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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 12/08/2023 and 5/14/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Maikawa was disclosed in the IDS’s.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 2024/0286508 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Pat ‘508 anticipates the limitation of claims 1-20 of the instant application.
With respect to claim 1, Pat ‘508 discloses a floor assembly for an inductive charging device for inductive charging of a motor vehicle parked on an underground , with a base plate designed in particular as a cooling plate, which extends transversely to a spacer in the shape of a plate, with at least one flat coil, which has a conductor and is spaced from the base plate in the spacing direction, with a core arrangement for guiding a magnetic flux, which is spaced apart from the base plate and the flat coil in the spacing direction and is arranged between the base plate and the conductor, wherein the core arrangement has at least one core body which extends transversely to the spacing direction in the form of a plate and has a middle area and at least one edge area , wherein the floor assembly has a holder for holding the core assembly, wherein the holder has a holding structure which is spaced apart from the base plate in the spacing direction and which positions the at least one core body, wherein a lower cavity is formed between the retaining structure and the base plate wherein the holder has at least one support between the holding structure and the base plate, which support extends through the lower cavity in the spacing direction wherein at least one support is designed as a heat-conducting element made of a material with a thermal conductivity of A > 5 W/(m-K) and is arranged transversely to the spacing direction within the middle area of an associated core body and connects the core arrangement and the base plate in a heat- transferring manner (Claim 1).
With respect to claim 2, Pat ‘508 discloses the floor assembly wherein the at least one support is made of a material with a thermal conductivity X > 10 W/(m-K) (Claim 2).
With respect to claim 3, Pat ‘508 discloses the floor assembly Wherein the base plate has at least one cooling channel for a coolant (Claim 3).
With respect to claim 4, Pat ‘508 discloses the floor assembly , the at least one support is at least partially made of metal (Claim 4).
With respect to claim 5, Pat ‘508 discloses the floor assembly the at least one support is at least composed of graphite or ceramic (Claim 4).
Dependent claims 6-17 are also rejected under non-DP using claims 5-19.
With respect to claim 18, Pat ‘508 discloses an inductive charging device, comprising: a floor assembly , the floor assembly including: a cooling plate that extends transversely to a spacer in the shape of a plate , at least one flat coil having a conductor and is spaced from the cooling plate in a spacing direction from #33), a core arrangement for guiding a magnetic flux, which is spaced apart from the cooling plate and the at least one flat coil in the spacing direction and is arranged between the cooling plate and the conductor , wherein the core arrangement has at least one core body which extend transversely to the spacing direction in the form of a plate and has middle area and at least one edge area , a holder for holding the core arrangement , wherein the holder has a holding structure which is spaced apart from the cooling plate in the spacing direction and which positions the at least one core body , wherein a lower cavity is formed between the holding structure and the cooling plate between #33 and #25), at least one support disposed between the holding structure and the cooling plate , the at least one support extends through the lower cavity in the spacing direction , and wherein the at least one support is structured as a heat-conducting element made of a material with a thermal conductivity of A>5 W/ ) is arranged transversely to the spacing direction within a middle area of an associated core body and connects the core arrangement and the cooling plate in a heat-transferring manner (Claim 20).
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 1-2, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maikawa (U.S 2018/0114629 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Maikawa discloses the floor assembly (Fig.1) for an inductive charging device for inductive charging of a motor vehicle parked on an underground (paragraph [0013]) comprising: a base plate (Fig.1, #33) that extends transversely to a spacer in the shape of a plate (Fig.1, #33 extends transversely in a shape of a plate), at least one flat coil (Fig.1, #11), which has a conductor (Fig.1, #11 includes conductors) and is spaced from the base plate in a spacing direction (Fig.1, #11 are spaced from #33 in the spacing direction (vertically)), a core (Fig.1, #20) arrangement for guiding a magnetic flux, which is spaced apart from the base plate (Fig.1, #20 is spaced apart from #8) and the at least one flat coil in the spacing direction and is arranged between the base plate and the conductor (Fig.1, #20 is between #33 and conductors), wherein the core arrangement has at least one core body (Fig.1, #21) which extends transversely to the spacing direction in the form of a plate (Fig.1) and has a middle area and at least one edge area (Fig.1, #21 is a middle area and at least one edge area), a holder (Fig.1, #25) for holding the core arrangement (Fig.1), wherein the holder has a holding structure (Fig.1, #25 has a holding structure (Tray)) which is spaced apart from the base plate in the spacing direction (Fig.1, #25 is spaced from #33) and which positions the at least one core body (Fig.1), wherein a lower cavity (Fig.1, the cavity between the holding structure and base plate) is formed between the holding structure and the base plate wherein the holder has at least one support (Fig.1, #31) between the holding structure and the base plate (Fig.1, #31 is placed between #33 and #25), which support extends through the lower cavity in the spacing direction (Fig.1, #31 extends in the lower cavity) wherein at least one support is structured as a heat-conducting element made of a material with a thermal conductivity of A > 5 W/(m-K) (Fig.1, #31 and paragraph [0024], which disclose each support is made of aluminum which has a thermally conductivity greater than 5W/(m-k)) and is arranged transversely to the spacing direction (Fig.1, #31 is transversely (horizontal) to the spacing direction (vertical)) within the middle area of an associated core body and connects the core arrangement and the base plate in a heat- transferring manner (Fig.1 and paragraph [0024 & 0028]).
In regards to Claim 2, Maikawa discloses the floor assembly according to claim 1, wherein the at least one support is made of a material with a thermal conductivity X > 10 W/(m-K) (Fig.1 and Paragraph [0024], which disclose each support is made of aluminum which has a thermally conductivity greater than 10W/(m-k).
In regards to Claim 4, Maikawa discloses the floor assembly according to claim 1, the at least one support is at least partially made of metal (Fig.1, #31 is made of metal, paragraph [0024]).
In regards to Claim 6, Maikawa discloses the floor assembly according to claim 1, at least one support is tubular or solid (Fig.1, #31 is a solid)
In regards to Claim 7, Maikawa discloses the floor assembly according to claim 1, that at least one of the following components is made of ferrite or comprises ferrite, the core arrangement (Fig.1, #20, and paragraph [0022-0025], which discloses #20 includes ferrite tiles/material), the holder and/or the holding structure.
In regards to Claim 8, Maikawa discloses the floor assembly according to claim 1, wherein that the base plate is at least partially composed of aluminum (Fig.1, #33 is made of aluminum, see paragraph [0024]).
In regards to Claim 11, Maikawa discloses the floor assembly according to claim 1, wherein an air flow path leads through the lower cavity and/or in which at least one electronic component is arranged (Fig.1, and paragraph [0066], which discloses air flow can enter the gap between #33 and #40 which goes through the lower cavity to help cool the core body).
In regards to Claim 12, Maikawa discloses the floor assembly according to claim 1, wherein a cover plate on the side of the flat coil facing away from the base plate and at a distance from the in the spacing direction, an upper cavity is provided between the holding structure and the cover plate.
In regards to Claim 13, Maikawa discloses the floor assembly according to claim 1, wherein at least one passage is provided which fluidically connects the lower cavity to the upper cavity (Fig.1, upper cavity is fluidly connected to the lower cavity).
In regards to Claim 14, Maikawa discloses the floor assembly according to claim 1, wherein at least one support is composed of a material having a thermal conductivity X > 100 W/(m-K) ((Fig.1, #31 is made of aluminum, see paragraph [0024], which has a higher thermal conductivity of 100W).
In regards to Claim 15, Maikawa discloses the floor assembly according to claim 1, wherein at least one support is at least partially composed of aluminum (Fig.1, #31 is made of aluminum, see paragraph [0024]).
In regards to Claim 18, Maikawa discloses an inductive charging device, comprising: a floor assembly (Fig.1), the floor assembly including: a cooling plate (Fig.1, #33) that extends transversely to a spacer in the shape of a plate (Fig.1, #33 is extending transversely in the shape of a plate), at least one flat coil (Fig.1, #11) having a conductor (Fig.1, #11 has conductor spheres) and is spaced from the cooling plate in a spacing direction (Fig.1, #11 is spaced in a spacing direction (vertically) from #33), a core arrangement (Fig.1, #20) for guiding a magnetic flux, which is spaced apart from the cooling plate and the at least one flat coil in the spacing direction and is arranged between the cooling plate and the conductor (Fig.1, #20 is between #33 cooling plate and #11 conductors), wherein the core arrangement has at least one core body (Fig.1, #20 includes a core body #21) which extend transversely to the spacing direction in the form of a plate (Fig.1) and has middle area and at least one edge area (Fig.1, #21 has a middle area and an edge area), a holder (Fig.1, #25) for holding the core arrangement (Fig.1, #25 is a tray to support #20), wherein the holder has a holding structure (Fig.1, #25 has a holding structure which is a tray) which is spaced apart from the cooling plate in the spacing direction (Fig.1, #25 is spaced away from cooling plate #33) and which positions the at least one core body (Fig.1), wherein a lower cavity is formed between the holding structure and the cooling plate (Fig.1, there is a lower cavity (space) between #33 and #25), at least one support (Fig.1, #31) disposed between the holding structure and the cooling plate (Fig.1, #31 between #33 and #25), the at least one support extends through the lower cavity in the spacing direction (Fig.1, #31 extends through the lower cavity portion in a spacing direction), and wherein the at least one support is structured as a heat-conducting element made of a material with a thermal conductivity of A>5 W/(m-K) (Fig.1, #31 is made of metal, see paragraph [0024], which states aluminum which has a thermal conductivity greater than 5 W/(m-k)) is arranged transversely to the spacing direction within a middle area of an associated core body (Fig.1) and connects the core arrangement and the cooling plate in a heat-transferring manner (Fig.1, and paragraph [0024 & 0028]).
In regards to Claim 19, Maikawa discloses the inductive charging device according to claim 18, wherein at least one support is composed of a material with a thermal conductivity X > 10 W/(m-K) (Fig.1, #31 is made of aluminum, see paragraph [0024], which has a greater thermal conductivity than 10 W/m-k).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maikawa (U.S 2018/0114629 A1) in view of Ansari (CN 107404824 B).
In regards to Claim 3, Maikawa discloses the floor assembly according to claim 1.
Maikawa fails to disclose: Wherein the base plate has at least one cooling channel for a coolant.
However, Ansari discloses: Wherein the base plate (Fig.5, #20, which is considered the base plate) has at least one cooling channel for a coolant (Fig.5, #20 includes at least one cooling passage for coolant #30, see (“referring now to FIG. 5, an exploded view of the coolant assembly 20 is shown. The coolant passage 30 includes a flow diverter and a flow guide plate 56 for guiding the flow of the coolant”), as such the office notes that with the combination of Maikawa in view of Ansari, the baseplate which is used to conduct heat away from the flat coil/conductors (as taught by Maikawa) would be modified to include at least one cooling channel (as taught by Ansari) to aid in the process of dissipation heat).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the baseplate which is used to conduct heat away from the flat coil/conductors (as taught by Maikawa) to further include at least one cooling channel (as taught by Ansari) to aid in the process of dissipation heat. By including a cooling channel for coolant within the baseplate, would increase the efficiency of heat dissipation, resulting in safer operating environment and further, increase the longevity of the floor assembly.
In regards to Claim 20, Maikawa discloses the inductive charging device according to claim 18. Maikawa fails to disclose: Wherein the base plate has at least one cooling channel for a coolant.
However, Ansari discloses: Wherein the base plate (Fig.5, #20, which is considered the base plate) has at least one cooling channel for a coolant (Fig.5, #20 includes at least one cooling passage for coolant #30, see (“referring now to FIG. 5, an exploded view of the coolant assembly 20 is shown. The coolant passage 30 includes a flow diverter and a flow guide plate 56 for guiding the flow of the coolant”), as such the office notes that with the combination of Maikawa in view of Ansari, the baseplate which is used to conduct heat away from the flat coil/conductors (as taught by Maikawa) would be modified to include at least one cooling channel (as taught by Ansari) to aid in the process of dissipation heat).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the baseplate which is used to conduct heat away from the flat coil/conductors (as taught by Maikawa) to further include at least one cooling channel (as taught by Ansari) to aid in the process of dissipation heat. By including a cooling channel for coolant within the baseplate, would increase the efficiency of heat dissipation, resulting in safer operating environment and further increase the longevity of the floor assembly.
Claims 5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maikawa (U.S 2018/0114629 A1) in view of Volfovski (U.S 2013/0256966 A1).
In regards to Claim 5, Maikawa discloses the floor assembly according to claim 1.
Maikawa fails to disclose: The at least one support is formed at least partially from graphite or ceramic.
However, Volfovski discloses: The at least one support is formed at least partially from graphite or ceramic (Fig.1, #102 and paragraph [0018], which disclose a support member can be made of graphite, as such the office notes that with the combination of Maikawa in view of Volfovski, the at least one support made of metal (as taught by Maikawa) would be modified to be made of graphite (as taught by Volfovski) for better strength to weight ratio).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the at least one support made of metal (as taught by Maikawa) to be made of graphite (as taught by Volfovski) for better strength to weight ratio. By making the support member using graphite, will not only increase the strength to weight ratio, but also offer better heat dissipation to the base plate.
In regards to Claim 16, Maikawa discloses the floor assembly according to claim 1.
Maikawa fails to disclose: The at least one support is at least partially composed of aluminum nitride.
However, Volfovski discloses: The at least one support is at least partially composed of aluminum nitride (Fig.1, #102 and paragraph [0018], which disclose a support member can be made of aluminum nitride, as such the office notes that with the combination of Maikawa in view of Volfovski, the at least one support made of metal (as taught by Maikawa) would be modified to be made of aluminum nitride (as taught by Volfovski) for better thermal conductivity that pure aluminum).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the at least one support made of metal (as taught by Maikawa) to be made of aluminum nitride (as taught by Volfovski) for better thermal conductivity that pure aluminum. By making the support member using aluminum nitride, will not only increase the thermal conductivity, but also offer electrical insulation from other conductive parts.
In regards to Claim 17, Maikawa discloses the floor assembly according to claim 1.
Maikawa fails to disclose: The at least one support is at least partially composed of aluminum silicide.
However, Volfovski discloses: The at least one support is at least partially composed of aluminum silicide (Fig.1, #102 and paragraph [0018], which disclose a support member can be made of aluminum silicide, as such the office notes that with the combination of Maikawa in view of Volfovski, the at least one support made of metal (as taught by Maikawa) would be modified to be made of aluminum silicide (as taught by Volfovski) for higher strength than pure aluminum).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the at least one support made of metal (as taught by Maikawa) to be made of aluminum nitride (as taught by Volfovski) for higher strength than pure aluminum. By making the support member using aluminum silicide, will not only increase the overall strength, but also offer better wear resistance of said support.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maikawa (U.S 2018/0114629 A1) in view of Takeshita (U.S 2013/0181667 A1).
In regards to Claim 9, Maikawa discloses the floor assembly according to claim 1.
Maikawa fails to disclose: Further comprising a distributor plate arranged between at least one support and the core arrangement.
However, Takeshita discloses: Further comprising a distributor plate (Fig.4, #110) arranged between at least one support and the core arrangement (Fig.4, #110 is between #112 (core arrangement) and #T2 (support column protruding from base plate #102, as such the office notes that with the combination of Maikawa in view of Takeshita, the floor assembly having a core arrangement and a support (as taught by Maikawa) would be modified to include a distributor plate (as taught by Takeshita) to help distribute the weight of the core arrangement and protect shorts between the core and support).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the floor assembly having a core arrangement and a support (as taught by Maikawa) to further include a distributor plate (as taught by Takeshita) to help distribute the weight of the core arrangement and prevent shorts between the core and at least one support.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maikawa (U.S 2018/0114629 A1) in view of Takeshita (U.S 2013/0181667 A1) and, further in view of Chien (EP 3734625 A1).
In regards to Claim 10, Maikawa in view of Takeshita discloses the floor assembly according to claim 9, wherein the distributor plate is connected to the core arrangement via an adhesive layer (Takeshita, Fig.4 and paragraph [0058], which discloses the distributor plate is attached with an adhesive).
Maikawa in view of Takeshita fails to disclose: an adhesive layer with a thermal conductivity of X > 0.8 W/(m-K) and/or a shear modulus of G <10MPa.
However, Chien discloses: an adhesive layer with a thermal conductivity of X > 0.8 W/(m-K) (Fig.27, #8-104 and “the thermal conductivity coefficient of the adhesive layer 8-104 is greater than 1 (W/mK),” which discloses a thermally conductive adhesive having a thermal conductivity greater than 0.8 W/(m-k), as such the office notes that with the combination of Maikawa in view of Takeshita and Chien, the adhesive used to secure the distributor plate to the core arrangement (as taught by Maikawa in view of Takeshita) would be modified to use a thermally conductive adhesive having a thermally conductivity greater than 0.8 W/(m-k) (as taught by Chien) to conduct heat away from the core arrangement).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the adhesive used to secure the distributor plate to the core arrangement (as taught by Maikawa in view of Takeshita) to use a thermally conductive adhesive having a thermally conductivity greater than 0.8 W/(m-k) (as taught by Chien) to conduct heat away from the core arrangement. By utilizing a thermal adhesive would assist in conducting heat away from the core arrangement to the support member and base plate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Angermeier (U.S 2023/0089953 A1) – Discloses an inductive charger placing within a housing comprising a core arrangement, at least one support, wherein said housing includes an upper and lower cavity which includes said core and at least one support.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDEEP S BUTTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4768. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights