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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Part 111 in figs. 3 and 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 4, “the lower surface of the flame” should read --a lower surface of the flame--.
In claim 5, line 6, “the upper portion of the sealing” should read --an upper portion of the sealing--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a fastening member” in claim 5.
The instant specification provides a bolt as an example structure for fastening the fixing plate and sealing gasket (Instant specification, pg. 13, lines 16-19). Based on the instant specification, examiner interprets a fastening member as anything equivalent in structure to a bolt, that can fix and couple the sealing gasket and fixing plate to each other.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation “one or more cutting lines have an arc or C shape” which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what constitutes a C shape. For example, an arc cutting line could qualify as a C shape cutting line. However, two parallel cutting lines with a third perpendicular line between two same-sided endpoints, resembling a bracket “ [ “, could also qualify as a C shape. Examiner notes that fig. 9 of the instant specification shows a cutting line comprising a partial circumference of an ellipse. For the purposes of examination, the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation, such that the limitation “one or more cutting lines have an arc or C shape” is interpreted as wherein one or more cutting lines have an arc shape or any shape that is not a closed circle or a closed ellipse.
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 1, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 9614211 B2), hereinafter “Chen”, in view of You et al. (WO 2020138869 A1), hereinafter “You”, wherein an English machine translation of You is cited .
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a lithium ion battery pack (corresponding to the claimed battery module) (Chen, col. 6, lines 4-13) comprising:
A number of lithium ion batteries connected in series or in parallel (corresponding to the claimed cell assembly having battery cells) (Chen, col. 6, lines 4-13)
A guiding cover (corresponding to the claimed module case) (Chen, col. 6, lines 4-13)
The guiding cover defining an exhaust port (corresponding to the claimed module case accommodating the cell assembly and having a connector mounting hole at one side) (Chen, col. 6, lines 4-13)
A mesh cover (corresponding to the claimed connector assembly comprising a connector housing) (Chen, col. 6, lines 4-13)
Fig. 10 from Chen shows the mesh cover 60 covering exhaust port 702 (corresponding to the claimed connector mounting hole), and the mesh cover 60 coupled to the guiding cover 70 (corresponding to the claimed connector assembly having at least a portion exposed to outside of the module case through the connector mounting hole) (Chen, col. 10, lines 18-32).
Chen teaches that the mesh cover 60 comprises a lower portion 602 that is fixed to the battery cover 60 (corresponding to the claimed flame retardant block) (Chen, col. 8, lines 14-20). Figs. 3-5 from Chen further show the lower portion 602 as an annular portion around the circumference of the pressure relief hole 304 (corresponding to the claimed flame retardant block surrounding a circumference of the connector housing) (Chen, col. 9, lines 6-9). Chen further teaches that the mesh cover may alternatively be placed on an inner surface of a battery cover (Chen, col. 6, lines 55-58) wherein fig. 5 from Chen shows the lower portion of the mesh cover 60 placed on the inside of guiding cover 30 (corresponding to the claimed flame retardant block surrounding a circumference of the connector housing inside the module case) (Chen, col. 9, lines 38-45).
Chen further teaches that the mesh cover may comprise aluminum (Chen, col. 8, lines 7-13). Since the lower portion 602 is part of the mesh cover (Chen, col. 8, lines 14-20), the lower portion 602 of the mesh cover 60 may also comprise aluminum (corresponding to the claimed flame retardant block formed of a metal material) (Chen, col. 8, lines 7-13).
Chen teaches that the mesh cover may be coated with flame retardant material (Chen, col. 8, lines 7-13). Since the lower portion 602 is part of the mesh cover (Chen, col. 8, lines 14-20), the lower portion 602 on the inner surface of the guiding cover 30 may also be coated with flame retardant material (corresponding to the claimed flame retardant block has a coating layer of an incombustible material on a lower surface facing the inside of the module case) (Chen, fig. 5; col. 8, lines 7-13; col. 9, lines 38-45).
Chen does not teach a circuit board connected to the mesh cover and provided inside the module case, nor the connector housing having pins inside. However, You teaches a battery module comprising a flexible printed circuit board (FPCB) assembly 200 coupled to a connector 240 (corresponding to the claimed connector assembly connected to a circuit board) (You, [0040], lines 1-2; [0057], lines 3-4). Figs. 1 and 3 from You show FPCB assembly 200 underneath the upper cover 500 (corresponding to the claimed circuit board provided inside the module case) (You, [0095], lines 1-5).
You also teaches the connector 240 comprising a plurality of connector pins 2411, wherein fig. 8 shows connector pins 241 as inside connector 240 (corresponding to the claimed connector housing having connector pins inside) (You, [0071], lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add You's FPCB assembly connection to the battery pack of Chen in order to improve electrical connection and reduce defect rates (You, [0023], lines 1-3), and to add You’s connector pins to the battery pack of Chen in order to electrically connect the connector to the FPCB (You, [0071], lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, modified Chen teaches a lithium ion battery comprising a battery core 20 inside a battery can 10 (corresponding to the claimed module case comprises a main housing) (Chen, col. 7, lines 23-26). Figs. 9-10 from Chen further show the battery can 10 comprising a rectangular tubular shape (corresponding to the claimed main housing provided in a rectangular tubular shape). As stated in the rejection of claim 1 above, Chen teaches the battery pack comprising a number of lithium ion batteries (corresponding to the claimed cell assembly having battery cells) (Chen, col. 6, lines 4-13). Therefore, the claimed main housing provided in a rectangular tubular shape capable of accommodating the cell assembly therein would result from the combination of the battery can 10 (Chen, col. 7, lines 23-26) and the number of lithium ion batteries (Chen, col. 6, lines 4-13), explicitly disclosed by the prior art. See § MPEP 2112.
Further regarding claim 6, examiner notes that “provided to cover a front side and a rear side of the main housing” is an instance of functional language which only imparts a structure that is capable of doing said function. Fig. 5 from Chen shows a battery can 10 comprising a front cover, corresponding to the claimed structural limitation of the module case comprising a front cover. Fig. 1 from Chen also shows the battery can comprising a rear cover, corresponding to the claimed structural limitation of the module case comprising a rear cover. Since modified Chen’s battery can is identical to application’s module case, modified Chen’s battery can 10 would also be capable of performing the recited function.
Regarding claim 10, modified Chen teaches a lithium ion battery pack (corresponding to the claimed battery pack) (Chen, col. 6, lines 4-12).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 9614211 B2) and You (WO 2020138869 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6, and 10 above, and further in view of Nagasaki et al. (US 20110177366 A1), hereinafter “Nagasaki”.
Regarding claim 2, modified Chen teaches that the mesh cover may comprise aluminum (Chen, col. 8, lines 7-13). As stated above in the rejection of claim 1, modified Chen teaches that the lower portion 602 is part of the mesh cover (Chen, col. 8, lines 14-20). Therefore, the lower portion 602 may also comprise aluminum (corresponding to the claimed flame retardant block is made of aluminum) (Chen, col. 8, lines 7-13). Modified Chen does not teach the coating layer comprising ceramic particles. However, Nagasaki teaches a composite layer structure in a battery assembly, wherein the composite layer comprises a heat-absorbing layer and a heat-conductive layer (Nagasaki, [0012], lines 1-4). Nagasaki further teaches that the heat-absorbing layer may comprise ceramic materials (corresponding to the claimed coating layer comprises ceramic particles) (Nagasaki, [0037], lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Nagasaki's heat-absorbing layer for the flame retardant coating of modified Chen in order to absorb heat (Nagasaki, [0037], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, modified Chen does not teach the aluminum having a thickness within a range of 3 mm to 10 mm, nor the coating layer having a thickness within a range of 0.1 mm to 1 mm. Nagasaki teaches that the heat-conductive layer may comprise aluminum with a thickness of 0.2 mm to 4 mm (Nagasaki, [0035], lines 1-4), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 3 mm to 10 mm of aluminum thickness. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Nagasaki’s heat-conductive layer thickness range to the aluminum layer of modified Chen in order to provide a small and safe battery pack (Nagasaki, [0008], lines 1-7). In this regard, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill to select any value of heat-conductive layer thickness within the disclosed range, including a value within the claimed range, as it has been held that overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Nagasaki also teaches a range of 0.1 mm to 3 mm for the heat-absorbing layer thickness (Nagasaki, [0068], lines 8-14), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 0.1 mm to 1 mm of the coating layer. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Nagasaki’s heat-absorbing layer thickness range to the flame retardant coating of modified Chen in order to provide a small and safe battery pack (Nagasaki, [0008], lines 1-7). In this regard, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill to select any value of heat-absorbing layer thickness within the disclosed range, including a value within the claimed range, as it has been held that overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Claims 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 9614211 B2) and You (WO 2020138869 A1) as applied to claim 1, 6, and 10 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20140322566 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Chen the battery pack comprising the mesh 60 (corresponding to the claimed connector housing comprising a first housing), wherein fig. 10 from Chen shows mesh 60 exposed to the outside of the module case (corresponding to the claimed first housing having at least a portion exposed to the outside of the module case) (Chen, col. 6, lines 4-13).
Modified Chen does not teach the connector housing comprising a second housing having at least a portion inside the first housing. However, Kim teaches a battery pack (Kim, [0007], line 1) comprising a pack cover 200 (corresponding to the claimed first housing) and a discharge part 70 (corresponding to the claimed second housing) (Kim, [0041], lines 3-6; [0074], lines 3-9). Kim further teaches that the discharge part 70 may be inside the pack cover 200 (corresponding to the claimed second housing having at least a portion inside the first housing) (Kim, [0074], lines 3-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Kim's discharge part to the battery pack of modified Chen in order to allow gas and erupting material to be discharged outwardly from the battery pack (Kim, [0074], lines 3-9).
Regarding claim 7, fig. 8 from Chen shows mesh 60 coupled to a hole 104 on the front cover of can 10 (corresponding to the claimed connector mounting hole is provided in the front cover). Fig. 10 from Chen further shows guiding cover 70 on top of a plurality of multiple lithium ion batteries (corresponding to the claimed main housing comprises a top plate covering the upper portion of the cell assembly) (Chen, col. 10, lines 18- 32). Fig. 10 also shows guiding cover 70 comprising exhaust port 702 (corresponding to the claimed top plate has a venting hole). Modified Chen further teaches exhaust ports hermetically mounted to corresponding pressure relief values of the lithium ion batteries such that pressure relief valves break during thermal runaway and mesh covers allow gas and vapor to pass (corresponding to the claimed venting hole for discharging gas in case of ignition of a battery cell of the cell assembly) (Chen, col. 6, lines 7-12; col. 5, lines 57-62). Fig. 5 from Chen further shows a battery can 10 comprising coverings on the front, rear, left, and right sides (corresponding to the claimed left side plate and a right side plate covering side portions of the cell assembly).
Modified Chen does not teach a bottom plate covering the lower portion of the cell assembly. However, Kim teaches a rechargeable battery pack comprising a housing 400 (Kim, [0044], lines 1-2), wherein fig. 1 from Kim shows the housing 400 comprising a bottom plate covering the lower portion of unit cells 100 (corresponding to the claimed bottom plate covering the lower portion of the cell assembly) (Kim, [0044], lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Kim’s housing comprising a bottom plate to the battery pack of modified Chen in order to receive unit cells in the battery pack (Kim, [0044], lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, modified Chen teaches the battery pack further comprising a pressure relief plate 804 (corresponding to the claimed insulating cover plate) (Chen, col. 10, lines 19-27). Modified Chen also teaches that the pressure relief plate may comprise metal coated with polypropylene (PP), which is a polymer known to be electrically insulating (corresponding to the claimed insulating cover plate made of an electrically insulating material) (Chen, col. 5, lines 10-11; col. 5, lines 21-23). Fig. 10 from Chen shows the pressure relief plate 804 between the battery cells and guiding plate 70 (corresponding to the claimed insulating cover plate provided between the upper portion of the cell assembly and the top plate) (Chen, col. 10, lines 19-27). Modified Chen also teaches the pressure relief plate comprises a weakened line which can break when pressure in the battery exceeds a predetermined value (corresponding to the claimed insulating cover plate has one or more cutting lines cut in a predetermined position and the one or more cutting lines are provided at a position corresponding to the venting hole) (Chen, col. 7, lines 59-64).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 9614211 B2), You (WO 2020138869 A1), and Kim (US 20140322566 A1) as applied to claims 4 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 12361047 A), hereinafter “Li”, wherein (US 20220344770 A1) is cited as an English translation.
Regarding claim 5, modified Chen teaches coupling the lower portion 602 of the mesh cover 30 with the battery cover 30 via a threaded connection (corresponding to the claimed fastening member) (Chen, col. 3, lines 11-18). Modified Chen does not teach the connector assembly comprising a sealing gasket and a fixing plate. However, Li teaches a bidirectional vent valve in a battery device (Li, [0005], lines 1-8). Li teaches that the bidirectional vent valve comprises a second sealing element 171 that may be a gasket (corresponding to the claimed sealing gasket) (Li, [0086], lines 1-8). Fig. 12 from Li shows the second sealing element 171 surrounding an outer circumference of valve seat 100 (corresponding to the claimed sealing gasket provided to surround the outer circumference of the first housing) (Li, [0100], lines 13-15). Fig. 12 from Li also shows second sealing element 171 disposed opposite to the lower surface of outside of the battery (corresponding to the claimed sealing gasket disposed on an upper surface of the flame retardant block opposite to the lower surface of the flame retardant block) (Li, [0100], lines 13-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Li's second sealing element to the battery pack of modified Chen in order to improve the sealing effect (Li, [0086], lines 1-2).
Li further teaches the bidirectional vent valve may comprise a third sealing element 172 (corresponding to the claimed fixing plate) (Li, [0089], lines 1-10). Fig. 12 from Li shows the third sealing element 172 disposed on an opposite side of the mounting portion 140, facing the outside of the battery (corresponding to the claimed fixing plate disposed on the upper portion of the sealing gasket) (Li, [0089], lines 1-10). Fig. 12 from Li also shows the bi-directional valve passing through the third sealing element 172, such that the valve is partially outside the battery (corresponding to the claimed first housing passing through the fixing plate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Li's third sealing element to the battery pack of modified Chen in order to improve the sealing effect between the vent valve and the battery box (Li, [0089], lines 1-6).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 9614211 B2) and You (WO 2020138869 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (CN 209981340 U), hereinafter “Hu”, wherein an English machine translation of Hu is cited.
Regarding claim 9, modified Chen does not teach the one or more cutting lines having an arc or C shape. Hu teaches a secondary battery top cover comprising an explosion proof valve (Hu, [0013], lines 1-2), wherein the explosion-proof valve comprises first groove 41 and second groove 42 (corresponding to the claimed one or more cutting lines) (Hu, [0025], lines 1 & 8-9). Annotated Fig. 1 from Hu below shows the first groove 41 and the second groove 42 comprising an arc shape (corresponding to the claimed one or more cutting lines having an arc shape).
PNG
media_image1.png
591
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel Avina whose telephone number is (571)270-0429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/R.M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights