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 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The recitation of “the side wall is made of a material with a hardness higher than a rubber” in claim 8 is a relative limitation which renders the claim indefinite. Examiner finds that there are a plethora of different rubber materials which range in hardness and therefore claiming that the material has a hardness which is “higher than a rubber” is indefinite because it is unclear which rubber material the side wall is stronger than and therefore it is unclear to examiner what hardness range is being claimed. For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action, examiner is interpreting “the side wall is made of a material with a hardness higher than a rubber” to be --the side wall is made of a material with a hardness--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nam et al. (US20200008637), hereinafter Nam.
Regarding claim 1, Nam discloses a cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1 element 1), comprising: a suction system (Fig. 5 element 20) configured to generate a suction force for sucking dirty air into the cleaning apparatus (0076, Claim 1); a separation system (Fig. 5 elements 110, 124, and 130) configured to separate garbage in the dirty air (0057-0058, where dust corresponds to garbage), wherein the separation system comprises at least a primary separation system (Fig. 5 element 110) and a secondary separation system (Fig. 5 elements 124 and 130); a filtering system (Fig. 5 element 29) configured to further filter air passing through the separation system (0134); and a garbage collection system (Fig. 5 elements 121 and 123), wherein the garbage collection system comprises at least a first garbage collection cavity (Fig. 5 element 121) configured to collect the garbage passing through the primary separation system (0067) and a second garbage collection cavity (Fig. 5 element 123) configured to collect the garbage passing through the secondary separation system (0067); wherein the first garbage collection cavity and the second garbage collection cavity have a common airtight cover (Fig. 5 element 16), a bottom of the second garbage collection cavity and a bottom of the first garbage collection cavity are located on the airtight cover in a direction extending outward from a center of the airtight cover (see annotated Fig. 5 below, 0064-0067 and 0075, where the dust storage guide (124) and the primary separation system (10) define the first and second garbage collection cavities, and the airtight cover contacting both the dust storage guide and the primary separation system means that a bottom of the first and second garbage collection cavities are located on the airtight cover in a direction extending outward from a center of the airtight cover), and the first garbage collection cavity and the second garbage collection cavity are isolated in a sealed manner in a direction perpendicular to a surface of the airtight cover (see annotated Fig. 5 below, 0066-0067, where the dust from the primary and secondary separation units (110 and 124/130, respectively) being stored separately in the first and second garbage collection cavities (121 and 123, respectively) means that the first and second garbage collection cavities are isolated in a sealed manner); wherein a space of the first garbage collection cavity (0068, where "the space between the dust storage guide 124 and the first body 10 is the first dust storage part 121" corresponds to a space of the first garbage collection cavity) and a space of the second garbage collection cavity (0068, where "The internal space of the dust storage guide 124 is the second dust storage part 123" corresponds to a space of the second garbage collection cavity) above the airtight cover is isolated by a wall of the secondary separation system (Fig. 5, where element 124 corresponds to a wall of the secondary separation system), and compression sealing is formed between the wall and the airtight cover (Fig. 5, 0066-0067, where the wall of the secondary separation system (124) contacting the top of the airtight cover (16) means that the sealing will be compression sealing); wherein a sealing element groove is formed at an upper portion of the airtight cover (see annotated Fig. 5' below, where the upper portion corresponds to the portion of the airtight cover (16) which is above the bottommost surface of the airtight cover), an integral sealing element is disposed in the sealing element groove (see annotated Fig. 5' below), and the wall compresses the integral sealing element to form the compression sealing when the airtight cover is closed (see annotated Fig. 5' below, 0066-0067, where the contact discussed in 0066 is shown in annotated Fig. 5' below to be compression between the wall (124) and the sealing element), wherein a top of the integral sealing element is in a circular shape instead of a complete circle (see annotated Fig. 5’ below, where the top of the integral sealing element is only circular in shape instead of a complete circle because there are different edges which can be measured to from the center, therefore making the top of the integral sealing element not a complete circle).
PNG
media_image1.png
634
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
634
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Nam discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the integral sealing element further comprises a sealing element (see annotated Fig. 5'' below), a sealing element outer wing (see annotated Fig. 5'' below) and a sealing element inner wing (see annotated Fig. 5'' below), the sealing element outer wing is placed in an outer groove of the airtight cover (see annotated Fig. 5’’’ below), the sealing element is placed in an inner groove of the airtight cover (see annotated Fig. 5’’’ below), and the sealing element inner wing extends towards the center of the airtight cover (see annotated Fig. 5’’ below).
PNG
media_image3.png
396
738
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
465
564
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Nam discloses the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and further discloses the inner groove and the outer groove are isolated by an in-groove isolation body in a radial direction of the airtight cover (see annotated Fig. 5''' above).
Regarding claim 7, Nam discloses the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and further discloses the sealing element inner wing is attached to the upward protrusion formed in the center of the airtight cover, and a height of the sealing element does not exceed a height of a vertex of the protrusion (see annotated Fig. 5' above, where the height of the sealing element (where the sealing element is shown in annotated Fig. 5'' above) is shown to be lower than the vertex of the protrusion).
Regarding claim 8, Nam discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the side wall is made of a material with a hardness (Fig. 5, where the side wall (124) is inherently made of some type of material which has a hardness).
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US20200008637), hereinafter Nam, in view of Zhang (WO2018188632A1), attached as a PDF.
Regarding claim 9, Nam discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the integral sealing element is solid rubber formed integrally.
Zhang is also concerned with a cleaning apparatus and teaches the integral sealing element (Fig. 3 element 852) is solid rubber (0008). It 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 to modify the cleaning apparatus of Nam to make the integral sealing element be solid rubber, as taught by Zhang, because Zhang teaches that a solid rubber integral sealing element provides a secure placement between two elements (0008). Also, pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Nam discloses the invention except that the integral sealing element material is not specified instead of the material being solid rubber. Zhang shows that an integral sealing element made of solid rubber is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both structures provide sealing between at least two elements). Therefore, because these two integral sealing element types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute an integral sealing element made of solid rubber for an integral sealing element of an unspecified material.
Regarding the solid rubber being formed integrally, in accordance to MPEP2112, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. a cleaning apparatus with a solid rubber integral sealing element, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. forming the solid rubber integrally.
Regarding claim 10, Nam discloses the limitations of claim 5, as described above and further discloses the sealing element is compressed by the side wall when the airtight cover is closed (Fig. 5, where the sealing element is capable of some amount of compression when the wall applies pressure to the sealing element)
Nam fails to disclose that the sealing element is compressed by a distance of 1 to 5 mm. Examiner finds that the only information that Applicant provides regarding this limitation is that the sealing element is made of rubber and is pressed upon by the second wall, i.e. wall of the secondary separation system (see paragraphs 0045-0046 of Applicant’s specification where examiner notes that “hardness” has been discussed, but Applicant provides no definition as to what “hardness” is and therefore this information cannot be relied upon). Therefore, examiner finds that having the sealing element be made of rubber would meet the claimed limitation of “the sealing element is compressed by a distance of 1 to 5 mm”.
Zhang is also concerned with a cleaning apparatus and teaches the sealing element (Fig. 3 element 852) is rubber (0008). It 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 to modify the cleaning apparatus of Nam to make the sealing element be rubber, as taught by Zhang, because Zhang teaches that a rubber sealing element provides a secure placement between two elements (0008). Also, pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Nam discloses the invention except that the sealing element material is not specified instead of the material being rubber. Zhang shows that a sealing element made of rubber is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both structures provide sealing between at least two elements). Therefore, because these two sealing element types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a sealing element made of rubber for a sealing element of an unspecified material.
Nam, as modified, then yields the sealing element is compressed by a distance of 1 to 5 mm (Zhang, 008, where the sealing element being made of rubber meets this limitation).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US20200008637), hereinafter Nam, in view of Peng (US20130291334).
Regarding claim 11, Nam discloses the secondary separation system comprises a secondary cyclone separator (Fig. 5 element 130 where the secondary cyclone separator is a subset of the secondary separation system which encompasses the entirety of the secondary separation system), and the secondary cyclone separator comprises: at least one cyclone pipe (see annotated Fig. 18 below) configured to separate the dirty air (0251-0252); an airflow inlet (0251, where the structure which allows "The air separated from the dust flows into the second cyclone unit" corresponds to an airflow inlet) configured to allow an airflow to enter the secondary cyclone separator (0251); an overflow pipe (see annotated Fig. 18 below) configured to discharge the airflow from the secondary cyclone separator (see annotated Fig. 18 below, where it shows the airflow discharging from the secondary cyclone separator through the overflow pipe).
Nam fails to disclose a front filter screen disposed perpendicular to the overflow pipe and configured to filter the airflow discharged from the overflow pipe; and a front filter screen cover configured to fix the front filter screen in a front filter screen mounting groove.
Peng is also concerned with a cleaning apparatus and teaches the secondary separation system comprises a secondary cyclone separator (Fig. 3 elements 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, where the secondary cyclone separator is a subset of the secondary separation system which encompasses the entirety of the secondary separation system), and the secondary cyclone separator comprises: at least one cyclone pipe (Fig. 1 elements 31) configured to separate the dirty air (0011); an airflow inlet (0011, where "a first airflow passage" corresponds to an airflow inlet) configured to allow an airflow to enter the secondary cyclone separator (0011); an overflow pipe (see annotated Fig. 3' below) configured to discharge the airflow from the secondary cyclone separator (see annotated Fig. 3' below, where it shows the airflow discharging from the secondary cyclone separator through the overflow pipe); a front filter screen (Fig. 3 element 13) disposed perpendicular to the overflow pipe (see annotated Fig. 3' below) and configured to filter the airflow discharged from the overflow pipe (6:50-55); and a front filter screen cover (Fig. 2 elements 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19) configured to fix the front filter screen in a front filter screen mounting groove (see annotated Fig. 3' below). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Nam discloses the invention except that the second cyclone separator does not include a front filter screen and a front filter screen cover. Peng shows that a second cyclone separator that does include a front filter screen and a front filter screen cover is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both second cyclone separators function to separate dust from an airflow inside a cleaning apparatus). Therefore, because these two second cyclone separator types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a second cyclone separator that does include a front filter screen and a front filter screen cover for a second cyclone separator does not include a front filter screen and a front filter screen cover.
PNG
media_image5.png
790
696
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
437
492
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Nam, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses the front filter screen comprises a handle for holding the front filter screen, to take the front filter screen out from the front filter screen mounting groove (Peng, see annotated Fig. 3'' below, where the handle is capable of being used for holding the filter screen, to take the front filter screen out from the front filter screen mounting groove).
PNG
media_image7.png
559
658
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Nam, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses the front filter screen cover is disposed on the secondary cyclone separator through a pivoting part disposed at one end of a diameter of the front filter screen cover (Peng, Figs. 2 and 3 and see annotated Fig. 2 below, elements 18, 19, and the pivot joint of front filter screen shown in annotated Fig. 2 below, where Fig. 3 shows the front filter screen cover is disposed on the pivot joint of the secondary cyclone separator), and the pivoting part is configured to provide a rotary shaft (Peng, Fig. 2, where the circular projection coming out of the page on element 19 corresponds to a rotary shaft) for the front filter screen cover in an open state or a closed state (Peng, Fig. 3 shows a closed state and 0044 where the state after operating the release button (19) corresponds to an open state).
PNG
media_image8.png
567
573
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Nam, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further discloses the front filter screen cover further comprises an operation part disposed at the other end of the diameter of the front filter screen cover, and the operation part is configured to be used to open or close the front filter screen cover (Peng, Fig. 3, where any portion of element 17 or 16 on the left side of the longitudinal central axis shown in Fig. 3 which is capable of being gripped by a user to open or close the front filter screen cover corresponds to an operation part).
Regarding claim 15, Nam, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses a rib is disposed on the front filter screen cover, and the rib is configured to facilitate effective fixing of the front filter screen without affecting the airflow passing through the front filter screen (Peng, see annotated Fig. 3''' below, where the rib is capable of facilitating effective fixing of the front filter screen without affecting the airflow passing through the front filter screen).
PNG
media_image9.png
325
532
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claims 16, 18-21, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US20200008637), hereinafter Nam, in view of Peng (US20130291334), and in further view of Caro et al. (US9901230), hereinafter Caro.
Regarding claim 16, Nam, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses the front filter screen is of a circular structure (Peng, Fig. 2), and comprises a filter screen in the middle (Peng, see annotated Fig. 3''' above), and a peripheral portion fixing the filter screen (Peng, see annotated Fig. 3''' above).
Nam, as modified, fails to disclose that the filter screen is a multi-layer filter screen.
Caro is also concerned with a cleaning apparatus and teaches the filter screen (Fig. 4 element 98) is a multi-layer filter screen (Fig. 4, where the filter screen has a first layer (126) and a second layer (130)). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Nam, as modified, discloses the invention except that the filter screen is a single layer instead of a multi-layer filter screen. Caro shows that a multi-layer filter screen is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both filter screens provide filtration to air discharged from a secondary cyclone). Therefore, because these two filter screen types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a multi-layer filter screen for single layer filter screen.
Regarding claim 18, Nam, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further discloses the front filter screen cover comprises a hollowed-out portion or a hollow portion (Peng, Fig. 3, where the internal area of element 16 where the airflow is shown to be flowing through corresponds to a hollow portion), and an outer ring (Peng, Figs. 2 and 3 element 14) surrounding the hollowed-out portion or the hollow portion (Peng, Fig. 3 and see annotated Fig. 3’ above), and when the front filter screen cover is in a closed state (Peng, Fig. 3 shows the front filter screen cover in a closed state), the outer ring is abutted against the peripheral portion of the front filter screen (Peng, see annotated Fig. 3''' above, where the outer ring (14) described in 0044 as "A sealing ring 14 of dust bucket cover is provided between the dust bucket cover 16 and the tapered hole cover 1 so as for sealing and effectively preventing air leakage" abuts the uppermost surface of the peripheral portion of the front filter screen).
Regarding claim 19, Nam, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and further discloses an area of the hollowed-out portion or the hollow portion is greater than or equal to an area of the multi-layer filter screen (Peng, Fig. 3 shows the area of the hollow portion as being equal to the area of the multi-layer filter screen).
Regarding claim 20, Nam, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further discloses an interior of the cyclone pipe is in a tapered shape (Peng, Figs. 3, 4, and 5), and the secondary cyclone separator further comprises: an air inlet (Peng, Fig. 4 element 31a) tangentially disposed at an upper portion of the at least one cyclone pipe (Peng, see annotated Fig. 5 below); an outlet located at an end of a lower portion of the at least one cyclone pipe (Peng, see annotated Fig. 5 below), wherein the at least one cyclone pipe comprises peripheral cyclone pipes (Peng, Figs. 4 and5 elements 31, 0038) arranged circumferentially (Peng, Figs. 4 and 5); and a baffle plate extending outward between adjacent peripheral cyclone pipes along a direction away from the cyclone pipe, and being substantially tangent to one of every two adjacent peripheral cyclone pipes (Peng, see annotated Fig. 5 below, where the baffle plate being substantially tangent to every cyclone pipe meets this limitation).
PNG
media_image10.png
604
771
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Nam, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 20, as described above, and further discloses one or more central cyclone pipes (Peng, Figs. 4 and 5 element 32), wherein the peripheral cyclone pipes are disposed around the central cyclone pipe (Peng, Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 34, Nam, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 20, as described above, and further discloses an airflow direction at the air inlet is substantially perpendicular to the baffle plate (Peng, Fig. 2 and see annotated Fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 35, Nam, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 34, as described above, and further discloses an outer partition plate is further disposed between adjacent peripheral cyclone pipes, and the outer partition plate is connected to two adjacent peripheral cyclone pipes (Peng, see annotated Fig. 5’ below).
PNG
media_image11.png
605
728
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 36, Nam, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 35, as described above, and further discloses an inner partition plate is disposed between one or more central cyclone pipes and one or more peripheral cyclone pipes adjacent to the one or more central cyclone pipes (Peng, see annotated Fig. 5’’ below).
PNG
media_image12.png
596
1114
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the specification of Nam fails to discuss any specific structure of the body cover 16 and that examiner is unable to only rely upon the drawings to reject the instant application’s claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that pursuant MPEP 2125-I, “drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art”. Examiner finds that because Applicant has not argued examiner’s interpretation of the drawings of Nam, this argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Nam fails to disclose “a top of the integral sealing element is in a circular shape instead of a complete circle” because the top of the integral sealing element of Nam “is a complete arch with no missing parts”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that it appears Applicant is arguing limitations which are not present in the claim. The present claim only requires that the top of the integral sealing element (being interpreted by examiner to mean a top surface) has to be circular in shape, but not a complete circle, and examiner finds that Nam does disclose this feature (see annotated Fig. 5’ above, where the top of the integral sealing element is only circular in shape instead of a complete circle because there are different edges which can be measured to from the center, therefore making the top of the integral sealing element not a complete circle). See rejection of claim 1 above.
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 CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights