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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “further comprising a controller arranged in communication with the electric motor, the controller configured to receive commands and cause the electric motor to operate in accordance with the commands, the commands comprising a first command to operate the electric motor consistent with operational parameters of the first compressor and/or a second command to operate the electric motor consistent with operational parameters of the second compressor, wherein the coupling unit is configured to decouple the first compressor from the shaft when the controller executes the second command” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 coupling unit” in claims 1, 7, 10 and 19-20.
“a second coupling unit” in claims 4 and 7.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the
corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations: one or both of the coupling units may be a one way bearing or sprag clutch which is known to the skilled person for its coupling and decoupling depending upon direction of rotation of the shaft, as described in paragraph 0026 of the published application.
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.
Claims 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the scroll compressor" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recite the phrase “and/or” which renders the claim indefinite. This language is indefinite because it is not clear what is being claimed and what the scope is. No person of the ordinary skill in the art would know what “and/or” means with reasonable certainty. Therefore, the scope is unclear and for purposes of examination, the limitations that follow “and/or” will be considered in the alternative.
Claim 10 recite “wherein the coupling unit is configured to decouple the first compressor from the shaft when the controller executes the second command”. However, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are. It is unclear to the Examiner how the coupling unit decouples the first compressor from the shaft upon executing the second command when in claim 9 it recites that the second command operates the electric motor with operational parameters of the second compressor. Therefore, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-8, 13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lifson et al (US 20100139298 A1, hereinafter Lifson) in view of Jaster et al (US 5220806 A, hereinafter Jaster).
Regarding claim 1, Lifson teaches a hybrid compressor system (system 10, figure 1) for generating temperature loads (separate refrigerant circuits, paragraph 0018) comprising: - an electric motor (common motor 21) comprising a shaft (shaft 22); - a first compressor (compressor 11) arranged to be selectively engaged by the shaft (figure 1) and configured to generate a first temperature load (via the refrigerant circuit, as shown on figure 1); - a coupling unit (mechanical couplings 24) arranged between the first compressor (compressor 11) and the electric motor (common motor 21), the coupling unit (mechanical couplings 24) configured to selectively couple and decouple (as described in paragraph 0019) the first compressor (compressor 11) from the shaft (shaft 22).
Lifson teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach a second compressor arranged to be selectively engaged by the shaft and configured to generate a second temperature load which is greater than the first temperature load; and - wherein generated flow of the first temperature load and generated flow of the second temperature load is oriented in a same direction.
However, Jaster teaches a second compressor (compressor 67) arranged to be selectively engaged by the shaft (shaft of motor 59, figure 1) and configured to generate a second temperature load (for fresh food compartment 41, as shown on figure 1) which is greater than the first temperature load (greater than freezer compartment 31, figure 1); and - wherein generated flow of the first temperature load and generated flow of the second temperature load is oriented in a same direction (clockwise in the refrigerant circuit, as shown on figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lifson to include a second compressor arranged to be selectively engaged by the shaft and configured to generate a second temperature load which is greater than the first temperature load; and - wherein generated flow of the first temperature load and generated flow of the second temperature load is oriented in a same direction in view of the teachings of Jaster in order to yield the predictable result of maintaining a desired temperature in the fresh food/freezer compartment.
Further, it is understood, claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein the first compressor (compressor 11 of Lifson) is arranged coaxially with the second compressor (compressor 12 of Lifson).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein the first compressor (compressor 11 of Lifson) and the second compressor (compressor 12 of Lifson) are arranged on either same or different sides of the electric motor (as shown on figure 1 of Lifson).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach further comprising a second coupling unit (mechanical coupling 26 of Lifson) arranged on the shaft (shaft 23 of Lifson) between the electric motor (common motor 21 of Lifson) and the second compressor (compressor 12 of Lifson), the second coupling unit (mechanical coupling 26 of Lifson) configured to selectively couple and decouple the second compressor from the shaft (as described in paragraph 0019 of Lifson).
Further, it is understood, claim 4 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein when the first compressor (compressor 11 of Lifson) is decoupled from the shaft (via engaging-disengaging apparatus 27, as described in paragraph 0019 of Lifson), the shaft rotates faster than when the first compressor is coupled to the shaft (a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine that a shaft decoupled from its load would rotate faster than when coupled to its load).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach wherein when the shaft (shaft 22 of Lifson) is configured such that when the shaft (shaft 22 of Lifson) is decoupled from the scroll compressor (via engaging-disengaging apparatus 27, as described in paragraph 0019 of Lifson), the shaft rotates at 10 - 15 times faster than when the shaft is coupled to the scroll compressor (a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine that a shaft decoupled from its load would rotate faster than when coupled to its load).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein at least one of the coupling unit and the second coupling unit is a one-way bearing or a sprag clutch (each of the mechanical couplings 24 and 26 may include an engaging-disengaging apparatus 27 and 28, such as a clutch, paragraph 0019 of Lifson).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach a wherein the first compressor is configured and arranged to automatically decouple from the shaft when the motor shaft changes rotational direction.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the mechanical couplings of Lifson automatic, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192 (CCPA 1958); In re Rundell, 9 USPQ 220 (CCPA 1931) and MPEP § 2144.04 III.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach wherein the first compressor (compressor 11 of Lifson) and the second compressor (compressor 12 of Lifson) are arranged in a dual loop thermal management circuit (as shown on figure 1 of Lifson) such that the first compressor (compressor 11 of Lifson) is configured and arranged to serve a first loop (right loop, figure 1 of Lifson) and the second compressor (compressor 12 of Lifson) is configured and arranged to serve a second loop (left loop, figure 1 of Lifson).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach all the limitations of claim 19. See rejections of claims 1, 2 and 12.
Regarding claim 20, it is noted that although the preamble of claim 20 is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings discloses all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also anticipated or rendered obvious by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lifson as modified by Jaster, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Kouzel et al (US 20230358241 A1, hereinafter Kouzel).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising a controller arranged in communication with the electric motor, the controller configured to receive commands and cause the electric motor to operate in accordance with the commands, the commands comprising a first command to operate the electric motor consistent with operational parameters of the first compressor or a second command to operate the electric motor consistent with operational parameters of the second compressor.
However, Kouzel teaches further comprising a controller (controller 180) arranged in communication with the electric motor (paragraph 0092), the controller (controller 180) configured to receive commands and cause the electric motor to operate (paragraphs 0092-0093) in accordance with the commands, the commands comprising a first command to operate the electric motor consistent with operational parameters of the first compressor or a second command (engagement signal at block 708, paragraph 0092) to operate the electric motor (starting motor 194) consistent with operational parameters of the second compressor (once the output shaft 112 reaches a predetermined rotational speed according to block 712, paragraph 0094).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of the combined teachings to include further comprising a controller arranged in communication with the electric motor, the controller configured to receive commands and cause the electric motor to operate in accordance with the commands, the commands comprising a first command to operate the electric motor consistent with operational parameters of the first compressor or a second command to operate the electric motor consistent with operational parameters of the second compressor in view of the teachings of Kouzel in order to yield the predictable result of providing operational power to increase rotational speed of the compressor.
Further, it is understood, claim 9 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach wherein the coupling unit (clutch 170 of Kouzel) is configured to decouple the first compressor (disengaged configuration, paragraph 0093 of Kouzel) from the shaft (output shaft 112 of Kouzel) when the controller (180 of Kouzel) executes the second command (the controller 180 can be configured to send the disengagement signal 760 once the output shaft 112 reaches a predetermined rotational speed (e.g. 150 RPM) or after a predetermined period of time of power source operation according to block 712, paragraph 0094 of Kouzel).
Further, it is understood, claim 10 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Claims 11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lifson as modified by Jaster, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Verma et al (US 20210033315 A1, hereinafter Verma).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the first compressor is a scroll compressor and the second compressor is a centrifugal compressor.
However, Verma teaches wherein the first compressor is a scroll compressor (the first compressor is a scroll compressor, paragraph 0019) and the second compressor is a centrifugal compressor (the second compressor is a centrifugal compressor, paragraph 0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of the combined teachings to include wherein the first compressor is a scroll compressor and the second compressor is a centrifugal compressor in view of the teachings of Verma in order to yield the predictable result of accommodating variable-capacity compressors.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach further comprising a check valve (check valve, paragraph 0060 of Verma) arranged on or proximate to the second compressor (as shown on figure 5 of Verma), the check valve configured to prevent reverse flow through the second compressor (one of ordinary skill in the art would determine that check valves prevent reverse flow).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the first compressor (compressor 22a of Verma) and the second compressor (compressor 22b of Verma) are arranged in a single loop thermal management circuit (as shown on figure 5 of Verma).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lifson as modified by Jaster, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Ono et al (US 20250153582 A1, hereinafter Ono).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising an inverter configured and arranged to power the electric motor and wherein the electric motor is a high- speed electric motor.
However, Ono teaches further comprising an inverter (inverter 28) configured and arranged to power the electric motor (paragraph 0051) and wherein the electric motor is a high- speed electric motor (electric power for driving is power in which at least one of current, voltage and frequency is adjusted by the inverter 28 in order for the electric motor 29 to rotate at a target speed and with a target torque, paragraph 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of the combined teachings to include further comprising an inverter configured and arranged to power the electric motor and wherein the electric motor is a high- speed electric motor in view of the teachings of Ono in order to yield the predictable result of the electric motor to rotate at a target speed and with a target torque.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lifson as modified by Jaster, as applied to claim 13, and in further view of Miller et al (US 20250196584 A1, hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein: the first loop is configured and arranged to adjust a temperature in a cabin of a motor vehicle; and the second loop is configured to adjust a temperature of a battery of the motor vehicle.
However, Miller teaches wherein: the first loop (left fluid circuit C, paragraph 0030 and as shown on figure 3) is configured and arranged to adjust a temperature (provide thermal management to a conditioned space 40, paragraph 0030) in a cabin of a motor vehicle (cabin or sleeper area of the ZEV or a cargo space, including a trailer cargo space, paragraph 0030); and the second loop (right fluid circuit C, paragraph 0030 and as shown on figure 3) is configured to adjust a temperature (provide thermal management to a conditioned space 40, paragraph 0030) of a battery of the motor vehicle (thermally sensitive onboard components 42 (for example, on-board electronics, batteries, paragraph 0030 and as shown on figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of the combined teachings to include wherein: the first loop is configured and arranged to adjust a temperature in a cabin of a motor vehicle; and the second loop is configured to adjust a temperature of a battery of the motor vehicle in view of the teachings of Miller in order to yield the predictable result of providing thermal management to the cabin and batteries.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lifson as modified by Jaster, as applied to claim 13, and in further view of Ueda (US 20240011673 A1, hereinafter Ueda).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising a plurality of bearings arranged on the shaft between the electric motor the first compressor and the second compressor.
However, Ueda teaches further comprising a plurality of bearings (radial magnetic bearings 122-1) arranged on the shaft (output shaft 116A) between the electric motor (motor 114A, figure 2) the first compressor (compressor 110A, figure 1) and the second compressor (compressor 110C, figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of the combined teachings to include further comprising a plurality of bearings arranged on the shaft between the electric motor the first compressor and the second compressor in view of the teachings of Ueda in order to yield the predictable result of bearing the radial load by magnetic force.
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach wherein the bearings (radial magnetic bearings 122-1 of Ueda) are one of magnetic bearings (radial magnetic bearings 122-1 of Ueda) and roller bearings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jerry Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights