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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1 - 10) in the reply filed on 03/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/04/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/23/2024, 03/05/2025, and 10/06/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 – 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of each of the claims recites e.g., in the case of claim 2, “The method of Claim 1”. The claims should be amended re-writing the phrase in the preamble by removing the capitalization of the word “Claim”, e.g., as follows - - The method of claim 1, - -. See MPEP 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1 – 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieratschker et al. (US 2019/0039252 A1), in view of Corden et al. (GB 2490152 A), and further in view of Shirkhodaie et al. (US 2018/0122060 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nieratschker et al. teaches a method for manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite structure ([0002-0005, 0030-0035, 0047, 0060-0061]), the method comprising:
picking up a ply of a ceramic matrix composite material at a staging location ([0038] “e.g., a storage area or a layup or stacking area”; [0047, 0049, 0061]);
placing the ply on a forming surface at a forming location ([0059] “a plurality of plies 100 of a composite precursor material may be stacked in the stacking area 110 to form a ply layup, which may be processed to form a composite component. In such embodiments, the end effector 200 applies some force to the ply 100 as it releases the ply in order to position the ply on top of the last deposited ply 100.”);
compacting the ply on the forming surface ([0059] “the end effector 200 must apply enough force to stick the ply 100 the end effector is currently gripping to the ply 100 last deposited in the stacking area 110. As such, the plies 100 undergo basic compaction from the force applied by the end effector 200 as the plies 100 are placed in the stacking area 110.”);
removing a top backing layer from the ply after compacting the ply on the forming surface (e.g., [0059] “the last deposited ply 100 may have a sticky surface, e.g., exposed by the removal of a backing layer of paper, film, or the like by the end effector 200 or other suitable device”).
Nieratschker et al. does not explicitly discloses:
removing a bottom backing layer from the ply at a backing-removal location,
that the placing the ply on a forming surface at a forming location is perform after removing the bottom backing layer; and
inspecting the ply after compacting the ply on the forming surface.
Nieratschker et al., however, discloses at [0059] that, “For example, the last deposited ply 100 may have a sticky surface, e.g., exposed by the removal of a backing layer of paper, film, or the like by the end effector 200 or other suitable device”. Construing Nieratschker et al. [0059] under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the ceramic matrix composite ply disclosed by Nieratschker et al. comprises at least one sticky surface exposed by the removal of a backing layer, which orientation i.e., top and/or bottom, would have been a subjective description based on the orientation the sticky surface wish to be applied to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, the use of composite plies comprising top and bottom backing layers, as well as the methods for removal of said backing layers during method execution are common and well understood in the prior art. For example, like Nieratschker et al., Corden et al. teaches automated prepreg processing methods and apparatus comprising a film removal means for processing a prepreg (analogous to the claimed ply) by the removal of an external film (i.e., backing layer) from the prepreg used in the manufacture of composite components (Abstract, p. 1 ll. 1-15),
Corden et al. apparatus and methodology providing for the removal of the backing films from the prepreg e.g., the prepreg 10 comprises a backing film on either side (analogous to the claimed top backing layer and bottom backing layer; see FIG. 1 the prepreg 10 comprising a top backing layer “exterior film or ply 12”, and a bottom backing layer “second backing film 14”) (see p. 14 ll. 1-32, p.15 ll. 1-32, p. 17-18, p. 19 ll. 5-26; see FIGs. 4 – 8),
Corden et al. discloses that, “When a prepreg is to be placed in a mould or on a tool to form a composite component, it is generally preferable that the or each backing film is removed.” (p. 1 ll. 25-30).
removing a backing layer from the ply at a backing-removal location (e.g., “processing station 54”, p. 11 ll. 31-32, cont. p. 12 ll. 1-32 , FIGs. 3 – 6),
placing the ply on a forming surface at a forming location is perform after removing the bottom backing layer (p. 18 ll. 4-31),
Corden et al. discloses that the apparatus can be used to remove both a single backing film or ply from one side of a prepreg, or indeed it could be used to remove a number of films or plies from one side of a prepreg through successive processing stages” (p. 19 ll. 1-26).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a ply comprising top and bottom backing layers, as suggested by the prior art of Corden et al., for the ply of a ceramic matrix composite material in the method for manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite structure of Nieratschker et al., for the purpose of, as suggested by Corden et al., deal with said plies inherent tackiness that can render the prepregs tricky to handle at typical ambient temperatures “so conventionally a backing film is provided, usually on each tacky surface or side of a prepreg.” (Corden et al. p. 1 ll. 17-24), since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Consequently, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the apparatus in the method of Nieratschker et al. with the methodology and apparatus of Corden et al. comprising means for removal of a second backing film or ply (e.g., a bottom backing layer), such that the method of Nieratschker et al. includes a step of removing a bottom backing layer from the ply at a backing-removal location, as taught and suggested by Corden et al., since Corden et al. teaches that, “When a prepreg is to be placed in a mould or on a tool to form a composite component, it is generally preferable that the or each backing film is removed.” (p. 1 ll. 25-30). See MPEP 2143 (I) (Rationale C).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearrange the steps in the method of Nieratschker/Corden, so that the placing the ply on a forming surface at a forming location is perform after removing the bottom backing layer, since Corden et al. teaches that, “When a prepreg is to be placed in a mould or on a tool to form a composite component, it is generally preferable that the or each backing film is removed.” (p. 1 ll. 25-30), and since “In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Like Nieratschker and Corden, Shirkhodaie et al. directed to the manufacture of ceramic matrix composite structures, teaches inspection techniques for ceramic or ceramic matrix composite components [0002-0004], by a “protocol-based inspection system for a visual, non-destructive evaluation of a composite component (e.g., ceramic or ceramic matrix composites (CMCs)) that may be used, for example, in aerospace applications”, the protocol-based inspection systems “may be useful to address such composite-specific challenges to visually inspect such components for the presence of anomalies or defects. In some examples, the protocol-based inspection system may compare such anomalies or defects to a target standard to determine whether the anomaly or defect is acceptable or violates protocol standards. In some examples, the protocol-based inspection system may be automated, evaluating multiple surfaces of the composite component to ensure the component satisfies protocol standards and is suitable for its intended use.” [0014],
[0015] “Protocol-based inspection system 10 may be operated via computing device 24 to perform an automated inspection protocol to detect, characterize, and report the presence of surface defects 14 on composite component 12.”
[0021] “While protocol-based inspection system 10 may be used to identify surface defects 14 specific to composite components, the inspection protocol may also identify more general manufacturing type defects including, for example, nicks, marks, cracks, scores, dents, and the like.”
[0022] “the automated inspection protocol to be performed by protocol-based inspection system 10, as described below, may be performed on the different stages during the manufacturing composite component 12. For example, operational protocols relating to assessing the fiber architecture of composite component 12 (e.g., detecting the presence of fiber tow mis-weaves) may be performed to detect critical surface defects 14 (e.g., such that composite component 12 would be unsuitable for use) prior to the melt infiltration cycle to help reduce or avoid unnecessary manufacturing costs.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the method for manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite structure of Nieratschker/Corden with the protocol-based inspection system of Shirkhodaie et al., for the purpose of, as suggested by Shirkhodaie et al., addressing ceramic matrix composite-specific challenges by visually inspecting such components for the presence of anomalies or defects, e.g., by automating comparing such anomalies or defects to a target standard to determine whether the anomaly or defect is acceptable or violates protocol standards, evaluating multiple surfaces of the composite component to ensure the component satisfies protocol standards and is suitable for its intended use” [0014], during a step of inspecting the ply after compacting the ply on the forming surface, since Shirkhodaie et al. teaches that “the automated inspection protocol to be performed by protocol-based inspection system may be performed on the different stages during the manufacturing composite component [0022]. See MPEP 2143 (I) (Rationale G).
Regarding claim 2, Nieratschker/Corden/Shirkhodaie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein picking up the ply comprises: staging the ply at the staging location (see Nieratschker et al. “ply layup or stacking area 110” [0033] and FIG. 3; Corden et al. FIG. 3);
moving an end effector to the staging location (see Nieratschker et al. “end effector 200” [0033] and FIG. 3; Corden et al. “film removal head 16” FIG. 3);
identifying a geometry of the ply (see Nieratschker et al. [0031] and FIGs. 2, 4);
positioning grippers of the end effector based on the geometry of the ply (see Nieratschker et al. [0039] and FIGs. 2, 4);
moving the end effector to place the grippers in contact with the ply (see Nieratschker et al. [0040-0050] and FIGs. 2-4);
with the grippers in contact with the ply, gripping the ply with the grippers (see Nieratschker et al. [0040-0050] and FIGs. 4 and 5A-D); and detecting whether the ply is coupled to the grippers (see Nieratschker et al. [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Nieratschker/Corden/Shirkhodaie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein removing the bottom backing layer from the ply comprises:
positioning the ply at the backing-removal location for removal of the bottom backing layer (e.g., see Corden FIG. 7);
applying suction to the bottom backing layer (e.g., see Corden et al. p. 17 ll. 4-27; see Nieratschker et al. [0040]);
detecting the suction (see Nieratschker et al. [0040]); and
peeling the bottom backing layer away from a bottom surface of the ply (e.g., see Corden et al. FIG. 8 and p. 17 ll. 4-27).
Regarding claim 4, Nieratschker/Corden/Shirkhodaie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein placing the ply on the forming surface comprises:
retrieving position data and orientation data based on a geometry of the ply and a ply sequence number of the ply (see Nieratschker et al. [0047-0050]);
positioning the ply at the forming location relative to the forming surface based on the position data and the orientation data (see Nieratschker et al. [0047-0050]); and conforming the ply to a shape of the forming surface (see Nieratschker et al. [0039-0041]).
Regarding claim 10, Nieratschker/Corden/Shirkhodaie teaches a method for manufacturing a portion of an aircraft comprising the method of claim 1 (e.g., see Nieratschker et al. FIG. 1 and [0020-0030]; Shirkhodaie et al. [0003]).
Claim(s) 5 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieratschker et al. (US 2019/0039252 A1), in view of Corden et al. (GB 2490152 A), and Shirkhodaie et al. (US 2018/0122060 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Erickson et al. (US 2022/0155754 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Nieratschker/Corden/Shirkhodaie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein compacting the ply on the forming surface comprises:
retrieving a compaction path plan based on a geometry of the ply and a ply sequence number of the ply (see Nieratschker et al. [0031, 0038, 0058, 0060]), except for, positioning a compaction roller in contact with the ply; and moving the compaction roller across the ply along a compaction path according to the compaction path plan.
Nieratschker et al. at [0059], however, discloses “the end effector 200 must apply enough force to stick the ply 100 the end effector is currently gripping to the ply 100 last deposited in the stacking area 110. As such, the plies 100 undergo basic compaction from the force applied by the end effector 200 as the plies 100 are placed in the stacking area 110.”
Like Nieratschker et al., Erickson et al. teaches methods and apparatus for the fabrication of composite parts, where tows of unhardened fiber-reinforced composite materials are precisely laid-up onto a layup mandrel [0002-0010, 0030], and discloses a lamination machine comprising, inter alia, a lamination head 160, the lamination head 160 including roller 162 (analogous to the claimed compaction roller) [0033],
[0035] the roller 162 of the lamination head 160 utilizes the position sensor 168 to determine displacement over time as the roller 162 proceeds along a layup surface 129 of the layup mandrel 120 (i.e., a path comprising a series of 3D coordinates), and deviations from the nominal path 123 may be recorded by the position sensor 168 at each of multiple locations along the surface(s) that were traversed. “Controller 112 may then alter the NC program 114 to account for these differences. It is understood that NC program 114 includes a portion that controls the indexing operations described herein as well as a portion that controls the placement of composites materials such as fiber tows.”
[0043-0045] The controller 112 may identify the layup surface 129 of the layup mandrel 120 based on preprogrammed information indicating an expected start position of first side surface 122 or second side surface 124 of the layup mandrel 120, or may visually inspect the layup mandrel 120 to identify the first side surface 122 and/or second side surface 124… “a “path” is a series of positions that may be measured and compared to a stream of 3D coordinates. If the layup mandrel 120 is not in an expected position and/or orientation, the roller 162 encounters physical resistance from the surface being traversed, and this physical resistance causes the roller 162 to deflect from the nominal path. These deflections are indicative of a surface geometry, such as contour, of the layup surface 129, first side surface 122, and second side surface 124, and are recorded by the position sensor 168.” … “controller 112 acquires 208 a stream of three dimensional (3D) coordinates of the lamination head 160 (i.e. the roller 162) as the lamination head 160 traverses the layup surface 129. This may comprise acquiring a coordinate from the position sensor 168 periodically over time or space (e.g., every tenth of an inch, every tenth of a second, etc.), and storing the stream of coordinates in memory.
[0046-0047] the controller 112 characterizes 210 (e.g., determines an alignment and/or shape of the layup mandrel 120 to within a tolerance) based on the stream of 3D coordinates. This may be performed by loading a known shape of the layup mandrel 120 into memory, and applying a mathematical transform to a nominal alignment of the shape that causes the shape to match the stream of 3D coordinates. In further embodiments, the alignment of the layup mandrel 120 is more generally determined as either aligned or not aligned, based whether the stream of 3D coordinates is within a tolerance of the nominal path (e.g., a fraction of an inch of the nominal path).
[0054] “a roller 162 of a lamination head 160 traverses surfaces of layup mandrel 120 and/or laid-up laminate 830 within desired tolerances, such as surfaces that correspond with an outer radius of a corner 833 of a laminate 830. This may be performed via multiple passes of the roller 162 at different arcuate portions of the curve 832, and integrating the resulting sensor data to characterize the curve 832 along the length of the laminate 830, which wraps around edge 810 and edge 820 of layup mandrel 120.
[0054] For example, if the information indicates that a concave radius (not shown) is too small, additional layers may be applied to pad out the outer radius, or the lamination head 160 and NC program 114 are adjusted to account for the difference in geometry. Likewise, if the information indicates that a convex radius R1 is too large, additional layers may be applied to pad out the outer radius to a desired R1, or the lamination head 160 and NC program 114 are adjusted to account for the difference in geometry.”
positioning a compaction roller in contact with the ply (see FIGs. 5-8); and moving the compaction roller across the ply along a compaction path according to the compaction path plan positioning a compaction roller in contact with the ply; and moving the compaction roller across the ply along a compaction path according to the compaction path plan (see Erickson et al. [0045-0047]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the method for manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite structure of Nieratschker/Corden/Shirkhodaie with a compaction roller comprising controller 112 and NC program 114, as taught by Erickson et al., so that the method comprise a step of positioning a compaction roller (e.g., Erickson et al. 162) in contact with the ply, and moving the compaction roller across the ply along a compaction path according to the compaction path plan, as suggested and taught by Erickson et al. ([0045-0047]), for the purpose of addressing detected defects of the ply surface, as suggested by Erickson et al., [0054] “For example, if the information indicates that a concave radius (not shown) is too small, additional layers may be applied to pad out the outer radius, or the lamination head 160 and NC program 114 are adjusted to account for the difference in geometry. Likewise, if the information indicates that a convex radius R1 is too large, additional layers may be applied to pad out the outer radius to a desired R1, or the lamination head 160 and NC program 114 are adjusted to account for the difference in geometry.” See MPEP 2143 (I) (Rationale G).
Regarding claim 6, Nieratschker/Corden/Shirkhodaie/Erickson teaches the method of claim 5, except for explicitly disclosing, further comprising cleaning the compaction roller used for compacting the ply on the forming surface.
Corden et al, however, discloses that the “matrix resin in prepregs is generally tacky at temperatures from 5°C upwards. This inherent tackiness can render the prepregs tricky to handle at typical ambient temperatures and so conventionally a backing film is provided, usually on each tacky surface or side of a prepreg.” Hence, it would be expected that a compacting roller in contact with said prepregs could have residual matric resin after the process of compacting the plies.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the method for manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite structure of Nieratschker/Corden/Shirkhodaie/Erickson further comprising cleaning the compaction roller used for compacting the ply on the forming surface for the purpose of e.g., avoiding contacting the roller with residual resin matrix from a different, previously compacted ply that might differ in composition, since "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). See MPEP 2144.01.
Regarding claim 7, Nieratschker/Corden/Shirkhodaie/Erickson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein removing the top backing layer from the ply comprises: retrieving position data and orientation data based on a geometry of the ply and a ply sequence number of the ply (e.g., see Nieratschker et al. [0047-0050]); applying suction to a corner of the top backing layer (e.g., see Nieratschker et al. [0047-0050]); detecting the suction (e.g., see Nieratschker et al. [0040 and 0059]); and peeling the top backing layer away from a top surface of the ply (e.g., see Corden et al. FIG. 3, and p. 13 ll. 1-12).
Regarding claim 8, Nieratschker/Corden/Shirkhodaie/Erickson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein inspecting the ply after compacting the ply on the forming surface comprises: visually inspecting the ply (e.g., see Shirkhodaie et al. FIG. 1 [0008]; see Erickson et al. [0043-0048]); determining whether re-compaction is necessary based on results of visual inspection (e.g., see Shirkhodaie et al. [0031-0038]; see Erickson et al. [0043-0048]); and re-compacting the ply on the forming surface when re-compaction is necessary (e.g., see Erickson et al. [0043-0048, 0050-0054]).
Regarding claim 9, Nieratschker/Corden/Shirkhodaie/Erickson teaches the method of claim 8, wherein inspecting the ply after compacting the ply on the forming surface further comprises: retrieving a re-compaction path plan; positioning a compaction roller in contact with the ply and moving the compaction roller across the ply along a re-compaction path according to the re-compaction path plan (e.g., see Erickson et al. [0056-0063]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ROESLE et al. (US 2025/0050630 A1): A system for separating a prepreg composite material ply from a backing includes a first support configured to contact a first surface of the backing apart from a corner defined by the ply and the backing. (Abstract).
Johnson et al. (US 2019/0184693 A1): An end effector transports, places and forms a composite ply on a tool having complex tool surfaces. The end effector includes a combination of vacuum and Bernoulli grippers for holding the composite ply while it is being transported and formed, and a set of mechanical actuators that form the composite ply down over the tool surfaces. The Bernoulli grippers allow the composite ply to slip while being held and formed. (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights