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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 02/07/2024 claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 remove “a charging” to improve reading comprehension. For examination purposes below “a charging” will be considered as removed, however, appropriate correction 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLean et al. (USPGPN 20220029431; identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and cited in the European Search Opinion) and further in view of Minami et al. (Japanese Patent JP-2013179780-A; identified by the applicant in the IDS and cited in the European Search Opinion).
With respect to independent claim 1, McLean teaches an assembly (Fig. 2a; power system 134) for an aircraft (Fig. 1; aircraft 100), the assembly comprising a battery including a plurality of battery strings (Fig. 2a; battery system 200 including a plurality of battery strings 204); a charger configured to selectively direct an electrical charging current to the battery to charge the plurality of battery strings (Fig. 2a; power supply 126 selectively directs ICharge to the battery system 200 to charge the battery strings 204); and a battery monitoring system (Fig. 2a; BMS 208) including a plurality of sensors (¶[94]; voltage sensors), each sensor configured to measure a battery string voltage of a respective one of the plurality of battery strings (¶[94]; voltage sensors for measuring the voltage of the battery strings 204).
McLean teaches the battery monitoring system further including a processor in communication with a non-transitory memory storing instructions, which instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (¶[63] and ¶[94]; processor 212 coupled with a memory device storing instructions for execution).
McLean teaches determine the battery string voltage for each battery string of the plurality of battery strings with the plurality of sensors (¶[91]; “The hardware instrumentation measures ... battery-string voltage ... useful to inform the module-selection process within the battery system 200”).
However, McLean fails to explicitly teach identifying a highest-voltage battery string of the plurality of battery strings and a lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings; and sequentially charge each battery string of the lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings with the charger to a first target string voltage.
Minami teaches identify a highest-voltage battery string of the plurality of battery strings and a lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings (¶[19-20]; the voltage values of the batteries are detected from lowest to highest).
Minami teaches sequentially charge each battery string of the lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings with the charger to a first target string voltage (¶[19-20]; the lowest voltage batteries are charged up to an upper tolerance range value of the voltage command value [e.g., 150 V +1 V = 151 V]).
Charging lower-charged batteries individually before combining them into a full bank ensures that healthy batteries are not severely overcharged. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have adapted Minami’s battery voltage balancing to McLean’s battery-powered aircraft. The advantage of this being equalizing the battery voltages before connecting them in parallel in order to minimize voltage differences which could lead to damage and deterioration (see ¶[04-05] of Minami).
With respect to claim 2, McLean teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1 above. However, McLean fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 2.
Minami teaches wherein the first target string voltage is greater than a battery string voltage of the highest-voltage battery string (¶[19-20]; for exemplary purposes the battery with the highest voltage value is 150 V and the “first target” voltage considering the upper tolerance range is 151 V thus greater than the highest voltage value).
Ensuring the batteries are within a tolerance range prior to connecting them in parallel safeguards the voltage difference is within an acceptable range. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have adapted Minami’s battery voltage balancing to McLean’s battery-powered aircraft. The advantage of this being equalizing the battery voltages before connecting them in parallel in order to minimize voltage differences which could lead to damage and deterioration (see ¶[04-05] of Minami).
With respect to claim 3, McLean teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2. However, McLean fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 3.
Minami teaches wherein the first target string voltage is within a predetermined voltage threshold of the battery string voltage of the highest-voltage battery string (¶[19]; the “first target” voltage is withing an upper and lower tolerance range of the voltage command value which is the highest voltage battery value).
Ensuring the batteries are within a tolerance range prior to connecting them in parallel safeguards the voltage difference is within an acceptable range. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have adapted Minami’s battery voltage balancing to McLean’s battery-powered aircraft. The advantage of this being equalizing the battery voltages before connecting them in parallel in order to minimize voltage differences which could lead to damage and deterioration (see ¶[04-05] of Minami).
With respect to claim 4, McLean teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2. However, McLean fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 4.
Minami teaches charge the highest-voltage battery string and the lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings together to a final target string voltage, subsequent to sequentially charging each battery string of the lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings with the charger to the first target string voltage (¶[23]; ¶[25]; after each battery is charged to be within the upper and lower tolerance value plus the command value, then the batteries are connected in parallel and it is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that charging resumes up to the upper threshold of the predetermined range which is the “final target” voltage value. For example, using 150 V for the command value (e.g., the highest voltage battery), +1 V for the upper tolerance range (e.g., 151 V for the first target string voltage), and for numerical representation the upper threshold of the predetermined range could be 152 V or another value greater than 151 V. So in this scenario, when the batteries are sequentially charged up to the first target string voltage of 151 V they are then connected in parallel and together are charged up to 152 V).
Charging lower-charged batteries individually before combining them into a full bank ensures that healthy batteries are not severely overcharged. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have adapted Minami’s battery voltage balancing to McLean’s battery-powered aircraft. The advantage of this being equalizing the battery voltages before connecting them in parallel in order to minimize voltage differences which could lead to damage and deterioration (see ¶[04-05] of Minami).
With respect to claim 5, McLean teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 4. However, McLean fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 5.
Minami teaches wherein the final target string voltage is higher than the first target string voltage (As cited in claim 4 above, using the exemplary numerical values for the upper threshold of the predetermined range 152 V is greater than 151 V).
Charging lower-charged batteries individually before combining them into a full bank ensures that healthy batteries are not severely overcharged. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have adapted Minami’s battery voltage balancing to McLean’s battery-powered aircraft. The advantage of this being equalizing the battery voltages before connecting them in parallel in order to minimize voltage differences which could lead to damage and deterioration (see ¶[04-05] of Minami).
With respect to claim 6, McLean teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2. However, McLean fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 6.
Considering the string batteries of McLean combined with Minami’s voltage balancing method, it would have been obvious that the lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings includes a plurality of lower-voltage battery strings.
With respect to claim 7, McLean teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, McLean fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 7.
Minami teaches wherein sequentially charging each battery string of the lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings includes charging only a single battery string at a time (¶[23]; the batteries are sequentially connected and disconnected one at a time for charging purposes prior to combining them in parallel).
Charging lower-charged batteries individually before combining them into a full bank ensures that healthy batteries are not severely overcharged. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have adapted Minami’s battery voltage balancing to McLean’s battery-powered aircraft. The advantage of this being equalizing the battery voltages before connecting them in parallel in order to minimize voltage differences which could lead to damage and deterioration (see ¶[04-05] of Minami).
With respect to claim 8, McLean teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, McLean teaches wherein the plurality of battery strings are electrically connected in parallel (Fig. 2a; the plurality of battery strings 204 are electrically connected in parallel).
With respect to claim 10, McLean teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, McLean fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 10.
Minami teaches sequentially charge each battery string of the lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings with the charger to the first target string voltage and open contactors for each sequentially-charged battery string of the lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings before charging another battery string of the lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings (¶[23]; the batteries are sequentially connected and disconnected one at a time for charging purposes prior to combining them in parallel).
Charging lower-charged batteries individually before combining them into a full bank ensures that healthy batteries are not severely overcharged. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have adapted Minami’s battery voltage balancing to McLean’s battery-powered aircraft. The advantage of this being equalizing the battery voltages before connecting them in parallel in order to minimize voltage differences which could lead to damage and deterioration (see ¶[04-05] of Minami).
With respect to independent claim 11, McLean teaches a method for charging a battery (Fig. 2a; I--Charge- for battery system 200) for an aircraft (Fig. 1; aircraft 100), the battery including a plurality of battery strings electrically connected in parallel (Fig. 2a; the battery system 200 including a plurality of battery strings 204 electrically connected in parallel).
McLean teaches determining the battery string voltage for each battery string of the plurality of battery strings (¶[94]; voltage sensors for measuring the voltage of the battery strings 204).
However, McLean fails to explicitly teach identifying a highest-voltage battery string of the plurality of battery strings and a lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings; sequentially charging each battery string of the lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings with the charger to a first target string voltage; and charging the plurality of battery strings together to a final target string voltage, the final target string voltage greater than the first target string voltage.
Minami teaches identifying a highest-voltage battery string of the plurality of battery strings and a lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings (¶[19-20]; the voltage values of the batteries are detected from lowest to highest).
Minami teaches sequentially charging each battery string of the lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings with the charger to a first target string voltage (¶[19-20]; the lowest voltage batteries are charged up to an upper tolerance range value of the voltage command value [e.g., 150 V +1 V = 151 V]).
Minami teaches charging the plurality of battery strings together to a final target string voltage, the final target string voltage greater than the first target string voltage (¶[23]; ¶[25]; after each battery is charged to be within the upper and lower tolerance value plus the command value, then the batteries are connected in parallel and it is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that charging resumes up to the upper threshold of the predetermined range which is the “final target” voltage value. For example, using 150 V for the command value (e.g., the highest voltage battery), +1 V for the upper tolerance range (e.g., 151 V for the first target string voltage), and for numerical representation the upper threshold of the predetermined range could be 152 V or another value greater than 151 V. So in this scenario, when the batteries are sequentially charged up to the first target string voltage of 151 V they are then connected in parallel and together are charged up to 152 V).
Charging lower-charged batteries individually before combining them into a full bank ensures that healthy batteries are not severely overcharged. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have adapted Minami’s battery voltage balancing to McLean’s battery-powered aircraft. The advantage of this being equalizing the battery voltages before connecting them in parallel in order to minimize voltage differences which could lead to damage and deterioration (see ¶[04-05] of Minami).
With respect to claim 12, McLean teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 11. However, McLean fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 12.
Minami teaches wherein the first target string voltage is greater than a battery string voltage of the highest-voltage battery string (¶[19-20]; for exemplary purposes the battery with the highest voltage value is 150 V and the “first target” voltage considering the upper tolerance range is 151 V thus greater than the highest voltage value).
Ensuring the batteries are within a tolerance range prior to connecting them in parallel safeguards the voltage difference is within an acceptable range. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have adapted Minami’s battery voltage balancing to McLean’s battery-powered aircraft. The advantage of this being equalizing the battery voltages before connecting them in parallel in order to minimize voltage differences which could lead to damage and deterioration (see ¶[04-05] of Minami).
With respect to claim 13, McLean teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 12. However, McLean fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 13.
Minami teaches wherein the first target string voltage is within a predetermined voltage threshold of the battery string voltage of the highest-voltage battery string (¶[19]; the “first target” voltage is withing an upper and lower tolerance range of the voltage command value which is the highest voltage battery value).
Ensuring the batteries are within a tolerance range prior to connecting them in parallel safeguards the voltage difference is within an acceptable range. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have adapted Minami’s battery voltage balancing to McLean’s battery-powered aircraft. The advantage of this being equalizing the battery voltages before connecting them in parallel in order to minimize voltage differences which could lead to damage and deterioration (see ¶[04-05] of Minami).
With respect to claim 14, McLean teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 11. However, McLean fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 14.
Minami teaches comprising opening contactors for each battery string of the plurality of battery strings prior to determining the battery string voltage for each battery string of the plurality of battery strings (¶[22]; the switches are disconnected prior to the BMS measuring the battery voltages of each battery).
Opening the contactor prior to measuring the voltage of the battery provides the Open Circuit Voltage (OCV) which is a measure of the battery’s voltage without any voltage drop caused under a working load. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have adapted Minami’s OCV measurement of the batteries to McLean’s aircraft battery system. The benefit of this being an accurate reflection of the battery’s true state of charge and health may be determined.
With respect to claim 15, McLean teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 11. However, McLean fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 15.
Minami teaches wherein sequentially charging each battery string of the lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings includes opening contactors for each sequentially-charged battery string of the lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings before charging another battery string of the lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings (¶[23]; the batteries are sequentially connected and disconnected one at a time for charging purposes prior to combining them in parallel).
Charging lower-charged batteries individually before combining them into a full bank ensures that healthy batteries are not severely overcharged. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have adapted Minami’s battery voltage balancing to McLean’s battery-powered aircraft. The advantage of this being equalizing the battery voltages before connecting them in parallel in order to minimize voltage differences which could lead to damage and deterioration (see ¶[04-05] of Minami).
With respect to independent claim 16, McLean teaches an assembly (Fig. 2a; power system 134) for an aircraft (Fig. 1; aircraft 100), the assembly including an aircraft propulsion system including a rotational assembly (Fig. 2a; propulsor 110), the rotational assembly including a rotatable shaft and an electric motor, the electric motor configured to selectively drive the rotatable shaft (Fig. 2a; an electric motor 118 and a propeller 120 that has a shaft connection wherein the electric motor 118 selectively drives the propeller 120).
McLean teaches a battery configured to provide electrical power to the electric motor to selectively drive the rotatable shaft, the battery including a plurality of battery strings (Fig. 2a; battery system 200 configured to provide IDraw to the electric motor 118 to drive the propeller 120 that has a shaft connection, the battery system 200 including a plurality of battery strings 204).
McLean teaches a charger configured to selectively direct an electrical charging current to the battery to charge the plurality of battery strings (Fig. 2a; power supply 126 selectively directs ICharge to the battery system 200 to charge the battery strings 204).
McLean teaches a battery monitoring system (Fig. 2a; BMS 208) including a plurality of sensors (¶[94]; voltage sensors), each sensor configured to measure a battery string voltage of a respective one of the plurality of battery strings (¶[94]; voltage sensors for measuring the voltage of the battery strings 204), the battery monitoring system further including a processor in communication with a non-transitory memory storing instructions, which instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (¶[63] and ¶[94]; processor 212 coupled with a memory device storing instructions for execution).
McLean teaches determine the battery string voltage for each battery string of the plurality of battery strings with the plurality of sensors (¶[91]; “The hardware instrumentation measures ... battery-string voltage ... useful to inform the module-selection process within the battery system 200”).
However, McLean fails to explicitly teach identify a highest-voltage battery string of the plurality of battery strings and a lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings; sequentially charge each battery string of the lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings with the charger to a first target string voltage; and charge the plurality of battery strings together to a final target string voltage, the final target string voltage greater than the first target string voltage.
Minami teaches identify a highest-voltage battery string of the plurality of battery strings and a lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings (¶[19-20]; the voltage values of the batteries are detected from lowest to highest).
Minami teaches sequentially charge each battery string of the lower-voltage subset of the plurality of battery strings with the charger to a first target string voltage (¶[19-20]; the lowest voltage batteries are charged up to an upper tolerance range value of the voltage command value [e.g., 150 V +1 V = 151 V]).
Minami teaches charge the plurality of battery strings together to a final target string voltage, the final target string voltage greater than the first target string voltage (¶[23]; ¶[25]; after each battery is charged to be within the upper and lower tolerance value plus the command value, then the batteries are connected in parallel and it is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that charging resumes up to the upper threshold of the predetermined range which is the “final target” voltage value. For example, using 150 V for the command value (e.g., the highest voltage battery), +1 V for the upper tolerance range (e.g., 151 V for the first target string voltage), and for numerical representation the upper threshold of the predetermined range could be 152 V or another value greater than 151 V. So in this scenario, when the batteries are sequentially charged up to the first target string voltage of 151 V they are then connected in parallel and together are charged up to 152 V).
Charging lower-charged batteries individually before combining them into a full bank ensures that healthy batteries are not severely overcharged. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have adapted Minami’s battery voltage balancing to McLean’s battery-powered aircraft. The advantage of this being equalizing the battery voltages before connecting them in parallel in order to minimize voltage differences which could lead to damage and deterioration (see ¶[04-05] of Minami).
With respect to claim 17, McLean teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 16. Further, McLean teaches wherein the rotational assembly further includes a propeller, the electric motor configured to selectively drive the propeller via the rotatable shaft (Fig. 2a; an electric motor 118 and a propeller 120 that has a shaft connection wherein the electric motor 118 selectively drives the propeller 120).
With respect to claim 20, McLean teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 16. Further, McLean teaches wherein the plurality of battery strings are electrically connected in parallel (Fig. 2a; the plurality of battery strings 204 are electrically connected in parallel).
Claims 9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLean in view of Minami and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (USPGPN 20220289395).
With respect to claim 9, McLean teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, McLean fails to teach the limitations of claim 9.
Matsumoto teaches an aircraft propulsion system gas turbine engine (Fig. 3; gas turbine engine 60), the aircraft propulsion system gas turbine engine including a generator forming the charger (Fig. 3; ¶[55]; the generator 50 provides power to the battery unit 30).
A gas turbine engine is used as a prime mover for supplying power to the battery system. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Matsumoto’s gas turbine engine to McLean’s aircraft battery system. The advantage being that the aircraft battery system may be charged by the gas turbine engine or the gas engine turbine may provide flight power to the aircraft when the battery system is in a low state of charge (see ¶[15] of Matsumoto).
With respect to claim 18, McLean teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 16. However, McLean fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 18.
Matsumoto teaches wherein the propulsion system includes a gas turbine engine (Fig. 3; gas turbine engine 60), the gas turbine engine including the rotational assembly and a generator, the generator forming the charger (Fig. 3; ¶[55]; the generator 50 provides power to the battery unit 30).
A gas turbine engine is used as a prime mover for supplying power to the battery system. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Matsumoto’s gas turbine engine to McLean’s aircraft battery system. The advantage being that the aircraft battery system may be charged by the gas turbine engine or the gas engine turbine may provide flight power to the aircraft when the battery system is in a low state of charge (see ¶[15] of Matsumoto).
With respect to claim 19, McLean teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 18. However, McLean fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 19.
Matsumoto teaches wherein the gas turbine engine includes a second rotational assembly including a second rotatable shaft, a bladed turbine rotor, and a bladed compressor rotor, the second rotatable shaft interconnecting the bladed turbine rotor and the bladed compressor rotor, the bladed turbine rotor configured to drive the generator via the second rotatable shaft (¶[58]).
A gas turbine engine is used as a prime mover for supplying power to the battery system. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Matsumoto’s gas turbine engine to McLean’s aircraft battery system. The advantage being that the aircraft battery system may be charged by the gas turbine engine or the gas engine turbine may provide flight power to the aircraft when the battery system is in a low state of charge (see ¶[15] of Matsumoto).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The additional prior art identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) were considered by the examiner, however, for examination purposes were not relied upon for citation purposes.
Alser et al. (USPGPN 20170120772) describes an electric vehicle battery made of multiple separate battery strings. Each string can be connected to or disconnected from the vehicle’s power bus by switches under control of circuitry. The system watches each string’s voltage, current, and estimated charge while the vehicle is operating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights