DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In responses to Applicant’s amendments dated February 27, 2026, claims 1, 9, and 17 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Status of Application
In view of Applicant’s amendments omitting “the first protection plate is fixed on the tray bottom plate”, the scope of the claimed invention is changed. The rejections provided in the Office Action dated 12/3/2026 are modified below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. The Applicant’s replacement drawings are accepted and the drawing objection in the recited Office Action is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 7-9, 11, 15-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. [CN209544447U, as provided on the IDS dated 4/25/2024, machine translation relied upon provided], hereinafter Ma.
Regarding Claim 1, Ma discloses a battery tray comprising:
a tray body, wherein the tray body comprises a tray bottom plate and a tray side beam located on a first surface of the tray bottom plate, and the tray side beam and the tray bottom plate define a battery accommodating cavity for accommodating a battery module or a cell [Ma 0032-0045 and throughout, Ma discloses a battery housing 101 [0032, 0045] for a battery pack [0035], where the housing is a battery box with a bottom guard plate assembly 100. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Ma’s disclosed battery box reads on a tray body 101 (a bottom and all sides of the box), a tray bottom plate (the bottom of the box, see annotated Fig. below), and a tray side beam (the sides of the box, see portion of Ma Fig. 3 below where a side beam is shown) located on a first surface of the tray bottom plate (side is on the upper surface of the bottom of the box). Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a battery housing [0032] is battery accommodating cavity for accommodating a battery module or a cell [0045, 0051].],
a first protection plate [Ma 0032-0046 and throughout, Figs. 1-2, Ma discloses a first protection plate layers 1, 2, and 6.], wherein the first protection plate comprises an energy-absorbing plate [Ma 0039-0045, Figs. 1-2, energy-absorbing layer 2] and high-strength plates located on two sides of the energy-absorbing plate [Ma 0039-0045, Figs. 1-2, high-strength plates are aluminum layers 6 and 1 on each side of plate 2], the energy-absorbing plate comprises a cellular structure [Ma 0041, Ma discloses aluminum foam, which reads on cellular structure.]; and
a second protection plate [Ma 0032-0046 and throughout, Fig. 1, auxiliary support layer 3], wherein a first surface of the second protection plate is coupled to the first protection plate, a second surface of the second protection plate is coupled to the tray body [Ma 0032-0046 and throughout, Fig. 1, Lower surface of 3 as the first surface, which is coupled to high-strength layer 6 of the first protection plate layers 6, 2, 1 in Fig. 1, and upper surface of 3 as the second surface, which is couple to the tray body in Fig. 1.], and
a wave impedance value of the second protection plate is less than a wave impedance value of the high-strength plates [Ma 0039-0044, Ma discloses the strength of the aluminum plate 1 (high-strength plate of the first protection plate 1, 2, 6) is higher that auxiliary support layer 3 (second protection plate) made of foam [0043]. Ma also discloses plate 6 is made of aluminum [0044], therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that both high-strength plates have a higher strength that the foam auxiliary support layer 3. Ma further discloses that auxiliary support layer 3 (second protection plate) is design for larger deformation that the energy absorbing layer [0043], which demonstrates that the auxiliary layer is a deformable foam. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Ma is that the wave impedance value, which is interpreted as the resistance to deformation, is less in the second protection plate (auxiliary support layer 3) that the high strength plates (aluminum plates 1 and 6). Thus, the limitation is met by Ma.].
PNG
media_image1.png
555
1144
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
285
1084
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Ma discloses the battery tray according to claim 1, wherein the second protection plate comprises a foaming material [Ma 0044].
Regarding Claim 9, Ma discloses a battery pack [Ma 0008, 0018-0020, and throughout], comprising a battery tray and a plurality of battery modules or cells [Ma 0008, 0018-0020, 0045, and throughout], wherein the battery tray comprises:
a tray body, wherein the tray body comprises a tray bottom plate and a tray side beam located on a first surface of the tray bottom plate, and the tray side beam and the tray bottom plate define a battery accommodating cavity for accommodating a battery module or a cell [Ma 0032-0045 and throughout, Ma discloses a battery housing 101 [0032, 0045] for a battery pack [0035], where the housing is a battery box with a bottom guard plate assembly 100. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Ma’s disclosed battery box reads on a tray body 101 (a bottom and all sides of the box), a tray bottom plate (the bottom of the box, see annotated Fig. below), and a tray side beam (the sides of the box, see portion of Ma Fig. 3 below where a side beam is shown) located on a first surface of the tray bottom plate (side is on the upper surface of the bottom of the box). Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a battery housing [0032] is battery accommodating cavity for accommodating a battery module or a cell [0045, 0051].],
a first protection plate [Ma 0032-0046 and throughout, Figs. 1-2, Ma discloses a first protection plate layers 1, 2, and 6.], wherein the first protection plate comprises an energy-absorbing plate [Ma 0039-0045, Figs. 1-2, energy-absorbing layer 2] and high-strength plates located on two sides of the energy-absorbing plate [Ma 0039-0045, Figs. 1-2, high-strength plates are aluminum layers 6 and 1 on each side of plate 2], the energy-absorbing plate comprises a cellular structure [Ma 0041, Ma discloses aluminum foam, which reads on cellular structure.]; and
a second protection plate [Ma 0032-0046 and throughout, Fig. 1, auxiliary support layer 3], wherein a first surface of the second protection plate is coupled to the first protection plate, a second surface of the second protection plate is coupled to the tray body [Ma 0032-0046 and throughout, Fig. 1, Lower surface of 3 as the first surface, which is coupled to high-strength layer 6 of the first protection plate layers 6, 2, 1 in Fig. 1, and upper surface of 3 as the second surface, which is couple to the tray body in Fig. 1.], and
a wave impedance value of the second protection plate is less than a wave impedance value of the high-strength plates [Ma 0039-0044, Ma discloses the strength of the aluminum plate 1 (high-strength plate of the first protection plate 1, 2, 6) is higher that auxiliary support layer 3 (second protection plate) made of foam [0043]. Ma also discloses plate 6 is made of aluminum [0044], therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that both high-strength plates have a higher strength that the foam auxiliary support layer 3. Ma further discloses that auxiliary support layer 3 (second protection plate) is design for larger deformation that the energy absorbing layer [0043], which demonstrates that the auxiliary layer is a deformable foam. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Ma is that the wave impedance value, which is interpreted as the resistance to deformation, is less in the second protection plate (auxiliary support layer 3) that the high strength plates (aluminum plates 1 and 6). Thus, the limitation is met by Ma.]; and
the battery modules or the cells are disposed in the battery accommodating cavity [Ma 0045].
PNG
media_image1.png
555
1144
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
285
1084
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Ma discloses the battery pack according to claim 9, wherein the second protection plate comprises a foaming material [Ma 0044].
Regarding Claim 17, Ma discloses an electric vehicle [Ma 0004, 0035], a battery pack [Ma 0008, 0018-0020, and throughout], comprising a battery tray and a plurality of battery modules or cells [Ma 0008, 0018-0020, 0045, and throughout], wherein the battery tray comprises:
a tray body, wherein the tray body comprises a tray bottom plate and a tray side beam located on a first surface of the tray bottom plate, and the tray side beam and the tray bottom plate define a battery accommodating cavity for accommodating a battery module or a cell [Ma 0032-0045 and throughout, Ma discloses a battery housing 101 [0032, 0045] for a battery pack [0035], where the housing is a battery box with a bottom guard plate assembly 100. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Ma’s disclosed battery box reads on a tray body 101 (a bottom and all sides of the box), a tray bottom plate (the bottom of the box, see annotated Fig. below), and a tray side beam (the sides of the box, see portion of Ma Fig. 3 below where a side beam is shown) located on a first surface of the tray bottom plate (side is on the upper surface of the bottom of the box). Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a battery housing [0032] is battery accommodating cavity for accommodating a battery module or a cell [0045, 0051].],
a first protection plate [Ma 0032-0046 and throughout, Figs. 1-2, Ma discloses a first protection plate layers 1, 2, and 6.], wherein the first protection plate comprises an energy-absorbing plate [Ma 0039-0045, Figs. 1-2, energy-absorbing layer 2] and high-strength plates located on two sides of the energy-absorbing plate [Ma 0039-0045, Figs. 1-2, high-strength plates are aluminum layers 6 and 1 on each side of plate 2], the energy-absorbing plate comprises a cellular structure [Ma 0041, Ma discloses aluminum foam, which reads on cellular structure.]; and
a second protection plate [Ma 0032-0046 and throughout, Fig. 1, auxiliary support layer 3], wherein a first surface of the second protection plate is coupled to the first protection plate, a second surface of the second protection plate is coupled to the tray body [Ma 0032-0046 and throughout, Fig. 1, Lower surface of 3 as the first surface, which is coupled to high-strength layer 6 of the first protection plate layers 6, 2, 1 in Fig. 1, and upper surface of 3 as the second surface, which is couple to the tray body in Fig. 1.], and
a wave impedance value of the second protection plate is less than a wave impedance value of the high-strength plates [Ma 0039-0044, Ma discloses the strength of the aluminum plate 1 (high-strength plate of the first protection plate 1, 2, 6) is higher that auxiliary support layer 3 (second protection plate) made of foam [0043]. Ma also discloses plate 6 is made of aluminum [0044], therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that both high-strength plates have a higher strength that the foam auxiliary support layer 3. Ma further discloses that auxiliary support layer 3 (second protection plate) is design for larger deformation that the energy absorbing layer [0043], which demonstrates that the auxiliary layer is a deformable foam. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Ma is that the wave impedance value, which is interpreted as the resistance to deformation, is less in the second protection plate (auxiliary support layer 3) that the high strength plates (aluminum plates 1 and 6). Thus, the limitation is met by Ma.]; and
the battery modules or the cells are disposed in the battery accommodating cavity [Ma 0045].
PNG
media_image1.png
555
1144
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
285
1084
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 7, 15, and 19, Ma discloses the battery tray according to claims 1, 9, and 17 wherein a second surface of the tray bottom plate [Ma Fig. 1, see modified Fig. 1 below] away from the first surface of the tray bottom plate where the tray side beam is located [Ma Fig. 1, see modified Fig. 1 below] comprises a bottom plate groove [Ma Fig. 1, see modified Fig. 1 below; recessed groove is shown in second surface (bottom) of the tray 101], and the second protection plate is disposed in the bottom plate groove [Ma Fig. 1, see modified Fig. 1 below, Second protection plate (auxiliary plate 3 as described in claims 1, 9, and 17 above) is disposed in the bottom recess of battery tray 101 shown in Fig. 1.].
PNG
media_image3.png
475
1155
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, 16, and 20, Ma discloses the battery tray according to claims 7, 15, and 19 wherein the second surface of the second protection plate [Ma Fig. 1, see modified Fig. 1 above] is bonded to the bottom plate groove of the tray bottom plate [Ma Fig. 1, see modified Fig. 1 above, The broadest reasonable interpretation of Ma Fig. 1 is the second (upper) surface of second protection plate 3 is mechanically bonded to the bottom plate groove (recessed portion on the bottom of battery tray 101).], and the first surface of the second protection plate is bonded to the first protection plate [Ma 0039, Fig. 1, see modified Fig. 1 above, The broadest reasonable interpretation of Ma Fig. 1 is the first (lower) surface of second protection plate 3 is mechanically bonded to the first protection plate layers (6, 2, 1) .]; and
the first protection plate covers the bottom plate groove [Ma 0037-0038, Fig. 1, see annotated Fig. 1 above, First protection plate (1, 2, 6) is attached to cover the bottom plate groove in battery tray 101 by bolt 5.].
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) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma, as provided in Claims 1 and 9 above, in further view of Su et al. [CN107719137A, machine translation relied upon provided], hereinafter Su.
Regarding Claim 2, Ma discloses the battery tray according to claim 1, wherein the energy-absorbing plate comprises a material selected from a group comprising PP, polyethylene (PE), or metals [Ma 0041, aluminum foam reads on the claimed metals]. Ma discloses the high-strength plates 1 and 6 are also aluminum [Ma 0041, 0044] but is silent to wherein the high-strength plate comprises a material selected from a group comprising polypropylene (PP) glass fiber, resin glass fiber, or base fabric. Su discloses a first protection plate 14 [Su 0030, Figs. 2-3 and throughout] for a battery pack 20/100 [Su 0030, Figs. 1-3 and throughout] with an energy-absorbing layer 146 between two protective plates 142 and 144 [Su 0030]. Su further discloses plate 142 can be made of glass fiber polypropylene board made of woven fiber cloth as reinforcement and resin as a matrix [Su 0030], which reads on the claimed polypropylene (PP) glass fiber, resin glass fiber, or base fabric. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to substitute Su’s glass fiber polypropylene board made of woven fiber cloth as reinforcement and resin as a matrix for the material of Ma’s high-strength plates 1 and 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Su’s teaching about glass fiber polypropylene board made of woven fiber cloth as reinforcement and resin as a matrix as the high-strength layers in Ma’s first protection plate for the predictable result of a protective bottom plate for holding battery cells made of a lighter weight material with potentially lower material cost that retains the benefits of high strength [Su 0030, Ma throughout] and energy absorption [Su 0030, Ma 0044] to reduce impact force [Ma 0044]. See MPEP 2143 (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 10, Ma discloses the battery pack according to claim 9, wherein the energy-absorbing plate comprises a material selected from a group comprising PP, polyethylene (PE), or metals [Ma 0041, aluminum foam reads on the claimed metals]. Ma discloses the high-strength plates 1 and 6 are also aluminum [Ma 0041, 0044] but is silent to wherein the high-strength plate comprises a material selected from a group comprising polypropylene (PP) glass fiber, resin glass fiber, or base fabric. Su discloses a first protection plate 14 [Su 0030, Figs. 2-3 and throughout] for a battery pack 20/100 [Su 0030, Figs. 1-3 and throughout] with an energy-absorbing layer 146 between two protective plates 142 and 144 [Su 0030]. Su further discloses plate 142 can be made of glass fiber polypropylene board made of woven fiber cloth as reinforcement and resin as a matrix [Su 0030], which reads on the claimed polypropylene (PP) glass fiber, resin glass fiber, or base fabric. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to substitute Su’s glass fiber polypropylene board made of woven fiber cloth as reinforcement and resin as a matrix for the material of Ma’s high-strength plates 1 and 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Su’s teaching about glass fiber polypropylene board made of woven fiber cloth as reinforcement and resin as a matrix as the high-strength layers in Ma’s first protection plate for the predictable result of a protective bottom plate for holding battery cells made of a lighter weight material with potentially lower material cost that retains the benefits of high strength [Su 0030, Ma throughout] and energy absorption [Su 0030, Ma 0044] to reduce impact force [Ma 0044]. See MPEP 2143 (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma, as provided in Claims 1, 3, and 9 above, in further view of Tan et al. [CN109216601A, as provided on the IDS dated 5/08/2023, machine translation relied upon provided], hereinafter Tan.
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, Ma discloses the battery tray according to claim 3 and claim 9 where the second protection plate (auxiliary support layer 3) is a foam [Ma 0044] but is silent to the type of foam material and thus does not disclose wherein the second protection plate comprises polyurethane. Tan teaches types of foam materials for use in protection plate 10 for a bottom battery tray 100 [Tan 0084-0090 and throughout] wherein a protection plate foam parts can be polyurethane foam [Tan 0090]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply Tan’s teachings about using polyurethane foam to Ma’s foam second protection plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select polyurethane for a foaming material in Ma’s battery tray for a battery pack with a predictable result of a battery tray and module with a lightweight protection plate [Tan 0090] with sufficient strength [Tan 0091] and ability to further absorb energy from an impact [Ma 0042-0045].
Claim(s) 5-6, 13-14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma, as provided in Claims 1, 9, and 17 above, in further view of Kim et al. [WO2020060341A1, US20210351455A1 relied upon for translation], hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claims 5, 13, and 18 Ma discloses the battery tray according to claims 1, 9 and 17 but is silent to wherein the second protection plate comprises a plurality of spaced through holes, a length of each of the spaced through holes ranges from greater than about 0 mm to about 100 mm, and a distance between two adjacent spaced through holes ranges from about 50 mm to about 100 mm. Kim teaches a protection plate 200 with a plurality of spaced through holes 240 to provide a cooling path and to reduce the weight of the plate, resulting in a lower material cost [Kim 0142 and throughout, Fig. 3]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply Kim’s teachings to Ma’s second protection plate. Kim does not disclose the length of the spaced through holes or the distance between the through holes; however, it would have been obvious that both the length of the holes and the distance between holes are result effective variables related to the specific design requirements of the battery pack such as weight, heat load, and the size of the battery cells and or battery pack. If the length of the holes is too short, there may not be an effective amount of cooling or weight reduction for a specific design requirement. If the length of the holes is too long, the strength of the sheet will be affected. If the distance between the holes is too long, there will be too few holes to provide an effective amount of cooling or weight reduction for a specific design requirement. If the distance between the holes is too close, the strength of the sheet will be affected. Determining the workable range of length of holes and distance between holes can be determined through routine optimization by consideration of balancing the cooling, weight, and strength requirements of the battery pack design. See MPEP 2144.05II,B, Routine optimization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Kim’s teachings about providing hole in a battery tray protection plate with Ma’s battery pack for the predictable result of a battery pack with sufficient cooling, less weight, and lower material cost [Kim 0142].
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, modified Ma discloses the battery tray according to claim 5 and 13 but is silent to wherein the length of each of the spaced through holes ranges from about 25 mm to about 50 mm. As described in claims 5 and 13 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the length of each of the space through holes is a result effective variable where the workable range can be determined through routine optimization by balancing the cooling, weight, and strength requirements of the battery pack design. See MPEP 2144.05II,B, Routine optimization.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the drawing objections, the Examiner agrees that the replacement drawing overcomes the previous objection, which has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 9, and 17 omitting “the first protection plate is fixed on the tray bottom plate” change the scope of the invention; however, the prior art of Ma anticipates the claims as provided above. With respect to Applicant arguments on pgs. 10-11 differentiating the instant invention over Ma, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the Applicant incorrectly recites that the Examiner equates Ma’s bottom guard plate 1 to the “claimed tray bottom plate 101”. In the recited Office Action, the Examiner equates Ma’s tray 101 with the claimed tray with a bottom plate and side plate as described above [0032-0045, see Fig. 1 and a side plate as described and as shown in Fig. 3] as a tray portion of the battery housing. Ma’s protective plate assembly 100 is attached to the bottom of Ma’s tray 101 includes the claimed first protection plate (high strength layers 1 and 6 on either side of energy absorbing plate 2) and the claimed second protection plate (Ma’s plate 3) [Ma 0032-0045]. The Examiner has provided drawings above in claims 1, 9, and 17 above for clarity on how Ma’s invention reads on the claimed invention. These drawings are consistent with the interpretation of Ma’s invention provided in the recited Office action (see the previous rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 and the annotated Fig. shown for claims 7, 15, and 19 in the recited Office Action and above).
Regarding Applicant arguments that Ma’s plate 1 is the outermost plate and does not define the battery accommodating cavity, the Examiner agrees; however, the Applicant’s summary is due to an incorrect interpretation of the Examiner’s rejection, which is clarified above.
Regarding Applicant arguments that the instant invention is differentiated over Ma due to the order of the claimed plates, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Annotated Fig. 1 is provided above and is copied below for clarity on the order of Ma’s plates with respect to the claimed tray, second protection plate, and first protective plate.
PNG
media_image1.png
555
1144
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Applicant arguments that the Examiner equates Ma’s bottom plate as the tray and the high-strength plate and that Ma misses one layer of protection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. For clarity and as provided in the recited Office Action and above, the Examiner equates the bottom portion of housing 101 as the tray bottom plate and the protective plate 1 or 6 as the high strength plate. Thus, Ma 101=instant 101, Ma 3 = instant 200, Ma 6 = instant 301, Ma 2 = instant 302, Ma 1= other instant 301. Thus, Ma discloses all of the layers of claims 1, 9, and 17.
For the reasons provided above, the previous rejections are maintained, modified as required by Applicant’s amendment and clarified with additional annotated drawings as provided above, since the evidence of anticipation and obviousness of the instant invention, provided above and in the recited prior art, outweighs evidence of novelty and nonobviousness.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday 9:00-5:00 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights