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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 4 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 4 recites the limitation "”the third part" in the recitation "the third part having a constant outer diameter". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In view of the preceding recitation of “a fourth part”, it appears that the phrase “the third part having a constant outer diameter” may have been intended to refer to “the fourth part having a constant outer diameter. Applicant is required to clarify the intended antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US20220344770 A1; hereinafter “Li”) in view of Kunitake et al. (US20210003044 A1; hereinafter “Kunitake”).
Regarding Claim 1: Li discloses a battery including a box 210 configured to accommodate a battery cell and a bidirectional vent valve 100 disposed on the box (A battery module, comprising: a case which has an opening on a front side and provides an internal space; a battery cell disposed in the internal space; and a gas valve in the opening in the case) [0103]. Li further discloses that the bidirectional vent valve includes a valve seat 110 forming a gas duct 111 (the gas valve having a seating portion having an outlet) [0045], and a bidirectional valve assembly 120 movably disposed in the gas duct 111 (a cover which is movable in a front-rear direction) [0057]. Li teaches that the gas duct is opened and closes through movement of the bidirectional valve assembly 120 relative to the gas duct, and that the valve assembly moves in the axial direction of the gas duct in responses to a pressure differences [0051].
Li does not disclose that the cover includes a first part, having an outer diameter increasing in a forward direction.
Kunitake discloses a movable poppet valve 1 having a fillet 3 connecting a stem 2 to a head 4, wherein the filet 3 has an outer diameter gradually increasing toward a leading end. Kunitake further describes the leading end side as the valve head side and teaches the increasing diameter geometry along the longitudinal direction of the movable valve [0033].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movable valve assembly of Li to include the increasing diameter portion taught by Kunitake because Kunitake demonstrates that an increasing diameter fillet is a known geometry for a movable valve member, Applying the known valve geometry of Kunitake to the movable valve member of Li would have constituted the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Claims 2-4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US20220344770 A1) in view of Kunitake et al. (US20210003044 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crist (US7296993 B2).
Regarding Claim 2: Li in view of Kunitake discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Li in view of Kunitake does not disclose that the cover includes a second part extending forwardly from the first part, an outer diameter of the second part decreasing in the forward direction.
Crist discloses a poppet member 46 slidingly movable within holder 42 (Fig. 2), wherein the poppet member 46 includes a circumferentially outwardly tapered surface 110, a cylindrical outer surface 112, and a circumferentially inwardly tapered surface 114. Crist further discloses that the cylindrical outer surface 112 terminates in inwardly tapered surface 114, and that the inwardly tapered surface joins the cylindrical outer surface 112 to end 104 of the poppet member 46 (col. 3, line. 58-66 ; col. 4, line.8-26 ).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movable valve member of Li, as modifies by Kunitake, to include an inwardly tapered portion as taught by Crist because Crist teaches that the tapered portions are known structural features of a slidingly movable poppet member. Such modification would have constituted applying a known valve member geometries to a known movable valve member to yield predictable results. See MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 3: Li and Kunitake in view of Crist discloses the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above.
Crist further discloses that the poppet member includes a substantially cylindrical surface 108 adjacent to circumferentially outwardly tapered surface 110. Cylindric surfaces 108 has a substantially constant outer diameter along the longitudinal direction of poppet member (claimed third part having a constant outer diameter) (col. 4, line. 4-12).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the tapered portion of the movable valve member of Li, as modifies by Kunitake and Crist, to terminate in a cylindrical constant diameter portion as taught by Crist because Crist teaches the use of adjoining tapered and cylindrical portions on a slidingly movable poppet member. Such modification would have constituted applying a known valve member geometry to a known movable valve member to yield predictable results. See MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 4: Li in view of Kunitake discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. For purpose of examination under the prior art the recitation “the third part having a constant outer diameter” is interpreted as referring to the recited “fourth part”, consistent with the apparent intended meaning of the claim.
