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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In view of amendment, new references of Takano et al. (US Pub. 2018/0197344 A1) and Law et al. (US Pub. 2025/0190017 A1) are applied to a new ground of rejection.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-13, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatfield (US Patent No. 11,782,480) in view of Takano et al. (US Pub. 2018/0197344 A1) and Law et al. (US Pub. 2025/0190017 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Law’017”).
Regarding claim 1; Hatfield teaches a system (a head-mounted display (HMD) system 100, Fig.1), comprising:
a HMD device (Fig.1, the HMD device 100) having:
a carrier device ( a head support 120, Fig.1) having at least one attachment portion for attachment to a head of a user (Fig.1, the head support 120 attaches to a user’s head H),
at least one display device (a display unit 110, Fig.1) attached to the carrier device (see Fig.1), and configured for displaying a captured image (col.11||55-67; col.12||1-16; the display unit is configured to display a capture image obtained from one or more image sensors), and
at least one counterweight member (one or more balance masses 130, Fig.1) configured for providing a counterweight force against the weight force of the at least one display device (col.3||59–63, the balancing mass 130 serves as a counterweight to the weight of the display unit 110, for example, when user leans tilts head),
wherein the at least one counterweight member (balancing masses 130, Fig.1) is arranged on the carrier device such that the counterweight torque caused by the weight force of the counterweight member counteracts the display device torque caused by the weight force of the display device (see Abstract, col.3||12-19; the balancing mass 130 movably offsets changes to torque that result from when user tilts head forward).
Hatfield does not teach that the robot-assisted visualization system for minimal invasive procedures; comprising: a HMD device for minimally invasive procedures.
Takano teaches the robot-assisted visualization system for minimal invasive procedures; comprising a HMD device for minimally invasive procedures (Para. [0004], Takano discloses a surgical imaging system and a surgical robot using a head mounted display. Para. [0124], a head mounted display 100 can be used for minimally invasive surgery).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head mounted display system of Hatfield to include the teaching of Takano of using a head mounted display for minimally invasive surgery with a surgical robot. The motivation would have been in order to increase the clinical precision.
Hatfield in view of Takano does not teach that the display device attached to the carrier device via a swivel joint enabling pivoting into and out of a user's field of view about an axis parallel to the interpupillary distance; the counterweight member counteracts the display device when the display device is positioned in a predominant position.
PNG
media_image1.png
374
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Figs.11A-11B of Law’017 reproduced)
Law’017 teaches the display device (a head-mounted display 1200, Figs.11A and 11A-1) attached to the carrier device (Fig.11, a band strap portion 1380) via a swivel joint (a pair of pivot connections 1381, Figs.11A and 11A-1) enabling pivoting into and out of a user's field of view about an axis parallel to the interpupillary distance (Fig.11, para. [0827], the HMD unit 1200 is attached to the strap portion 1380 via the pair of pivot connections 1381 to enable the HMD display 1200 to pivot into a user’s field of view (see Fig.11A) or out of the user’s field of view (see Fig.11A-1)); the counterweight member counteracts the display device when the display device is positioned in a predominant position (Fig.11A, para. [0837], when the HMD device 1200 is positioned in a predominant position (i.e., the HMD display is located within the user’s field of view), a battery pack 1500 is attached to the occipital strap portion 1320 to help balance the weight of the HMD display 1200).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the HMD display system of Hatfield to include the teaching of Law’017 of providing an HMD display system being used in medical/surgery procedures; pivotably attaching the HMD display to a head band strap portion so as to pivot the HMD display into or out of the user’s field of view; and providing a battery pack as a counterweight to balance the weight of the HMD display. The motivation would have been in order to enhance the clinical precision in medical/surgery procedures; and enable the user to reduce eye strain when the HMD is not in use.
Regarding claim 3; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 1 as discussed above. Hatfield further teaches the counterweight member is arrangeable at different positions of the carrier device and/or in different positions relative to the carrier device (col.3||59-60; the balancing mass 130 can move relative to the display unit. In other words, the balancing mass 130 may be arranged at different positions relative to head support 120 when it moves).
Regarding claim 4; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 3 as discussed above. Hatfield further teaches the HMD device is configured to change the position of the at least one counterweight member on and/or relative to the carrier device in dependence on a movement and/or a weight of the at least one display device (see Abstract, col.3||12-19 and col.3||59-60, the balancing mass 130 is movable relative to the display unit to offset changes in torque induced by the display unit when tilting the head-mounted display. This occurs when a user tilts his or her head to counteract the weight of the display device being tilted).
Regarding claim 5; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 1 as discussed above. Hatfield further teaches the weight of the counterweight member or the total weight of several counterweight members is at least 10% and at most 150% of the at least one display device (e.g., as shown in Table 1 in column 6, the moving mass has a weight of 1 pound and the total weight of the HMD device (HMD, moving mass, and static mass) is 5 pounds. As such, the balancing mass 130 represents 20% of the total weight of the HMD, col.6||31–50).
Regarding claim 6; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 1 as discussed above. Hatfield further teaches the HDM device comprises a control unit (electronics 140, Fig.1) being arranged on the carrier device for controlling the at least one display device (col.9||1-57, the electronics 140 comprises a controller 742 configured to operate the head-mounted display 100, for example, to provide a computer-generated reality experience and to move the balancing mass 130), and wherein the control unit is arrangeable at different positions of the carrier device and/or in different positions relative to the carrier device (col.8||38-41; the electronics 140, which includes controller 742, may be part of the balancing mass 130. In this case, controller 742 would move with the balancing mass along head support 120).
Regarding claim 7; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 6 as discussed above. Hatfield further teaches the control unit is movable along the carrier device (col.8||38-41; the electronics 140, which includes controller 742, may be part of the balancing mass 130. In this case, controller 742 would move with the balancing mass along head support 120).
Regarding claim 8; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 6 as discussed above. Hatfield further teaches the control unit or another control unit is configured to change the position of the control unit on and/or relative to the carrier device in dependence of a movement and/or a weight of the at least one display device (col.9||1-57, the electronics 140 comprises a controller 742 configured to operate the head-mounted display 100, for example, to provide a computer-generated reality experience and to move the balancing mass 130. In col.8||38-41; the electronics 140, which includes controller 742, may be part of the balancing mass 130. In this case, controller 742 would move with the balancing mass along head support 120).
Regarding claim 9; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 1 as discussed above. Hatfield further teaches the at least one attachment portion of the carrier device extends at least partially along the occiput of a user with respect to an application-appropriate use (Figs. 1 and 6, when the user puts on HMD 100, a semi-circular portion of head support 120 extends along the back of the user’s head).
Regarding claim 10; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 9 as discussed above. Hatfield does not teach the attachment portion is formed of at least a forehead portion extending at least partially along the frontal bone of a user and an back head portion extending at least partially along the occiput of a user, and wherein the forehead portion and the back head portion form an angle of inclination in a vertical plane in an application-appropriate use of the HMD device.
Law’017 teaches the attachment portion (the band strap portion 1380, Fig.11A) is formed of at least a forehead portion (a forehand portion 1387, Fig.11A) extending at least partially along the frontal bone of a user (see Fig.11A) and an back head portion (an occipital portion 1320, Fig.11A) extending at least partially along the occiput of a user (see Fig.11A), and wherein the forehead portion and the back head portion form an angle of inclination in a vertical plane in an application-appropriate use of the HMD device (Fig.11A, the forehead portion 1387 and the occipital portion 132 form an angle in a vertical plane. The angle is about zero degrees).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head mounted display system of Hatfield to include the band strap portion of Law’017 including a forehead portion and an occipital portion. The motivation would have been in order to provide a secure connection between the head mounted display and the user’s head.
Regarding claim 12; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 1 as discussed above. Hatfield further teaches the at least one counterweight member is a functional member of the HMD device (col.8||38-41; the balancing mass 130 is considered a “functional member of the HMD device” as it has a function of moving when a user tilts his or her head).
Regarding claim 13; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 1 as discussed above. Hatfield does not teach the HMD is part of the robot-assisted visualization system.
Takano teaches the HMD is part of the robot-assisted visualization system (Para. [0004], Takano discloses a surgical imaging system and a surgical robot using a head mounted display. Para. [0124], a head mounted display 100 can be used for minimally invasive surgery).
The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 5 as discussed above. Hatfield further teaches the weight of the counterweight member or the total weight of several counterweight members is at most 120% of the at least one display device (col.6||19-20, Hatfield suggests that different weights of balancing mass 130 may be employed. For example, Hatfield indicates that the list of weights in Table 1 are “non-limiting”. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art could employ a weight of balancing mass 130 so that it is 120% of the display unit 110).
Regarding claim 18; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 5 as discussed above. Hatfield further teaches the weight of the counterweight member or the total weight of several counterweight members is at most 90% of the at least one display device (col.6||19-20, Hatfield suggests that different weights of balancing mass 130 may be employed. For example, Hatfield indicates that the list of weights in Table 1 are “non-limiting”. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art could employ a weight of balancing mass 130 so that it is at most 90% of the display unit 110).
Regarding claim 19; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 5 as discussed above. Hatfield further teaches the weight of the counterweight member or the total weight of several counterweight members is at least 30% of the at least one display device (col. 6||19-20, Hatfield suggests that different weights of balancing mass 130 may be employed. For example, Hatfield indicates that the list of weights in Table 1 are “non-limiting”. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art could employ a weight of balancing mass 130 so that it is at least 30% of the display unit 110).
Regarding claim 20; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 17 as discussed above. Hatfield further teaches the weight of the counterweight member or the total weight of several counterweight members is at least 30% of the at least one display device (col. 6||19-20, Hatfield suggests that different weights of balancing mass 130 may be employed. For example, Hatfield indicates that the list of weights in Table 1 are “non-limiting”. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art could employ a weight of balancing mass 130 so that it is at least 30% of the display unit 110).
Regarding claim 21; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 18 as discussed above. Hatfield further teaches the weight of the counterweight member or the total weight of several counterweight members is at least 30% of the at least one display device (col. 6||19-20, Hatfield suggests that different weights of balancing mass 130 may be employed. For example, Hatfield indicates that the list of weights in Table 1 are “non-limiting”. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art could employ a weight of balancing mass 130 so that it is at least 30% of the display unit 110).
Regarding claim 22; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 5 as discussed above. Hatfield further teaches the weight of the counterweight member or the total weight of several counterweight members is at least 50% of the at least one display device (col. 6||19-20, Hatfield suggests that different weights of balancing mass 130 may be employed. For example, Hatfield indicates that the list of weights in Table 1 are “non-limiting”. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art could employ a weight of balancing mass 130 so that it is at least 50% of the display unit 110).
Regarding claim 23; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 17 as discussed above. Hatfield further teaches the weight of the counterweight member or the total weight of several counterweight members is at least 50% of the at least one display device (col. 6||19-20, Hatfield suggests that different weights of balancing mass 130 may be employed. For example, Hatfield indicates that the list of weights in Table 1 are “non-limiting”. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art could employ a weight of balancing mass 130 so that it is at least 50% of the display unit 110).
Regarding claim 24; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 18 as discussed above. Hatfield further teaches the weight of the counterweight member or the total weight of several counterweight members is at least 50% of the at least one display device (col. 6||19-20, Hatfield suggests that different weights of balancing mass 130 may be employed. For example, Hatfield indicates that the list of weights in Table 1 are “non-limiting”. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art could employ a weight of balancing mass 130 so that it is at least 50% of the display unit 110).
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatfield (US Patent No. 11,782,480) in view of Takano et al. (US Pub. 2018/0197344 A1) and Law et al. (US Pub. 2025/0190017 A1, referred to as “Law’017”) as applied to claim 1 above; further in view of Pinczuk et al. (US Pub. 2025/0216937 A1).
Regarding claim 2; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 1 as discussed above. Hatfield does not teach the counterweight member is detachably connectable to the carrier device.
Pinczuk teaches the counterweight member is detachably connectable to the carrier device (Fig.43C, para. [03877], a counterweight 1512 may be a dead-weight in a removable configuration).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the HMD display system of Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 to include the teaching of Pinczuk of using a counterweight in a removable configuration. The motivation would have been in order to allow the user to change the counterweight as desired.
Regarding claim 14; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 1 as discussed above. Hatfield does not teach the weight of the counterweight member is variable.
Pinczuk teaches the weight of the counterweight member is variable (Fig.43C, para. [03877], a counterweight 1512 may be a dead-weight in a removable configuration. In other words, the weight of the counterweight 1512 would be variable).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the HMD display system of Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 to include the teaching of Pinczuk of using a counterweight in a removable configuration. The motivation would have been in order to allow the user to change the counterweight as desired.
Claims 11 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatfield (US Patent No. 11,782,480) in view of Takano et al. (US Pub. 2018/0197344 A1) and Law et al. (US Pub. 2025/0190017 A1, referred to as “Law’017”) as applied to claim 10 above; further in view of Law et al. (US Pub. 2024/0255766 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Law’766”).
Regarding claim 11; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 10 as discussed above. Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 does not teach the angle of incidence forms an angle between 5° and 30°, and/or the angle of inclination is adjustable via an adjustment mechanism.
Law’766 teaches the angle of incidence forms an angle between 5° and 30°, and/or the angle of inclination is adjustable via an adjustment mechanism (Fig.9a, para. [0223], an adjustment mechanism 562 is configured to adjust an angle between a frontal portion 538 and an occipital portion 540).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head mounted display system of Hatfield to include the adjustment mechanism of Law’766 such that the adjustment mechanism would be configured to adjust an angle between the frontal portion and the occipital portion. The motivation would have been in order to effectively anchor the occipital portion to the user, for example, unique shape of the user's head (Law’766, para. [0234]).
Regarding claim 25; Hatfield in view of Takano, Law’017, and Law’766 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 11 as discussed above. Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 does not teach the angle of incidence forms an angle between 10° and 20°.
However, it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success for a person of ordinary skill in art to implement an angle of incidence between the forehead portion and the occipital portion of head support 120 between 10° and 20°. The rationale would be to find an angle of incidence that would allow the HMD device to sit comfortably on the head of the user.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatfield (US Patent No. 11,782,480) in view of Takano et al. (US Pub. 2018/0197344 A1), Law et al. (US Pub. 2025/0190017 A1, referred to as “Law’017”), and Pinczuk et al. (US Pub. 2025/0216937 A1) as applied to claim 14 above; further in view of Myerchin (US Pub. 2014/0319293 A1).
Regarding claim 15; Hatfield in view of Takano, Law’017, and Pinczuk teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 14 as discussed above. Hatfield in view of Takano, Law’017, and Pinczuk does not teach the counterweight member is configured as a fillable hollow body.
Myerchin teaches the counterweight member is configured as a fillable hollow body (Fig.1, para. [0015, 0056, and 0057], a counterweight 10 is provided to balance a display device 20. The counterweight 10 can be a hollow container filled with powered hydrogel, cement, or some other solidifying agent such that water or sand).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the head mounted display system of Hatfield in view of Takano, Law’017, and Pinczuk to include the teaching of Myerchin of providing a counterweight being a hollow container filled with water or sand. The motivation would have been in order to facilitate changing weight of the counterweight.
Claims 16 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatfield (US Patent No. 11,782,480) in view of Takano et al. (US Pub. 2018/0197344 A1), Law et al. (US Pub. 2025/0190017 A1, referred to as “Law’017”), and Pinczuk et al. (US Pub. 2025/0216937 A1) as applied to claim 14 above; further in view of Kinno et al. (US Pub. 2015/0102982 A1).
Regarding claim 16; Hatfield in view of Takano, Law’017, and Pinczuk teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 14 as discussed above. Hatfield in view of Takano, Law’017, and Pinczuk does not teach the counterweight member comprises at least one magnetic portion for attaching the counterweight member to the carrier device.
Kinno teaches the counterweight member comprises at least one magnetic portion for attaching the counterweight member to the carrier device (Fig.8, para. [0090, 0102, 0129, and 0134-0136], a magnetic body 62 constitutes a counterweight 52b to attach to a second extending part 27 to balance a head mounted display).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the head mounted display system of Hatfield in view of Takano, Law’017, and Pinczuk to include the teaching of Kinno of providing a magnetic counterweight to balance a head mounted display. The motivation would have been in order to facilitate attaching/detaching the counterweight.
Regarding claim 26; Hatfield in view of Takano, Law’017, Pinczuk, and Kinno teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 16 as discussed above. Hatfield in view of Takano, Law’017, and Pinczuk does not teach the at least one magnetic portion is an electromagnetic portion for attaching the counterweight member to the carrier device.
Kinno teaches the at least one magnetic portion is an electromagnetic portion for attaching the counterweight member to the carrier device (Fig.8, para. [0134], the position of the magnetic body 62 (weight 50b) placed inside the container 61 can be changed by controlling the drivers 60a, 60b being electromagnets by the driving controller 51b).
The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 16 above.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatfield (US Patent No. 11,782,480) in view of Takano et al. (US Pub. 2018/0197344 A1), and Law et al. (US Pub. 2025/0190017 A1, referred to as “Law’017”) as applied to claim 1 above; further in view of Kinno et al. (US Pub. 2015/0102982 A1).
Regarding claim 27; Hatfield in view of Takano and Law’017 teaches the robot-assisted visualization system of claim 1 as discussed above. Hatfield in view of Takano, Law’017, and Pinczuk does not teach the counterweight member comprises at least one magnetic portion for attaching the counterweight member to the carrier device.
Kinno teaches the counterweight member comprises at least one magnetic portion for attaching the counterweight member to the carrier device (Fig.8, para. [0090, 0102, 0129, and 0134-0136], a magnetic body 62 constitutes a counterweight 52b to attach to a second extending part 27 to balance a head mounted display).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the head mounted display system of Hatfield in view of Takano, Law’017, and Pinczuk to include the teaching of Kinno of providing a magnetic counterweight to balance a head mounted display. The motivation would have been in order to facilitate attaching/detaching the counterweight.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN H TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1630. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/NGUYEN H TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2623
/CHANH D NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights