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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/30/2026 has been entered.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-10, 13, and 18-19 have been amended. Claim(s) 5-6 have been previously cancelled. Claim(s) 21 have been added. Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-21 are pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-21 is improper as the cited art does not teach all claim limitations of the independent claims 1, 10, and 19. Applicant asserts that the prior art fails to teach “a controller” and its associated limitations.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7 of their remarks, appear to be merely arguing why each reference cited, individually, fails to teach the claims as amended. Applicant’s asserts that each cited piece of art fails to render the claims as obvious each for a unique reason. However, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Taking the cited art collectively would teach the claims as amended. Looking at Akins (US PG Pub 2013/0150028) in particular, [0033]-[0038] show the system as having a controller. This controller can be coupled to a series of sensors and use these sensors to determine whether or not a theft/tamper event has occurred. The controller is configured to gather data from all sensors it is equipped to. This data can indicate the operation of the bike by indicating that the bike is moving. Akins alone would cover at least claim 1 as amended. Claims 10 and 19 use similar language and would be taught by Akins for the same reason. Accordingly, the claims would remain rejected as obvious under 35 USC 103. Please see the section below titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103,” for more explanation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-10, 12, and 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akins (US PG Pub 2013/0150028) in view of Seol (US PG Pub 2012/0146429).
Regarding claim 1, Akins teaches a method for performing an action associated with ([0032] teaches the system and method associated with bicycle security)
receiving an alert from a tamper sensor or a location sensor of the electric bicycle; ([0035] teaches a 3 axis gyroscope that can be used to detect an event, i.e. theft, as described as a vibration or other movement. [0035] explicitly teaches that the eBike sensor can detect “tampering with a bicycle,” therefore the sensor as described would be a tamper sensor)
polling a controller of the electric bicycle, in response to the alert received from the sensor, to provide information about the operation of electric bicycle; ([0033]-[0038] teach the system having a central controller that can be used to gather the sensor data of the bike. The system can determine its in operation based on the gathered data, including changes in location or detected movement. [0044] teaches that a series of sensors may be used to detect an asset disturbance; such a disturbance may be based on multiple signals and/or thresholds exceeded; [0050] teaches that a central processor can correlate the events detected by multiple sensors, i.e. poll multiple sensors to get a full picture of the event as it takes place)
selecting a security action, from multiple performable security actions, to perform for the electric bicycle that is based the information received from the controller; ([0039] teaches a plethora of security actions to perform, including audible and visual alerts at/on the bike, sending alerts to a user/owner of the bike, and causing a camera to take pictures at the time of the event; [0052] furthers this by including recording audio profiles of the event; [0080]-[0081] teach the user of the system as able to configure the system to determine which action should be taken if appropriate) and
causing the electric bicycle to perform the selected security action. ([0052]-[0053] teach the activation of an alarm by the bicycle system)
Akins does not teach the system as an electric bicycle.
However, Seol teaches “an electric bicycle” ([0038]-[0039] teach the use of an electric bicycle)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins with Seol; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to bicycle security systems. It would be obvious to try for one of ordinary skill, as the systems would both work together. Akins establishes an electronic system within a bicycle that electrical components and wiring, a central battery, and other electrized components. The system of Akins would work on an electric bicycle as it is just a modified version of a bike. The system of Seol further teaches that there is an interest in equipping an electric bicycle with anti-theft/tracking devices. These devices help to ensure that your bicycle is not stolen.
Regarding claim 3, Akins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving an alert from a sensor of the electric bicycle includes receiving an alert from a movement sensor of the electric bicycle. ([0035] teaches the suite of sensors on the bike, including the 3-axis gyro, as able to detect unauthorized motion of the bike)
Regarding claim 7, Akins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining a security action to perform for the electric bicycle includes sending a notification to a mobile device associated with the electric bicycle. ([0062] teaches the system as able to send alerts to servers, PCs, mobile devices, etc. regarding the status of the bike system)
Regarding claim 8, Akins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein selecting a security action to perform for the electric bicycle includes selecting performance of an alarm at the electric bicycle. ([0052] teaches the system as able to determine the type of alarm to use at the bicycle, i.e. audible alarm, flash alarm, camera tracking. This would be analogous to the selection of a performance of an alarm)
Regarding claim 9, Akins teaches the method of claim 1.
Akins does not teach wherein selecting a security action to perform for the electric bicycle includes causing the controller of the electric bicycle to disable operation of an electric motor of the electric bicycle.
However, Seol teaches “wherein selecting a security action to perform for the electric bicycle includes causing the controller of the electric bicycle to disable operation of an electric motor of the electric bicycle” ([0058]-[0059] teaches the disabling of a motor of an ebike in the event of theft)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins with Seol; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to bicycle security systems. As taught in [0058] the disabling of the motor is an effective way to prevent an eBike from being stolen. This would be obvious to incorporate into an anti-theft system for a bicycle as it adds another layer of protection.
Regarding claim 10, Akins teaches a non-transitory, computer readable medium whose contents, when executed by a computing system of an ([0153] teaches the systems/methods of to be executed by a processor, when accessing a non-transitory medium on which instructions are stored)
receiving a notification from a sensor of the electric bicycle; ([0035] teaches a 3 axis gyroscope that can be used to detect an event, i.e. theft, as described as a vibration or other movement)
polling one or more additional sensors of the electric bicycle, in response to the alert received from the sensor, to provide information about a current status of operation of the electric bicycle; ([0044] teaches that a series of sensors may be used to detect an asset disturbance; such a disturbance may be based on multiple signals and/or thresholds exceeded; [0050] teaches that a central processor can correlate the events detected by multiple sensors, i.e. poll multiple sensors to get a full picture of the event as it takes place)
wherein the one or more additional sensors include a controller of the electric bicycle ([0033]-[0038] teach the system having a central controller that can be used to gather the sensor data of the bike. The system can determine its in operation based on the gathered data, including changes in location or detected movement.) that is configured to
determining a security action to perform for the electric bicycle that is based on the information received from the polled one or more additional sensors; ([0039] teaches a plethora of security actions to perform, including audible and visual alerts at/on the bike, sending alerts to a user/owner of the bike, and causing a camera to take pictures at the time of the event; [0052] furthers this by including recording audio profiles of the event; [0080]-[0081] teach the user of the system as able to configure the system to determine which action should be taken if appropriate) and
performing the determined security action. ([0052]-[0053] teach the activation of an alarm by the bicycle system)
Akins does not teach the system as an electric bicycle and [a controller configured to] control operations of a battery of the electric bicycle and an electric motor of the electric bicycle
However, Seol teaches “an electric bicycle” ([0038]-[0039] teach the use of an electric bicycle) and “[a controller configured to] control operations of a battery of the electric bicycle and an electric motor of the electric bicycle” ([0042] and [0049] teach the system having a controller and a switch that are connected to the battery and electric motor and can control the operations of those devices)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins with Seol; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to bicycle security systems. It would be obvious to try for one of ordinary skill, as the systems would both work together. Akins establishes an electronic system within a bicycle that electrical components and wiring, a central battery, and other electrized components. The system of Akins would work on an electric bicycle as it is just a modified version of a bike. The system of Seol further teaches that there is an interest in equipping an electric bicycle with anti-theft/tracking devices. These devices help to ensure that your bicycle is not stolen.
Regarding claim 12, Akins teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein receiving a notification from a sensor of the electric bicycle includes receiving an alert from a movement sensor of the electric bicycle ([0035] teaches the suite of sensors on the bike, including the 3-axis gyro, as able to detect unauthorized motion of the bike) that
Akins does not teach detects an abnormal movement of a rear wheel of the electric bicycle.
However, Seol teaches “detects an abnormal movement of a rear wheel of the electric bicycle.” ([0054] teaches the detection of an unauthorized movement of the rear wheel)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins with Seol; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to bicycle security systems. As Seol teaches in [0054] abnormal movement of a rear wheel may indicate an unauthorized party is attempting to take the eBike. This detection would trigger the anti-theft alarm and it would allow for a quicker theft detection compared to other types of movements, i.e. jostles, bumps, etc.
Regarding claim 14, Akins teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein polling one or more additional sensors of the electric bicycle to provide information about the electric bicycle include polling a location sensor of the electric bicycle to provide a current location of the electric bicycle. ([0033] teaches a system that can be used to determine the current location of the bike system, via triangulation, GPS, AGPS, GLONASS, Galileo, and/or COMPASS signals)
Regarding claim 15, Akins teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein polling one or more additional sensors of the electric bicycle to provide information about the electric bicycle include polling a movement sensor of the electric bicycle to provide information identifying a current speed of the electric bicycle. ([0035] teaches a suite of sensors that may be used to determine if the bike is currently in motion; [0082] teaches having a series of motion profiles that may be used with various thresholds to determine the state of bicycle security; [0099] teaches the system may be able to use motion to determine the type of movement of the bicycle; [0053] teaches the system as storing the speed of the bicycle)
Regarding claim 16, Akins teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein determining a security action to perform for the electric bicycle includes sending a notification to a mobile device associated with the electric bicycle. ([0062] teaches the system as able to send alerts to servers, PCs, mobile devices, etc. regarding the status of the bike system)
Regarding claim 17, Akins teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein determining a security action to perform for the electric bicycle includes performing an alarm at the electric bicycle. ([0052] teaches the system as able to determine the type of alarm to use at the bicycle, i.e. audible alarm, flash alarm, camera tracking. This would be analogous to the selection of a performance of an alarm)
Regarding claim 18, Akins teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 10.
Akins does not teach wherein selecting a security action to perform for the electric bicycle includes causing a controller of the electric bicycle to disable operation of the electric motor of the electric bicycle.
However, Seol teaches “wherein selecting a security action to perform for the electric bicycle includes causing a controller of the electric bicycle to disable operation of an electric motor of the electric bicycle” ([0058]-[0059] teaches the disabling of a motor of an ebike in the event of theft)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins with Seol; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to bicycle security systems. As taught in [0058] the disabling of the motor is an effective way to prevent an eBike from being stolen. This would be obvious to incorporate into an anti-theft system for a bicycle as it adds another layer of protection.
Regarding claim 19, Akins teaches a system that performs security actions for an
receiving an alert from a sensor of the electric bicycle that indicates a possible theft event at the electric bicycle; ([0035] teaches a 3 axis gyroscope that can be used to detect an event, i.e. theft, as described as a vibration or other movement)
identifying context information associated with the possible theft event at the electric bicycle, ([0061] teaches identifying the area a bike is in as possibly high theft; [0052] teaches the system may determine the context around a bike such as if it is in a bike rack, and using such information it may increase or decrease thresholds of noise, vibration, jostling, etc. it is expected to receive)
wherein the identified context information includes information identifying a rider or owner of the electric bicycle ([0056] teaches the system as using proximity keys to determine if the rider or another authorized user is near to the system and if it should be in an armed/disarmed state) and route information associated with a current or predicted route traveled the electric bicycle; ([0045] teaches determining that the rider and the bike are on the same current route of travel. [0051] teaches the bike as able to determine it is in a riding mode, during which it will track/determine route information)
determining a security action to perform based on the alert and based on the identified context information; ([0039] teaches a plethora of security actions to perform, including audible and visual alerts at/on the bike, sending alerts to a user/owner of the bike, and causing a camera to take pictures at the time of the event; [0052] furthers this by including recording audio profiles of the event; [0080]-[0081] teach the user of the system as able to configure the system to determine which action should be taken if appropriate) and
performing the determined security action, via a controller of the electric bicycle. ([0052]-[0053] teach the activation of an alarm by the bicycle system controller)
Akins does not teach the system as an electric bicycle.
However, Seol teaches “an electric bicycle” ([0038]-[0039] teach the use of an electric bicycle)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins with Seol; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to bicycle security systems. It would be obvious to try for one of ordinary skill, as the systems would both work together. Akins establishes an electronic system within a bicycle that electrical components and wiring, a central battery, and other electrized components. The system of Akins would work on an electric bicycle as it is just a modified version of a bike. The system of Seol further teaches that there is an interest in equipping an electric bicycle with anti-theft/tracking devices. These devices help to ensure that your bicycle is not stolen.
Regarding claim 20, Akins teaches the system of claim 19, wherein the context information identifies a history of similar theft events to the possible theft event at a geographical location that includes the electric bicycle; ([0079] teaches identifying areas on a map based on the relative theft history of bicycles; [0061] teaches that the system may identify the bicycle as armed if it is stationary in a high-theft area for too long) and
Akins does not teach wherein the security action includes disabling operation of the electric bicycle in response to the received alert and the identified context information.
However, Seol teaches “wherein the security action includes disabling operation of the electric bicycle in response to the received alert and the identified context information” ([0058]-[0059] teaches the disabling of a motor of an ebike in the event of theft)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins with Seol; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to bicycle security systems. As taught in [0058] the disabling of the motor is an effective way to prevent an eBike from being stolen. This would be obvious to incorporate into an anti-theft system for a bicycle as it adds another layer of protection.
Regarding claim 21, Akins teaches the method of claim 1 wherein selecting a security action to perform for the electric bicycle includes disabling operation of the controller of the electric bicycle. ([0050]-[0051] teach the system having a sleep mode. If after a determination that the system does detect a full theft event, it can determine that the controller should be put in a sleep mode and thus is “disabled” for a time period.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akins and Seol in view of Craven (US PG Pub 2016/0031525).
Regarding claim 2, Akins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving an alert from a sensor of the electric bicycle includes receiving an alert from the tamper sensor of the electric bicycle. ([0006] teaches an intrusion detection sensor, which the examiner is taking to mean tampering; [0035] teach that the suite of sensors installed on the bike may be used to detect tampering with the bike)
The combination of Akins and Seol does not teach that indicates a lock of the electric bicycle has been disabled.
However, Craven teaches “that indicates a lock of the electric bicycle has been disabled” ([0125] teaches the system detecting a tampering of an eBike lock by determining that the lock has been damaged in some way)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins and Seol with Craven; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to bicycle security systems. As Craven teaches in [0125] tamper detection is useful in preventing theft. While not all tampering would be successful, a determination that tampering has occurred may alert a user to move their eBike. Additionally a determination of a damaged lock may alert a user to replace the lock before next use of their eBike.
Regarding claim 11, Akins teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein receiving a notification from a sensor of the electric bicycle includes receiving an alert from a tamper sensor of the electric bicycle ([0006] teaches an intrusion detection sensor, which the examiner is taking to mean tampering; [0035] teach that the suite of sensors installed on the bike may be used to detect tampering with the bike) that
Akins does not teach a lock assembly of the electric bicycle has been damaged.
However, Craven teaches “a lock assembly of the electric bicycle has been damaged.” ([0125] teaches the system detecting a tampering of an eBike lock by determining that the lock has been damaged in some way)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins and Seol with Craven; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to bicycle security systems. As Craven teaches in [0125] tamper detection is useful in preventing theft. While not all tampering would be successful, a determination that tampering has occurred may alert a user to move their eBike. Additionally a determination of a damaged lock may alert a user to replace the lock before next use of their eBike.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akins and Seol in view of and Brown (US PG Pub 2023/0192211).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Akins and Seol teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Akins and Seol does not teach wherein polling the controller of the electric bicycle to provide information about the operation of the electric bicycle include polling the controller of the electric bicycle to provide status information associated with a current operation of a throttle of the electric bicycle.
However, Brown teaches “wherein polling the controller of the electric bicycle to provide information about the operation of the electric bicycle include polling the controller of the electric bicycle to provide status information associated with a current operation of a throttle of the electric bicycle.” ([0072]-[0073] teach determining that an electric vehicle, i.e. scooter, is moving based on monitoring the throttle of the scooter. [0094] further teaches that the system monitors the throttle to determine whether or not a trip has begun)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins and Seol with Brown; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to monitoring systems for personal travel vehicles. By monitoring the throttle of the vehicle a controller can make a determination as to whether or not the vehicle is moving. As [0094] of Brown teaches monitoring a throttle operation allows the controller to determine if a user is intending to go on a trip. This information allows the system to further determine whether the vehicle is in operation, and if so if the operation is unauthorized.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Akins and Seol teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 10.
The combination of Akins and Seol does not teach wherein polling one or more additional sensors of the electric bicycle to provide information about the electric bicycle include polling a controller of the electric bicycle to provide status information associated with a current operation of a throttle of the electric bicycle.
However, Brown teaches “wherein polling one or more additional sensors of the electric bicycle to provide information about the electric bicycle include polling a controller of the electric bicycle to provide status information associated with a current operation of a throttle of the electric bicycle.” ([0072]-[0073] teach determining that an electric vehicle, i.e. scooter, is moving based on monitoring the throttle of the scooter. [0094] further teaches that the system monitors the throttle to determine whether or not a trip has begun)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins and Seol with Brown; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to monitoring systems for personal travel vehicles. By monitoring the throttle of the vehicle a controller can make a determination as to whether or not the vehicle is moving. As [0094] of Brown teaches monitoring a throttle operation allows the controller to determine if a user is intending to go on a trip. This information allows the system to further determine whether the vehicle is in operation, and if so if the operation is unauthorized.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Denysenko (US PG Pub 2022/0227454) teaches an invention relates to the field of electronic vehicle control systems, in particular electric bicycles intended for heavy loads. The intelligent electronic bicycle control system includes a controller to control electric motor, a throttle handle, a sensor, a battery, a communication module for transferring data on a movement and condition of electric components and to exchange data with a mobile application and a remote control, an alarm, a light controller to control light, turns and stop signals and audio signal, a controller for collisions prevention and a bicycle computer to display the main parameters of the system, and all elements are connected by a bus.
Ruben (US PG Pub 2011/0144841) teaches an integrated supplemental motor system for e-bikes incorporates a motor stator carried by a fixed axle with a torroidal cavity surrounding the axle. A motor rotor for interaction with the stator is supported by a motor casing rotatable on a plurality of bearings carried by the fixed axle. A torque member is concentrically carried within the torroidal cavity and has a first attachment engaged to a gear cluster for force input and a second resilient attachment for engagement to the motor casing. The torque member is urged by the gear cluster from a first no force position resiliently through a range of motion to a second maximum force position. A first element connected to the torque member has a set of first signal generation interfaces and a second element connected to the motor case has an equal set of second signal generation interfaces. The first and second signal generation interfaces are spaced in relation to the range of motion of the torque member. A sensor detects the consecutive first and second signal generation interfaces. A controller connected to the sensor receives a speed input and an effort input and provides a stator actuation current proportional to the spacing of the detected first and second signal generation interfaces.
Jacbbsz Rosier (US PG Pub 2020/0130771) teaches a scooter includes a diversity of sensors to adapt scooter characteristics to any one or more than one of safety aspects, and scooter, environmental or driver states. Scooter characteristics susceptible to adaptation include throttle response; motor torque; motor speed; speed; maximum current drawn from energy storage system; braking characteristics, such as distribution, maximum braking power, anti-blocking system parameters or braking; adjusting vehicle dynamics, and suspension parameters such as stiffness, or damping coefficient.
Lee (US PG Pub 2020/0087951) teaches a bicycle locking apparatus having an abnormal locking prevention function. The bicycle locking apparatus includes a sensor unit which measures a driving condition of a bicycle to be locked by using a plurality of sensors and outputs sensing data about the driving condition, a locking operation unit which performs a locking operation or an unlocking operation on the bicycle to be locked in response to input of a lock signal or an unlock signal, and a control unit which controls the overall operation of the bicycle locking apparatus. The control unit includes a first driving state determination unit which determines a first state of the bicycle to be locked by using sensing data of a first sensor group, a second driving state determination unit which determines a second state of the bicycle to be locked by using sensing data of a second sensor group.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights