DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 6/16/2026. Claims 17-32 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments- 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered and the prior rejections have been withdrawn. However the claim amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments- 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The independent claims recite acquiring data from various sources and then correcting data. The claims recite merely insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering - MPEP 2106.05(g)). The correcting data steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that it could be performed mentally or with pen and paper.
The rejection is updated to reflect the amended claim language.
Response to Arguments- 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 17-32 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 17 recites “correcting the acquired insolation data…” and then repeats “correcting the acquired insolation data, so that …” It is unclear why the correcting step is listed twice. It is recommended that the claim be amend to recite “correcting the acquired insolation data…wherein the correcting comprises…” or similar language.
Claim 17 recites “correcting the acquired insolation data, so that the acquired insolation data which is not considered at least the influence of the cloud on the insolation having a small deviation from the actually measured value” which is a nonsensical phrase that is impossible to discern. Additionally, “the influence” and “the actually measured value” lack antecedent support. Any application of prior art is the Examiner’s best interpretation of the claimed subject matter.
Claims 28-32 are rejected for similar reasoning.
Claims 18-17 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim 30 recites “A computer readable non-transitory recording medium recording a model generated by machine learning, comprising: insolation data acquired from a management server of a weather information service…” First, the preamble should be rewritten as “A non-transitory computer readable medium, having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements: a model generated by machine learning…” or similar language for clarity. Second, it is unknown if the body of the claim is reciting the model, as it begins with “insolation data acquired…and weather data acquired…” There does not appear to be a model recited, only input and output variables. The entirety of claim 30 is convoluted and impossible to discern. Additionally, “the influence” and “the actually measured value” lack antecedent support. Any application of prior art is the Examiner’s best interpretation of the claimed subject matter. The claim should be deleted in its entirety and re-written.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 26 recites “wherein the insolation data is acquired from a weather information service provider” which substantially repeats the newly added amendment from claim 17 Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 17-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements
that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1: With respect to claims 17-32, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claims 1 and 28-32 claim a method, device, medium, model, medium, method and method. Claims 17, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 fall within the statutory categories of process, machine, article of manufacture, article of manufacture, process and process.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
An insolation correction method, comprising:
acquiring insolation data from a management server of a weather information service provider;
acquiring weather data from a weather observation station or a weather database provided by a weather prediction business operator;
correcting the acquired insolation data, on the basis of the acquired weather data; and
correcting the acquired insolation data, so that the acquired insolation data which is not considered at least the influence of the cloud on the insolation having a small deviation from the actually measured value (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves correcting data. The correcting data step is simple enough/broadly claimed that it could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “acquiring insolation data from a management server of a weather information service provider” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)), “acquiring weather data from a weather observation station or a weather database provided by a weather prediction business operator” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim elements “acquiring insolation data from a management server of a weather information service provider” and “acquiring weather data from a weather observation station or a weather database provided by a weather prediction business operator” are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data collecting is well understood, routine, and conventional: "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra- solution activity:
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather
data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d
607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image
transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d
1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives
and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP
Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788
F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
• Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115
USPQ2d at 1092-93
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claims 28-32 are directed to substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. The same conclusion is reached for the dependent claims 18-26.
Dependent claims 18-26 are further directed towards limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves the data that is acquired or corrected. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, limitations also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
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 17-18, 21-22, 26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190347670 A1 (“Abramson”) in view of US 10506767 B2 (“Nagatomo”).
Regarding claims 17, 28 and 29 Abramson teaches:
acquiring insolation data from a management server of a weather information service provider (Abramson: para [0126], “obtain relevant weather and solar insolation data, such as weather data available from sources such as the U.S. National Weather Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), dOE-NREL Solar Resource and satellite-based weather providers such as SolarGIS”);
acquiring weather data from a weather observation station or a weather database provided by a weather prediction business operator (Abramson: para [0126], “obtain relevant weather and solar insolation data, such as weather data available from sources such as the U.S. National Weather Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), dOE-NREL Solar Resource and satellite-based weather providers such as SolarGIS”);
Abramson does not teach but Nagatomo does teach:
An insolation correction method, comprising:
correcting the acquired insolation data, on the basis of the acquired weather data (Nagatomo: col. 12, lines 16-22, “In this case, variation in the insolation amount due to weather conditions is preferably taken into account. When the effect of the weather
conditions on the insolation amount is taken into account, the insolation amount may be corrected on the basis of past meteorological data relating to the planned location 22”); and
correcting the acquired insolation data, so that the acquired insolation data which is not considered at least the influence of the cloud on the insolation having a small deviation from the actually measured value (see rejection under 35 USC 112; Nagatomo: col. 12, lines 16-22, “In this case, variation in the insolation amount due to weather conditions is preferably taken into account. When the effect of the weather conditions on the insolation amount is taken into account, the insolation amount may be corrected on the basis of past meteorological data relating to the planned location 22”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Abramson (directed to collecting data from weather services) and Nagatomo (directed towards correcting insolation data) and arrived at collecting data from weather services and correcting insolation data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “determine whether or not a planned location for installing the greenhouse is suitable” and “to provide an insolation regulation apparatus for a greenhouse, which regulates an amount of insolation reaching a crop cultivated in the greenhouse” (Nagatomo: col. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Abramson does not teach but Nagatomo teaches:
The insolation correction method according to claim 17, wherein the acquired insolation data is corrected by using a model with the insolation data and the weather data as an input variable (Nagatomo: col. 17, lines 38-43, “when a plurality of greenhouses 20 are disposed, light transmitted through the adjacent greenhouse 20 is emitted onto the surface of the plowed soil, and therefore the insolation evaluation unit 32 corrects the insolation amount in accordance with the effect of the adjacent greenhouse 20”; evaluation unit 32 is the model).
Regarding claim 21, Abramson does not teach but Nagatomo teaches:
The insolation correction method according to claim 18, wherein the input variable of the model includes at least one of air temperature data (Nagatomo: col. 3, lines 5-8, “In the installation evaluation apparatus, the sensor preferably includes at least one type of sensor selected from a group including a temperature sensor”), air temperature difference data, humidity difference data or apparent temperature difference data, cloudage data, direct insolation data, a combination of air temperature data and dew-point temperature data, a combination of air temperature data and wind-chill temperature data, a combination of air temperature data and apparent temperature data, a combination of air temperature data and heat index data, and scattered insolation data in a predetermined period, and
weather data including at least one of the air temperature data (Nagatomo: col. 3, lines 5-8, “In the installation evaluation apparatus, the sensor preferably includes at least one type of sensor selected from a group including a temperature sensor”), the air temperature difference data, the humidity difference data or the apparent temperature difference data, the cloudage data, the direct insolation data, the combination of the air temperature data and the dew-point temperature data, the combination of the air temperature data and the wind-chill temperature data, the combination of the air temperature data and the apparent temperature data, the combination of the air temperature data and the heat index data, and the scattered insolation data in the predetermined period is acquired.
Regarding claim 22, Abramson does not teach but Nagatomo teaches:
The insolation correction method according to claim 18, wherein the input variable of the model includes insolation data corrected on the basis of the acquired weather data, and the insolation data is further corrected by acquiring the corrected insolation data (Nagatomo: col. 12, lines 16-22, “In this case, variation in the insolation amount due to weather conditions is preferably taken into account. When the effect of the weather conditions on the insolation amount is taken into account, the insolation amount may be corrected on the basis of past meteorological data relating to the planned location 22”).
Regarding claim 26, Abramson and Nagatomo teach:
The insolation correction method according to claim 17, wherein the insolation data is acquired from a weather information service provider (Abramson: para [0126], “obtain relevant weather and solar insolation data, such as weather data available from sources such as the U.S. National Weather Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), dOE-NREL Solar Resource and satellite-based weather providers such as SolarGIS”).
Regarding claim 30, Abramson teaches:
A computer readable non-transitory recording medium recording a model generated by machine learning, comprising:
insolation data acquired from a management server of a weather information service provider and weather data acquired from a weather observation station or a weather database provided by a weather prediction business operator as an input variable (see rejection under 35 USC 112; Abramson: para [0126], “obtain relevant weather and solar insolation data, such as weather data available from sources such as the U.S. National Weather Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), dOE-NREL Solar Resource and satellite-based weather providers such as SolarGIS”)
Abramson does not teach but Nagatomo does teach:
and insolation data after correction which is corrected so that the acquired insolation data which is not considered at least the influence of the cloud on the insolation having a small deviation from the actually measured value as an output variable (see rejection under 35 USC 112; Nagatomo: col. 12, lines 16-22, “In this case, variation in the insolation amount due to weather conditions is preferably taken into account. When the effect of the weather
conditions on the insolation amount is taken into account, the insolation amount may be corrected on the basis of past meteorological data relating to the planned location 22”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Abramson (directed to collecting data from weather services) and Nagatomo (directed towards correcting insolation data) and arrived at collecting data from weather services and correcting insolation data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “determine whether or not a planned location for installing the greenhouse is suitable” and “to provide an insolation regulation apparatus for a greenhouse, which regulates an amount of insolation reaching a crop cultivated in the greenhouse” (Nagatomo: col. 1).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190347670 A1 (“Abramson”) in view of US 10506767 B2 (“Nagatomo”) further in view of US 20100310116 A1 (“Sasakawa”).
Regarding claim 31, Abramson teaches:
A model generating method, comprising:
acquiring insolation data from a management server of a weather information service provider and weather data from a weather observation station or a weather database provided by a weather prediction business operator (Abramson: para [0126], “obtain relevant weather and solar insolation data, such as weather data available from sources such as the U.S. National Weather Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), dOE-NREL Solar Resource and satellite-based weather providers such as SolarGIS”);
Abramson does not teach but Nagatomo does teach:
acquiring insolation data after correction which is corrected so that the acquired insolation data which is not considered at least the influence of the cloud on the insolation having a small deviation from the actually measured value (see rejection under 35 USC 112; Nagatomo: col. 12, lines 16-22, “In this case, variation in the insolation amount due to weather conditions is preferably taken into account. When the effect of the weather conditions on the insolation amount is taken into account, the insolation amount may be corrected on the basis of past meteorological data relating to the planned location 22”); and
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Abramson (directed to collecting data from weather services) and Nagatomo (directed towards correcting insolation data) and arrived at collecting data from weather services and correcting insolation data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “determine whether or not a planned location for installing the greenhouse is suitable” and “to provide an insolation regulation apparatus for a greenhouse, which regulates an amount of insolation reaching a crop cultivated in the greenhouse” (Nagatomo: col. 1).
Abramson and Nagatomo do not teach but Sasakawa does teach:
generating a model with the insolation data and the weather data as an input variable and the insolation data after correction as an output variable (Sasakawa: para [0028], “In order to evaluate the solar radiation amount based on the static satellite image data 1, the calculation part 23, as shown in FIG. 2, is configured to have map model combination means 10, evaluated area setting means 11, shadow determination means 12, slope correction calculation means 14, and solar radiation amount evaluation means 13”, para [0029], “The map model combination means 10 combines the static satellite image data 1 with the three-dimensional map data 21. Namely, the map model combination means 10 applies geometric correction to the static satellite image data 1 to align the static satellite image data 1 with the three-dimensional map data 21 through the coordinate information, and, thus, to combine the static satellite image data 1 with the three-dimensional map data 21. Since the coordinate accuracy of the static satellite image data 1 is low, the alignment is slightly less accurate. Therefore, the map model combination means 10 is provided with a combination point setting part (not shown) which extracts the shoreline and so on as a combination point, whereby in the alignment, error modification is applied by matching the combination points”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Abramson and Nagatomo (directed to correcting insolation data) and Sasakawa (directed to generating a model) and arrived at generating a model with corrected insolation data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to provide a method and apparatus for evaluating a solar radiation amount that can improve the accuracy by considering terrain conditions (Sasakawa: para [0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20, 23-25, 27, and 32 contain allowable subject matter.
The claims will be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 112 are overcome.
The independent claims will be in condition for allowance when the allowable dependent claims are incorporated into the independent claims, in addition to overcoming the 35 USC 101 and 112 rejections.
Abramson, Nagatomo, Suzuki and Sasakawa teach a method for correcting insolation data. However, these references and the remaining prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest
(claim 19)
“wherein the input variable of the model includes dew-point depression data, and weather data including the dew-point depression data is acquired”,
(claim 20)
“wherein the input variable of the model includes logarithmic data of humidity data, and weather data including the logarithmic data of the humidity data is acquired”
(claim 23)
“wherein weather data including dew-point depression data is acquired, and when the acquired dew-point depression data is less than a predetermined dew-point depression threshold value, the acquired insolation data is corrected”,
(claim 24)
“wherein weather data including air pressure data above sea level is acquired, and when the acquired air pressure data above sea level is a predetermined air pressure threshold value or less, the acquired insolation data is corrected”,
(claim 25)
“wherein weather data including air pressure data above sea level is acquired, and when a difference between a predetermined value and the acquired air pressure data above sea level is a predetermined difference threshold value or more, the acquired insolation data is corrected”,
(claim 27)
“wherein selection of a required weather information service provider among a plurality of weather information service providers is received, and the acquired insolation data is corrected by using the model corresponding to the selected weather information service provider”,
(claim 32)
“storing a plurality of different models generated by machine learning with insolation data from a management server of a weather information service provider and weather data from a weather observation station or a weather database provided by a weather prediction business operator …
receiving selection of a required weather information service provider among a plurality of weather information service providers; and
providing a model corresponding to the selected weather information service provider, among the plurality of different models”
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
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 NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights