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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant makes reference on Page 7 to the examiner indicate claim 11 was objected to as allowable. Examiner notes claim 11 was fully rejected in the previous action and no claim was objected to as allowable. Applicant makes reference on Page 8, of a request for rejoinder of restricted claims. Examiner notes no restriction was provide in this application, no claims stand withdrawn, and thus no rejoinder is appropriate. Applicant has amended the previous claim 8 into claim 1, and argued that this renders claim 1 allowable because “at least one of the first conductive cage or the second conductive cage surrounds the one or more floating conductors.” Applicant provides no argument against the previous claim 8 rejection already alleged to provide this feature, but merely argues this feature is absent without addressing the prior rejection. Examiner therefore is unpersuaded in particular because the previous rejection of claim 8 provided for floating connectors as taught by B1 (2023/0323854 to Brilliant, as disclosed in several Figs. and for example Fig. 8A, 8B, 9, 11, and 12 place them alongside the beam received in the receiving section at various heights alongside it, and 10 placed them at the joining juncture endpoint, and the Aq1 reference has sheath (64/66) covering the beam along almost its entire joining rejoin where the beam and receiving structure overlap, and further per the claim 11 rejection this region the second cage(62) can also extend down this region per A1, Page 21, ll. 4-20. Even for the narrowest possible interpretation of surrounded, the cage(62) fully surrounds requiring the upper beam sheath of B1, it is noted that this beam sheath can extend along the beam into the receiving section of the second cage and lower section of A1, per Page 21, ll. 4-20, and for example Figure 9 of B1 shows a floating connector(192) that per Page 5, ¶108 could be on the internal surface and thus on the beam and fully surrounded by the all the way down extending beam sheath of A1, similarly the springy connected of B1 Fig. 12. So even assuming Applicant had argued for a particular narrowed unsubstantiated interpretation required by narrower claim limitations and language, which examiner supposes must be the implication of the statement they provided in the rejection, it is clear A1 and B1 would meet it.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 9-15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/084053 to Aubrion et al. (A1) in view of US 2023/0323854 to Brilliant et al. (B1).
In Re Claim 1:
A1 teaches:
A rotor blade (Title, Fig. 6A) assembly, comprising:
A first blade segment(15, blade tip segment) and a second blade segment (20, root blade segment) extending in opposite directions from a chord-wise joint(Fig. 5A, 50,52 region), each of the first and second blade segment comprising at least one shell member defining an airfoil surface and an internal support structure, the internal support structure of the first blade segment comprising a beam structure(60) extending lengthwise that structurally connects with the internal support structure of the second blade segment via a receiving section; (Fig. 5a, 42), [Figures 5a and 6a show a beam on one side and a receiving spare that receives the end of the beam, furthermore Fig. 5b and 6b show skin and internal surfaces for each.]
A lightning protection system, (title) comprising:
A first conductive cage(62) integrated with the beam structure; and [62 the beam sheath is disclosed as being formed with, securely attached around, and/or formed between layers of the beam per Page 5, line 23 – 26 which notes circumscription attachment, Page 8, ll. 17-26 which notes beam elements may be below and above the sheath, Page 21, ll. 4-20 which lay out general extent, surrounding, and material of the beam sheath. Along with Figures 5A, 5B, and 6A.]
A second conductive cage (64, 66) integrated with the receiving section and electrically connected to the first conductive cage via an electrical connection, the first and second conductive cages being grounded via at least one conductor cable, [Per Page 22, ll. 17-24 there are two shell sheaths as well in the primary blade region as shown in Fig. 6A. Page 24, notes these may be meshes, in ll. 8-11 and per 11-15 may be integrated. Per the Instant Application ¶37 meshes are suitable as conductive cages, and per the general disclosure of A1, the sheaths are to protect internal electrically conductive elements, i.e. a cage or shield. Per Page 22, ll. 25-34, the first blade section sheaths 64/66 are connected to a down conductor (80), which is connected to down conductor 82 which is connected to the beam sheath. It is noted these down conductors conduct lightning to ground, i.e. grounding. Therefore in that they are all electrically connected to each other via the same down cable, they are grounded and connected through that grounding cable. Applicant has not in this claim distinguished a grounding electrical connection versus any other type such as a flashover prevention type, therefore this feature is suitable for meeting the language. Page 22, ll. 25-33 notes the down conductors are grounding, it can be seen in fig. 6A these are longitudinally extending electrically conductive elements, and fig. 6B shows they are circular in cross-section, i.e. cables.]
The cages surround the elements within them to reduce the electrical impact of elements within them. [Pages 3, line 25 – Page 4, line 13 note the sheath is for redirecting electrical loads from the electrically conductive spar fibers surrounded by it.]
A1 does not teach:
The system comprises one or more floating conductors arranged with at least one of the beam structure or the receiving section, where at least one of the first conductive cage or the second conductive cage surrounds the one or more floating conductors, and wherein at least one of the first conductive cage or the second conductive cage is configured to generate an electric field therein to reduce a potential difference between the at least one conductor cable and the one or more floating conductors.
B1 teaches:
When joining two structural elements (Fig. 8A, 180, 170) in the form of projecting structure and receiving structure for a wind turbine blade, Fig. 1-2, it is known to use a floating, i.e. elastic or mobile connection with some give as shown in Fig. 8A-12 as deformable electrical connections [Page 5, ¶100-107, Page 6, ¶109-118.] Per those sections, this permits the structures to deform during instillation while maintaining an excellent electric connection, can increase the number of connections for reinforcement, security, improved transfer, can account for movement or shifting without breaking the connection, and the connection can reduce a risk of flashover, by bringing the voltage potentials closer together. [Page 4, ¶88-90, Page 1, ¶14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of A1 to include a floating connector between the beam and receiving spar portions of the electrically conductive spar elements of A1, with flexible/elastic floating connections between the two elements internally, as taught by B1, with the expectation of providing for multiple points of connection and equalizing of potential to reduce the risk of flashover should anything disrupt the lightning blade connections, and provide more secure and stable redundancy in protection. [Page 5, ¶100-Page 6, ¶118, Page 4, ¶88-90, Page 1, ¶14.] This would yield floating conductors arranged with the beam structure and receiving section, inside the conductive cages, that surround them and wherein the at least one of the first cage or second generates an electric field when struck diverting the electricity and reducing the potential difference to reduce flashover risk. [See Response to Arguments above to clarify for possibly unargued interpretations of surrounded by the cages.]
In Re Claims 3-5, 7, and 9-12:
A1 as modified in claim 1 teaches:
The rotor blade assembly of claim 1, wherein:
(Claim 3) the at least one conductor cable comprises at least one down conductor electrically connected to the first and second cages. [Per A1, Fig. 6A and Page 22, ll. 25-33 the down conductor is two cables electrically connected to the first and second conductive cages.]
(Claim 4) the at least one conductor cable comprises a first conductor cable (A1, Fig. 6A, 82) coupled with the first conductive cage, and a second conductor cable (80) coupled with the second conductive cage, the first and second conductor cables electrically connected at the electrical connection. [Per A1, Claim 1 above and Page 22, ll. 25-33, the two cables are connected to the two cages, and they are the electrical connection.]
(Claim 5) claim 4, the first conductor cable is arranged with the beam structure and the second conductor cable is arranged with the receiving section. [Per A1 and Given the broadness of “arranged with” it is noted cable 80, lines with and is set with the receiving section to connect the inner sheath, and the cable (82) runs along the beam linearly to provide for connection to the sheath part of the beam.]
(Claim 7) claim 4, the lightning protection system further comprises one or more lighting receptors(A1, Fig. 6A, 86), the first and second conductor cables being electrically connected to each of the one or more lighting receptors. [Per claim 1 above, the cables are connected to the cages electrically, and per A1, Page 23, ll. 10-16 provides for the connection of the receptors.]
(Claim 9) The one or more floating conductors are not electrically connected to the at least one conductor cable and thus are not grounded. [Per A1, the inner beam can be electrically isolated from the beam sheath(conductive cage and grounding cables) by the resistive layer (fig. 7b, 116) the inner region (solid or hollow), per Page 25, line 24 – Page 26, line 13. Per B1, Fig. 11-12, the inner end of the connector includes the floating element which is connected to the beam interior and spar interior which are electrically isolated from the sheaths which direct lightning away from them.]
(Claim 10) at least one of the first and second conductive cages is constructed of one of a solid sheet, a wire mesh, a webbing, a netting, or a woven sheet. [Per A1, Page 21, ll. 17-20 the beam sheath may be a mesh, or conductive metallic elements, i.e. a wire mesh, or a woven layer of the conductive elements such as carbon fiber. Page 24, ll. 8-15 notes the second cages, i.e. the second sheaths may be constructed similarly. ]
(Claim 11) a portion of the first cage (A1, 62) overlaps the second conductive cage(66/64). [Per A1, Figure 6a lays out elements pb2, (uppermost tip of the beam, and PB1, the lowermost beam region, examiner notes the 64/66 cage extends between ps2 and ps1, which is located between pb3 and pb1. While Fig. 6A only shows an embodiment only shows the first sheath in the upper portion of the blade region, It is expressly noted in Page 21, ll. 4-20 that this is only one embodiment, and that the beam extends between pb4 and pb5, and per the cited section, “pb4 may be located between the third beam axis position pb3 and the first beam axis position pb1.” Therefore the beam sheath can extend to nearly the bottom of the beam/receptable area and overlap the second cage, sheath 64, 66.]
(Claim 12) the rotor blade assembly is part of a wind turbine. [A1, Title and figure 1.]
In Re Claim 13:
A1 teaches:
A method of assembling a rotor blade [Title, Fig. 6A] of a wind turbine[Title, Fig. 1], the method comprising:
Providing a first blade segment(15, blade tip segment) and a second blade segment (20, root blade segment), each of the first and second blade segment having at least one shell member defining an airfoil surface and an internal support structure, the internal support structure of the first blade segment comprising a beam structure(60) extending lengthwise that structurally connects with the internal support structure of the second blade segment via a receiving section; (Fig. 5a, 42), [Figures 5a and 6a show a beam on one side and a receiving spare that receives the end of the beam, furthermore Fig. 5b and 6b show skin and internal surfaces for each.]
Integrating a first conductive cage(62) integrated with the beam structure; and [62 the beam sheath is disclosed as being formed with, securely attached around, and/or formed between layers of the beam per Page 5, line 23 – 26 which notes circumscription attachment, Page 8, ll. 17-26 which notes beam elements may be below and above the sheath, Page 21, ll. 4-20 which lay out general extent, surrounding, and material of the beam sheath. Along with Figures 5A, 5B, and 6A.]
Integrating a second conductive cage (64, 66) integrated with the receiving section and electrically connected to the first conductive cage [Per Page 22, ll. 17-24 there are two shell sheaths as well in the primary blade region as shown in Fig. 6A. Page 24, notes these may be meshes, in ll. 8-11 and per 11-15 may be integrated. Per the Instant Application ¶37 meshes are suitable as conductive cages, and per the general disclosure of A1, the sheaths are to protect internal electrically conductive elements, i.e. a cage or shield.]
Electrically connecting the first conductive cage to the second conductive cage via an electrical connection(80,82); [Per Page 22, ll. 25-34, the first blade section sheaths 64/66 are connected to a down conductor (80), which is connected to down conductor 82 which is connected to the beam sheath. It is noted these down conductors conduct lightning to ground, i.e. grounding. Therefore in that they are all electrically connected to each other via the same down cable, they are grounded and connected through that grounding cable. Applicant has not in this claim distinguished a grounding electrical connection versus any other type such as a flashover prevention type, therefore this feature is suitable for meeting the language.]
Electrically connecting the first and second conductive cages to ground the first and second conductive cages being grounded via at least one conductor cable, [Per Page 22, ll. 17-24 there are two shell sheaths as well in the primary blade region as shown in Fig. 6A. Page 24, notes these may be meshes, in ll. 8-11 and per 11-15 may be integrated. Per the Instant Application ¶37 meshes are suitable as conductive cages, and per the general disclosure of A1, the sheaths are to protect internal electrically conductive elements, i.e. a cage or shield. Per Page 22, ll. 25-34, the first blade section sheaths 64/66 are connected to a down conductor (80), which is connected to down conductor 82 which is connected to the beam sheath. It is noted these down conductors conduct lightning to ground, i.e. grounding. Therefore in that they are all electrically connected to each other via the same down cable, they are grounded and connected through that grounding cable. Applicant has not in this claim distinguished a grounding electrical connection versus any other type such as a flashover prevention type, therefore this feature is suitable for meeting the language. Page 22, ll. 25-33 notes the down conductors are grounding, it can be seen in fig. 6A these are longitudinally extending electrically conductive elements, and fig. 6B shows they are circular in cross-section, i.e. cables.]
The cages surround the elements within them to reduce the electrical impact of elements within them. [Pages 3, line 25 – Page 4, line 13 note the sheath is for redirecting electrical loads from the electrically conductive spar fibers surrounded by it.]
Arranging the first blade segment with the second blade segment in opposite directions from a chordwise joint(Fig. 5A, 50,52 region), and
Securing the first and second blade segments together. [Page 20, ll. 11-20 notes the segments are attached to each other.]
A1 does not teach:
Arranging one or more floating conductors with at least one of the beam structure or the receiving section; the at least one of the first conductive cage or the second conductive cage surrounds the one or more floating conductors; wherein at least one of the first conductive cage or the second conductive cage is configured to generate an electric field therein to reduce a potential difference between the at least one conductor cable and the one or more conductors.
B1 teaches:
When joining two structural elements (Fig. 8A, 180, 170) in the form of projecting structure and receiving structure for a wind turbine blade, Fig. 1-2, it is known to use a floating, i.e. elastic or mobile connection with some give as shown in Fig. 8A-12 as deformable electrical connections [Page 5, ¶100-107, Page 6, ¶109-118.] Per those sections, this permits the structures to deform during instillation while maintaining an excellent electric connection, can increase the number of connections for reinforcement, security, improved transfer, can account for movement or shifting without breaking the connection, and the connection can reduce a risk of flashover, by bringing the voltage potentials closer together. [Page 4, ¶88-90, Page 1, ¶14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of A1 to include a floating connector between the beam and receiving spar portions of the electrically conductive spar elements of A1, with flexible/elastic floating connections between the two elements internally, as taught by B1, with the expectation of providing for multiple points of connection and equalizing of potential to reduce the risk of flashover should anything disrupt the lightning blade connections, and provide more secure and stable redundancy in protection. [Page 5, ¶100-Page 6, ¶118, Page 4, ¶88-90, Page 1, ¶14.] This would yield floating conductors arranged with the beam structure and receiving section, inside the conductive cages, that surround them and wherein the at least one of the first cage or second generates an electric field when struck diverting the electricity and reducing the potential difference to reduce flashover risk. [See Response to Arguments above to clarify for possibly unargued interpretations of surrounded by the cages.]
In Re Claim 14:
A1 teaches:
A rotor blade (Title, Fig. 6A) assembly, comprising:
At least one blade segment comprising at least one shell member defining an airfoil surface and an internal support structure, the internal support structure of the first blade segment comprising a spar structure(60, for one blade segment, and spar in root blade half of Fig. 6B around beam 60) extending lengthwise, the spar structure comprising an upper conductive beam(Fig. 7A/7B 110 or upper half of spar beam in Fig. 6B) and a lower conductive beam (Fig. 7A/7B 112 or lower half of spar beam in Fig. 6B) integrated therein, the upper and lower conductive beams each defining a perimeter; and [Figure 7A and 6B note 114 can be hollow, thus 110 and 112 can be spaced reinforced elements, spar beams comprise carbon-fibre which is electrically conductive, one reason a beam sheath or shell sheath is being used.]
A lightning protection system, (title) comprising:
A conductive cage(Fig. 5B, 62, Fig. 6B 64, 66) integrated with the spar structure, the conductive cage surrounding only a portion of the perimeters of each of the upper and lower conductive beams; and [ Fig. 6b shows for the root blade segment, 66, and 64 only partially surround the larger spar. For the tip segment, Fig. 5B shows an angular extent distance 68 for how much of the blade spar the sheath surrounds, and per Page 22, ll. 9-16 notes the angular circumscription of the sheath can be 90, 180, 270, 360 degrees, 180 in some orientations, and 270 in any orientation would partially surround the perimeter of the two beams but not all.]
At least one conductor cable (150, 80, 82) arranged in the at least one blade segment and being grounded, wherein the conductive cage being electrically connected to the at least one conductor cable. [Per Page 22, ll. 25-34, the first blade section sheaths 64/66 are connected to a down conductor (80), which is connected to down conductor 82 which is connected to the beam sheath. It is noted these down conductors conduct lightning to ground, i.e. grounding. Therefore in that they are all electrically connected to each other via the same down cable, they are grounded and connected through that grounding cable. Applicant has not in this claim distinguished a grounding electrical connection versus any other type such as a flashover prevention type, therefore this feature is suitable for meeting the language. Cables 150 are also noted for helping connect to cable grounding, Page 27, ll. 0-23.]
A1 does not teach:
One or more floating conductors arranged with at least one of the internal support structure, and the conductive cage is configured to generate an electric field therein to reduce a potential difference between the at least one conductor cable and the one or more floating conductors.
B1 teaches:
When joining two structural elements (Fig. 8A, 180, 170) in the form of projecting structure and receiving structure for a wind turbine blade, Fig. 1-2, it is known to use a floating, i.e. elastic or mobile connection with some give as shown in Fig. 8A-12 as deformable electrical connections [Page 5, ¶100-107, Page 6, ¶109-118.] Per those sections, this permits the structures to deform during instillation while maintaining an excellent electric connection, can increase the number of connections for reinforcement, security, improved transfer, can account for movement or shifting without breaking the connection, and the connection can reduce a risk of flashover, by bringing the voltage potentials closer together. [Page 4, ¶88-90, Page 1, ¶14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of A1 to include a floating connector between the beam and receiving spar portions of the electrically conductive spar elements of A1, with flexible/elastic floating connections between the two elements internally, as taught by B1, with the expectation of providing for multiple points of connection and equalizing of potential to reduce the risk of flashover should anything disrupt the lightning blade connections, and provide more secure and stable redundancy in protection. [Page 5, ¶100-Page 6, ¶118, Page 4, ¶88-90, Page 1, ¶14.] This would yield floating conductors arranged with the beam structure and receiving section, inside the conductive cages, that surround them and wherein the at least one of the first cage or second generates an electric field when struck diverting the electricity and reducing the potential difference to reduce flashover risk. [See Response to Arguments above to clarify for possibly unargued interpretations of surrounded by the cages.]
In Re Claims 15, 17, 19, and 20:
A1 as modified in claim 14 teaches:
The rotor blade assembly of claim 14, wherein:
(Claim 15) at least one conductor cable (80, 82, 150) is arranged with the spar structure. [Page 22, ll. 25-33 notes the down conductors are grounding, it can be seen in fig. 6A these are longitudinally extending electrically conductive elements, and fig. 6B shows they are circular in cross-section, i.e. cables. Per Fig. 6A and Page 22, ll. 25-33 the down conductor is two cables electrically connected and grounding. Per Claim 14 and Page 22, ll. 25-33, the two cables are connected to the two respective cages being listed, and are the electrical connection through for example 150 cables or other connectors. It is noted cable 80, lines with and is set with the receiving section(spar) to connect the inner sheath, and the cable (82) runs along the beam linearly to provide for connection to the sheath part of the beam.]
(Claim 17) the lightning protection system further comprises one or more lighting receptors(Fig. 6A, 86), the at least one conductor cable being electrically connected to each of the one or more lightning receptors. [Per claim 14 above, the cables are connected to the cages electrically, and per Page 23, ll. 10-16 provides for the connection of the receptors.]
(Claim 19) the one or more floating conductors are not electrically connected to the at least one conductor cable and thus are not grounded. [Per A1, the inner beam can be electrically isolated from the beam sheath(conductive cage and grounding cables) by the resistive layer (fig. 7b, 116) the inner region (solid or hollow), per Page 25, line 24 – Page 26, line 13. Per B1, Fig. 11-12, the inner end of the connector includes the floating element which is connected to the beam interior and spar interior which are electrically isolated from the sheaths which direct lightning away from them.]
(Claim 20) the conductive cage is constructed of one of a solid sheet, a wire mesh, a webbing, a netting, or a woven sheet. [Per Page 21, ll. 17-20 the beam sheath may be a mesh, or conductive metallic elements, i.e. a wire mesh, or a woven layer of the conductive elements such as carbon fiber. Page 24, ll. 8-15 notes the second cages, i.e. the second sheaths may be constructed similarly. ]
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over A1 and B1 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 2020/0340446 to Girolamo (G1).
In Re Claim 6:
A1 as modified in claim 1 teaches:
The rotor blade assembly of claim 6, wherein the electrical connection is described in the prior claims, via the cabling of the grounding.
A1 as modified in claim 1 is silent as to:
The flexibility of the connecting, the two elements, being the first and second cages, the at least one flexible connector comprising at least one of a flexible circuit, a flexible braided circuit, a flexible bus bar, a flexible bar stock, a flexible layered stack, or a flexible rail.
G1 teaches:
When connecting conductive elements such as surrounding metallic conductive cover(45) to a down/grounding it is known to use a flexible metal cable (46.3) [Page 3, ¶39-41 and in particular 41 notes the flexible metal cable, Page 2, ¶21-23 notes the down conductor and the flexible metal cable or braided cable.]
Given A1’s silence as to the material of the connecting cables, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of A1, to utilize the known in the art flexible cable connections as taught by G1, to connect metallic conductive covers and down/grounding, as a known-in the art material for connection which would perform with an expectation of success, and provide for a flexible connection (known in the art to be desirable per G1 citations). This would result in the limitation of a flexible cable and a flexible braided element.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA R BEEBE whose telephone number is (571)272-9968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/JOSHUA R BEEBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights