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
The amendment filed September 7th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The rejections based over Chalasani et al. are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, & 15, Applicant recites, “the average SOC to to the at least one rack controller”. This phrase contains a duplicated word typographical error. 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 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, & 15, Applicant recites, “a high-rate discharging”. Its unclear how “high-rate” further limits the term “discharging”. What exactly constitutes “high-rate”? Appropriate action is required.
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 1-2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14-16, and 18are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair et al. (US 2001/0033502 A1) in view of Oji (US 2022/0244317 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0399619 A1) in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2021/0188121 A1) in view of Jau et al. (US 2015/0331468 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Blair et al. discloses a removable battery module (Paragraph 0077 - system control module), the removable battery module comprising:
a communication interface configured to communicatively couple with at least one rack controller of a rack system (Fig. 14, all the various electronics mounted on the PCB 112, includes a micro-controller – Paragraph 0052);
a module controller comprising a micro-controller on a printed circuit board (Fig. 14, #112 includes a micro-controller & Paragraph 0052);
estimating a value of a state of charge of at least one battery of the removable battery module in response to the removable battery module being installed in the rack system to report to the rack controller (Paragraph 0077 – when battery module is re-inserted into a system the battery module controller );
the battery module controller automatically updates its state of charge (Paragraph 0077)
determining whether an estimated value of the state of charge of the at lest one battery is greater than a threshold SOC (Paragraph 0081);
starting a float timer in response to determining that the at least one battery is in a float state (Paragraph 0081-0082);
generating a current estimate value (Paragraph 0074 – charging current is monitored) for the SOC of the at least one battery by increasing the estimated value of the SOC over a remaining time (Paragraph 0081-0082);
Blair et al. does not disclose that the generating a current estimate value for the state of charge of the at least one battery by increasing the estimated value of the SOC over a remaining time of the float timer based on a float current.
Oji discloses generating a current estimate value for the status of charge by increasing the estimated value of the status of charge over a remaining time of the float timer based on a float current (Paragraph 0115-0116, 0118-0119, 0129-0135, 0139). Oji discloses that an object of the invention is to provide an estimation device, an estimation method, and a computer program capable of accurately estimating the degradation of the energy storage device (Paragraph 0007). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt the teachings of Oji’s controller and include these teachings into Blair et al. controller for the advantage of having a configuration that is capable of accurately estimating the degradation of the energy storage device.
While Oji does not explicitly disclose reporting the current estimate value for the SOC of the at least one battery to the at least one rack controller, it is disclosed that the module controller calculates the status of charge (SOC) (Paragraph 0116) and that its communicates with a external controller (Fig. 5, the module controller 61 is connected to external rack controller 15 - Paragraph 0084-0086, 0108).
Lee et al. discloses that modules controllers may transmit values such as status of charge (SOC) to an external rack controller (Paragraph 0036). Lee et al. teaches that the rack controller may monitor these various parameters (including current implying status of charge) and can control the protection means of the battery (Paragraph 0041). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have Oji’s teaching include reporting the current estimate value for the SOC of the at least one battery to the at least one rack controller so the rack controller could monitor this parameter and ensure that the removable battery module is being protected.
Modified Blair et al. while disclosing the status of charge is calculated for the at least one battery and that said status of charge that is calculated is than reported to the rack controller, does not disclose that its an average status of charge that’s being calculated and reported to the at least one rack controller.
Kikuchi et al. discloses a module controller for a battery (ECU) that calculates an average status of charge of all cells in a battery that’s then reported to an upper level controller (HV ECU) to be used to calculate a status of charge to be used in the charging and discharging control of the battery (Paragraph 0059 & claim 4). Kikuchi et al. discloses that a problem may arise as to what type of data is exchanged between a battery (battery pack including controller ECU) and an upper level controller (HV ECU) and that its undesirable to exchange status of charge information of all cells in consideration of an increase in a calculation load and/or a communication load (Paragraph 0052) and that this configuration prevents complication of control (Paragraph 0067) while allowing charging and discharging to be appropriately controlled (Paragraph 0075). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the average status of charge calculated and reported to the rack controller in modified Blair et al. for the advantage of ensuring that there is not an increase in calculation load and/or communication and preventing complication of control while allowing charging and discharging to be appropriately controlled.
Modified Blair et al. does not explicitly disclose that the at least one battery is in a high rate discharging when the at least one battery provides power for the rack system before a backup generator provides power to the rack system.
Jau et al. discloses a battery is in a 100% discharging rate when the at least one battery provides power for the rack system before a backup generator provides power to the rack system (Paragraph 0022-0023, 0035-0037). Jau discloses that this is used to bridge the gap after a loss of main grid power and the backup generator power systems come online and redundant power is continuously available from a charged battery attached to a rack system such that any power loss to a system is avoided (Paragraph 0022-023). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the at least one battery in a high rate discharging when the at least one battery provides power for the rack system before a backup generator provides power to the rack system for the advantage of having a system that avoids power loss.
In view of Claim 2, Blair et al., Oji, Lee et al., Kikuchi et al. and Jau et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Blair et al. discloses determining that the float timer has expired and setting the current estimate value for the status of charge of the at least one battery to 100% (Paragraph 0081-0082).
In view of Claim 4, Blair et al., Oji, Lee et al., Kikuchi et al. and Jau et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Blair et al. discloses determining whether the at least one battery is discharging; measuring in response to determining that the at least one battery is discharging a discharge current and decreasing based on the discharge current the current estimate value for the status of charge of the at least one battery while the at least one battery is discharging (Paragraph 0072-0074, 0080 & 0084).
Oji additionally teaches that calculating a rate of status of charge from measured current and elapsed time (Paragraph 0118) and determining a discharge state when the rate of status of charge change is negative (Paragraph 0120) and a rate of status of charge is negative during discharge (Paragraph 0123).
In view of Claim 7, Blair et al., Oji, Lee et al., Kikuchi et al. and Jau et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Blair et al. teaches the threshold status of charge is greater than or equal to 80% (Paragraph 0081-0082).
In view of Claim 8, Blair et al. discloses a method operable by a removable battery module for a rack system, the rack system including at least one rack controller (Paragraph 0077 - system control module), the method comprising:
estimating a value of a state of charge of at least one battery of the removable battery module in response to the removable battery module being installed in the rack system to report to the rack controller (Paragraph 0077 – when battery module is re-inserted into a system the battery module controller );
the battery module controller automatically updates its state of charge (Paragraph 0077)
determining whether an estimated value of the state of charge of the at lest one battery is greater than a threshold SOC (Paragraph 0081);
starting a float timer in response to determining that the at least one battery is in a float state (Paragraph 0081-0082);
generating a current estimate value (Paragraph 0074 – charging current is monitored) for the SOC of the at least one battery by increasing the estimated value of the SOC over a remaining time (Paragraph 0081-0082);
Blair et al. does not disclose that the generating a current estimate value for the state of charge of the at least one battery by increasing the estimated value of the SOC over a remaining time of the float timer based on a float current.
Oji discloses generating a current estimate value for the status of charge by increasing the estimated value of the status of charge over a remaining time of the float timer based on a float current (Paragraph 0115-0116, 0118-0119, 0129-0135, 0139). Oji discloses that an object of the invention is to provide an estimation device, an estimation method, and a computer program capable of accurately estimating the degradation of the energy storage device (Paragraph 0007). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt the teachings of Oji’s controller and include these teachings into Blair et al. controller for the advantage of having a configuration that is capable of accurately estimating the degradation of the energy storage device.
While Oji does not explicitly disclose reporting the current estimate value for the SOC of the at least one battery to the at least one rack controller, it is disclosed that the module controller calculates the status of charge (SOC) (Paragraph 0116) and that its communicates with a external controller (Fig. 5, the module controller 61 is connected to external rack controller 15 - Paragraph 0084-0086, 0108).
Lee et al. discloses that modules controllers may transmit values such as status of charge (SOC) to an external rack controller (Paragraph 0036). Lee et al. teaches that the rack controller may monitor these various parameters (including current implying status of charge) and can control the protection means of the battery (Paragraph 0041). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have Oji’s teaching include reporting the current estimate value for the SOC of the at least one battery to the at least one rack controller so the rack controller could monitor this parameter and ensure that the removable battery module is being protected.
Modified Blair et al. while disclosing the status of charge is calculated for the at least one battery and that said status of charge that is calculated is than reported to the rack controller, does not disclose that its an average status of charge that’s being calculated and reported to the at least one rack controller.
Kikuchi et al. discloses a module controller for a battery (ECU) that calculates an average status of charge of all cells in a battery that’s then reported to an upper level controller (HV ECU) to be used to calculate a status of charge to be used in the charging and discharging control of the battery (Paragraph 0059 & claim 4). Kikuchi et al. discloses that a problem may arise as to what type of data is exchanged between a battery (battery pack including controller ECU) and an upper level controller (HV ECU) and that its undesirable to exchange status of charge information of all cells in consideration of an increase in a calculation load and/or a communication load (Paragraph 0052) and that this configuration prevents complication of control (Paragraph 0067) while allowing charging and discharging to be appropriately controlled (Paragraph 0075). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the average status of charge calculated and reported to the rack controller in modified Blair et al. for the advantage of ensuring that there is not an increase in calculation load and/or communication and preventing complication of control while allowing charging and discharging to be appropriately controlled.
Modified Blair et al. does not explicitly disclose that the at least one battery is in a high rate discharging when the at least one battery provides power for the rack system before a backup generator provides power to the rack system.
Jau et al. discloses a battery is in a 100% discharging rate when the at least one battery provides power for the rack system before a backup generator provides power to the rack system (Paragraph 0022-0023, 0035-0037). Jau discloses that this is used to bridge the gap after a loss of main grid power and the backup generator power systems come online and redundant power is continuously available from a charged battery attached to a rack system such that any power loss to a system is avoided (Paragraph 0022-023). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the at least one battery in a high rate discharging when the at least one battery provides power for the rack system before a backup generator provides power to the rack system for the advantage of having a system that avoids power loss.
In view of Claim 9, Blair et al., Oji, Lee et al., Kikuchi et al. and Jau et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Blair et al. discloses determining that the float timer has expired and setting the current estimate value for the status of charge of the at least one battery to 100% (Paragraph 0081-0082).
In view of Claim 11, Blair et al., Oji, Lee et al., Kikuchi et al. and Jau et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Blair et al. discloses determining whether the at least one battery is discharging; measuring in response to determining that the at least one battery is discharging a discharge current and decreasing base don the discharge current the current estimate value for the status of charge of the at least one battery while the at least one battery is discharging (Paragraph 0072-0074, 0080 & 0084).
Oji additionally teaches that calculating a rate of status of charge from measured current and elapsed time (Paragraph 0118) and determining a discharge state when the rate of status of charge change is negative (Paragraph 0120) and a rate of status of charge is negative during discharge (Paragraph 0123).
In view of Claim 14, Blair et al., Oji, Lee et al., Kikuchi et al. and Jau et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Blair et al. teaches the threshold status of charge is greater than or equal to 80% (Paragraph 0081-0082).
In view of Claim 15, Blair et al. discloses a rack system (Fig. 1) comprising a mounting frame configured to mount rack-mount equipment within an interior portion of the rack system, the mounting frame extending along at least a portion of a height of the rack system (Fig. 1, #1 & Paragraph 0020); at least one rack controller disposed within a peripheral portion of the rack system the peripheral portion disposed external to the interior portion and extending along at least a portion of the mounting frame (Fig. 1, #2/#3 – Paragraph 0020) and removable battery module (Paragraph 0077 - system control module), the removable battery module comprising:
a communication interface configured to communicatively couple with at least one rack controller of a rack system (Fig. 14, all the various electronics mounted on the PCB 112, includes a micro-controller – Paragraph 0052);
a module controller comprising a micro-controller on a printed circuit board (Fig. 14, #112 includes a micro-controller & Paragraph 0052);
estimating a value of a state of charge of at least one battery of the removable battery module in response to the removable battery module being installed in the rack system to report to the rack controller (Paragraph 0077 – when battery module is re-inserted into a system the battery module controller );
the battery module controller automatically updates its state of charge (Paragraph 0077)
determining whether an estimated value of the state of charge of the at lest one battery is greater than a threshold SOC (Paragraph 0081);
starting a float timer in response to determining that the at least one battery is in a float state (Paragraph 0081-0082);
generating a current estimate value (Paragraph 0074 – charging current is monitored) for the SOC of the at least one battery by increasing the estimated value of the SOC over a remaining time (Paragraph 0081-0082);
Blair et al. does not disclose that the generating a current estimate value for the state of charge of the at least one battery by increasing the estimated value of the SOC over a remaining time of the float timer based on a float current.
Oji discloses generating a current estimate value for the status of charge by increasing the estimated value of the status of charge over a remaining time of the float timer based on a float current (Paragraph 0115-0116, 0118-0119, 0129-0135, 0139). Oji discloses that an object of the invention is to provide an estimation device, an estimation method, and a computer program capable of accurately estimating the degradation of the energy storage device (Paragraph 0007). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt the teachings of Oji’s controller and include these teachings into Blair et al. controller for the advantage of having a configuration that is capable of accurately estimating the degradation of the energy storage device.
While Oji does not explicitly disclose reporting the current estimate value for the SOC of the at least one battery to the at least one rack controller, it is disclosed that the module controller calculates the status of charge (SOC) (Paragraph 0116) and that its communicates with a external controller (Fig. 5, the module controller 61 is connected to external rack controller 15 - Paragraph 0084-0086, 0108).
Lee et al. discloses that modules controllers may transmit values such as status of charge (SOC) to an external rack controller (Paragraph 0036). Lee et al. teaches that the rack controller may monitor these various parameters (including current implying status of charge) and can control the protection means of the battery (Paragraph 0041). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have Oji’s teaching include reporting the current estimate value for the SOC of the at least one battery to the at least one rack controller so the rack controller could monitor this parameter and ensure that the removable battery module is being protected.
Modified Blair et al. while disclosing the status of charge is calculated for the at least one battery and that said status of charge that is calculated is than reported to the rack controller, does not disclose that its an average status of charge that’s being calculated and reported to the at least one rack controller.
Kikuchi et al. discloses a module controller for a battery (ECU) that calculates an average status of charge of all cells in a battery that’s then reported to an upper level controller (HV ECU) to be used to calculate a status of charge to be used in the charging and discharging control of the battery (Paragraph 0059 & claim 4). Kikuchi et al. discloses that a problem may arise as to what type of data is exchanged between a battery (battery pack including controller ECU) and an upper level controller (HV ECU) and that its undesirable to exchange status of charge information of all cells in consideration of an increase in a calculation load and/or a communication load (Paragraph 0052) and that this configuration prevents complication of control (Paragraph 0067) while allowing charging and discharging to be appropriately controlled (Paragraph 0075). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the average status of charge calculated and reported to the rack controller in modified Blair et al. for the advantage of ensuring that there is not an increase in calculation load and/or communication and preventing complication of control while allowing charging and discharging to be appropriately controlled.
Modified Blair et al. does not explicitly disclose that the at least one battery is in a high rate discharging when the at least one battery provides power for the rack system before a backup generator provides power to the rack system.
Jau et al. discloses a battery is in a 100% discharging rate when the at least one battery provides power for the rack system before a backup generator provides power to the rack system (Paragraph 0022-0023, 0035-0037). Jau discloses that this is used to bridge the gap after a loss of main grid power and the backup generator power systems come online and redundant power is continuously available from a charged battery attached to a rack system such that any power loss to a system is avoided (Paragraph 0022-023). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the at least one battery in a high rate discharging when the at least one battery provides power for the rack system before a backup generator provides power to the rack system for the advantage of having a system that avoids power loss.
In view of Claim 16, Blair et al., Oji, Lee et al., Kikuchi et al. and Jau et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Blair et al. discloses determining that the float timer has expired and setting the current estimate value for the status of charge of the at least one battery to 100% (Paragraph 0081-0082).
In view of Claim 18, Blair et al., Oji, Lee et al., Kikuchi et al. and Jau et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. Blair et al. discloses determining whether the at least one battery is discharging; measuring in response to determining that the at least one battery is discharging a discharge current and decreasing based on the discharge current the current estimate value for the status of charge of the at least one battery while the at least one battery is discharging (Paragraph 0072-0074, 0080 & 0084).
Oji additionally teaches that calculating a rate of status of charge from measured current and elapsed time (Paragraph 0118) and determining a discharge state when the rate of status of charge change is negative (Paragraph 0120) and a rate of status of charge is negative during discharge (Paragraph 0123).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair et al. (US 2001/0033502 A1) in view of Oji (US 2022/0244317 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0399619 A1) in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2021/0188121 A1) in view of Jau et al. (US 2015/0331468 A1) in view of Karner et al. (US 2019/0033397 A1).
In view of Claim 3, Blair et al., Oji, Lee et al., Kikuchi et al. and Jau et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Modified Blair et al. does not disclose performing an equalization charge on the at least one battery in response to determining that the float timer has expired.
Karner et al. discloses performing an equalization charge on a battery in response to a float timer expiring because this ensures that all monoblocs comprising the battery have reached full charge (Paragraph 0127). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to perform an equalization charge on the at least one battery in response to determining that the float timer has expired to ensure that all of the cells have reached full charge.
In view of Claim 10, Blair et al., Oji, Lee et al., Kikuchi et al. and Jau et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Modified Blair et al. does not disclose performing an equalization charge on the at least one battery in response to determining that the float timer has expired.
Karner et al. discloses performing an equalization charge on a battery in response to a float timer expiring because this ensures that all monoblocs comprising the battery have reached full charge (Paragraph 0127). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to perform an equalization charge on the at least one battery in response to determining that the float timer has expired to ensure that all of the cells have reached full charge.
In view of Claim 17, Blair et al., Oji, Lee et al., Kikuchi et al. and Jau et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Modified Blair et al. does not disclose performing an equalization charge on the at least one battery in response to determining that the float timer has expired.
Karner et al. discloses performing an equalization charge on a battery in response to a float timer expiring because this ensures that all monoblocs comprising the battery have reached full charge (Paragraph 0127). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to perform an equalization charge on the at least one battery in response to determining that the float timer has expired to ensure that all of the cells have reached full charge.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current rejection.
The Examiner and Applicant’s representative did discuss incorporating features of claim 1 and claim 15 into method claim 8 to make it allowable. Although Applicant did not accept the amendment, the Blair reference did come up in a subsequent interference search which would have obviated this agreement.
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 DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights