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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-23, in the reply filed on 1/13/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the simultaneous search of both groups is believed not to constitute an unreasonable search for the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because Applicant’s response is generic and does not points out a specific issue with the prior art reference relied upon in the Restriction Requirement mailed on 11/20/25.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 24-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/13/26.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 11, line 24, “1.*103 mm” appears that it should read “1*103 mm or 1.0*103 mm”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-8 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8: The term “smaller” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smaller” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what exact value of a flow rate is considered “smaller”.
Claims 9-12 are rejected in virtue of their dependency on a rejected base claim (claim 8).
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the flow rate (QBrewing a, or QBrewing b)" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since the claim from which it depends (claim 8) only mentions first, second and third flow rates, and there is no previous recitation of any “flow rate QBrewing”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the flow rate (QBrewing b)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim for the same reasons stated above in claim 9.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the flow rate (QBrewing a)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim for the same reasons stated above in claim 9.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the flow rate (QBrewing c)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim for the same reasons stated above in claim 9.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “grinding coffee beans to a predefined size for filter coffee”. The claim is indefinite because it is not clear what specific grinding size is considered a “predefined size for filter coffee”.
Regarding claim 14: The term “substantial” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim is indefinite because it does not denote a precise degree or absolute measurement of compression. It is not clear what amount or degree of compression force is considered “without substantial compression”.
Claim 15 is rejected in virtue of its dependency on a rejected base claim (claim 14).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11, 14-21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eugster [DE 202016008296 U1].
Regarding claim 1, Eugster teaches a method for making a coffee beverage with a filter-coffee taste by means of a fully automatic coffee machine, wherein the fully automatic coffee machine has at least one brewing unit with a brewing chamber (brewing chamber 1) [0001] and has a plunger (piston 5) [0042], which is movable (adjustable) in the brewing chamber for setting a brewing chamber volume [0018], wherein the method comprises the following steps:
filling the brewing chamber with ground coffee [0041]; and
feeding water into the brewing chamber [0042], for the purpose of extraction in the course of a brewing process.
While Eugster does not explicitly recites the brewing chamber volume is greater than a volume of the ground coffee specifically in a loosely filled state in the brewing chamber, Eugster teaches an alternative embodiment in which the ground coffee is pressed (i.e., tamped or compacted state) into the brewing chamber beforehand. Therefore, Eugster teaches an embodiment wherein at least the plunger is arranged during at least one brewing phase of the brewing process in a position in which a brewing chamber volume is greater than a volume of the ground coffee in a loosely filled state in the brewing chamber after the filling according to step a has taken place [0019, 0046].
Wherein the brewing process comprises a number of brewing phases (I, II, III) in which water is made to pass through the ground coffee with different flow rates relative to the brewing phases (I, II, III) [0033, 0047-0048, Fig.2, Fig.6], and
wherein a change between the brewing phases (I,II, Ill) is performed by determining a physical variable in the form of amount and/or volume of water supplied (different average brewing water volume flow depending on a sensor signal of a flow meter [Abstract, 0001]) and/or amount of coffee removed (and/or different sub-phase brewing water quantity and/or by a different sub-phase time duration, which would remove different amounts of coffee, i.e., different extract volumes) [0049].
Regarding claim 2, Eugster teaches wherein the a change of the brewing phases (I, II, III) is adjusted by detecting the supplied amount of water by taking into account a supplied amount of ground coffee [0021, 0033, 0047-0048, Fig.2, Fig.6], (if the amount of coffee is matched to the initial brewing chamber volume before the brewing water is introduced, increasing brewing water flow during a brewing phase which may be divided into three phases with different volume flow).
Regarding claim 3, Eugster teaches wherein the change of the brewing phases (I, II, III) is performed by detecting measured values by a measuring sensor (flow meter), wherein the measuring sensor is arranged downstream of the brewing unit in terms of flow [0001].
Regarding claims 4-5, Eugster teaches wherein the water flows through the ground coffee during the at least one brewing phase without exerting a mechanical contact pressure on the ground coffee [0019] that is further compressive (compressed after the brewing water is introduced) compared to the loosely filled state, and wherein the ground coffee is substantially present in an uncompacted manner in the loosely filled state at the start of step b [0021].
Regarding claim 7, Eugster teaches wherein at the beginning of step b only the ground coffee is arranged inside the brewing chamber [0018], (since the coffee grounds are collected directly in the brewing chamber from an integrated grinder and in some embodiments the dry coffee grounds may be compressed, therefore dry coffee grounds in the brewing chamber reads on the claimed “at the beginning of step b only the ground coffee is arranged inside the brewing chamber”).
Regarding claim 8, Eugster teaches wherein the brewing process comprises a first brewing phase (I), a second brewing phase (II), and a third brewing phase (III) [0052]. With regards to the terms “first, second, and third” flow rates, given that each flow rate used in each stage I, II, and III of Eugster are different flow rates (i.e., 200, 120, 150 ml/min respectively), under the broadest reasonable interpretation Eugster teaches a first, second, and third flow rate [0052]. With regards to the second flow rate is “smaller” than the first and/or the third flow rate, Eugster teaches a second flow rate of 120 ml/min, a first flow rate of 200 ml/min, and a third flow rate of 150 ml/min [0052]. Furthermore, a skilled artisan would recognize the selection or designation of a first, second and/or third flow rates to different flow rate volumes accordingly based on the desired extraction profile (i.e., higher/lower flowrate at the initial, during, final stages).
Regarding claim 9, Eugster teaches wherein the flow rate (QBrewing a, or QBrewing b) for at least one brewing phase of the brewing process is less than 10 ml/s (120 ml/min= 2 ml/s) [0052]. With regards to “the flow rate (QBrewing a, or QBrewing b)”, the same arguments apply mutatis mutandis as discussed above in claim 8 for the “first, second, and third” flow rates. Eugster further teach the method may provide for flow rate (a) and flow rate (b) [0015].
Regarding claim 11, see claim 8 discussion above, where a skilled artisan would recognize the selection or designation of a first, second and/or third flow rates to different flow rate volumes accordingly based on the desired extraction profile (i.e., higher/lower flowrate at the initial, during, final stages), and further Eugster teaches wherein the flow rate (QBrewing a) for at least the second brewing phase (II) of the brewing process is 2-5 ml/s (120 ml/min= 2 ml/s) [0052]. Eugster further teach the method may provide for flow rate (a) and flow rate (b) [0015].
Regarding claim 14, Eugster teaches wherein the plunger performs, prior to step b, a shaping process of a bulk of the ground coffee without substantial compression of the bulk of the ground coffee, so that the volume of the brewing chamber is reduced during the shaping process [0021], since the brewing piston in Eugster (optionally) may be adjusted to exert no or a slight compact pressure on the dry coffee grounds inside the brewing chamber, therefore reducing the volume of the brewing chamber as it moves in the direction of the ground coffee.
Regarding claim 15, Eugster teaches wherein prior to the brewing process, the plunger is returned to a first position so that the volume of the brewing chamber expands again [0046], since an electromotive adjustment drive assigned to the brewing piston may adjust the position of the piston inside the brewing chamber (pressing the ground coffee) and moving back to the initial position, increasing the volume of the brewing chamber before the supply of the brewing water for the brewing process.
Regarding claim 16, Eugster teaches the piston moving from a starting position (first position) to a second position (compressing ground coffee) and back to the first position increasing the volume of the brewing chamber as discussed above in claim 15, and while Eugster does not explicitly recites the piston remains in the first position during the entire brewing process, it would have been reasonable to expect that Eugster would also provide for the piston remaining in the first position during the entire process as claimed, since the adjusting of the piston increase/decrease the volume of the brewing chamber in order to supply a larger/smaller brewing water volume, and since the method is also additionally capable of performing the brewing process with the same (identical) brewing water volume flow during at least one brewing profile [Eugster, 0015], explicitly teaching using the same volume of brewing water, therefore implicitly teaching leaving the piston at the first position during the entire brewing process.
Regarding claim 17, Eugster teaches wherein the plunger can be adjusted to a second position in which it the plunger rests on the ground coffee along an end face without exerting a contact pressure on the ground coffee during the shaping process, since the brewing piston in Eugster (optionally) may be adjusted to exert no or a slight compact pressure on the dry coffee grounds inside the brewing chamber, therefore reducing the volume of the brewing chamber as it moves in the direction of the ground coffee [0021].
Regarding claim 18, Eugster teaches wherein the plunger in the first position, is present in a maximally extended position, limited by a structural design of the brewing unit, the piston moving from a starting position (first position, maximally extended position) to a second position (compressing ground coffee) and back to the first position (maximally extended position) increasing the volume of the brewing chamber as discussed above in claim 15, and since the brewing chamber is axially delimited by the brewing piston [0018].
Regarding claim 19, Eugster teaches wherein the fully automatic coffee machine has a filter (filter cake) as part of the brewing unit [0018].
Regarding claim 20, Eugster teaches wherein a brewing pressure during the brewing process is less than 4 bar (2 bar during the pre-infusion phase) [0019].
Regarding claim 21, Eugster teaches the brewing chamber is closed during the brewing process except for an inlet for hot water and/or an outlet for coffee, since in the brewing position, the brewing cylinder is adjusted in the direction of the brewing piston, thus closing the brewing chamber, and after a predetermined volume of brewing water has been reached in the brewing chamber a valve is opened and coffee flow into an outlet [0042].
Regarding claim 23, Eugster teaches wherein a stepwise adjustment of a flow rate is performed during the brewing process to alternate between two brewing phases, since at least two selectable brewing profiles can be selected by corresponding desired specification or parameterization to the effect that the order of partial phases of the respective brewing profile varies from one another with different brewing water volume flows, (i.e., volume flow b) is reversed or swapped. For example, a preceding first partial phase of a first brewing profile has a brewing water volume flow of (a ml/min) and a later, subsequent or second partial phase of the first brewing profile of a brewing water volume flow of (b ml/min), while in the second brewing profile the preceding first partial phase has a brewing water volume flow of (b ml/min) and a later, second, or third, etc. subphase has a brewing water flow rate of (a ml/min) or (c ml/min), where flow rates (a, b, and c ml/min) are different [0015].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eugster [DE 202016008296 U1] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martin et al. [US 20090293733 A1], hereinafter Martin.
Regarding claim 6, Eugster teaches the method discussed above in claim 1 rejection and further teaches that the method includes a brewing chamber whose volume can be changed, adjusted or increased by a pressing action of a piston [0018], at the beginning of step b (feeding water into brewing chamber step) [0021], but does not explicitly teach the brewing chamber volume at the beginning of step b is at least 50% larger than the volume of the ground coffee in the loosely filled state.
Martin teaches a method for making a coffee beverage [Abstract], wherein the method provide means to meter a quantity of ground coffee into the brew chamber, and the filter coffee brewing position to which the piston is movable is such as to provide a volume in the brewing chamber that is at least 50% larger than the volume of the ground coffee in the loosely (uncompacted) filled state [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a brewing chamber volume at the beginning of step b is at least 50% larger than the volume of the ground coffee in the loosely filled state as taught by Martin, into the method of Eugster, since Eugster already teaches increasing the volume of the brewing chamber at the beginning of step b but simply did not mention the specific value of 50%, and further because Martin teaches that this will allow for preparation of different drink volumes, amounts or size as the required quantity of water for a cup of coffee has been supplied, or nearly all the required quantity has been supplied [Martin, 0022].
Claim(s) 10, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eugster [DE 202016008296 U1] as applied to claim 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Tibbe [WO 2020126755 A1], hereinafter Martin, and evidenced by Schnelle et al. [US 20200093321 A1], hereinafter Schnelle (for claims 10 and 12).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, see claim 8 discussion above, where Eugster teaches the brewing process comprises a first brewing phase (I), a second brewing phase (II), and a third brewing phase (III), wherein each brewing phase having a different flow rate of a first, second, and third (QBrewing a, QBrewing b, QBrewing c, see claim 9 discussion above regarding the QBrewing a-c) [Eugster, 0015], and flow rates (i.e., 200, 120, 150 ml/min respectively), thus teaching flow rates in the range of from 120-200 ml/min or 2-3.3 ml/s [Eugster, 0052], however is silent regarding the flow rate of (QBrewing b) for at least the first brewing phase (I) of the brewing process being 5-10 ml/s required by claim 10, and the flow rate of (QBrewing c) for at least the third brewing phase (III) of the brewing process being 10-15 ml/s required by claim 12.
Tibbe teaches a coffee machine and method for making coffee beverages [Abstract], wherein the method provides a flow rate in the range of from 3-5 ml/s [p.12, l.19-22], and may also provide for a flow rate of around 15 ml/s [p.12, l.24-25], which are flow rates within the claimed flow rate values of 5-10 ml/s for flow rate of (QBrewing b) of claim 10, and 10-15 ml/s for flow rate of (QBrewing c) of claim 12.
Schnelle (relied upon as evidence) directed to a coffee machine and methods for preparing brewed beverages such as coffee [Schnelle, Abstract, 0006], disclose that for larger drinks such as a large coffee with 200 ml of water, a flow rate of 10 ml/s may be selected [Schnelle, 0028], and that the flow rate is determined by the type of beverage (i.e., standard coffee, espresso, cappuccino, americano or other coffee types) [Schnelle, 0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a flow rate of (QBrewing b) for at least the first brewing phase (I) of the brewing process of 5-10 ml/s and a flow rate of (QBrewing c) for at least the third brewing phase (III) of the brewing process of 10-15 ml/s as taught by Tibbe, into the method of Eugster, since Eugster already teaches variations in flow rate and does not teach a flow rate upper or lower limit, and because Tibbe teaches that using the different flow rates of 5 ml/s and 15 ml/s would allow for production of different coffee beverages such as espresso and filter coffee (also referred to as drip filter coffee) [Tibbe, p.12, l.11-25], and lastly because the claimed flow rate would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to the ratios of ingredients being used during extraction (water, coffee grounds), and/or the desired taste of the final beverage coffee product, and/or the desired type of coffee beverage (i.e., standard coffee, espresso, cappuccino, americano or other coffee types), size or volume of the coffee beverage desired by the consumer as evidenced by Schnelle [Schnelle, 0028].
Regarding claim 13, Eugster teaches wherein the fully automatic coffee machine comprises a coffee grinder [0018, claim 9], wherein the method comprises grinding coffee beans [0018, claim 9] to a predefined size (i.e., grinding degree) [0014], but does not explicitly recites the predefined size is specifically for filter coffee.
Tibbe teaches the coffee machine and method for making coffee beverages discussed above, wherein the coffee machine comprises a coffee grinder [p.4, l.11-12], and is suitable for producing ground coffee specifically for drip filter coffee [p.4, l.11-14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a coffee grinder that is capable of grinding coffee beans to a predefined size for filter coffee as taught by Tibbe, into the method of Eugster, since Eugster already teaches the fully automatic coffee machine comprises a coffee grinder, but simply did not mention a coffee grind size, and because Tibbe teaches that this will allow added functionality into a brewed beverage making method where the fully automatic coffee machine can prepare not only espresso type coffee beverages (which uses fine coffee grind size) but also real drip filter coffee (uses coarse coffee grind size) made from freshly ground beans [p.4, l.11-14].
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eugster [DE 202016008296 U1] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Startz [US 20120291634 A1].
Regarding claim 22, Eugster teaches the method for making a coffee beverage with a filter-coffee taste by means of a fully automatic coffee machine discussed above in claim 1, but does not teach the fully automatic coffee machine has a bypass line starting from a hot water boiler to a dispensing unit with one or more control elements, wherein a dispensing of hot water takes place to achieve a predetermined coffee volume.
Startz teaches a coffee beverage machine [Abstract], comprising a main flow line (flow path 3) leading through a heating device 2 (hot water boiler) and a bypass line (flow path 4) that bypass the heating device 2. The bypass flow path 4 branches off from the main flow path 3 upstream of the heating device 2. In the main flow path 3, a main flow pump 7 is thereby arranged between the water tank 5 and the heating device 2. In the main flow path 3, a fluid flow meter 9 is arranged downstream from the main flow pump 7 and a brewing valve 10 as well as a brewing device 11 are arranged downstream from the heating device 2. It is thereby possible that the bypass flow path 4 branches off from the main flow path 3 between the water tank 5 and the main flow pump 7 or that the bypass flow path 4 branches off from the main flow path 3 between the main flow pump 7 and the fluid flow meters 9 or that the bypass flow path 4 branches off from the main flow path 3 between the fluid flow meter 9 and the heating device 2 [0014]. Thus, the return of the bypass flow path 4 into the main flow path 3 takes place downstream of the brewing device 11 [0015]. A control device 14 may be provided to controls/regulate the bypass flow pump 8 depending on the flow rate, the beverage temperature at the dispensing location 6 or a water temperature in the water tank 5 [0018]. Due to the low pressure difference in the main flow path 3 and in the bypass flow path 4, the admixing water quantity can be controlled in a highly accurate manner with known pump characteristics, in particular with the use of a gear-type pump or of a magnetic piston pump. By means of the active reactions of the bypass flow pump 8, it is possible to quickly establish a defined flow rate [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a bypass line starting from a hot water boiler to a dispensing unit with one or more control elements, wherein a dispensing of hot water takes place to achieve a predetermined coffee volume as taught by Startz, into the method of Eugster, because Startz teaches that the use of a bypass line starting from a hot water boiler to a dispensing unit with one or more control elements as described in his method would provide a cost efficient and accurate way of mixing water at a predetermined temperature [Abstract, 0005].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/L.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792