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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 28 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
The examiner received amendments and remarks dated 30 March 2026 after the final rejection office action dated 30 January 2026 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding rejections”, “prior office action”, and the like). No new matter was entered.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, the term “control unit” is still examined under this guidance. See below for further information.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 20 for indefinite claim language, the examiner notes that the indefinite language has been removed via amendment; therefore, all outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, the examiner notes that arguments are moot as applicant has amended the claim language. The examiner performed an additional search, considering previously noted prior art, and determined that new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, were proper. See below for further information.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 30 March 2026. Claims 1, 12, and 20 are independent claims. Claims 6, 9, and 17 are cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-16, and 18-23 are pending and rejected as noted further below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
“Control Unit” – claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-14, 18-20
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation) to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
MPEP 2181 outlines a three-prong test for determining if examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation to a claim limitation. Claim 1 (as an example but also applies to the analogous claims) now states “a control unit of the ownship aircraft configured to:” followed by a description of what the control unit does rather than what it is. Prong A – the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder – this prong is met as a “unit” is recited (a generic nonce term for a component without structure). Prong B – the term is modified by functional language – this prong is met as “configured to” is recited, followed by what the component does rather than what it is. Prong C – the term is not modified by sufficient structure/material/acts for performing the claimed function – this prong is met as the “control unit” is not modified by sufficient structure to convey how it performs the actions described. Therefore, the term “control unit” falls under the guidance of the MPEP section above and should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
In ascertaining the applicability of interpretation of “control unit” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the examiner consulted the specification for an explicit definition. Paragraphs [0060-0064] and Figure [6] merely describe examples of a control unit, but it is merely exemplary and non-limiting per the disclosure. Consistent with examination process, the examiner then considered if “control unit” had a well-understood meaning by a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). While a controller is generally understood to include a physical processor and memory, a control “unit” is ambiguous and leads the examiner to believe that a well understood meaning is not present with this choice of terminology. A basis for understanding a physical embodiment of a “control unit” is at least distinctly provided in Figure [6]; therefore a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is withheld.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 12-16, 18, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bateman et al. (US 2014/0039785 A1; hereinafter Bateman) in view of Teague et al. (US 2022/0092993 A1; hereinafter Teague).
Regarding independent claims 1 (system), 12 (method), and 20 (apparatus, non-transitory memory): Bateman discloses A system comprising: an ownship aircraft; and a control unit of the ownship aircraft configured to: (per claim 1) (Abstract, Paragraph [0015], Figure [1], Bateman discloses a system comprising an ownship aircraft with a processor/control unit) / A method comprising: (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0019], Figure [2], Bateman discloses a process/method) / A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions that, in response to execution, cause one or more control units comprising a processor, to perform operations comprising: (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0019, 0022], Figure [2], Bateman discloses a system comprising memory performing the series of steps)
monitor a first position of the ownship aircraft within an airspace; (per claim 1) / monitoring, by a control unit of an ownship aircraft, a first position of the ownship aircraft within an airspace (per claim 12) / monitoring, with a control unit of an ownship aircraft, a first position of the ownship aircraft within an airspace; (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0016], Bateman discloses monitoring a position of the ownship aircraft)
determine a projected path for the ownship aircraft within the airspace, (per claim 1) / determining, by the control unit, a projected path for the ownship aircraft within the airspace; (per claim 12) / determining a projected path for the ownship aircraft within the airspace; (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0008, 0016-0017], Bateman discloses receiving track data of the ownship aircraft and a projected flight path of the ownship aircraft)
monitor a second position of a target aircraft within an airspace, (per claim 1) / monitoring, by the control unit, a second position of a target aircraft within an airspace; (per claim 12) / monitoring a second position of a target aircraft within an airspace; (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0019], Bateman discloses receiving other aircraft position data)
filter traffic information for wake turbulence information to filter out one or more other target aircraft, (per claim 1) / filtering, by the control unit, traffic information for wake turbulence information to filter one or more other target aircraft; (per claim 12) / filtering traffic information for wake turbulence information to filter one or more other target aircraft, wherein said filtering is based on whether the one or more other target aircraft are one or more of (a) airborne, (b) within a predetermined zone of the ownship aircraft, (c) within a predetermined altitude of the ownship aircraft, or (d) larger than a threshold; (per claim 20) (With regards to Claim 20, the examiner notes that “one or more” indicates that only one is necessary. Paragraph [0019, 0020, 0023-0024, 0029], Figure [2-4], Bateman discloses performing filtering based upon factors such as relative location, altitude proximity, etc. prior to proceeding with a further determination and display method of wake turbulence. Further, Bateman discloses suppressing the wake information based on comparison of aircraft type or a relative altitude difference greater than a threshold, for instance)
after filtering, determine a projected wake turbulence of the target aircraft within the airspace, and […] (per claim 1) / after filtering, determining, by the control unit, a projected wake turbulence of the target aircraft within the airspace; and […] (per claim 12) / determining a projected wake turbulence of the target aircraft within the airspace; and […] (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0019, 0020, 0024], Figure [2-4], Bateman discloses performing filtering based upon factors such as relative location, altitude proximity, etc. prior to proceeding with a further determination and display method of wake turbulence, wherein the determination and further method steps include projected wake turbulence determination, as shown in Figure [4] and described particularly in paragraph [0024], for instance)
Bateman merely differs from the claimed invention of claims 1, 12, and 20 in the automation of a generic avoidance maneuver.
Teague, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft traffic management, teaches automatically operate the ownship aircraft to avoid the projected wake turbulence determined. (per claim 1) / automatically operating, with the control unit, the ownship aircraft to avoid the projected wake turbulence determined. (per claim 12) / automatically operating the ownship aircraft to avoid the projected wake turbulence determined. (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0021, 0029, 0031, 0034, 0039], Figure [7], Claims [11, 13], Teague teaches that the estimated wake turbulence is used to control operation of an autonomous aircraft to avoid the estimated wake turbulence trail)
Bateman and Teague are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft traffic management. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Bateman to include an autonomous avoidance taught by Teague, as it is well-known in the art to include wake avoidance systems aboard autonomous vehicles capable of carrying out control commands automatically. Merely applying the disclosed system/method of Bateman to an autonomous aircraft is an obvious variant of Bateman as it merely imports the system/method of Bateman to a certain type of well-known aircraft. Bateman implicitly teaches that this may be possible, as Bateman states “…the algorithms are contained in an existing traffic collision-avoidance system…” (Bateman, Paragraph [0018]). Further, Teague is not merely a reference that performs autonomous control, it is a reference that teaches autonomous control for the purpose of avoiding detected wake turbulence. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it obvious to perform the disclosed system/method of Bateman with an autonomous vehicle taught by Teague in order to reduce burden on an operator and/or apply an analogous process or detection and avoidance to an aircraft without a pilot.
Regarding claims 2 and 13: Parent claims 1 and 12 are unpatentable over Bateman in view of Teague. Bateman further discloses wherein the control unit is further configured to output a wake turbulence alert to the ownship aircraft in response to detecting that the projected path of the ownship aircraft intersects one or more portions of the projected wake turbulence of the target aircraft. (per claim 2) / further comprising outputting, by the control unit, a wake turbulence alert to the ownship aircraft in response to detecting that the projected path of the ownship aircraft intersects one or more portions of the projected wake turbulence of the target aircraft. (per claim 13) (Paragraph [0017, 0020], Bateman discloses that an output is generated based on a determination that the flight path of the ownship will intersect the flight path of the other aircraft, including the projection for wake (based on the determination of altitude))
Regarding claims 3, 14, and 21: Parent claims 2, 13, and 20 are unpatentable over Bateman in view of Teague. Bateman further discloses wherein the ownship aircraft comprises a user interface including one or both of a display or a speaker, and wherein the control unit is further configured to one or both of show the wake turbulence alert on the display or broadcast the wake turbulence alert through the speaker. (per claim 3) / further comprising one or both of showing, by the control unit, the wake turbulence alert on a display of the ownship aircraft, or broadcasting, by the control unit, the wake turbulence alert through a speaker of the ownship aircraft. (per claim 14) / to further perform operations comprising: outputting, via one of a display or speaker, a wake turbulence alert to the ownship aircraft. (per claim 21) (Paragraph [0015, 0020], Bateman discloses outputting a visual wake icon on the display)
Regarding claims 4 and 22: Parent claims 1 and 20 are unpatentable over Bateman in view of Teague. Bateman further discloses wherein the control unit is configured to determine the projected wake turbulence based on the second position of the target aircraft, weather within the airspace, and one or both of a size or a shape of the target aircraft. (per claim 4) / determining the projected wake turbulence based on the second position of the target aircraft, weather within the airspace, and one or both of a size or a shape of the target aircraft. (per claim 22) (Paragraph [0019-0021, 0025-0026, 0029], Bateman discloses information contributing to the wake turbulence such as 1) other aircraft position, 2) wind information (weather), 3) “aircraft type information… (i.e., the other aircraft is much smaller than the ownship)…”)
Regarding claim 5: Parent claim 4 is unpatentable over Bateman in view of Teague. Bateman further discloses wherein the weather comprises a wind speed and wind direction. (Paragraph [0025-0026], Bateman discloses wind speed and direction determinations)
Regarding claims 7 and 16: Parent claims 1 and 12 are unpatentable over Bateman in view of Teague. Bateman further discloses wherein the control unit is configured to filter based on whether the one or more other target aircraft are one or more of (a) airborne, (b) within a predetermined zone of the ownship aircraft, (c) within a predetermined altitude of the ownship aircraft, or (d) larger than a threshold. (per claim 7) / wherein said filtering is based on whether the one or more other target aircraft are one or more of (a) airborne, (b) within a predetermined zone of the ownship aircraft, (c) within a predetermined altitude of the ownship aircraft, or (d) larger than a threshold. (per claim 16) (The examiner notes that “one or more” indicates that only one is necessary. Paragraph [0019, 0020, 0023-0024, 0029], Figure [2-4], Bateman discloses suppressing the wake information based on comparison of aircraft type or a relative altitude difference/predetermined zone greater than a threshold, for instance)
Regarding claims 10 and 18: Parent claims 1 and 12 are unpatentable over Bateman in view of Teague. As noted in the parent claim, Bateman does not explicitly disclose autonomous/automatic control of the aircraft.
However, Teague, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft traffic management, teaches wherein to automatically operate the ownship aircraft the control unit is further configured to automatically operate one or more controls of the ownship aircraft to avoid the projected wake turbulence determined. (per claim 10) / wherein said automatically operating comprises automatically operating, by the control unit, one or more controls of the ownship aircraft to avoid the projected wake turbulence determined. (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0021, 0029, 0031, 0034, 0039], Figure [7], Claim [11, 13], Teague teaches that the estimated wake turbulence is used to control operation of an autonomous aircraft to avoid the estimated wake turbulence trail)
Bateman and Teague are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft traffic management. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Bateman to include an autonomous avoidance taught by Teague, as it is well-known in the art to include wake avoidance systems aboard autonomous vehicles capable of carrying out control commands automatically. Merely applying the disclosed system/method of Bateman to an autonomous aircraft is an obvious variant of Bateman as it merely imports the system/method of Bateman to a certain type of well-known aircraft. Bateman implicitly teaches that this may be possible, as Bateman states “…the algorithms are contained in an existing traffic collision-avoidance system…” (Bateman, Paragraph [0018]). Further, Teague is not merely a reference that performs autonomous control, it is a reference that teaches autonomous control for the purpose of avoiding detected wake turbulence. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it obvious to perform the disclosed system/method of Bateman with an autonomous vehicle taught by Teague in order to reduce burden on an operator and/or apply an analogous process or detection and avoidance to an aircraft without a pilot.
Regarding claim 15: Parent claim 12 is unpatentable over Bateman in view of Teague. Bateman further discloses wherein said determining the projected wake turbulence comprises determining the projected wake turbulence based on the second position of the target aircraft, weather within the airspace, and one or both of a size or a shape of the target aircraft, and wherein the weather comprises a wind speed and a wind direction. (Paragraph [0019-0021, 0025-0026, 0029], Bateman discloses information contributing to the wake turbulence such as 1) other aircraft position, 2) wind information (weather), 3) “aircraft type information… (i.e., the other aircraft is much smaller than the ownship)…”. Further, Bateman discloses wind speed and direction determinations)
Claims 8 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bateman in view of Teague in further view of Shams et al. (US 2015/0316575 A1; hereinafter Shams).
Regarding claims 8 and 23: Parent claims 7 and 20 are unpatentable over Bateman in view of Teague. Bateman further discloses wherein the control unit is configured to filter based on whether the one or more other target aircraft are [(a) airborne], (b) within the predetermined zone of the ownship aircraft, (c) within the predetermined altitude of the ownship aircraft, and (d) larger than a threshold. (per claim 8) / wherein filtering is based on whether the one or more other target aircraft are [(a) airborne], (b) within the predetermined zone of the ownship aircraft, (c) within the predetermined altitude of the ownship aircraft, and (d) larger than a threshold. (per claim 23) (Paragraph [0019, 0020, 0023-0024, 0029], Figure [2-4], Bateman discloses performing filtering based upon factors such as relative location, altitude proximity, etc. prior to proceeding with a further determination and display method of wake turbulence. Further, Bateman discloses suppressing the wake information based on comparison of aircraft type or a relative altitude difference greater than a threshold, for instance. Finally, Bateman states “In one embodiment, if a comparison between the aircraft type information of the ownship and the other aircraft indicate a certain condition (i.e., the other aircraft is much smaller than the ownship), then the wake image is suppressed”)
Bateman then differs from the claimed invention in an explicit determination that the aircraft is airborne. The examiner submits that this is implicit in Bateman, but relies upon the teachings of Shams, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft traffic management, who teaches based on whether the one or more other target aircraft are (a) airborne (per claims 8 and 23) (Paragraph [0031, 0033, 0036], Shams teaches wake vortex tracking dependent upon the status (airborne or not) of an aircraft)
Bateman and Shams are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft traffic management. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Bateman to include explicit disclosure that the consideration of nearby aircraft included a determination that they are airborne for wake calculation, as taught by Shams, in order to more accurately determine the impacting factors of the environment on the ownship aircraft and avoid damage/crash/etc. (Shams, Paragraph [0003]).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bateman in view of Teague in further view of Shu-Zhong Cabos et al. (US 2021/0012670 A1; hereinafter Shu-Zhong Cabos).
Regarding claims 11 and 19: Parent claims 1 and 12 are unpatentable over Bateman in view of Teague. Bateman does not explicitly disclose the use of artificial intelligence/machine learning.
However, Shu-Zhong Cabos, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft traffic management, teaches wherein the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system. (per claim 11) / wherein the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system. (per claim 19) (Paragraph [0053-0055], Shu-Zhong Cabos teaches use of a machine learning module with the wake prediction system)
Bateman and Shu-Zhong Cabos are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft traffic management. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Bateman to merely include a machine learning/artificial intelligence element, as taught by Shu-Zhong Cabos, for the benefit of updating prediction models for accuracy (Shu-Zhong Cabos, Paragraph [0058], for instance). The examiner notes that the claim does not appear to tie in the use of artificial intelligence/machine learning in a distinct and meaningful manner, but merely recites that it is an additional peripheral element serving no particular claimed function. As such, the examiner is interpreting the claim to merely peripherally utilize artificial intelligence/machine learning, the use of which is well-known in the art. Merely performing the disclosed system/method of Bateman with machine learning/artificial intelligence is an obvious variant of Bateman.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights