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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Interpretation
While all of the claims recite “screed rake”, Applicant’s specification and figures are not in accordance with the conventional definition of a rake, having projecting prongs or tines. Applicant’s paragraph [0014] discloses that the bottom surface could be a smooth bottom surface, and Figures 1 and 2 show a completely flat, smooth, solid bottom surface. Therefore, all instances of “screed rake” will be considered simply as “screed”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 12, 36, 39-40, 43, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brotzel, US 7,470,084 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Brotzel teaches a hand-held screed rake comprising:
a screed head (32; Figure 4) having an arced dozer front face (curved portion shown near 40 in Figure 4), a back plate (13; Figure 4) and a bottom plate (unnumbered slanted plate between screws in Figure 4) that is connected to the arced dozer front face and the back plate at an angle; and
an underside shoe (34) removably attachable (column 2 lines 26-30) to the screed head and having a leading surface (curved front plate of shoe; Figure 4) that is angled upwardly towards the bottom plate and a bottom surface (bottom of shoe; Figure 4) that trails away from the leading surface to a back end of the underside shoe, wherein the underside shoe abuts against the arced dozer front face and is conformably secured to the bottom plate when the underside shoe is attached to the screed head (Figure 4); and
wherein a thickness of the underside shoe in a direction orthogonal to the bottom plate decreases from the leading surface to the back end of the underside shoe (see reproduction of Figure 4 provided below with Examiner’s annotations).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the arced dozer front face comprises a concavely arced face extending away from the bottom surface.
Regarding claim 3, the arced dozer face is structurally capable of preventing the screed head from lifting upward as the hand-held screed rake is operated by a user to apply and compact a paving material onto a surface in a non-segregating manner, since Brotzel discloses the screed is for leveling and finishing concrete (Abstract). It is noted that there is no structural limitation claimed to achieve this result.
Regarding claim 4, the arced dozer front face is structurally capable of gathering a paving material (within the curve) and the underside shoe is configured to spread the paving material (the underside shoe bottom surface is smooth and a core function of a screed is to spread the paving material). It is noted that there is no structural limitation claimed to achieve this result.
Regarding claim 5, as shown in Figure 4, the bottom surface of the underside shoe comprises a smooth surface.
Regarding claim 12, Brotzel further discloses that the hand-held screed comprises a handle connected to the back plate (via clamp; Figure 7).
Regarding claim 36, Brotzel teaches a screed rake comprising:
a screed head (32; Figure 4) having a dozer face (curved portion shown near 40 in Figure 4) capable of preventing the screed head from lifting away from a paving surface since the screed is for concrete finishing and leveling, a surface facing plate (unnumbered slanted plate between screws in Figure 4) that faces the paving surface as the screed rake applies the paving material thereto, and a screed back (13; Figure 4) that is connected to the dozer face and the surface facing plate at an angle; and
a shoe (34) removably attachable (column 2 lines 26-30) to the screed head and having a first surface (curved front plate of shoe; Figure 4) that is angled towards the surface facing plate and a second surface (bottom of shoe) that trails away from the first surface to a back of the shoe, wherein the shoe abuts against the dozer face and is conformably secured to the surface facing plate when the shoe is attached to the screed head (Figure 4), and
wherein a thickness of the underside shoe in a direction orthogonal to the bottom plate decreases from a leading surface of the shoe to the back of the shoe (see reproduction of Figure 4 provided below with Examiner’s annotations).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 39, the dozer face comprises a concavely arced face in a direction extending away from the paving surface since the paving surface would be underneath the screed rake in use.
Regarding claim 40, the dozer face is structurally capable of gathering a paving material (within the curve) and the shoe is configured to spread the paving material (the shoe bottom surface is smooth and a core function of a screed is to spread the paving material). It is noted that there is no structural limitation claimed to achieve this result.
Regarding claim 43, Brotzel further discloses that the screed comprises a handle connected to the back plate (via clamp; Figure 7).
Regarding claim 45, as shown in Figure 4, the second (bottom) surface of the shoe comprises a smooth surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-8 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brotzel as applied above, in view of Silva, US 5,609,437.
Regarding claim 6, while Brotzel fails to disclose that the bottom surface of the underside shoe comprises a textured surface, Silva teaches a hand-held screed and discloses that the bottom surface of the underside shoe can comprise a textured surface (column 5 lines 6-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bottom surface of the underside shoe to comprise a textured surface in view of Silva’s disclosure to be able to impart a texture to the concrete when screeding.
Regarding claim 7, Silva further discloses that the screeding surface could include a plurality of teeth, which when applied to the surface of the paving material would cause a V-shaped or block-shaped cross-sectional pattern depending on the shape of the teeth.
Regarding claim 8, while the resulting combination fails to disclose that the respective cross-sectional pattern of the textured surface has at least one of an amplitude or height that decreases in size as the bottom surface trails away from the leading surface to the back end of the underside shoe, this appears to only affect the shape of the grooves in the paving material. It has been held that a mere change in shape is not a patentable distinction. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the respective cross-sectional pattern of the textured surface to have at least one of an amplitude or height that decreases in size as the bottom surface trails away from the leading surface to the back end of the underside shoe based on obvious design choice, especially in light of Silva disclosing that the bottom surface is used to impart any particular texture.
Regarding claim 37, while Brotzel fails to disclose that the second surface of the shoe comprises a textured surface, Silva teaches a hand-held screed and discloses that the bottom surface of the shoe can comprise a textured surface (column 5 lines 6-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second surface of the shoe to comprise a textured surface in view of Silva’s disclosure to be able to impart a texture to the concrete when screeding. While the resulting combination fails to disclose that the respective cross-sectional pattern of the textured surface has at least one of an amplitude or height that decreases in size as the bottom surface trails away from the leading surface to the back end of the underside shoe, this appears to only affect the shape of the grooves in the paving material. It has been held that a mere change in shape is not a patentable distinction. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the respective cross-sectional pattern of the textured surface to have at least one of an amplitude or height that decreases in size as the bottom surface trails away from the leading surface to the back end of the underside shoe based on obvious design choice, especially in light of Silva disclosing that the bottom surface is used to impart any particular texture.
Regarding claim 38, since Silva further discloses that the screeding surface could include a plurality of teeth, which when applied to the surface of the paving material would cause a V-shaped or block-shaped cross-sectional pattern depending on the shape of the teeth, the resulting combination includes the limitation claimed.
Claims 9 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brotzel as applied above, alone.
Regarding claim 9, while Brotzel discloses that the underside shoe can be removably attached to the screed head by screws (column 4 line 29; Figure 4), but fails to disclose bolts, the Examiner takes Official Notice that bolts are old and well-known fasteners. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brotzel to have the underside shoe be removably attached to the screed head by a bolt as an alternative and commonly available fastener.
Regarding claim 41, while Brotzel discloses that the shoe can be removably attached to the screed head by screws (column 4 line 29; Figure 4), but fails to disclose bolts, the Examiner takes Official Notice that bolts are old and well-known fasteners. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brotzel to have the shoe be removably attached to the screed head by a bolt as an alternative and commonly available fastener.
Claims 1, 11, 14-19, 23-24, 36, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al., US 5,857,803 in view of Brotzel, US 7,470,084 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Davis teaches a hand-held screed rake comprising:
a screed head (12) having a front face, a back plate and a bottom plate that is connected to the front face and the back plate at an angle (Figure 1).
While Davis fails to disclose the remaining claims, Brotzel teaches a hand-held screed with an arced dozer front face (curve near reference numeral 40 in Figure 4) and an underside shoe (34; Figure 4) removably attachable to a screed head and the remaining limitations of the claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the front face of Davis’s screed head to be an arced dozer front face and modify Davis’s screed to include an underside shoe removably attachable to the screed head and having a leading surface that is angled upwardly towards the bottom plate and a bottom surface that trails away from the leading surface to a back end of the underside shoe, wherein the underside shoe abuts against the arced dozer front face and is conformably secured to the bottom plate when the underside shoe is attached to the screed head in view of Brotzel’s disclosure that the arced dozer front face draws up excess concrete overburden and curls it up and away from the concrete surface being finished and leveled (last line of column 1 through column 2 line 2) to make it easier to level the concrete surface and the shoe is a wear plate that when it becomes worn beyond useful service it can simply be removed and replaced with a new one (column 2 lines 26-30) to extend the life of the screed.
Regarding claim 11, the resulting combination includes the back plate, the arced dozer front face and the bottom plate being connected to each other to form a triangular cross-sectional shape for the screed head.
Regarding claim 14, Davis teaches a hand-held screed rake head comprising:
a front face (front of screed head 12; Figure 1);
a back plate (back of screed head 12; Figure 1); and
a bottom plate (bottom of screed head 12; Figure 1) that is connected to the arced front face and the back plate at an angle (Figure 1),
wherein the bottom plate extends away from front face at an angle relative to the back plate such that the screed head has a generally triangular cross-sectional shape.
While Davis fails to disclose an arced dozer front face, Brotzel teaches a hand-held screed with a screed head having an arced dozer front face (curve near reference numeral 40 in Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis’s front face to be an arced dozer front face in view of Brotzel’s disclosure that the arced dozer front face draws up excess concrete overburden and curls it up and away from the concrete surface being finished and leveled (last line of column 1 through column 2 line 2) to make it easier to level the concrete surface.
Regarding claim 15, Brotzel further teaches the screed head having a bottom plate structurally configured to receive an underside shoe that is removably attachable thereto with the remaining limitations of the claim (Figure 4; column 2 lines 26-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the screed head of the resulting combination to have the bottom plate be structurally configured to receive an underside shoe that is removably attachable thereto, with the underside shoe having a leading surface (front of 34) is angled upwardly towards the bottom plate and a bottom surface that trails away from the leading surface to a back end of the underside shoe in view of Brotzel’s disclosure that the shoe is a wear plate that when it becomes worn beyond useful service it can simply be removed and replaced with a new one (column 2 lines 26-30) to extend the life of the screed.
Regarding claim 16, as suggested by Brotzel’s Figure 4, the resulting combination makes obvious that the underside shoe is configured to abut against the arced dozer front face and is conformably secured to the bottom plate when the underside shoe is attached to the screed head.
Regarding claim 17, while the resulting combination fails to disclose an underside shoe, Brotzel further discloses the screed head having a bottom plate structurally configured to receive an underside shoe that is removably attached to the screed head. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to include an underside shoe removably attached to the screed head in view of Brotzel’s disclosure that the shoe is a wear plate that when it becomes worn beyond useful service it can simply be removed and replaced with a new one (column 2 lines 26-30) to extend the life of the screed. The resulting combination includes the arced dozer front face comprising a concavely arced face extending away from a bottom surface of the underside shoe.
Regarding claim 18, the resulting combination includes the arced dozer front face being structurally configured to prevent the screed head from lifting upward (concrete overburden would curl up and away from the concrete surface being finished and leveled; Brotzel’s column 2 lines 1-2) as the hand-held screed rake is operated by a user to apply and compact a paving material onto a surface in a non-segregating manner since Brotzel discloses the screed is used for concrete finishing and leveling (column 1 lines 5-6). It is noted that there is no structural limitation claimed to achieve this result.
Regarding claim 19, the resulting combination includes the arced dozer front face being structurally configured to gather a paving material (within the curve) and the underside shoe is configured to spread the paving material as the shoe bottom surface is smooth and a core function of a screed is to spread the paving material. It is noted that there is no structural limitation claimed to achieve this result.
Regarding claim 23, while Brotzel discloses that the shoe can be removably attached to the screed head by screws (column 4 line 29; Figure 4), but fails to disclose bolts, the Examiner takes Official Notice that bolts are old and well-known fasteners. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the underside shoe of the resulting combination to have the shoe be removably attached to the screed head by a bolt as an alternative and commonly available fastener.
Regarding claim 24, as suggested by Brotzel’s Figure 4, a thickness of the underside shoe in a direction orthogonal to the bottom plate decreases from the leading surface to the back end of the underside shoe (see reproduction of Brotzel’s Figure 4 provided on the following page with Examiner’s annotations).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 36, Davis teaches a screed rake comprising:
a screed head (12) having a dozer face capable of preventing the screed head from lifting away from a paving surface as the screed rake applies a paving material thereto (it is noted that there is no structural limitation claimed to achieve this result), a surfacing facing plate that faces the paving surface as the screed rake applies the paving material thereto (bottom of screed head 12; Figure 1), and a screed back (back of screed head 12; Figure 1) connected to the dozer face and the surface facing plate at an angle (Figure 1).
While Davis fails to disclose the remaining claims, Brotzel teaches a hand-held screed with a shoe (34; Figure 4) removably attachable to a screed head and the remaining limitations of the claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis’s screed to include a shoe removably attachable to the screed head and having a first surface that is angled towards the surface facing plate and a second surface that trails away from the leading surface to a back of the shoe, wherein the shoe abuts against the dozer face and is conformably secured to the surface facing plate when the shoe is attached to the screed head in view of Brotzel’s disclosure that shoe is a wear plate that when it becomes worn beyond useful service it can simply be removed and replaced with a new one (column 2 lines 26-30) to extend the life of the screed. The resulting combination includes a thickness of the shoe in a direction orthogonal to the surfacing facing plate decreasing from a leading surface of the shoe to the back of the shoe (see Brotzel’s Figure 4 reproduced below with Examiner’s annotations).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 46, the resulting combination includes the screed back being connected to the dozer face and the surface facing plate to form a triangular cross-sectional shape for the screed head.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Brotzel as applied above to claim 15, further in view of Silva, US 5,609,437.
Regarding claim 20, while the resulting combination fails to disclose that the bottom surface of the underside shoe comprises a textured surface, Silva teaches a hand-held screed and discloses that the bottom surface of the underside shoe can comprise a textured surface (column 5 lines 6-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bottom surface of the underside shoe of the resulting combination to comprise a textured surface in view of Silva’s disclosure to be able to impart a texture to the concrete when screeding.
Regarding claim 21, Silva further discloses that the screeding surface could include a plurality of teeth, which when applied to the surface of the paving material would cause a V-shaped or block-shaped cross-sectional pattern depending on the shape of the teeth.
Regarding claim 22, while the resulting combination fails to disclose that the respective cross-sectional pattern of the textured surface has at least one of an amplitude or height that decreases in size as the bottom surface trails away from the leading surface to the back end of the underside shoe, this appears to only affect the shape of the grooves in the paving material. It has been held that a mere change in shape is not a patentable distinction. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the respective cross-sectional pattern of the textured surface to have at least one of an amplitude or height that decreases in size as the bottom surface trails away from the leading surface to the back end of the underside shoe based on obvious design choice, especially in light of Silva disclosing that the bottom surface is used to impart any particular texture.
Claims 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al., US 5,857,803 in view of Brotzel, US 7,470,084 B2 and Silva, US 5,609,437.
Regarding claim 27, Davis teaches a screed rake comprising:
a screed head (12; Figure 1) having a dozer face (front face of screed head 12; Figure 1) capable of preventing the screed head from lifting away from a paving surface as the screed rake applied a paving material thereto (it is noted that there is no structural limitation claimed to achieve this result), a surface facing plate (bottom of screed head 12 in Figure 1) that faces the paving surface as the screed rake applies the paving material thereto, and a screed back (back of screed head 12 in Figure 1) connected to the dozer face and the surface facing plate, such that the screed head has a generally triangular cross-sectional shape.
While Davis fails to disclose a shoe, Brotzel teaches a hand-held screed with a shoe (34; Figure 4) removably attachable to a bottom surface of a screed head. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis’s screed to modify the surface facing plate of the screed head and include a shoe removably attachable to the surface facing plate of the screed head in view of Brotzel’s disclosure that shoe is a wear plate that when it becomes worn beyond useful service it can simply be removed and replaced with a new one (column 2 lines 26-30) to extend the life of the screed.
While the resulting combination fails to disclose the shoe having a textured surface, Silva teaches a hand-held screed and discloses that the bottom surface of a shoe can comprise a textured surface (column 5 lines 6-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bottom surface of the shoe of the resulting combination to comprise a textured surface in view of Silva’s disclosure to be able to impart a texture to the concrete when screeding. The resulting combination includes the textured surface being opposite the surface facing plate of the screed head since the textured surface has to be at the bottom contacting the concrete.
While the resulting combination fails to disclose that the respective cross-sectional pattern of the textured surface has at least one of an amplitude or height that decreases in size as the bottom surface trails away from the dozer face, this appears to only affect the shape of the grooves in the paving material. It has been held that a mere change in shape is not a patentable distinction. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the respective cross-sectional pattern of the textured surface to have at least one of an amplitude or height that decreases in size as the bottom surface trails away from the dozer face based on obvious design choice, especially in light of Silva disclosing that the bottom surface is used to impart any particular texture.
Regarding claim 28, since Silva further discloses that the screeding surface could include a plurality of teeth, which when applied to the surface of the paving material would cause a V-shaped or block-shaped cross-sectional pattern depending on the shape of the teeth, the resulting combination includes the limitation claimed.
Regarding claim 29, the resulting combination includes the shoe abutting against the dozer face and is conformably secured to the surface facing plate when the shoe is attached to the screed head.
Regarding claim 30, while the resulting combination fails to disclose that the dozer face comprises a concavely arced face, Brotzel further discloses the screed head having a concavely arced front face (curve near reference numeral 40 in Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dozer face of the resulting combination to be a concavely arced face in view of Brotzel’s disclosure that the concavely arced face draws up excess concrete overburden and curls it up and away from the concrete surface being finished and leveled (last line of column 1 through column 2 line 2) to make it easier to level the concrete surface. The resulting combination includes the concavely arced face extending in a direction away from the paving surface.
Regarding claim 31, the resulting combination includes the dozer face capable of being structurally configured to gather the paving material (it is noted that there is no structural limitation claimed to achieve this result) and the shoe is configured to spread the paving material since the shoe bottom surface is smooth and a core function of a screed is to spread the paving material.
Regarding claim 32, while Brotzel discloses that the underside shoe can be removably attached to the screed head by screws (column 4 line 29; Figure 4), but fails to disclose bolts, the Examiner takes Official Notice that bolts are old and well-known fasteners. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shoe of the resulting combination to be removably attached to the screed head by a bolt as an alternative and commonly available fastener.
Regarding claim 33, the resulting combination includes a thickness of the shoe in a direction orthogonal to the surfacing facing plate decreasing from a leading surface of the shoe to a back end of the shoe (see Brotzel’s Figure 4 reproduced below with Examiner’s annotations).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, the resulting combination includes a handle (Davis’s 24 in Figure 1) coupled to the screed back.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 26, 35, and 44 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 11-12, 1424, 27-34, 36-41, 43, and 45-46 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Silva is no longer relied on as the primary reference, only relied on in the rejection above for the teaching of texturing. Woods and GB ‘495 are not relied upon in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights