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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-15, 23 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.
Claim 1 “during a scramjet condition, operating the first plurality of fuel injectors without operating the second plurality of fuel injectors during the scramjet condition and without operating the at least one plasma stabilizer during a scramjet condition” is unclear whether this is referring to the same “a scramjet condition” previously identified in the quoted text or a different scramjet condition.
Claim Interpretation
Note that ramjet condition and scramjet condition do not need to cover the entire range of ramjet operation and scramjet operation, since a “condition” only requires that it operate in that state. Consequently, the claims may be interpreted as having a ramjet condition with a plasma stabilization and other ramjet conditions without plasma stabilization. Similar reasoning applies to the “scramjet condition” and “transition condition”. In other words, each “condition” may be a transient point within the range of operation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-14, 16-19, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micka et al “Combustion characteristics of a dual-mode scramjet combustor with cavity Flameholder” and in view of Asquith et al (5,617,717) and Nakamura et al (2020/0362795) and optionally Andreadis et al (20080196414)1. Micka et al teach [see annotations] A method of operating an engine having an inlet tube, a first plurality of fuel injectors [downstream] disposed in the inlet tube, a second plurality of fuel injectors [upstream] disposed in the inlet tube upstream of the first plurality of fuel injectors, a combustor swirl zone [cavity] downstream of the first plurality of fuel injectors, the method comprising: during a ramjet condition, operating the second plurality of fuel injectors without operating the first plurality of fuel injectors during the ramjet condition [see paragraph 3.1] and during a scramjet condition, operating only the first [downstream] plurality of fuel injectors without operating the second [upstream] plurality of fuel injectors [see caption of Fig. 13, “Downstream injection of hydrogen fuel” and note this is in scramjet mode] and without operating a plasma stabilizer [no plasma stabilizer disclosed] during a scramjet condition; operating at least the first plurality of fuel injectors and the second plurality of fuel injectors during a transition condition between the ramjet condition and the scramjet condition; (6) wherein an inlet air temperature in the inlet tube during the ramjet condition is less than the inlet air temperature in the inlet tube during the scramjet condition [inherent, subsonic flow has lower temperatures than supersonic, as the flow temperature is proportional to flow speed and subsonic speed is less than supersonic]; (7, 17) wherein the combustor swirl zone includes a backward facing step where a radius of the engine is increased compared to the inlet tube (8) wherein operating the first plurality of fuel injectors includes dispensing fuel into the inlet tube with the first plurality of fuel injectors [upstream]; wherein the first plurality of fuel injectors extends into an interior of the inlet tube [e.g. broadly by extending past the cavity], and the method further comprises dispensing the fuel into the interior of the inlet tube with the first plurality of fuel injectors; (10) wherein operating the second plurality of fuel injectors includes dispensing fuel into the inlet tube with the second plurality of fuel injectors; wherein the second plurality of fuel injectors are disposed at a periphery of the inlet tube, and the method further comprises dispensing the fuel at the periphery of the inlet tube with the second plurality of fuel injectors; (16) A method of operating an engine having an inlet tube, a first plurality of fuel injectors [downstream] disposed in the inlet tube, a second plurality of fuel injectors [upstream] disposed in the inlet tube upstream of the first plurality of fuel injectors, a combustor swirl zone [cavity] downstream of the first plurality of fuel injectors, the method comprising: operating the second plurality of fuel injectors during a ramjet condition [see paragraph 3.1] without operating the first plurality of fuel injectors during the ramjet condition; wherein operating the second plurality of fuel injectors [downstream] includes operating dispensing fuel into the inlet tube with the second plurality of fuel injectors, operating the first plurality of fuel injectors during a scramjet condition without operating the second plurality of fuel injectors during the scramjet condition and without operating at least one plasma stabilizer [none disclosed] during the scramjet condition [see caption of Fig. 13, “Downstream injection of hydrogen fuel” and note this is done in scramjet mode] and without operating a plasma stabilizer [none disclosed]; wherein operating the first plurality of fuel injectors includes dispensing the fuel into the inlet tube with the first plurality of fuel injectors; and operating the first plurality of fuel injectors, the second plurality of fuel injectors, during a transition condition between the ramjet condition and the scramjet condition.
PNG
media_image1.png
385
785
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Micka et al do not teach at least one plasma stabilizer nor its detailed structure [e.g. claims 12, 18 and dependents, as well as 23, 24], nor during a ramjet condition, operating the second plurality of fuel injectors and the at least one plasma stabilizer during a ramjet condition nor operating the at least one plasma stabilizer includes adding plasma energy to an interior of the engine with the at least one plasma stabilizer nor operating the second plurality of fuel injectors and the at least one plasma stabilizer during a ramjet condition without operating the first plurality of fuel injectors during the ramjet condition, … and operating the at least one plasma stabilizer includes adding plasma energy to an interior of the engine with the at least one plasma stabilizer. Asquith teach during a ramjet condition operating at least one plasma stabilizer 20 and operating ramjet / second fuel injectors and the at least one plasma stabilizer during a ramjet condition and (12, 18) wherein operating the at least one plasma stabilizer includes adding plasma energy 26 to an interior of the engine with the at least one plasma stabilizer 26; wherein adding the plasma energy to the interior of the engine includes pushing the plasma energy to the interior of the engine with air [from 25] flowing through the at least one plasma stabilizer; wherein the at least one plasma stabilizer includes a high voltage center rod [unlabeled], and the method further comprises providing a voltage to the high voltage center rod [high voltage provided by magnetron 21, which is by definition high voltage], to amplify the plasma energy. Asquith teach the plasma stabilizer stabilizes combustion of the fuel injection during ramjet operation [col. 4, lines 41-44]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ both the at least one plasma stabilizer with the ramjet [second plurality] injectors during a ramjet condition, wherein operating the at least one plasma stabilizer includes adding plasma energy to an interior of the engine with the at least one plasma stabilizer; wherein adding the plasma energy to the interior of the engine includes pushing the plasma energy to the interior of the engine with air flowing through the at least one plasma stabilizer; wherein the at least one plasma stabilizer includes a high voltage center rod, and the method further comprises providing a voltage to the high voltage center rod to amplify the plasma energy, in the manner taught by Asquith et al, in order to stabilize the ramjet [second plurality] injectors during ramjet operation.
Micka et al already teach during a scramjet condition, operating the first plurality of fuel injectors without operating the second plurality of fuel injectors during a scramjet condition and without operating a plasma stabilizer during a scramjet condition [no plasma stabilizer is disclosed and thus is useable without plasma stabilization during a scramjet condition]. Alternately, Micka et al are clearly capable of operating in that way and teach a broad interpretation of the first plurality of fuel 12 injectors extends into an interior of the inlet tube. As for during a ramjet condition, operating the second plurality of fuel injectors and the at least one plasma stabilizer; operating the second plurality of fuel injectors and the at least one plasma stabilizer during a ramjet condition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be during a ramjet condition, operating the second plurality of fuel injectors of Micka et al and the at least one plasma stabilizer of Asquith et al during a ramjet condition in order to stabilize the ramjet [second plurality] of fuel injectors of Micka et al, as specifically taught by Asquith et al as operable during a ramjet condition. Furthermore, it is obvious to utilize the first plurality of fuel injectors is in operation during a scramjet condition [without the second plurality of injectors], as the first plurality of fuel injectors is adjacent the cavity stabilizer and stabilized during those high conditions as is typical of cavity stabilizers. Alternately, this covered when the second plurality of fuel injectors are temporarily inoperable [e.g. fuel line clogged / valve malfunction] so the first plurality of fuel injectors are in operation during the scramjet conditions. Yet another alternative is to apply Nakamura et al, which teaches during a scramjet condition, operating the first plurality of fuel injectors 14, 11a without operating the at least one plasma stabilizer [none disclosed, cavity stabilization is sufficient for scramjet mode] and injecting the fuel from the first plurality of fuel injectors 14, 11a adjacent the cavity without operating a plasma stabilizer during a scramjet condition; (9, 23, 24) the first plurality of fuel injectors 14, 11a extends into an interior of the inlet tube. The fuel from the first plurality of fuel injectors 14, 11a causes turbulence enhanced mixing of the fuel 15d which then enters the cavity 15 [paragraphs 0047-0048] and are the fuel injectors used during scramjet condition / operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the first fuel injectors of Nakamura et al, which extends into an interior of the inlet tube (9, 23, 24), during scramjet condition / operation, to inject the fuel from the first plurality of fuel injectors adjacent / into the cavity in a manner that causes turbulence enhanced mixing of the fuel which then enters the cavity [paragraphs 0047-0048] for stabilization during scramjet condition / operation and to utilize only these first plurality of injectors during scramjet condition / operation as consistent with Micka et al’s disclosure of using only downstream main fuel injection [adjacent the cavity]. As Nakamura et al do not require the use of “second plurality of [upstream] fuel injectors” during scramjet mode nor a plasma stabilizer, in combination, operating the first plurality of fuel injectors [either downstream injectors of Micka et al or replaced by the cavity injectors of Nakamura] during a scramjet condition without operating the second plurality of fuel injectors [not required in Micka and not required in Nakamura as cavity stabilization in Nakamura is sufficient] and without operating the at least one plasma stabilizer [unnecessary for either Micka or Nakamura to operate in scramjet mode] would be taught by the combination of Micka and Nakamura et al. As for operating at least the first plurality of fuel injectors and the second plurality of fuel injectors during a transition condition between the ramjet condition and the scramjet condition; operating the at least one plasma stabilizer during the transition condition / operating the first plurality of fuel injectors includes dispensing the fuel into the inlet tube with the first plurality of fuel injectors; and operating the first plurality of fuel injectors, the second plurality of fuel injectors, and the at least one plasma stabilizer only during a transition condition between the ramjet condition and the scramjet condition, it is noted that it is well known in the art to employ both sets of injectors during a switchover between conditions, so to prevent risk of complete fuel loss / flameout between switching fuel injectors rather than using a hard on-off transition [step function] between switching injectors. For example, Andreadis teaches multiple sets of injectors are used simultaneously during a switchover between conditions for mode transitions [see ¶ 0026]. Since the at least one plasma stabilizer is used for stabilizing the ramjet [second plurality] injectors, it naturally flows that the plasma stabilizer should also be used during transition to stabilize the ramjet [second plurality] injectors, which are operating during the transition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ both first and second fuel injectors as well as the at least one plasma stabilizer only during a transition condition, in order to stabilize the ramjet [second plurality] fuel injectors and to prevent complete fuel loss / flameout during switching fuel injectors. Micka et al already teach (23, 24) wherein operating the second plurality [upstream] of fuel injectors includes dispensing fuel into the inlet tube with the second plurality of fuel injectors, and wherein the second plurality of fuel injectors [upstream] are disposed at a periphery of the inlet tube and dispensing the fuel includes dispensing the fuel at the periphery of the inlet tube with the second plurality of fuel injectors; wherein operating the first plurality of fuel injectors [downstream] includes dispensing fuel into the inlet tube with the first plurality of fuel injectors, and wherein the first plurality of fuel injectors extends into an interior of the inlet tube [broadly as they extend past the cavity] and dispensing the fuel includes dispensing the fuel into the interior of the inlet tube with the first plurality of fuel injectors and Asquith, as applied above, already teaches wherein operating the at least one plasma stabilizer 20 includes adding plasma energy to an interior of the engine with the at least one plasma stabilizer, and wherein adding the plasma energy to the interior of the engine includes pushing the plasma energy to the interior of the engine with air [from 25] flowing through the at least one plasma stabilizer. As for the first plurality of fuel injectors extends into an interior of the inlet tube and dispensing the fuel includes dispensing the fuel into the interior of the inlet tube with the first plurality of fuel injectors, this was treated by Asquith above, as he also broadly teaches the first plurality of fuel injectors 34 extends into an interior of the inlet tube and dispensing the fuel includes dispensing the fuel into the interior of the inlet tube with the first plurality of fuel injectors. Alternately, this was also addressed above by Nakamura, who teaches (9, 23, 24) the first plurality of fuel injectors 14, 11a extends into an interior of the inlet tube. The fuel from the first plurality of fuel injectors 14, 11a causes turbulence enhanced mixing of the fuel 15d which then enters the cavity 15 [paragraphs 0047-0048] and are the fuel injectors used during scramjet condition / operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the first fuel injectors of Nakamura et al, which extends into an interior of the inlet tube, during scramjet condition / operation, to inject the fuel from the first plurality of fuel injectors adjacent / into the cavity in a manner that causes turbulence enhanced mixing of the fuel which then enters the cavity [paragraphs 0047-0048] for stabilization during scramjet condition / operation.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-14, 16-19, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micka combination, as applied above, and further in view of either Asquith et al (5,565,118) or Herbon et al (2009/0165436). Asquith et al ‘717 illustrate and discuss the claimed plasma stabilizer but do not elaborate on all its features – rather relying on the copending application [col. 3, lines 22-31], which is now the Asquith et al ‘118 patent. To the extent not present in Asquith et al ‘717, Asquith et al ‘118 teaches (12, 18) wherein operating the at least one plasma stabilizer includes adding plasma energy to an interior of the engine with the at least one plasma stabilizer; wherein adding the plasma energy to the interior of the engine includes pushing the plasma energy to the interior of the engine with air flowing through the at least one plasma stabilizer; wherein the at least one plasma stabilizer includes a high voltage center rod 14, 13, and the method further comprises providing a voltage to the high voltage center rod to amplify the plasma energy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the plasma stabilizer structure of Asquith et al ‘118 as the disclosed structure usable with the plasma stabilizer of Asquith et al ‘717. Alternately, Herbon et al teach (12, 18) wherein operating the at least one plasma stabilizer includes adding plasma energy to an interior of the engine with the at least one plasma stabilizer; wherein adding the plasma energy to the interior of the engine includes pushing the plasma energy to the interior of the engine with air in 12, 20 flowing through the at least one plasma stabilizer; wherein the at least one plasma stabilizer includes a high voltage center rod 16, and the method further comprises providing a voltage to the high voltage center rod 16 to amplify the plasma energy. Herbon et al teach the plasma stabilizer stabilizes the fuel and air mixture combustion, acts as an ignition source and improves the flammability of the mixture [paragraphs 0030-0033]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the plasma stabilizer with voltage source of the type taught by Herbon et al, in order to employ plasma stabilizer structure that stabilizes the fuel and air mixture combustion, acts as an ignition source and improves the flammability of the mixture as well as affect the flame stabilization around the entire periphery of the combustion process such to stabilize the ramjet [second plurality] fuel injectors in the manner taught by Asquith et al ‘717.
Claim(s) 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micka et al combination in view of either Asquith et al (5,565,118) or Herbon et al (2009/0165436), as applied above, and further in view of Schneider et al (6,194,682) and/or Sanders et al (4,791,268). The prior art already teach providing the voltage to the high voltage center rod and flowing the air through the at least one plasma stabilizer / torch but do not teach providing the voltage to the high voltage center rod without flowing the air through the at least one plasma stabilizer. Schneider et al specifically reference the Sanders et al patent and describe the required sequence of providing the voltage to the high voltage center rod occurs first, i.e. before / without flowing the air through the at least one plasma stabilizer [col. 1, lines 35-49] and specifically teaches that the gas of Sanders et al is air. Sanders et al teach a plasma torch, which is started by providing the voltage to the high voltage center rod 14 without flowing the gas [e.g. air] through the at least one plasma stabilizer and then subsequently flowing the gas [e.g. air] through the at least one plasma stabilizer [col. 4, lines 9-31, particularly lines 9-11, 26-31]. In other words, providing the voltage to the high voltage center rod 14 occurs first, i.e. before / without flowing the gas / air through the at least one plasma stabilizer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the voltage to the high voltage center rod without flowing the air through the at least one plasma stabilizer, as taught by of Schneider et al or Sanders et al, as part of the normal start process for a plasma torch stabilizer utilized in the art. e election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The prior art teach in combination the claimed invention in a manner which flows from the teachings of the prior art. Note that Micka et al already teach both the first and second sets of injectors and cavity/swirl zone and do not teach using a plasma stabilizer for a ramjet condition [and also for transition in some claims]. As neither Micka nor Nakamura require the use of a plasma stabilizer during a scramjet condition, these are not necessary for operation for stabilization during scramjet condition. Asquith et al specifically teach using the plasma stabilizer during a ramjet condition. As Micka already teach how to operate without respective sets of fuel injectors during both ramjet and scramjet conditions, applicant’s arguments fail to persuade.
Applicant’s arguments concerning
“Independent claims 1 and 16 recite "a combustor swirl zone downstream of the first plurality of fuel injectors." The Office Action maps this limitation to Micka's cavity flameholder. However, a cavity flameholder is fundamentally a recirculation mechanism and is not inherently a "swirl zone." The Office Action does not identify where Micka teaches a "swirl zone" downstream of the first injectors as recited, nor does the Office Action provide a sufficient explanation or evidence establishing that Micka's cavity necessarily constitutes the claimed "combustor swirl zone."."
are not persuasive. Applicant’s own disclosure shows the combustor swirl zone has flow recirculation ‘B” in the cavity. Accordingly, applicant’s disclosure rebuts applicant’s own argument as the claims are interpreted in light of the disclosure.
Applicant’s allegations concerning the rationale during transition:
“Applicant submits that the "well known" transition rationale in the Office Action is merely conclusory and does not supply the required articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. Specifically, the Office Action asserts it is "well known" to operate both injector sets during switchover to prevent flameout and further asserts that plasma use during transition "naturally flows" from the cited teachings. Applicant respectfully submits that these statements are conclusory as applied to the claimed architecture (two injector sets operated in different modes in combination with a plasma stabilizer). The Office Action fails to provide evidentiary support or a sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinning explaining why a skilled artisan would modify Micka (as combined with Asquith '717, Nakamura, Asquith '118 or Hebron) in the particular manner required by the claim”
are also not persuasive as the reasoning was clearly articulated above and based on rational underpinnings of preventing flameout during switching of fuel sources. Clearly, when one is dealing with an engine in flight, flameout is very dangerous as it leads to uncontrolled flight and potentially crashing. Therefore, when switching between multiple sets of injectors, it logically flows that employing both sets of injectors during a switchover between conditions, prevents risk of complete fuel loss / flameout between switching fuel injectors rather than using a hard on-off transition [step function] between switching injectors. Note if there is any clog or malfunction of the required fuel injector [e.g. fuel clog, valve malfunction, or other controller malfunction, the engine would experience flameout when doing a hard switch during transition since there is no fuel during transition. Since the at least one plasma stabilizer is used for stabilizing the ramjet [second plurality] injectors, it naturally flows that the plasma stabilizer should also be used during transition to stabilize the ramjet [second plurality] injectors, which are operating during the transition.
Applicant’s allegations concerning Nakamura are clearly erroneous, alleging only disclosure of a scramjet. This is not persuasive because scramjets must inherently fly during subsonic conditions before they ever reach supersonic flight conditions [¶ 0002]. Operating below supersonic conditions, necessitate ramjet operation, by definition. See e.g. ¶ 0002 of Andreadis et al (20080196414) and Micka, who are both related to dual mode scramjets, i.e. they operate in both ramjet and scramjet conditions.
The argument that the applied references “teach away” from the claimed subject matter is not persuasive. A reference will teach away only if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the results sought by the inventor. MPEP 2123, In re Gurly, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). From a review of the disclosures of the applied references, it is clear that these references do not “teach away” from the claimed invention, since none of their disclosures teaches, either expressly or impliedly, that it is undesirable to combine a plasma stabilizer with operation in ramjet mode and transition mode.
Lastly, applicant’s arguments fail to persuade as in the claim interpretation section above, “ramjet condition” and “scramjet condition” do not require the entire range of operation during those respective conditions, but only require operation at a single point of operation during their respective conditions. In other words, the claims may be interpreted as having a ramjet condition with a plasma stabilization and other ramjet conditions without plasma stabilization. Similar reasoning applies to the “scramjet condition” and “transition condition”. Applicant’s previous usage of “only” was an attempt to avoid this type of interpretation, and has been deleted in this amendment.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TED KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-4829. The Examiner can be reached on regular business hours before 5:00 pm, Monday to Thursday and every other Friday.
The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer, can be reached at 571-272-7118 Alternate inquiries to Technology Center 3700 can be made via 571-272-3700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions on Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). General inquiries can also be directed to the Inventors Assistance Center whose telephone number is 800-786-9199. Furthermore, a variety of online resources are available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent
/Ted Kim/
Telephone
571-272-4829
Primary Examiner
Fax
571-273-8300
May 21, 2026
1 Hence, Micka combination.
Prosecution Insights