Crist further discloses a slidingly movable poppet member 46 having a substantially circumferentially outwardly tapered surface 110 that terminates in a cylindrical outer surface 112. Thus, Crist teaches a tapered portion (claimed first part) having a cylindrical portion extending therefrom (claimed fourth part), wherein the cylindrical outer surface 112 has a constant outer diameter.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the tapered portion of the movable valve member of Li, as modifies by Kunitake and Crist, to terminate in a cylindrical constant diameter portion as taught by Crist because Crist teaches the use of adjoining tapered and cylindrical portions on a slidingly movable poppet member. Such modification would have constituted applying a known valve member geometry to a known movable valve member to yield predictable results. See MPEP §2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim 8: Li in view of Kunitake discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Li further discloses a first elastic component 130 configured to exert a force on the bidirectional valve assembly 120 to close the gas duct 111. In particular, Li teaches that the first elastic component may be a first spring sheathed around a connecting rod 129, wherein the first spring provides a driving resilience force and a pre-tightening force to a first and second valve plates 121, 123, thereby causing the valve plates to approach each other and close the gas duct 11 (Fig. 2, 7, [0074]). Li further teaches that when a pressure difference exceeds a predetermined threshold, bidirectional valve assembly 120 overcomes the force of the first elastic component 130 and moves to open the gas duct 111, when the pressure differences decrease below the threshold, the bidirectional valve is restored by the force of the elastic com ponent and closes the gas duct again [0042].
Therefore, Li in view of Kunitake renders claim 8 obvious for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9: Li in view of Kunitake discloses the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Li further discloses a blocking portion 112 disposed on the inner wall of the gas duct 111, wherein the bidirectional valve assembly is blocked by the blocking portion and maintained at a specific position within gas duct (Fig. 3, [0063]). Li further teaches that the first valve plate 121 and the second valve plate 123 move along the axial direction of the gas duct 111 and are pressed against blocking portion 112 upon return toward the closed position, thereby physically restricting further axial movement of the movable valve assembly [0053].
Therefore, Li in view of Kunitake renders claim 9 obvious for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10: Li in view of Kunitake discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Li in view of Kunitake does not disclose that the first part has a plurality of grooves on a peripheral surface.
Crist discloses a slidingly movable poppet member 46 having a cylindrical outer surface 112 provided with four equally angularly spaced-apart tapered flutes 120 (Fig. 3, col. 4, line. 15-27) Crist further teaches that the flutes 120 are formed in the cylindrical outer surface 112 of the poppet member 46 (col. 4, line. 8-27).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the peripheral surface of the movable valve member of Li, as modified by Kunitake, to includes plurality of grooves as taught by Crist, because Crist teaches that the tapered flutes permit the fluid to flow through the valve and that, upon backflow, the fluid grippingly engages the tapered flutes, causing the poppet member to mover into the sealing engagement with the valve seat and resulting in more rap valve closure. See Crist col. 4, line. 53-67.
Regarding Claim 11: Li in view of Kunitake discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Li in view of Kunitake does not disclose that the first part has a plurality of protrusions on a peripheral surface.
Crist discloses a slidingly movable poppet member 46 having a cylindrical outer surface 112 provided with four equally angularly spaced-apart tapered flutes 120 (Fig. 3, col. 4, line. 15-27) Crist further teaches that the flutes 120 are formed in the cylindrical outer surface 112 of the poppet member 46 (col. 4, line. 8-27).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the movable valve member of Li with the plurality of ribs taught by Crist because Crist teaches ribs 122 and intervening flutes 120 as a surface configuration of a sliding poppet member that permits fluid flow along the member and facilitates responsive movement of the popper during valve operation. See Crist col. 4, line. 53-67.
Claims 5-7 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US20220344770 A1) in view of Kunitake et al. (US20210003044 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US20210359372 A1, hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding Claim 5: Li in view of Kunitake discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Li in view of Kunitake does not disclose that the seating portion includes a spark pocket configured to trap particles moving along a surface of the first part.
Wu discloses a protection assembly 100 including a particle blocking layer 110 arranged corresponding to a pressure relief element 92. The particle blocking layer includes a particle blocking units comprising protrusions 114 and concaves 115 configured to intercept and accumulate high temperature particles discharged from the pressure relief element [0088]-[0089]. Wu teaches that a portion of the high temperature particles directly accumulate on the protrusions, changes its moving direction and moving speed, and thereafter accumulates on the concaves (the seating portion includes a spark pocket configured to trap particles moving along a surface of the first part) (Fig. 8, [0089]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gas valve structure of Li, as modifies by Kunitake , with the particles blocking structure taught by Wu because Wu teaches that the protrusions obstruct the particles, change their moving direction and speed and cause the particles to accumulate on the concave, thereby effectively intercepting and blocking the high temperature particles. See Wu [0089], [0094].
Regarding Claim 6: Li and Kunitake in view of Wu discloses the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above. Wu further discloses a protection assembly 100 disposed corresponding to a pressure relief element, wherein the particle blocking layer covers the pressure relief element and faces the region from which the high temperature particles are discharged (the spark pocket is disposed around the outlet, and at least part of the spark pocket faces the first part) [0059]
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the particle blocking structure taught by Wu around and facing the gas outlet of Li, as modified by Kunitake, because Wu teaches positioning the protection assembly corresponding to and covering the pressure relied element so that the high temperature particles discharged therefrom are intercepted and blocked by the particle blocking layer. See Wu [0098].
Regarding Claim 7: Li and Kunitake in view of Wu discloses the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above. Wu further discloses a particle blocking layer having a plurality of particle blocking units including protrusions extending from ta surface body []. The protrusions project into the region through which the high temperature particle travel and obstruct the particles discharged from the pressure relief element (spark pocket includes a first protrusion which protrudes inward).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the particles trapping region of the gas valve of Li, as modified by Kunitake, with the protrusions taught by Wu because Wu teaches that the protrusions improve the interception and blocking of the high temperature particles. See Wu [0089].
Regarding Claim 12: Li in view of Kunitake discloses the battery module of claim 1 as discussed above. Wu further discloses a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery modules disposes within the housing, wherein the housing defines an accommodation space for receiving the battery modules [0008], [0105], claim 39.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the battery module of Li, as modified by Kunitake, into a battery pack as taught by Wu, because Wu teaches arranging a plurality of battery modules within a housing to form a battery pack. Such combination represents the known use of battery modules in a battery pack for their conventional energy storage function. See MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 13: Li in view of Kunitake discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Li further discloses an electrical device 300 comprising a battery 200, wherein the electrical device may be a vehicle. Such as a battery electric vehicle, hybrid electric vehicle, or a range-extended electric vehicle [0106], Fig. 14.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US20220344770 A1) and Kunitake et al. (US20210003044 A1) in view of Wu et al. (US20210359372 A1 as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Spiegelberg et al. (US4317868; hereinafter “Spiegelberg”).
Regarding Claim 14: Li and Kunitake in view of Wu discloses the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above. However, this combination does not disclose the particular configuration of the spark pocket recited in claim 14.
Spiegelberg discloses a battery vent structure including an annular wall arrangement defining a circuitous gas flow passage (Fig. 1), including an out-turned annular midwall portion 19 extending radially outwardly (outwardly extending first portion), an annular wall 20 extending axially from the out-turned portion 19 (extending in the forward direction), and a annular wall portions defining a radially inwardly extending portion of the gas flow path (third portion extending inwardly) (col. 3, line. 3-20).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the particle blocking structure of Wu to include the annular and flow path configurations taught by Spiegelberg in order to provide a path for discharged gases and particles and thereby improve the interception of the discharged particles, yielding the predictable results of reducing the passage of the particle through the vent structure. See MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 16: Li, Kunitake and Wu in view of Spiegelberg discloses the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. Wu further discloses a particle blocking layer 110 including a plurality of spaced protrusion extending from the body, wherein the adjacent protrusion defines the particle blocking units and project into the region through which discharged particles travel [0088]-[0089]. Wu teaches that the protrusion obstructs the discharged high temperature particles , thereby changing the moving direction and speed of the particles and causing the particles to accumulate on the particle blocking layer [0089].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gas valve structure of Li, as modifies by Kunitake , with the particles blocking structure taught by Wu because Wu teaches that the protrusions obstruct the particles, change their moving direction and speed and cause the particles to accumulate on the concave, thereby effectively intercepting and blocking the high temperature particles. See Wu [0089], [0094].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US20220344770 A1), Kunitake et al. (US20210003044 A1), and Wu et al. (US20210359372) A in view of Spiegelberg et al. (US4317868) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Szymborski et al. (US4328290; hereinafter “Szymborski”).
Regarding Claim 15: Li, Kunitake and Wu in view of Spiegelberg discloses the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. However, this combination does not disclose the frustoconical configuration recited.
Szymborski discloses a battery vent plug including an upstanding annular seat 37 formed as an annular projection and having an inner frustoconical surface 40, and an outer frustoconical surface 41, the frustoconical surface extending radially and axially and intersecting at the annular knife edge 42 (Fig. 2, claim 9, col. 4, line. 16-21)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the annular vent structure of Li in view of Kunitake, Wu, and Spiegelberg to include the frustoconical annular configuration taught by Szymborski because Szymborski teaches the use of frustoconical surface on annular seat to provide the seating configuration for the vent valve and to provide low pressure relief to a battery. See Szymborski col. 2, line. 44-51.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US20220344770 A1) in view of Kunitake et al. (US20210003044 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hashimoto et al. (US12129879 B2).
Regarding Claim 17: Li in view of Kunitake discloses the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. However, this combination does not disclose a connection bar extending through an opening in the seating portion and an opening in the cover, the connection bar extending into a recess in the cover, wherein the stopper extends radially outwardly from a second end of the connection bar, a diameter of the stopper being greater than a diameter of the recess in the cover.
Hashimoto discloses a rod-shaped portion 212 extending through the hole 15c of plate 15 and through opening 22a of the movable member 22, wherein the rod-shaped portion extends into opening 22a od the movable member 22. Hashimoto further discloses a stopper 214 disposed at an end of the rod-shaped portion 212 and extending outwardly therefrom, wherein the stopper has a diameter greater than the diameter of the opening (See Fig. 4 below; col. 9, line. 57-64). Hashimoto further discloses that the moving member is movable within the air vent hole between a position covering air vent hole and a position opening air vent hole, wherein the first and second stopper prevent the moving member from coming out of the air vent hole (col. 10, line. 12-14).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movable valve member of Li, as modified by Kunitake, to include the rod and stopper configuration taught by Hashimoto because Hashimoto teaches the movable member is supported by and movable relative to the rod-shaped portion with the stoppers limiting the movement of the movable member along the rod-shaped portion. See Hashimoto col. 9, line. 57-64 and col. 10, line. 12-14.
PNG
media_image1.png
628
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18: Li in view of Kunitake discloses the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. However, this combination does not disclose a connection bar extending through an opening in the seating portion and an opening in the cover, the connection bar extending into a recess in the cover, wherein the stopper extends rearwardly from a second end of the connection bar.
Hashimoto discloses a rod-shaped portion 212 extending through the hole 15c of plate 15 and through opening 22a of the movable member 22, wherein the rod-shaped portion extends into opening 22a od the movable member 22. Hashimoto further discloses a stopper 214 disposed at an end of the rod-shaped member 212 and extending from the end therefrom, as shown in Fig. 4.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movable valve member of Li, as modified by Kunitake, to include the rod and stopper configuration taught by Hashimoto because Hashimoto teaches the movable member is supported by and movable relative to the rod-shaped portion with the stoppers limiting the movement of the movable member along the rod-shaped portion. See Hashimoto col. 9, line. 57-64 and col. 10, line. 12-14.
Regarding Claim 19: Li in view of Kunitake discloses the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. However, this combination does not disclose that the connection bar has a first section having a first diameter, and that the stopper is a second section of the connection bar having a second diameter greater than the first diameter.
Hashimoto discloses a rod-shaped member 212 extending through the hole 15c of plate 15. Hashimoto further discloses the rod-shaped member having a first section having a first diameter and a second stopper 25b disposed at an end of the rod-shaped member and extending radially outwardly therefrom, wherein the second stopper has a second diameter greater than the first diameter of the rod-shaped member, as shown in Fig. 12 below.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movable valve assembly of Li in view of Kunitake to include the connection bar and enlarged stopper configuration taught by Hashimoto in order to guide and retain the movable member while permitting movement thereof along the connection bar, thereby yielding the predictable results of limiting movement and preventing disengagement of the movable member form the valve assembly. See MPEP §2143(I)(A).
PNG
media_image2.png
463
583
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20: Li in view of Kunitake discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, this combination does not disclose a connection bar extends through an opening in the supporting portion and an opening in the cover, the connection bar extending into a recess in the cover, and a the connection bar has a first fixing portion having a first diameter, a second fixing portion having a second diameter and a bar having a third diameter, and wherein the third diameter is less than the first diameter and the second diameter.
Hashimoto discloses a plate 15 having a surface 15a and Air vent hole 15e and a movable member 25 extending through the air vent hole 15a (Fig. 12). Hashimoto further teaches a movable member arrangement in which the connection member extends through an opening of the movable member (claimed opening and recess in the cover under BRI). The movable member 25 includes a first and second stoppers and a rod-shaped member 25c extending between the first and second stoppers. As shown in Fig. 12, first stopper 25a has a first diameter, second stopper 25b has a second diameter and the rod-shaped member 25c has a third diameter smaller than the respective diameter of first and second stoppers.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movable valve assembly of Li in view of Kunitake to include the connection bar configuration taught by Hashimoto, having an enlarged fixing portions at opposite ends of a smaller diameter bar, Hashimoto in order to guide and retain the movable member while permitting movement thereof along the connection bar, thereby yielding the predictable results of limiting movement and preventing disengagement of the movable member form the valve assembly. See MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHALY M RESTO OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)895-1575. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/NMRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights