DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The applicant’s reply (see Remarks dated 12/31/2025) appears to be directed to the examiner’s previous rejection of claims 1-5 (over Anderson in view of Chen), 6-18 (further in view of Bregenzer), and 56 (further in view of Han).
Applicant’s reply is not fully responsive to the prior Office Action, because of the following omission(s) or matter(s): applicant has not addressed the previous 103 rejection of record, regarding claims 1 and 54-55 (over Bao in view of Chen, and further in view of Xiao). This rejection is maintained in the instant Office Action.
3. Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks) with respect to claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, and 16-18 have been considered, but they are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
On pages 9-10, the applicant attempts to contrast the distances between Han’s lenses from those of Anderson’s, noting that “in Figure 2 of Han, [lenses 112-115] are at a fixed distance relative to one another,” and that “[o]nly the reference lens 122 is movable.” Applicant asserts that Han’s configuration “is the opposite of the system disclosed in Anderson.” However, Anderson and Han each disclose systems in which one object-side lens transmits light to an image-side group of lenses whose relative positions are fixed (Anderson - Fig. 21; Hans - Fig. 2). Thus, the systems of Anderson and Han are similar, and it is unclear how applicant believes they are opposites.
Regardless of the above discussion, the previous Office Action has only implied that the shapes of Han’s lenses should be combined with Anderson and Chen—the importing of lens mobility or distances, from Hans into Anderson and Chen, was never suggested by the examiner.
Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of a primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one, or all, of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this instance, Anderson’s disclosure does not address concave/convex lens shapes. A PHOSITA in optics/optical engineering would be motivated to discover some number of lens shapes for a system, for the purpose of improving aberration correction, and such a manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation.
On page 11, applicant argues that “the Office Action fails to identify any disclosure within the asserted references that the arrangement of the optically powered surfaces in Han have any impact on image aberration correction.” Although lens shapes are well-known to have an impact on aberration correction, it has also been recognized by the court that “motivation need not be found in the references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP § 2143.01. In this instance, the nature of the problem involves adjusting Anderson’s lenses to improve aberration correction. This problem could be addressed by using the lens shapes of Han, whose lenses are used for laser focusing (Han - Abstract, “lenses for laser interferometers”).
Finally, applicant asserts that “the disclosure of Han would render the lens group [of Anderson] inoperable for [its] intended purpose.” However, it has been recognized by the court that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). Applicant should take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Applicant has not fully accounted for modifications beyond changes in lens shape(s). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that other, routine, adjustments would be required beyond the substitution of lens shapes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
5. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 20070073308 A1, of record) in view of Han et al. (CN 112068289 A, of record), and further in view of Xiao (CN 101295069 A, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a laser focuser ([0034]; Fig. 22A, 210 and 212) comprising:
a first lens having a first optical axis (Fig. 21, 90), a first optically powered surface (Fig. 21, 88), and a second optically powered surface (Fig. 21, 89), the first optically powered surface opposite the second optically powered surface along the first optical axis (Fig. 21, 88 is opposite 89), wherein the first optically powered surface is curved having a first constant radius of curvature ([0084]), and the second optically powered surface is curved having a second constant radius of curvature ([0084]);
a second lens having a second optical axis (Fig. 21, 93), the second lens positioned with respect to the first lens such that the first optical axis and the second optical axis are collinear (Fig. 21, 90 and 93), the second lens further having a third optically powered surface (Fig. 21, 91) and a fourth optically powered surface (Fig. 21, 92), the third optically powered surface facing the second optically powered surface (Fig. 21, 91 faces 89) and opposite the fourth optically powered surface along the second optical axis (Fig. 21, 91 is opposite 92), wherein the third optically powered surface is curved having a third constant radius of curvature ([0084]), and the fourth optically powered surface is curved having a fourth constant radius of curvature ([0084]);
a third lens having a third optical axis (Fig. 21, 96), the third lens positioned with respect to the first lens and the second lens such that the first optical axis and the third optical axis are collinear (Fig. 21, 90 and 96), and the second lens is between the first lens and the third lens (Fig. 21, 93 is between 90 and 96), the third lens further having a fifth optically powered surface (Fig. 21, 94) and a sixth optically powered surface (Fig. 21, 95), the fifth optically powered surface facing the fourth optically powered surface (Fig. 21, 94 faces 92) and opposite the sixth optically powered surface along the third optical axis (Fig. 1, 94 is opposite 95), wherein the fifth optically powered surface is curved having a fifth constant radius of curvature ([0084]), and the sixth optically powered surface is curved having a sixth constant radius of curvature ([0084]); and
a fourth lens having a fourth optical axis (Fig. 21, 99), the fourth lens positioned with respect to the first lens and the third lens such that the first optical axis and the fourth optical axis are collinear (Fig. 21, 90 and 99), and the third lens is between the first lens and the fourth lens (Fig. 1, 96 is between 90 and 99), the fourth lens further having a seventh optically powered surface (Fig. 21, 97) and an eighth optically powered surface (Fig. 21, 98), the seventh optically powered surface facing the sixth optically powered surface (Fig. 21, 97 faces 95) and opposite the eighth optically powered surface along the fourth optical axis (Fig. 21, 97 is opposite 98), wherein the seventh optically powered surface is curved having a seventh constant radius of curvature ([0084]), and the eighth optically powered surface is curved having an eighth constant radius of curvature ([0084]).
Anderson fails to disclose wherein the four lenses are convex-convex, convex-concave, convex-convex, and convex-concave.
However, Han teaches a similar optical system for focusing lasers (Abstract), and discloses four lenses whose shapes are convex-convex, convex-concave, convex-convex, and convex-concave ([0034], “the first lens 112 is a double-convex FK5 lens, the second lens 113 is a meniscus BASF51 lens, the third lens 114 is a double-convex FK51 lens, the fourth lens 115 is a positive meniscus FK51 lens”; Fig. 3, 112-115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Anderson and Han such that the four lenses were convex-convex, convex-concave, convex-convex, and convex-concave, motivated by improving aberration correction.
Modified Anderson fails to explicitly disclose a housing having a first end through which the first optical axis enters the laser focuser, the housing further having a second end through which the fourth optical axis exits the laser focuser, and the housing at least partially enclosing the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, and the fourth lens between the first end and the second end, wherein a first distance measured from the first lens to the second lens along the first optical axis is greater than a second distance measured from the second lens to the fourth lens along the first optical axis, and wherein the first optically powered surface is closer to the first end of the housing than all other optically powered surfaces of the laser focuser, and the eighth optically powered surface is closer to the second end of the housing than all other optically powered surfaces of the laser focuser.
However, Xiao teaches a similar lens system in which one object-side lens transmits light to an image-side group of lenses (Fig. 1), and discloses a housing (Figs. 4-5, housing is formed by all components except 6-10) having first and second ends through which optical axes enter and exit (Figs. 4-5, lens 10 is near a first end and lens 6 is near a second end), the housing at least partially enclosing all four lenses between the first and second ends (Figs. 4-5), wherein a first distance measured from a first lens to a second lens along the first optical axis is greater than a second distance measured from the second lens to the fourth lens along the first optical axis (Page 12, 面型数据概要, 5.68mm between the first and second lenses > 0.605mm between the second and fourth lenses), and wherein the first optically powered surface is closer to the first end of the housing than all other optically powered surfaces (Fig. 4, the object-side surface of 10), and the eighth optically powered surface is closer to the second end of the housing than all other optically powered surfaces (Fig. 4, the image-side surface of 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Anderson and Xiao such that the laser focuser was to comprise a housing, motivated by protecting the device.
Regarding claim 2, modified Anderson discloses wherein the first distance is at least twice the second distance (Xiao - Page 12, 面型数据概要, 5.68mm between the first and second lenses > 0.605mm between the second and fourth lenses).
Regarding claim 3, modified Anderson fails to disclose wherein the first distance is between 43.29 and 47.27 mm, and the second distance is between 13.57 and 17.54 mm.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations). Furthermore, the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the lens distances of modified Anderson, such that the first distance was between 43.29 and 47.27 mm, and the second distance was between 13.57 and 17.54 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the lens distances of the system such that the relationships were satisfied, motivated by improving the depth of focus “by controlling the distance between the first and second components” (Anderson - [0084]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, modified Anderson discloses wherein the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, and the fourth lens are each spherical lenses (Anderson - [0084]).
6. Claims 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Han and Xiao, and further in view of Bregenzer et al. ("Zoom system by rotation of toroidal lenses," Opt. Express 28, 3258-3269 (2020), of record).
Regarding claim 7, modified Anderson fails to disclose wherein the first optically powered surface is cylindrical having an infinite radius of curvature measured within a plane perpendicular to the first constant radius of curvature.
However, Bregenzer teaches a similar system used for laser focusing (Section 6, last paragraph), wherein a first optically powered surface is cylindrical having an infinite radius of curvature measured within a plane perpendicular to the first constant radius of curvature (Page 3268, Section 6, Paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Anderson and Bregenzer such that the first optically powered surface was cylindrical, motivated by improving aberration correction (Section 4, last paragraph; Section 6, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, modified Anderson fails to disclose wherein the second optically powered surface is cylindrical having an infinite radius of curvature measured within a plane perpendicular to the second constant radius of curvature.
However, Bregenzer teaches a similar system used for laser focusing (Section 6, last paragraph), wherein a second optically powered surface is cylindrical having an infinite radius of curvature measured within a plane perpendicular to the second constant radius of curvature (Page 3268, Section 6, Paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Anderson and Bregenzer such that the second optically powered surface was cylindrical, motivated by improving aberration correction (Section 4, last paragraph; Section 6, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, modified Anderson fails to disclose wherein the third optically powered surface is cylindrical having an infinite radius of curvature measured within a plane perpendicular to the third constant radius of curvature.
However, Bregenzer teaches a similar system used for laser focusing (Section 6, last paragraph), wherein a third optically powered surface is cylindrical having an infinite radius of curvature measured within a plane perpendicular to the third constant radius of curvature (Page 3268, Section 6, Paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Anderson and Bregenzer such that the third optically powered surface was cylindrical, motivated by improving aberration correction (Section 4, last paragraph; Section 6, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, modified Anderson fails to disclose wherein the fourth optically powered surface is cylindrical having an infinite radius of curvature measured within a plane perpendicular to the fourth constant radius of curvature.
However, Bregenzer teaches a similar system used for laser focusing (Section 6, last paragraph), wherein a fourth optically powered surface is cylindrical having an infinite radius of curvature measured within a plane perpendicular to the fourth constant radius of curvature (Page 3268, Section 6, Paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Anderson and Bregenzer such that the fourth optically powered surface was cylindrical, motivated by improving aberration correction (Section 4, last paragraph; Section 6, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, modified Anderson fails to disclose wherein the fifth optically powered surface is cylindrical having an infinite radius of curvature measured within a plane perpendicular to the fifth constant radius of curvature.
However, Bregenzer teaches a similar system used for laser focusing (Section 6, last paragraph), wherein a fifth optically powered surface is cylindrical having an infinite radius of curvature measured within a plane perpendicular to the fifth constant radius of curvature (Page 3268, Section 6, Paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Anderson and Bregenzer such that the fifth optically powered surface was cylindrical, motivated by improving aberration correction (Section 4, last paragraph; Section 6, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, modified Anderson fails to disclose wherein the sixth optically powered surface is cylindrical having an infinite radius of curvature measured within a plane perpendicular to the sixth constant radius of curvature.
However, Bregenzer teaches a similar system used for laser focusing (Section 6, last paragraph), wherein a sixth optically powered surface is cylindrical having an infinite radius of curvature measured within a plane perpendicular to the sixth constant radius of curvature (Page 3268, Section 6, Paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Anderson and Bregenzer such that the sixth optically powered surface was cylindrical, motivated by improving aberration correction (Section 4, last paragraph; Section 6, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 16, modified Anderson fails to disclose wherein the seventh optically powered surface is cylindrical having an infinite radius of curvature measured within a plane perpendicular to the seventh constant radius of curvature.
However, Bregenzer teaches a similar system used for laser focusing (Section 6, last paragraph), wherein a seventh optically powered surface is cylindrical having an infinite radius of curvature measured within a plane perpendicular to the seventh constant radius of curvature (Page 3268, Section 6, Paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Anderson and Bregenzer such that the seventh optically powered surface was cylindrical, motivated by improving aberration correction (Section 4, last paragraph; Section 6, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 17, modified Anderson fails to disclose wherein the eighth optically powered surface is cylindrical having an infinite radius of curvature measured within a plane perpendicular to the eighth constant radius of curvature.
However, Bregenzer teaches a similar system used for laser focusing (Section 6, last paragraph), wherein a eighth optically powered surface is cylindrical having an infinite radius of curvature measured within a plane perpendicular to the eighth constant radius of curvature (Page 3268, Section 6, Paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Anderson and Bregenzer such that the eighth optically powered surface was cylindrical, motivated by improving aberration correction (Section 4, last paragraph; Section 6, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 18, modified Anderson fails to disclose wherein the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, and the fourth lens are each toroidal lenses.
However, Bregenzer teaches a similar system used for laser focusing (Section 6, last paragraph), wherein the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, and the fourth lens are each toroidal lenses (Section 6, Paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Anderson and Bregenzer such that each of the lenses was a toroidal lens, motivated by acting as a compact variable beam expander for high power lasers (Section 6, first paragraph).
8. Claims 1 and 54-55 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (CN 101236302 A, of record) in view of Chen, and further in view of Xiao.
Regarding claim 1, Bao discloses a laser focuser (Abstract) comprising: a first lens having a first optical axis (Fig. 4, 11), a first optically powered surface (Fig. 4, S1), and a second optically powered surface (Fig. 4, S2), the first optically powered surface opposite the second optically powered surface along the first optical axis (Fig. 4, S1 and S2), wherein the first optically powered surface is curved having a first constant radius of curvature (table on pages 6-7, R1 = -12.6), and the second optically powered surface is curved having a second constant radius of curvature (table on pages 6-7, R2 = -157.04);
a second lens having a second optical axis (Fig. 4, 122), the second lens positioned with respect to the first lens such that the first optical axis and the second optical axis are collinear (Fig. 4, 11 and 122), the second lens further having a third optically powered surface (Fig. 4, S5) and a fourth optically powered surface (Fig. 4, S6), the third optically powered surface facing the second optically powered surface (Fig. 4, S5 and S2) and opposite the fourth optically powered surface along the second optical axis (Fig. 4, S5 and S6), wherein the third optically powered surface is curved having a third constant radius of curvature (table on pages 6-7, R5 = 57.54), and the fourth optically powered surface is curved having a fourth constant radius of curvature (table on pages 6-7. R6 = -586.1);
a third lens having a third optical axis (Fig. 4, 123), the third lens positioned with respect to the first lens and the second lens such that the first optical axis and the third optical axis are collinear (Fig. 4, 11 and 123), and the second lens is between the first lens and the third lens (Fig. 4, 122 is between 11 and 123), the third lens further having a fifth optically powered surface (Fig. 4, S7) and a sixth optically powered surface (Fig. 4, S8), the fifth optically powered surface facing the fourth optically powered surface (Fig. 4, S7 and S6) and opposite the sixth optically powered surface along the third optical axis (Fig. 4, S7 and S8), wherein the fifth optically powered surface is curved having a fifth constant radius of curvature (table on pages 6-7, R7 = -80.5),
and a fourth lens having a fourth optical axis (Fig. 4, 124), the fourth lens positioned with respect to the first lens and the third lens such that the first optical axis and the fourth optical axis are collinear (Fig. 4, 11 and 124), and the third lens is between the first lens and the fourth lens (Fig. 4, 123 is between 11 and 124), the fourth lens further having a seventh optically powered surface (Fig. 4, S9) and an eighth optically powered surface (Fig. 4, S10), the seventh optically powered surface facing the sixth optically powered surface (Fig. 4, S9 and S8) and opposite the eighth optically powered surface along the fourth optical axis (Fig. 4, S9 and S10), wherein the seventh optically powered surface is curved having a seventh constant radius of curvature (table on pages 6-7, R9 = 24.86), and the eighth optically powered surface is curved having an eighth constant radius of curvature (table on pages 6-7, R10 = 57.2),
wherein a first distance measured from the first lens to the second lens along the first optical axis (table on pages 6-7, first distance = 103 mm) is greater than a second distance measured from the second lens to the fourth lens along the first optical axis (table on pages 6-7, second distance = 5.5 mm).
Bao does not explicitly disclose a housing having a first end through which the first optical axis enters the laser focuser, the housing further having a second end through which the fourth optical axis exits the laser focuser, and the housing at least partially enclosing the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, and the fourth lens between the first end and the second end, and wherein the first optically powered surface is closer to the first end of the housing than all other optically powered surfaces of the laser focuser, and the eighth optically powered surface is closer to the second end of the housing than all other optically powered surfaces of the laser focuser.
However, Chen teaches a similar laser focuser, and discloses a housing (Fig. 4, housing which comprises 7, 8, and 9) having a first end through which a first optical axis enters the laser focuser (Fig. 4), the housing further having a second end through which a fourth optical axis exits the laser focuser (Fig. 4), and the housing at least partially enclosing a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, and a fourth lens between the first end and the second end (Fig. 4), and wherein the first optically powered surface is closer to the first end of the housing than all other optically powered surfaces of the laser focuser (Fig. 4), and the eighth optically powered surface is closer to the second end of the housing than all other optically powered surfaces of the laser focuser (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Bao and Chen such that the laser focuser was to comprise a housing, motivated by protecting the device.
Modified Bao fails to disclose a sixth optically powered surface that is curved having a sixth constant radius of curvature.
However, Xiao teaches a zoom lens system similar to that of Bao, wherein a third lens (Fig. 1, lens 7) has a sixth optically powered surface that is curved having a constant radius of curvature (table on page 12, surface I has a curvature of 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Bao and Xiao such that a third lens was to have a sixth optically powered surface that was curved having a constant radius of curvature, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 54, modified Bao discloses wherein the second distance is adjustable (Xiao - Figs 1-2 demonstrate that a fourth lens 6 may be moved when the system changes from a distant state to a close state, thereby adjusting a second distance between a second lens 8 and the fourth lens 6).
Regarding claim 55, modified Bao discloses wherein at least one of the second lens, the third lens, and the fourth lens is movable relative to the others of the second lens, the third lens, and the fourth lens (Xiao - Figs 1-2 demonstrate that at least a fourth lens 6 may be moved when the system changes from a distant state to a close state, thereby moving the fourth lens 6 relative to the others of the second lens 8 and third lens 7).
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights