greater than or equal to the third warning threshold value; if (3-2) holds a notification that the battery pack has deteriorated and a spare battery should be prepared is displayed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Tsutake, in view of Okamoto, Shirataki, and Sugaya, with Shirataki to further include a second threshold and second notification. Doing so allows a user to be notified that a battery is reaching a deteriorated state allowing them to replace a battery prior to a state in which the system may not be functioning as expected.
Regarding Claim 19, Tsutake, as modified, further teaches wherein the first threshold value is a value determined on the basis of a structural limit of the battery cells (Pg.3, Final Para.: cell expansion value is based on a state where the battery cell does not break due to expansion).
Claim(s) 7, 9, 14, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutake, in view of Okamoto, Shirataki, Yamasaki et al. (USPGPN 2021/0374816 A1 – filed Apr. 20, 2021), and Kubo et al. (USPGPN 2020/0122602).
Regarding Claims 7 & 14, Tsutake (Figs.1 & 2) teaches a control device (12) for an electric vehicle (Pg.3, Para.4: load may be an electric vehicle, the electric vehicle including a drive battery pack (11) mounted therein, the drive battery pack having a battery case (112, 113, & 114) for storing the plurality of battery cells in a stacked state (horizontally stacked), the drive battery pack being capable of charging a plurality of battery cells (111-1 to 111-N) using an external power supply,
the control device comprising:
a storage device (control unit 12 executes processes, indicating a storage device storing a program) that has stored a program; and
a processor (Pg.2, Para.5: control unit 12 may be a processor) connected to the storage device,
wherein the processor executes the program stored in the storage device to:
acquire an indicator value regarding deterioration of the plurality of battery cells (Pg.3, Para.3: calculating unit 123 acquires cell expansion amounts and calculates a module expansion amount); and
perform processing for prohibiting charging of the drive battery pack from the external power supply (Pg.3, Para.5: switch 13 is opened, which prohibits charging of the battery cells when connected to an external power supply) when the indicator value has reached a first threshold value (Pg.3, Para.5: when the module expansion amount exceeds the module expansion threshold).
Tsutake fails to explicitly teach the indicator value being a capacity retention rate of the plurality of battery cells, the capacity retention rate is calculated on the basis of a value and an initial capacity, the value being obtained by dividing an integrated value of a charging current of the drive battery pack in a predetermined period by an amount of change in a state of charge of the drive battery pack in the predetermined period; and
wherein the processor performs processing for continuously charging the drive battery pack by regenerative power generated by the motor of the electric vehicle and causing an information output device capable of outputting information to an occupant in the electric vehicle to output first notification information when the indicator value has risen and reached a first threshold value.
However, Okamato teaches that electric vehicles commonly have a processor (Fig.1, 50) which performs processing for continuously charging the drive battery pack by regenerative power generated by the motor of the electric vehicle (¶0022: the motor unit converts kinetic energy to charge the battery; ¶0027: PCU 70 is controlled by vehicle ECU 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Tsutake to include continuously charging the drive battery pack by regenerative power generated by the motor of the electric vehicle. Doing so allows the vehicle to recover energy and extend the life of the braking system.
Moreover, Shirataki (Fig.1) teaches a battery controller (3) connected to a display (4) which measures an indication value (Pg.5, Para.3: internal resistance value) of a secondary battery (21) and displays a notification when the indication has reached a first threshold (Pg.5, Paras. 3 & 4: condition (3-3) the internal resistance is more than the third stop threshold; if (3-3) holds a notification that the secondary battery has significantly deteriorated is displayed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Tsutake to include a display and provide a notification when the indication value reaches a first threshold value and to have the indicator value of deterioration be an internal resistance, as taught by Shirataki. Doing so provides visual alert to a user allowing them to understand why the system may not be functioning as expected.
Additionally, Yamasaki teaches that it is common in the art for the capacity retention rate of a battery to be used to estimate a degree of deterioration while including a threshold (Fig.3, Capacity retention rate reduces as elapsed time increases, reaching a threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Tsutake with Yamasaki to use a deterioration metric that falls to a threshold, i.e. the capacity retention rate. Doing so allows a system to provide an indication of the need for a battery replacement.
Lastly, Kubo teaches that it is common in the art for a capacity retention rate to be calculated on the basis of a value and an initial capacity (¶0038; Formula (2)), the value being obtained by dividing an integrated value of a charging current of the drive battery pack in a predetermined period by an amount of change in a state of charge of the drive battery pack in the predetermined period (¶0037; Formula (1)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Tsutake, in view of Okamoto, Shirataki, and Yamasaki, with Kubo to have the capacity retention rate be calculated on the basis of a value and an initial capacity, the value being obtained by dividing an integrated value of a charging current of the drive battery pack in a predetermined period by an amount of change in a state of charge of the drive battery pack in the predetermined period. Doing so helps curb a user’s feeling a sense of incompatibility, as evidenced by Kubo.
Regarding Claim 9, Tsutake, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor causes the information output device to output second notification information when the indicator value has risen and reached a second threshold value that is a value smaller than the first threshold value.
However, Shirataki further teaches a second threshold (Pg.3, Para.3: third warning threshold value) that is smaller than the first threshold value (Pg.3, Para.3: third stop threshold is larger than the third warning threshold value) which causes a second output notification to be displayed (Pg.3, Paras.3 & 4: condition (3-2) internal resistance value is greater than or equal to the third warning threshold value; if (3-2) holds a notification that the battery pack has deteriorated and a spare battery should be prepared is displayed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Tsutake, in view of Okamoto, Shirataki, Yamasaki, and Kubo, with Shirataki to further include a second threshold and second notification. Doing so allows a user to be notified that a battery is reaching a deteriorated state allowing them to replace a battery prior to a state in which the system may not be functioning as expected.
Regarding Claim 20, Tsutake, as modified, further teaches wherein the processor performs processing for prohibiting charging of the drive battery pack from the external power supply when the internal resistance value has risen and reached the first threshold value (Pg.3, Para.5: switch 13 is opened, which prohibits charging of the battery cells when connected to an external power supply, when the module expansion amount exceeds the module expansion threshold).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutake, in view of Okamoto, Shirataki, and Soga, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugiyama et al. (USPGPN 2022/0299574 A1 – filed Aug. 30, 2021)
Regarding Claim 10, Tsutake, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor stores a transition of the indicator value in a storage device, and causes the information output device to output second notification information when the indicator value is expected to reach the first threshold value after a predetermined time or after a predetermined distance is traveled on the basis of the transition of the indicator value.
However, Sugiyama teaches monitoring a transition of an internal state (Fig.2, monitoring a state parameter over time), uses the monitored information to generate an estimated time in which the monitored state reaches a threshold state (Fig.4, S114), and provides a notification if the monitored state is predicted to reach the threshold state within an estimated time (¶0070: if the arrival time is a threshold time or less, execute an alert for the battery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Tsutake, in view of Okamoto, Shirataki, and Soga, to include a time estimation that predicts when an indication value reaches a threshold, based on transition information of the indication value, and outputs a second notification if the threshold is predicted to be reached after a predetermined time.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutake, in view of Okamoto, Shirataki, Yamasaki, and Kubo, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sugiyama.
Regarding Claim 11, Tsutake, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor stores a transition of the indicator value in a storage device, and causes the information output device to output second notification information when the indicator value is expected to reach the first threshold value after a predetermined time or after a predetermined distance is traveled on the basis of the transition of the indicator value.
However, Sugiyama teaches monitoring a transition of an internal state (Fig.2, monitoring a state parameter over time), uses the monitored information to generate an estimated time in which the monitored state reaches a threshold state (Fig.4, S114), and provides a notification if the monitored state is predicted to reach the threshold state within an estimated time (¶0070: if the arrival time is a threshold time or less, execute an alert for the battery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Tsutake, in view of Okamoto, Shirataki, Yamasaki, and Kubo, to include a time estimation that predicts when an indication value reaches a threshold, based on transition information of the indication value, and outputs a second notification if the threshold is predicted to be reached after a predetermined time.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutake, in view of Okamoto, Shirataki, and Soga, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Nansaka et al. (USPGPN 2010/0316906 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Tsutake, as modified, further teaches wherein each of the plurality of battery cells (Fig.2,111-1 to 111-N) is horizontally stacked while mounted in the electric vehicle (Fig.2).
Tsutake, as modified, fails to explicitly define the plurality of battery cells as can-shaped prismatic cells.
However, Nansaka teaches that it is common to use prismatic cells in electric vehicles, and the use of rectangular cans to contain the prismatic cells (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Tsutake, in view of Okamoto, Shirataki, and Soga, with Nansaka to use can-shaped prismatic cells for powering the load (EV). Doing so allows for a packed battery for an EV in which short circuiting between the cells can be reliably prevented.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutake, in view of Okamoto, Shirataki, and Sugaya, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Sugiyama.
Regarding Claim 17, Tsutake, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor stores a transition of the indicator value in a storage device, and causes the information output device to output second notification information when the indicator value is expected to reach the first threshold value after a predetermined time or after a predetermined distance is traveled on the basis of the transition of the indicator value.
However, Sugiyama teaches monitoring a transition of an internal state (Fig.2, monitoring a state parameter over time), uses the monitored information to generate an estimated time in which the monitored state reaches a threshold state (Fig.4, S114), and provides a notification if the monitored state is predicted to reach the threshold state within an estimated time (¶0070: if the arrival time is a threshold time or less, execute an alert for the battery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Tsutake, in view of Okamoto, Shirataki, and Sugaya, to include a time estimation that predicts when an indication value reaches a threshold, based on transition information of the indication value, and outputs a second notification if the threshold is predicted to be reached after a predetermined time.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutake, in view of Okamoto, Shirataki, and Sugaya, as applied in the rejection of claim 3 above, and further in view of Nansaka.
Regarding Claim 18, Tsutake, as modified, further teaches wherein each of the plurality of battery cells (Fig.2,111-1 to 111-N) is horizontally stacked while mounted in the electric vehicle (Fig.2).
Tsutake, as modified, fails to explicitly define the plurality of battery cells as can-shaped prismatic cells.
However, Nansaka teaches that it is common to use prismatic cells in electric vehicles, and the use of rectangular cans to contain the prismatic cells (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Tsutake, in view of Okamoto, Shirataki, and Sugaya, with Nansaka to use can-shaped prismatic cells for powering the load (EV). Doing so allows for a packed battery for an EV in which short circuiting between the cells can be reliably prevented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights