DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/22/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/22/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 04/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 8 has been amended; claims 5-7 and 17-20 have been withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Carl US 2,944,551 A (newly cited) in view of Wolff et al. US 2002/0087131 A1 (newly cited), as cited in the IDS, and Okabe et al. US 2005/0070861 A1 (previously cited), as cited in the IDS.
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 (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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carl US 2,944,551 A (newly cited, hereinafter Carl) in view of Wolff et al. US 2002/0087131 A1 (newly cited, hereinafter Wolff), as cited in the IDS, and Okabe et al. US 2005/0070861 A1 (previously cited, hereinafter Okabe), as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Carl discloses a urine collection system (Fig. 1 shows a collection apparatus, Col. 1, line 15-17 – “This invention relates to a device or apparatus for the confining, collection and removal of urine discharged by an invalid or an infant”), comprising:
a urine collection device 10 (Fig. 1 – collector bag/pants 10) configured to be positioned at least proximate to a urethra of a user (Col. 1, line 41 – 46 – “the collector bag 10, which involves the nucleus of this invention, is essentially a pair of waterproof pants formed from a sheet of elastic material… so that the pants-like unit can be opened up into substantially a flat sheet for easy insertion beneath a patient”);
a first tube 11a (Fig. 1 – conduit section 11a) in fluid communication with the urine collection device 10 (Fig. 1, and Col. 2, line 69-70 – “wherein the collector bag 10 is connected by a conduit 11a…“);
a urine collection container 13 (Fig. 1 – accumulator jar/reservoir 13) configured to receive urine from the urine collection device 10 (Fig. 1, and Col. 3, line 4-5 – “Conduit section 11a has one end connected to the interior of the accumulator 13”), the urine collection container 13 (Fig. 1) including an interior (Col. 3, line 5-6 – “the interior of the accumulator 13”);
a lid 17 (Fig. 1 – removable cover 17) secured or securable to the urine collection container 13 (Fig. 1, and Col. 3, line 3-4 – “a removable cover 17 to seal off the interior of the pitcher”), the lid 17 (Fig. 1) including an exhaust port (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and an inlet port 18 (Fig. 1 – sealproof grommet 18) configured to provide fluid communication between the first tube 11a (Fig. 1) and the urine collection container 13 (Fig. 1, and Col. 4-6 – “Conduit section 11a has one end connected to the interior of the accumulator 13 through a sealproof grommet 18”);
a second tube 11b (Fig. 1 – conduit section 11b) in fluid communication with the urine collection container 13 (Fig. 1) through the exhaust port (see annotated Fig. 1 below) on the lid 17 (Fig. 1, and Col. 3, line 8-10 – “One end of the conduit section 11b is likewise connected to the interior of the pitcher 13…”);
a pump P (Fig. 1 – suction pump P) configured to pull an at least partial vacuum in the urine collection container 13 (Fig. 1, and Col. 2, line 70-71 – “a subatmospheric suction pump P”) through the second tube 11b (Fig. 1) to draw the urine from the urine collection device 10 (Fig. 1) through the first tube 11a (Fig. 1) and the inlet port 18 (Fig. 1) into the urine collection container 13 (Fig. 1, and Col. 2, line 50-55 – “the low pressure suction source will cause immediate withdrawal of the liquid from the collector bag after the urinary act so that the liquid may be readily discharged into an accumulator jar, reservoir, discharge trap, or the like”),;
a housing 19 (Fig. 1 – sealproof grommet 19) secured to the lid 17 (Fig. 1) opposite to the interior of the container 13 (Fig. 1) with a top surface of the lid 17 (Fig. 1) positioned between the housing 19 (Fig. 1) and interior of the urine collection container 13 (Fig. 1 – the top surface of lid 17 is arranged between grommet 19 and the interior of reservoir 13), the second tube 11b (Fig. 1) being secured to the housing 19 (Fig. 1) and in fluid communication with the interior of the urine collection container 13 (Fig. 1) through the housing 19 (Fig. 1); and
PNG
media_image1.png
775
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Carl
However, Carl does not disclose wherein the pump includes an exhaust vent; a housing removably secured to the lid; an odor filter disposed within the housing and positioned between the interior of the urine collection container and the second tube.
Wolff, in the same field of endeavor of urine collection device (Title), teaches a filter 36 (Fig. 2b – filter cartridge 36) disposed within the housing 12 (Fig. 2b – filter cartridge housing 12) and positioned between the interior of the urine collection container 1 (Fig. 2a – storage container 1) and the second tube 6 (Fig. 2a – tube 6).
Okabe, in the same field of endeavor of urine disposal device (Title), teaches an odor filter (Par. 42 – “The filter 34 serves to remove the odor”), wherein the pump 29 (Fig. 1) includes an exhaust vent 31 (Fig. 2 – air release tube 31).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housing of Carl to make it removable from the lid, since the Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04). It also would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housing of Carl to further include filter as taught by Wolff, in order to prevent liquid from being pumped out of the container (Par. 22 of Wolff).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of the combination to have the filter be an odor filter and to further include an exhaust vent as taught by Okabe, in order to remove order (Par. 42 of Okabe) and to release the air upon suction of the pump (Par. 36 of Okabe).
Regarding claim 2, Carl in view of Wolff in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the odor filter 36 (Fig. 2b of Wolff) is configured to inhibit urine odor from exiting (Par. 42 of Okabe) through the exhaust vent 31 (Fig. 2 of Okabe, and Par. 42 of Okabe).
Regarding claim 3, Carl in view of Wolff in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the second tube 11b (Fig. 1 of Carl) is coupled to the urine collection container 13 (Fig. 1 of Carl) at the exhaust port (see annotated Fig. 1 of Carl above) such that the pump P (Fig. 1 of Carl) draws air from the urine collection container 13 (Fig. 1 of Carl) through the exhaust port (see annotated Fig. 1 of Carl above, and Col. 2, line 13-18 of Carl – “This flexible waterproof undergarment functions as a collector bag to entrap any urine that might be emitted by a patient or infant and because it is connected by a conduit to a suction source the urine will be drained away and deposited in an accumulator jar, tank or the like”) and expels the air out of the exhaust vent 31 (Fig. 2 of Okabe, and Par. 36 of Okabe – “an air release tube 31 are linked to the vacuum pump 29”).
Regarding claim 4, Carl in view of Wolff in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the odor filter 36 (Fig. 2b of Wolff) is located proximate to the exhaust port (see annotated Fig. 1 of Carl above).
Examiner notes that once the modification is made as discussed in claim 1, the filter of Wolff will be incorporated into the housing of Carl, thus the filter is proximate to the annotated exhaust port of Carl.
Regarding claim 10, Carl in view of Wolff in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 1. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the odor filter is disk-shaped.
Wolff, in another embodiment, teaches wherein the filter is disk-shaped (Par. 31 – “The filter may be a flat disc”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the odor filter of the combination to be disk-shaped, also as taught by Wolff, because the flat disc filter system is smaller and less expensive to produce (Par. 34 of Wolff).
Regarding claim 11, Carl in view of Wolff in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the odor filter 36 (Fig. 2b of Wolff, Par. 42 of Okabe) is cylindrical (Fig. 2b of Wolff).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carl in view of Wolff in view of Okabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Laerdal Medical – “LSCU 4 – Laerdal Compact Suction Unit” Youtube Video (newly cited, hereinafter Laerdal Medical).
Regarding claim 8, Carl in view of Wolff in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the housing 19 (Fig. 1 of Carl) configured to retain the odor filter 36 (Fig. 2b of Wolff, Par. 42 of Okabe).
However, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the housing is configured to interference fit to the lid, screw off the lid, or twist off the lid.
Laerdal Medical, in the same field of endeavor of suction unit (Title), teaches wherein the housing (see annotated Figure @1:58 below) is configured to interference fit to the lid, screw off the lid, or twist off the lid (see annotated Figure @1:58 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
739
1167
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure @1:58 of Laerdal Medical
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housing of the combination that is removably secured to the lid as established in claim 1, to have an interference fit to the lid as taught by Laerdal Medical, as it is well-known in the art to and to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made tubing connection removable via interference fit for easy replacement (@1:50-54 of Laerdal Medical).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carl in view of Wolff in view of Okabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Backscheider et al. US 4,963,134 A (newly cited, hereinafter Backscheider).
Regarding claim 9, Carl in view of Wolff in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 1. However, the combination does not currently disclose wherein the odor filter is removable and replaceable.
Backscheider, in the same field of endeavor of medical aspirator (Abstract), teaches wherein the odor filter is removable and replaceable (Col. 10 , line 3-4 – “withdrawing filter 16 and replacing it with a new cartridge filter 16”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the odor filter of the combination to be removable and replaceable as taught by Backscheider, in order to provide a new filter in the event that the filter becomes clogged (Col. 10, line 2 of Backscheider).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carl in view of Wolff in view of Okabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Den Heuvel et al. US 2009/0306610 A1 (previously cited, hereinafter Van Den Heuvel).
Regarding claim 12, Carl in view of Wolff in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 1. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the odor filter includes an activated carbon sorbent.
Van Den Heuvel, in the same field of endeavor of urine collecting device, teaches wherein the odor filter 4 (Fig. 1 of Van Den Heuvel) includes an activated carbon sorbent (Par. 37 of Van Den Heuvel – “a layer of material that absorbs odour and moisture 4, such as activated carbon granules”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the odor filter of the combination to further include an activated carbon sorbent as taught by Van Den Heuvel, in order to absorb odor and moisture (Par. 37 of Van Den Heuvel).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carl in view of Wolff in view of Okabe in view of Van Den Heuvel as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Zhuang et al. US 2004/0194792 A1 (previously cited, hereinafter Zhuang).
Regarding claim 13, Carl in view of Wolff in view of Okabe in view of Van Den Heuvel suggests the invention of claim 12. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the activated carbon sorbent includes pores having a pore size of from about 5 Å to about 10 Å.
Zhuang, analogous to the instant invention as both seek to minimize unpleasant odor in treatment of waste flows (Par. 109 – “the activated carbon-containing sorbent can be used in other applications in which the selective removal of gaseous components from a gas flow is desired. For example, it can be used in… treatment of waste flows containing undesirable gases and/or vapors, air filtration,… and deodorization processes”), teaches wherein the activated carbon sorbent includes pores having a pore size of from about 5 Å to about 10 Å (Par. 41 of Zhuang – “The activated carbon-containing sorbent can have a microporous… pore structure. The term "microporous molecular sieve" generally refers to such material with a pore size of about 20 Å or less”, which encompasses the claimed range).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pore size of the carbon sorbent of the combined device to have a pore size as taught by Zhuang, since activated carbon sorbent is capable of selectively remove selected gaseous components from a gas flow (Par. 32 of Zhuang); thus facilitate the removal of certain odor from the urine within the system of Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pore size of the activated carbon sorbent of the combination from between 20 Å or less to from about 5 Å to about 10 Å as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see Par. 32 of Applicant’s PG-Pub) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, Zhuang would not operate differently with the claimed range since the working range of Zhuang is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Carl in view of Wolff in view of Okabe in view of Van Den Heuvel suggests the invention of claim 12. The combination does not disclose wherein the activated carbon sorbent has a surface area of from about 500 m2/g to about 3,000 m2/g.
Zhuang, analogous to the instant invention as both seek to minimize unpleasant odor in treatment of waste flows (Par. 109 – “the activated carbon-containing sorbent can be used in other applications in which the selective removal of gaseous components from a gas flow is desired. For example, it can be used in… treatment of waste flows containing undesirable gases and/or vapors, air filtration,… and deodorization processes”), teaches wherein the activated carbon sorbent has a surface area of from about 500 m2/g to about 1,500 m2/g (Par. 60 of Zhuang – “In a preferred embodiment, the BET (Brunauer, Emmett and Teller) surface area of the activated carbon-containing sorbent after activation is from about 500 m2/g to about 1,500 m2/g”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface area of the carbon sorbent of the combined device to have a surface area as taught by Zhuang, since activated carbon sorbent is capable of selectively remove selected gaseous components from a gas flow (Par. 32 of Zhuang); thus facilitate the removal of certain odor from the urine within the system of Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface area of the activated carbon sorbent of the combination from between 500 m2/g and 1,500 m2/g to 500 m2/g to about 3,000 m2/g as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see Par. 33 of Applicant’s PG-Pub) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, Zhuang would not operate differently with the claimed range since the working range of Zhuang is within the claimed range.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carl in view of Wolff in view of Okabe in view of Van Den Heuvel as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Zhuang and Ladrech et al. US 9,968,908 B2 (previously cited, hereinafter Ladrech).
Regarding claim 15, Carl in view of Wolff in view of Okabe in view of Van Den Heuvel suggests the invention of claim 12. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the activated carbon sorbent contains pores having a pore volume of from about 0.2 cm3/g to about 1.0 cm3/g in the pore size range of from about 5 Å to about 10 Å.
Zhuang, analogous to the instant invention as both seek to minimize unpleasant odor in treatment of waste flows (Par. 109 – “the activated carbon-containing sorbent can be used in other applications in which the selective removal of gaseous components from a gas flow is desired. For example, it can be used in… treatment of waste flows containing undesirable gases and/or vapors, air filtration,… and deodorization processes”), teaches wherein the activated carbon sorbent contains pores (Par. 62 of Zhuang – “…the pore size, pore volume and density of the activated carbon-containing sorbent”; Examiner notes that pore volume is also an inherent parameter of materials with pores) in the pore size range of from about 5 Å to about 10 Å (Par. 41 of Zhuang – “The activated carbon-containing sorbent can have a microporous… pore structure. The term "microporous molecular sieve" generally refers to such material with a pore size of about 20 Å or less”, which encompasses the claimed range; thus, the limitation is met).
Ladrech, analogous to the instant invention as both seek to minimize odor via activated carbons (Col. 1, line 22-24), teaches disclose pores having a pore volume of from about 0.2 cm3/g to about 1.0 cm3/g (Col. 2, line 43-44 – “a micropore volume of 0.356 cm3/g”; which is within the claimed range; Examiner also notes that this pore volume is of the microporous pores, which has been evidenced by Zhuang above and in Par. 41 of Zhuang that such a microporous pore size is about 20 Å or less; thus, this pore volume of Ladrech corresponds to the claimed pore size of about 5 Å to about 10 Å).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pore size of the carbon sorbent of the combined device to have a pore size as taught by Zhuang, since activated carbon sorbent is capable of selectively remove selected gaseous components from a gas flow (Par. 32 of Zhuang); thus facilitate the removal of certain odor from the urine within the system of Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the activated carbon sorbent in the pore size of about 5 Å to about 10 Å of the combination to further have the pore volume as taught by Ladrech, in order to deliver better filtration result for pollutant gases (Col. 2, line 21-23 of Ladrech).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pore volume of the activated carbon sorbent of the combination from 0.356 cm3/g to 0.2 cm3/g to about 1.0 cm3/g as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see Par. 34 of Applicant’s PG-Pub) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, Ladrech would not operate differently with the claimed range since the working value of Ladrech is within the claimed range.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carl in view of Wolff in view of Okabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhuang.
Regarding claim 16, Carl in view of Wolff in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 1. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the odor filter includes a zeolite.
Zhuang, analogous to the instant invention as both seek to minimize unpleasant odor in treatment of waste flows (Par. 109 – “the activated carbon-containing sorbent can be used in other applications in which the selective removal of gaseous components from a gas flow is desired. For example, it can be used in… treatment of waste flows containing undesirable gases and/or vapors, air filtration,… and deodorization processes”), teaches wherein the odor filter includes a zeolite (Par. 34 – “a filter includes an activated carbon-containing sorbent”, Abstract – “The activated carbon-containing sorbent can be a composite including one or more molecular sieve materials”, and Par. 70 – “…the molecular sieve material is one or more zeolites”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the odor filter of the combination to further incorporate zeolite as taught by Zhuang, in order to promote sorption of selected gas molecules onto the zeolite (Par. 70 of Zhuang). This improves the deodorization process within the combined device because gas molecules are filtered before exiting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haldopoulos et al. US 2003/0178360 A1 teaches a suction canister system with a lid and filter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUYNH DAO LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/QUYNH DAO LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781 /PHILIP R WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights