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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 18-20 in the reply filed on 04/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the process steps cannot be performed by hand and there is no search burden.. This is not found persuasive because the step of actuating a vibration source can be practiced by hand. A user can connect the source to power supply or activate ON buttons. Additionally, Group I claims a beverage infuser assembly wherein Group II claims a controller with certain program. Thus, the inventions are different and present a search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/10/2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-22 are objected to because of the following informalities: the current status (original, withdrawn) of the claims is not indicated. MPEP 714-c. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because claim 12 recites “an mounting frame”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because claim 1 recites “a base assembly”, and “the base”. Claim 15 depends on claim 1 and recites “the base”. The two citations of “the base” should be “the base assembly”.
Claim 14 is objected to because claim 14 recites “the ultrasonic energy source”. The limitation should be “the vibration source”.
Claim 7 and 8 are objected to because claims 7 and 8 recite “the plunger filter is positioned more proximate the”. The phrase should be “the plunger filter is positioned more proximate to the”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “124” has been used to designate both elastomer element and fastener. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
vibration source in claims 1 and 21, interpreted as vibration motor as described in paragraph [6 ] of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 6-9, 14 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 14 depends on claim 1 and cites “the ultrasonic energy source” however this limitation is not cited in claim 1. Claim 14 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6 cites “a plunger rod having a first end and a second end, wherein the plunger assembly includes a plunger filter positioned on a second end of the plunger rod.” It is not clear if there are multiple second ends.
Dependent claims 7-9 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 16-17, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Papafotiou et al., WO 2016149734 (hereafter Papafotiou).
Regarding claim 1, A beverage infuser assembly comprising: a fluid vessel (vessel 5) including a top end and a bottom end, defining a longitudinal axis between the top end and the bottom end; (Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image1.png
619
493
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Papafotiou
a base assembly (resonator housing 6) operatively connected to the bottom end of the fluid vessel;
and a vibration source (resonator 7) positioned within the base,
wherein the vibration source is configured and adapted to transmit ultrasonic waves into the fluid vessel to accelerate the infusion process. ( Page 1, lines 10-15 teaches “A coupling medium such as an incompressible fluid, gel or material may be used between the resonator and the container's wall to enable the transfer of energy through mechanical vibrations, including vibrations at ultrasonic frequencies, from the resonator through the container's wall and into the liquid containing the coffee grounds.”)
Regarding claim 5,
The beverage infuser as recited in claim 1, wherein the fluid vessel is removably coupled to the base assembly. (Page 5, lines 21-22 teaches that base can be detachable from French press container.)
Regarding claim 6,
The beverage infuser as recited in claim 1, further comprising a plunger assembly including a plunger rod having a first end and a second end, wherein the plunger assembly includes a plunger filter positioned on a second end of the plunger rod. (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 7,
The beverage infuser as recited in claim 6, wherein, when in an infusion position, the plunger filter is positioned more proximate the top end of the fluid vessel than the bottom end of the fluid vessel. (Page 2, lines 22-26 teaches “Said container portion may comprise a French press haying a cylindrical side wall and filter screen adapted to be manually pressed through said container portion, such that said method comprises depressing said screen through said container to separate extracted solids residue from said beverage.” It is implied here that the filter is pressed towards the bottom after infusion is done. Thus, at the beginning of infusion the filter is positioned closer to the top end of the vessel.)
Regarding claim 8,
The beverage infuser as recited in claim 6, wherein, when in a pouring position, the plunger filter is positioned more proximate the bottom end of the fluid vessel than the top end of the fluid vessel. (Page 2, lines 22-26 teaches “Said container portion may comprise a French press haying a cylindrical side wall and filter screen adapted to be manually pressed through said container portion, such that said method comprises depressing said screen through said container to separate extracted solids residue from said beverage.” It is implied here that the filter is pressed towards the bottom after infusion is done. Thus, in a pouring position the filter is positioned closer to the bottom end of the vessel.)
Regarding claim 10,
The beverage infuser as recited in claim 1, wherein the base assembly includes an upper isolation platform, a lower housing and at least one elastomer element between the upper isolation platform and the lower housing. (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 11,
The beverage infuser as recited in claim 10, wherein the upper isolation platform is coupled to the elastomer element and the lower housing via a fastener. (Page 5, lines 6-8 teaches “The base (9) shown in Figure 1 serves multiple purposes including to protect electrical components contained within the base, and to provide a stable base for the French Press to be rested on a table top.” It is implied that the resonator housing 6, silicon washer 8, and base 9 are fastened together to form a stable base.)
Regarding claim 12,
The beverage infuser as recited in claim 10, wherein the base assembly includes an mounting frame (base 9) operatively coupled to the lower housing.
Regarding claim 14,
The beverage infuser as recited in claim 1, wherein the base assembly includes an upper isolation platform having a mounting portion, wherein the ultrasonic energy source is mounted within the mounting portion of the isolation platform. (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 16,
The beverage infuser as recited in claim 1, wherein the base assembly includes an electric port configured and adapted to receive an electrical cord coupled to an external power source. (Fig. 3 teaches electric cable 12 connected to remote driver circuitry 13. It is implied that cable 12 is connected to an electric port in base 9.)
Regarding claim 17,
The beverage infuser as recited in claim 1, further comprising a controller operatively connected to the vibration source, wherein the controller is configured and adapted to vary the frequency of the ultrasonic waves emitted by the vibration source. (Page 6, lines 1-5 teaches “The resonator is driven by an electrical circuit supplying a 60 Watt, 28 KHz drive signal for 30 seconds per brew. Both the drive signal's power, frequency and duration can be varied to best suit the size of the French Press and the beverage consumer's taste.” It is implied that the circuit comprises a controller to vary frequency of the power supply, hence frequency of the waves.)
Regarding claim 21,
A control system for a beverage infuser assembly, the control system comprising, a controller operatively connected to control a vibration source, (Page 6, lines 1-5 teaches “The resonator is driven by an electrical circuit supplying a 60 Watt, 28 KHz drive signal for 30 seconds per brew. Both the drive signal's power, frequency and duration can be varied to best suit the size of the French Press and the beverage consumer's taste.” It is implied that the circuit comprises a controller to vary frequency of the power supply, hence frequency of the waves.)
wherein the vibration source is configured and adapted to transmit ultrasonic waves into a fluid vessel to accelerate an infusion process, ( Page 1, lines 10-15 teaches “A coupling medium such as an incompressible fluid, gel or material may be used between the resonator and the container's wall to enable the transfer of energy through mechanical vibrations, including vibrations at ultrasonic frequencies, from the resonator through the container's wall and into the liquid containing the coffee grounds.”)
wherein the controller is configured to vary the frequency of the ultrasonic waves based on at least one of user input, a predefined program, or both. (Page 6, lines 1-5 teaches “The resonator is driven by an electrical circuit supplying a 60 Watt, 28 KHz drive signal for 30 seconds per brew. Both the drive signal's power, frequency and duration can be varied to best suit the size of the French Press and the beverage consumer's taste.” It is implied that the circuit comprises a controller to vary frequency of the power supply, hence frequency of the waves based on user input.)
Regarding claim 22,
The control system of claim 21, wherein the predefined program includes at least one of: a respective type of infusion ingredient; a respective type of preparation for a respective type of infusion ingredient; or a respective timing for a respective type of preparation. (Page 6, lines 1-5 teaches “The resonator is driven by an electrical circuit supplying a 60 Watt, 28 KHz drive signal for 30 seconds per brew. Both the drive signal's power, frequency and duration can be varied to best suit the size of the French Press and the beverage consumer's taste.” Here duration corresponds to timing in the instant claim.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papafotiou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peterson et al., US 20120308688 (hereafter Peterson).
The beverage infuser as recited in claim 1, further comprising an antenna positioned within the fluid vessel, the antenna configured and adapted to amplify ultrasonic energy transfer. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Peterson teaches in abstract “A cartridge may include a sonic receiver, such as a feature that extends into an interior space of the cartridge and is arranged to receive a sonic emitter that introduces sonic energy into the interior space. The sonic receiver may be excited by sonic energy, which causes the sonic receiver to itself introduce sonic energy into the cartridge.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the antenna as taught in Peterson to the infuser in Papafotiou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The sonic receiver may be arranged to direct sonic energy to particular areas of the interior space of the cartridge, focus, disperse or otherwise modify the sonic energy to make the intensity of the sonic energy more uniform in at least parts of the interior space, and/or have other affects on the sonic energy. This may help avoid problems associated with having sonic energy concentrated in one or more areas, such as tunneling where the sonic energy effectively forms a pathway in a beverage medium through which liquid may "short circuit" or pass through the cartridge without sufficiently contacting the beverage medium” as taught in paragraph [3] in Peterson.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papafotiou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sjaastad et al., US 20200008611 (hereafter Sjaastad).
Regarding claim 3, The beverage infuser as recited in claim 1, wherein the vibration source is an electric motor. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Sjaastad teaches “The components of the agitator 10 may include a vibration source 12, which may include an offset weight on a shaft of an electric motor” in paragraph [43].)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the motor as taught in Sjaastad to the infuser in Papafotiou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Vibration source embodiments 12 may include any mechanism that is configured to convert electrical energy (or any other suitable form of energy) into vibrational energy” as taught in paragraph [44] in Sjaastad.
Regarding claim 4,
The beverage infuser as recited in claim 3 , wherein the electric motor is an eccentric rotating mass vibration motor. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Sjaastad teaches “The components of the agitator 10 may include a vibration source 12, which may include an offset weight on a shaft of an electric motor” in paragraph [43].)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the motor as taught in Sjaastad to the infuser in Papafotiou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Vibration source embodiments 12 may include any mechanism that is configured to convert electrical energy (or any other suitable form of energy) into vibrational energy” as taught in paragraph [44] in Sjaastad.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papafotiou as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Peterson et al., US 20120308688 (hereafter Peterson).
The beverage infuser as recited in claim 6, wherein the plunger assembly includes an antenna positioned between the plunger filter and the first end of the plunger rod. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Peterson teaches “a cartridge 10 that includes a sonic receiver 11 in the form of cylindrically-shaped depression that extends downwardly from the lid 38 into the interior space of the container 12. The sonic receiver 11 in this embodiment may include a cylindrically-shaped cup that is attached to a hole in the lid 38, or may be molded or otherwise formed into the lid material.”)
Even though Peterson is silent about plunger, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the antenna as taught in Peterson between the filter and first end of the plunger rod in Papafotiou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The sonic receiver may be arranged to direct sonic energy to particular areas of the interior space of the cartridge, focus, disperse or otherwise modify the sonic energy to make the intensity of the sonic energy more uniform in at least parts of the interior space, and/or have other affects on the sonic energy. This may help avoid problems associated with having sonic energy concentrated in one or more areas, such as tunneling where the sonic energy effectively forms a pathway in a beverage medium through which liquid may "short circuit" or pass through the cartridge without sufficiently contacting the beverage medium” as taught in paragraph [3] in Peterson.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papafotiou as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Sjaastad et al., US 20200008611 (hereafter Sjaastad).
The beverage infuser as recited in claim 12, further comprising at least one battery, wherein the battery is operatively connected to the mounting frame. (Page 5, lines 13-16 in Papafotiou teaches “The base houses the resonator's electrical driver components, The resonator (7) is powered by an electrical circuit (10)”. However, Primary combination of references is silent about the electrical circuit comprising battery.
Sjaastad teaches “A power source 16 may include replaceable batteries, rechargeable batteries” in paragraph [43].)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the battery as taught in Sjaastad to the infuser in Papafotiou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the power source 16 and controller 14 may be disposed external to but in operative communication with the vibration source 12” as taught in paragraph [44] in Sjaastad.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papafotiou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martin, US 20110199852 (hereafter Martin).
The beverage infuser as recited in claim 1, wherein the fluid vessel includes a first threaded portion and wherein the base assembly includes a second threaded portion, wherein the first and second threaded portions are configured and adapted to engage or disengage one another to allow for the fluid vessel to be removable from the base. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Martin teaches “the collar 102 and bottom portion 130 have complementary screw threads that allow the collar 102 to be releasably attached to (i.e., screwed on and off of) the bottom portion 130 of the beverage container 106” in paragraph [24]. )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to removably couple the fluid vessel to the base as taught in Martin to the infuser in Papafotiou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The ability to detach the collar 102 from the beverage container 106 allows the various blender components to be separated for easier cleaning” as taught in paragraph [24] in Martin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GB-2268392, Figure
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights