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 .
Response to Arguments
As a preliminary matter, the claims in Applicant’s reply dated 10/09/2025 is missing claim number for the last claim on p6. The claim listed on p6 is missing claim number 20, which was originally presented number in the original claims listing dated 05/12/2023. As such, the last claim on p6 has been treated as claim 20 in this Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/09/2025, with respect to the objection of claim 8 and the objection of the abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 8 and the objection of the abstract has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/09/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-11, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-11, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, since Applicant’s amendments with respect to claim 1 have incorporated limitations from previous dependent claims and changed the scope of claims 1-11 and 13-17, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of previously applied references as explained in further detail below.
Applicant's arguments, filed 10/09/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Nilsen fails to teach store data comprising the determined changes of the light fractionation settings and the corresponding measurements to the memory with information about the target; determine, based on the data, optimal light fractionation settings for an illumination program to be applied for future treatments, the light fractionation settings comprising a sequence and durations for illumination and dark intervals; and provide the determined light fractionation settings via an output device based on a selected medical device or a selected target to be illuminated by an operator via an input device. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Nilsen failing to teach store data comprising the determined changes of the light fractionation settings and the corresponding measurements to the memory with information about the target; determine, based on the data, optimal light fractionation settings for an illumination program to be applied for future treatments, the light fractionation settings comprising a sequence and durations for illumination and dark intervals; and provide the determined light fractionation settings via an output device based on a selected medical device or a selected target to be illuminated by an operator via an input device, Examiner would like to note that these limitations were predominantly incorporated from previous dependent claim 12 and are consequently taught by Fournier as shown in the rejection of independent claim 1 below.
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., “initiate at least one action to change the at least one light fractionation setting during the illumination program performed by the medical device”, “determine, based on the data, optimal light fractionation settings for an illumination program to be applied for future treatments, the light fractionation settings comprising a sequence and durations for illumination and dark intervals”, and “provide the determined light fractionation settings via an output device based on a selected medical device or a selected target to be illuminated by an operator via an input device”) are not 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). However, portions of this argument are still pertinent and relevant to the new grounds of rejection as explained below.
Applicant further contends that Morita fails to teach or suggest the amended claimed subject matter of claim 1, where a skilled person would also fail to arrive at the claimed subject matter of claim 1 based on Morita, and where Morita is related to home treatments for skin diseases, whereas Nilsen focuses on the treatment of interstitial tumours, such that a person skilled in the art would not combine Morita and Nilsen (without conceding that such a combination is obvious or technically possible) since they address different problems. Additionally, Applicant contends that the Examiner has not provided a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill to combine the cited references or the elements in the way the claimed new invention does and that the July 10, 2025 official action includes rejections on obviousness grounds based on mere general conclusory statements, that the Examiner cannot use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or template to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is obvious, and that the Examiner must provide some reason for the combination other than the hindsight gleaned from the claimed subject matter itself. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner takes the position that it would be obvious to combine Nilsen and Morita as both references pertain to phototherapy with a treatment apparatus. Additionally, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivation to combine Nilsen with Morita is clearly provided, where Morita teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Morita, which teaches that the at least one action comprises providing instructions to a user to change the setting, with the modified invention of Nilsen in order to ensure the affected part is appropriately irradiated with the light, to perform the accurate treatment, and to enable irradiation with light beams at an appropriate set value (Morita ¶[0012] and ¶[0014]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation "a medical device" in line 2. The antecedent basis for this limitation seems indefinite since it is unclear whether or not "a medical device" in claim 6 is the same as the medical device as claimed in claim 1. Examiner interprets that “a medical device” refers to the medical device as claimed in claim 1, such that the claim should read “the medical device”.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsen et al. (hereinafter “Nilsen”) (WO 2012/076631 A1) in view of Fournier et al. (hereinafter “Fournier”) (U.S. Pat. No. 6,011,563 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nilsen teaches an apparatus for adaptive light fractionation in phototherapy (Page 15, lines 1-2 and 4-6, where “apparatus 100 allows for therapeutic light delivery and treatment monitoring via optical fibers 105 ... While in treatment mode, light from the therapeutic light unit 102 is guided into the distribution module 104 and directed into the patient fibers. Intermittently, the therapeutic irradiation is interrupted.” Examiner takes the position that since the light is interrupted, this is equivalent to light fractionation which involves delivering the light in pulses or fractions with dark intervals in between.), the apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (Page 44, lines 25-27, where “the present invention may take the form of a computer program product on a computer-usable storage medium having computer-usable program code embodied in the medium,” Page 44, line 32 – Page 45, lines 1-5, where “computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.”); and
at least one memory (Page 45, lines 6-8, where “These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to function in a particular manner”);
the at least one memory comprising instructions (Page 45, lines 6-8, where “These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to function in a particular manner”) which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
obtain measurements of one or more physical parameters associated with a target while an illumination program is performed by a medical device (Page 15, lines 1-2 and 4-6, where “apparatus 100 allows for therapeutic light delivery and treatment monitoring via optical fibers 105 ... While in treatment mode, light from the therapeutic light unit 102 is guided into the distribution module 104 and directed into the patient fibers. Intermittently, the therapeutic irradiation is interrupted.” Examiner interprets that the taught apparatus is a medical device.) on the target (Page 12, lines 2-4, where “Some examples are given below, describing measurement methods which may be used for direct or indirect measurement of PDT parameters. The measured parameters provide for determination of a target tissue status during PDT treatment.” Examiner takes the position that the PDT treatment is equivalent to an illumination program.);
determine, based on the measurements, that a predefined limit for at least one of the physical parameters is met (Page 15, lines 26-31, where “A PDT session may be interrupted and resumed, restricted, or aborted in dependence of certain attributes such as thresholds of photodynamic treatment parameters. For instance, when tissue oxygenation falls below a level where activation of a photosensitizing agent is ineffective, PDT treatment is interrupted and resumed when a sufficient level of oxygen is again present in the tissue to be treated.” Examiner takes the position that the treatment parameters are inherently measured in order to determine a threshold and that a threshold is equivalent to a predefined limit.);
determine a change in at least one light fractionation setting of the illumination program based on the at least one predefined limit that was met (Page 15, lines 26-31, where “A PDT session may be interrupted and resumed, restricted, or aborted in dependence of certain attributes such as thresholds of photodynamic treatment parameters. For instance, when tissue oxygenation falls below a level where activation of a photosensitizing agent is ineffective, PDT treatment is interrupted and resumed when a sufficient level of oxygen is again present in the tissue to be treated.” Examiner takes the position that by adjusting the treatment based on a treatment parameter such as an oxygen level that a change to the settings is inherently determined.);
and initiate at least one action to change the at least one light fractionation setting during the illumination program performed by the medical device (Page 16, lines 9-12, where “A control device may be arranged as a regulator or a thresholding device in the PDT system to stop, or reduce or otherwise restrict the delivery of therapeutic light treatment at least temporary upon passing of at least one threshold value of the photodynamic treatment parameter.” Examiner interprets that since the delivery of therapeutic light treatment can be stopped, reduced, or restricted based on a threshold being met during treatment, that the actions are initiated during treatment.).
Although Nilsen teaches a photodynamic light therapy device that provides real-time delivery of a therapeutic light treatment depending on at least one attribute of a photodynamic treatment parameter, Nilsen does not teach that the apparatus stores data comprising the determined changes of the light fractionation settings and corresponding measurements to the memory with information about the target, determining, based on the data, optimal light fractionation settings for an illumination program to be applied for future treatments, the light fractionation settings comprising a sequence and durations for illumination and dark intervals, nor providing the determined light fractionation settings via an output device based on a selected medical device or a selected target to be illuminated by an operator via an input device.
Fournier teaches a system and method for optimizing a laser light fractionation during photodynamic therapy of a tumor (Abstract), and further teaches storing data (Col. 4, lines 6-8, where “simulation data and results are stored in the control system for controlling the actual PDT treatment cycle”) comprising the determined changes of the light fractionation settings and the corresponding measurements to the memory with information about the target (Col. 5, lines 50-55, where “computer 30 is used to conduct one or more simulations of a PDT treatment process based on the data inputted into the computer 30. The optimum fractionation cycle is determined as part of the simulation process. The data and results of the simulations are stored in the computer 30 for use during the actual PDT treatment process,” Col. 10, lines 33-35, where “parameters can be varied to test a number of different options for treatment of a tumor.” Examiner takes the position that changes of the light fractionation settings are determined through the fractionation cycle, with corresponding measurements and information about the target being inherently found since the results are stored based on inputted parameters about the target tumor.);
determining, based on the data, optimal light fractionation settings for an illumination program to be applied for future treatments (Col. 10, lines 32-43, where “The results of the simulation may be stored in the computer 30 or a disc for future use and reference. The parameters can be varied to test a number of different options for treatment of a tumor. Different sensitizers can be tested without having to perform actual treatments. Different laser settings may be considered to determine the necessary treatment time and on-off cycles for fractionating the laser output. Once an appropriate treatment for the photodynamic therapy is selected, the medical staff selects the data which has been stored during the simulation for actual operation of the PDT treatment.” Examiner takes the position that since an appropriate treatment is selected that this is an optimal treatment since an optimal treatment is one that is the best or most favorable.), the light fractionation settings comprising a sequence and durations for illumination and dark intervals (Col. 14, lines 44-49, where “The starting oxygen profile 54 and select output data 56 are used in the system 10 to optimize the fractionation cycle. The output data specifies oxygen as the control variable and allows for data input of the triplet oxygen lower limit and the triplet oxygen upper limit. The computer 30 is programmed to calculate the optimum light and dark intervals,” Col. 15, lines 39-41, where “The computer 30 stores in memory the light and dark cycles for the desired time of the fractionation cycle.” Examiner takes the position that by finding the optimal light and dark intervals for treatment with desired cycle times, that the sequences and durations of the illumination and dark intervals are inherently found.); and
providing the determined light fractionation settings via an output device based on a selected medical device (Col. 4, lines 6-11, where “simulation data and results are stored in the control system for controlling the actual PDT treatment cycle. A computer is linked to the laser and a beam splitter or other cycling device to control the fractionated photodynamic therapy irradiation process for optimal treatment of a specific tumor”) or a selected target to be illuminated by an operator via an input device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Fournier, which teaches that the apparatus stores data comprising the determined changes of the light fractionation settings and corresponding measurements to the memory with information about the target, determining, based on the data, optimal light fractionation settings for an illumination program to be applied for future treatments, the light fractionation settings comprising a sequence and durations for illumination and dark intervals, and providing the determined light fractionation settings via an output device based on a selected medical device or a selected target to be illuminated by an operator via an input device, with the invention of Nilsen since a number of options can be tested for a tumor and since the photodynamic therapy process can be administered with a high degree of accuracy (Fournier Col. 10, lines 52-53 and 55-56).
Regarding claim 2, Nilsen in combination with Fournier teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nilsen teaches that the illumination program is performed on the target during photodynamic therapy (Page 12, lines 3-5, where “measured parameters provide for determination of a target tissue status during PDT treatment, and may be useful as input data in a calculation method for monitoring and adjusting treatment parameters during PDT”), direct laser therapy or laser thermotherapy.
Regarding claim 3, Nilsen in combination with Fournier teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nilsen teaches that the at least one change comprises initiation of a dark interval (Page 15, lines 26-28, where “A PDT session may be interrupted and resumed, restricted, or aborted in dependence of certain attributes such as thresholds of photodynamic treatment parameters.” Examiner takes the position that an interruption in the application of light during a PDT session is equivalent to a dark interval since a dark interval is when the illumination is turned off.).
Regarding claim 4, Nilsen in combination with Fournier teaches all limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Nilsen teaches that the at least one change further comprises a duration for the dark interval (Page 15, lines 4-6, 11-12, 28-31, where “While in treatment mode, light from the therapeutic light unit 102 is guided into the distribution module 104 and directed into the patient fibers. Intermittently, the therapeutic irradiation is interrupted in order to perform measurement sequences … measurements related to PDT parameters, such as fluence rate distribution, photosensitizer concentration and distribution, and tissue blood content and oxygenation are monitored ... when tissue oxygenation falls below a level where activation of a photosensitizing agent is ineffective, PDT treatment is interrupted and resumed when a sufficient level of oxygen is again present in the tissue to be treated.” Examiner takes the position that a duration of the interval is inherent during interruption for a measurement sequence as a specific amount of time will need to be utilized to take measurements and that the duration of the interval adjusts since it is dependent on measured parameters.).
Regarding claim 5, Nilsen in combination with Fournier teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nilsen teaches that the at least one change comprises an adjustment of an irradiation level of the illumination (Page 26, line 29, where “P” is the current value of the photodynamic treatment parameter, Page 17, lines 28-32, where “in addition to the thresholding device, a derivative determining device may be provided, taking into consideration the gradient and direction of a curve of P. for instance, when in range A and the curve has a negative gradient, i.e. declines towards range B, this might be an indication to maintain illumination at a high level or even increase light intensity to compensate for this effect.” Examiner takes the position that light intensity is equivalent to irradiation level.).
Regarding claim 6, Nilsen in combination with Fournier teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nilsen teaches that the at least one action comprises sending a command to a medical device performing the illumination to change the at least one light fractionation setting (Page 16, lines 9-12, where “A control device may be arranged as a regulator or a thresholding device in the PDT system to stop, or reduce or otherwise restrict the delivery of therapeutic light treatment at least temporary upon passing of at least one threshold value of the photodynamic treatment parameter.”).
Regarding claim 8, Nilsen in combination with Fournier teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nilsen teaches that the target comprises an in-vivo sample (Page 1, lines 14-15, where “the invention refers to a system and method for controlling light in an interstitial tumor PDT system in combination with photosensitizers”).
Regarding claim 9, Nilsen in combination with Fournier teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nilsen teaches that the target comprises a tumor cell or tumor tissue with or without healthy cells or healthy tissue (Page 1, lines 14-15, where “the invention refers to a system and method for controlling light in an interstitial tumor PDT system in combination with photosensitizers”).
Regarding claim 10, Nilsen in combination with Fournier teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nilsen teaches that the measurements are obtained from measurement equipment (Page 15, lines 3-4, where “The apparatus 100 additionally comprises … diagnostic light source 103”) configured to measure at least one of temperature, oxygen level (Page 15, lines 10-12, where “Utilizing the diagnostic light source, measurements related to PDT parameters, such as … tissue blood content and oxygenation are monitored.”), target fluorescence, drug or photosensitizer fluorescence, drug absorption, target transparency, or blood flow.
Regarding claim 11, Nilsen in combination with Fournier teaches all limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Nilsen teaches that the apparatus further comprises the measurement equipment (Page 15, lines 3-4, where “The apparatus 100 additionally comprises … diagnostic light source 103”).
Regarding claim 13, Nilsen in combination with Fournier teaches all limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Nilsen teaches that the measurements are obtained from a plurality of medical devices (Page 15, lines 5-7, where “the therapeutic irradiation is interrupted in order to perform measurement sequences, during which light from each of the diagnostic light sources is successively coupled into each of the optical fibers”).
Regarding claim 14, Nilsen in combination with Fournier teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Nilsen teaches that the measurements are repeated continuously (Page 15, lines 17-21, where “In some embodiments of the apparatus these measurements of PDT parameters may be performed in real time, simultaneously with the therapeutic light delivery to the extent that such PDT parameter measurements are feasible without the therapeutic light interfering with the diagnostic measurements of the PDT parameters”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of an embodiment of Nilsen, which teaches that the measurements are repeated continuously, with the invention of Nilsen so that PDT parameter measurements are feasible without the therapeutic light interfering with the diagnostic measurements of the PDT parameters (Nilsen Page 15, lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 15, Nilsen in combination with Fournier teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nilsen teaches that the measurements are repeated sequentially (“While in treatment mode, light from the therapeutic light unit 102 is guided into the distribution module 104 and directed into the patient fibers. Intermittently, the therapeutic irradiation is interrupted in order to perform measurement sequences, during which light from each of the diagnostic light sources is successively coupled into each of the optical fibers”).
Regarding claim 16, Nilsen in combination with Fournier teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nilsen teaches that the apparatus comprises a biomedical illumination device (Page 15, lines 1-2, where “apparatus 100 allows for therapeutic light delivery and treatment monitoring via optical fibers 105.”).
Regarding claim 17, Nilsen in combination with Fournier teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nilsen teaches that the apparatus comprises a phototherapeutic laser device (Page 15, lines 2-3 and 5-7, where “apparatus 100 additionally comprises a … diagnostic light source 103 … the therapeutic irradiation is interrupted in order to perform measurement sequences, during which light from each of the diagnostic light sources is successively coupled into each of the optical fibers,” Page 18, lines 28-29, where “An example of a typical spectrum recorded when a diode laser emitting at 635 nm was used as the diagnostic light source”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsen and Fournier as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Morita et al. (hereinafter “Morita”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0321654 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Nilsen in combination with Fournier teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Although Nilsen teaches instructions that are implemented by a computer, Nilsen does not teach providing instructions to a user to change the setting.
Morita teaches a phototherapeutic apparatus (Abstract) where the at least one action comprises providing instructions to a user to change the setting (¶[0010], where “a protocol setting method for a phototherapeutic apparatus according to claim 6 of the invention is a protocol setting method for a phototherapeutic apparatus that reads a treatment protocol, in which a set value of light is set, and performs irradiation with the light in accordance with the treatment protocol, the method including: … transmitting protocol change information from the medical institution to the user; receiving the protocol change information by the user; and changing the set value of the read treatment protocol based on the protocol change information,” Claim 8, where “the user changes the set value of the read treatment protocol based on the protocol change information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Morita, which teaches that the at least one action comprises providing instructions to a user to change the setting, with the modified invention of Nilsen in order to ensure the affected part is appropriately irradiated with the light, to perform the accurate treatment, and to enable irradiation with light beams at an appropriate set value (Morita ¶[0012] and ¶[0014]).
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 SEFRA D. MANOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM - 3:30 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/SEFRA D. MANOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights