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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Liu et al. does not disclose the limitation as presented in claims 1 and 10. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Liu et al. (figures 1-9) discloses a microscope objective lens switching apparatus as claimed including wherein the transmission module comprises a housing (11) fixed onto the base, a coupler (7) with one end detachably secured to an output shaft of the rotation drive module, a double lead worm gear (6) fixedly connected to another end of the coupler, and a worm gear (12-13) in mesh engagement with the double lead worm, wherein the worm is fixedly connected to the turntable (see at least page 3, 2nd paragraph and figure 8); wherein, when the coupler is connected to the output shaft and the manual knob is connected to the bearing sleeve, the double lead worm, the flat key, the bearing sleeve, and the manual knob are fixed relative to one another in an axial direction of the double lead worm and rotate together along the axis of the double lead worm; and wherein, when the coupler is disconnected from the output shaft and the manual knob is disconnected from the bearing sleeve, the coupler remains engaged with the double lead worm and the flat key, and the double lead worm and the flat key are axially movable relative to the bearing sleeve and the first bearing.
The limitation, “wherein, when the coupler is connected to the output shaft and the manual knob is connected to the bearing sleeve, the double lead worm, the flat key, the bearing sleeve, and the manual knob are fixed relative to one another in an axial direction of the double lead worm and rotate together along the axis of the double lead worm; and wherein, when the coupler is disconnected from the output shaft and the manual knob is disconnected from the bearing sleeve, the coupler remains engaged with the double lead worm and the flat key, and the double lead worm and the flat key are axially movable relative to the bearing sleeve and the first bearing” is a product-by-process claim. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
The limitation, “by disconnecting the coupler from the output shaft and rotating the coupler, the double lead worm moves along an axial direction to change a mesh engagement clearance between the double lead worm and the worm gear” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Liu et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Liu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, Liu et al. is silent regarding a coupler with one end detachably secured to an output shaft of the rotation drive module via screws and a manual knob. The examiner takes Official Notice that the use of screws to secure a coupler with one end detachably to an output shaft of the rotation drive module was well-known in the art at the time of the invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use screws, motivated by the desire to produce a high-quality microscope objective lens switching apparatus. Claim 2 is therefore unpatentable.
Hoelter (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the microscope objective lens switching apparatus further comprising: a manual knob arranged on a side, away from the rotation drive module, of the housing (figure 1), wherein the manual knob is detachably threaded to one end of the double lead worm away from the coupler (6) (1 and a suitable tool; see at least page 4, last paragraph and page 5, first and second paragraphs), wherein the transmission module further comprises a first bearing (7-8) arranged on a side, facing towards the double lead worm, a bearing sleeve fixedly connected to an inner side of the first bearing (8 and 11), and a flat key (15) slidably connected to the bearing sleeve, wherein the double lead worm comprises a keyway, and the bearing sleeve comprises a on an inner side thereof (8 and 11), the slideway extending parallel to an axis of the double lead worm; and wherein the transmission module further comprises a flat key, one side of the flat key being fixedly received within the keyway, and another side of the flat key being slidably received within the slideway, a length of the slideway in the axial direction of the double lead worm is greater than a length of the flat key, a width of the slideway and a width of the keyway are equal to a width of the flat key, and the manual knob is detachably threaded to the bearing sleeve (15-16 and a suitable tool; see at least page 4, last paragraph and page 5, first and second paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the knob as taught by Hoelter in order to achieve a precise and reproducible bias of the teeth of worm via the torque that can be measured when adjusting.
The limitation, “wherein the microscope objective lens switching apparatus further comprising: a manual knob arranged on a side, away from the rotation drive module, of the housing, wherein the manual knob is detachably threaded to one end of the double lead worm away from the coupler” is a product-by-process claim. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
The limitation, “wherein a keyway corresponding to the flat key defined in the double lead worm, and a slideway axially parallel to the double lead worm is defined in an inner side of the bearing sleeve, wherein one side of the flat key is embedded into the keyway, another side of the flat key is situated in the slideway” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Liu et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “wherein, when the coupler is connected to the output shaft and the manual knob is connected to the bearing sleeve, the double lead worm, the flat key, the bearing sleeve, and the manual knob are fixed relative to one another in an axial direction of the double lead worm and rotate together along the axis of the double lead worm; and wherein, when the coupler is disconnected from the output shaft and the manual knob is disconnected from the bearing sleeve, the coupler remains engaged with the double lead worm and the flat key, and the double lead worm and the flat key are axially movable relative to the bearing sleeve and the first bearing” appears to be a conditional claim. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the second part of the limitation is no longer valid if the coupler is connected to the output shaft and the manual knob is disconnected to the bearing sleeve or the coupler is disconnected to the output shaft and the manual knob is connected to the bearing sleeve. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 106199942) in view of Hoelter (WO 2005/106284); further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. (figures 1-9) discloses a microscope objective lens switching apparatus configured to switch an objective lens of a microscope (see at least page 1, last paragraph), the switching apparatus comprising: a base (10), a rotation drive module (9) secured onto the base, a transmission module (6-8, 11) connected to the rotation drive module, and a turntable (12) fixedly connected to the transmission module and fixedly connected to the objective lens (4);
wherein the transmission module comprises a housing (11) fixed onto the base, a coupler (7) with one end detachably secured to an output shaft of the rotation drive module, a double lead worm gear (6) fixedly connected to another end of the coupler, and a worm gear (12-13) in mesh engagement with the double lead worm, wherein the worm is fixedly connected to the turntable (see at least page 3, 2nd paragraph and figure 8);
wherein, when the coupler is connected to the output shaft and the manual knob is connected to the bearing sleeve, the double lead worm, the flat key, the bearing sleeve, and the manual knob are fixed relative to one another in an axial direction of the double lead worm and rotate together along the axis of the double lead worm; and
wherein, when the coupler is disconnected from the output shaft and the manual knob is disconnected from the bearing sleeve, the coupler remains engaged with the double lead worm and the flat key, and the double lead worm and the flat key are axially movable relative to the bearing sleeve and the first bearing.
The limitation, “wherein, when the coupler is connected to the output shaft and the manual knob is connected to the bearing sleeve, the double lead worm, the flat key, the bearing sleeve, and the manual knob are fixed relative to one another in an axial direction of the double lead worm and rotate together along the axis of the double lead worm; and wherein, when the coupler is disconnected from the output shaft and the manual knob is disconnected from the bearing sleeve, the coupler remains engaged with the double lead worm and the flat key, and the double lead worm and the flat key are axially movable relative to the bearing sleeve and the first bearing” is a product-by-process claim. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
The limitation, “by disconnecting the coupler from the output shaft and rotating the coupler, the double lead worm moves along an axial direction to change a mesh engagement clearance between the double lead worm and the worm gear” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Liu et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Liu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, Liu et al. is silent regarding a coupler with one end detachably secured to an output shaft of the rotation drive module via screws and a manual knob. The examiner takes Official Notice that the use of screws to secure a coupler with one end detachably to an output shaft of the rotation drive module was well-known in the art at the time of the invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use screws, motivated by the desire to produce a high-quality microscope objective lens switching apparatus. Claim 2 is therefore unpatentable.
Hoelter (figures 1-2) teaches
wherein the microscope objective lens switching apparatus further comprising: a manual knob arranged on a side, away from the rotation drive module, of the housing (figure 1), wherein the manual knob is detachably threaded to one end of the double lead worm away from the coupler (6) (1 and a suitable tool; see at least page 4, last paragraph and page 5, first and second paragraphs),
wherein the transmission module further comprises a first bearing (7-8) arranged on a side, facing towards the double lead worm, a bearing sleeve fixedly connected to an inner side of the first bearing (8 and 11), and a flat key (15) slidably connected to the bearing sleeve, wherein the double lead worm comprises a keyway, and the bearing sleeve comprises a on an inner side thereof (8 and 11), the slideway extending parallel to an axis of the double lead worm; and wherein the transmission module further comprises a flat key, one side of the flat key being fixedly received within the keyway, and another side of the flat key being slidably received within the slideway, a length of the slideway in the axial direction of the double lead worm is greater than a length of the flat key, a width of the slideway and a width of the keyway are equal to a width of the flat key, and the manual knob is detachably threaded to the bearing sleeve (15-16 and a suitable tool; see at least page 4, last paragraph and page 5, first and second paragraphs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the knob as taught by Hoelter in order to achieve a precise and reproducible bias of the teeth of worm via the torque that can be measured when adjusting.
The limitation, “wherein the microscope objective lens switching apparatus further comprising: a manual knob arranged on a side, away from the rotation drive module, of the housing, wherein the manual knob is detachably threaded to one end of the double lead worm away from the coupler” is a product-by-process claim. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
The limitation, “wherein a keyway corresponding to the flat key defined in the double lead worm, and a slideway axially parallel to the double lead worm is defined in an inner side of the bearing sleeve, wherein one side of the flat key is embedded into the keyway, another side of the flat key is situated in the slideway” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Liu et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 3, Liu et al. (figures 1-9) discloses wherein one end of the coupler is threaded to the output shaft (7, 9).
Regarding claim 5, Hoelter (figures 1-2) teaches wherein a first threaded hole in threaded engagement with one end, away from the coupler (6), of the double lead worm (2), and a second threaded hole in communication with the first threaded hole are defined in the manual knob, wherein a stop screw passing through the second threaded hole and configured to secure the double lead worm is connected to the second threaded hole (15-16 and a suitable tool; see at least page 4, last paragraph and page 5, first and second paragraphs).
Regarding claim 8, Liu et al. (figures 1-9) discloses wherein a plurality of first connection holes are defined in the turntable, wherein the plurality of first connection holes are configured to connect the objective lens (4; figures 2 and 8).
Regarding claim 9, Liu et al. (figures 1-9) discloses wherein a plurality of second connection holes are defined in the base, wherein the plurality of second connection hole are configured to connect an ocular lens system of the microscope (4; figures 2 and 8 and see at least page 1, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Liu et al. (figures 1-9) discloses microscope, comprising: a microscope objective lens switching apparatus configured to switch an objective lens of a microscope (see at least page 1, last paragraph);
the switching apparatus comprising: a base (10), a rotation drive module (9) secured onto the base, a transmission module (6-8, 11) connected to the rotation drive module, and a turntable (12) fixedly connected to the transmission module and fixedly connected to the objective lens (4);
wherein the transmission module comprises a housing (11) fixed onto the base, a coupler (7) with one end detachably secured to an output shaft of the rotation drive module, a double lead worm gear (6) fixedly connected to another end of the coupler, and a worm gear (12-13) in mesh engagement with the double lead worm, wherein the worm is fixedly connected to the turntable (see at least page 3, 2nd paragraph and figure 8);
wherein, when the coupler is connected to the output shaft and the manual knob is connected to the bearing sleeve, the double lead worm, the flat key, the bearing sleeve, and the manual knob are fixed relative to one another in an axial direction of the double lead worm and rotate together along the axis of the double lead worm; and
wherein, when the coupler is disconnected from the output shaft and the manual knob is disconnected from the bearing sleeve, the coupler remains engaged with the double lead worm and the flat key, and the double lead worm and the flat key are axially movable relative to the bearing sleeve and the first bearing.
The limitation, “wherein, when the coupler is connected to the output shaft and the manual knob is connected to the bearing sleeve, the double lead worm, the flat key, the bearing sleeve, and the manual knob are fixed relative to one another in an axial direction of the double lead worm and rotate together along the axis of the double lead worm; and wherein, when the coupler is disconnected from the output shaft and the manual knob is disconnected from the bearing sleeve, the coupler remains engaged with the double lead worm and the flat key, and the double lead worm and the flat key are axially movable relative to the bearing sleeve and the first bearing” is a product-by-process claim. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
The limitation, “by disconnecting the coupler from the output shaft and rotating the coupler, the double lead worm moves along an axial direction to change a mesh engagement clearance between the double lead worm and the worm gear” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Liu et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Liu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, Liu et al. is silent regarding a coupler with one end detachably secured to an output shaft of the rotation drive module via screws and a manual knob. The examiner takes Official Notice that the use of screws to secure a coupler with one end detachably to an output shaft of the rotation drive module was well-known in the art at the time of the invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use screws, motivated by the desire to produce a high-quality microscope objective lens switching apparatus. Claim 2 is therefore unpatentable.
Hoelter (figures 1-2) teaches
wherein the microscope objective lens switching apparatus further comprising: a manual knob arranged on a side, away from the rotation drive module, of the housing (figure 1), wherein the manual knob is detachably threaded to one end of the double lead worm away from the coupler (6) (1 and a suitable tool; see at least page 4, last paragraph and page 5, first and second paragraphs),
wherein the transmission module further comprises a first bearing (7-8) arranged on a side, facing towards the double lead worm, a bearing sleeve fixedly connected to an inner side of the first bearing (8 and 11), and a flat key (15) slidably connected to the bearing sleeve, wherein the double lead worm comprises a keyway, and the bearing sleeve comprises a on an inner side thereof (8 and 11), the slideway extending parallel to an axis of the double lead worm; and wherein the transmission module further comprises a flat key, one side of the flat key being fixedly received within the keyway, and another side of the flat key being slidably received within the slideway, a length of the slideway in the axial direction of the double lead worm is greater than a length of the flat key, a width of the slideway and a width of the keyway are equal to a width of the flat key, and the manual knob is detachably threaded to the bearing sleeve (15-16 and a suitable tool; see at least page 4, last paragraph and page 5, first and second paragraphs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the knob as taught by Hoelter in order to achieve a precise and reproducible bias of the teeth of worm via the torque that can be measured when adjusting.
The limitation, “wherein the microscope objective lens switching apparatus further comprising: a manual knob arranged on a side, away from the rotation drive module, of the housing, wherein the manual knob is detachably threaded to one end of the double lead worm away from the coupler” is a product-by-process claim. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
The limitation, “wherein a keyway corresponding to the flat key defined in the double lead worm, and a slideway axially parallel to the double lead worm is defined in an inner side of the bearing sleeve, wherein one side of the flat key is embedded into the keyway, another side of the flat key is situated in the slideway” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Liu et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 106199942) in view of Hoelter (WO 2005/106284) and Official Notice; further in view of Wang et al. (CN 111561546).
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, Liu et al. is silent regarding wherein a thickness of the double lead worm decreases from a side close to the coupler to a side away from the coupler, and the double lead worm has identical flank leads on the side away from the coupler. Wang et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein a thickness of the double lead worm (2) decreases from a side close to the coupler to a side away from the coupler, and the double lead worm has identical flank leads on the side away from the coupler (figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the worm as taught by Wang et al. in order to reduce the abnormal noise generated by the steering of the redirector.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 106199942) in view of Hoelter (WO 2005/106284) and Official Notice; further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 111780972).
Regarding claim 7, Liu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Liu et al. is silent regarding a spring. Hughes (figures 1-4) teaches wherein the transmission module further comprises a second bearing (216) sleeved onto a side, close to the coupler (108), of the double lead worm (23), and a clamping spring (218) sleeved onto the double lead worm and situated on a side, close to the coupler, of the second bearing, wherein an outer side of the second bearing is detachably and fixedly connected to the housing, and the clamping spring is configured to restrict an axial movement of the second bearing along the double lead worm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the spring as taught by Hughes in order to ensure an effective and sealing bond.
The limitation, “wherein an outer side of the second bearing is detachably and fixedly connected to the housing” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Liu et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights