DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 4/27/2026. Claims 1 and 6-9 are currently amended. Claims 17 and 18 have been canceled. Claim 19 is newly added. Presently, claims 1-16 and 19 are pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph in section 1 on page 7 of the response dated 4/27/2026.
Applicant states that claim 1 has been amended and that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be withdrawn.
However, it is unclear as to how the amendment to claim 1 addresses the rejections to claim 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as provided in the Office action dated 1/26/2026.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “in one or more PRSOV open configurations, the one or more PRSOV open configurations including a PRSOV fully open configuration and one or more PRSOV partially open configurations” in lines 5-7. However, it is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the limitation. It is unclear from the claim as to how the “one or more PRSOV open configurations” includes both “a PRSOV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRSOV partially open configurations” if the claim requires “one” PRSOV open configurations (of the one or more PRSOV open configurations) as recited in the claim. It is unclear as to if the “one or more PRSOV open configurations” requires the selection of a PRSOV open configuration from the group of “a PRSOV fully open configuration” or “one or more PRSOV partially open configurations” since the claim recites “one PRSOV open configurations” or if the “one or more PRSOV open configurations” requires both “a PRSOV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRSOV partially open configurations” such that there are “two or more PRSOV open configuration”. Or does the claim require only “one” PRSOV open configuration? Therefore, the metes and bounds of the limitations are indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “in one or more PRV open configurations, the one or more PRV open configurations including a PRV fully open configuration and one or more PRV partially open configurations” in lines 13-15. However, it is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the limitation. It is unclear from the claim as to how the “one or more PRV open configurations” includes both “a PRV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRV partially open configurations” if the claim requires “one” PRV open configurations (of the one or more PRV open configurations) as recited in the claim. It is unclear as to if the “one or more PRV open configurations” requires the selection of a PRV open configuration from the group of “a PRV fully open configuration” or “one or more PRV partially open configurations” since the claim recites “one PRV open configurations” or if the “one or more PRV open configurations” requires both “a PRV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRV partially open configurations” such that there are “two or more PRV open configuration”. Or does the claim require only “one” PRV open configuration? Therefore, the metes and bounds of the limitations are indefinite.
Further, it is unclear as to how the amendments to claim 1 provided in the response dated 4/27/2026 addresses these issues.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejections of claims 1, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11448126 (Andelson) in view of WO Publication No. 2015/109098 (Hyde) on pages 7-9 of the response dated 4/27/2026.
Applicant argues that the combination of the Andelson reference and the Hyde reference does not disclose “the one or more PRV open configurations including a PRV fully open configuration and one or more PRV partially open configurations”.
It is considered that the metes and bounds of the limitation are not definite as discussed above regarding the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (see above).
It is considered that the recitation of “the one or more PRV open configurations including a PRV fully open configuration and one or more PRV partially open configurations” requires one PRV open configuration from the group of a PRV fully open configuration and one or more PRV partially open configurations.
However, the Andelson et al. reference discloses wherein the pressure relief valve (Andelson: PRV; 246) is controllable (Andelson: see at least col. 6, lines 20-23). Further, it is considered that the at least one controllable pressure relief valve (Andelson: PRV; 246) has at least one open configuration of the “one or more” open configurations including at least a PRV fully open configuration to control the exhaust to permit bleed air to exit the anti-icing system (Andelson: the PRV 246 is connected to the atmosphere to dump the excessive fluid pressure, see col. 8, lines 20-25).
Therefore, it is considered that the Andelson et al. reference addresses applicant’s concerns and claim language relating to the recitation of “the one or more PRV open configurations including a PRV fully open configuration and one or more PRV partially open configurations”.
If the applicant wants to include both “a PRV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRV partially open configurations” to be included for the “one or more PRV open configurations”, the recitation of “one or more PRV open configurations” should be “two or more PRV open configurations” since the “a PRV fully open configuration” is a first PRV open configuration and the “one or more PRV partially open configurations” is a second or more PRV open configurations.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see section 2 and section 6 of the remarks filed 4/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2010/0001138 (Dasilva) and the rejections of claims 10-13, 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2010/0001138 (Dasilva) in view of WO Publication No. 2015/109098 (Hyde) have been fully considered and are persuasive. It is considered that applicant’s amendments to claim 8 to include the subject matter of claim 18 along with additional features relating to “wherein a first port of the plurality of ports extends from the bleed air duct at a first location, a second port of the plurality of ports extends from the bleed air duct at a second location, and the second location is along the bleed air duct downstream of the first location” overcomes the rejections of claim 8 and 18 as provided in the Office action dated 1/26/2026. The rejections of claims 8, 10-13, 17 and 18 as provided in the Office action dated 1/26/2026 have been withdrawn.
Since new grounds of rejection were necessitated by applicant’s amendment, the instant Office action is made final.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5 and 16 contain the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “an inlet of the nacelle” in line 2. Claim 2 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “an inlet of the nacelle” in line 8. Therefore, it appears that limitation of “an inlet of the nacelle” in claim 2 should be “the inlet of the nacelle”.
Claims 3-5 depend from claim 2, and, therefore, claims 3-5 contain the same informalities of claim 2.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “an inlet of the nacelle” in lines 2-3. Claim 16 depends from claim 15 which depends from claim 14. Claim 14 recites the limitation “an inlet of the nacelle” in line 2. Therefore, it appears that limitation of “an inlet of the nacelle” in claim 16 should be “the inlet of the nacelle”.
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 1-7 and 19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “one or more PRSOV open configurations” in lines 5-6. Claim 1 further recites “including a PRSOV fully open configuration and one or more PRSOV partially open configurations” in lines 5-7.
It is unclear as to how the PRSOV is controllable to be disposed in “one PRSOV open configuration” of the “one or more PRSOV open configurations” when the “PRSOV open configurations” include “a PRSOV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRSOV partially open configuration”.
It is unclear from the claim as to how the “one or more PRSOV open configurations” includes both “a PRSOV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRSOV partially open configurations” if the claim requires “one” PRSOV open configurations (of the one or more PRSOV open configurations) as recited in the claim. It is unclear as to if the “one or more PRSOV open configurations” requires the selection of a PRSOV open configuration from the group of “a PRSOV fully open configuration” or “one or more PRSOV partially open configurations” since the claim recites “one PRSOV open configurations” or if the “one or more PRSOV open configurations” requires both “a PRSOV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRSOV partially open configurations” such that there are “two or more PRSOV open configuration”. Or does the claim require only “one” PRSOV open configuration? Should the recitation of “one or more PRSOV open configurations” be “two or more PRSOV open configurations”?
The metes and bounds of the limitation is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “one or more PRV open configurations” in lines 13-14. Claim 1 further recites “including a PRV fully open configuration and one or more PRSOV partially open configurations” in lines 14-15.
It is unclear as to how the PRV is controllable to be disposed in “one PRV open configuration” of the “one or more PRV open configurations” when the “PRV open configurations” include “a PRV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRV partially open configuration”.
It is unclear from the claim as to how the “one or more PRV open configurations” includes both “a PRV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRV partially open configurations” if the claim requires “one” PRV open configurations (of the one or more PRV open configurations) as recited in the claim. It is unclear as to if the “one or more PRV open configurations” requires the selection of a PRV open configuration from the group of “a PRV fully open configuration” or “one or more PRV partially open configurations” since the claim recites “one PRV open configurations” or if the “one or more PRV open configurations” requires both “a PRV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRV partially open configurations” such that there are “two or more PRV open configuration”. Or does the claim require only “one” PRV open configuration? Should the recitation of “one or more PRV open configurations” be “two or more PRV open configurations”?
The metes and bounds of the limitation is indefinite.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “one or more PRSOV open configurations” in line 5. Claim 19 further recites “including a PRSOV fully open configuration and one or more PRSOV partially open configurations” in lines 6-7.
It is unclear as to how the PRSOV is controllable to be disposed in “one PRSOV open configuration” of the “one or more PRSOV open configurations” when the “PRSOV open configurations” include “a PRSOV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRSOV partially open configuration”.
It is unclear from the claim as to how the “one or more PRSOV open configurations” includes both “a PRSOV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRSOV partially open configurations” if the claim requires “one” PRSOV open configurations (of the one or more PRSOV open configurations) as recited in the claim. It is unclear as to if the “one or more PRSOV open configurations” requires the selection of a PRSOV open configuration from the group of “a PRSOV fully open configuration” or “one or more PRSOV partially open configurations” since the claim recites “one PRSOV open configurations” or if the “one or more PRSOV open configurations” requires both “a PRSOV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRSOV partially open configurations” such that there are “two or more PRSOV open configuration”. Or does the claim require only “one” PRSOV open configuration? Should the recitation of “one or more PRSOV open configurations” be “two or more PRSOV open configurations”?
The metes and bounds of the limitation is indefinite.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “one or more PRV open configurations” in line 13. Claim 19 further recites “including a PRV fully open configuration and one or more PRSOV partially open configurations” in lines 14-15.
It is unclear as to how the PRV is controllable to be disposed in “one PRV open configuration” of the “one or more PRV open configurations” when the “PRV open configurations” include “a PRV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRV partially open configuration”.
It is unclear from the claim as to how the “one or more PRV open configurations” includes both “a PRV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRV partially open configurations” if the claim requires “one” PRV open configurations (of the one or more PRV open configurations) as recited in the claim. It is unclear as to if the “one or more PRV open configurations” requires the selection of a PRV open configuration from the group of “a PRV fully open configuration” or “one or more PRV partially open configurations” since the claim recites “one PRV open configurations” or if the “one or more PRV open configurations” requires both “a PRV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRV partially open configurations” such that there are “two or more PRV open configuration”. Or does the claim require only “one” PRV open configuration? Should the recitation of “one or more PRV open configurations” be “two or more PRV open configurations”?
The metes and bounds of the limitation is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andelson et al. (US 11448126) in view of Hyde (WO 2015/109098 A1).
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 7 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 1, the Andelson et al. reference discloses an anti-icing system (26; see figure 2A) for an aircraft nacelle structure (see col., 4, lines 20-23) utilizing bleed air from a gas turbine engine bleed air source (bleed 236), the system comprising:
a controllable pressure regulating and shut off valve (PRSOV; 244) in fluid communication with the bleed air source (see figure 2A), the controllable PRSOV controllable to be disposed in a PRSOV closed configuration or in one or more PRSOV open configurations, the one or more PRSOV open configurations including a PRSOV fully open configuration and one or more PRSOV partially open configurations (see at least col. 5, line 56 to col. 3, line 11);
a circumferentially extending duct disposed at an inlet of the nacelle (116; see figure 1B);
a bleed air duct segment (258) in fluid communication with the PRSOV and the circumferentially extending duct; and
at least one controllable pressure relief valve (PRV; 246; see at least col. 6, lines 20-23) in fluid communication with the bleed air duct segment, the at least one controllable PRV controllable to be disposed in a PRV closed configuration or in one or more PRV open configurations, the one or more PRV open configurations including a PRV fully open configuration and one or more PRV partially open configurations (see at least col. 6, lines 15-23), wherein the at least one controllable PRV includes an exhaust disposed to permit bleed air to exit the anti-icing system (the PRV 246 is connected to the atmosphere to dump the excessive fluid pressure, see col. 8, lines 20-25);
a controller (270; see at least col. 7, lines 4-58 for the operation of the controller) in communication with the controllable PRSOV, the at least one controllable PRV, and a non-transitory memory storing instructions (see at least col. 7, lines 51-58), which instructions when executed cause the system controller to:
control the controllable PRSOV to maintain bleed air within the anti-icing system within a predetermined range of operating pressures by selectively controlling the controllable PRSOV into at least one of the one or more PRV open configurations, the predetermined range of operating pressures including a maximum pressure (See at least col. 7, lines 4-58); and
control the at least one controllable PRV to the one or more PRV open configurations to maintain the bleed air within the anti-icing system below the maximum pressure (see at least col. 8, lines 13-25).
The Andelson et al. reference discloses wherein the pressure relief valve (PRV; 246) is controllable (see at least col. 6, lines 20-23). Further, it is considered that the at least one controllable pressure relief valve (PRV; 246) has at least one open configuration of the one or more open configurations including at least a PRV fully open configuration to control the exhaust to permit bleed air to exit the anti-icing system (the PRV 246 is connected to the atmosphere to dump the excessive fluid pressure, see col. 8, lines 20-25).
The Andelson et al. reference does not disclose wherein the pressure relief valve (PRV) is disposed downstream of the pressure regulating and shut off valve (PRSOV).
However, the Hyde et al. reference teaches a pressure regulating and distributing de-icing valve assembly for an aircraft having a pressure regulating and shut off valve (it is considered that the housing 120 contains a solenoid valve 190 and a pressure regulating structure 200) and a pressure relief valve (330) disposed downstream of the pressure regulating and shut off valve in order to dump air to the atmosphere upon exceeding a set pressure as a safety mechanism (see paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a pressure relief valve downstream of the pressure regulating and shut off valve of the Andelson et al. reference as taught by the Hyde et al. reference in order to dump air within the bleed air duct segment downstream of the pressure regulating and shut off valve to the atmosphere upon exceeding a set pressure as a safety mechanism.
Further, the Andelson et al. reference discloses that the use of pressure relief valves are “configured to ensure the pressure of the compressed air in the bleed air system 200 or at the various pneumatic systems to which the compressed air is being delivered does not exceed a maximum design pressure” (Andelson et al.: col. 6, lines 15-20).
Therefore, it is considered that the combination of the Andelson et al. reference and the Hyde reference provides for the use of the pressure relief valve to bleed the bleed air duct segment to control the pressure of the bleed air duct segment to maintain the pressure within the bleed air duct segment to be below a maximum design pressure and wherein the controller actively controls the pressure relief valve (Andelson et al.: col. 6, lines 20-23).
In regards to claim 6, the Hyde et al. reference of the combination of the Andelson et al. reference and the Hyde et al. reference discloses wherein the at least one controllable PRV (Hyde et al.: 330) is in communication with a single port (Hyde et al.: see figure 6) extending off the bleed air duct (Hyde et al.: 140).
In regards to claim 7, the Hyde et al. reference of the combination of the Andelson et al. reference and the Hyde et al. reference discloses wherein the at least one PRV (Hyde et al.: 330) is in communication with a plurality of ports (Hyde et al.: see plurality of ports (Port A, Port B) in the annotated figure 6 below) and extending off the bleed air duct (Hyde et al.: 140).
PNG
media_image1.png
894
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andelson et al. (US 11448126) in view of Hyde et al. (WO 2015/109098 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rosenthal Herman A. (US 4688745).
Claim(s) 2-5 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of the Andelson et al. reference and the Hyde et al. reference discloses the anti-icing system (Andelson et al.: 26; see figure 2A)
for an aircraft nacelle structure (Andelson et al.: see col., 4, lines 20-23).
The combination of the Andelson et al. reference and the Hyde reference does not expressly disclose where the circumferentially extending duct disposed at an inlet of the nacelle is a D-duct.
However, the Rosenthal Herman A. reference teaches an anti-ice system having a bleed air duct segment (22) that diverts air from a gas turbine engine (10) to a circumferentially extending duct (the end of the bleed air duct segment 22 defines a nozzle within the circumferentially extending duct; see figures 3-7) of a nacelle structure (20) wherein the circumferentially extending duct defines a D-duct (18; see figure 2 and figure 3).
Therefore, it is considered that it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design the circumferentially extending duct of the nacelle of the Andelson et al. reference of the combination of the Andelson et al. reference and the Hyde et al. reference as having the shape of a D-duct as taught by the Rosenthal Herman A. reference in order to support the nacelle with a bulkhead (Rosenthal Herman A.: 28) to provide additional support for the nacelle.
In regards to claim 3, the Rosenthal Herman A. reference of the combination of the Andelson et al. reference, the Hyde et al. reference and the Rosenthal Herman A. reference discloses a bleed air distribution system disposed within the D-duct (Rosenthal Herman A.: it is considered that the nozzles at the end of the bleed air duct segment 22 define various bleed air distribution systems as depicted in figures 3-7).
In regards to claim 4, the Rosenthal Herman A. reference of the combination of the Andelson et al. reference, the Hyde et al. reference and the Rosenthal Herman A. reference discloses wherein the bleed air distribution system includes a Piccolo tube (Rosenthal Herman A.: 62; see figure 7).
In regards to claim 5, the Rosenthal Herman A. reference of the combination of the Andelson et al. reference, the Hyde et al. reference and the Rosenthal Herman A. reference discloses wherein the bleed air distribution system includes one or more nozzles (Rosenthal Herman A.: see figures 3-7) disposed within the D-duct configured to direct bleed air in a circumferential direction within the D-duct.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-16 are allowed.
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a “method of de-icing an aircraft nacelle inlet” comprising:
“using a pressure relief valve (PRV) disposed downstream of the PRSOV to maintain the bleed air within the anti-icing system below the maximum said bleed air pressure”;
“wherein the PRV is in communication with a plurality of ports extending off a bleed air duct in fluid communication with the PRSOV”;
“wherein a first port of the plurality of ports extends from the bleed air duct at a first location, a second port of the plurality of ports extends from the bleed air duct at a second location, and the second location is along the bleed air duct downstream of the first location”; and
In combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 9-16 depend from claim 8, either directly or indirectly, and, therefore, claims 9-16 are allowable for containing the indicated allowable subject matter of claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest an “anti-icing system for an aircraft nacelle structure” comprising:
“a pressure relief valve (PRV) disposed downstream of the PRSOV and in fluid communication with the bleed air duct segment”;
“wherein the PRV is in communication with a plurality of ports extending off a bleed air duct in fluid communication with the PRSOV, a first port of the plurality of ports extends from the bleed air duct at a first location, a second port of the plurality of ports extends from the bleed air duct at a second location, and the second location is along the bleed air duct downstream of the first location”; and
in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roll et al. (US 7380767) and Harden et al. (US 5540558) disclose various check valve assemblies that are controllable in order to adjust the amount that the valve member can be opened based on a pressure within a flow path.
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 Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights