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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action of the instant application 17/511,848 (hereinafter the ‘848 Application) responsive to the claim amendment and arguments/remarks dated 3/13/2025. The ‘848 Application is a reissue of US Application No. 15/680,492 (hereinafter the ‘492 Application), filed August 18, 2017, which has been granted as US Patent Number 10,466,880 (hereinafter the ‘880 Patent) granted November 5, 2019.
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Because the instant reissue application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act ("AIA ") will govern this reissue proceeding and all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. 37 CFR 1.171 through 1.178 are rules directed to reissue.
The broadening reissue application 17/511,880 is timely filed (10/27/2021) based on filing within two years of the issue date of US 10,466,880 B2 (11/5/2019).
Reissue Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 10,466,880 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
Prosecution History
During initial examination, the claims had been rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being obvious over Noda et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0317510) in view of Kang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0159386) and additionally on the ground of non-statutory double patenting over claim 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,836,199. On 5/16/2019, Patent Owner filed a Terminal Disclaimer to alleviate the double patenting rejection. By way of the 5/16/2019 amendment, Patent Owner further added the below limitations (or the like) to the independent claims. Based on the amended claims and an Examiner’s Amendment (referenced below), the Patent Owner received a notice of allowance on the amended claims on 7/10/2019
Added limitations:
wherein the motion detector unit is configured to detect a pinching motion in which the user pinches the target object which is the object, based on the 3D coordinates of the fingers of the user measured by the sensor unit, and
the motion detecting unit is configured to generate a finer motion model by determining portions of a part of the user which are narrower than a predetermined threshold to be the fingers, and detect the pinching motion based on the finger motion model
Examiner Amended Added limitations:
wherein the user interface device detects a pinching motion in which the user pinches the target objects which is the object, based on the 3D coordinates of the fingers of the user measured, and
generates a finger motion model by determining portions of a part of the user which are narrower than a predetermined threshold to be the fingers, and detects the pinching motion based on the finger motion model
From the Notice of Allowance:
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 1-4 are allowed over prior art made of record.
Regarding Claim 1, the references of the Prior Art of record, either singularly or in a combination, and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding: “wherein the detecting of the motion of the fingers includes detecting a pinching motion in which the user pinches the target object which is the object, based on the 3D coordinates of the fingers of the user measured by the sensor, generating a finger motion model by determining portions of a part of the user which are narrower than a predetermined threshold to be the fingers, and detecting the pinching motion based on the finger motion model” as recited in claim 1, in combination with the remaining sequences and process steps of Claim 1.
Prior Noda (US PG Pub 2012/0317510) discloses selecting a desired stereoscopic object displayed on a display unit which three-dimensionally displays an image. Determine a position of a pinch operation performed by a user, Selecting the desired stereoscopic object displayed on the three-dimensionally display corresponding to a pinch gesture performed by the user(Para[0006]).
Prior art Kang (US PG Pub 2012/0159386) discloses displaying, on a display of the mobile terminal, an application screen corresponding to an execution of an application on the mobile terminal; reducing, a size of the application screen in response to a pinch in gesture performed on the mobile terminal. If the application screen is reduced below a predetermined size, a widget corresponding to the application instead of the application screen on the display when the application screen is reduced below the predetermined size; and expanding the application screen back to its original size corresponding to the pinch out gesture(Para[0010] fig 3A-B).
However, Prior art Noda or Kang does not disclose based on the 3D coordinates of the fingers of the user measured by the sensor, generating a finger motion model by determining portions of a part of the user which are narrower than a predetermined threshold to be the fingers, and detecting the pinching motion based on the finger motion model.
Claims 2-4 contain substantially similar limitations as claim 1, and therefore, claim 2-4 are also allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the provided support for the amendment does not adequately support the added limitation of:
" determine a length of a portion in which a line connecting the fingertips and the target object overlaps, as a thickness of the target object, when a portion of the target object is present between the fingertips, and the user interface device is configured to compare a distance between the fingertips to the thickness of the target object and determine that the pinching motion has been performed when the distance between the fingertips is less than or equal to the thickness of the target object "
The figures and citation from the specification the Examiner is directed toward on page 8 of the response do not support the detailed object selection outlined in the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is as follows:
" determine a length of a portion in which a line connecting the fingertips and the target object overlaps, as a thickness of the target object, when a portion of the target object is present between the fingertips, and the user interface device is configured to compare a distance between the fingertips to the thickness of the target object and determine that the pinching motion has been performed when the distance between the fingertips is less than or equal to the thickness of the target object "
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 13, 15, 16, 18, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al., U.S. Publication No. 2012/0317510, hereinafter Noda in further view of Fan et al., U.S. Publication No. 2011/0115892, hereinafter Fan, Pinault et al., U.S. Publication No. 2015/0153833, hereinafter Pinault, and Tardif, U.S. Publication No. 2011/0301934.
With regard to claims 13, 16, 22, and 23, which teaches a “user interface device”, “method”, configured to store a program; and a user interface processor configured to execute the program and cause the user interface device to: display an object in a display space”, Noda teaches, in paragraphs 34-35 and 94-95 and fig 10, a user interface produced by the execution of a stored program, where the UI displays an object in the display space.
With regard to claims 13, 16, 22, and 23, which teaches “the object being either a two-dimensional (2D) object or a three-dimensional (3D) object;” Noda further teaches, in paragraphs 69 and 74-75 and in fig 10, both 2D and 3D objects displayed.
With regard to claims 13, 16, 22, and 23 which teaches “measure 3D coordinates of fingers of a user in the display space;” Noda teaches, in paragraph 73 and Fig 10 detecting unit 19 detects the pinch operation and calculates the pinch position on the 3D image.
With regard to claims 13, 16, 22, and 23, which teaches “detect motion of the fingers of the user relative to the object, based on the 3D coordinates of the fingers of the user measured;” Noda teaches, in paragraphs 49 and 74 and in Fig 10, sensors that detect user input, where a displayed image adjusts based on the pinch position 25 (coordinate of the finger) is shifted forward and backward in the z direction.
With regard to claims 13, 16, 22, and 23, which teaches “change display content displayed, according to a detection result obtained, wherein the user interface device detects a pinching motion in which the user pinches the target object which is the object, based on the 3D coordinates of the fingers of the user measured” Noda teaches, in paragraphs 74-77 and in Figs 10 and 11, display control unit 112 controls a binocular image that is displayed in the display unit 13 such that a perceived position of the photograph image 32 by the user is shifted according to the movement of the pinch position 25 or that the size of the image P is changed according to the movement of the pinch position 25.
With regard to claims 13, 16, 22, and 23, further teaching “generate finger motion models with each finger motion model representing a finger of a hand of the user by determining portions of a part of the user which are narrower than a predetermined threshold to be the fingers, and detects the pinching motion based on the finger motion model”; Noda teaches, the recognizing of a pinching motion of user fingers (supra), but doesn’t specifically teach identifying the portions of a part of a user which are narrower than a predetermined threshold to be fingers making a motion. Fan teaches a system for identifying a user’s finger location and further identifying commands that correspond to an identified user input such as touch, move, hold, point, press, or click (see paragraph 5), similar to that of Noda, but further teaches identifying a distance between identified (finger) edges and determining whether that distance is narrower than a predefined threshold distance of a finger of a human hand, (see paragraphs 19 and 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the Noda invention with the finger identification teaching of Fan because doing so would result in a more dependable system for identifying an intended finger input based upon models of how far edges of identified contours are to be apart to be identified as a finger.
With regard to claims 13, 16, 22, and 23, further teaching “wherein when any finger motion model has a shape which matches a shape of any predetermined pinching motion model, the motion detection unit is configured to determine that the pinching motion has been performed”, and “the finger motion models and the predetermined pinching motion models are each represented by a plurality of lines representing fingers on the hand of the user and pattern matching is performed by comparing the lines of finger motion models and the lines of the predetermined pinching motion models to determine if the pinching motion has been performed”, Fan and Noda teach the above referenced system for 3D environment control via identified fingers motion being recognized and the corresponding action being carried out. Pinault teaches a similar system for identifying a user’s fingers in a 3D space (see paragraphs 57, 67, and 76) and enabling the user finger motion to cause a change in a display object (see paragraphs 58, 65, and 119-120), similar to that of Fan and Noda, but further teaches (see paragraphs 16, 47-50, and 59 and in figures 4, 6, and 7), identifying the motion of the fingers as matching one of several models/gestures (pinching, grabbing, activating, pointing, etc.) and to carry out the modification. Pinault further specifically recognizes the use of ‘shape matching technique(s)’ in identifying hand postures from a plurality of known postures and use of this technique for looking at hand postures over time to recognized known gesture models such as “pinch”, “grab”, “click”, “snap”, etc. (see paragraph 96). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the 3D input system of Noda and Fan to utilize the gesture recognizing multi-finger object based control of Pinault as it provides an intuitive means of modifying an object in the virtual 3D space.
With regard to the claimed ordered determination process first “determining whether a portion of the target object is between finger tips, comparing a distance between the fingertips to a thickness of the target object, when it is determined that the portion of the target object is present between the fingertips, (and then) determining that the pinching motion has been performed, when the distance between the fingertips is less than or equal to the thickness of the target object”, Pinault further teaches recognition of gestures (“pinching” / “grabbing”) where there is a comparison between the “distance or relative distance in-between two POI” as the user closes their hand, where the POIs in this case are considered to be fingertips (see paragraphs 42, 47, and 48). Pinault further evaluates the closing of the hand in relation to the width of an object identified located between the two POI (fingertips) (see paragraphs 49, 100, 114-115, 119, 124, and 133). Specially noting a comparison between the “distance between the pointers” (POI / fingertips) and the “size of the object”. Furthermore, Pinault explicitly describes “(t)he “grabbing” of the virtual object will occur when the two POI each enter into contact with borders of the virtual object” (see paragraph 115), where this “ “grabbing” an object (occurs) by converging at least two hand tips toward the surface of an object” (see paragraph 124). Given the cited portions of Pinault, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the target object would have to be between the finger tips for the comparison of fingers to occur as they converge on the surface of the object. These outlined steps of Pinault are shown to cover the argued stepwise pinching / grabbing motions claimed, where is no interpretation as a grabbing should there be no object recognized as existing between the POIs.
Noda, Fan, and Pinault teach a system for capturing a user’s hand position, orientation, and motion, creating a model of the hand, and matching said model to established gestures (supra), with Fan specifically teach identifying a finger by comparing “finger edge lines” on two sides of a potential finger (see paragraph 24), but don’t specifically teach representing the hand by a plurality of lines. Tardif teaches a system for capturing the orientation and gestures of a user’s hands and fingers and determining which of a stored list of recognizable signs a user is intending to input, similar to that of Noda, Fan, and Pinault, but further teaches representing the user’s captured hand as a series of lines representing individual fingers, and further comparing that hand to a library off signs each of which represents a sign with the fingers of a hand represented as lines (see paragraphs 3, 41, 54, 103, 109-11, and 119). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the 3D input system of Noda, Fan, and Pinault to utilize the line based representation of hands and comparison against line based models as in Tardif, in the systems of Noda, Fan, and Pinault as it provides an art recognized alternate means of identifying the hand segments and pose.
With regard to claims 15 and 18, which teaches “wherein, when a moving motion in which the user moves the object while pinching the object is detected in the detecting, the object is moved in the changing”, Noda teaches, in paragraphs 73-74 and in figure 10, detecting a pinch operation and a subsequent move operation and then moving the object being pinched.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al., U.S. Publication No. 2012/0317510, hereinafter Noda in further view Fan et al., U.S. Publication No. 2011/0115892, hereinafter Fan, Pinault et al., U.S. Publication No. 2015/0153833, hereinafter Pinault, and Tardif, U.S. Publication No. 2011/0301934, as presented above, in further view of Wilf et al., Publication No. 2011/0102570, hereinafter Wilf.
With regard to claims 14 and 17, which teaches “wherein when an enlarging motion is detected in which the user enlarges the object while pinching two points of the object, the user interface device enlarges the object, and when a reducing motion in which the user reduces the object while pinching two points of the object is detected, the user interface device reduces the object”, Noda, Fan, Pinault, and Tardif teach selection and modification of an object in a 3D environment via a pinching operation, but don’t specifically teach enlarging or contracting via two different identified points being pulled apart or pushed together. Wilf teaches a system where the three dimensional positions of a user’s fingers are determined via a camera or cameras capturing a user’s hand(s) in space, and providing input to the system to control an object accordingly (see paragraphs 113 and 124), similar to that of Noda, Fan, Pinault, and Tardif. Wilf further teaches, resizing an object on a display with a zoom-in based upon a finger input being moved toward another finger input and causing a zoom-out bases upon a finger input being moved away from another finger input (see paragraphs 179 and 180 and figure 13A). Wilf further incorporated by reference U.S. Publication 2008/0036732 (at paragraph 146), which teaches two handed pinching and resizing of displayed objects (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Noda, Fan, Pinault, and Tardif with the multiple point based relative motion affecting size of an object teaching of Wilf; doing so would result in a motion based interface enabling movement of pinched areas to control the expansion and contraction of a displayed object.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al., U.S. Publication No. 2012/0317510, hereinafter Noda in further view Fan et al., U.S. Publication No. 2011/0115892, hereinafter Fan, Pinault et al., U.S. Publication No. 2015/0153833, hereinafter Pinault, and Tardif, U.S. Publication No. 2011/0301934, as presented above, in further view of Hwang et al., Publication No. 2015/0177866, hereinafter Hwang.
With regard to claims 20 and 21, which teach “wherein when a plurality of target objects are present between the fingertips, it is determined that the pinching motion has been performed on the plurality of objects”, though the above combination describes the “grabbing” of “objects” (see Pinault paragraphs 65, 103, etc.), Hwang better shows the knowledge in the art at the time of a hand based, multiple object grabbing / manipulation system (see Hwang paragraph 41). Hwang teaches a similar system for hand base manipulation of objects on a display (see paragraphs 54-56 and figures 8-10) to that of Noda, Fan, Pinault, and Tardif, but further teaches “rather than simply pinching a single item represented in a flat space on a display, a multiple hover point gather may grab multiple objects represented in a three dimensional display”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Noda, Fan, Pinault, and Tardif with the multiple element selection of Hwang; doing so would result in a system capable of grabbing multiple items simultaneously and manipulating them as a group.
Response to Arguments
Patent Owner’s arguments filed 3/13/2025 have been fully considered but are in part moot because the new ground of rejection. Relevant arguments are answered below.
It appears that the Applicant’s arguments / PO’s are directed against the references individually, where one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination 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).
Patent Owner argues that:
“Independent claims 13 and 16 are believed to be distinguished from the cited prior art at least with regard to similarly reciting the claimed features directed to first determining whether a portion of the target object is present between fingertips, and comparing a distance between the fingertips to a thickness of the target object, when it is determined that the portion of the target object is present between the fingertips, and then determining that the pinching motion has been performed, when the distance between the fingertips is less than or equal to the thickness of the target object.”
and that…
“With regard to new independent claims 22 and 23, the claims similarly recite inter alia the following features: " determine a length of a portion in which a line connecting the fingertips and the target object overlaps, as a thickness of the target object, when a portion of the target object is present between the fingertips, and the user interface device is configured to compare a distance between the fingertips to the thickness of the target object and determine that the pinching motion has been performed when the distance between the fingertips is less than or equal to the thickness of the target object "
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that Pinault explicitly describes recognition of gestures (“pinching” / “grabbing”) where there is a comparison between the “distance or relative distance in-between two POI” as the user closes their hand, where the POIs in this case are considered to be fingertips (see paragraphs 42, 47, and 48). Pinault further evaluates the closing of the hand in relation to the width of an object identified located between the two POI (fingertips) (see paragraphs 49, 100, 114-115, 119, 124, and 133). Specially noting a comparison between the “distance between the pointers” (POI / fingertips) and the “size of the object”. Furthermore, Pinault explicitly describes “(t)he “grabbing” of the virtual object will occur when the two POI each enter into contact with borders of the virtual object” (see paragraph 115), where this ““grabbing” an object (occurs) by converging at least two hand tips toward the surface of an object” (see paragraph 124). Given the cited portions of Pinault, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the target object would have to be between the finger tips for the comparison of fingers to occur as they converge on the surface of the object. These limitations are shown to cover the argued multi-step identification of a pinching / grabbing motion. There is no interpretation as a “pinching” / “grabbing” should there be no object recognized as existing between the POIs.
Furthermore:
Pinault in paragraph [0089] discloses Pointers may (then) be determined as being one of: the hand tips: the palm center; and the POI.
Pinault in paragraphs [0114] and [0115] discloses determining two POI from among the hand tips, and determining two pointers accordingly, so as to obtain a visual feedback of these two pointers which may correspond to, for example, the hand tip and the tip of the thumb. As described in Pinault, “grabbing” of the virtual object will occur when the two POI each enter into contact with borders of a virtual object representation with respect to certain limits encompassing some predetermined threshold,
Pinault in paragraph [0119] discloses that a GUI may provide a feedback when the pointers are closer than the size of the virtual object, for example, the object can be squeezed according to the distance between the pointers.
Pinault in paragraph [0120] discloses provide visual feedback information such as a change in the rendering of the pointers or of the objects according to the interaction performed. For example, the visual feedback of a virtual object squeeze may be generated when the object is “pinched” by two pointers.
Pinault in paragraph [0124] discloses that “grabbing” an object occurs by converging at least two hand tips toward the surface of an object. In this case, the hand tips comprise the tip of the thumb and the up of the “index” finger, but could also be the tip of the thumb and the tip of the middle, ring or little finger.
Pinault in paragraph [0133] discloses that “FIG. 13 illustrates some interactions involving the representation of a virtual object (indicated at 1306) and two pointers (indicated by 1305) associated to some determined points of interest of the hand. As indicated at 1301, the pointers are not touching the virtual object. At 1302, the two pointers are touching the virtual object, the virtual object providing a visual feedback under the form of a squeezed shape the degree of squeezing being related to the distance in between the considered pointers. In that case, the object may be considered as being grabbed and then can be manipulated according to the further respective position of the pointers. At 1303, the squeezed virtual object is considered as being grasped by the two pointers, and, may then be manipulated according to the respective positions of the pointers as long as the distance between these pointers remains equal to or less than the original size of the object. Manipulation may be, for example, at least one of: a rotation such as show at 1303 when compared to 1302; a translation; a transformation such as a scaling or another transformation contextually allowed by the virtual object.”
AMONGST OTHER COVERAGE IN OTHER NON-ARGUED REFERENCES.
Summary:
Claims 13-18 and 20-23 are REJECTED.
Claims 1-12 and 19 have been CANCELED.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS G BONSHOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-4047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:15 - 4:45.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached on 571-272-3744. 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.
/DENNIS G BONSHOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/MICHAEL ROSWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights