DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed July 24, 2026, is acknowledged. This listing of the claims replaces all prior versions and listings of the claims.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 16, and 17 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s remarks filed July 24, 2026 in response to the non-final rejection filed June 4, 2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered.
Claims 8 and 15 have been canceled by applicant’s instant amendment to the claims and any objection and rejections previously applied to claims 8 and 15 are withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Restriction/Election
In response to a requirement for restriction/election filed March 11, 2026, applicant elected with traverse the invention of Group I, pending claims 1, 2, 9-12, 16, and 17, in the reply filed May 11, 2026.
The requirement was deemed proper and made FINAL in the Office action filed June 4, 2026.
Claims 3-7, 13, and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1, 2, 9-12, 16, and 17 are being examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 9-12, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to in the recitation of “tannase variant having tannin-degrading enzymatic activity with at least…sequence identity” and in the interest of improving claim form, it is suggested that claims 1 and 17 be amended to recite (with markings to show changes made) “tannase variant having tannin-degrading enzymatic activity and comprising an amino acid sequence with at least…sequence identity.”
As amended, claim 1 is directed to a composition. Claim 2 is objected to in the recitation of “The tannase variant of claim 1” and in the interest of improving claim form, it is suggested that claim 2 be amended to recite (with markings to show changes made) “The compositionof the tannase variant comprises.”
As amended, claim 1 is directed to a composition. Claims 9-12 and 16 are objected to in the recitation of “The washing or cleaning agent according to claim 1…” and in the interest of improving claim form, it is suggested that claims 9-12 and 16 be amended to recite (with markings to show changes made) “The composition
Claim 17 is objected to in the recitation of “wherein the washing or cleaning agent has an improved cleaning performance compared to the same liquid washing agent” and in the interest of improving claim form and consistency, it is suggested that claim 17 be amended to recite (with markings to show changes made) “wherein the washing or cleaning agent has an improved cleaning performance compared to the same or cleaning agent.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection of claims 2, 9-12, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for reciting “substantially” in claims 9, 11, and 12, for reciting “approximately” in claims 10 and 16, and for lacking antecedent basis for “the improved cleaning performance” in claim 16 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claims 9, 11, and 12 to delete “substantially,” applicant’s amendment to claims 10 and 16 to delete “approximately,” and applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to recite “wherein the washing or cleaning agent has an improved cleaning performance.”
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite in the recitation of “wherein the amino acid sequence comprises a single or multiple conservative amino acid substitution(s), a fragmentation, a deletion, an insertion, substitution mutagenesis, or combinations thereof” is maintained.
As stated in the previous Office action, the noted phrase is indefinite because there is no recited reference sequence such that one of skill in the art can determine whether or not the tannase variant has “a single or multiple conservative amino acid substitution(s), a fragmentation, a deletion, an insertion, substitution mutagenesis, or combinations thereof.”
Applicant argues claim 2 is dependent from claim 1, which provides the basis for the tannase variant and the sequence identity and – according to applicant – no further limitation is needed.
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because the limitations “tannase variant” and “with at least 70% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1” fail to provide a reference sequence such that one of skill in the art can determine whether or not the tannase variant has “a single or multiple conservative amino acid substitution(s), a fragmentation, a deletion, an insertion, substitution mutagenesis, or combinations thereof.”
In the interest of advancing prosecution, applicant may consider an amendment to insert “as compared to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” following “combinations thereof” in claim 2.
Claims 1, 2, 9-12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
This rejection is necessitated by applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Claims 1 (claims 2, 9-12, and 16 dependent therefrom) and 17 are confusing in the recitation of “wherein the washing or cleaning agent has an improved cleaning performance compared to the same washing or cleaning agent in the absence of the tannase variant” and “wherein the washing or cleaning agent has an improved cleaning performance compared to the same liquid washing agent in the absence of the tannase variant,” respectively, because the washing or cleaning agent recited in claims 1 and 17 does not necessarily comprise a tannase variant. Rather, it is the claimed composition that comprises the tannase variant. In the interest of advancing prosecution, applicant may consider an amendment to claim 1 to recite (with markings to show changes made) “wherein the compositioncompositioncompositioncomposition
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 9-12, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 1. As amended, claim 1 is drawn to a composition comprising a combination of a washing or cleaning agent and a tannase variant having tannin-degrading enzymatic activity with at least 70% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1 over its entire length, the combination having an improved cleaning performance compared to the same washing or cleaning agent in the absence of the tannase variant on one or more tannase-sensitive stains selected from a bleachable stain, a tannin-containing stain, a tannin-derivative-containing stain, or combinations thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 9-12, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to recite “having tannin-degrading enzymatic activity.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GenPept Database Accession Number WP_141595141 (July 2019, 1 page; cited on the IDS filed September 5, 2023; hereafter “GenPept WP_141595141”) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to incorporate the limitations of now-canceled claims 8 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GenPept WP_141595141 in view of Wolf, U. (DE 1944904 A1; cited on Form PTO-892 filed June 4, 2026; hereafter “Wolf”) and Gürkök, S. (International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research 10:75-81, 2019; cited on Form PTO-892 filed June 4, 2026; hereafter “Gürkök”). Reference is made to a machine translation of Wolf (cited on Form PTO-892 filed June 4, 2026).
The instant rejection was previously applied to claims 8, 10, 15, and 16 and has been modified to address applicant’s amendment to the claims.
As amended, claims 1, 2, 10, and 16 are drawn to a composition, comprising:
a washing or cleaning agent;
a tannase variant having tannin-degrading enzymatic activity with at least 70% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1 over its entire length;
wherein, the concentration of the tannase variant ranges from 0.00005 to 15 wt. % based on active protein;
wherein the washing or cleaning agent has an improved cleaning performance compared to the same washing or cleaning agent in the absence of the tannase variant on one or more tannase-sensitive stains selected from a bleachable stain, a tannin-containing stain, a tannin-derivative-containing stain, or combinations thereof.
Regarding instant claim 1, GenPept WP_141595141 discloses a polypeptide from Streptomyces ipomoeae annotated as a tannase (title) and comprising an amino acid sequence that has at least 99% sequence identity to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 using BLAST default parameters (see Appendix A at p. 22 of the Office action filed June 4, 2026 for sequence alignment).
GenPept WP_141595141 does not teach or suggest a composition comprising the Streptomyces ipomoeae tannase as recited in claim 1.
Wolf teaches the previously known methods for cleaning dishes with silicate, phosphate and perborate-containing detergents do not remove, or only insufficiently remove, the soiling caused by tea (translation at paragraph [0002]) and recommends the application of an enzyme that is able to break down the residues of the tea, which largely consist of tannins, especially tannase (translation at paragraph [0006]). Wolf teaches the enzyme can be added in solid form to a detergent to remove contamination of laundry with tea or other tannin-based residues (paragraph [0009]).
Gürkök teaches detergents in liquid or solid form contain enzymes ranging from 0.2% to 2% (p. 77, column 2, middle) and teaches the general composition of an enzyme detergent including 1% enzyme (p. 76, Table 1). Although Gürkök does not expressly teach the range of 0.00005 to 15 wt. %, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05.I).
In view of the combined teachings of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include 0.2% to 2% of the tannase of GenPept WP_141595141 as a component in a detergent. One would have been motivated and would have expected success to do so because GenPept WP_141595141 taught a tannase, Wolf recommended the application of a tannase to break down the residues of tea and taught including tannase in a detergent to remove contamination of laundry with tea or other tannin-based residues, and Gürkök taught detergents in liquid or solid form contain enzymes ranging from 0.2% to 2%.
The instant specification defines “cleaning performance” as meaning the lightening performance on one or multiple stains (paragraph [0030]). Given that Wolf taught tannase is able to break down the residues of tea, which largely consist of tannins, and taught tannase can be added to a detergent to remove contamination of laundry with tea or other tannin-based residues, one would have reasonably expected that a detergent including 0.2% to 2% of the tannase of GenPept WP_141595141 as taught and/or suggested by the combination of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök would have an improved cleaning performance compared to the same detergent in the absence of the tannase of GenPept WP_141595141 on one or more tannase-sensitive stains selected from a bleachable stain, a tannin-containing stain, a tannin-derivative-containing stain, or combinations thereof.
Regarding instant claim 2, the sequence of GenPept WP_141595141 has two amino acid substitutions at positions 507 and 508 relative to the amino acid sequence of instant SEQ ID NO: 1 (see Appendix A at p. 22 of the Office action filed June 4, 2026 for sequence alignment).
Regarding instant claim 10, Gürkök teaches enzymes used in detergents should be stable and perform effectively at a wide alkaline pH (p. 77, column 2). Gürkök teaches factors considered for detergent-compatible enzymes including washing conditions of pH 8-11 (p. 80, column 2). Wolf teaches tannase is a detergent enzyme (paragraph [0006]) and teaches methods for stabilizing the enzyme (paragraph [0008]). As such, it would have been obvious for a detergent including 0.2% to 2% of the tannase of GenPept WP_141595141 as taught and/or suggested by the combination of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök to have a pH encompassed by the range of 8 to 9.
Regarding instant claim 16, Gürkök teaches enzymes used in detergents should be stable and perform effectively at a wide variety of temperatures (p. 77, column 2) and Gürkök teaches factors considered for detergent-compatible enzymes including washing temperatures of 30-60°C (p. 80, column 2). Wolf teaches tannase is a detergent enzyme (paragraph [0006]) and teaches methods for stabilizing the enzyme (paragraph [0008]). As such, it would have been obvious for a detergent including 0.2% to 2% of the tannase of GenPept WP_141595141 as taught and/or suggested by the combination of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök to have improved cleaning performance on one or more tannase-sensitive stains at a temperature encompassed by the range of 20°C to 40°C.
Therefore, the composition of claims 1, 2, 10, and 16 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GenPept WP_141595141 in view of Wolf and Gürkök as applied to claims 1, 2, 10, and 16 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (WO 2021/121394 A1; cited on Form PTO-892 filed June 4, 2026; hereafter “Liu”).
The instant rejection has been modified from its previous version in order to address applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Claim 9 is drawn to the washing or cleaning agent according to claim 1, wherein the washing or cleaning agent is free from boron-containing compounds.
The relevant teachings of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök as applied to claims 1, 2, 10, and 16 are set forth above.
Regarding instant claim 9, the combination of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök does not teach or suggest absence of boron-containing compounds.
Liu teaches that it is important that liquid enzyme products are sufficiently stable to maintain specifications, even when they reach customers a long time after production (p. 1, lines 8-13). Liu teaches liquid enzyme formulations with aliphatic 1,2-diols additives, which improve enzyme stability, physical stability, solubility of enzyme protein, and microbial stability, and are substantially free of commonly used boron-based enzyme stabilizers (p. 1, line 36 to p. 2, line 9) such as boric acid (p. 2, lines 13-14), i.e., borate, which are generally undesirable and has been classified as reprotoxic (p. 2, lines 8-9). Liu teaches the liquid enzyme compositions are used for delivering enzyme into detergent production (p. 3, lines 1-2).
In view of the teachings of Liu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a detergent including 0.2% to 2% of the tannase of GenPept WP_141595141 as taught and/or suggested by the combination of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök to be free of borate-containing compounds. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated and expected success to do so because Liu taught boron-based enzyme stabilizers are generally undesirable and have been classified as reprotoxic, and taught liquid enzyme formulations that are substantially free of commonly used boron-based enzyme stabilizers.
Therefore, the composition of claim 9 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GenPept WP_141595141 in view of Wolf and Gürkök as applied to claims 1, 2, 10, and 16 above, and further in view of European Commission (“Evaluation of the use of phosphates in Consumer Automatic Dishwasher Detergents (CADD),” 2014; cited on Form PTO-892 filed June 4, 2026; hereafter “European Commission”).
The instant rejection has been modified from its previous version in order to address applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Claim 11 is drawn to the washing or cleaning agent according to claim 1, wherein the washing or cleaning agent is free from phosphonate-containing compounds.
Claim 12 is drawn to the washing or cleaning agent according to claim 1, wherein the washing or cleaning agent is free from phosphate-containing compounds.
The relevant teachings of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök as applied to claims 1, 2, 10, and 16 are set forth above.
Regarding instant claims 11 and 12, the combination of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök does not teach or suggest absence of phosphonate- and phosphate-containing compounds.
European Commission acknowledges the environmental problems posed by the use of phosphates in consumer automatic dishwasher detergents (CADD) (p. 6, section 1.1). European Commission teaches that while phosphonates are effective at removing tea stains, the use of phosphonates is not possible in products that wish to be completely phosphate-free (p. 16, middle).
In view of the teachings of European Commission, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a detergent including 0.2% to 2% of the tannase of GenPept WP_141595141 as taught and/or suggested by the combination of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök to be free of phosphonate- and phosphate-containing compounds. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated and expected success to do so because European Commission taught phosphates in CADD pose environmental problems and the use of phosphonates is not possible in products that wish to be completely phosphate-free.
Therefore, the composition of claims 11 and 12 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GenPept WP_141595141 in view of Wolf and Gürkök.
This is a new rejection, which is necessitated by applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Newly added claim 17 is drawn to a composition, comprising:
a washing or cleaning agent; and,
a tannase variant having tannin-degrading enzymatic activity with at least 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1 over its entire length;
wherein a concentration of the tannase variant ranges from 0.001 to 0.1 wt. % based on active protein;
wherein the washing or cleaning agent is a liquid washing agent for cleaning textiles; and,
wherein the washing or cleaning agent has an improved cleaning performance compared to the same liquid washing agent in the absence of the tannase variant, wherein the improved cleaning performance is determined under conditions of 40oC, 16o dH water, 60 minutes, and wash liquor final concentration 3.17 g/L.
Regarding instant claim 17, GenPept WP_141595141 discloses a polypeptide from Streptomyces ipomoeae annotated as a tannase (title) and comprising an amino acid sequence that has at least 99% sequence identity to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 using BLAST default parameters (see Appendix A at p. 22 of the Office action filed June 4, 2026 for sequence alignment).
GenPept WP_141595141 does not teach or suggest a composition comprising the Streptomyces ipomoeae tannase as recited in claim 17.
Wolf teaches the previously known methods for cleaning dishes with silicate, phosphate and perborate-containing detergents do not remove, or only insufficiently remove, the soiling caused by tea (translation at paragraph [0002]) and recommends the application of an enzyme that is able to break down the residues of the tea, which largely consist of tannins, especially tannase (translation at paragraph [0006]). Wolf teaches cleaning laundry contaminated with tea or other tannin-based residues in washing machines using a tannase-containing detergent (claim 2 of Wolf) and teaches a liquid rinsing or washing agent (claim 5 of Wolf).
Gürkök teaches detergents in liquid form contain enzymes ranging from 0.2% to 2% (p. 77, column 2, middle). Gürkök does not expressly teach the range of 0.001 to 0.1 wt. %. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In view of the range of enzyme concentration taught by Gürkök, which is close to the recited range of tannase concentration in claim 17, enzyme concentrations encompassed by the range of 0.001 to 0.1 wt. % would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Also, according to MPEP 2144.05.II.A, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Given that Gürkök acknowledges that a range of enzyme concentrations can be used in a detergent (p. 77, column 2, middle), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select enzyme concentrations encompassed by the range of 0.001 to 0.1 wt. % as optimal or workable enzyme concentrations in a detergent.
In view of the combined teachings of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the tannase of GenPept WP_141595141 at concentrations within the range of 0.001 to 0.1 wt. % as a component in a liquid laundry detergent. One would have been motivated and would have expected success to do so because GenPept WP_141595141 taught a tannase, Wolf recommended the application of a tannase to break down the residues of tea, and taught including tannase in a liquid washing agent for cleaning laundry contaminated with tea or other tannin-based residues, and Gürkök taught detergents in liquid form contain enzymes ranging from 0.2% to 2%, which is close to the recited range of tannase concentration in claim 17.
The combination of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök does not teach or suggest a detergent including the tannase of GenPept WP_141595141 at concentrations within the range of 0.001 to 0.1 wt. % has improved cleaning performance determined under conditions of 40oC, 16o dH water, 60 minutes, and wash liquor final concentration 3.17 g/L. However, according to MPEP 2112.01.I, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Since the combination of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök teaches and/or suggests a detergent including the tannase of GenPept WP_141595141 at concentrations within the range of 0.001 to 0.1 wt. % and the “structure” of such a detergent is encompassed claim 17, it is presumed that a detergent including the tannase of GenPept WP_141595141 at concentrations within the range of 0.001 to 0.1 wt. % would exhibit improved cleaning performance determined under conditions of 40oC, 16o dH water, 60 minutes, and wash liquor final concentration 3.17 g/L.
Therefore, the composition of claim 17 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: In summary, applicant argues the combination of cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the composition of claim 1, particularly the recited comparative performance property of claim 1; applicant addresses each of the references individually, noting certain alleged deficiencies of each reference; and applicant argues that the rejection relies on hindsight reconstruction to arrive at the claimed composition.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. To the extent applicant addresses each of the cited references individually, it is noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145.IV.
Also, to the extent applicant’s arguments are directed to hindsight reconstruction, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See MPEP 2145.X.A. In this case, the rejection relies only on knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and thus, the reconstruction is proper.
As to the merits of applicant’s arguments, contrary to applicant’s position, at least for the reasons set forth above, the combination of cited prior art teaches all claim limitations and provides a motivation and a reasonable expectation of success for making the claimed composition, including the recited property of “wherein the washing or cleaning agent has an improved cleaning performance compared to the same washing or cleaning agent in the absence of the tannase variant on one or more tannase-sensitive stains selected from a bleachable stain, a tannin-containing stain, a tannin-derivative-containing stain, or combinations thereof.”
For these reasons, it is the examiner’s position that the claimed invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 16, and 17 are pending.
Claims 3-7, 13, and 14 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 9-12, 16, and 17 are rejected.
No claim is in condition for allowance.
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 DAVID J STEADMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0942. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM.
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, MANJUNATH N RAO can be reached on 571-272-0939. 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.
/David Steadman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Prosecution Insights