DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The amendment filed 1/29/2026 has been entered. Amended Claims 11 and 14-19 have been noted in addition to new Claims 21-26. The amendment has overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth - those 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn accordingly. Claims 11-26 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
2. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New Claim 26 recites the limitation “a system comprising one or more structural elements that can perform or contribute to performing the function of vapor determination”. Such a system is not disclosed in the original disclosure. Note that Claim 14 has been amended to remove the “vapor distribution system” limitation that previously invoked 112(f) and in turn necessitated 112(b) and that the interpretation previously used by the Examiner to “expedite prosecution” (see the Non-Final Rejection filed 10/8/2025) has been paraphrased into new Claim 26. However, “a system comprising one or more structural elements that can perform or contribute to performing the function of vapor determination” is not a part of the original disclosure and accordingly constitutes new matter. No such “system” is disclosed and no such “structural elements” are disclosed. Claim 26 accordingly stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 11-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (JP 11351511 A) (hereinafter “Shibata”) in view of Brückner et al. (US 2016/0040549 A1) (hereinafter “Bruckner”) and Wang et al. (CN 106016240 A) (hereinafter “Wang”) (see attached original document and translation for reference).
Regarding Claim 11, Shibata teaches of a steam generator (Fig. 1) with a hot gas path (hot gas path that (at least) each of elements 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 are disposed within that provides heat energy to each of the elements thereby enabling the elements to perform their functions of heating water and/or “steam”) (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1) comprising:
a superheater (20) arranged in the hot gas path (superheater (20) is necessarily “arranged in the hot gas path” to receive heat energy therefrom to perform its function of “steam” heating/production) (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1), which has a superheater output (21) to deliver a flow of hot steam (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1);
a plurality of heat exchangers (8, 12, 16) arranged in the hot gas path (heat exchangers (8, 12, 16) are necessarily “arranged in the hot gas path” to receive heat energy therefrom to perform their function of “steam” production) (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1);
an economizer (2) arranged in the hot gas path (economizer (2) is necessarily “arranged in the hot gas path” to receive heat energy therefrom to perform its function of water heating/“steam” production) (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1), the economizer having an economizer input (the right-side input of element (2) with respect to Fig. 1) and an economizer output (the left-side output of element (2) with respect to Fig. 1) (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1); and
a distribution piping (piping comprising components 3 and 22), wherein the superheater and the heat exchangers and the economizer are connected in series (as is shown in Fig. 1) and each comprises a fluid input (fluid input that feeds each respective input pipe as shown in Fig. 1) and at least one fluid distribution pipe (each respective connected input pipe as shown in Fig. 1) and at least one collection pipe (each respective connected outlet pipe as shown in Fig. 1) and a fluid output (fluid output that exits each respective collection pipe as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the economizer input (input of economizer 2) is connected with a source of cold fluid (source that feeds line 1) (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1), wherein:
in the connection between the superheater (20) and a first heat exchanger (16) and in each connection between one heat exchanger and the respective next heat exchanger of the plurality of heat exchangers (each of heat exchangers 8, 12 and 16) at least one attemperator (10, 14, 18) is arranged (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1), wherein the distribution piping (piping comprising components 3 and 22) is connected with the source of cold fluid and with the economizer output and additionally with each of the attemperators via respective fluid distribution valves (valves 23-26) (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1). Shibata also teaches of a controller (“boiler controller”) that controls the fluid distribution valves (via “the signals corresponding to the openings of the flow regulating valves for the sprayed water”) (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1).
Shibata fails to explicitly teach of an embodiment wherein the plurality of heat exchangers (8, 12, 16) comprises “at least four heat exchangers”. However, it has been held that a mere duplication of parts that does not produce a new and unexpected result has “no patentable significance” (see below). Therefore, merely duplicating parts in the prior art in a way that that would not have produced a new and unexpected would have constituted an obvious modification.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
In the instant case, Shibata already teaches of a plurality of heat exchangers (see Abstract and Fig. 1 and note that three heat exchangers (8, 12 and 16) other than the superheater (20) are present) that perform the expected function of capturing heat from hot gas wherein a larger number of heat exchangers will perform the expected function of capturing a relatively larger amount of heat from hot gas in the hot gas path and vice-versa (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1). Thus, merely adding an additional heat exchanger into the group of existing heat exchangers (8, 12 and 16) such that four heat exchangers would be present as opposed to three would have produced the expected result of increasing the amount of heat that could be captured heat from hot gas in the existing hot gas path and would have consequently not produced a “new and unexpected result”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the steam generator taught by Shibata by adding an additional heat exchanger into the group of existing heat exchangers (8, 12 and 16) via duplication such that four heat exchangers would be present as opposed to three as claimed since such modification would have constituted an obvious duplication of parts which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Furthermore, Shibata fails to explicitly teach that at least one attemperator is additionally arranged at the superheater output and that each of the superheater, heat exchangers and economizers have several heat exchange tubes arranged inside the hot gas path.
Bruckner discloses a relatable steam generating power plant system (Fig. 1) and method for operating the same (see at least Fig. 1 and Abstract). The system taught by Bruckner comprises a superheater (13), a plurality of heat exchangers (12, 11) and an economizer (10) (see at least [0013]-[0015] and Fig. 1), wherein each of the superheater, heat exchangers and economizer have several heat exchange tubes arranged inside the hot gas path (S) (as is shown in Fig. 1) which enable “heat energy” to be effectively “transferred” to the working medium flowing through the heat exchange tubes (see at least [0013]-[0015] and Fig. 1). Furthermore, Bruckner teaches of arranging an attemperator (20, 22) at both the input side and output side of the superheater (13) (as is shown in Fig. 1) and that doing so provides means for “regulating” both superheater inlet and outlet temperature (see at least [0013]-[0015] and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the steam generator taught by Shibata by configuring each of the superheater, heat exchangers and economizer to have several heat exchange tubes arranged inside the existing hot gas path as is taught by Bruckner such that heat energy could effectively be transferred from the hot gas to the working medium. Furthermore, it would have also been obvious to have arranged an attemperator at the output side of the existing superheater, in addition to the existing attemperator at the input side of the superheater, as is also taught by Bruckner. Doing so would have provided means for regulating both superheater inlet and outlet temperature.
Furthermore, Shibata fails to explicitly teach that the source of cold fluid is split upstream of the economizer and united downstream of the economizer before entering the distribution piping.
Wang discloses a relatable steam generating system (Fig. 1) and method for operating the same (see at least Fig. 1 and Abstract). The system taught by Wang comprises a heat exchanger (7) that is connected to an economizer (economizer comprising element (5)) via distribution piping (distribution piping comprising (9)) and configured to distribute steam (see at least [0039]-[0041] and Fig. 1). Wang teaches that a source of cold fluid (fluid feeding pipe (16)) is split upstream of the economizer (as is shown in Fig. 1) and united downstream of the economizer (via “bypass” element (10)) before entering the distribution piping (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0037], [0044] and Fig. 1). Wang teaches that such configuration also comprises, inter alia, valves (“valve group 15”) that enable control of the temperature of fluid entering the distribution piping which in turn provides means for better controlling the system (see at least [0039], [0046] and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the steam generator taught by Shibata by configuring the existing source of cold fluid to be split upstream of the economizer and united downstream of the economizer before entering the existing distribution piping via a bypass element based on the teachings of Wang and to have implemented a valve group for controlling the same as is also taught by Wang. Doing so would have provided means for controlling the temperature of fluid entering the distribution piping and would have thereby provided means for better controlling the steam generator. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 12, Shibata also teaches that a main valve (26) is arranged at the fluid input of a last heat exchanger (8) in the series of heat exchangers (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Shibata also teaches that at least at one of the series of superheater and heat exchangers comprises at least two collection pipes (the series of heat exchangers (at least) comprising elements 8, 12 and 16 has at least two collection pipes (the outlet pipes of each of elements 8, 12 and 16 which collectively form “at least two collection pipes”)) each with an attemperator (10, 14, 18), wherein each collection pipe is connected via a respective fluid distribution valve (valves 23-25 as shown in Fig. 1) with the distribution piping (piping comprising components 3 and 22) (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Shibata, Brucker and Wang teach the steam generating system with a steam generator according to Claim 11 (see the rejection for Claim 11).
Shibata fails to explicitly teach of a temperature sensor which determines the temperature of at least one of the fluid outputs and/or the fluid inputs. However, Bruckner also teaches of this limitation.
Bruckner also teaches of (at least) a temperature sensor (the temperature sensor that produces “actually measured steam temperatures”) that is able to determine the temperature of at least one of the fluid outputs and/or the fluid inputs (“steam temperatures”) (see at least [0007]-[0009] and Fig. 1) and that using such a sensor provides the ability to adjust measured steam temperature towards a desired “setpoint temperature” (see at least [0007]-[0009] and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have also modified the steam generator taught by Shibata by implementing a temperature sensor into the steam generator that is able to determine the temperature of at least one of the fluid outputs and/or the fluid inputs as is also taught by Bruckner. Doing so would have enabled steam temperature to be measured and subsequently adjusted towards a desired setpoint temperature value.
Regarding Claim 15, Brucker, in the combination of Shibata, Bruckner and Wang, also teaches that the temperature sensor is able to determine the temperature of each of the fluid outputs and/or the fluid inputs (“steam temperatures”) (see at least [0007]-[0009] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Brucker, in the combination of Shibata, Bruckner and Wang, also teaches that the controller that would be used in the combined apparatus is able to control the fluid distribution valves in any desired fashion (which is evident from the valves being selectively “regulated” by the control system - see at least [0008], [0015] and Fig. 1) which would necessarily include “separately and in groups and stepwise” including dependent on (at least) the temperature of the fluid outputs (see at least [0008], [0015], Fig. 1 and the rejection for Claim 14 above). Thus, the combination of Shibata, Bruckner and Wang would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 17: Shibata, Bruckner and Wang teach the steam generating system according to Claim 14 (see the rejection for Claim 14) in addition to a method for controlling the same comprising the steps:
a) determine at least one temperature and/or temperature change at a fluid output (as is taught by Bruckner in the combination of Shibata and Bruckner - see at least [0008], [0015], Fig. 1 of Bruckner and the rejection for Claim 14 above);
b) compare the temperature and/or temperature change with a predetermined value (“setpoint temperature”) (see at least [0008], [0015], Fig. 1 of Bruckner and the rejection for Claim 14 above); and
c) control at least one of the several fluid distribution valves dependent on the comparison (as is evident from the valves being selectively “regulated” by the controller to achieve the predetermined temperature value - see at least [0008], [0015], Fig. 1 of Bruckner and the rejection for Claim 14 above).
Regarding Claim 18, Shibata also teaches of:
a) determining at least one share of vapor at an attemperator (10, 14, 18) (via at least “the signals corresponding to the openings of the flow regulating valves for the sprayed water” for each of the attemperators - see at least Abstract and Fig. 1);
b) comparing the share of vapor with a predetermined value (the desired amount of vapor); and
c) controlling at least one of the several fluid distribution valves (23-26) dependent on the comparison (to thereby output the desired amount) (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Brucker, in the combination of Shibata, Bruckner and Wang, also teaches that the temperature and/or the temperature change may be determined at all fluid outputs (see at least [0008], [0015], Fig. 1 of Bruckner and the rejection for Claim 14 above).
Regarding Claim 20, Shibata, Bruckner and Wang teach the method according to Claim 18 (see the rejection for Claim 18) and Shibata also teaches of an amount of vapor, i.e., a vapor “share”, being generated from each of the attemperators (via, at least, “the signals corresponding to the openings of the flow regulating valves for the sprayed water”) (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1).
Shibata (and Buckner and Wang) fails to explicitly teach that “a first and/or a second and/or a third and/or a fourth predetermined share of vapor is at least 60% of the mass flow”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing vapor shares to have ratios as claimed since it has been held that 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.
(“[W]here 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
In the instant case, Shibata teaches of an amount of vapor, i.e., a vapor “share”, being generated from each of the attemperators (via, at least, “the signals corresponding to the openings of the flow regulating valves for the sprayed water”) (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1) - thus the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The magnitude of each vapor share is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the steam generator taught by Shibata. As is disclosed by Shibata, “high-speed load change” requires relatively higher spraying flow rates and corresponding vapor share to cope with high pressure increases and vice-versa (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1). Thus, increasing the magnitude of each vapor share would have increased the corresponding capacity to cope with high temperature increases and vice-versa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the combined apparatus by simply adjusting the existing vapor shares, depending on the magnitude of temperature change, to have ratios as claimed since it has been held that 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. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 21, Wang also teaches that a fluid supply valve is arranged at the economizer input (Wang discloses that element (15) as shown in Fig. 1 represents a “control valve group” comprising “at least two control valves” - the first upstream valve of the “at least two control valves” constitutes a fluid supply valve as claimed) (see at least [0039] and Fig. 1);
a fluid bypass valve is arranged between the source of cold fluid and the distribution piping (Wang discloses that element (15) as shown in Fig. 1 represents a “control valve group” comprising “at least two control valves” - the second downstream valve of the “at least two control valves”, disposed in bypass (10), constitutes a fluid bypass valve as claimed) (see at least [0039] and Fig. 1); and
the source of cold fluid is connected in parallel to both the fluid supply valve and the fluid bypass valve (as is evident from fluid being able to completely bypass economizer (5) via bypass (10) and the fluid supply valve and fluid bypass valve of “control valve group” (15) - see at least [0025], [0039] and Fig. 1). Thus, the combined apparatus would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 22: In the combined apparatus, Brucker also teaches that the distribution piping connected with the source of cold fluid and the attemperator arranged at the superheater output via the respective fluid distribution valve that would be used in the combined apparatus (valve adjacent to (23) as shown in Fig. 1 of Bruckner) connects the respective fluid distribution valve and the attemperator arranged at the superheater output in series (as is shown in Fig. 1), with the attemperator arranged at the superheater output positioned downstream of the respective fluid distribution valve (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0015], Fig. 1 and the rejection for Claim 11 above). Thus, the combined apparatus would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 23, Wang also teaches that prior to the distribution piping (9), a bypass line (10) as would be used in the combined apparatus connects the source of cold fluid with the economizer output via a fluid bypass valve (bypass valve of (15)) (see at least [0039], [0041], Fig. 1 and the rejection for Claim 11 above). Thus, the combined apparatus would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 24, Shibata also teaches that a main valve (26) is arranged at the fluid input of a last heat exchanger (8) in the series of heat exchangers (last relative to at least the direction of exhaust gas flow as shown in Fig. 1) downstream of the bypass line (as would be the case with bypass line (10) connected immediately at the exit of the economizer as is taught by Wang in the combined apparatus - see at least Fig. 1 of Wang, Fig. 1 of Shibata and the rejection for Claim 11 above). Thus, the combined apparatus would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 25: Wang also teaches that the distribution piping (9) is connected with the source of cold fluid (source of cold fluid that feeds (16)) and the economizer output (output of (5) as shown in Fig. 1) prior to the fluid input of a last heat exchanger (7) (as is shown in Fig. 1) which would be the last heat exchanger in the series of heat exchangers taught by Shibata in the combined apparatus (heat exchanger (8) of Shibata) (see at least Fig. 1 of Shibata, Fig. 1 of Wang and the rejection for Claim 11 above). Thus, the combined apparatus would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata, Bruckner and Wang further in view of Hamilton, JR (US 3,515,102) (hereinafter “Hamilton”).
Regarding Claim 26, Shibata, Bruckner and Wang teach the steam generator according to Claim 11 (see the rejection for Claim 11) but fail to explicitly teach of a system comprising one or more structural elements that can perform or contribute to performing the function of vapor determination.
Hamilton discloses a relatable steam system (Fig. 1) and method for using the same (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1) wherein the system comprises a source of superheated steam (10) that feeds an attemperator (14) (see at least Col. 3 lines 30-45 and Fig. 1). Hamilton teaches of disposing a vapor determination system (system comprising “calorimeter” element (32)) that is able to determine a share of vapor after the attemperator (see at least Col. 3 line 50 - Col. 4 line 48 and Fig. 1 and note that measured steam “quality” is indicative of a share of vapor) and that doing so provides the advantage of, inter alia, enabling steam “quality” to be determined during operation such that adjustments can be made as necessary to achieve a desired steam quality (see at least Col. 3 line 50 - Col. 4 line 48 and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined steam generator by configuring the steam generator to comprise a vapor determination system, comprising at least a calorimeter element, that is able to determine a share of vapor after at least one of the existing attemperators based on the teachings of Hamilton. Doing so would have provided means for actively measuring steam quality such that adjustments could be made to achieve a desired steam quality as necessary. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
It is recommended that Applicant further amend Claim 1 to include additional structural elements and/or features, that are not shown in any of the cited prior art, to endeavor to overcome the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rancruel et al. (US 2014/0216365 A1) and Schroeder et al. (US 2011/0162368 A1) are considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use.
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 BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 5/26/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights