DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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.
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.
Claims 3, 8-14, and 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the term “about” in this claim (see two recitations in line 2) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The outer edge of the step position and location (see lines 1-2) is rendered indefinite because the scope of “about” 5 inches and “about” 18 inches is unclear.
Regarding claim 8, the term “about” in this claim (see two recitations in line 8) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The distance between the first axis and the second axis (see lines 7-9) is rendered indefinite because the claim scope of “about” 42% and “about” 72% is unclear.
Regarding claim 9, the term “about” in this claim (see two recitations in line 2) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The distance between the first axis and the second axis (see lines 1-2) is rendered indefinite because the claim scope of “about” 2 inches and “about” 13 inches is unclear.
Regarding claim 10, the term “about” in this claim (see two recitations in line 2) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The distance between the aperture and the second axis (see lines 1-2) is rendered indefinite because the claim scope of “about” 5 inches and “about” 25 inches is unclear.
Regarding claim 20, the term “about” in this claim (see two recitations in lines 3-4) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The central axis position and location (see lines 3-4) is rendered indefinite because the scope of “about” 4 inches and “about” 10 inches is unclear.
Please review all claims before the formal response is submitted, as any new 112(b) rejections introduced in the response may be grounds for a Final Rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Puffer et al. (US Patent 12,435,699 B1).
Regarding claim 15, Puffer et al. (from here on just referred to as Puffer) discloses pitch motor trolley (see figures 1-5) comprising:
A method of lifting a pitch motor (see figures 1-5), the method comprising steps of:
selecting a wind turbine (100, see figure 1) having a nacelle housing (120, see figure 1) and a hatch (442, see figures 4C and 4E, and column 7 lines 33-51) extending through the nacelle housing;
coupling a crane (450, see figure 4D) with the wind turbine such that the crane extends through the nacelle housing (see figures 4D-4E);
coupling a winch (472, see figure 4F) with the crane;
coupling the pitch motor with the winch (see figure 5, and column 10 line 60 to column 11 line 21); and
operating the winch to lift the pitch motor through the hatch (see figure 5, and column 10 line 60 to column 11 line 21).
Regarding claim 16, Puffer further shows wherein the step of coupling the crane with the wind turbine comprises inserting a lower end of the crane in a bearing casing (see figure 5, and column 10 lines 13-37).
Regarding claim 17, Puffer further shows wherein the step of coupling the crane with the wind turbine comprises rotating at least one fastener (412) to engage a gasket (434, see figure 4D) with the nacelle housing (see figure 5, and column 10 lines 13-37).
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puffer et al. (US Patent 12,435,699 B1) in view of Stubbs (US Patent 10,435,277 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Puffer et al. (from here on just referred to as Puffer) discloses pitch motor trolley (see figures 1-5) comprising:
A crane (450, see figures 1-5, especially figures 4C-4D) configured for a wind turbine including a nacelle (120, see figure 1) with a nacelle hatch (442, see figure 4C and 4E, and column 7 lines 33-51), the crane comprising:
a post (432, see figures 4C-4D) configured to couple the crane with the nacelle of the wind turbine;
a step (440) coupled with the post (see figures 4C-4D), the step sized and shaped such that at least a portion of the step is positioned and located below the nacelle hatch (see figure 4C) when the post is coupled with the nacelle of the wind turbine (see figures 4C-4D);
a column (436 and 438, see figures 4C-4D) extending away from the step;
an arm (456, see figure 4D) coupled with the column, and the distal end of the arm is above the nacelle hatch (see figures 4C-4D).
Puffer does not explicitly wherein the arm is selectively rotatable.
Stubbs discloses a portable crane for a wind turbine (see figures 1-4, especially figure 3) comprising a crane 140, see figure 3) further comprising an arm (160) connected to a stay/column (154). Stubbs teaches that the stay connected to the arm is a rotatable stay (see column 3 lines 42-58).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Puffer by providing a rotatable connection between the arm and column of Puffer so that the arm is selectively rotatable, to provide a rotatable connection between an arm and a column of crane for a wind turbine as taught by Stubbs, to increase the operational range of the arm of the crane of Puffer, and/or to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Puffer does not explicitly disclose wherein the column extends along a first axis, and wherein the post extends along a second axis that is oriented parallel to the first axis.
Stubbs discloses a portable crane for a wind turbine (see figures 1-4, especially figure 3) comprising a crane 140, see figure 3) further comprising a stay/column (154) extending along a first axis (considered the longitudinal axis of 158) and the post (154 and 152, see figure 3) along a second axis (considered the longitudinal axis of 154 and 152) that is oriented parallel to the first axis (see figure 3). Stubbs teaches that the column (154) is in communication with the post (154 and 152), see column 3 lines 42-50. Thus, Stubbs teaches a column in an offset connection communication with a post.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Puffer by providing the column and post of Puffer in an offset connection communication so that the column extends along a first axis and the post extends along a second axis that is oriented parallel to the first axis, to provide an offset connection communication between a column and post as taught by Stubbs, to increase the horizontal operating range of Puffer by offsetting the column with respect to the post, and/or to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Puffer as modified by Stubbs teaches the claimed invention except for wherein an outer edge of the step is positioned and located between about 5 inches and about 18 inches from the first axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an outer edge of the step is positioned and located between about 5 inches and about 18 inches from the first axis, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The outer edge of the step is positioned and located between about 5 inches and about 18 inches from the first axis is a result-effective range because the recognized result would be to provide a step with a long enough horizontal surface area to provide enough surface area for the foot of personnel entering and exiting the opening of wind turbine.
The difference between the claimed invention of dependent claim 3 and the prior art of Puffer as modified by Stubbs is an outer edge of the step is positioned and located between about 5 inches and about 18 inches from the first axis. The discovering of an optimum range of a result effective range would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Puffer further shows wherein the column (436 and 438, see figures 4C-4D) includes a lower section (436) and an upper section (438) coupled together by a joint (462, see figure 4E), the joint received in each of the upper section and the lower section (see figure 4E).
Regarding claim 5, Puffer further shows a gasket assembly (414 and/or 434, see figure 4D) coupled with the column (see figure 4D) and configured to selectively engage with the nacelle of the wind turbine (see figure 4D).
Regarding claim 6, Puffer further shows wherein the arm (456, see figure 4F) is configured to couple with a winch (472, see figure 4F) proximate to the distal end.
Regarding claim 8, Puffer et al. (from here on just referred to as Puffer) discloses pitch motor trolley (see figures 1-5) comprising:
A crane (450, see figures 1-5, especially figures 4C-4D) including;
a post (432, see figures 4C-4D) oriented along a first axis (considered the longitudinal axis of 432);
a platform (440) supported by the post (see figures 4C-4D);
a column (436 and 438, see figures 4C-4D) coupled with the platform and oriented along a second axis (considered the longitudinal axis of 436 and 438); and
an arm (456, see figure 4D) protruding outwardly from the column to a distal end (see figures 4D-4F), and wherein an aperture (considered the aperture for 488, see figure 4H) extends through the arm proximate to the distal end (see figure 4H);
Puffer does not explicitly disclose wherein the post and the column are positioned and located on the platform such that a distance between the first axis and the second axis is between about 42 % and about 72 % of a total length of the platform.
Stubbs discloses a portable crane for a wind turbine (see figures 1-4, especially figure 3) comprising a crane 140, see figure 3) further comprising a stay/column (154) extending along a first axis (considered the longitudinal axis of 158) and the post (154 and 152, see figure 3) along a second axis (considered the longitudinal axis of 154 and 152). Stubbs further shows the stay/column (154) is located on a platform (considered the flat surface below 162 in figure 3) at a first location and the post (154 and 152) is located on the platform at a second location offset from the first location (see figure 3). Stubbs teaches that the column (154) is in communication with the post (154 and 152), see column 3 lines 42-50. Thus, Stubbs teaches a column in an offset connection communication with a post.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Puffer by providing the column and post of Puffer in an offset connection communication so that the post and the column are positioned and located on the platform such that a distance is between the first axis and the second axis, to provide an offset connection communication between a column and post as taught by Stubbs, to increase the horizontal operating range of Puffer by offsetting the column with respect to the post, and/or to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Neither Puffer nor Stubbs explicitly disclose the distance between the first axis and the second axis is between about 42 % and about 72 % of a total length of the platform.
Puffer as modified by Stubbs teaches the claimed invention except the distance between the first axis and the second axis is between about 42 % and about 72 % of a total length of the platform.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the distance between the first axis and the second axis is between about 42 % and about 72 % of a total length of the platform, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The distance between the first axis and the second axis is between about 42 % and about 72 % of a total length of the platform is a result-effective range because the recognized result would be to provide an offset connection communication between a column and post as taught by Stubbs and/or to increase the horizontal operating range of Puffer by offsetting the column with respect to the post.
The difference between the claimed invention of independent claim 8 and the prior art of Puffer as modified by Stubbs is the distance between the first axis and the second axis is between about 42 % and about 72 % of a total length of the platform. The discovering of an optimum range of a result effective range would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Puffer as modified by Stubbs teaches the claimed invention except wherein the distance between the first axis and the second axis is between about between about 2 inches and about 13 inches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the distance between the first axis and the second axis is between about between about 2 inches and about 13 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The distance between the first axis and the second axis is between about between about 2 inches and about 13 inches is a result-effective range because the recognized result would be to provide an offset connection communication between a column and post as taught by Stubbs and/or to increase the horizontal operating range of Puffer by offsetting the column with respect to the post.
The difference between the claimed invention of dependent claim 9 and the prior art of Puffer as modified by Stubbs is the distance between the first axis and the second axis is between about between about 2 inches and about 13 inches. The discovering of an optimum range of a result effective range would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Puffer as modified by Stubbs teaches the claimed invention except where a distance between the aperture and the second axis is between about 5 inches and about 25 inches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a distance between the aperture and the second axis is between about 5 inches and about 25 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The distance between the aperture and the second axis is between about 5 inches and about 25 inches is a result-effective range because the recognized result would be to provide the aperture at a location above and horizontally away from the opening of the wind turbine for the benefit of removing parts of the wind turbine such as a pitch motor.
The difference between the claimed invention of dependent claim 10 and the prior art of Puffer as modified by Stubbs is a distance between the aperture and the second axis is between about 5 inches and about 25 inches. The discovering of an optimum range of a result effective range would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Puffer further shows wherein the aperture (considered the aperture for 488, see figure 4H) is positioned and located a first distance (see figures 4C-4H, especially figures 4D and 4H) from the second axis (considered the longitudinal axis of 436 and 438, as modified above by Stubbs); an outer edge of the platform is positioned and located a second distance from the second axis; and the first distance is greater than the second distance (see figures 4C-4H, especially figure 4D and 4H).
Regarding claim 18, Puffer further shows wherein the step of coupling the pitch motor with the winch comprises an arm (456, see figures 4C-4F) of the crane to position the winch above the hatch (see figure 5, and column 10 line 60 to column 11 line 21, and figures 4C-4F).
Puffer does not explicitly disclose the rotating of the arm.
Stubbs discloses a portable crane for a wind turbine (see figures 1-4, especially figure 3) comprising a crane 140, see figure 3) further comprising an arm (160) connected to a stay/column (154). Stubbs teaches that the stay connected to the arm is a rotatable stay (see column 3 lines 42-58).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Puffer by providing a rotatable connection between the arm and column of Puffer so that the arm is selectively rotatable, to provide a rotatable connection between an arm and a column of crane for a wind turbine as taught by Stubbs, to increase the operational range of the arm of the crane of Puffer, and/or to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, Puffer further shows wherein the step of an arm (456, see figures 4C-4F) of the crane to position the pitch motor over a roof of the nacelle housing (see figure 5, and column 10 line 60 to column 11 line 21, and figures 4C-4F); and operating the winch to lower the pitch motor (see figure 5, and column 10 line 60 to column 11 line 21, and figures 4C-4F).
Puffer does not explicitly disclose the rotating of the arm.
Stubbs discloses a portable crane for a wind turbine (see figures 1-4, especially figure 3) comprising a crane 140, see figure 3) further comprising an arm (160) connected to a stay/column (154). Stubbs teaches that the stay connected to the arm is a rotatable stay (see column 3 lines 42-58).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Puffer by providing a rotatable connection between the arm and column of Puffer so that the arm is selectively rotatable, to provide a rotatable connection between an arm and a column of crane for a wind turbine as taught by Stubbs, to increase the operational range of the arm of the crane of Puffer, and/or to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 20, Puffer further shows wherein the step of coupling the crane with the wind turbine comprises positioning the crane such that a column extending along a central axis passes through the wind turbine (see figure 5, and column 10 line 60 to column 11 line 21, and figures 4C-4F).
Puffer as modified by Stubbs teaches the claimed invention except wherein the central axis is positioned and located between about 4 inches and about 10 inches from an edge the hatch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the central axis is positioned and located between about 4 inches and about 10 inches from an edge the hatch, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The central axis is positioned and located between about 4 inches and about 10 inches from an edge the hatch is a result-effective range because the recognized result would be to provide a distance from the opening of the wind turbine at a location above and horizontally away from the opening of the wind turbine for the benefit of removing parts of the wind turbine such as a pitch motor.
The difference between the claimed invention of dependent claim 20 and the prior art of Puffer as modified by Stubbs is the central axis is positioned and located between about 4 inches and about 10 inches from an edge the hatch. The discovering of an optimum range of a result effective range would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puffer et al. (US Patent 12,435,699 B1) in view of Stubbs (US Patent 10,435,277 B1) as applied to claims 1-6, 8-11, and 18-20 above, and further in view of Hamilton (US Publication 2008/0245522 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Neither Puffer nor Stubbs explicitly disclose a shaft having a lower region and an upper region, the lower region coupled with the column; a bearing coupled with the upper region; and a housing coupled with the arm and supported on the shaft by the bearing.
Hamilton discloses a crane (see figures 1-10, especially figures 1-2) comprising a shaft (2, see figure 1) having a lower region (considered the portion connected to 25 in figure 1) and an upper region (considered the portion connected to 11 in figure 1), the lower region coupled with a column (25); a bearing (13 and/or 13a) coupled with the upper region (see figure 2); and a housing (11, see figure 2) coupled with an arm (5, see figures 1-2) and supported on the shaft by the bearing (see figures 1-2). Hamilton teaches that the bearings (13 and/or 13a) are provided to react to overhung loading (see paragraph 0024).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Puffer as modified above by Stubbs by providing a shaft having a lower region and an upper region, the lower region coupled with the column; a bearing coupled with the upper region; and a housing coupled with the arm and supported on the shaft by the bearing connected to the arm of Puffer as modified by Stubbs, to provide bearings to react to an overhung load as taught by Hamilton, to reduce friction between the arm and the column during rotating movement of the arm to extend the service lift of the crane of Puffer as modified by Stubbs, and/or to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puffer et al. (US Patent 12,435,699 B1) in view of Stubbs (US Patent 10,435,277 B1) as applied to claims 1-6, 8-11, and 18-20, and further in view of Stauffer, JR. (US Publication 2024/0336457 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Neither Puffer nor Stubbs explicitly disclose treads formed on an upper surface of the platform.
Stauffer, JR. discloses a crane (see figure 2) and teaches of providing tread entry steps (157) to facilitate safe entry of parts of the crane (see paragraph 0039).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Puffer as modified above by Stubbs by providing treads to the step/platform of Puffer as modified by Stubbs, to facilitate safe entry of parts of the crane as taught by Stauffer, JR., to prevent falling of personnel entering and exiting the opening of the wind turbine, known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and/or to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puffer et al. (US Patent 12,435,699 B1) in view of Stubbs (US Patent 10,435,277 B1) as applied to claims 1-6, 8-11, and 18-20 above, and further in view of Boyer (US Patent 7,350,770 B1).
Regarding claims 13-14, Neither Puffer nor Stubbs explicitly disclose wherein the column includes an upper section and a lower section coupled together by a joint, the joint including a flange configured to support the upper section on the joint.
Boyer discloses an air conditioner compressor hoist (see figure 1-9, especially figures 1 and 4) comprising a column (38, 40 and 58, see figures 1-4) includes an upper section (38 and 40) and a lower section (58) coupled together by a joint (42, see figures 1 and 4), the joint including a flange (42) configured to support the upper section on the joint (see figures 1 and 4). Boyer teaches the upper section and an arm (14) are rotatable with part of the upper section (40) resting on the joint (42), see column 3 lines 7-17).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Puffer as modified above by Stubbs by substituting the column of Boyer for the column of Puffer as modified by Stubbs, to provide an upper section of a column and arm rotatable on a joint as taught by Boyer, to reduce the friction during rotational operation of the arm for the benefit of increasing the service life of the crane of Puffer as modified by Stubbs, to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and/or as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With the modification above, the flange is further configured to support the joint on the lower section, regarding claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN J CAMPOS, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5229. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Robert W. Hodge can be reached on phone number (571)272-2097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JJC/
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights