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 Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 2/2/2026.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claim 20 is new.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the arguments to claim 1
Applicant Argues
“Ceroll is directed to controlling a pipe-threading tool based primarily on motor current and torque-related conditions associated with threading operations. While Ceroll generally discusses monitoring operational parameters of a threading tool, Ceroll does not teach measuring angular velocity of the tool, storing plural angular velocity values, or summing such values to produce an angular-velocity-based metric that is compared to a threshold. In particular, Ceroll does not disclose or suggest adding successive angular velocity measurements to a data set, summing stored angular velocity values to produce an aggregate measure of rotational behavior, or using such a summation as the basis for determining whether to discontinue or brake tool rotation.”
Examiner Responds
The examiner disagrees that Ceroll is directed to controlling a pipe-threading tool based on motor current and torque-related conditions. Ceroll appears to be primarily directed to the ergonomics of a pipe-threading device (Abstract: “An arrangement of components of the powered tool may provide for ergonomic balance of the powered tool”), and makes no mention of sensing or monitoring motor current or torque.
The examiner also disagrees that Ceroll does not teach measuring angular velocity. Ceroll discloses, a threading power tool with a control configured to control operations of a motor and “a controller configured to control operation of the motor and to initiate a protective operation when the sensed rotational motion exceeds a predetermined threshold. The sensed rotational motion may include at least one of a rotational displacement, a rotational velocity, or a rotational acceleration” in 0010 (see also 0017, 0019, 0023, 0024 and 0051, 0081).
While Ceroll does teach comparing rotational parameters to a threshold (claim 16: “a controller configured to control operation of the motor and to initiate a protective operation when the sensed rotation motion exceeds a predetermined threshold”, see also 0010, 0017, 0019, 0051, 0081), the examiner stated on page of the previous office action that Ceroll is not relied on for “saving velocity measurements, adding the measured velocity value to a data set stored in the memory, nor summing the stored velocity values within the data set to produce a velocity data summation.”
Applicant Argues
“McBride, in contrast, is directed to detecting loss-of-control conditions by integrating angular velocity with respect to time to determine angular displacement, and then comparing the calculated angular displacement to a threshold. As discussed in the preceding section, McBride's approach relies on calculating an angular rotation of the tool, which is fundamentally different from summing angular velocity values as values. McBride's teaching requires multiplication of angular velocity by a time interval and accumulation of those products to determine angular displacement.”
Examiner Responds
The examiner disagrees that McBride is directed to detecting loss-of-control conditions. McBride appears to be primarily directed to determining the distance a tool has traveled using calculated velocity (Abstract).
The examiner also disagrees that McBride’s approach relies on calculating an angular rotation of the tool (the examiner failed to find any mention of angular rotation in McBride).
Applicant Argues
“As explained above, claim 1 requires summation of stored angular velocity values within a data set and expressly does not require, recite, or rely upon integration of angular velocity with respect to time to determine angular displacement or angular position.”
Examiner Responds
Ceroll teaches sensing rotational velocity to implement control actions, McBride teaches summing velocity values with respect to time and comparing to a threshold to implement a control action. While McBride does recite integrating velocity with respect to time to implement control decisions, the examiner did not rely on McBride for that. Page 3 of the non-final rejection relied on McBride’s explicit recitation of “using a summation of the calculated velocity with respect to time.” Additionally, claim 1 does not preclude summing angular velocity values with respect to time. Thus, the examiner disagrees that the combination does not teach or suggest summation of stored angular velocity values within a data set.
Regarding the arguments to claim 2
Applicant Argues
“The Examiner further relies on Stimpson for the data-set management limitations of claim 2. However, Stimpson does not cure the deficiencies of Ceroll and McBride. Stimpson is directed to signal processing techniques in a different context and does not teach or suggest managing a finite data set of angular velocity values of a threading tool for purposes of controlling tool operation based on a summation and threshold comparison. Stimpson does not disclose determining that an angular velocity data set is "full" upon reaching a predetermined maximum size, removing an oldest angular velocity measurement, and adding a newest angular velocity measurement in the context of evaluating rotational behavior of a threading tool during a threading operation.”
Examiner Responds
The examiner never asserted that Stimpson discloses managing a data set of angular velocity values of a threading tool for purposes of controlling tool operation based on a summation and threshold comparison. The examiner relied on Stimpson to teach data management. The examiner also disagrees that Stimpson teaches “in a different context”, as Stimpson clearly states his invention is directed to a device such as “rotating cutting tool” in paragraphs 0001 and 0002.
Applicant Argues
“Moreover, the Office Action does not articulate, and the cited references do not provide, a reasoned basis for modifying Ceroll's current- or torque-based control scheme or McBride's integration-based angular displacement approach to incorporate Stimpson's teachings in the manner required by claim 2. Doing so would require impermissible hindsight reconstruction of Applicant's claimed rolling data-set summation logic.”
Examiner Responds
As outlined in the response to claim 1 arguments, the examiner disagrees both with the assertion that Ceroll teaches current or torque based control scheme, and that McBride teaches integrating angular displacement.
Regarding the arguments to claim 9
Applicant Argues
“For the reasons discussed above with respect to independent claim 1, neither Ceroll
nor McBride teaches or suggests the controller configuration recited in claim 9.”
Examiner Responds
The examiner disagrees, as outlined in the response to the claim 1 arguments above.
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.
Claims 1, 3-10, 14-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CEROLL1 in view of MCBRIDE2 (hereinafter – “CEROLL-MCBRIDE”).
Regarding claim 1
CEROLL teaches a method for forming threads in a workpiece using a tool including a tool head having at least one threading die, an electric motor rotatably powering the tool head ([0003]: thread forming system includes a power tool, power tool includes a tool housing and a cutting head configured to form threads in a piece of stock, [0018]: DC motor to cause cutting die to rotate; see also 0043 and Fig. 2), a sensor for measuring angular velocity of the tool, a controller for controlling operation of the motor, and memory provisions for saving angular velocity measurements ([0010]: “a controller configured to control operation of the motor and to initiate a protective operation when the sensed rotational motion exceeds a predetermined threshold. The sensed rotational motion may include at least one of a […] rotational velocity”, a controller configured to control operations based comparing a rotational/angular velocity to a predetermined threshold implies memory previsions and a rotational/angular velocity sensor), wherein the method comprises:
rotating the tool head that includes at least one threading die, by use of the motor ([0010]: “power tool may include a motor for driving a cutting head”);
measuring angular velocity during the threading operation of the tool, by use of the sensor ([0010]: “a controller configured to control operation of the motor and to initiate a protective operation when the sensed rotational motion exceeds a predetermined threshold”; [0051]: “power control board 138 may include a motion sensing device 138A. In some implementations, the motion sensing device 138A may detect a displacement and/or a velocity and/or an acceleration of the pipe threader 100 during operation”);
providing a measure angular velocity to the controller ([0010]: “a controller configured to control operation of the motor and to initiate a protective operation when the sensed rotational motion exceeds a predetermined threshold”; [0051]: “power control board 138 may control operation of the motor 135 in a protection mode in response to detection of a displacement, and/or a velocity”;
comparing the angular velocity data [0010]: “a controller configured to control operation of the motor and to initiate a protective operation when the sensed rotational motion exceeds a predetermined threshold”; [0051]: “power control board 138 may control operation of the motor 135 in a protection mode in response to detection of a displacement, and/or a velocity, and/or an acceleration, of the piper threader 100 that is greater than a corresponding set threshold value”)
if the first threshold has been met, discontinuing tool operation or braking tool rotation ([0010]: “a controller configured to control operation of the motor and to initiate a protective operation when the sensed rotational motion exceeds a predetermined threshold”; [0051]: “For example, in the protection mode of operation, the power control board 138 may control the supply of power to the motor 135 to reduce, or suspend, operation of the motor 135”).
CEROLL is not relied on for:
adding a measured angular velocity value to a data set stored in the memory;
summing the stored angular velocity values within the data set corresponding to a window of time to produce an angular velocity data set summation;
comparing the angular velocity data set summation to a first threshold.
However, MCBRIDE in analogous art teaches:
adding a measured angular velocity value to a data set stored in memory;
summing the stored angular velocity values within the data set corresponding to a window of time to produce an angular velocity data set summation; and
comparing the angular velocity data set summation to a first threshold ([0013]: processor includes a data logger, processor may calculate distance traveled using summation of velocity; [0036]: “data logger coupled to at least one processor. The processor computes the location of the tool using measurements taken from the sensor”; [0046]: “processor calculates the distance traveled using a summation of the calculated velocity with respect to time”, MCBRIDE discloses a data logger coupled to a processor which uses measurements taken from a sensor to determine a displacement via a summation which implies adding measured angular velocity values to a data set so they can be summed. MCBRIDE also implies that the velocity values correspond to a window of time, e.g., summing the velocity values that were sensed while the tool is in operation which corresponds to a window of time).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of MCBRIDE to the teachings of CEROLL such that MCBRIDE’s method of determining the distance a tool has traveled could be used with CEROLL’s threading tool configured to implement a control operation based on a sensed rotational parameter for the purposes of ceasing threading operations after a predetermined amount of threads have been formed.
Regarding claim 3
CEROLL-MCBRIDE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MCBRIDE also teaches wherein prior to rotating the tool head, the data set is emptied ([0046]: implicit to the disclosure that the processor calculates the distance traveled using a summation of velocity values is the data set being emptied at the start of a new operation in order to produce an accurate summation, i.e., if the data was not emptied the summation operation would include data from previous tool operations).
Regarding claim 4
CEROLL-MCBRIDE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
CEROLL also teaches wherein a user actuates a tool trigger to being rotating the tool head ([0048]: power may be applied to the motor by manipulation of a power switch or trigger).
Regarding claim 5
CEROLL-MCBRIDE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
CEROLL also teaches wherein the tool is a hand-held power drive tool (Fig. 2A, [0002]: ergonomic balance is an area of concern for handheld tools; [0049]: ergonomic balance of the pipe threader may improve user control during operation).
Regarding claim 6
CEROLL-MCBRIDE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
CEROLL also teaches wherein the sensor is a gyroscopic sensor ([0010], [0023]: sensor may be a gyroscopic sensor).
Regarding claim 7
CEROLL-MCBRIDE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MCBRIDE also teaches wherein the controller includes at least one microprocessor ([0036]: electronics section contains a processor or a plurality of processors).
Regarding claim 8
CEROLL-MCBRIDE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MCBRIDE also teach teaches wherein if the first threshold has not been met, the measuring, providing, adding, summing, and comparing operations are repeated ([0046]: McBride discloses comparing a velocity data summation to a predetermined threshold and implementing a control operation when that threshold is met. Implicit to this is a condition where the summation does not meet a predetermined threshold and no change in control and/or operation is implemented, and the steps of measuring, providing, adding, summing and comparing would then be repeated to determine if the predetermined threshold has been met at the next sample).
Regarding claim 9
CEROLL teaches a tool for forming threads in a workpiece comprising:
a tool head including a threading die ([0003]: thread forming system includes a power tool, power tool includes a tool housing and a cutting head configured to form threads in a piece of stock);
a trigger to initiate activation of the tool ([0048]: power switch or trigger, Fig. 2A 114);
an electrically powered motor and a powered rotary drive for rotatably powering the tool head ([0003]: power tool; [0010]: power tool may include a motor for driving the cutting head; [0018]: DC motor);
a sensor for measuring angular velocity of the tool ([0010]: sensed rotational motion upon which control decisions are implemented includes rotational velocity);
a controller for controller operation of motor and configuring an angular velocity data set ([0003]: “controller configured to control operation of the motor”, disclosed controller is capable of configuring an angular velocity data set);
memory provision for storing angular velocity measurements ([0010]: “controller configured to control operation of the motor and to initiate a protective operation when the sensed rotation motion exceeds a predetermined threshold”, disclosed controller is configured to implement operations upon comparison to a predetermined threshold, implies controller has memory provisions for control algorithm and threshold, thus controller has memory provision capable of storing angular velocity measurements);
wherein the sensor is configured to provide measurements of the angular velocity of the tool to the controller, [0010]: “a controller configured to control operation of the motor and to initiate a protective operation when the sensed rotational motion exceeds a predetermined threshold. The sensed rotational motion may include at least one of a rotational displacement, a rotational
velocity”).
While CEROLL teaches a controller that is capable of: determining if an angular velocity data set has reached a predetermined maximum number of angular velocity measurements, sum the stored angular velocity values, and compare the velocity summation to a threshold, CEROLL is not being relied on to teach these claim limitations.
MCBRIDE teaches in analogous art teaches a controller that is configured to determine if an angular velocity data set is full, sum stored angular velocity values and compare the velocity summation to a threshold ([0046]: processor calculates distance using a summation of velocity, processor implements control operations upon tool reaching a predetermined depth which is determined by the tool’s time/velocity calculations).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of MCBRIDE to the teachings of CEROLL such that MCBRIDE’s method of determining the distance a tool has traveled could be used with CEROLL’s threading tool configured to implement a control operation based on a sensed rotational parameter for the purposes of ceasing threading operations after a predetermined amount of threads have been formed.
Regarding claim 10
CEROLL-MCBRIDE teaches the elements of claim 9 as outlined above.
CEROLL also teaches a gyroscopic sensor ([0010], [0023]: sensor may be a gyroscopic sensor).
Regarding claim 14
CEROLL-MCBRIDE teaches the elements of claim 9 as outlined above.
CEROLL also teaches an operator indicator ([0045]: indicator panel may provide external indicators to an operator).
Regarding claim 15
CEROLL-MCBRIDE teaches the elements of claim 9 as outlined above.
CEROLL also teaches a gearbox or transmission ([0046]: transmission received in transmission housing).
Regarding claim 18
CEROLL-MCBRIDE teaches the elements of claim 9 as outlined above.
MCBRIDE also teaches wherein the controller is configured such that if the first threshold has not been met, the sensor provides another angular velocity measurement to the controller ([0046]: McBride discloses comparing a velocity data summation to a predetermined threshold and implementing a control operation when that threshold is met. Implicit to this is a condition where the summation does not meet a predetermined threshold and no change in control and/or operation is implemented, and the sensor provides another velocity measurement to the controller and such that monitoring and control operations could be implemented).
Regarding claim 19
CEROLL-MCBRIDE teaches the elements of claim 9 as outlined above.
CEROLL also teachers the controller is configured such that if the first threshold has been met, the controller stop operation of the tool ([0010]: when rotational velocity exceeds a threshold, operations may include shutting off power to a motor).
Claims 2 and 16-17 are rejected as being unpatentable over CEROLL-MCBRIDE in view of STIMPSON3.
Regarding claim 2
CEROLL-MCBRIDE teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
CEROLL-MCBRIDE are not relied on for the remaining limitations of the claim.
However, STIMPSON in analogous art teaches:
determining if the data set is full when a maximum predetermined number of angular velocity values is reached ([0001]: detector apparatus for rotating cutting tool; [0008]: detector configured to receive a signal from a rotating object, wherein signal repeats at frequency that is dependent on rotation speed; [0046]: “when the sampled data set is full” implies determining the data set is full);
if the data set is not full, performing the adding operation ([0046]: analyser configured to add sampled data to one end of sampled data set);
if the data set is full, removing an oldest angular velocity measurement from the data set and adding the newest angular velocity measurement ([0046]: “when the sampled data set is full, the analyser is configured to remove the oldest sampled data from the sampled data set every time new sampled data is added”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of STIMPSON to the teachings of CEROLL-MCBRIDE such that STIMPSON’s method of data processing for a rotating cutting tool could be used with CEROLL-MCBRIDE’s cutting tool controller.
Regarding claims 16-17
CEROLL-MCBRIDE teaches the elements of claim 9 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claims 16-17 are substantially the same as claim 2 and are rejected as per claim 2.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CEROLL-MCBRIDE in view of ABBOTT.4
Regarding claim 11
CEROLL-MCBRIDE teaches the elements of claim 9 as outlined above. CEROLL-MCBRIDE are not relied on for the remaining limitations of the claim.
However, ABBOTT in analogous art teaches an electrical current sensor configured to measure electrical current draw or consumption by the motor ([0050]: current sensor monitors current drawn by the motor).
CEROLL-MCBRIDE teaches a power tool that includes altering the operation of the tool when some threshold is met. Furthermore, CEROLL teaches that protective operations can be implemented at a threshold, such as shutting off power to, reducing power to, etc. Since electrically powered tools operate at a known voltage (i.e., at grid/wall-power or battery voltage) and the parameter of interest to be controller is power, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the current sensor taught by Abbott. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the protective operations as taught by CEROLL with the current sensor of ABBOTT to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13
CEROLL-MCBRIDE teaches the elements of claim 9 as outlined above. CEROLL-MCBRIDE are not relied on for the remaining limitations of the claim.
However, ABBOTT in analogous art teaches an angular velocity counter ([0064]: when angular velocity is not greater than the rotation speed threshold, processor determines whether the counter is equal to zero).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine CEROLL-MCBRIDE with ABBOTT to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for doing so would be that the prior art teaches that angular velocity is a parameter of interest in the safe operation of battery-operated electric tools so it would be obvious to include a counter that can provide feedback to the control system on how frequently the angular velocity is instantaneously crossing a threshold.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CEROLL-MCBRIDE in view of EMILIO.5
Regarding claim 12
CEROLL-REF teaches the elements of claim 9 as outlined above. CEROLL-MCBRIDE are not relied on for the remaining limitations of the claim.
However, EMILIO in analogous art teaches a digital microcontroller (2nd paragraph: “microcontrollers (MCUs) represent one of the most essential computing technologies, as their presence is now fundamental in all embedded applications. Electric motor control applications are usually implemented by combining a dedicated motor control unit and a system control unit, both of which use a microcontroller and its related software.”).
EMILIO states that microcontrollers represent an essential computing technologies found in embedded applications, specifically as applied to motor control, thus providing the motivation to combine. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine EMILIO with CEROLL-MCBRIDE.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CEROLL in view of IWASHITA (US20060184256A1).
Regarding claim 20
CEROLL teaches a method of operating a threading tool, comprising:
measuring an angular velocity of the threading tool during a threading operation ([0003]: power tool for forming threads [0010]: “a controller configured to control operation of the motor and to initiate a protective operation when the sensed rotational motion exceeds a predetermined threshold. The sensed rotational motion may include at least one of a rotational displacement, a rotational velocity”, controller configured to initiate a protective operation when motion exceeds a threshold implies that the parameter is monitored during a threading operation);
evaluating[0010]: “when the sensed rotational motion exceeds a predetermined threshold”);
determining whether the [0010]: “when the sensed rotational motion exceeds a predetermined threshold”);
controlling operation of the threading tool in response to determining that the threshold is satisfied ([0010]: “The protective operation may include at least one of shutting off power to the motor”).
CEROLL is not relied on for evaluating cumulative rotational behavior based on a plurality of angular velocity measurements, without integrating the angular velocity with respect to time to determine angular displacement.
However, IWASHITA in an analogous art teaches a controller for controlling the position of machine tool, comprising:
evaluating cumulative rotation behavior of the tool based on a plurality of angular velocity measurements, without integrating the angular velocity with respect to time to determine angular displacement ([0054]: “an estimated position P(af) is obtained by adding up the estimated velocities V(af) in a register for obtaining the estimated position”);
determining whether the cumulative rotation behavior satisfies a threshold ([0054]: “It is determined whether the absolute value of the difference between the estimated position P(af) and the position R(Pf) obtained in Step e3 are not smaller than a threshold value Ps (Step e11). If the absolute value is smaller than the threshold value Ps”) and
controlling operation of the tool in response to determine that the threshold is satisfied ([0054]: “If the absolute value is not smaller than the threshold value Ps, an abnormality signal is outputted” abnormality signal is used such that “the machine is subjected to slow-down stop or emergency stop”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a pipe threading device configured to implement a control operation based on a sensed rotational parameter reaching/crossing a threshold, as taught by CEROLL, is known in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it was known in the art to sum velocity measurements to determine an estimated position, as taught by IWASHITA. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of IWASHITA with the teachings of CEROLL such that IWASHITA’s summing algorithm could be used with CEROLL’s pipe threading device controller. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining IWASHITA’s velocity summation with CEROLL’s sensed rotation parameter could produce the predictable result of determining that a piece of stock has been threaded such that the controller could cease threading operations when a predetermined amount of threads has been formed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
April 8, 2026
1 CEROLL is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
2 MCBRIDE is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
3 STIMPSON is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
4 ABBOTT is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
5 EMILIO is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
Prosecution Insights