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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on June 2, 2026 for the patent application 17/960,951 filed on October 6, 2022. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 14-15, 20, 23, 26 and 31 are amended. Claims 6, 10-13, 17-18, 21-22, 24-25, 27 and 30 are cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 14-16, 19-20, 23, 26, 28-29 and 31 are pending. The first office action of January 23, 2024; the second office action of May 31, 2024; the third office action of November 25, 2024; the fourth office action of March 31, 2025; the fifth office action of August 8, 2025; the sixth office action of November 21, 2025; and the seventh office action of March 2, 2026 are fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 14-16, 19-20, 23, 26, 28-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a motion analysis system” (i.e. a machine), claim 15 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), and claim 20 is directed to “a motion analysis system” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “providing a food preparation instruction,” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations, per claim 1:
“capture motion data identifying a movement…;
quantitatively and qualitatively compare the motion data to a food preparation movement comprising a predetermined model movement, wherein the predetermined model movement is defined by one of an experimental motion data or simulated motion data attributed to a preparation technique of the food preparation movement; and
initiate a motion instruction for a first step of a recipe in response to a comparison of the motion data to the food preparation movement, wherein the motion instruction comprises a rate instruction identified in response to the quantitative comparison and a technique instruction identified in response to the qualitative comparison of the food preparation movement; and
automatically adjust …an output level …in response to the comparison of the motion data to the food preparation movement.”
Likewise, per claim 15:
“accessing a recipe in a food preparation application;
capturing motion data… in response to a first step of the recipe;
quantitatively and qualitatively comparing the motion data to a food preparation movement defined by a first motion profile for the first step of the recipe, wherein the first motion profile comprises a predetermined model movement, wherein the predetermined model movement is defined by one of an experimental motion data or a simulated motion data attributed to a preparation technique of the food preparation movement; and
outputting a motion instruction…for the first step in response to a comparison of the motion data to the food preparation movement, wherein the motion instruction comprises a rate instruction identified in response to the quantitative comparison and a technique instruction identified in response to the qualitative comparison of the food preparation movement; and
automatically adjust …an output level …in response to the comparison of the motion data to the food preparation movement.”
Also, per claim 20:
“capture motion data…; and
access a recipe from a food preparation application for a food product;
access a motion profile defining a food preparation movement based on a step of the recipe;
control…an operational setting…;
quantitatively and qualitatively compare the motion data based on movement of the motion detection device to the food preparation movement, wherein the food preparation movement is defined by a first motion profile that comprises a predetermined model movement, wherein the predetermined model movement is defined by one of an experimental motion data or a simulated motion data attributed to a preparation technique of the food preparation movement;
initiate a motion instruction for the step of the recipe in response to the comparison of the motion data to the food preparation movement; and
automatically adjust …an output level …in response to the comparison of the motion data to the food preparation movement.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “at least one motion detection device,” “wherein the motion detection device comprises at least one of a linear acceleration sensor and an angular rate sensor,” “an appliance controller,” “at least one motion detection device comprising one or more inertial measurement devices,” “a kinematic sensor,” and “a cooking appliance comprising at least one heating element,” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “providing a food preparation instruction,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “at least one motion detection device,” “wherein the motion detection device comprises at least one of a linear acceleration sensor and an angular rate sensor,” “an appliance controller,” “at least one motion detection device comprising one or more inertial measurement devices,” “a kinematic sensor,” and “a cooking appliance comprising at least one heating element,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Moreover, the elements of “at least one motion detection device” (reasonably interpreted as “monitoring device 12”), “a controller,” and “one or more inertial measurement devices” (reasonably interpreted as “IMU 22a”), are described in para. [0040], as follows:
“[0040] Referring to FIG. 2, exemplary control structures for the monitoring system 10 are discussed in further detail. As discussed in various examples, a controller 50 of the system 10 may be implemented in one or more devices associated with the monitoring system 10. For example, the controller 50 may be included in the monitoring device 12, which may correspond to a dedicated accessory comprising the IMU 22a and a communication circuit in some cases or may correspond to a wearable smart device, which may include a display, speaker, microphone, and user interface, in addition to the IMU 22a. Additionally, multiple IMUs 22a may be incorporated in the handheld implement 15 (e.g., cooking implement, handheld appliance, etc.) and communicate sensor/motion data to the controller 50 from multiple sources. The controller 50 may additionally or alternatively be incorporated in the display device (e.g., tablet, computer, smartphone, smart home hub, mobile device, etc.) in communication with the monitoring device 12.” These elements are reasonably interpreted as part of a generic computer having generic computer components which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Likewise, “a kinematic sensor,” is reasonably understood to be an “inertial measurement device IMU” and is disclosed in para. [0022] as follows:
“[0022] As depicted in FIG. 1, the monitoring device 12 is shown in connection with the wearable accessory 14 of the user 18. The monitoring capability of the device 12 may be provided by a plurality of sensors 22. The sensors 22 are generally demonstrated in the figures as reference numeral 22 and are demonstrated in further detail in FIG. 8. In many instances, the sensors 22 may include an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 22a. The IMU 22a may capture motion data indicative of movements of the user 18. The motion or kinematic sensor data may correspond to inertial and/or directional data. The IMU 22a may include an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and/or a magnetometer as well as other suitable devices for measuring the motion and orientation of the monitoring device 12.”
Here, the Applicant is merely claiming the use of an existing smart device, which is reasonably understood as ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computers having are generic, well-known, and conventional elements and does not provide anything significantly more.
Also, “at least one of a linear acceleration sensor and an angular rate sensor,” are also reasonably understood to be an “inertial measurement device IMU” and is only briefly mentioned with no details in para. [0073] as follows:
“[0073] In some implementations, the disclosure provides for a motion analysis apparatus for food preparation comprising at least one motion detection device configured to capture motion data, wherein the motion detection device comprises at least one of a linear acceleration sensor and an angular rate sensor; and a controller in communication with the motion detection device, wherein the controller is configured to: compare the motion data to a food preparation movement; and initiate a motion instruction for a first step of a recipe in response to a comparison of the motion data to the food preparation movement.”
Here, the Applicant is again merely claiming the use of an existing smart device having motion detection devices previously discussed above with regard to the IMU in para [0022].
Finally, the element of “a cooking appliance comprising at least one heating element,” is not described with any detail in the written description of the specification as originally filed. Regardless, “a cooking appliance comprising at least one heating element,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional device that is commonly and commercially available today.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 14, 16, 19, 23, 26, 28-29 and 31 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 14, 16, 19, 23, 26, 28-29 and 31 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 15 or 20. Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-9, 14-16, 19-20, 23, 26, 28-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 14-16, 19-20, 23, 26, 28-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 15, 20 and 31 recite the following limitation: “at least one heating element.” This limitation is not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. As such, the limitations are reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter. Therefore, claims 1, 4, 7, 15, 20 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-5, 7-9, 14, 16, 19, 23, 26-29 and 31 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), based on their respective dependencies to claims 1, 15 or 20.
Claims 1, 15 and 20 recite the following limitation: “wherein the predetermined model movement is defined by one of an experimental motion data or simulated motion data attributed to a preparation technique of the food preparation movement.” This limitation is not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. As such, the limitations are reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter. Therefore, claims 1, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-5, 7-9, 14, 16, 19, 23, 26-29 and 31 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), based on their respective dependencies to claims 1, 15 or 20.
Claim 23 recites the following limitation: “wherein the motion detection device is selectively, operatively coupled to a plurality of food preparation devices via an appliance interface comprising at least one of a mechanical snap-fit connector or magnetic connector configured to secure the motion detection device to one of the food preparation devices.” This limitation is not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. As such, the limitations are reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s remarks filed on June 2, 2026 related to claims 1-5, 7-9, 14-16, 19-20, 23, 26, 28-29 and 31 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Rejections Under 35 USC § 101
I. The Amended Claims Are Directed to a Cooking Appliance and Thus Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
The Applicant respectfully argues “Independent claims 1, 15, and 20 have been amended to expressly recite a cooking appliance system including:
a cooking appliance comprising a cooktop having at least one heating element, and
an appliance controller operably coupled to the cooking appliance, wherein the appliance controller is configured to:
automatically adjust a heat output level of the heating element based on detected motion data.
These amendments make clear that the claims are not directed to merely analyzing data or providing instructions, but rather to controlling operation of a physical cooking appliance, including directly modifying a heat output level of a heating element.
Under MPEP § 2106.04(d), claims that are tied to a particular machine and that implement the claimed steps through that machine are integrated into a practical application. Here, the claims require a specific appliance architecture (cooktop + heating element + appliance controller) and a defined control action (adjusting heat output).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to a concrete technological implementation-controlling operation of a cooking appliance based on detected motion-and not to an abstract idea.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is merely automating the process and using “a controller” as a tool to carry out the abstract idea. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
II. The Claims Integrate Any Alleged Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application
The Applicant respectfully argues “Even assuming, arguendo, that aspects of the claims involve evaluating motion data, the claims clearly integrate any such concept into a practical application. Specifically, the claims require:
detecting motion data using a motion detection device;
comparing the motion data to a model movement; and
automatically adjusting a heat output level of a heating element of a cooktop based on the comparison.
The claimed "adjusting" step directly results in a physical change in operation of the cooking appliance, including controlling thermal output applied to cookware and food. This is not merely presenting information or providing instructions, but instead constitutes real-time control of a physical appliance, which is a quintessential practical application under the USPTO's 2019 PEG and MPEP § 2106.04.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is misguided as to the proper analysis of a “Practical Application” as required under Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
III. The Claims Recite Significantly More Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea
The Applicant respectfully argues “The amended claims further recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea because they define a specific and non-generic integration of motion detection with appliance control. In particular, the claims recite a motion detection device configured to detect user movement during food preparation, a motion profile defining a modeled food preparation movement, and an appliance controller that automatically adjusts a heat output level of a heating element of a cooking appliance based on comparison of detected motion data to the modeled movement. This arrangement is not a generic computer implementation of data analysis, but rather a specific technological system that uses motion sensing inputs to directly control a physical appliance. The Examiner has not established that such an integrated configuration-particularly the automatic adjustment of cooking heat output in response to motion-based evaluation-is well-understood, routine, or conventional. As such, the claimed combination reflects an inventive concept that goes beyond any alleged abstract idea.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
IV. The Specification Provides Support for the Claimed Appliance Control Functionality
The Applicant respectfully argues “The amended claims are fully supported by the originally filed specification. The specification describes embodiments in which a cooking appliance, such as a cooktop including heating elements, is controlled based on detected user motion and corresponding food preparation techniques. See, for example, paras [0038]-[0039], which describe controlling operational parameters of a cooking appliance, including temperature or heat level. The specification further discloses that such operational parameters may be automatically adjusted based on detected motion data corresponding to user actions during food preparation. Additional portions of the specification describe generating motion profiles, comparing detected motion to those profiles, and modifying appliance operation accordingly. These disclosures provide clear written description support for the presently claimed features, including (i) the cooking appliance comprising a cooktop having at least one heating element and (ii) the automatic adjustment of heat output based on comparison of motion data to a predefined movement model.
In view of the foregoing amendments and arguments, the claims are directed to a specific cooking appliance system and are integrated into a practical application involving real-world control of a heating element based on detected motion. The claims further recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea through the specific combination of motion sensing, movement comparison, and automated adjustment of appliance heat output. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Whether the claimed limitations are unsupported or not, are not part of the subject-matter eligibility analysis under 35 U.S.C. §101. As such, the Applicant’s argument is irrelevant. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, 14-16, 19-20, 23, 26, 28-29 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. §101 is not withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Applicant respectfully argues “The written description rejection is not well-founded. In addition to the issues already argued in previously filed responses, support for all of the pending claims as amended would be readily identified by the person of ordinary skill. As the claims are amended in this response and the rejections under Section 112(a) have been without clear justification, it is unclear which of the previous rejections, if any, may still be applicable. Accordingly, remarks responsive to the pending rejection are provided. If the amended claims are still deemed to be inconsistent with the written description requirement, the Examiner is requested to clearly articulate such allegations in full and in the context of the pending claims as amended. Given the scope and the complexity of the alleged deficiencies, the terms and corresponding justification for the rejection must be clearly articulated to meet the burden to support a prima facie case to support the rejection.
The pending rejection is not supported because the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case as required under MPEP § 2163.04. That section requires the Examiner to identify, with particularity, the specific claim language at issue and explain why the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of that subject matter. Here, the Office Action does not analyze the disclosure from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Instead, the rejection is stated in conclusory form, without any citation to the specification or explanation of why the disclosure would fail to convey the claimed subject matter. Such a conclusory assertion does not satisfy the Examiner's burden to establish a prima facie case under Section 2163.04.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The new matter rejection, provided above, clearly describes the limitations that the Examiner reasonably believes are unsupported in the written description of the specification as originally filed. As such, the Examiner has reasonably met his burden. The Applicant could easily overcome such a rejection, by merely providing the precise paragraph and/or sentence that the limitation in question can be found. Doing so, would provide sufficient evidence to overcome the rejection. This is an extremely low bar that one should reasonably be able to overcome, if the evidence exists. In the Applicant’s case, no evidence has been provided, which reasonably supports the Examiner’s position and thereby warrants the rejection. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “If considered as required to support the pending rejection, the person of ordinary skill in the art, reviewing the application in the context of cooking or heating appliances, would immediately recognize that such appliances include one or more devices configured to generate heat. In undertaking even a cursory review, such a skilled person would identify well-known heating appliances and components, including an oven, cooktop, range, hob, and burner, each of which inherently includes a device that generates heat and is subject to control. In addition to these specific devices, the application would readily inform the skilled person of other equivalent devices within the field without limitation. The recited heating element corresponds directly to all such devices as does the scope of the corresponding claim language. Without undertaking this basic analysis from the perspective of a skilled person, the Office Action does not meet the threshold requirement for a written description rejection. The rejection is, therefore, unsupported and must be withdrawn for at least this reason.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. One with ordinary skill in the art would know that cooking appliances do not “inherently” include “at least one heating element.” For the sake of argument, the following list of cooking appliances has been provided to describe their respective mode of operation:
(1) Gas stoves/ranges: Heat food via a flame from gas burners, not an electric heating element;
(2) Induction cooktops: Use electromagnetic induction to heat cookware directly; there is no heating element in the cooktop surface itself; and
(3) Microwaves: Use magnetrons to generate microwaves, not resistive heating elements.
As such, the Applicant’s reliance on inherency is misguided. Regardless, the claim limitation of “at least one heating element,” is one supported. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, 14-16, 19-20, 23, 26, 28-29 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. §112 (a) is not withdrawn.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights