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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 2, 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Yu et al. (CN 219435012), hereinafter Wang, Yu, in view of Shibata (CN 112470315).
Regarding claim 1, Wang, Yu teaches:
A battery monitoring device for a flow battery system, comprising (Abstract):
a positive end plate defining a first chamber ([0007], [0013], [0029], Fig. 1, 2, 4, positive end plate 1, negative end plate 4 liquid-flow frame 21, hollow structure 211);
a positive electrolyte supply channel and a positive electrolyte discharge channel respectively penetrating through the positive end plate to communicate with the first chamber ([0034], Fig. 1, 2, 4, liquid inlet pipe, liquid outlet pipe 63, pipe holes 71, liquid flow channel 72);
a positive electrode element penetrating through the positive end plate and corresponding to the first chamber, wherein the positive electrode element comprises a first electrode rod and a first signal transmission portion that are connected, the positive end plate has a first outer surface away from the first chamber, and the first signal transmission portion protrudes from the first outer surface ([0029-0030], Fig. 4);
a negative end plate defining a second chamber ([0029-0030], Fig. 2, 4, negative end plate 4, negative liquid flow frame 51);
a negative electrolyte supply channel and a negative electrolyte discharge channel respectively penetrating through the negative end plate to communicate with the second chamber ([0037], Fig. 2, 4; negative electrode liquid inlet pipe 62, negative electrode liquid outlet pipe 64, liquid flow channel 72);
a negative electrode element penetrating through the negative end plate and corresponding to the second chamber, wherein the negative electrode element comprises a second electrode rod and a second signal transmission portion that are connected, the negative end plate has a second outer surface away from the second chamber, and the second signal transmission portion protrudes from the second outer surface ([0029]);
a separator disposed between the first chamber and the second chamber ([0029], Fig. 2, 4, proton exchange membrane 3).
Shibata teaches a redox flow battery having a monitor cell supplied with electrolyte and a voltage measuring unit for measuring the open-circuit voltage of the monitor cell. Additionally, Shibata further teaches that the monitor cell includes positive and negative electrodes and a membrane positioned between the positive and negative electrode cells ([0003-0004], [0011], [0013], [0074], [0082], [0101], [0143], Fig. 1, 2, monitoring cell 60, voltage measuring unit 61).
Wang, Yu and Shibata are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the flow battery testing device of Wang to incorporate the monitoring-cell and voltage-measurement teachings of Shibata. In particular, Shibata provides an express teaching to use a separate flow-battery cell supplied with the same electrolyte as a monitor cell and to measure the open-circuit voltage of that cell. Applying this monitoring arrangement to Wang’s flow-battery testing cell would have provided a predictable means for monitoring the state of the electrolyte/battery by measuring the open-circuit voltage.
Regarding claim 2, Wang, Yu and Shibata teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Wang, Yu further teaches:
A first conductive sheet and a second conductive sheet ([0029-0030]),
the first conductive sheet is disposed between the separator and the positive electrode element ([0029-0030], Fig. 2, 4, positive current collector 2),
the second conductive sheet is disposed between the separator and the negative electrode element ([0029-0030], Fig. 2, 4, negative current collector 5).
Wang, Yu and Shibata are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to employ the conductive current-collecting structures of Wang, Yu in the monitor-cell arrangement of Shibata to provide electrical communication with the respective electrodes. Such a modification would have been a predictable use of known conductive current-collecting structures for their intended purpose.
Regarding claim 4, Wang, Yu and Shibata teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Wang, Yu further teaches:
A first fixing component and a second fixing component ([0041], Fig. 4):
the positive electrode element is detachably fixed to the positive end plate by the first fixing component ([0041], Fig. 4),
the negative electrode element is detachably fixed to the negative end plate by the second fixing component ([0041], Fig. 4).
Wang, Yu and Shibata are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to use the screw, nut, and spring fastening arrangement of Wang, Yu to detachably fix the respective positive and negative electrode elements to their corresponding end plates in the monitor-cell arrangement of Shibata. Such a fastening arrangement would allow the electrode elements to their corresponding end plates in the monitor-cell arrangement of Shibata. Such a fastening arrangement would allow the electrode elements to be securely retained during operation while permitting disassembly for maintenance or replacement. The modification would have been the use of a known removable fastening arrangement for its known purpose, with the predictable result of securing the electrode elements within the flow-battery assembly.
Regarding claim 11, Wang, Yu and Shibata teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Shibata further teaches:
A flow battery system, comprising ([0085], Fig. 1, battery cell 10):
a flow battery unit ([0085], Fig. 1, battery cell 10);
a positive electrolyte tank storing a positive electrolyte, wherein the positive electrolyte tank is coupled to the flow battery unit ([0093], Fig. 1, tank 20);
a negative electrolyte tank storing a negative electrolyte, wherein the negative electrolyte tank is coupled to the flow battery unit ([0093], Fig. 1, tank 20);
the battery monitoring device of claim 1 ([0099-0101], Fig. 1, monitoring battery cell 60, voltage measuring unit 61);
a first liquid supply pipeline coupled to the positive electrolyte tank and communicating with the positive electrolyte supply channel ([0091], [0095], Fig. 1, circulation flow paths 21/31, supply pipes 23/33, discharge pipes 25/35);
a second liquid supply pipeline coupled to the negative electrolyte tank and communicating with the negative electrolyte supply channel ([0091], [0095], Fig. 1, circulation flow paths 21/31, supply pipes 23/33, discharge pipes 25/35);
a first liquid discharge pipeline connected to the positive electrolyte discharge channel and coupled to the positive electrolyte tank ([0091], [0095], Fig. 1, circulation flow paths 21/31, supply pipes 23/33, discharge pipes 25/35);
a second liquid discharge pipeline connected to the negative electrolyte discharge channel and coupled to the negative electrolyte tank ([0091], [0095], Fig. 1, circulation flow paths 21/31, supply pipes 23/33, discharge pipes 25/35).
Wang, Yu and Shibata are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the tank and electrolyte circulation arrangement of Shibata with Wang, Yu’s flow-battery monitoring device. Doing so would provide the monitoring device of Wang, Yu with the same positive and negative electrolyte supplies used by the main flow-battery system, thereby allowing the monitoring device to monitor the electrolyte condition of the system.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Yu, in view of Shibata, in further view of Maeda et al. (US 20130037760), hereinafter Maeda.
Regarding claim 3, Wang, Yu and Shibata teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Wang fails to teach the claimed first and second ring grooves surrounding the respective first and second openings and first and second elastic sealing elements disposed in the respective ring grooves.
Maeda teaches:
The battery monitoring device of claim 1, further comprising ([0038], Fig. 1, annular grooves 11a, 11b):
a first ring groove ([0038], Fig. 1, annular grooves 11a, 11b);
the first ring groove surrounds the first opening ([0038], Fig. 1, annular grooves 11a, 11b);
a first elastic sealing element ([0038], Fig. 1, annular grooves 11a, 11b);
the first elastic sealing element is disposed in the first ring groove ([0038], Fig. 1, annular grooves 11a, 11b);
a second ring groove ([0038], Fig. 1, annular grooves 11a, 11b);
the second ring groove surrounds the second opening ([0038], Fig. 1, annular grooves 11a, 11b);
a second elastic sealing element ([0038], Fig. 1, annular grooves 11a, 11b);
the second elastic sealing element is disposed in the second ring groove ([0038], Fig. 1, annular grooves 11a, 11b);
the first chamber has a first opening facing the separator ([0038-0040], Fig. 1, annular grooves 11a, 11b);
the second chamber has a second opening facing the separator ([0038-0040], Fig. 1, annular grooves 11a, 11b).
Wang, Yu, Shibata, and Maeda are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the positive and negative electrode/end-plate structures of Wang, Yu to include the annular grooves and elastic sealing elements of Maeda. Such a modification would have provided a seal around the respective openings and prevented leakage of electrolyte from the flow-battery chambers. The modification would therefore have been the application of a known sealing technique to Wang’s analogous flow-battery structure for its known purpose, with a predictable result.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Yu, in view of Shibata, in further view of Min-kyu et al. (KR 102036689), hereinafter Min-kyu.
Regarding claim 5, Wang, Yu and Shibata teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Wang fails to teach that each electrode element includes an insulation tube covering a portion of the respective electrode rod while a protruding portion of the electrode rod extends outside the insulation tube.
Min-kyu teaches:
The positive electrode element further comprises a first insulation tube covering a portion of the first electrode rod, the first electrode rod has a first protruding portion protruding from the first insulation tube ([0008], [0024], [0026], Fig. 1-5);
The negative electrode element further comprises a second insulation tube covering a portion of the second electrode rod, and the second electrode rod has a second protruding portion protruding from the second insulation tube ([0008], [0024], [0026], Fig. 1-5).
Therefore Min-kyu teaches an electrode rod having a portion covered by an insulating tube and a portion extending beyond the insulating tube.
Wang, Yu, Shibata, and Min-kyu are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode construction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the positive and negative electrode structures of Wang, Yu to include the insulation tube and protruding electrode-rod portions taught by Min-kyu. Such a modification would electrically insulate portions of the electrode rods while leaving the protruding portions available for electrical connection and signal transmission. The modification would have been a simple substitution of a known insulated electrode construction for the electrode construction of Wang, Yu, with the predictable result of electrically insulating and supporting the electrode rods.’
Claims 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Yu, in view of Shibata, in further view of Min-kyu, and in further view of Kormann (EP 0306442 A2).
Regarding claim 6, Wang, Yu, Shibata, and Min-kyu teach the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Min-kyu teaches the electrode rode inserted into an insulated tube with a portion of the electrode rod protruding beyond the insulating tube, as stated above. Min-kyu fails to teach the that protruding portion of the electrode rod has a non-straight shape.
Kormann teaches an electrode having a non-straight, helical/spiral conductor (Description, Fig. 1, claim 4-5).
Wang, Yu, Shibata, Min-kyu, and Kormann are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode construction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the electrode rod of Min-kyu to include a non-straight configuration, such as a curved, spiral, coiled, or winding configuration, as taught by Kormann. Such a modification would have been a predictable modification of the electrode geometry while maintaining the electrical functionality of the electrode. The selection of a curved, spiral, or coiled configuration would have been a design choice among known electrode configurations having predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Wang, Yu, Shibata, Min-kyu, and Kormann teach the limitations of claim 6, as stated above. Min-kyu teaches the electrode rode inserted into an insulated tube with a portion of the electrode rod protruding beyond the insulating tube, as stated above.
Kormann teaches an electrode having a non-straight, helical/spiral conductor (Description, Fig. 1, claim 4-5).
Wang, Yu, Shibata, Min-kyu, and Kormann are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode construction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the electrode rode of Min-kyu to include a curved, spiral, coiled, or winding configuration as taught by Kormann. Such a modification would have been a predictable modification of the electrode geometry to provide a flexible/non-linear electrode configuration while maintaining the electrical functionality of the electrode. The selection of a curved, spiral, coiled, or winding configuration would have been a design choice among known electrode configurations having predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Wang, Yu, Shibata, and Min-kyu teach the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Min-kyu teaches the electrode rode inserted into an insulated tube with a portion of the electrode rod protruding beyond the insulating tube, as stated above. Kormann teaches an electrode conductor having a non-straight/helical portion surrounded by an insulating tube. In particular, it recites that the electrode conductor has at least one helical conductor and that it is surrounded by an insulating tube (claim 4-5). The specification likewise describes the electrode conductor as comprising wire helices and describes the insulating tube being positioned over the electrode conductor (Fig. 1, 6, 7).
Wang, Yu, Shibata, Min-kyu, and Kormann are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode construction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the electrode rod of Min-kyu to include a non-straight/helical portion surrounded by the insulating tube, taught by Kormann.
Such modification would provide electrical insulation around the non-straight electrode portion while retaining the electrode’s electrical function. The modification would have been a simple application of a known insulating structure to a known electrode configuration and would have yielded the predictable result of an insulated non-straight electrode portion.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Yu, in view of Shibata, in further view of Min-kyu, and in further view of Kormann, and in further view of Wang, Shouguo (US 20170303381), hereinafter Wang, Shouguo.
Regarding claim 8, Wang, Yu, Shibata, and Min-kyu teach the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Min-kyu teaches the electrode rode inserted into an insulated tube with a portion of the electrode rod protruding beyond the insulating tube, as stated above. Kormann teaches an electrode conductor having a helical conductor surrounded by an insulating tube, as stated above.
Wang, Shouguo teaches a metal electrode rod inserted into an insulating tube, with a portion of the metal electrode rod exposed outside the insulating tube. The reference further teaches an electrode connection for electrically connecting the electrode rod to an external power source (Fig. 1-3).
Wang, Yu, Shibata, Min-kyu, Kormann, and Wang, Shouguo are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode construction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the electrode structure of Min-kyu to further cover a portion of the electrode’s signal transmission/electrical connection portion with the insulating tube, as taught by Kormann and Wang, Shouguo. Providing insulation around a portion of the electrode and its electrical connection would electrically isolate and protect the conductor while allowing the desired electrical signal to be transmitted through the externally accessible portion. Such a modification would have been the application of a known insulating arrangement to a known electrode structure for its known purpose, and it would have produced the predictable result of an insulated electrode having an externally accessible electrical connection.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Yu, in view of Shibata, in further view of Min-kyu, and in further view of Deschamps (US 20150311491).
Regarding claim 10, Wang, Yu, Shibata, and Min-kyu teach the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Min-kyu teaches the electrode rode inserted into an insulated tube with a portion of the electrode rod protruding beyond the insulating tube, as stated above.
Deschamps teaches:
The positive electrode element further comprises a first inner protective film covering a portion of the first electrode rod, the first inner protective film is positioned between the first electrode rod and the first insulation tube ([0050], Fig. 1-5);
The negative electrode element further comprises a second inner protective film covering a portion of the second electrode rod, and the second inner protective film is positioned between the second electrode rod and the second insulation tube ([0050], Fig. 1-5).
Wang, Yu, Shibata, Min-kyu, and Deschamps are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode construction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the electrode structure of Min-kyu to include a protective film between the electrode rod and the insulating tube, as taught by Deschamps. Such a protective film would provide an additional insulation of a protective layer around the electrode rod and would reduce the possibility of electrical contact between the electrode and surrounding structures. The modification would have been the application of a known protective-film arrangement to a known electrode structure for its known purpose, with the predictable result of providing additional protection and electrical isolation of the electrode.
Claims 12, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Yu, in view of Shibata, in further view of Min-kyu, and in further view of Tang et al. (WO 2013016919), hereinafter Tang, and in further view of Dong et al. (WO 2013016919 A1), hereinafter Dong.
Regarding claim 12, Wang, Yu and Shibata teach the limitations of claim 11, as stated above. Tang teaches:
The positive electrolyte tank is connected to the flow battery unit through a first main liquid supply pipeline (pg. 5, ln. 7-9, Fig. 5, 6);
The negative electrolyte tank is connected to the flow battery unit through a second main liquid supply pipeline (pg. 5, ln. 7-9, Fig. 5, 6);
The first main liquid supply pipeline communicates with the first liquid supply pipeline (pg. 5, ln. 7-9, Fig. 5, 6);
The second main liquid supply pipeline communicates with the second liquid supply pipeline (pg. 5, ln. 7-9, Fig. 5, 6);
Pipeline diameters of the first main liquid supply pipeline and the second main liquid supply pipeline are respectively greater than pipeline diameters of the first liquid supply pipeline and the second liquid supply pipeline (pg. 5, ln 15-31, Fig. 5, 6, 8).
Wang, Yu, Shibata, Min-kyu, and Tang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of redox flow battery systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the electrolyte piping arrangement of Shibata to provide the claimed main supply pipelines communicating with the first and second liquid supply pipelines in view of Tang, with the main pipelines having a larger diameter than the respective branch/supply pipeless. Selecting a larger diameter for the main pipeline would have been a predictable design choice to accommodate the combined electrolyte flow from the plurality of branch pipelines while maintaining appropriate flow through the individual branch pipelines. Thus, the claimed relative pipe diameters would have been an obvious matter of hydraulic/piping design based on the expected flow rate and would have produced the predictable result of accommodating the greater aggregate flow in the main pipeline.
Regarding claim 14, Wang, Yu and Shibata teach the limitations of claim 11, as stated above. Tang teaches a flow battery system having electrolyte piping, including main and branch pipes for conveying electrolyte between an electrolyte container and the flow-battery stack. Dong teaches at least one of the first liquid discharge pipeline and the second liquid discharge pipeline comprises a transparent pipeline ([0027-0030], Fig. 1, transparent portions 26/36, pipes 22/32).
Wang, Yu, Shibata, Min-kyu, Tang, and Dong are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of redox flow battery systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the electrolyte pipelines of Tang to include a transparent portion in at least one discharge pipeline, as taught by Dong. Such a modification would allow an operator to visually monitor electrolyte flow and condition through the pipeline. Providing a transparent section in a fluid pipeline is a known monitoring technique that would have been readily applicable to the electrolyte piping of Tang.
Regarding claim 15, Wang, Yu, Shibata, Tang, and Dong teach the limitations of claim 14, as stated above. Tang teaches a flow battery system having electrolyte piping, including main and branch pipes for conveying electrolyte between an electrolyte container and the flow-battery stack. Tang further teaches that the branch pipe may adopt a bend-and-turn design and that the main pipe may adopt a straight-pipe design (Fig. 8). Dong teaches providing transparent portions in the electrolyte pipes, as stated above. Dong further teaches that the transparent portions may be positioned at desired locations along the upstream or downstream pipes ([0030], Fig. 1).
Wang, Yu, Shibata, Min-kyu, Tang, and Dong are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of redox flow battery systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to position the transparent discharge-pipe portion of Dong, in a substantially horizontal portion of the discharge pipeline of Tang. The positioning of a monitoring window along a pipeline is a matter of installation and piping design, and selecting a substantially horizontal portion would provide a predictable orientation for visually observing the electrolyte flowing through the transparent portion.
Regarding claim 16, Wang, Yu, Shibata, Tang, and Dong teach the limitations of claim 14, as stated above. Tang teaches the transparent pipeline is non-horizontal (pg. 2, ln. 22, pg. 5, ln. 30-31). Dong teaches providing transparent portions in the electrolyte pipes, as stated above.
Wang, Yu, Shibata, Min-kyu, Tang, and Dong are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of redox flow battery systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the transparent portion of Dong in a non-horizontal portion of the electrolyte pipeline of Tang. Such placement would merely constitute a selection of the installation location of the transparent monitoring portion based on the available piping configuration and would have provided the predictable result of permitting visual monitoring of electrolyte flowing through a non-horizontal pipe section.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Yu, in view of Shibata, in further view of Min-kyu, and in further view of Yamanishi (US 20180013156).
Regarding claim 13, Wang, Yu and Shibata teach the limitations of claim 11, as stated above. Wang teaches the flow-battery monitoring device and associated positive and negative electrolyte flow paths, as stated above. Shibata teaches a redox flow battery system having a main cell, electrolyte tanks, circulation flow paths, and a monitor cell supplied with the same electrolyte solution, as stated above.
Yamanishi teaches at least one valve disposed on the first liquid supply pipeline, the second liquid supply pipeline, the first liquid discharge pipeline, the second liquid discharge pipeline, or combinations thereof ([0058-0060], Fig. 1). In particular, Yamanishi describe the positive and negative pipelines each having a plurality of valves, including valves on the supply and return pipes.
Wang, Yu, Shibata, Min-kyu, and Yamanishi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of redox flow battery systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the electrolyte supply and discharge pipelines of the Wang/Shibata system with one or more valves as taught by Yamanishi. Providing valves would allow the electrolyte flow to be selectively started, stopped, or isolated during operation and maintenance of the battery system. Such a modification would have been the application of a known flow-control device to a known electrolyte circulation system for its known purpose, with the predictable result of controlling electrolyte circulation through the battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights