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 action is in reply to the Request for Continued Examination filed on March 02, 2026. Claims 11, 15-16, and 19-20 have been amended and are hereby entered. Claims 1-10 and 12-14 have been canceled. Claims 11 and 15-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 02, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 16-17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, line 7, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “the one of the at least one trays” to --the at least one tray-- in order to further clarify correspondence to the “at least one tray” of claim 11, line 4.
In claim 11, line 8, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “each of the at least one trays can be moved” to --each of the at least one trays is configured to be moved-- in order to further clarify the scope of the claim.
In claim 11, lines 27-28, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “which can be opened or closed on command” to --which is configured to be opened or closed on command-- in order to further clarify the scope of the claim.
In claim 16, line 5, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “the images” to --images-- in order to further clarify antecedent basis.
In claim 17, line 3, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “the analysis” to --analysis-- in order to further clarify antecedent basis.
In claim 20, line 3, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “the analysis” to --analysis-- in order to further clarify antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 and 15-20 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 11, line 23, recites “wherein the system comprises a plurality of modular shelves”. However, claim 11, lines 2-3, previously recites “comprising: at least one modular shelf”. It is unclear whether the “plurality of modular shelves” of claim 11, line 23, refers to the same or different “modular shelves” relative to the “at least one modular shelf” of claim 11, lines 2-3. As such, the structural arrangement of the system and its shelves is also unclear, and the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. Claims 15-20 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency upon claim 11.
Claim 18, lines 1-3, recites “wherein the information collected inside the system for controlling and managing hydroponic cultivations is handled by…”. However, it is unclear as to what “information” this limitation refers. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “information” refers to “the information related to the leaf expansion variations” of claim 16, to “biological parameters” of claim 11, or to information related to “leaf expansion, height and color variations” as described in claim 11. As such, the function of the control system software is also unclear, and the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambrosi (WO 2019/030606 A1), hereinafter Ambrosi, in view of Bongartz et al. (US 2020/0184153 A1), hereinafter Bongartz, and Sakaguchi et al. (CA 3097969 A1), hereinafter Sakaguchi.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Ambrosi discloses a system for controlling and managing hydroponic cultivations (title; abstract) comprising:
at least one modular shelf (module 30; fig. 1), wherein the at least one modular shelf comprises a plurality of modular spaces (spaces between supports 31; fig. 4) each adapted to contain at least one tray (tray 32; fig. 4) for containing vegetable crops (fig. 1, trays 32 are capable of holding vegetable crops) and at least one light source (LED lighting means 72) adapted to illuminate the at least one tray containing vegetable crops (fig. 1), each of the plurality of modular spaces being provided with support elements (guides 37, 37’) for the one of the at least one trays (fig. 1), vertically separated by predetermined distances (fig. 1), wherein each of the at least one trays can be moved inside the at least one modular shelf (abstract; page 20/45, lines 11-15, system is capable of moving trays 32 to different heights),
wherein the at least one modular shelf further comprises a modular space (space between supports 31; shown in fig. 4) of the plurality of modular spaces that contains a software-controlled management station (“software management system” page 21/45, lines 24-25; page 28/45, lines 17-19, cameras of software management system are located “in a zone of the module”) comprising at least one sensor (“growth analysis sensors” page 21/45, lines 23-24), cameras (“one or more cameras” page 28/45, line 17), and actuators (conduits 74 of irrigation zone 73), wherein the actuators provide nutrient solution to the vegetable crops (page 27/45, lines 1-8, conduits 74 release water containing “nutritious substances”);
wherein the system comprises a plurality of modular shelves (modules 30) arranged adjacent to one another (fig. 2) and which each define a growth environment for vegetable crops (page 22/45, lines 4-9, modules can have “differentiated microclimates”), each environment being separated from the outside and from other environments of the same type, by insulating walls (“vertical panel walls” page 19/45, lines 21-32, walls may comprise “insulating” panels), wherein at least two modular shelves of the plurality of modular shelves are placed in mutual communication by at least one passage (“central zone” comprising shelf 33’ and second means 36; fig. 3-4), through which the vegetable crops are transitable on the at least one tray (fig. 3), wherein said at least one passage is arranged at the modular space inside which said software-controlled management station operates (see claim 14 and fig. 3-4; control and management station (“cameras”) is located in one or more modules 30; “central zone” comprising shelf 33’ and second means 36 extends through modules 30 and abuts the spaces between vertical supports 31; therefore, “central zone” is interpreted as being arranged “at” the modular space inside which cameras operate).
Ambrosi does not appear to specifically disclose:
the at least one sensor able to determine biological parameters of the vegetable crops;
the cameras for detecting leaf expansion, height and color variations;
the actuators able to adjust the biological parameters to predetermined growth values, wherein the actuators provide nutrient solution to the vegetable crops based upon an analysis of the biological parameters, leaf expansion, and height and color variations by the software-controlled management station; and
the at least one passage, which can be opened or closed on command.
However, Bongartz is in the field of systems for controlling and managing cultivations (title; abstract) and teaches:
the at least one sensor (second sensor 160) able to determine biological parameters of the vegetable crops (para [2274], second sensor 160 determines temperature or humidity);
the cameras (first sensor 150; para [2274] and [2283], first sensor 160 may be an optical sensor such as a camera) for detecting leaf expansion, height and color variations (para [0519], cameras are capable of monitoring plants over time and are capable of detecting plant morphology and thus are also capable of detecting leaf expansion and height; para [0034], cameras can “detect color changes”);
the actuators (actuator device 310; para [2291], actuator device 310 may be a “water inlet” or “nutrient dosing feeder”) able to adjust the biological parameters to predetermined growth values (para [2291], “water flow” and “nutrient concentration” can be controlled by actuators), wherein the actuators provide nutrient solution to the vegetable crops based upon an analysis of the biological parameters, leaf expansion, and height and color variations by the software-controlled management station (para [0257]-[0258], “water flow” and “nutrient concentration” can be controlled “based on sensor inputs e.g. from cameras”; para [2292], control parameters of the hydroponic arrangement 800 may be adjusted or readjusted based on data from sensor devices).
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 the system with sensor, cameras, and actuators of Ambrosi to have made the sensor and cameras capable of determining biological parameters of crops and of detecting leaf expansion, height and color variations, as taught by Bongartz, with a reasonable expectation of success to allow a user to more closely monitor the health of crops (para [0034]), thereby enabling the user to provide more appropriate care to crops. One would have been further motivated to have modified the system to have made the actuators able to provide nutrient solution based on an analysis of biological parameters, leaf expansion, height and color variations as taught by Bongartz with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide more specialized care to plants, thereby increasing plant growing efficiency (para [0025]).
Finally, Sakaguchi is in the field of systems for controlling and managing cultivations (title; abstract) and teaches:
the at least one passage (passageway in which elevator 820 is positioned; fig. 13), which can be opened or closed on command (fig. 13; space is opened and closed via chamber lid 22).
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 the system with modules and at least one passage of Ambrosi to have made the passage capable of opening and closing as taught by Sakaguchi with a reasonable expectation of success to limit leakage of air from the modules and to limit the spread of contaminants throughout the system (page 31/71, third paragraph), thereby providing better control over cultivation environments within the modules.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Ambrosi as modified discloses the system according to claim 11, and further discloses wherein each environment (from Ambrosi, interior spaces of modules 30) is managed in a differentiated way in terms of the internal environmental parameters of temperature, humidity and gas concentration (from Ambrosi, page 22/45, lines 4-9, modules can have “differentiated microclimates”; page 25/45, line 27-31 and page 26/45, lines 11-12, temperature, moisture, and oxygenation can be regionally controlled).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Ambrosi as modified discloses the system according to claim 11, and further discloses wherein the software-controlled management station (from Ambrosi, “software management system” page 21/45, lines 24-25; page 28/45, lines 17-19) is configured to compare the images captured by the cameras at different moments containing the information related to the leaf expansion variations of the vegetable crops, detect the vegetative variations of the crops (from modification by Bongartz, para [2877], sensors including cameras are capable of monitoring plant health and morphology, including leaf expansion variations, by capturing and analyzing images over time), and set characteristic values (see Bongartz, para [2877]-[2884], “measured values” are obtained from sensor data).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Ambrosi as modified discloses the system according to claim 11, and further discloses wherein the actuators (from Sakaguchi, nutrient solution collection pipe 470) are configured to collect samples of residual nutrient solution possibly present in the at least one tray (from Sakaguchi, nutrient solution tray 210; page 19/71, line 24 – page 20/71, line 4, nutrient solution collection pipe 470 collects residual nutrient solution from nutrient solution tray 210) and to send the samples to a sector for the analysis of characteristic parameters (see Sakaguchi page 22/71, lines 4-14, nutrient supply device 440 analyzes nutrient composition via straight fertilizer sensor SFS).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ambrosi (WO 2019/030606 A1), hereinafter Ambrosi, in view of Bongartz et al. (US 2020/0184153 A1), hereinafter Bongartz, and Sakaguchi et al. (CA 3097969 A1), hereinafter Sakaguchi, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lo et al. (US 11,483,981 B1), hereinafter Lo.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Ambrosi as modified discloses the system according to claim 16, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the information collected inside the system for controlling and managing hydroponic cultivations is handled by a control system software which is configured to compare detected statuses with those expected with respect to a set of parameters taken from typical growth curves, and expected nutrient consumption statuses detected from data coming from a residual nutrient solution.
However, Lo is in the field of systems for controlling and managing cultivations (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the information collected inside the system for controlling and managing hydroponic cultivations is handled by a control system software (col 16, line 48, “processor may be programmed”) which is configured to compare detected statuses (col 16, lines 52-60, “determined growth stage” determined via visual analysis by sensors, video observation, etc.) with those expected with respect to a set of parameters taken from typical growth curves (col 16, lines 61-64, “predicted growth curve for a plant species”; col 16, lines 65-67, “measurement of plant growth…may be used to confirm the optimal temperature calculations”, which are made using the “predicted growth curve”; therefore, detected statuses and parameters taken from typical growth curves are being compared), and expected nutrient consumption statuses detected from data coming from a residual nutrient solution (col 4, lines 53-55, “The growth of the first seedling may be determined by measurement of consumption of a nutrient in the nutrient solution.” and col 5, lines 58-60, “Growth of the seedling may be determined by measurement of a concentration of a nutrient solution to determine the seedling consumption.”).
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 the system of Ambrosi as modified to incorporate the control system software configured to compare detected statuses with those of typical growth curves as taught by Lo with a reasonable expectation of success in order to optimize and accelerate plant growth by comparing detected statuses to ideal statuses (col 16, lines 48-67).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ambrosi (WO 2019/030606 A1), hereinafter Ambrosi, in view of Bongartz et al. (US 2020/0184153 A1), hereinafter Bongartz, and Sakaguchi et al. (CA 3097969 A1), hereinafter Sakaguchi, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Joseph et al. (US 2017/0099791 A1), hereinafter Joseph.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Ambrosi as modified discloses the system according to claim 11, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the system for controlling and managing hydroponic cultivations comprises a first carriage intended for dosing and introducing corrective nutrients in the at least one tray containing vegetable crops, said carriage comprising nutrient reservoirs, an electrical control panel and a hydraulic dosing central control unit.
However, Joseph is in the field of systems for controlling and managing cultivations (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the system for controlling and managing hydroponic cultivations comprises a first carriage (water and nutrient delivery system 400; fig. 1) intended for dosing and introducing corrective nutrients in the at least one tray containing vegetable crops (para [0073]), said carriage comprising nutrient reservoirs (nutrient reservoirs 402 and 412), an electrical control panel (para [0073]-[0074], note that while an electrical control panel is not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that an electrical control panel would be present in a system that utilizes a “computer monitoring and control system” to regulate dispensing of nutrients) and a hydraulic dosing central control unit (“computer monitoring and control system” para [0074]).
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 the system for controlling and managing hydroponic cultivations of Ambrosi as modified to incorporate the carriage with nutrient reservoirs, electrical control panel, and hydraulic dosing central control unit as taught by Joseph with a reasonable expectation of success to provide more automated and specialized care to plants in the form of specialized nutrient solutions (para [0073]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Ambrosi as modified discloses the system according to claim 11, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the system for controlling and managing hydroponic cultivations comprises a carriage intended for the analysis of the quality of controlled residual nutrients, for mixing corrective components and for pumping them into at least one of: a hydroponic system, soil-grown crops, and a coconut fibre or vermiculite, periodically soaked with solution, said carriage comprising a value analysis unit, a hydraulic pumping unit and a mixing unit of corrective nutrients to be introduced into the at least one tray containing vegetable crops.
However, Joseph is in the field of systems for controlling and managing hydroponic cultivations (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the system for controlling and managing hydroponic cultivations comprises a carriage (water and nutrient delivery system 400; fig. 1) intended for the analysis of the quality of controlled residual nutrients (para [0074], water and nutrient delivery system 400 comprises sensing elements for sensing nutrient and contaminant levels in hydroponics chambers 200), for mixing corrective components and for pumping them into at least one of: a hydroponic system, soil-grown crops, and a coconut fibre or vermiculite, periodically soaked with solution (para [0074], water and nutrient delivery system 400 ensures that “proper nutrient mixtures are provided to each respective chamber 200”), said carriage comprising a value analysis unit (comprises “sensing elements” communicating with a “computer monitoring and control system” para [0074]), a hydraulic pumping unit (pumps 406 and 416) and a mixing unit (nutrient reservoirs 402 and 412) of corrective nutrients to be introduced into the at least one tray containing vegetable crops (para [0073]-[0074]).
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 the system for controlling and managing hydroponic cultivations of Ambrosi as modified to incorporate the carriage with value analysis unit, hydraulic pumping unit, and mixing unit as taught by Joseph with a reasonable expectation of success to provide more automated and specialized care to plants in the form of specialized nutrient solutions (para [0073]-[0074]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 2-7 of 10), filed March 02, 2026, regarding the rejection of at least claim(s) 11 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that “the references fails to teach, or suggest, the claimed limitations”, which is “particularly noticeable when the claims are interpreted in light of the underlying specification” (Remarks, page 3 of 10). The Examiner respectfully maintains that the prior art references, namely Ambrosi (WO 2019/030606 A1) in view of Bongartz et al. (US 2020/0184153 A1), and Sakaguchi et al. (CA 3097969 A1), teach all claimed limitations, interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, as is described in detail in the rejection above.
Applicant then asserts that Ambrosi “lacks an ability to that may track and verify status cultivations that are in progress” (Remarks, page 3 of 10). However, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., ability to “track and verify status cultivations”) do not appear to be explicitly recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Nonetheless, the Examiner notes that Bongartz is used to modify Ambrosi to teach, for example, sensors and cameras capable of monitoring statuses of plants and their surrounding environment, which broadly reads upon an ability to “track and verify status cultivations”.
Applicant further disagrees with the modification of Ambrosi by Sakaguchi to teach “at least one passage, which can be opened or closed on command” and argues that Sakaguchi is “limited to traditional vertical motion in the vertical farming system” (Remarks, page 4 of 10). However, it is not necessary for Sakaguchi to teach the same the direction of motion of the elevator and/or positioning of the trays as compared to the primary reference of Ambrosi or to the claimed invention. The general structure and function of the passageway through which the at least one tray may be moved is already taught by Ambrosi; Sakaguchi is merely used to teach opening and closing of the passageway, which is well understood in the art of plant cultivation systems. To further improve clarity of the record, the Examiner additionally notes that the citation for the “passageway” has been updated in the rejection above to more clearly describe the element in Sakaguchi corresponding to the “passageway” of the instant invention.
Applicant presents additional arguments directed to the phrase “prevent conditioned air from escaping modules and to prevent the spread of contaminants throughout the system” used in the most recent previous Office Action, filed on December 02, 2025 (Remarks, page 5 of 10). However, the Examiner notes that this phrase merely serves to describe the motivation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had to modify the system with passageway of Ambrosi to be capable of opening and closing on command as taught by Sakaguchi. The motivation for making the passageway capable of opening and closing on command is directly described in Sakaguchi (see citation in the above rejection). Nonetheless, in an effort to expedite prosecution and promote clarity of the record, the Examiner has updated the motivation in the rejection above to more clearly define why one having ordinary skill in the art would have made the aforementioned modification.
Finally, Applicant states that the “the current system’s ability to track movement of a tray from a location to another, dynamically determine a need for a vegetable present in the chamber of the system, all while maintaining an uncompromised system” is distinguishable over the approach of Sakaguchi (Remarks, page 7 of 10). However, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “ability to track movement of a tray from a location to another, dynamically determine a need for a vegetable present in the chamber of the system, all while maintaining an uncompromised system”) do not appear to be explicitly recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 7-9 of 10), filed March 02, 2026, regarding the rejection of at least claim(s) 18 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the Office cites Lo as allegedly reciting that the “system may use video observation or sensors to determine plant growth stage and may make calculations for plant care by comparing to a predicted growth curve” (Remarks, page 7 of 10). However, it is unclear where this quote was used in the most recent previous Office Action, filed on December 02, 2025.
Applicant additionally asserts that Office has provided an “incorrect citation” (Remarks, page 7 of 10). However, no specific arguments appear to be presented. Applicant has not pointed out a specific deficiency in the rejection, and as such, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant additionally asserts that “weighing of ‘optimal temperature calculations’ in order to optimize nutrient solutions from plant growth clearly teaches away from the comparison of detected statuses for a vegetable crop” (Remarks, page 8 of 10). However, in order to teach away, a reference must actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. Prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed; a modification must denigrate the function of the base reference. See MPEP 2145(X)(D). In this case, Lo does not actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed limitations, as the use of “optimal temperature calculations” does not explicitly discourage the claimed solution. The Examiner further maintains that Lo teaches the claimed limitations, as Lo teaches a system that compares detected statuses to those expected with respect to a set of parameters from a predicted growth curve (see citation in the above rejection) under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Kimberly Berona, can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
.
Prosecution Insights