DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, ll. 13, “the number of turns” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, ll. 14, “the number of conductors” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, ll. 15, “the number of slots” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, ll. 15-16, “the number of parallel electrical paths” lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-5 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the claims recite “two phase outputs,” which has not been sufficiently disclosed to convey the meaning of the limitation. ¶ [0037]-[0038] merely discloses the same disclosure as the claim and does not go into detail of what “two phase outputs” is.
Claims 18-20 are rejected for depending upon claim 4.
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 3-6 and 15-20 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “the number of turns … between 9 and 18,” and the claim also recites “notably between 9 and 16” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 4-6 and 15-20 are rejected for depending upon claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fatemi et al. (DE 102018113266 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fatemi discloses a permanent-magnet synchronous rotary electric machine (10) for a self-propelled mobile device (mobile platform), comprising:
a magnet rotor (20) having a number P of pole pairs (between 6-12 poles),
a stator (50) comprising slots (58) and a winding (54) comprising at least three phases (between 3-6 phases), each phase has multiple turns, a turn is formed by a succession of electrical conductors (conductive stranded wire) accommodated in different slots (58) and electrically connected to one another, each slot (58) accommodating multiple electrical conductors (between 1-2 layers),
an inverter-rectifier (inverter) designed, in motor mode, to transform a DC nominal input voltage comprised between a voltage of 48 volts and a voltage of 600 volts into AC supply voltages of a multi-phase system for each phase of the winding (54; between 12V and 100V),
wherein the winding (54) is of the type in which the number of turns N in the stator per phase (between 8-20 turns per phase) is equal to the number E of conductors in a slot (between 1-2 conductors), multiplied by the number P of pole pairs (between 6-12 poles or 3-6 pole pairs) multiplied by the number A of slots per pole and per phase (between 60-96 total slots), all divided by the number B of parallel electrical paths of the conductors in a slot and/or divided by the square root of three if the winding is delta-coupled, wherein the number of turns N per phase in the stator (50) is comprised between 9 and 20 (between 8-20 turns per phase).
While Fatemi does not disclose the functional limitations of “designed, in alternator mode, to supply a DC output voltage comprised between a voltage of 48 volts and a voltage of 600 volts,” Fatemi does disclose all the structural limitations of the claims and that the electric machine can be used as a generator. Thus, Fatemi is inherently capable of the desired functions of the claims. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 3/1, Fatemi was discussed above in claim 1. Fatemi further discloses wherein the number of turns N in the stator per phase is comprised between 9 and 18 (between 8-20 turns per phase), and notably between 9 and 16, and the inverter-rectifier has a nominal voltage of 48 volts (DC power source is a 48V DC device).
Regarding claim 6/3, Fatemi was discussed above in claim 3. Fatemi further discloses wherein the number of turns per phase is comprised between 16 and 18 (between 8-20 turns per phase), the number of phases is 3 (between 3-6 phases), and the number P of pole pairs is comprised between 5 and 6 (between 6-12 poles or 3-6 pole pairs).
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.
Claims 2 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatemi et al. (DE 102018113266 A1) in view of Liang et al. (US 2019/0222078 A1).
Regarding claim 2/1, Fatemi was discussed above in claim 1. Fatemi does not disclose wherein the electrical conductors accommodated in a slot are arms of a pin, the pins being electrically connected by way of their free ends in pairs so as to form the winding.
Liang discloses wherein the electrical conductors (90, 92, 94, 96) accommodated in a slot (34) are arms of a pin (FIG. 3-6), the pins being electrically connected by way of their free ends (110, 120, 128, 132, 146, 147, 162, 164) in pairs so as to form the winding (40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Fatemi in view of Liang to disclose wherein the electrical conductors accommodated in a slot are arms of a pin, the pins being electrically connected by way of their free ends in pairs so as to form the winding, for the advantages of increased power density, thermal management and structural integrity.
Regarding claim 12/2, Fatemi in view of Liang was discussed above in claim 2. Fatemi further discloses wherein the inverter-rectifier has a nominal voltage of 48 volts (DC power source is a 48V DC device).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the electric machine has a performance ratio equal to the peak torque in Nm multiplied by the peak mechanical power in watts, all divided by a value equal to the peak current in amperes multiplied by the number of turns per phase N multiplied by the outside diameter of the machine in millimeters multiplied by the length of the machine in millimeters, and wherein the performance ratio is greater than 0.02,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the performance ratio based on peak torque, peak power, peak current, turns per phase, and outside diameter of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with the performance ratio greater than 0.02.
Regarding claim 13/2, Fatemi in view of Liang was discussed above in claim 2. Fatemi further discloses the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of 48 volts (DC power source is a 48V DC device).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the mechanical power is comprised between 8 kW and 50 kW,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the power based on other parameters of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with power between 8kW and 50kW.
Claims 4-5, 8-9, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatemi et al. (DE 102018113266 A1).
Regarding claim 4/3, Fatemi was discussed above in claim 3. Fatemi further discloses wherein the number of turns per phase is comprised between 11 and 12 (between 8-20 turns per phase), the number of phases is 6 (between 3-6 phases), the number P of pole pairs is comprised between 5 and 6 (between 6-12 poles or 3-6 pole pairs).
Fatemi does not explicitly disclose “the cross section of the conductors is notably dimensioned such that the resistance between two phase outputs is less than 13 milliohms.” Fatemi does disclose that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing a cross-section or resistance of the conductor based on other parameters of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, as resistance of a conductor is directly related to the power as evidenced by Ohm’s law and power equation, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with a conductor resistance less than 13 milliohms.
Regarding claim 5/3, Fatemi was discussed above in claim 3. Fatemi further discloses wherein the number of turns per phase is comprised between 13 and 16 (between 8-20 turns per phase), the number of phases is 6 (between 3-6 phases), the number P of pole pairs is comprised between 5 and 6 (between 6-12 poles or 3-6 pole pairs).
Fatemi does not explicitly disclose “the cross section of the conductors is notably dimensioned such that the resistance between two phase outputs is less than 13 milliohms.” Fatemi does disclose that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing a cross-section or resistance of the conductor based on other parameters of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, as resistance of a conductor is directly related to the power as evidenced by Ohm’s law and power equation, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with a conductor resistance less than 13 milliohms.
Regarding claim 8/1, Fatemi was discussed above in claim 1. Fatemi further discloses wherein the inverter-rectifier has a nominal voltage of 48 volts (DC power source is a 48V DC device).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the electric machine has a performance ratio equal to the peak torque in Nm multiplied by the peak mechanical power in watts, all divided by a value equal to the peak current in amperes multiplied by the number of turns per phase N multiplied by the outside diameter of the machine in millimeters multiplied by the length of the machine in millimeters, and wherein the performance ratio is greater than 0.02,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the performance ratio based on peak torque, peak power, peak current, turns per phase, and outside diameter of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with the performance ratio greater than 0.02.
PNG
media_image1.png
342
1092
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9/1, Fatemi was discussed above in claim 1. Fatemi further discloses the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of 48 volts (DC power source is a 48V DC device).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the mechanical power is comprised between 8 kW and 50 kW,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the power based on other parameters of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with power between 8kW and 50kW.
Regarding claim 15/3, Fatemi was discussed above in claim 3. Fatemi further discloses wherein the inverter-rectifier has a nominal voltage of 48 volts (DC power source is a 48V DC device).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the electric machine has a performance ratio equal to the peak torque in Nm multiplied by the peak mechanical power in watts, all divided by a value equal to the peak current in amperes multiplied by the number of turns per phase N multiplied by the outside diameter of the machine in millimeters multiplied by the length of the machine in millimeters, and wherein the performance ratio is greater than 0.02,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the performance ratio based on peak torque, peak power, peak current, turns per phase, and outside diameter of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with the performance ratio greater than 0.02.
Regarding claim 16/3, Fatemi was discussed above in claim 3. Fatemi further discloses the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of 48 volts (DC power source is a 48V DC device).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the mechanical power is comprised between 8 kW and 50 kW,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the power based on other parameters of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with power between 8kW and 50kW.
Regarding claim 18/4, Fatemi was discussed above in claim 4. Fatemi further discloses wherein the inverter-rectifier has a nominal voltage of 48 volts (DC power source is a 48V DC device).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the electric machine has a performance ratio equal to the peak torque in Nm multiplied by the peak mechanical power in watts, all divided by a value equal to the peak current in amperes multiplied by the number of turns per phase N multiplied by the outside diameter of the machine in millimeters multiplied by the length of the machine in millimeters, and wherein the performance ratio is greater than 0.02,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the performance ratio based on peak torque, peak power, peak current, turns per phase, and outside diameter of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with the performance ratio greater than 0.02.
PNG
media_image1.png
342
1092
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19/4, Fatemi was discussed above in claim 4. Fatemi further discloses the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of 48 volts (DC power source is a 48V DC device).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the mechanical power is comprised between 8 kW and 50 kW,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the power based on other parameters of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with power between 8kW and 50kW.
Claims 7, 10, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatemi et al. (DE 102018113266 A1) in view of Colavincenzo (WO 2018/191410 A1).
Regarding claim 7/1, Fatemi was discussed above in claim 1. Fatemi further discloses wherein the number of turns per phase is between 16 and 20 (between 8 and 20 turns per phase).
Fatemi does not disclose the inverter-rectifier has a DC nominal voltage comprised between 300 and 400 volts.
Colavincenzo discloses the inverter-rectifier has a DC nominal voltage comprised between 300 and 400 volts (¶ [0094] inverter connected to an energy storage unit having an operating voltage range of 300V to 400V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Fatemi in view of Colavincenzo to disclose the inverter-rectifier has a DC nominal voltage comprised between 300 and 400 volts, as disclosed by Colavincenzo in ¶ [0094], the nominal voltage and current output can be easily changed as desired by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10/1, Fatemi was discussed above in claim 1. Regarding the limitation “wherein the mechanical power is comprised between 51 kW and 150 kW,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the power based on other parameters of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with power between 51 kW and 150 kW.
Fatemi does not disclose the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts.
Colavincenzo discloses the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts (¶ [0094] inverter connected to an energy storage unit having an operating voltage range of 300V to 400V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Fatemi in view of Colavincenzo to disclose the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts, as disclosed by Colavincenzo in ¶ [0094], the nominal voltage and current output can be easily changed as desired by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17/3, Fatemi was discussed above in claim 3. Regarding the limitation “wherein the mechanical power is comprised between 51 kW and 150 kW,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the power based on other parameters of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with power between 51 kW and 150 kW.
Fatemi does not disclose the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts.
Colavincenzo discloses the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts (¶ [0094] inverter connected to an energy storage unit having an operating voltage range of 300V to 400V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Fatemi in view of Colavincenzo to disclose the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts, as disclosed by Colavincenzo in ¶ [0094], the nominal voltage and current output can be easily changed as desired by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20/4, Fatemi was discussed above in claim 4. Regarding the limitation “wherein the mechanical power is comprised between 51 kW and 150 kW,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the power based on other parameters of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with power between 51 kW and 150 kW.
Fatemi does not disclose the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts.
Colavincenzo discloses the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts (¶ [0094] inverter connected to an energy storage unit having an operating voltage range of 300V to 400V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Fatemi in view of Colavincenzo to disclose the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts, as disclosed by Colavincenzo in ¶ [0094], the nominal voltage and current output can be easily changed as desired by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatemi et al. (DE 102018113266 A1) in view of Liang et al. (US 2019/0222078 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Colavincenzo (WO 2018/191410 A1).
Regarding claim 11/2, Fatemi in view of Liang was discussed above in claim 2. Fatemi further discloses wherein the number of turns per phase is between 16 and 20 (between 8 and 20 turns per phase).
Fatemi in view of Liang does not disclose the inverter-rectifier has a DC nominal voltage comprised between 300 and 400 volts.
Colavincenzo discloses the inverter-rectifier has a DC nominal voltage comprised between 300 and 400 volts (¶ [0094] inverter connected to an energy storage unit having an operating voltage range of 300V to 400V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Fatemi in view of Liang, further in view of Colavincenzo to disclose the inverter-rectifier has a DC nominal voltage comprised between 300 and 400 volts, as disclosed by Colavincenzo in ¶ [0094], the nominal voltage and current output can be easily changed as desired by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14/2, Fatemi in view of Liang was discussed above in claim 2. Regarding the limitation “wherein the mechanical power is comprised between 51 kW and 150 kW,” Fatemi discloses that “configured to provide operating parameters related to torque, speed, power, efficiency, housing, and other constraints,” which indicates that choosing the power based on other parameters of the machine amounts to routine design optimization/result effective variable, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious modify Fatemi based on the parameters above to build an electric machine with power between 51 kW and 150 kW.
Fatemi in view of Liang does not disclose the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts.
Colavincenzo discloses the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts (¶ [0094] inverter connected to an energy storage unit having an operating voltage range of 300V to 400V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Fatemi in view of Liang, further in view of Colavincenzo to disclose the inverter-rectifier is adapted for a DC nominal input voltage of greater than 300 volts, as disclosed by Colavincenzo in ¶ [0094], the nominal voltage and current output can be easily changed as desired by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINKI CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0521. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/MINKI CHANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights