DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, applicant argues that the double patenting rejections with respect to U.S. Patent No. 10,945,025 and co-pending application 17/170,891 “does not appear to provide further analysis supporting these allegations”; remarks page 7.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The last office action clearly provides an analysis of the equivalence of claimed features between the instant application and the allowed claim elements in U.S. Patent No. 10,945,025 and current co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 17/668,685. It is noted that the applicant fails to present clear and concise arguments directed to specific features of the claims that would differentiate the current application from the claims in U.S. Patent No. 10,945,025 and co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 17/668,685. The applicant merely presents a blanket argument disagreeing with the rejection. As such, the double patenting rejection of the last office action stands.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, applicant argues that Lazzaro in view of Doe does not disclose “wherein the first content is associated with a first content type” and “based on unique exposures to the advertising content being below a unique exposure threshold, causing output of the advertising content during output of second content associated with the target demographic, wherein the second content is associated with a second content type different from the first content type”; remarks pages 7-10.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. 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).
In this case, Lazzaro teaches most of the claimed elements of the claimed invention, such as delivering advertisement with content offering 502, e.g. program A; paragraphs [0037] [0083] figure 5. Lazzaro further discloses that selection of a targeted ad can be based upon demographic studies with reference to Program A, wherein an advertiser may request for advertising placement during Program A, e.g. the history of trout fishing, based on said program demographic study; paragraphs [0040] [0062] [0079]. The examiner notes that the teachings of Lazzaro clearly reach on “wherein the first content (e.g. Program A) is associated with a first content type (e.g. the history of trout fishing)”.
Moreover, Lazzaro discloses determining usage rate of the advertisement 504, e.g. the number of advertisement presentations, during the first content offering, e.g. the history of trout fishing, e.g. threshold criteria is not met 505; paragraphs [0085] [0086] figure 5. If the threshold criteria is not met 505 for the number of advertisement presentations, selecting the previously used advertisement to be shown in a future content offerings 508. Wherein a future content offering, such as How fishing tackle is made, e.g. second content, is determined that may be better suited for a particular advertisement offering that has not met their usage rate goals; paragraphs [0044] [0046]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the future content offering, e.g. How fishing tackle is made, and The history of trout fishing programs are different content types by definition (History vs. How to), that still appeal to the same target demographic, e.g. fishing enthusiasts.
Therefore, Lazzaro clearly meets the claimed “based on unique exposures to the advertising content being below a unique exposure threshold, causing output of the advertising content during output of second content associated with the target demographic, wherein the second content is associated with a second content type different from the first content type”, as described on the current office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,945,025 in view of Gurumoorthy (Pub No US 2014/0278914). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 8 and 15 are a broader version of the allowed scope of claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,945,025; except for information indicating that one or more devices output the advertising content via a plurality of platforms, and a quantity of the one or more device that output the supplemental content via a platform of the plurality of platforms being below a target quantity.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Gurumoorthy discloses information indicating that one or more devices output the advertising content via a plurality of platforms, and a quantity of the one or more device that output the supplemental content via a platform of the plurality of platforms being below a target quantity (Paragraphs [0041] [0081] figure 3; target advertisements across multiple platforms, e.g. television, mobile device, etc., based on a constraint for limiting advertisement reach presentations per platform, i.e. threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,945,025 by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Gurumoorthy, for the predictable result of targeting advertisement to different platforms that are accessed by different numbers and demographics of individual (Gurumoorthy - Paragraph [0002]).
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,374. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 8 and 15 are a broader version of the allowed scope of claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,374; except for information indicating that one or more devices output the advertising content via a plurality of platforms, and a quantity of the one or more device that output the supplemental content via a platform of the plurality of platforms being below a target quantity.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Gurumoorthy discloses information indicating that one or more devices output the advertising content via a plurality of platforms, and a quantity of the one or more device that output the supplemental content via a platform of the plurality of platforms being below a target quantity (Paragraphs [0041] [0081] figure 3; target advertisements across multiple platforms, e.g. television, mobile device, etc., based on a constraint for limiting advertisement reach presentations per platform, i.e. threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,945,025 by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Gurumoorthy, for the predictable result of targeting advertisement to different platforms that are accessed by different numbers and demographics of individual (Gurumoorthy - Paragraph [0002]).
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 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, 18 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazzaro (Pub No US 2012/0278161) in view of Doe (Pub No US 2021/0084370 – claiming priority to 62/899,203 filed on Sept 12, 2019) Hereinafter, referenced as Lazzaro and Doe, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Lazzaro discloses a method comprising:
causing output of advertising content (e.g. advertisement 501), associated with a target demographic (Paragraph [0033]; advertisements 114 can be targeted to set demographics), during output of first content (Paragraphs [0037] [0083] figure 5; deliver advertisement with content offering 502, e.g. program A) associated with the target demographic (Paragraphs [0040] [0062]; selection of a targeted ad can be based upon demographic studies with reference to Program A, wherein an advertiser may request for advertising placement during Program A based on said program demographic study), wherein the first content is associated with a first content type (Paragraph [0079]; e.g. the history of trout fishing);
and based on exposures to the advertising content being below a exposure threshold (Paragraphs [0085] [0086] figure 5; determine usage rate of the advertisement 504, e.g. the number of advertisement presentations, during the first content offering, e.g. threshold criteria is not met 505), causing output of the advertising content during output of second content (e.g. how fishing tackle is made) associated with the target demographic (Paragraphs [0086] [0090] figure 5; if the threshold criteria is not met 505 for the number of advertisement presentations, selecting the previously used advertisement to be shown in a future content offerings 508. Wherein a future content offering, e.g. second content, is determined that may be better suited for a particular advertisement offering that has not met their usage rate goals; paragraphs [0044] [0046]), wherein the second content is associated with a second content type different from the first content type (Paragraph [0079]; e.g. how fishing tackle is made. Wherein the history of trout fishing and how fishing tackle is made are different types of content).
However, it is noted that Lazzaro is silent to explicitly disclose that the exposures are unique exposures.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Doe discloses that the exposures are unique exposures (Provisional paragraph [0021] – collecting using unique impressions to advertisements to estimate overall exposure. Wherein these estimates may be used in the planning of advertising campaigns).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lazzaro by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Doe, for the predictable result of utilizing unique exposures to estimate unique advertisement impressions that allows the advertiser to plan advertising campaigns (Doe – paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 4, Lazzaro and Doe disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Lazzaro discloses monitoring, during output of the first content, one or more devices to determine which of the one or more devices are outputting the advertising content (Paragraphs [0085] [0086] figure 5; determine usage rate of the advertisement 504, e.g. the number of advertisement presentations, during the first content offering).
Regarding claims 8 and 11, Lazzaro and Doe disclose all the limitations of claims 8 and 11; therefore, claims 8 and 11 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 1 and 4, respectively.
Regarding claims 15 and 18, Lazzaro and Doe disclose all the limitations of claims 15 and 18; therefore, claims 15 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 1 and 4, respectively.
Regarding claim 34, Lazzaro and Doe disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Lazzaro discloses that the exposures to the advertising content comprises at least one of a quantity of exposures to the advertising content or a rate of exposures to the advertising content (Paragraphs [0086] [0090] figure 5; if the threshold criteria is not met 505 for the number of advertisement presentations, selecting the previously used advertisement to be shown in a future content offerings 508. Wherein a future content offering, e.g. second content, is determined that may be better suited for a particular advertisement offering that has not met their usage rate goals; paragraphs [0044] [0046]).
However, it is noted that Lazzaro is silent to explicitly disclose that the exposures are unique exposures.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Doe discloses that the exposures are unique exposures (Provisional paragraph [0021] – collecting using unique impressions to advertisements to estimate overall exposure. Wherein these estimates may be used in the planning of advertising campaigns).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lazzaro by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Doe, for the predictable result of utilizing unique exposures to estimate unique advertisement impressions that allows the advertiser to plan advertising campaigns (Doe – paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 35, Lazzaro and Doe disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Lazzaro discloses that the second content type being different from the first content type comprises the second content type being a different genre than the first content type (Paragraphs [0078] [0079]; How Fishing Tackle is Made, and The History of Trout Fishing programs are different content types by definition, e.g. History vs. How to, that still appeal to the same target demographic, e.g. fishing enthusiasts).
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazzaro and Doe further in view of Ergen et al. (Pub No US 2009/0172724). Hereinafter, referenced as Ergen.
Regarding claim 3, Lazzaro and Doe disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Lazzaro discloses the output of the first content and the output of the second content (Paragraphs [0053] [0089] [0111]; selecting additional future content offerings to present the advertisement that has not met the set usage rate based upon time).
However, it is noted that Lazzaro and Doe are silent to explicitly disclose that output of the first content and second content are during a same day.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Ergen discloses that output of the first content and second content are during a same day (Paragraph [0033]; a single advertisement 316 may be looped and presented during presentation of different broadcast programs throughout the day).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lazzaro and Doe by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Ergen, for the predictable result of providing a robust advertising scheme that allows advertisers to try and engaged viewers with a targeted advertisement campaign for a period of time, e.g. day.
Regarding claim 10, Lazzaro, Doe and Ergen disclose all the limitations of claim 10; therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, Lazzaro, Doe and Ergen disclose all the limitations of claim 17; therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 3.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazzaro and Doe further in view of Huntington (Pub No US 2007/0219859). Hereinafter, referenced as Huntington.
Regarding claim 6, Lazzaro and Doe disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Lazzaro discloses receiving information indicating that the exposures to the advertising content do not reach the exposure threshold during a time period associated with a first output of the advertisement content (Paragraphs [0085] [0086] figure 5; determine usage rate of the advertisement 504, e.g. the number of advertisement presentations, during the first content offering).
However, it is noted that Lazzaro is silent to explicitly disclose that the exposures are unique exposures.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Doe discloses that the exposures are unique exposures (Provisional paragraph [0021] – collecting using unique impressions to advertisements to estimate overall exposure. Wherein these estimates may be used in the planning of advertising campaigns).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lazzaro by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Doe, for the predictable result of utilizing unique exposures to estimate unique advertisement impressions that allows the advertiser to plan advertising campaigns (Doe – paragraph [0021]).
However, it is noted that Lazzaro and Doe are silent to explicitly disclose receiving information indicating that the advertisement content are not likely to reach the exposure threshold.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Huntington discloses receiving information (Paragraph [0049] figure 1; receiver 106 notifies the server about the client interaction with the advertisement) indicating that that the advertisement content are not likely to reach the exposure threshold (Paragraphs [0030] [0055] [0072] figure 2; the system notices and informs the server that the viewer changes the channel every time a certain advertisement appears, in other words, a set number of optimum showings will probably not be reached).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lazzaro and Doe by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Huntington, for the predictable result of monitoring the number of times an advertisement has been viewed by specific viewers (Huntington – paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 7, Lazzaro, Doe and Huntington disclose the method of claim 6; moreover, Doe discloses that the exposures are unique exposures (Provisional paragraph [0021] – collecting using unique impressions to advertisements to estimate overall exposure. Wherein these estimates may be used in the planning of advertising campaigns).
However, it is noted that Lazzaro and Doe are silent to explicitly disclose that the exposures to the advertising content are not likely to reach the exposure threshold during the time period based on at least one of: one or more devices are not likely to output the first content during the time period, or the one or more devices have already output the advertising content for a first time during the time period.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Huntington discloses that the exposures to the advertising content are not likely to reach the exposure threshold during the time period based on at least one of: one or more devices are not likely to output the first content during the time period, or the one or more devices have already output the advertising content for a first time during the time period (Paragraphs [0030] [0055] [0072] figure 2; the system notices and informs the server that the viewer changes the channel every time a certain advertisement appears, in other words, a set number of optimum showings will probably not be reached).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lazzaro, Bayer and Gurumoorthy by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Huntington, for the predictable result of monitoring the number of times an advertisement has been viewed by specific viewers (Huntington – paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Lazzaro, Doe and Huntington disclose all the limitations of claims 13 and 14; therefore, claims 13 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 6 and 7, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, Lazzaro, Doe and Huntington disclose all the limitations of claim 20; therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 6 and 7.
Claims 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazzaro and Doe further in view of Gurumoorthy et al. (Pub No US 2014/0278914).Hereinafter, referenced as Gurumoorthy.
Regarding claim 21, Lazzaro and Doe disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Lazzaro discloses receiving information indicating that one or more devices output the advertising content (Paragraphs [0085] [0086] figure 5; determine usage rate of the advertisement 504, e.g. the number of advertisement presentations, during the first content offering).
However, it is noted that Lazzaro and Doe are silent to explicitly disclose receiving information indicating that one or more devices output the advertising content via a plurality of platforms.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Gurumoorthy discloses that the information (Figure 3), indicating that the one or more devices output the advertising content, indicates the plurality of platforms via which the advertising content was output (Paragraphs [0041] [0081] figure 3; target advertisements across multiple platforms, e.g. television, mobile device, etc., based on a constraint for limiting advertisement reach presentations per platform, i.e. threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lazzaro and Doe by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Gurumoorthy, for the predictable result of targeting advertisement to different platforms that are accessed by different numbers and demographics of individual (Gurumoorthy - Paragraph [0002)).
Regarding claim 24, Lazzaro, Doe and Gurumoorthy disclose the method of claim 21; moreover, Lazzaro discloses that the plurality of platforms comprise at least two of: a set-top-box, a mobile phone, a tablet, a personal computer, a viewing platform, a platform for output to a set-top-box, a platform for output to a mobile phone, a platform for output to a tablet, a platform for output to a personal computer (Paragraph [0057]; set to box, personal computer, etc.).
Gurumoorthy also discloses that the plurality of platforms comprise at least two of: a set-top-box, a mobile phone, a tablet, a personal computer, a viewing platform, a platform for output to a set-top-box, a platform for output to a mobile phone, a platform for output to a tablet, a platform for output to a personal computer (Figure 3; platforms such as television, mobile device, etc.).
Regarding claims 25 and 28, Lazzaro, Doe and Gurumoorthy disclose all the limitations of claims 25 and 28; therefore, claims 25 and 28 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 21 and 24, respectively.
Regarding claims 29 and 32, Lazzaro, Doe and Gurumoorthy disclose all the limitations of claims 29 and 32; therefore, claims 29 and 32 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 21 and 24, respectively.
Regarding claim 33, Lazzaro and Doe disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Lazzaro discloses receiving information indicating one or more devices output the advertisement content (Paragraphs [0085] [0086] figure 5; determining usage rate of the advertisement 504, e.g. the number of advertisement presentations, during the first content offering 502).
However, it is noted that Lazzaro and Doe are silent to explicitly disclose receiving information indicating that a first subset of one or more devices output the advertising content via a first platform among a plurality of platforms and that a second subset of the one or more devices output the advertising content via a second platform among the plurality of platforms.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Gurumoorthy discloses receiving information indicating that a first subset of one or more devices output the advertising content via a first platform (Figure 3; e.g. Television platform) among a plurality of platforms and that a second subset of the one or more devices output the advertising content via a second platform (Figure 3; Mobile platform) among the plurality of platforms (Paragraphs [0041] [0081] figure 3; target advertisements across multiple platforms, e.g. television, mobile device, etc., based on a constraint for limiting advertisement reach presentations per platform, i.e. threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lazzaro and Doe by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Gurumoorthy, for the predictable result of targeting advertisement to different platforms that are accessed by different numbers and demographics of individual (Gurumoorthy - Paragraph [0002)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm EST..
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
JUNIOR O. MENDOZA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights