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 .
Claim Status:
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-16 are pending.
Claims 2, 13 and 17-25 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 7 are amended.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-16 are examined as follow:
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 16th 2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
In claim 1, the limitation of “first selected surface(s) of the base plate” and “second selected surface(s) of the base plate”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1, 3-12 and 14-16 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.
In claim 1, the newly amended limitation “first selected surface(s) of the base plate” and “second selected surface(s) of the base plate” have raised new matter issues. Such limitation implied there can be multiple selected first and second surface, which the specification and the drawing do not disclose of such limitation. A word search of specification does not yield of the disclosure of the two newly amended limitation at all. Even referring to the drawing, it is unclear what and where is considered multiple first or second surface. Even if such limitation isolated to be one surface, the two newly amended limitation would still implying two different surfaces, which the specification or the drawing both does not have such description or at least not clearly described. Therefore, new matter issue is raised.
Claims 3-12 and 14-16 are rejected based on the inherited deficiencies of the corresponding independent claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite, because there are new matters that is not described in the specification, and it is unclear what first and second selected surface(s) of the base plate are referring. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, through best understanding of the specification and as a person skilled in the art, Examiner assumed that such limitation is intended to be on the same surface but different location of the surface.
Claims 3-12 and 14-16 are rejected based on the inherited deficiencies of the corresponding independent claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU et al (US2013/0299460A1 previously cited) herein set forth as WU, and in view of D’Acremont (US3898415 previously cited) herein set forth as D’Acremont, and further in view of CN110548961A (previously cited) herein set forth as CN48961A.
Regarding claim 1, in view of the 112b assumption above, WU discloses a system for producing a weld arc additive manufacturing part (refer to fig.2) comprising:
a base plate (workpiece #6, fig.2);
a granular support media feeder (powder feeding system #4, fig.2) for distributing a first granular media (flux powders #40, fig.2) on first selected surface(s) (refer to the surface location under #341 in fig.3) of the base plate (workpiece #6, fig.2);
a first subject weld material (welding wire #50, fig.2);
a welding apparatus (weld gun #6, fig.2) for discharging the first subject weld material (welding wire #50, fig.2) on second selected surface(s) (refer to the surface location under #501 in fig.3) of the base plate (workpiece #6, fig.2) and to affect a production rate and a resolution of the weld arc additive manufacturing part formed with the system (refer to fig.2) and
a toolpath (refer to “toolpath” annotated in fig.2),
PNG
media_image1.png
645
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
461
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
WU does not explicitly discloses the granular support media feeder and the welding apparatus are robotically controlled; wherein the first granular media is electrically conductive.
In the similar field of arc welding with granular powder, D’Acermont discloses wherein the first granular media is electrically conductive (refer to Col 1 line 20-24 cited: “…The agglomerated fluxes are direct mixtures of oxides derived from ferrous alloys and other metallic compositions and are of average hygroscopicity…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WU’s first granular media with D’Acermont’s flux, in order to provide better hygroscopicity during the arc welding, and such that would generate a better weld and connection, also improve the quality of the weld.
In the similar field of arc welding with granular powder, CN48961A discloses the granular support media feeder (powder feeding system #4, fig.2) and the welding apparatus (weld gun #6, fig.2) are robotically controlled (numerical control machine tool #2, fig.2).
PNG
media_image3.png
473
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WU’s invention with the granular support media feeder and the welding apparatus are robotically controlled, as taught by CN48961A, in order to provide a better control and automation of the arc weld additive system, such that would reduce human error and operational cost.
Regarding claim 3, the modification of WU, D’Acermont and CN48961A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, WU further discloses wherein the first granular media (flux powders #40, fig.2) is configured to support (Examiner note: flux is supporting the weld material, because when flux turn molten, flux also contribute to the welding structure and also provide an enclosure for oxidation) the first subject weld material (welding wire #50, fig.2).
Regarding claim 4, the modification of WU, D’Acermont and CN48961A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, WU does not explicitly disclose wherein the first granular media is configured to support the first subject weld material.
In the similar field of arc welding with granular powder, D’Acermont further discloses wherein the first granular media is configured to support the first subject weld material (refer to Col 1 line 20-24 cited: “…The agglomerated fluxes are direct mixtures of oxides derived from ferrous alloys and other metallic compositions and are of average hygroscopicity…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WU’s first granular media with D’Acermont’s flux, in order to provide better hygroscopicity during the arc welding, and such that would generate a better weld and connection, also improve the quality of the weld.
Regarding claim 5, the modification of WU, D’Acermont and CN48961A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 4, WU does not explicitly disclose wherein the first subject weld material further comprises a second set of metallic properties, the second set of metallic properties comprising at least one different metallic property from the first set of metallic properties.
In the similar field of arc welding with granular powder, D’Acermont further discloses wherein the first subject weld material further comprises a second set of metallic properties, the second set of metallic properties comprising at least one different metallic property from the first set of metallic properties (refer to Col 1 line 20-24 cited: “…The agglomerated fluxes are direct mixtures of oxides derived from ferrous alloys and other metallic compositions and are of average hygroscopicity…” Examiner note: since the flux has more than one metallic composition, therefore the first subject weld material has different metallic properties than the first set of metallic properties in the granular media).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WU’s first granular media with D’Acermont’s flux, in order to provide better hygroscopicity during the arc welding, and such that would generate a better weld and connection, also improve the quality of the weld.
Regarding claim 7, the modification of WU, D’Acermont and CN48961A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, WU further discloses a frame (#41, fig.2) configured to enclose (Examiner note: #41 is a container for #40 referring fig.2, therefore it is substantially enclose) the first granular media (#40, fig.2).
Regarding claim 9, the modification of WU, D’Acermont and CN48961A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, WU further discloses wherein the first granular media (#40, fig.2) has a geometry is spherical (refer to fig.3 the shape of the granular of #40).
PNG
media_image2.png
461
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the modification of WU, D’Acermont and CN48961A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, WU further discloses comprising a second granular media (#30, fig.2 and 3).
Regarding claim 11, the modification of WU, D’Acermont and CN48961A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 10, WU further discloses the second granular media is electrically conductive (refer to Paragraph 0022 cited: “…the welding wire 50 is designed and the alloy powders 30 are selected according to the material characteristics of the workpiece 6 …”, Examiner note: since welding wire 50 is electrically conductive, therefore no matter what material characteristics selected for the alloy powder, it will be the same material as welding wire #50, therefore alloy powder #30 is also electrically conductive).
Regarding claim 12, the modification of WU, D’Acermont and CN48961A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 10, WU further discloses wherein the second granular media (#30, fig.2-3) further comprises a third set of metallic properties (refer to Paragraph 0025 cited: “…the alloy powders 30 can be selected according to the material characteristics of the workpiece 6, so as to increase largely the filling efficiency…”, Examiner note: Arc welding require the workpiece to be able to conduct electrical current to complete the arc, therefore #30 is electrical conductive).
WU does not explicitly discloses the third set of metallic properties comprising at least one different metallic property from the first set of metallic properties.
In the similar field of arc welding with granular powder, D’Acermont further discloses wherein the third set of metallic properties comprising at least one different metallic property from the first set of metallic properties (refer to Col 1 line 20-24 cited: “…The agglomerated fluxes are direct mixtures of oxides derived from ferrous alloys and other metallic compositions and are of average hygroscopicity…”, Examiner note: Since the #40 have at least two metallic property, therefore, it had at least one different metallic property from the first set of metallic properties).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WU’s first granular media with D’Acermont’s flux, in order to provide better hygroscopicity during the arc welding, and such that would generate a better weld and connection, also improve the quality of the weld.
Regarding claim 14, the modification of WU, D’Acremont and CN48961A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, WU further discloses a robotic printing system (refer to fig 2); #441, fig.2); and a media container (#4, fig.2); wherein the media container (#4, fig.2) is removably connected to the media spreader (#441, fig.2) and configured to contain at least one of the group consisting of the first granular media (#40, fig.2) #441, fig.2) is configured to receive a media input (#43, fig.2), and to transport at least one of the group consisting of the first granular media (#40, fig.2) #441, fig.2) to the baseplate (#6, fig.2).
WU or D’Acremont does not disclose a controller; wherein the robotic printing system is configured to receive a movement input and to move in a horizontal, a vertical, and a lateral direction about a top surface of the base plate, wherein the controller is configured to receive a controller input, to be in electronic communication with the robotic printing system, and to deliver the movement input to the robotic printing system, wherein the robotic printing system has at least three axes and is configured to hold the weld device.
In the similar field of arch welding with powder, CN4896A1 further discloses a controller (#1, fig.2); wherein the robotic printing system (#2, fig.2) is configured to receive a movement input and to move in a horizontal, a vertical, and a lateral direction (refer to CNC) about a top surface of the base plate (#7, fig.2), wherein the controller (#2, fig.2) is configured to receive a controller input (refer to CNC), to be in electronic communication with the robotic printing system (#2, fig.2), and to deliver the movement input to the robotic printing system (#2, fig.2), wherein the robotic printing system(#2, fig.2) has at least three axes and is configured to hold the weld device (#6, fig.2).
PNG
media_image4.png
415
536
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WU’s invention with a controller; wherein the robotic printing system is configured to receive a movement input and to move in a horizontal, a vertical, and a lateral direction about a top surface of the base plate, wherein the controller is configured to receive a controller input, to be in electronic communication with the robotic printing system, and to deliver the movement input to the robotic printing system, wherein the robotic printing system has at least three axes and is configured to hold the weld device, as taught by CN48961A, in order to provide the automation and control of the welding process, such that would in be able to standardize the welding process, control the quality of the welding better.
Regarding claim 15, the modification of WU, D’Acremont and CN48961A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 14, WU or D’Acremont does not disclose a computer with a processor having an algorithm, wherein the computer is electronically connected to the welder, the media spreader, and the controller of the system and configured to communicate a weld input to the welder, a media input to the media spreader, and a controller input to the controller.
In the similar field of arch welding with powder, CN4896A1 further discloses a computer (#1, fig.2 Examiner note: CNC stand for “Computer Numerical Control”, therefore a computer and processor having an algorithm is inherently disclosed) with a processor having an algorithm, wherein the computer (#1, fig.2 Examiner note: CNC stand for “Computer Numerical Control”, therefore a computer and processor having an algorithm is inherently disclosed) is electronically connected to the welder (#3, fig.2), the media spreader (#4, fig.2), and the controller (#1, fig.2 Examiner note: CNC stand for “Computer Numerical Control”, therefore a computer and processor having an algorithm is inherently disclosed) of the system (refer to fig.2) and configured to communicate a weld input to the welder (#3, fig.2), a media input (refer to the connection on #4 from #1 in fig.2) to the media spreader (#6, fig.2), and a controller input (refer to the button or input, Examiner note: CNC controller input is also inherently disclosed) to the controller (#1, fig.2).
PNG
media_image4.png
415
536
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WU’s invention with a computer with a processor having an algorithm, wherein the computer is electronically connected to the welder, the media spreader, and the controller of the system and configured to communicate a weld input to the welder, a media input to the media spreader, and a controller input to the controller, as taught by CN48961A, in order to provide the automation and control of the welding process, such that would be able to standardize the welding process, control the quality of the welding better.
Regarding claim 16, the modification of WU, D’Acremont and CN48961A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, WU does not disclose wherein the weld device of the welder further comprises a second welding element configured to discharge a second subject weld material and to affect the production rate and the resolution of the weld arc additive manufacturing part formed with the system.
In the similar field of arch welding with powder, CN4896A1 discloses wherein the weld device (refer to fig.2) of the welder (#3, #5, #6 #11, fig.2) further comprises a second welding element (refer to “second” annotated in fig.2) configured to discharge a second subject weld material (refer to the rod supplied at the annotated “second” in fig.2) and to affect the production rate and the resolution of the weld arc additive manufacturing part formed with the system.
PNG
media_image3.png
473
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WU’s invention with wherein the weld device of the welder further comprises a second welding element configured to discharge a second subject weld material and to affect the production rate and the resolution of the weld arc additive manufacturing part formed with the system, as taught by CN48961A, in order to provide the capability to have different weld material mixture or combination of mixture, such that would increase the utility and the marketability of the invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU et al (US2013/0299460A1 previously cited) herein set forth as WU, in view of D’Acremont (US3898415 previously cited) herein set forth as D’Acremont, further in view of CN110548961A (previously cited) herein set forth as CN48961A, and further in view of Narayanan (US2019/0388968A1 newly cited) herein set forth as Nara,
Regarding claim 6, the modification of WU, D’Acermont and CN48961A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, WU further discloses wherein the first granular media (#40, fig.2) is configured to support (Examiner note: flux is supporting the weld material, because when flux turn molten, flux also contribute to the welding structure and also provide an enclosure for oxidation) the first subject weld material (#50, fig.2), further has one geometric feature of straight line (refer to fig.3).
WU or D’Acremont or CN48961A does not explicitly disclose at least one geometric feature from the group consisting of an overhang, a hollow section, an opening, a geometry having a discontinuous structure when formed by the system that is joined, and a combination of geometries known in the art of manufacturing that could heretofore be produced by cutting and assembling a variety of different parts.
In the similar field of arc welding with the use of powder, Nara discloses at least one geometric feature (refer to the geometric features in fig.6) from the group consisting of an overhang, a hollow section, an opening, a geometry having a discontinuous structure when formed by the system that is joined, and a combination of geometries known in the art of manufacturing that could heretofore be produced by cutting and assembling a variety of different parts (refer to the geometry shown in the fig,6 below and Paragraph 0040 cited: “…FIG. 6 graphically illustrates one embodiment of tracks of metal power 610 deposited onto a substrate 600 according to a pattern of a layer of a 3D part to be manufactured…”).
PNG
media_image5.png
725
576
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WU’s invention with at least one geometric feature from the group consisting of an overhang, a hollow section, an opening, a geometry having a discontinuous structure when formed by the system that is joined, and a combination of geometries known in the art of manufacturing that could heretofore be produced by cutting and assembling a variety of different parts, as taught by Nara, in order to provide the capability to produce different geometry features of product, such that would increase the utility and marketability of the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU et al (US2013/0299460A1 previously cited) herein set forth as WU, in view of D’Acremont (US3898415 previously cited) herein set forth as D’Acremont, further in view of CN110548961A (previously cited) herein set forth as CN48961A, and further in view of Bruck et al (US2015/0125335A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Bruck.
Regarding claim 8, the modification of WU, D’Acermont and CN48961A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, WU further disclose wherein the first granular media (#40, fig.2-3) refer to fig.3, Examiner note: noted that the molten pool at #501, #40 is flowing on top, therefore the figure discloses a bulk density less than a density of the #50) than a density of the first subject weld material (#50, fig.2-3).
WU or D’Acermont or CN48961A does not disclose the first granular media is mono-sized.
In the similar field of powered flux for arc welding, Bruck discloses the first granular media is mono-sized (refer to Paragraph 0034 cited: “…the mesh size range of flux particles 14'' may overlap or be the same as the mesh size range of the alloy particles 14'…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WU’s invention with the first granular media is mono-sized, as taught by Bruck, in order to provide a uniform particles that easily compacted for transport and easier to break loose and uncompact for uses.
Response to Amendment
With respect to the Drawing Objection: the applicant’s amendment filed on March 11th 2026 that overcame the Drawing objection in the previous office action. However, the newly amended claim has raised another issue of Drawing Objection.
With respect to the Claim Objection: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on March 11th 2026 that overcame the Claim Objection in the previous office action.
With respect to the Notification of 112f: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on March 11th 2026 that overcame the Notification of 112f in the previous office action.
With respect to the Rejection 112a: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on March 11th 2026 that overcame the Rejection 112a in the previous office action. However the newly amended claim has raised another issue of 112a rejection.
With respect to the Rejection 112b: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on March 11th 2026 that overcame the Rejection 112b in the previous office action. However, the newly amended claim has raised another issue of 112b Rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 11th 2026 have been fully considered but moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 April 14th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights