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 .
Acknowledgement is made of application #18/568,835 filed on 12/10/2023 in which claims 1-16 have been presented for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of amendment filed on 12/10/2023 in which claims 1-16 have been amended while claims 17-20 have been newly added. By this amendment, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 121/10/2023 and 06/30/2026 have been considered and put on record. Initialed copies are attached herewith.
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.
Claim(s) 1,4,6,11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeshita et al., (Takeshita) US 2013/0181667 A1.
Regarding claim 1: Takeshita at least discloses and shows in Figs. 1-4:
A floor assembly(100)(see Figs. 2-4) for an inductive charging device(112) for inductive charging of a motor vehicle parked(400)(see Fig. 1 and [0042]) on an underground(S), comprising: a base plate(construed as bottom plate 102)(see [0045]) extending transversely to a spacing direction in the shape of a plate(see Fig. 2; shape of 102); at least one flat coil(transmitting coil 112) including a conductor(note-transmitting coil has the property of conducting current(i.e. are current carrying elements), thus includes a conductor, see [0048]), the at least one flat coil(112) disposed spaced apart from the base plate(102) in the spacing direction(in Figs. 2 and 4, coil 112 is spaced apart from bottom plate 102); a core arrangement(ferrite 108)(see [0045],[0047],[0050]-[0052]) for guiding a magnetic flux, the core arrangement(108) disposed spaced apart(see Figs. 4(a) and 4(b)) from the base plate(102) and the at least one flat coil(112) in the spacing direction and arranged between the base plate(102) and the conductor(see Fig. 4)(see [0045],[0047],[0050]-[0052]); the core arrangement including at least one core body(element 108) extending transversely to the spacing direction in the form of a plate, the at least one core body(108) having a central area and at least one edge area(see Fig. 4 and reference sign (b))([0056]-[0059] and [0061]); the at least one core body(108) is held via the at least one edge area(see Fig. 4); a lower cavity(space S1; see Fig. 4 and [0063]) formed between the at least one core body(108) and the base plate(102); and at least one elastic heat-conducting element(104)([0048]) connecting an associated core body of the at least one core body(108) to the base plate(102) in a heat-transferring manner([0045],[0047]-[0051]), the at least one heat-conducting element(104) extending from the central area of the associated core body(108) through the lower cavity(S1) to the base plate(102)(see [0056]-[0059],[0061],[0077]).
Regarding claim 4, Takeshita discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Takeshita discloses, wherein at least one of:
The base plate includes at least one cooling channel through which a coolant is flowable, and
The base plate (102) is at least partially composed of metal(aluminum)(see [0046])
Regarding claim 6, Takeshita discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Takeshita discloses, further comprising at least one support(122) disposed between the at least one core body(108) and the base plate(102), wherein the at least one support(122) extends through the lower cavity(S1) in the spacing direction and supports the at least one core body at the at least one edge area(see [0059] and Figs. 4(a)(b)).
Regarding claim 11, Takeshita discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Takeshita discloses, further comprising at least one of a distributor plate(106) and a distributor layer(110) arranged between the at least one heat-conducting element(104) and at least one of the associated core body(108) and the base plate(102)(see [0050]-[0051] and [0057]-[0059] and Figs. 4a and 4b).
Regarding claim 15, Takeshita discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Takeshita further teaches, wherein the at least one heat -conducting element(104) is preloaded against(sandwiched) the base plate(102) and the associated core body(108) when in an installed state(see Figs. 4(a) and (b)).
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.
Claim(s) 2,5,13-14,16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshita et al., (Takeshita) US 2013/0181667 A1 in view of Laemmle et al., (Laemmle) US 2021/0129694 A1
Regarding claim 2, Takeshita discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Takeshita further discloses(see [0049]) that it is preferable that the thermal conductivity of the thermally conductive member 104 is higher than the thermal conductivity of air in a prescribed temperature range (e.g., 150.degree. C. or less). The thermal conductivity is set to 1 W/mK or more. However, Takeshita but does not expressly disclose the limitations:
wherein at least one of: the at least one heat-conducting element includes a material with a thermal conductivity greater than 10 W/(mK); and the at least one heat-conducting element has a thermal resistance Rth between a connection surface to the associated core body and a connection surface to the base plate of Rth less than 0.5 K/W
However, Laemmle teaches factual evidence of, wherein at least one of: the at least one heat-conducting element includes a material with a thermal conductivity greater than 10 W/(mK); and the at least one heat-conducting element has a thermal resistance Rth between a connection surface to the associated core body and a connection surface to the base plate of Rth less than 0.5 K/W(see Laemmle; [0048]-[0049]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have had, wherein at least one of: the at least one heat-conducting element includes a material with a thermal conductivity greater than 10 W/(mK); and the at least one heat-conducting element has a thermal resistance Rth between a connection surface to the associated core body and a connection surface to the base plate of Rth less than 0.5 K/W, as recited, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one heat-conducting element of Takeshita includes a material with a thermal conductivity greater than 10 W/(mK); and the at least one heat-conducting element has a thermal resistance Rth between a connection surface to the associated core body and a connection surface to the base plate of Rth less than 0.5 K/W, as recited, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Accordingly claim 2 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Takeshita discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. However, Takeshita does not expressly disclose the limitations of, wherein the at least one heat-conducting element is structured as at least one of a sheet metal strip and a sleeve with a thickness of 0.5 mm to 2.0 mm.
However, Laemmle teaches factual evidence of, wherein the at least one heat-conducting element is structured as at least one of a sheet metal strip and a sleeve with a thickness of 0.5 mm to 2.0 mm(see Laemmle [0049]).
It would have been obvious to POSITA to combine Takeshita and Laemmle by having, wherein the at least one heat-conducting element is structured as at least one of a sheet metal strip and a sleeve with a thickness of 0.5 mm to 2.0 mm, as recited, so as to avoid an expensive casting in terms of weight and cost associated with heat-conducting casting compound, as per the teachings of Laemmle ([0047]).
Accordingly claim 5 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Takeshita discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1 but fails to expressly disclose, wherein the at least one heat conducting element(104) includes a stranded wire formed from a plurality of individual wires.
However, Laemmle discloses factual evidence of, wherein the at least one heat conducting element (15a,15b) includes a stranded wire formed from a plurality of individual wires(see [0043],[0144]-[0147] and [0159]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avail of the teachings of Laemmle by having, wherein the at least one heat conducting element includes a stranded wire formed from a plurality of individual wires, as recited, in order to form heat-conducting regions and thermal insulating regions, as per the teachings of Laemmle [0043].
Regarding claim 14, Takeshita in view of Laemmle discloses all the claimed invention as discussed and set forth above in claim 13(see[0144]-[0147] and [0159]). However, the combination does not expressly disclose the limitations of, wherein the plurality of individual wires of the stranded wires are 20 mm to 100 mm longer than a distance between the base plate and the at least one core body in the spacing direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avail of the teachings of Takeshita in view of Laemmle by having, wherein the plurality of individual wires of the stranded wires are 20 mm to 100 mm longer than a distance between the base plate and the at least one core body in the spacing direction, as recited, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly claim 14 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Takeshita in view of Laemmle discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 14. Laemmle further teaches, wherein the at least one heat-conducting element(15a,15b,15c) has an extension in the spacing direction. However, the combination of Takeshita and Laemmle does not expressly disclose the limitations of:
The extension in the spacing direction being 0.5mm to 5.0 mm greater than a largest distance occurring between the associated core body and the base plate.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one heat-conducting element has an extension in the spacing direction which is 0.5 mm to 5.0 mm greater than a largest distance occurring between the associated core body and the base plate, as recited, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, Takeshita discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Takeshita further discloses(see [0049]) that it is preferable that the thermal conductivity of the thermally conductive member 104 is higher than the thermal conductivity of air in a prescribed temperature range (e.g., 150.degree. C. or less). The thermal conductivity is set to 1 W/mK or more. However, Takeshita does not expressly disclose the limitations:
wherein at least one of: the at least one heat-conducting element includes a material with a thermal conductivity greater than 50 W/(mK); and the at least one heat-conducting element has a thermal resistance Rth between a connection surface to the associated core body and a connection surface to the base plate of Rth less than 0.1 K/W
Laemmle teaches factual evidence of, wherein at least one of: the at least one heat-conducting element includes a material with a thermal conductivity greater than 50 W/(mK); and the at least one heat-conducting element has a thermal resistance Rth between a connection surface to the associated core body and a connection surface to the base plate of Rth less than 0.1 K/W(see Laemmle; [0048]-[0049]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have had, wherein at least one of: the at least one heat-conducting element includes a material with a thermal conductivity greater than 50 W/(mK); and the at least one heat-conducting element has a thermal resistance Rth between a connection surface to the associated core body and a connection surface to the base plate of Rth less than 0.1 K/W, as recited, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one heat-conducting element of Takeshita includes a material with a thermal conductivity greater than 50 W/(mK); and the at least one heat-conducting element has a thermal resistance Rth between a connection surface to the associated core body and a connection surface to the base plate of Rth less than 0.1 K/W, as recited, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Accordingly claim 17 would have been obvious.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshita et al., (Takeshita) US 2013/0181667 A1 in view of Isenburg et al., (Isenburg) US 2010/0253067
Regarding claim 3, Takeshita discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Takeshita does not expressly disclose the limitations of:
Wherein the at least one heat-conducting element is at least partially composed of metal.
Isenburg discloses factual evidence of, wherein the at least one heat-conducting element(63) is at least partially composed of metal(corrosion-resistant metal)([0034]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Isenburg and Takeshita by having, wherein the at least one heat-conducting element is at least partially composed of metal, as recited, for the advantages of having the possibility to produce the connector body and the heat-conducting element as a one-piece part by the two-component method, as per the teachings of Isenburg ([0033]).
Accordingly claim 3 would have been obvious.
Claims 7,10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Takeshita et al., (Takeshita) US 2013/0181667 A1
Regarding claim 7, Takeshita discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 6 but fails to expressly disclose the limitations of, “wherein the at least one support is composed of plastic”. Instead, Takeshita discloses that the at least one support is made of aluminum ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have, wherein the at least one support is composed of plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Furthermore, a patent claim can be proved obvious by showing that the claimed combination of elements was “obvious to try,” particularly when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such that a POSITA would have had good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and when a device or technology is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in a different one, so that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, the variation is likely obvious.
Accordingly claim 7 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Takeshita discloses all the claimed invention as discussed and set forth above in claim 1. However, Takeshita stayed silent regarding the spring stiffness of the heat-conducting element (104). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have, wherein a spring stiffness of the at least one heat conducting element be 13 N/mm to 130 N/mm, as recited, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 12, Takeshita discloses all the claimed invention as discussed and set forth above in claim 11. However, Takeshita does not expressly disclose the limitations of, “wherein the at least one of the distributor plate and the distributor layer is connected to the associated core body via an adhesive layer with at least one of (i) a thermal conductivity greater than 0.8 W/(mK) and (ii) a shear modulus less than 10 MPa”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have, wherein the at least one of the distributor plate and the distributor layer is connected to the associated core body via an adhesive layer with at least one of (i) a thermal conductivity greater than 0.8 W/(mK) and (ii) a shear modulus less than 10 MPa, as recited since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshita et al., (Takeshita) US 2013/0181667 A1 in view of Fuchs US 2002/0125245 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Takeshita discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. While Takeshita discloses the at least one heat-conducting element(104) is connected to at least one of the associated core body(102)(see Fig. 4) and the base plate (102), Takeshita does not expressly disclose, that the connection is via a heat-conducting layer.
However, Fuchs teaches factual evidence of, wherein the at least one heat-conducting element is connected to at least one of the associated core body and the base plate via a heat-conducting layer(see [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avail of the teachings of Fuchs to have, wherein the at least one heat-conducting element is connected to at least one of the associated core body and the base plate via a heat-conducting layer, as recited, since Fuchs shows that heat-conducting layer is an equivalent structure known in the art to heat-conducting element. Therefore, because these two structures were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute heat-conducting element for heat-conducting layer, as per the teachings of Fuchs ([0021]).
Regarding claim 19, Takeshita discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 11. While Takeshita discloses the at least one heat-conducting element(104) is connected to at least one of the distributor plate(106) and the distributor layer(110), Takeshita does not expressly state that the connection is via a heat- conducting layer.
However, Fuchs teaches factual evidence of, wherein the at least one heat-conducting element is connected to the at least one of the distributor plate and the distributor layer via a heat- conducting layer(see [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avail of the teachings of Fuchs to have, wherein the at least one heat-conducting element is connected to the at least one of the distributor plate and the distributor layer via a heat- conducting layer, as recited, since Fuchs shows that heat-conducting layer is an equivalent structure known in the art to heat-conducting element. Therefore, because these two structures were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute heat-conducting element for heat-conducting layer, as per the teachings of Fuchs ([0021]).
Accordingly claim 19 would have been obvious.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshita et al., (Takeshita) US 2013/0181667 A1 in view of Fuchs US 2002/0125245 A1 and in further view of Laemmle et al., (Laemmle) US 2021/0129694 A1
Regarding claim18, Takeshita in view of Fuchs discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 9 but fails to expressly teach the limitations of:
wherein the heat-conducting layer is at least one of a thermal oil, an adhesive, a thermal grease, a heat-conducting paste, and a solder.
Laemmle teaches factual evidence of, wherein the heat-conducting layer is at least one of a thermal oil, an adhesive, a thermal grease, a heat-conducting paste, and a solder([0047])(note-The application of the heat-conducting elements can take place by means of a particularly suitable process with regard to the thermal transition (e.g. sintering, soldering, bonding, welding)
Takeshita, Fuchs and Laemmle are inductive charging analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Laemmle with Takeshita as modified by Fuchs to have, wherein the heat-conducting layer is at least one of a thermal oil, an adhesive, a thermal grease, a heat-conducting paste, and a solder, as recited, so that an expensive casting, in terms of weight and cost, with heat-conducting casting compound can be avoided, as per the teachings of Laemmle([0047]).
Accordingly claim 18 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim20, Takeshita in view of Fuchs discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 19 but fails to expressly teach the limitations of:
wherein the heat-conducting layer is at least one of a thermal oil, an adhesive, a thermal grease, a heat-conducting paste, and a solder.
Laemmle teaches factual evidence of, wherein the heat-conducting layer is at least one of a thermal oil, an adhesive, a thermal grease, a heat-conducting paste, and a solder([0047])(note-The application of the heat-conducting elements can take place by means of a particularly suitable process with regard to the thermal transition (e.g. sintering, soldering, bonding, welding)
Takeshita, Fuchs and Laemmle are inductive charging analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Laemmle with Takeshita as modified by Fuchs to have, wherein the heat-conducting layer is at least one of a thermal oil, an adhesive, a thermal grease, a heat-conducting paste, and a solder, as recited, so that an expensive casting, in terms of weight and cost, with heat-conducting casting compound can be avoided, as per the teachings of Laemmle([0047]).
Accordingly claim 20 would have been obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, patentability exists at least in part with the claimed features of, the floor assembly further comprising a buffer element arranged between the base plate and the at least one support.
Citation of Prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2015/0364924 A1 to Yuasa discloses a power transmission device for transmitting power to a power receiving device in a noncontact manner.
USPAT 10,687,443 B2 to Rojahn et al., (Rojahn) discloses a control unit for vehicle navigation.
US 2015/0332839 A1 to Stock et al., (Stock) discloses an inductive charging coil device.
US 2011/0204845 A1 to Paparo et al., (Paparo) discloses system and method for inductively transferring AC power and self alignment between a vehicle and a recharging station.
US 2013/0269986 to Sun discloses a package carrier and manufacturing method thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP.
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 A 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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 July 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights