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 .
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-17 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietmar Hutschenreiter (DE 2919154) herein referred to as Hutschenreiter, in view of Alois Hoffman (DE 2927883) herein referred to as Hoffman.
Regarding Claim 1: Hutschenreiter teaches (see Figs. 1-3) a system for an asphalt compactor, comprising: an edge forming assembly, including a modular edge compaction wheel assembly (23) configured to compact an edge of an asphalt mat as the asphalt compactor travels over the asphalt mat. Although Hutschenreiter shows in figure 1, wherein edge compaction wheel assembly (23) is shown drawn with three separate segments, Hutschenreiter does not categorically state in the specifications that edge compaction wheel assembly (23) comprises of a plurality of frustoconical shaped segments that are stacked on top of each other.
However, Hoffman discloses (see Figs. 12 & 15) wherein the edge compaction wheel (10) view is sectioned through the mounting axis (not implicitly indicated by Hoffman), to show the wheel attachment configuration to the machine. The sectioned view clearly shows a plurality of frustoconical segments being separable from one another, wherein each is stacked on top of the previous narrower segment and configured to compact the edge of the asphalt mat at differing depths when stacked together. Likewise, it has been stated that as a standard practice, various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and the hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way (MEP 608.02, Subsection V, (g)(3)).
Further, it would be obvious for an ordinary person skilled in the art and prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, incorporate the edging wheel section fastening method of Hutschenreiter (see figure below) with the sectioned edging wheel assembly (10) of Hoffman, to provide a stronger fastening bond between the wheel sections, which will allow all utilized wheel sections to apply the desired compacting pressure to the paving edge.
Regarding Claim 2: Hutschenreiter teaches in (see Figs. 1 & 2 and Column 4=>Lines 7-12) a corresponding activating mechanism/linear actuator (5 & 6) that the operator activates to raise/lower the compaction wheel (23) for the desired compaction/cutting edge depth/height in the same manner and functionality as referenced in Knopp.
Regarding Claim 5: Hutschenreiter further teaches (see Figs. 1 & 2), a lower base plate (1) and upper base plate (17) as the means for attaching the edge compaction wheel assembly (23) to the asphalt compactor.
Regarding Claim 6: Hutschenreiter teaches (see Figs. 1-3), an edge compaction wheel mount assembly for attaching the modular edge compaction wheel assembly (23) to the edge forming assembly. The edge compaction wheel assembly comprises of a hub (13), support arm (10), mounting strip (10a) and fastening screws (11).
Regarding Claim 10: Hutschenreiter teaches (see Figs. 1-3) a system for an asphalt compactor, comprising: an edge forming assembly, including a modular edge compaction wheel assembly (23) configured to compact an edge of an asphalt mat as the asphalt compactor travels over the asphalt mat. Although Hutschenreiter shows in figure 1, wherein edge compaction wheel assembly (23) is shown drawn with three separate segments, Hutschenreiter does not categorically state in the specifications that edge compaction wheel assembly (23) comprises of a plurality of frustoconical shaped segments that are stacked on top of each other and herein fastened (see Figs. 1 & 2) with four bolts (see figure below).
However, Hoffman discloses (see Figs. 12 & 15) wherein the edge compaction wheel (10) view is sectioned through the mounting axis (not implicitly indicated by Hoffman), to show the wheel attachment configuration to the machine. The sectioned view clearly shows a plurality of frustoconical segments, wherein each is stacked on top of the previous narrower segment and configured to compact the edge of the asphalt mat at differing depths when stacked together.
Examiner notes that in the context that the height of the asphalt mat is directly related to the height of the compaction wheel. As the compaction wheel is made of multiple segments as detailed above, the height of the wheel is necessarily controlled by the size and/or number of segments. As a result, the height and depths of the given elements are considered results effective variables, which may be controlled in order to achieve a desired height or geometry of the asphalt mat. Further, size requirements for compaction/edging wheel sections would depend on the depth of material to be compacted, the required finished angle of the compacted edge and the site conditions.
Likewise, it has been held that selecting a dimension for a compaction/edging wheel section as such would merely constitute routine optimization of a results effective variable which has been held to be an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, A).
Regarding Claim 11: Hutschenreiter teaches (see Figs. 1-3) a system for an asphalt compactor, comprising: an edge forming assembly, including a modular edge compaction wheel assembly (23) configured to compact an edge of an asphalt mat as the asphalt compactor travels over the asphalt mat. Although Hutschenreiter shows in figure 1, wherein edge compaction wheel assembly (23) is shown drawn with three separate segments, Hutschenreiter does not categorically state in the specifications that edge compaction wheel assembly (23) comprises of a plurality of frustoconical shaped segments that are stacked on top of each other.
However, Hoffman does teach (see Figs. 12 & 15), a modular edge compaction wheel assembly configured to compact an edge of an asphalt mat during travel over the asphalt mat, the modular edge compaction wheel assembly comprising: a plurality of sections (10), each of the plurality of sections being separable from one another and configured to compact the edge of the asphalt mat at differing depths when stacked together. Examiner notes (see Figs. 12 & 15) that the plurality of sections (10) is drawn in a sectional view with juxtaposed hatch lines. It has been stated that as a standard practice, various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and the hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way (MEP 608.02, Subsection V, (g)(3)).
Regarding Claim 14: Hutschenreiter teaches (see Figs. 1-3) a system for an asphalt compactor, comprising: an edge forming assembly, including a modular edge compaction wheel assembly (23) configured to compact an edge of an asphalt mat as the asphalt compactor travels over the asphalt mat. Although Hutschenreiter shows in figure 1, wherein edge compaction wheel assembly (23) is shown drawn with three separate segments, Hutschenreiter does not categorically state in the specifications that edge compaction wheel assembly (23) comprises of a plurality of frustoconical shaped segments that are stacked on top of each other and herein fastened (see Figs. 1 & 2) with four bolts (see figure below).
However, Hoffman discloses (see Figs. 12 & 15) wherein the edge compaction wheel (10) view is sectioned through the mounting axis (not implicitly indicated by Hoffman), to show the wheel attachment configuration to the machine. The sectioned view clearly shows a plurality of frustoconical segments, wherein each is stacked on top of the previous narrower segment and configured to compact the edge of the asphalt mat at differing depths when stacked together. Likewise, it has been stated that as a standard practice, various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and the hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way (MEP 608.02, Subsection V, (g)(3)).
It would be obvious for an ordinary person skilled in the art and prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, incorporate the edging wheel section fastening method of Hutschenreiter (see figure below) with the sectioned edging wheel assembly (10) of Hoffman, to provide a stronger fastening bond between the wheel sections, which will allow all utilized wheel sections to apply the desired compacting pressure to the paving edge.
PNG
media_image1.png
301
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15: Hutschenreiter teaches (see Figs. 1-3) a system for an asphalt compactor, comprising: an edge forming assembly, including a modular edge compaction wheel assembly (23) configured to compact an edge of an asphalt mat as the asphalt compactor travels over the asphalt mat. Although Hutschenreiter shows in figure 1, wherein edge compaction wheel assembly (23) is shown drawn with three separate segments, Hutschenreiter does not categorically state in the specifications that edge compaction wheel assembly (23) comprises of a plurality of frustoconical shaped segments that are stacked on top of each other and herein fastened (see Figs. 1 & 2) with four bolts (see figure below).
However, Hoffman discloses (see Figs. 12 & 15) wherein the edge compaction wheel (10) view is sectioned through the mounting axis (not implicitly indicated by Hoffman), to show the wheel attachment configuration to the machine. The sectioned view clearly shows a plurality of frustoconical segments, wherein each is stacked on top of the previous narrower segment and configured to compact the edge of the asphalt mat at differing depths when stacked together.
Examiner notes that in the context that the height of the asphalt mat is directly related to the height of the compaction wheel. As the compaction wheel is made of multiple segments as detailed above, the height of the wheel is necessarily controlled by the size and/or number of segments. As a result, the height and depths of the given elements are considered results effective variables, which may be controlled in order to achieve a desired height or geometry of the asphalt mat. Further, size requirements for compaction/edging wheel sections would depend on the depth of material to be compacted, the required finished angle of the compacted edge and the site conditions.
Likewise, it has been held that selecting a dimension for a compaction/edging wheel section as such would merely constitute routine optimization of a results effective variable which has been held to be an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, A).
Regarding Claim 16: Hutschenreiter teaches (see Figs. 1-3) a system for an asphalt compactor, comprising: an edge forming assembly, including a modular edge compaction wheel assembly (23) configured to compact an edge of an asphalt mat as the asphalt compactor travels over the asphalt mat. Although Hutschenreiter shows in figure 1, wherein edge compaction wheel assembly (23) is shown drawn with three separate segments, Hutschenreiter does not categorically state in the specifications that edge compaction wheel assembly (23) comprises of a plurality of frustoconical shaped segments that are stacked on top of each other.
However, Hoffman discloses (see Figs. 12 & 15) wherein the edge compaction wheel (10) view is sectioned through the mounting axis (not implicitly indicated by Hoffman), to show the wheel attachment configuration to the machine. The sectioned view clearly shows a plurality of frustoconical segments being separable from one another, wherein each is stacked on top of the previous narrower segment and configured to compact the edge of the asphalt mat at differing depths when stacked together. Likewise, it has been stated that as a standard practice, various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and the hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way (MEP 608.02, Subsection V, (g)(3)).
It would be obvious for an ordinary person skilled in the art and prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, that size requirements for compaction/edging wheel sections would depend on the depth of material to be compacted, the required finished angle of the compacted edge and the site conditions pertaining to.
Regarding Claim 17: Hutschenreiter teaches in (see Figs. 1 & 2 and Column 4=>Lines 7-12) a corresponding activating mechanism/linear actuator (5 & 6) that the operator activates to raise/lower the compaction wheel (23) for the desired compaction/cutting edge depth/height in the same manner and functionality as referenced in Knopp.
Regarding Claim 20: Hutschenreiter teaches (see Figs. 1-3) a system for an asphalt compactor, comprising: an edge forming assembly, including a modular edge compaction wheel assembly (23) configured to compact an edge of an asphalt mat as the asphalt compactor travels over the asphalt mat. Although Hutschenreiter shows in figure 1, wherein edge compaction wheel assembly (23) is shown drawn with three separate segments, Hutschenreiter does not categorically state in the specifications that edge compaction wheel assembly (23) comprises of a plurality of frustoconical shaped segments that are stacked on top of each other and herein fastened (see Figs. 1 & 2) with four bolts (see figure below).
However, Hoffman discloses (see Figs. 12 & 15) wherein the edge compaction wheel (10) view is sectioned through the mounting axis (not implicitly indicated by Hoffman), to show the wheel attachment configuration to the machine. The sectioned view clearly shows a plurality of frustoconical segments, wherein each is stacked on top of the previous narrower segment and configured to compact the edge of the asphalt mat at differing depths when stacked together.
Examiner notes that in the context that the height of the asphalt mat is directly related to the height of the compaction wheel. As the compaction wheel is made of multiple segments as detailed above, the height of the wheel is necessarily controlled by the size and/or number of segments. As a result, the height and depths of the given elements are considered results effective variables, which may be controlled in order to achieve a desired height or geometry of the asphalt mat. Further, size requirements for compaction/edging wheel sections would depend on the depth of material to be compacted, the required finished angle of the compacted edge and the site conditions.
Likewise, it has been held that selecting a dimension for a compaction/edging wheel section as such would merely constitute routine optimization of a results effective variable which has been held to be an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, A).
Claims 3, 4, 18 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutschenreiter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maria L. Biberdorf et al., (U.S. 10,662,590), herein referred to as Biberdorf.
Regarding Claim 3: Hutschenreiter teaches (see Figs. 1, 2 & 3) an edge compaction/cutting wheel assembly, configured to compact/cut the edge of paved asphalt and other soft cohesive paving materials as the compactor travels over the asphalt/paving material mat. Hutschenreiter further teaches that the edge compaction/cutting wheel assembly is mechanically attached to the paving compactor machine (see Figs. 1 & 3 => (15 & 17)) and is operated manually by the asphalt compactor machine operator.
The claim language “is controllable by the asphalt compactor” is vague and in this context is being interpreted as a kind of active control during use of the compactor. Hutschenreiter does not teach an activating mechanism that is controllable by the asphalt compactor as defined prior.
However, Biberdorf does teach a roadway compactor vehicle and device, wherein the remote-control system (300), allows the compactor operator to remotely control/operate the edge compaction/cutting wheel while driving the compactor by use of the user input devices (312a, 312b & 312c), which are located within the operator cab/control station (Fig. 1-108).
It would be obvious for an ordinary person skilled in the art and prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, modify the actuation system of the compaction wheel of Hutschenreiter to include the user control system as taught by Biberdorf. Such a modification would give a user greater control over the placement and height adjustment of the tool without the need to leave the operator cab during operation and while operating other elements (Figs. 3 & 4, Column 4=>Lines 45-67 and Column 5, Lines=>1-19). Additionally, it has been held that simple automation of a manual task is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection III).
Regarding Claim 4: Hutschenreiter teaches (see Figs. 1, 2 & 3) an edge compaction/cutting wheel assembly, configured to compact/cut the edge of paved asphalt and other soft cohesive paving materials as the compactor travels over the asphalt/paving material mat. Hutschenreiter further teaches that the edge compaction/cutting wheel assembly is mechanically attached to the paving compactor machine (see Figs. 1 & 3 => (15 & 17)) and is operated manually by the asphalt compactor machine operator.
The claim language “is controllable by the asphalt compactor” is vague and in this context is being interpreted as a kind of active control during use of the compactor. Hutschenreiter does not teach an activating mechanism that is controllable by the asphalt compactor as defined prior.
However, Biberdorf does teach a roadway compactor vehicle and device, wherein the remote-control system (300), allows the compactor operator to remotely control/operate the edge compaction/cutting wheel while driving the compactor by use of the user input devices (312a, 312b & 312c), which are located within the operator cab/control station (Fig. 1-108).
It would be obvious for an ordinary person skilled in the art and prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, modify the actuation system of the compaction wheel of Hutschenreiter to include the user control system as taught by Biberdorf. Such a modification would give a user greater control over the placement and height adjustment of the tool without the need to leave the operator cab during operation and while operating other elements (Figs. 3 & 4, Column 4=>Lines 45-67 and Column 5, Lines=>1-19). Additionally, it has been held that simple automation of a manual task is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection III).
Regarding Claim 18: Hutschenreiter teaches (see Figs. 1, 2 & 3) an edge compaction/cutting wheel assembly, configured to compact/cut the edge of paved asphalt and other soft cohesive paving materials as the compactor travels over the asphalt/paving material mat. Hutschenreiter further teaches that the edge compaction/cutting wheel assembly is mechanically attached to the paving compactor machine (see Figs. 1 & 3 => (15 & 17)) and is operated manually by the asphalt compactor machine operator.
The claim language “is controllable by the asphalt compactor” is vague and in this context is being interpreted as a kind of active control during use of the compactor. Hutschenreiter does not teach an activating mechanism that is controllable by the asphalt compactor as defined prior.
However, Biberdorf does teach a roadway compactor vehicle and device, wherein the remote-control system (300), allows the compactor operator to remotely control/operate the edge compaction/cutting wheel while driving the compactor by use of the user input devices (312a, 312b & 312c), which are located within the operator cab/control station (Fig. 1-108).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuation system of the compaction wheel of Hutschenreiter to include the user control system as taught by Biberdorf. Such a modification would give a user greater control over the placement and height adjustment of the tool without the need to leave the operator cab during operation and while operating other elements (Figs. 3 & 4, Column 4=>Lines 45-67 and Column 5, Lines=>1-19). Additionally, it has been held that simple automation of a manual task is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection III).
Regarding Claim 19: Hutschenreiter teaches (see Figs. 1, 2 & 3) an edge compaction/cutting wheel assembly, configured to compact/cut the edge of paved asphalt and other soft cohesive paving materials as the compactor travels over the asphalt/paving material mat. Hutschenreiter further teaches that the edge compaction/cutting wheel assembly is mechanically attached to the paving compactor machine (see Figs. 1 & 3 => (15 & 17)) and is operated manually by the asphalt compactor machine operator.
The claim language “is controllable by the asphalt compactor” is vague and in this context is being interpreted as a kind of active control during use of the compactor. Hutschenreiter does not teach an activating mechanism that is controllable by the asphalt compactor as defined prior.
However, Biberdorf does teach a roadway compactor vehicle and device, wherein the remote-control system (300), allows the compactor operator to remotely control/operate the edge compaction/cutting wheel while driving the compactor by use of the user input devices (312a, 312b & 312c), which are located within the operator cab/control station (Fig. 1-108).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuation system of the compaction wheel of Hutschenreiter to include the user control system as taught by Biberdorf. Such a modification would give a user greater control over the placement and height adjustment of the tool without the need to leave the operator cab during operation and while operating other elements (Figs. 3 & 4, Column 4=>Lines 45-67 and Column 5, Lines=>1-19). Additionally, it has been held that simple automation of a manual task is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection III).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 & 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see (Page 7=>Lines 14-23 and Page 8=>Lines 4-8), filed on 04/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 3, 4, 18 & 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-17 & 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Although prior art Hutschenreiter shows in figure 1, wherein edge compaction wheel assembly (23) is shown drawn with three separate segments, Hutschenreiter does not categorically state in the specifications that edge compaction wheel assembly (23) comprises of a plurality of frustoconical shaped segments that are stacked on top of each other. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, in light of prior art Hoffman (D.E. 2,927,883) a new rejection is being made as it teaches the limitation disclosed in the amended claims 1, 11 & 16. Specifically, the limitation of the plurality of sections being separable from one another and configured to compact the edge of the asphalt mat at differing depths when stacked together is disclosed by Hoffman (see figures 12 & 15).
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALPIT C. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3053. The examiner can normally be reached 7.30am to 5pm.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571) 272-0547. 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.
/K.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights