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 because Figure 1 does not demonstrate how/where the exhaust gas exits the feeding system. From Figure 1, it appears as though all of the exhaust gas is recirculated through the at least one recirculation pipeline (10).
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “99” has been used to designate both “relief valve” and “injecting device”.
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. 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 Objections
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13, 15-17, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1
Line 8 recites the language “said exhaust portion”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one exhaust portion –
Line 9 recites the language “said exhaust portion”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one exhaust portion –
Line 11 recites the language “said exhaust portion”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one exhaust portion –
Line 12 recites the language “said exhaust line”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one exhaust line –
Line 14 recites the language “said exhaust line”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one exhaust line –
Line 14 recites the language “said at least one inlet portion”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one intake portion –
Lines 16-17 recite the limitation “said recirculation pipeline”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one recirculation pipeline—
Line 22 recites the language “said exhaust line”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one exhaust line –
Regarding Claim 2
Line 2 recites the language “said injecting means (20) comprise at least one injection line” (emphasis added). To maintain clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said injecting means (20) comprises at least one injection line—
Line 3 recites the language “said injection line”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one injection line—
Lines 3-4 recite the limitation “said recirculation pipeline”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one recirculation pipeline—
Lines 4-5 recite the language “said injection line”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one injection line—
Line 6 recites the language “said injector”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one injector—
Regarding Claim 3
Lines 3-4 recite the language “said injection line”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one injection line—
Regarding Claim 4
Line 2 recites the language “further comprising oxygen generating means”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –further comprising an oxygen generating means—
Line 3 recites the language “said tank”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one tank—
Lines 3-4 recite the language “said injection line”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one injection line—
Regarding Claim 6
Line 3 recites the language “said heater fans”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said one or more heater fans—
Line 4 recites the language “one said heater fan”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –one heater fan of said one or more heater fans—
Line 5 recites the language “one said heater fan”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –another
Regarding Claim 7
Line 3 recites the language “said recirculation pipeline”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one recirculation pipeline—
Regarding Claim 8
Line 2 recites the language “at least one further first sensor”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –at least one
Line 3 recites the language “the thermodynamic conditions”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –[[the]] thermodynamic conditions—
Lines 4-5 recite the language “at least one further second sensor”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –at least one
Line 5 recites the language “the thermodynamic conditions”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –[[the]] thermodynamic conditions—
Regarding Claim 10
Line 2 recites the language “said control unit”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one control unit—
Line 4 recites the language “said flow rate meter”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one purified exhaust gas flow rate meter—
Line 4 recites the language “said sensor”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one sensor—
Regarding Claim 11
Line 2 recites the language “said control unit”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one control unit—
Regarding Clam 13
Lines 2-3 recite the language “said purifying means further comprise one or more filters”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said purifying means further comprises one or more filters—
Regarding Claim 15
Lines 2-3 recite the language “said purifying means comprise, upstream of said cooling device (4) and along said exhaust line (2), at least one particle separator”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said purifying means comprises, upstream of said cooling device (4) and along said exhaust line (2), at least one particle separator—
Regarding Clam 16
Lines 2-3 recite the language “said purifying means further comprise at least one injecting device”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said purifying means further comprises at least one injecting device—
Lines 3-4 recite the language “for injecting the water contained into said water collecting tank (96), or into a storage/reserve container, said at least one injecting device (98)” (emphasis added). The claim should be amended such that it reads –for injecting the water contained in in (99)—
Regarding Claim 17
Line 16 recites the language “said recirculation pipeline”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said at least one recirculation pipeline—
Regarding Claim 19
Line 3 recites the language “g) of measuring flow rate”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –g)
Line 5 recites the language “h) of increasing or reducing rotation speed”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –h)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1
Lines 17-18 recite the limitation "the outlet of said exhaust line". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 2
Lines 5-6 recite the limitation “for dosing the amount of injected oxygen, or a mixture thereof, to be injected through said injector (22)” (emphasis added). It is unclear what is included in the limitation “a mixture thereof”. It is further unclear if this is the same limitation as recited in claim 1 as “an oxygen mixture”. For examination purposes, the claim limitation has been interpreted as if the claim read –for dosing the amount of injected oxygen or oxygen mixture, or a mixture thereof, to be injected through said injector (22)—
Regarding Claim 3
Lines 2-3 recite the limitation “at least one tank (30) for containing oxygen, or a mixture thereof” (emphasis added). It is unclear what is included in the limitation “a mixture thereof”. It is further unclear if this is the same limitation as recited in claim 1 as “an oxygen mixture”. For examination purposes, the claim limitation has been interpreted as if the claim read –at least one tank (30) for containing the oxygen or the oxygen mixture, or a mixture thereof—
Lines 3-4 recite the limitation "said injection line". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, not claim 2.
Line 4 recites the language “said at least one dosing valve”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 6
Lines 5 and 6 recite the limitation "said at least one injector". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 is dependent on claim 3, not claim 2.
Regarding Claim 8
Lines 4 and 6 recite the limitation "said at least one injector". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1, not claim 2.
Regarding Claim 9
Line 3 recites the limitation "said at least one dosing valve (23)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, not claim 2.
Regarding Claim 17
Line 9 recites the limitation “the end of the combustion step” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 20
Lines 2 and 3 recite the limitation "said expansion vessel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 is dependent on claim 3, not claim 5 (where the limitation “at least one expansion vessel” is introduced.
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 (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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by McNeil, GB 2365492 A.
Regarding Claim 1
McNeil discloses a feeding system for an internal combustion engine (1) or a thermal combustion unit operating with fuel based on hydrocarbons or their derivatives (McNeil, Page 5, Line 32 - Page 6, Line 2, Figure 1) and comprising at least one intake portion for entering fed gas into said internal combustion engine (1) or into said thermal combustion unit, and at least one exhaust portion for exiting exhaust gas from said internal combustion engine (1) or from said thermal combustion unit (McNeil, Figure 1), said system further comprising:
at least one sensor (6) for measuring oxygen content of said exhaust gas coming out of said exhaust portion and at least one exhaust line fluidically connected to said exhaust portion (McNeil, Page 12, Lines 22-31, Figure 1); and comprising
a device (13, water-cooled condenser) for cooling the exhaust gas and condensing water vapor contained in said exhaust gas coming out of said exhaust portion and passing through said exhaust line (McNeil, Page 13, Lines 26-29, Figure 1);
said system further comprising:
at least one recirculation pipeline (23 to 1) for fluidically connect said exhaust line to said at least one inlet portion of said internal combustion engine (1) or of said thermal combustion unit (McNeil, Figure 1); and
injecting means (5, 32) for injecting oxygen, or an oxygen mixture, into said recirculation pipeline (23 to 1) for transforming said exhaust gas at the outlet of said exhaust line into said fed gas, wherein an amount injected of oxygen is established depending on the oxygen content of said exhaust gas measured by said at least one sensor (6) for measuring the oxygen content (McNeil, Page 12, Lines 22-31, Figure 1), and further comprising purifying means (16, 19) for purifying said exhaust gas along said exhaust line for eliminating further liquid and/or solid and/or gaseous combustion products contained in said exhaust gas (McNeil, Page 14, Lines 1-16, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3
McNeil discloses the feeding system according to claim 1. McNeil further discloses at least one tank (31) for containing oxygen, or a mixture thereof, said at least one tank (31) being fluidically connected to said injection line, upstream of said at least one dosing valve (5) (McNeil, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 4
Discloses the feeding system according to claim 3, further comprising oxygen generating means (29) for generating said oxygen, said oxygen generating means (29) being fluidically connected to said tank (31), or to said injection line, upstream of said at least one dosing valve (5) (McNeil, Page 11, Lines 14-17, Figure 1).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeil, GB 2365492 A, in view of Ottinger et al., US 2021/0348536.
Regarding Claim 2
McNeil discloses the feeding system according to claim 1. McNeil further discloses that said injecting means (5, 32) comprises at least one injection line, at least one injector [element (5) is interpreted as at least one injector as it injects oxygen into the recirculation pipeline ((23) to (1))] arranged along said injection line and at least partly into said recirculation pipeline ((23) to (1)) (McNeil, Figure 1).
However, McNeil does not explicitly disclose at least one dosing valve arranged along said injection line, upstream of said at least one injector, for dosing the amount of injected oxygen, or a mixture thereof, to be injected through said injector. Ottinger teaches an injection assembly in which at least one dosing valve (at (120)) is arranged along the injection line, upstream of the at least one injector (156) (Ottinger, [0034], Figure 1).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of McNeil to include at least one dosing valve arranged along said injection line, upstream of said at least one injector, for dosing the amount of injected oxygen, or a mixture thereof, to be injected through said injector as is taught by Ottinger as well known in the art to control the dosing of oxygen into the recirculation pipeline.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeil, GB 2365492 A, in view of Ohashi et al., US 2022/0298992.
Regarding Claim 5
McNeil discloses the feeding system according to claim 1. However, McNeil does not explicitly disclose that said at least one recirculation pipeline comprises at least one expansion vessel.
Ohashi teaches that an exhaust gas recirculation device (20) [recirculation pipeline] (Ohashi, [0019]) comprises at least one expansion chamber (60, 65) [expansion vessel] (Ohashi, Abstract).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of McNeil such that the recirculation pipeline comprises at least one expansion vessel as is taught by Ohashi as well known in the art in order to increase the cross-sectional flow area of the pipeline (Ohashi, [0030]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeil, GB 2365492 A, in view of Teshirogi et al., US 3,851,632.
Regarding Claim 8
McNeil discloses the feeding system according to claim 1. McNeil further teaches at least one further second sensor (23) for measuring the thermodynamic conditions, arranged along said at least one recirculation pipeline ((23) to (1)) upstream of said at least one injector [injecting means (5, 32)] (McNeil, Page 11, Lines 31-35, Figure 1).
However, McNeil does not explicitly disclose at least one further first sensor for measuring the thermodynamic conditions, arranged along said at least one recirculation pipeline downstream of said at least one injector. Teshirogi teaches a sensor (19) for measuring thermodynamic conditions at the outlet end of a recirculation pipeline (11) (Teshirogi, Abstract, Figure 1).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of McNeil such that at least one further first sensor for measuring the thermodynamic conditions, arranged along said at least one recirculation pipeline downstream of said at least one injector, in order to maintain desired oxygen concentration within the exhaust gas (Teshirogi, Abstract).
Claim(s) 12-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeil, GB 2365492 A, in view of Rossi, WO 2021/198943 A1.
Regarding Claim 12
McNeil discloses the feeding system according to claim 1. However, McNeil does not explicitly disclose that said purifying means comprises at least one cyclonic gas/water vapor separator and at least one water collecting tank for collecting the condensed water vapor contained in said exhaust gas and separated from said cyclonic gas/water vapor separator, said cyclonic gas/water vapor separator is arranged downstream of said cooling device.
Rossi teaches a system for exhaust ga purification of an internal combustion engine comprising a purifying means that comprises: at least one cyclonic gas/water vapor separator (4, separating means) (Rossi, Page 8, Lines 3-17, Figure 1) and at least one water collecting tank (60, collection tank(s)) for collecting the condensed water vapor contained in the exhaust gas and separated from said cyclonic gas/water vapor separator (4) (Rossi, Page 9, Line 29 – Page 10, Line 7, Figure 1), said cyclonic gas/water vapor separator (4) is arranged downstream of a cooling device (3, cooling means) (Rossi, Abstract, Figure 1).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of McNeil for the purifying means to include at least one cyclonic gas/water vapor separator and at least one water collecting tank for collecting the condensed water vapor contained in said exhaust gas and separated from said cyclonic gas/water vapor separator, said cyclonic gas/water vapor separator is arranged downstream of said cooling device as is taught by Rossi as well known in the art in order to implement a purification system that is more efficient and leads to an improved abatement of pollutants emitted by the internal combustion engine (Rossi, Page 4, Lines 3-6).
Regarding Claim 13
McNeil and Rossi teach the feeding system according to claim 12. Rossi further teaches that said purifying means further comprise one or more filters (5) arranged along said exhaust line, said one or more filters (5, 80) being arranged downstream of said at least one gas/water vapor cyclonic separator (4) (Rossi, Page 8, Lines 10-12 and Page 11, Lines 5-17, Figure 1).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of McNeil/Rossi so that said purifying means further comprise one or more filters arranged along said exhaust line, said one or more filters being arranged downstream of said at least one gas/water vapor cyclonic separator as is taught by Rossi as well known in the art in order to implement a purification system that is more efficient and leads to an improved abatement of pollutants emitted by the internal combustion engine (Rossi, Page 4, Lines 3-6).
Regarding Claim 14
McNeil and Rossi teach the feeding system according to claim 13. Rossi further teaches that said one or more filters (80) are selected form active carbon filters, HEPA filters and carbon dioxide filters (Rossi, Page 11, Lines 5-17, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 16
McNeil and Rossi teach the feeding system according to claim 14. Rossi further teaches that said purifying means comprises at least one injecting device (33) for injecting the water contained in said water collecting tank (60), or in a storage/reserve container (15), said at least one injecting device (33) being arranged along said exhaust pipeline (2), upstream of said cyclonic gas/water vapor separator (4) and/or said at least one particle separator (Rossi, Page 10, Lines 19-26, Figure 1).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeil, GB 2365492 A, in view of RU 179378 U1 (hereafter referred to as RU).
Regarding Claim 15
McNeil discloses the feeding system according to claim 1. However, McNeil does not explicitly disclose that said purifying means comprises, upstream of said cooling device and along said exhaust line, at least one particle separator of the water and/or dry type.
RU teaches a particle separator (13) in communication with an internal combustion engine in order to improve gas purification from solid reaction products (RU, [0023] and [0027]).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of McNeil such that said purifying means comprises, upstream of said cooling device and along said exhaust line, at least one particle separator of the water and/or dry type as is taught by RU as well known in the art in order to improve gas purification from solid reaction products (RU, [0023] and [0027]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 9-11, and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In the feeding system of claim 6, the inclusion of:
“one or more heater fans arranged along said at least one recirculation pipeline, said heater fans being at least two, one said heater fan being disposed upstream of said at least one injector and one said heater fan disposed downstream of said at least one injector” was not found.
The closest prior art to the claimed subject matter is McNeil, GB 2365492 A. McNeil discloses at least one recirculation pipeline (23 to 1) for fluidically connect said exhaust line to said at least one inlet portion of said internal combustion engine (1) or of said thermal combustion unit (McNeil, Figure 1); and an injecting means (5, 32) for injecting oxygen, or an oxygen mixture, into said recirculation pipeline (23 to 1) for transforming said exhaust gas at the outlet of said exhaust line into said fed gas, wherein an amount injected of oxygen is established depending on the oxygen content of said exhaust gas measured by said at least one sensor (6) for measuring the oxygen content (McNeil, Page 12, Lines 22-31, Figure 1), and further comprising purifying means (16, 19) for purifying said exhaust gas along said exhaust line for eliminating further liquid and/or solid and/or gaseous combustion products contained in said exhaust gas (McNeil, Page 14, Lines 1-16, Figure 1).
However, McNeil does not teach one or more heater fans arranged along said at least one recirculation pipeline, said heater fans being at least two, one said heater fan being disposed upstream of said at least one injector and one said heater fan disposed downstream of said at least one injector.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY L STANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3565. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, DEVON KRAMER can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/K.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights