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 .
Withdrawn Rejections:
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6-7 and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sutterlin of record (Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2008), is withdrawn because of the amendment claim 1 to recite a composition comprising: i) from about 1 wt% to about 75 wt% of a quaternary ammonium compound; and ii) from about 1 wt% to about 30 wt% of an anionic surfactant.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6-17 and 19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/302,350, is withdrawn because of the abandonment of the U.S. Patent Application No. 17/302,350.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/06/2025, were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. The IDS documents were considered. A signed copy of Form PTO-1449 is enclosed herewith.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7, 12-15 and 17-18 are pending.
Applicants’ arguments, filed on 10/02/2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants’ amendments filed on 10/02/2025, have been fully considered. Applicants have amended claims 1, 3, 12-15 and 17. Applicants have cancelled claims 8-11, 16 and 19. Claims 4-5 and 18 remain withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected species (see Remarks filed on 02/10/2025 and Office action mailed on 07/02/2025) of: i) a C6-C10 anionic surfactant (claims 4-5); and ii) anionic surfactant “comprises a C9 alcohol polyethylene glycol ether carboxylic acid” (claim 18). Therefore, claims 1-3, 6-7, 12-15 and 17 are currently drawn to the elected species and are the subject of the Office Action below.
Maintained Rejections:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Maintained/New Grounds of Rejections Necessitated by Applicants’ Claim Amendments
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.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6-7, 12-13 and 17, is maintained and amended claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the reasons of record set forth in the previous Office action, of which said reasons are herein reiterated. Claims 2-3, 6-7, 12-15 and 17 depend from the rejected claim 1 and are, therefore, also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the reasons set forth below.
As per MPEP 2173.02, “[d]uring prosecution, applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude (emphasis added). See, e.g., Johnson & Johnston Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1052, 62 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc).”
If the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate (emphasis added). See Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470, 28 USPQ2d 1190, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 recites the limitation:
i) “wherein the antimicrobial quaternary ammonium compound-anionic surfactant complex is soluble in an aqueous solution at a pH of 9 or less”; and
ii) “wherein the composition provides at least a 3 log reduction in a microbial population on a treated surface”.
However, a person skilled in the art cannot reasonably determine the meets and bounds of the of the composition that the Applicants are claiming. This is because, it is not clear from either the specification or the common teachings in the art how these limitations further limit the claim. For example, it is not clear if each of the recited functional limitations, is limiting to a particular quaternary ammonium compound(s), the anionic surfactant(s), or an unnamed excipient(s).
The specification does not teach or provide a nexus between the functional results that Applicants claim to achieve by the claimed composition with any particular component of the formulation or the manner in which it is made. There is no description as to the pharmaceutical approach that makes these results possible (i.e., what cause, for example, “wherein the antimicrobial quaternary ammonium compound-anionic surfactant complex is soluble in an aqueous solution at a pH of 9 or less”), nor do Applicants teach any quaternary ammonium compound(s), anionic surfactant(s) and diluent(s) or chemical approaches to avoid. Furthermore, it is unclear to one skilled in the art as to, for example:
a) what composition of claim 1, would exhibit the recited functional limitations; and
b) what composition of claim 1, would not exhibit the recited functional limitations.
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claims.
Accordingly, for the purpose of examination, any antimicrobial composition comprising a quaternary ammonium compound of claim 1 and an anionic surfactant of claim 1, is included in the interpretation of: i) “wherein the antimicrobial quaternary ammonium compound-anionic surfactant complex is soluble in an aqueous solution at a pH of 9 or less”; and ii) “wherein the composition provides at least a 3 log reduction in a microbial population on a treated surface”, recited in instant claim 1. It is recommended that Applicants amend claim 1 to either delete the recited functional limitations or recite specific composition(s) that performs the recited functional limitations, in order to overcome the rejection. Appropriate correction is required.
Each of claims 14-15 recites the limitation “when in a use solution, comprises from about 1 ppm to about 500 ppm” (claim 14, lines 1-2), and “when in a use solution, comprises from about 10 ppm to about 500 ppm” (claim 15, lines 1-2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in claims 14-14, because claim 1 from which claims 14-15 depend, fails to recite the limitation of a composition that can be in a use solution and comprising an anionic surfactant in an amount expressed in ppm range. Appropriate correction is required.
This lack of clarity makes it impossible to ascertain with reasonable precision when that claim is infringed and when it is not. Lacking such clarity, the skilled artisan would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the subject matter for which Applicants seek patent protection. Rather, a subjective interpretation of the claimed language would be required. However, as such is deemed inconsistent with the tenor and express language of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the claims are deemed properly rejected. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to the Applicant’s Arguments
Applicants raised several arguments (see pages 8-14 of Remarks), alleging that the rejection is improper on the grounds that:
1) Applicants merely cite MPEP §s 2173.02 and 2173.05(g), including a list of case law citations therein (see pages 9-10 of Remarks).
Response:
Applicants’ response fails to link MPEP §s 2173.02, 2173.05(g) and the legal concepts to the facts of the application under examination.
2) The recited limitation “wherein the composition provides at least a 3 log reduction in a microbial population on a treated surface”, is a commonly understood term in the field of disinfection. Applicants cite ¶s 0040 and 0222 of the specification in support of the Applicants’ position. Please see pages 11-12 of Remarks.
Response:
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive. This is because a review of the instant specification (including ¶s 0040 and 0222), fails to reveal a composition within the limitation of claim 1, that would not provide at least a 3 log reduction in a microbial population on a treated surface. There is no description as to the pharmaceutical approach that makes these results possible (i.e., what cause, for example, “wherein the composition provides at least a 3 log reduction in a microbial population on a treated surface”), nor do Applicants teach any quaternary ammonium compound(s), anionic surfactant(s) and diluent(s) or chemical approaches to avoid. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claims.
The Applicants have not properly addressed the specific grounds of rejection as discussed in the previous Office action and reiterated above.
3) The recited functional limitation of “wherein the antimicrobial quaternary ammonium compound-anionic surfactant complex is soluble in an aqueous solution at a pH of 9 or less”, is a property of a composition of the claimed invention that can be measured by one skilled in the art, in order to determine which composition exhibits the recited functional limitation and which composition does not exhibit the recited functional limitation. Applicants cite ¶s 0090, 0099, 0118, 0138, 0148-0149, 0153, 0157, 0163-0164 and 0181 of the specification in support of the Applicants’ position. Please see pages 12-14 of Remarks.
Response:
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive. This is because a review of the instant specification (including ¶s 0090, 0099, 0118, 0138, 0148-0149, 0153, 0157, 0163-0164 and 0181), fails to reveal a composition within the limitation of claim 1, that would not exhibit function of “wherein the antimicrobial quaternary ammonium compound-anionic surfactant complex is soluble in an aqueous solution at a pH of 9 or less”. There is no description as to the pharmaceutical approach that makes these results possible (i.e., what cause, “wherein the antimicrobial quaternary ammonium compound-anionic surfactant complex is soluble in an aqueous solution at a pH of 9 or less”), nor do Applicants teach any quaternary ammonium compound(s), anionic surfactant(s) and diluent(s) or chemical approaches to avoid. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claims. The Applicants have not properly addressed the specific grounds of rejection as discussed in the previous Office action and reiterated above.
For the reasons above, and those made of record in the previous Office action, the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Maintained/New Grounds of Rejections Necessitated by Applicants’ Claim Amendments
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6-7, 12-13 and 17, is maintained and amended claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bratescu of record (U.S. Pub. No. 20040071653), for the reasons of record set forth in the previous Office action, of which said reasons are herein reiterated.
Independent claim 1 is directed to an antimicrobial composition free of amine oxides, amides and betaines and comprising:
A) from about 1 wt% to about 75 wt% of a quaternary ammonium compound of formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein each of R1, R2, R3 and R4, is independently selected from a ≤ C20 alkyl or alkoxy chain length; and X- = an anion; and
B) from about 1 wt% to about 30 wt% of an anionic surfactant having a C6-C18 chain length.
The limitation of “quaternary ammonium compound-anionic surfactant complex”, is a property of an antimicrobial composition comprising a quaternary ammonium compound of claim 1 and an anionic surfactant of claim 1, when the quaternary ammonium compound and an anionic surfactant are combined to form the composition. Accordingly, for the purpose of examination, any antimicrobial composition comprising a quaternary ammonium compound of claim 1 and an anionic surfactant of claim 1, is included in the interpretation of “quaternary ammonium compound-anionic surfactant complex”.
Claim 1 further requires, wherein:
i) the quaternary ammonium compound-anionic surfactant complex is soluble in an aqueous solution at a pH of 9 or less, and
ii) the composition provides at least a 3 log reduction in a microbial population on a treated surface.
These limitations are properties of an antimicrobial composition comprising a quaternary ammonium compound of claim 1 and an anionic surfactant of claim 1, when the composition is used, i.e., when the composition is, for example added to water and applied to a surface. Accordingly, for the purpose of examination, antimicrobial composition comprising of a quaternary ammonium compound of claim 1 and an anionic surfactant of claim 1, is included in the interpretation of the functional limitations recited in claim 1.
Similar to the Applicants’ invention, Bratescu at ¶ 0001, states:
“The present invention relates to antimicrobial compositions and more specifically to such compositions containing at least one quaternary ammonium antimicrobial compound, at least one anionic surfactant and optionally at least one “bridging Surfactant. Further, the instant invention relates to a method of preparing the antimicrobial compositions and methods of inhibiting growth of microbial organisms by contacting with the antimicrobial compositions”.
The quaternary ammonium compound can be from about 5 to 25 wt% of the composition (see ¶ 0114), which is within the claimed “from about 1 wt% to about 75 wt%”. A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. Please MPEP § 2131.03.
The anionic surfactant can be from about 2 to about 15 wt% of the composition (see ¶ 0114), which is within the claimed “from about 1 wt% to about 30 wt%”. A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. Please MPEP § 2131.03.
Quaternary ammonium compound and anionic surfactant forms complex when combined (see ¶s 0073-0074 and 0102).
Bratescu discloses a generic quaternary ammonium compound of claim 1 (see, e.g., ¶s 0050-0055). Illustrative quaternary ammonium compounds (see ¶s 0120-0121), include dioctyl dimethyl ammonium chloride and n-alkyl (C12-C18) dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, which encompasses Applicants’ elected compound (see Remarks filed on 02/10/2025 and Office action mailed on 07/02/2025).
Suitable anionic surfactants include: i) C8-C16 alkyl sulfate (see ¶ 0033); ii) C8-C18 alkyl sulfonate (see ¶ 0034) and iii) alkyl ethoxy sulfate having C8-C16 in the alkyl portion and C1-C30 moles of ethylene oxide (i.e., EO, see ¶ 0035), which encompasses Applicants’ elected anionic surfactant (see Remarks filed on 02/10/2025 and Office action mailed on 07/02/2025). Illustrative anionic surfactants include: i) 2-methyl-1-undecanoic acid (a surfactant having a C12 chain length, see ¶ 0147); ii) sodium lauryl sulfate (a surfactant having a C12 chain length, see column 20, commercial name Stephanol® WA-Extra); and iii) sodium laureth sulfate (3EO, see column 20, commercial name Steol CS-370), which is the Applicants’ elected surfactant (see discussions above).
The composition can be formulated in a variety of forms such as solids, liquids, solutions, semi-solids, pastes, powders or gels (see ¶ 0250). In some embodiment, the solution may be prepared by dissolving the solid form in water (see ¶ 0250). Bratescu discloses that the compositions of the present-invention typically are prepared having a pH of between about 2 and about 10 (see ¶ 0249). Bratescu discloses that quaternary ammonium compounds and anionic surfactants form complexes (see ¶ 0102).
The Examiner would like to draw the Applicants’ attention to the following:
A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim even if the reference does not describe "the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).
In the instant case, the instant invention (e.g., claim 1), is directed to an antimicrobial composition comprising a genus of quaternary ammonium compound in combination with a genus of an anionic surfactant having C6-C18 chain length. Bratescu discloses an antimicrobial composition comprising a genus of quaternary ammonium compound in combination with a genus of an anionic surfactant having C6-C18 chain length (see discussions above).
Regarding the requirement that the composition of instant claim 1 is free of free of amine oxides, amides and betaines, it is noted that the “amine oxides, amides, and betaines”, i.e., “bridging surfactants” are only disclosed in Bratescu as optional ingredients (see discussions above). Furthermore, Tables I-X of Bratescu comprises quaternary ammonium compounds and anionic surfactants combinations excluding the “amine oxides, amides, and betaines”, i.e., “bridging surfactants” disclosed in Bratescu.
For example, Bratescu discloses a composition comprising Stepanol® WA-Extra and QC8 (see Table I).
Stepanol® WA-Extra is the trademark name for sodium lauryl sulfate (see ¶ 0252), i.e., a C12 chain length anionic surfactant.
QC8 is the trademark name for octyltrimethylammonium chloride (see ¶ 0252), i.e., a quaternary ammonium compound in which: 1) R1 = a C8 alkyl; 2) R2 = R3 = R4 = a C1 alkyl; and 3) X- = Cl-.
Therefore, claim 1 is anticipated by Bratescu.
Regarding claims 2-3, Bratescu teaches cetyltrimethylammonium chloride and sodium laureth sulfate (see discussions above).
Regarding claim 6, Bratescu teaches pH of 7.6 (see Table III).
Regarding claim 7, Bratescu discloses thickeners among the non-limiting examples of functional materials (see ¶ 0184).
Regarding claim 12, Bratescu discloses alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (see discussions above).
Regarding claim 13, Bratescu discloses sodium lauryl ether sulfate (see discussions above).
Regarding claims 14-15, the recitation of “wherein the composition when in a use solution, comprises from about 1 ppm to about 500 ppm ….”, is a property of a composition comprising a quaternary ammonium compound of claim 1 and an anionic compound of claim 1, when the composition is used, i.e., when the composition is, for example, added to water. Since Bratescu discloses a composition of claim 1 (see discussions above), the composition of Bratescu must necessarily exhibit the same properties recited in claims 14-15. Therefore, claims 14-16 are anticipated by Bratescu.
Regarding claim 17, Bratescu discloses a pH of 5.5 (see Table III).
Response to the Applicant’s Arguments
Applicants raised several arguments (see pages 15-18 of Remarks), alleging that the instant claims are not anticipated by Bratescu on the grounds that:
1) Applicants merely cite MPEP § 2131, including a list of case law citations therein (see pages 15-16 of Remarks).
Response:
Applicants’ response fails to link MPEP § 2131 and the legal concepts to the facts of the application under examination.
2) The fact pattern in Kennametal, Inc is not similar to the fact patterns in Bratescu because, the Bratescu reference fails to teach: i) the functional limitations recited in instant claim 1; and ii) a composition free of amine oxides, amides, and Betaines (examples of a bridging surfactant in Bratescu). Please see pages 16-18 of Remarks.
Response:
2i) The functional limitations recited in claim 1 are properties of an antimicrobial composition comprising a quaternary ammonium compound of claim 1 and an anionic surfactant of claim 1, when the composition is used, i.e., when the composition is, for example added to water and applied to a surface. Accordingly, since Bratescu teaches a composition of claim 1 (see discussions above), the composition of Bratescu must necessarily exhibit the same functional limitations recited in claim 1.
2ii) The “amine oxides, amides, and betaines”, i.e., “bridging surfactants” are only disclosed in Bratescu as optional ingredients (see discussions above).
Accordingly, a person of skill in the art, reading the Bratescu reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination. Therefore, the rejection of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bratescu of record, is proper.
For the reasons above, and those made of record in the previous Office action, the rejections are maintained.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection-Maintained
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6-7, 12-15 and 17 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent Application Nos: 1) 18/052,786; 2) 17/248,254; and 3) 18/051,245, is maintained for the reasons of record set forth in the previous Office action.
Response to the Applicants’ Arguments
Applicants argue on the grounds that each of the U.S. Patent Application Nos: 1) 18/052,786; 2) 17/248,254; and 3) 18/051,245, has an earliest filing date than the instant application. Please see pages 6-7 of Remarks.
Response:
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive, because the provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is not the only rejection remaining in the instant application.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6-7, 12-15 and 17 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent Nos: 1) 10,426,162; 2) 11,406,103; and 3) 11,540,512, is maintained for the reasons of record set forth in the previous Office action.
Response to the Applicants’ Arguments
Applicants raised several arguments (see pages 6-8 of Remarks), alleging that the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is improper on the grounds that:
A) U.S. Patent No. 11,540,512, has an earliest filing date than the instant application (see pages 6-7 of Remarks).
Response:
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive,
because the rejection claims 1-3, 6-7, 12-15 and 17 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,540,412, is not a provisional rejection, and is not the only rejection remaining in the instant application.
B) Applicants respond by merely citing MPEP §s 804(II)(B) and MPEP § 802(1), including a list of case law citations (see pages 7-8 of Remarks).
Response:
Applicants’ response fails to link the MPEP §s 804(II)(B) and MPEP § 802(1), and the legal concepts to the facts of the application under examination.
C) The instant claims allegedly differ from claims of U.S. Patent Nos: 1) 10,426,162; and 2) 11,406,103, in at least one of design, operation or effect (see page 8 of Remarks).
Response:
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The claims of the above cited patents are similarly drawn to a composition comprising a quaternary ammonium compound and an anionic surfactant. For example, the claims of the instant application are drawn to a composition comprising a quaternary ammonium compound and an anionic surfactant, whereas, the claims of the reference patent No. 10,426,162, are similarly directed to: i) a composition comprising a quaternary ammonium compound and an anionic surfactant (e.g., claim 1); and ii) a method for killing microbes with the composition (claim 11). Therefore, the invention of the instant claims and reference patent No. 10,426,162 claims are connected in any of design, operation or effect.
Therefore, there is sufficient overlap between the claim scopes to render them obvious over each other. Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the reference application subject matter.
For the reasons above, and those made of record in the previous Office action, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
No claim is allowable.
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.
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
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM D BORI whose telephone number is (571)270-7020. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM(EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JEFFREY S LUNDGREN can be reached on 571-272-5541. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IBRAHIM D BORI/
Examiner, Art Unit 1629
/JEFFREY S LUNDGREN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1629
Prosecution Insights