DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/682,700, filed on 9 February, 2024, were presented for examination, and are currently pending in the application.
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 statement (IDS) submitted on 9 February, 2024, was filed before the mailing date of this Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in FIG. 1, the leader line leading from reference numeral 220, which according to the specification designates the permanent magnets, lands on the core [210], which already has a label/reference number, instead of where the magnets are, on the periphery of the core.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the limit of 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to due to the omission of section (b) and the required headings for sections (g1), (g2), (h), (i), and (j). These should be inserted via amendment in the appropriate locations, in ALL CAPS without bold type or underlining, and the PCT section headings (i.e. Technical Problem, Technical Field, Disclosure, etc.) removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 4-7 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.
With respect to claim 4, lines 1-2 recite the limitation that the shape of the first notch and a shape of a second notch “are different”, but does not say what they are different from. In an interpretation that is not even the broadest reasonable one the limitation could be meant to indicate that the notches are different from the notches of another stator, or notches on the rotor.
For examination on the merits, the Examiner will interpret the limitation to mean that the shape of the first notch is different from the shape over the second notch.
With respect to claim 5, the limitation “of two sides” in line 2 and “the other side” in line 5, are indefinite for not establishing what the sides are sides of. For examination on the merits, the Examiner will interpret the limitation to mean that the sides are the circumferential sides of the inner surface of the tooth.
With respect to claim 6, the limitation “the depth of each…. increases away from the reference line”. According to the Examiner’s understanding of the reference line put forth in the claim, it is the line “T” shown in figs. 6-7. If this is the case, then the depth is increasing as the notch/surface moves away from the reference line. For the depth to increase away from the reference line would have no meaning in this context, because the depth direction of the notches is radial, and therefore cannot point away from or toward the line “T”. For examination on the merits, the Examiner will interpret the limitation to mean that the depth is increasing as the notch/surface moves away from the reference line.
With respect to claim 7, the limitation “the depth of each…. increases toward the reference line”. According to the Examiner’s understanding of the reference line put forth in the claim, it is the line “T” shown in figs. 6-7. If this is the case, then the depth is increasing as the notch/surface moves toward the reference line. For the depth to increase toward the reference line would have no meaning in this context, because the depth direction of the notches is radial, and therefore cannot point away from or toward the line “T”. For examination on the merits, the Examiner will interpret the limitation to mean that the depth is increasing as the notch/surface moves toward the reference line.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaseyama (JP 2011067090 A, reference provided with machine translation) in view of Woo (WO 2020/251244 A1, reference provided with machine translation).
With respect to claim 1, Kaseyama [embodiment 1, figs. 1-3] teaches a motor [10] comprising:
a shaft [7];
a rotor [8] coupled to the shaft [7], wherein the rotor comprises a plurality of magnets [6] (see ¶ 0014 of the translation, and the annotated excerpt of fig. 1 attached below); and
a stator [5] disposed to correspond to the rotor [8], wherein the stator [5] includes a stator core [1], and a coil disposed on the core [1] (¶ 0013 recites “and winding slots 3 (windings not illustrated) are formed on the inner peripheral side of the stator iron core”),
wherein the stator core [1] includes a yoke (labeled by the Examiner in the annotated fig. 6 excerpt below – basically it entails all of the core that is not the teeth) and a tooth [2] protruding from the yoke,
wherein the tooth [2] includes a first region [combined C1 and C2] and a second region [D1] formed by dividing (see dashed dividing lines in fig. 6) an inner surface of the tooth [2] facing the rotor [8] in the axial direction (up-down in fig. 6, into the page in fig. 1),
PNG
media_image1.png
478
1093
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first region [C1/C2] corresponds to a partial region of the inner surface in which a first notch [4] and a second notch [4] (the Examiner has separately labeled the two notches in fig. 6, even though the reference generically refers to them all as “auxiliary grooves 4” – see ¶ 0013-0014 – it is noted that fig. 6 is a “second embodiment”, but as the second embodiment does not include an axial view like fig. 1, which is associated with a first embodiment, the discussion will continue using fig. 1 and its description from the first embodiment to describe the second embodiment when necessary) are disposed to be spaced apart from each other in the circumferential direction (circumferential direction labeled by the Examiner in fig. 6),
wherein the second region [D1] corresponds to a partial region of the inner surface in which the first notch [4] and the second notch [4] are not present (¶ 0024 recites, “then, as illustrated in Fig. 6, the stator 5 is formed by combining and stacking a stator iron core C having a groove… and a stator iron core D having zero dummy slot angle, that is, having no auxiliary groove”).
Kaseyama teaches wherein an axial length [L3] of the second region [D1] is in a range of an axial length [L1 + L3 + L2] of the stator core (the Examiner has used the preexisting arrows in the reference to represent L1, an axial length of C1; L2, an axial length of C2; and L3, an axial length of D1).
Kaseyama does not explicitly teach wherein said range is 17% to 35%.
The reference does not make any indication that its drawings are to scale. However, the Examiner blew up fig. 3 twice, once measuring the dimensions in millimeters and another time measuring the dimensions in inches. The results were:
a) L1 = L2 = 25 mm L3 = 17 mm L3 / (L1 + L3 + L2) = 25.4
b) L1 = L2 = 15/16” L3 = 11/16” L3 / (L1 + L3 + L2) = 26.8
Thus, the Examiner believes it is fair to say that fig. 3 shows that the second region [D1] is approximately 26% of the stator core.
Because the drawings of Kaseyama are not disclosed as being to scale, Kaseyama fails, as mentioned above, to explicitly teach wherein the range is between 17% and 35%.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in attempting to make Kaseyama’s disclosed motor while lacking the actual dimensional specifications, to try an amount for the second region in the approximate range depicted in the drawings, for lack of better instruction. For various reason he or she might decide to increase or decrease it somewhat, or even not pay too much attention to the exact value shown, but because the number derived from the drawing is 26%, which is the midpoint between 17% and 35%, it logically follows that for the number/quantity of said try to fall outside the claimed range could not be the result of actions of a person of skill in the art.
The range 17-35% is a very wide range, and to make Kaseyama’s device with a second region 10 or 15% the length of the core is clearly outside Kaseyama’s intent, as is making it with a second region of 40 or 50% the length of the core. As Kaseyama’s entire teaching is directed to reducing cogging torque, the practitioner’s attempts to replicate Kaseyama’s teaching by focusing in the range around 26%, as shown in fig. 6 of Kaseyama, would have the clear and unmistakable purpose of replicating Kaseyama’s advertised anti-cogging-torque attributes, with predictable results – namely, to reduce cogging torque by the amount advertised in Kaseyama.
The embodiment (embodiment 2, per Kaseyama’s disclosure) of fig. 6 of Kaseyama does not teach wherein the rotor includes a rotor core and a plurality of magnets coupled to the rotor core.
Kaseyama also includes an alternative embodiment (embodiment 7, per Kaseyama’s disclosure) shown in fig. 13 and described in ¶ 0059, that does teach wherein the rotor [8] includes a rotor core and a plurality of magnets [6] coupled to the rotor core (¶ 0059 recites “there are two types of methods for holding permanent magnets of a permanent magnet type motor: a magnet-embedded type (hereinafter referred to as IPM) in which permanent magnets are inserted into an iron core of a rotor, and a type in which permanent magnets are attached to a rotor surface (hereinafter referred to as SPM). As illustrated in Fig. 13, the IPM…” – thus fig. 13 is showing an IPM, the type described as having the rotor core, and fig. 1 showed the other alternative, the SPM).
PNG
media_image2.png
336
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the motor of Kaseyama, embodiment 2, shown in fig. 6, while using the IPM-type rotor of Kaseyama, embodiment 7, shown in fig. 13, in order to achieve excellent strength because the permanent magnet is held within the iron core of the rotor, and the permanent magnet is not required to be adhered (last two lines of ¶ 0059 of Kaseyama). It is noted that fig. 13 still shows the grooves [4] on the inner surfaces of the teeth [2] with the same reference numbers of figs. 1 and 6, such that the rotor of embodiment 7 of Kaseyama is clearly intended to be used with the stators of figs. 1, 3, 6, etc., but which are not described during the description of embodiment 7.
Kaseyama omits teaching an insulator coupled to the stator core, and a coil disposed on the insulator.
Woo discloses a motor comprising a rotor [200], comprising a core [210] and magnets [220], and a stator [300], the stator [300] comprising a core [300A], a yoke [310], a plurality of teeth [320], notches [328] formed in the teeth [320]and a coil [300B] disposed on the stator core [300A] (see joint annotated excerpts of figs. 1 and 4 attached below).
PNG
media_image3.png
488
953
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Woo teaches an insulator [300C] coupled to the stator core [300A], and a coil [300B] disposed on the insulator [300c] (¶ 0088 of the translation recites “the coil 300b may be wound around the insulator 300c. The insulator 300c is disposed between the coil 300b and the stator core 300a”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the motor of Kaseyama, while using an insulator on the stator core, as taught by Woo, in order to electrically insulate the stator core and the coil from each other (Woo ¶0038), as is well known in the art.
With respect to claim 2/1, Kaseyama in view of Woo teaches the motor of claim 1, Kaseyama further teaches wherein
the first region [C1/C2] includes a 1-1 region [C1] and a 1-2 region [C2] spaced apart from each other in the axial direction (axial direction has been drawn and labeled by the Examiner in the new excerpt of fig. 3 attached below); and
PNG
media_image4.png
384
419
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the second region [D1] is disposed between the 1-1 region [C1] and the 1-2 region [C2] in the axial direction.
With respect to claim 3/2/1, Kaseyama in view of Woo teaches the motor of claim 2, Kaseyama further teaches wherein an axial length of the 1-1 region [C1] and an axial length of the 1-2 region [C2] are the same (¶ 0048 recites “the stator 5 is formed by layering the stator iron-cores symmetrically with respect to the center in the axial direction, using a method such as that of the first embodiment and the second embodiment – it is noted here that the reference to the first embodiment and second embodiment relates to the number of stacking-cores used in A1, B1, A2, C1, C2, D1, etc. – if C1 and C2 are symmetrical regarding the number of stacking-cores they have, then without any evidence that the stacking-cores are different thicknesses for some reason, C1 and C2 will have the same axial length, as measured and even more accurately in terms of stacking-length – also, regions C1 and C2 are described together, in the same way, it not being once indicated that they could be different dimensionally).
With respect to claim 4/1, Kaseyama in view of Woo teaches the motor of claim 1. Kaseyama does not teach that the shape of the first notch is different from a shape of the second notch (see rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above).
Woo teaches wherein the shape of the first notch is different from the shape of the second notch (see fig. 5 excerpt attached below – they are symmetrical about a reference line passing through the center of the tooth, such that for the first notch the ledge 329 is on the right and for the second notch the ledge 329 is on the left).
PNG
media_image5.png
307
545
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the motor of Kaseyama in view of Woo, while utilizing differently shaped notches, as taught by Woo fig. 5, in order that a cogging torque waveform due to a protrusion disposed on the tooth and a cogging torque waveform due to a groove disposed on the tooth are offset, thereby providing an advantageous effect of reducing clogging torque (Woo ¶ 0021-0024).
With respect to claim 5/4/1, Kaseyama in view of Woo teaches the motor of claim 4, Woo further teaches wherein:
a depth of the first notch increases toward one (left-hand side) of two sides (see rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above) in the circumferential direction (still referring to the fig. 5 excerpt attached above in the rejection of fig. 4), and
a depth of the second notch increases toward the other (right-hand) side (see rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above) in the circumferential direction (left-to-right or right-to-left in fig. 5 excerpt).
With respect to claim 6/5/4/1, Kaseyama in view of Woo teaches the motor of claim 5, Woo further teaches wherein, based on a reference line passing through a center of the tooth and a center of the stator in the circumferential direction (still referring to the fig. 5 excerpt attached above in the rejection of fig. 4), the depth of each of the first notch and the second notch increases away from the reference line (see rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above) in the circumferential direction (left-to-right or right-to-left in fig. 5 excerpt – in general the depths increase in every direction that can be viewed in fig. 5, since the claim does not establish what the depth is relative to, such as other elements or an imaginary/virtual plan or line, etc.).
With respect to claim 7/5/4/1, Kaseyama in view of Woo teaches the motor of claim 5, Woo further teaches wherein, based on a reference line passing through a center of the tooth and a center of the stator in the circumferential direction (still referring to the fig. 5 excerpt attached above in the rejection of fig. 4), the depth of each of the first notch and the second notch increases toward the reference line (see rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above) in the circumferential direction (left-to-right or right-to-left in fig. 5 excerpt – in general the depths increase in every direction that can be viewed in fig. 5, since the claim does not establish what the depth is relative to, such as other elements or an imaginary/virtual plan or line, etc.).
With respect to claim 8/1, Kaseyama in view of Woo teaches the motor of claim 1, Kaseyama further teaches wherein the axial length [L1 + L3 + L2] of the stator core is the same as a sum of an axial length [L1 + L2] of the first region [C1/C2] and the axial length [L3] of the second region [D].
PNG
media_image6.png
395
416
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9/1, Kaseyama in view of Woo teaches the motor of claim 1, Kaseyama further teaches wherein, based on a reference line passing through a center of the tooth and a center of the stator in the circumferential direction (the Examiner has enlarged a snap-shot of one of the teeth from fig. 6 and attached it below with reference lines, directions, labels, etc.):
PNG
media_image7.png
495
493
media_image7.png
Greyscale
the first notch is disposed at one side (left-hand side in the annotated excerpt) of the reference line in the circumferential direction;
the second notch is disposed at the other side (right-hand side in the annotated excerpt) of the reference line in the circumferential direction;
a circumferential length of the first notch and a circumferential length of the second notch appear to be roughly the same; and
an axial length of the first notch and the axial length of the second notch appear to be roughly the same.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the motor of Kaseyama in view of Woo, while also constructing circumferential lengths of the first and second notches the same and the axial lengths of the first and second notches the same, because they are not described as having different dimensions in the written description, such that an attempt to make them different and not exactly the same would require extraneous manufacturing techniques, would lead to unbalanced loading and/or unpredictable anti-cogging features, and simply would make no logical sense to a practitioner in the art, wherein stators are known to be generally repetitive around the rotational axis and symmetrical around various axial planes and symmetrical across a normal, central plane. Said person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to make the notches’ dimensions the same because they are shown the same and to capriciously vary them would complicate the construction and operation of the motor.
With respect to claim 10/9/1, Kaseyama in view of Woo teaches the motor of claim 9, Kaseyama further teaches wherein the circumferential length of the first notch is a small percentage of a circumferential length of an inner surface of the tooth.
Neither Kaseyama nor Woo explicitly teach wherein the said small percentage is 11% to 12%.
Similarly to what was done in the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner blew up fig. 6 and measured the ratio/percentage of the notch to inner tooth surface, twice in millimeters and once in inches. The results were 11.45%, 10.8%, and 11.65 %. Because the notches are so small in the drawing, there is no evidence to insinuate that this measurement is accurate or intentional. The grooves are going to have a dimension relative to the overall tooth surface dimension, one way or another. In Kaseyama it appears to be between 10% and 12%, while in Woo it appears to be closer to 25% (from fig. 4). These two references are important because they are two of about 15 patent families reviewed by the Examiner with exactly two small notches on each tooth surface (instead of 1 or more than 2). Clearly the notch-to-tooth-surface ratio is a design consideration, and it is likely the result of one or two of a) how much the rotor is skewed, b) how large the motor is, and c) a tradeoff between how much cogging torque can be suppressed before the air gap begins to lose its effectiveness (power loss), among other considerations. These design considerations, given Kaseyama’s teachings, are something that can be optimized for without going outside the scope of Kaseyama.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize through routine experimentation. It is clear from the record of the prior art that when a tooth surface has two notches, a single notch is rarely if ever less than 10% or more than 25%. This makes sense, because there is only 50% of the tooth-surface-half to work with. Going over 25% would basically just corrupt the air gap and lead to power loss. It seems also to be the case that going under 10% would quickly lead to a sharp drop in effectiveness, since it will be almost like the notch is not there (in which case third and fourth notches can be added, which is also witnessed from the prior art record).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, in attempting to make the motor of Kaseyama in view of Woo, would practice experimentation to optimize for notch width. Such routine optimization would include the option to try within the claimed range of 11% to 12%, with the belief that it would achieve a predictable result, such as wishing to suppress cogging torque only to a moderate extent while retaining maximum power. The cogging torque suppression could be plotted on a graph versus notch width and power loss, and based on the available experimental data, selecting within the claimed range would be within ordinary skill in the art, once Kaseyama’s teachings are known. Thus the claimed range of 11% to 12% is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, the result specifically being an amount of suppression of cogging torque in a tradeoff relationship with power loss, with the result that one of ordinary skill in the art could know, beforehand, how much cogging torque would be suppressed by each ratio/percentage. It is likely that the tradeoff curve, although probably not linear in this range, is still continuous through it, such that selecting from within it, or simply trying it during the experimentation, would require only ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Figs. 8 and 9 of US 2005/0242681 A1 teach notch shapes relevant to claims 4-7.
PNG
media_image8.png
310
1144
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 20a of US 5,757,100 A teaches notch shapes relevant to claims 4-7.
PNG
media_image9.png
259
478
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figs. 3-4 of US 4,933,584 A teach notch shapes relevant to claims 4-7.
PNG
media_image10.png
412
405
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL K SCHLAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm 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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270 - 5112. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel K Schlak/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834