Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/30/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 18 is 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.
Claim 18 recites “the rechargeable battery” and “the retentive force.” However, claim 11, from which claim 18 depends, recites only “a battery” and “a force that pulls the vaporizer pen toward the housing and maintains physical contact between the vaporizer pen and the housing.” Accordingly, “the rechargeable battery” and “the retentive force” lack proper antecedent basis, rendering the scope of claim 18 unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2017/0027221 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches “A system, comprising:” an electronic cigarette together with an electronic cigarette case having a magnetic attraction charging function (paras 4, 7, 26–27, 53, and 59; Figs. 1, 8, and 14).
Liu teaches “a vaporizer pen including a rechargeable battery” by disclosing an electronic cigarette comprising an atomizer assembly 3 and a battery rod assembly 4, wherein the battery rod assembly includes an electronic cigarette battery 41 installed within battery tube 40 (paras 18–22 and 59; Figs. 8–10). Liu further teaches that the electronic cigarette is inserted into the electronic cigarette case and charged when the electronic cigarette is out of power, thereby teaching that battery 41 is rechargeable (paras 26–27, 53, and 59).
Liu teaches “a housing” by disclosing electronic cigarette case body 1, including middle metal shell 101 and inner cover 102, which receives the electronic cigarette through jack 11 (paras 53 and 58; Figs. 1 and 7).
Liu teaches “at least one magnet disposed in one of the vaporizer pen or the housing” by disclosing annular magnet 143 disposed within magnetic attraction type charging base 14 inside case body 1 (paras 12, 26, and 53; Figs. 3, 4, and 14).
Liu teaches “the at least one magnet configured to apply a retentive force between the vaporizer pen and the housing when the vaporizer pen is attached to the housing” by disclosing that the electronic cigarette case is magnetically connected to the electronic cigarette by annular magnet 143, which attracts annular iron piece 441 of the electronic cigarette and maintains a stable and reliable electrical connection between the electronic cigarette and the case (paras 26, 53, and 59; Fig. 14). Liu expressly teaches that annular magnet 143 attracts annular iron piece 441 so that the respective charging contacts remain electrically connected, thereby applying a retentive force between the electronic cigarette and the case when attached.
Regarding claim 10, Liu further teaches “wherein the vaporizer pen further includes at least one reservoir portion” by disclosing that the electronic cigarette includes atomizer assembly 3 and battery rod assembly 4, wherein atomizer assembly 3 includes oil bullet 31 containing liquid to be atomized. Oil bullet 31 stores the vaporizable liquid supplied to the atomizing components and therefore constitutes a reservoir portion of the electronic cigarette (Liu, paras 20–22 and 59–60; Figs. 8–10 and 16–22).
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-14, 16-18 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2017/0027221 A1) in view of Jordan et al. (US 2016/0374397 A1).
Regarding claim 2 and 12, Liu teaches the system of claim 1, including an electronic cigarette having a rechargeable battery, a housing configured to receive the electronic cigarette, and an annular magnet disposed in the housing that magnetically retains the electronic cigarette when attached, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 (Liu, paras 26, 53, 58–59; Figs. 1, 7–10, and 14).
Liu does not expressly teach “wherein the vaporizer pen further includes a sensor configured to detect a charge level of the rechargeable battery.”
Jordan teaches an electronic vaping device 10 having a reusable power-supply section 100 containing rechargeable power supply 110, PCB 116, controller 500, and battery monitoring unit 510 (Jordan, paras 64, 69–72, and 86–88; Figs. 2, 3A, 4, and 5A). Jordan teaches that battery monitoring unit 510 monitors voltage generated by power supply 110 and provides the monitored battery voltage to microprocessor 502 (Jordan, paras 98 and 131; Figs. 5A and 9). Jordan further teaches that controller 500 determines a current or present estimated charge level of power supply 110 and may transmit that charge-level information to charger 6100 (Jordan, paras 208 and 218).
Thus, Jordan teaches battery monitoring unit 510 as a sensor configured to detect a charge level of the rechargeable battery within the vaporizer pen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Liu’s electronic cigarette to include Jordan’s battery monitoring unit for monitoring the voltage and determining the charge level of the electronic-cigarette battery. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification to permit the electronic cigarette and charging case to accurately determine the battery’s remaining charge, control charging, prevent overcharging or excessive discharge, and provide battery-status information to the user or charger, as expressly contemplated by Jordan. The modification would have involved the predictable use of known battery-monitoring circuitry in Liu’s rechargeable electronic-cigarette system to obtain the expected result of detecting the battery charge level.
Regarding claim 3 and 13, Liu does not expressly teach “further comprising at least one light emitting diode (LED), the system configured to illuminate the at least one LED to indicate the charge level of the rechargeable battery.”
Jordan teaches an electronic vaping device 10 having light indicators 105, which may be light-emitting diodes controlled to indicate a status of the electronic vaping device (Jordan, paras 59–60). Jordan expressly teaches that the LEDs may be used in various sequences to indicate “Battery Level” (Jordan, paras 60 and 83). Jordan further teaches that light indicators 105a–105c may emit light based on the state of rechargeable power supply 110, including when the power supply is running low (Jordan, para 82; Fig. 5A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Liu’s electronic cigarette system to include Jordan’s LED battery-level indication. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a readily visible indication of the remaining battery charge so that a user could determine when the electronic cigarette should be recharged, thereby improving usability and avoiding unexpected battery depletion. The modification would have involved the predictable use of a known LED status indicator with Liu’s battery-monitoring arrangement to obtain the expected result of visually indicating battery charge level.
Regarding claim 4 and 14, Liu teaches the system of claim 1, including an electronic cigarette having a rechargeable battery, a housing configured to receive the electronic cigarette, and a magnet that magnetically retains the electronic cigarette when attached, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Liu does not expressly teach “further comprising at least one light emitting diode (LED), the system configured to illuminate the at least one LED to indicate that the vaporizer pen is being charged.”
Jordan teaches an electronic vaping device 10 having light indicators 105a–105c, which may be light-emitting diodes configured to indicate operating states of the electronic vaping device (Jordan, paras 59–60 and 83). Jordan further teaches that the light indicators may emit a third color when rechargeable power supply 110 is being charged (Jordan, para 82). Thus, Jordan teaches at least one LED configured to illuminate to indicate that the vaporizer pen is being charged.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Liu’s electronic cigarette system to include Jordan’s LED charging-status indication. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide the user with a readily visible confirmation that the electronic cigarette is properly connected to the charging case and actively charging, thereby improving usability and allowing detection of an improper or failed charging connection. The modification would have involved the predictable use of a known LED status indicator in Liu’s charging system to obtain the expected result of visually indicating charging status.
Regarding claim 6 and 16, Liu does not expressly teach “further comprising at least one light emitting diode (LED), the system configured to illuminate the at least one LED in a predetermined pattern.”
Jordan teaches electronic vaping device 10 having light indicators 105a–105c, which may be LEDs controlled by controller 500 to indicate operating states of the electronic vaping device (Jordan, paras 59–60, 82–83, and 94; Figs. 1 and 5A). Jordan expressly teaches that the LEDs may emit a flashing light and/or a pattern of lights as a status indicator and may be illuminated in various sequences to indicate predetermined device states, including battery level, charging status, cartridge detection, and error conditions (Jordan, paras 60 and 82–83). Thus, Jordan teaches illuminating at least one LED in a predetermined pattern.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Liu’s electronic-cigarette charging system to include Jordan’s LED pattern indication. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a readily distinguishable visual indication of different operating or charging states so that a user could quickly identify the status of the electronic cigarette. The modification would have involved the predictable use of known controller-operated LED patterns in Liu’s electronic-cigarette system to obtain the expected result of visually communicating device status.
Regarding claim 7 and 17, Jordan teaches “wherein the predetermined pattern includes at least one of a sequence of colors of illumination or a sequence of frequencies of illumination” by disclosing light indicators 105a–105c that may be LEDs controlled to indicate different operating states of the electronic vaping device (Jordan, paras 59–60 and 82–83). Jordan teaches that the LEDs may emit different colors based on device status, including a first color during vaping, a second color when power supply 110 is running low, and a third color when power supply 110 is being charged (Jordan, para 82). Jordan further teaches that the LEDs may emit flashing light, a pattern of lights, and various sequences to indicate predetermined states of the device (Jordan, paras 60 and 82–83). Thus, Jordan teaches both a sequence of colors of illumination and a sequence of illumination frequencies through its disclosed flashing patterns and LED sequences.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Liu’s electronic-cigarette system to illuminate LEDs according to Jordan’s predetermined sequences of colors or flashing frequencies. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide visually distinguishable indications for different operating and charging states so that a user could readily identify the status of the electronic cigarette. The modification would have involved the predictable use of known colored and flashing LED sequences in Liu’s system to obtain the expected result of communicating different device states.
Regarding claim 8 and 18, Liu does not expressly teach “further comprising a Universal Serial Bus (USB) type interface that is electrically coupled to the rechargeable battery when the retentive force is applied between the vaporizer pen and the housing.”
Jordan teaches electronic vaping device 10 having rechargeable power supply 110 and charger 6100, wherein the vaping device and charger are electrically coupled through interfaces 6105 and 6110 when the vaping device is placed in the charger (Jordan, paras 70, 84, and 170–172; Fig. 15). Jordan teaches that charger pins contact the positive and common contacts of the vaping device upon placement of the device in the charger, thereby detecting the coupling and establishing the charging connection (Jordan, paras 182, 187, and 190). Jordan further teaches that charger 6100 transfers electrical charge to rechargeable power supply 110 after coupling and authentication (Jordan, paras 172–178, 195–197, and 207; Figs. 15–18). Jordan expressly teaches that power for charger 6100 may be provided through a USB connection to an external power supply (Jordan, para 197). Thus, Jordan teaches a USB-type charging interface electrically coupled through the charger to the rechargeable battery when the vaping device is coupled to the charger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Liu’s magnetically retained electronic-cigarette charging housing to include Jordan’s USB-powered charging interface. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a USB interface to permit Liu’s housing to receive power from commonly available wall adapters, computers, batteries, and other USB power sources while charging the magnetically attached electronic cigarette. The modification would have involved the predictable use of Jordan’s known USB charging arrangement with Liu’s magnetic charging connection to obtain the expected result of electrically coupling the rechargeable battery to a USB-powered charging interface when the electronic cigarette is magnetically retained in the housing.
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches “A system, comprising:” an electronic cigarette together with an electronic-cigarette charging case having a magnetic-attraction charging arrangement (Liu, paras 26–27, 53, and 59; Figs. 1, 8, and 14).
Liu teaches “a vaporizer pen including a battery” by disclosing an electronic cigarette comprising atomizer assembly 3 and battery rod assembly 4, wherein battery rod assembly 4 includes electronic-cigarette battery 41 disposed within battery tube 40 (Liu, paras 18–22 and 59–60; Figs. 8–10).
Liu teaches “a housing” by disclosing electronic-cigarette case body 1, including middle metal shell 101 and inner cover 102, which receives the electronic cigarette through jack 11 (Liu, paras 53 and 58; Figs. 1 and 7).
Liu teaches “at least one magnet disposed in one of the vaporizer pen or the housing” by disclosing annular magnet 143 disposed within magnetic-attraction charging base 14 inside electronic-cigarette case body 1 (Liu, paras 12, 26, and 53; Figs. 3–4 and 14).
Liu further teaches that annular magnet 143 attracts annular iron piece 441 of the electronic cigarette and magnetically connects the electronic cigarette to the charging case so that the corresponding charging contacts are electrically connected (Liu, paras 26, 53, and 59; Fig. 14).
Liu does not expressly state that the magnet is configured to apply “a force that pulls the vaporizer pen toward the housing and maintains physical contact between the vaporizer pen and the housing.”
Jordan teaches an electronic vaping device positioned in charger 6100, wherein one or more charger pins are pressed inward upon placement of the vaping device in the charger and make contact with a magnet of the vaping device, thereby enabling the charger to detect coupling of the device (Jordan, para 182; Figs. 15 and 17). Jordan further teaches that the magnet of second section 100 remains in contact with charger terminal 9404 upon placement of the vaping device into charger 6100 and that the resulting contact permits the charger to detect coupling and provide charging power (Jordan, paras 187–190 and 195–197; Fig. 18). Thus, Jordan teaches magnetic attraction that pulls the electronic vaping device into the charger and maintains physical contact between components of the vaping device and charger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure Liu’s magnetic charging arrangement according to Jordan so that the magnetic attraction pulls the electronic cigarette toward the charging housing and maintains physical contact between the respective charging components. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a stable mechanical and electrical connection during charging, reduce accidental separation or misalignment, and ensure reliable transfer of charging current. The modification would have involved the predictable use of Jordan’s known magnetic contact arrangement in Liu’s magnetically retained electronic-cigarette charging case to obtain the expected result of securely holding the vaporizer pen in physical contact with the housing.
Regarding claim 20, Liu further teaches “wherein the vaporizer pen further includes at least one reservoir portion” by disclosing that the electronic cigarette includes atomizer assembly 3 and battery rod assembly 4, wherein atomizer assembly 3 includes oil bullet 31 containing liquid to be atomized. Oil bullet 31 stores the vaporizable liquid supplied to the atomizing components and therefore constitutes a reservoir portion of the electronic cigarette (Liu, paras 20–22 and 59–60; Figs. 8–10 and 16–22).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2017/0027221 A1) in view of Jordan et al. (US 2016/0374397 A1) and Choukroun et al. (US 2016/0278435 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches the system of claim 1, including an electronic cigarette having a rechargeable battery, a housing configured to receive the electronic cigarette, and a magnet that magnetically retains the electronic cigarette when attached, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Liu does not teach “further comprising at least one light emitting diode (LED), the system configured to illuminate the at least one LED to indicate that data is being transmitted to circuitry of the vaporizer pen.”
Jordan teaches transmitting data from charger 6100 to circuitry of electronic vaping device 10. In particular, Jordan teaches that charger 6100 and controller 500 of the electronic vaping device exchange information through voltage pulses, and that the charger may transmit LED settings, operational limits, reset codes, and software updates to controller 500 of the electronic vaping device (Jordan, paras 208–209 and 217–219; Figs. 19–20). Thus, Jordan teaches data being transmitted to circuitry of the vaporizer pen.
Jordan does not expressly teach illuminating an LED to indicate that the data is being transmitted.
Choukroun teaches an electronic cigarette 100 having controller 230, transreceiver 140, memory 270, battery 200, and LED light 210 (Choukroun, paras 16, 46–50, and 76; Figs. 2 and 7). Choukroun teaches that the electronic cigarette transmits and receives data through transreceiver 140 or through a serial or USB data connection, including downloading data, software, or instructions to the electronic cigarette (Choukroun, paras 43, 48–50). Choukroun further teaches that LED light 210 communicates device status using different colors or flashing patterns representing, among other states, “synching” (Choukroun, para 76; Fig. 7). Thus, Choukroun teaches illuminating an LED to indicate that the electronic cigarette is synchronizing, and therefore communicating data, with another device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system of Liu and Jordan to illuminate an LED, as taught by Choukroun, while data is being transmitted to circuitry of the electronic cigarette. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a visible synchronization or communication-status indication so that a user would know that data transfer was occurring and would avoid disconnecting the electronic cigarette from the housing before transmission was complete. The modification would have involved the predictable use of Choukroun’s known LED synchronization indication with Jordan’s existing data communication between a charger and electronic-vaping-device circuitry to obtain the expected result of visually indicating data transmission.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2017/0027221 A1) in view of Fornarelli (US 2017/0027230 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches the system of claim 1, including an electronic cigarette having a rechargeable battery, a housing configured to receive the electronic cigarette, and a magnet that magnetically retains the electronic cigarette when attached, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Liu does not expressly teach “wherein at least one of the vaporizer pen or the housing includes medical grade plastic.”
Fornarelli teaches a disposable vaporizer assembly 10 for smokeless administration comprising tank 12, vaporizer 50, and battery 70, wherein tank 12 includes liquid chamber 24 and airflow chamber 28 (Fornarelli, paras 7, 20, and 23; Figs. 1–2). Fornarelli expressly teaches that airflow chamber wall 22 of tank 12 may be composed of glass, plastic, or medical-grade plastic (Fornarelli, para 23; Fig. 2). Because tank 12 and vaporizer 50 are assembled with battery 70 to form the operative vaporizer assembly, Fornarelli teaches that the vaporizer pen includes a portion made of medical-grade plastic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form at least a portion of Liu’s electronic cigarette, such as the tank or airflow chamber wall, from medical-grade plastic as taught by Fornarelli. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use medical-grade plastic for a component that stores or conducts vaporizable material intended for human inhalation in order to provide a material suitable for contact with the liquid and vapor, facilitate manufacture of the tank structure, and provide a hygienic and chemically compatible vaporizer component. The modification would have involved the predictable use of a known material for its established purpose in a vaporizer assembly.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2017/0027221 A1) in view of Jordan et al. (US 2016/0374397 A1) and Fornarelli (US 2017/0027230 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Liu teaches the system of claim 1, including an electronic cigarette having a rechargeable battery, a housing configured to receive the electronic cigarette, and a magnet that magnetically retains the electronic cigarette when attached, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Liu does not expressly teach “wherein at least one of the vaporizer pen or the housing includes medical grade plastic.”
Fornarelli teaches a disposable vaporizer assembly 10 for smokeless administration comprising tank 12, vaporizer 50, and battery 70, wherein tank 12 includes liquid chamber 24 and airflow chamber 28 (Fornarelli, paras 7, 20, and 23; Figs. 1–2). Fornarelli expressly teaches that airflow chamber wall 22 of tank 12 may be composed of glass, plastic, or medical-grade plastic (Fornarelli, para 23; Fig. 2). Because tank 12 and vaporizer 50 are assembled with battery 70 to form the operative vaporizer assembly, Fornarelli teaches that the vaporizer pen includes a portion made of medical-grade plastic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form at least a portion of Liu’s electronic cigarette, such as the tank or airflow chamber wall, from medical-grade plastic as taught by Fornarelli. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use medical-grade plastic for a component that stores or conducts vaporizable material intended for human inhalation in order to provide a material suitable for contact with the liquid and vapor, facilitate manufacture of the tank structure, and provide a hygienic and chemically compatible vaporizer component. The modification would have involved the predictable use of a known material for its established purpose in a vaporizer assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Memari et al (US 2015/0245668) para 0539 teaches sensor for detecting charge level of a vaporizer
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights