DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 8/3/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated 8/3/2026, Examiner withdraws the previous specification objections; withdraws the previous claim objections; and withdraws the previous prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 8/3/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly found prior art reference.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 9), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Both Darnaud and Akao disclose methods for identifying an obstruction-free area for deploying a wheelchair access ramp, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine their teachings. See rejection below.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons.
Information Disclosure Statement – Action Needed
The listing of references in the specification (para. 3, ll. 1-2) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 2, the underscore between the words “approximately” and “corresponds” should be removed. This appears to be a typographical error.
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 (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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-9, 12-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darnaud et al. (US 2020/0155385) in view of Akao et al. (JP 2018-162042) and Hildom et al. (US 2020/0078235), hereinafter Darnaud, Akao and Hildom, respectively.
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 19-20, Darnaud discloses a system for facilitating deployment or stowage of a wheelchair access device in a wheelchair accessible vehicle (Darnaud; fig. 1: vehicle 10), comprising: a controller (Darnaud; fig. 4: processing unit 48); the wheelchair access device being moveable between a deployed position and a stowed position (Darnaud; fig. 2: access ramp 22; para. 44: ramp 22 is able to move from a retracted configuration, shown in FIG. 1, to a deployed configuration); and one or more perception sensors configured to perceive a safety zone associated with at least a portion of the wheelchair access device when the wheelchair access device is positioned in at least one of the deployed position and the stowed position, wherein the safety zone is defined by a boundary (Darnaud; para. 49: The detection module 34 is configured to detect, via the at least one of the sensors 24, at least one element of interest 38 located in an area 40 near the door 20.; para. 85: the presence sensor 46C near the door 20 detects the person 44 and sends a signal to the activation module 42 in order to indicate the presence of said person 44 in the nearby area 40; fig. 3: ramp 22 is shown within area 40); wherein the controller is configured to perform operations (Darnaud; para. 78: memory 50 of the electronic control device 26 is then able to store detection software configured to detect, via at least one sensor 26, at least one element of interest 36 located in an area 40 near the door 22, command software configured to command the passage of the ramp 22 from one configuration to the other configuration as a function of the detection of element(s) of interest 36, a software activation configured to command the detection module 34 and generating software configured to generate an information signal S relative to the configuration of the ramp 22. The processor 52 is then able to execute each of the software applications from among the detection software, the command software, the activation software and the generating software) comprising monitoring whether an object is present in the safety zone based on input from the one or more perception sensors (Darnaud; para. 49: detection module 34 is configured to detect, via the at least one of the sensors 24, at least one element of interest 38 located in an area 40 near the door; para. 59: nearby area 40 is for example a half-disc like in the example of FIG. 3) and, if the object is determined to be present in the safety zone, generating an interlock command (it is noted that generating the interlock command is not required in the claim because its performance is conditional upon determining an object is present in the safety zone, therefore, the controller is only explicitly required to monitor the safety zone while the wheelchair access device is moving) stopping or reversing operation of the wheelchair access device (Darnaud; para. 64: the command module 36 is configured to block the passage of the ramp 22 from the retracted configuration to the deployed configuration or vice versa, in case of detection of an obstacle 41 capable of hindering the passage of the ramp 22 from one configuration to the other. Thus, the command module 36 is configured to prevent the deployment or the retraction of the ramp 22 if an obstacle 41 is present on the travel of the ramp 22 capable of blocking or damaging the ramp).
Darnaud discloses an obstacle is an object that obstructs the movement of the ramp (Darnaud; para. 52), and a detected person may be considered an obstacle when they are located on the travel of the ramp (Darnaud; para. 58). Although a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the size of the nearby area of Darnaud must be large enough to include the ramp through its travel range in order to prevent obstruction, Darnaud does not appear to explicitly disclose the safety zone boundary is based on a perimeter of the portion of the wheelchair access device.
However, Akao, in the same field of endeavor (wheelchair accessible vehicle parking assistance), discloses a safety zone boundary is based on a perimeter of a portion of a wheelchair access device (Akao; para. 20: The boarding/alighting space acquisition unit 54 stores the size of the area occupied by the ramp device 22 on the road surface (hereinafter referred to as the "boarding/alighting space") when the ramp device 22 is deployed.; para. 23: the determination unit 60 determines whether an entry/exit space of the size stored in the entry/exit space acquisition unit 54 and a movement path that allows a mobile body 200 of the size stored in the mobile body size acquisition unit 56 to move outside the empty area 130 can be secured in the empty area 130. Here, the size of the boarding/alighting space stored in the boarding/alighting space acquisition unit 54 corresponds to the space required to deploy the ramp device 22 onto the road surface.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the size of the nearby area of Darnaud to be based on the size of the ramp, as disclosed by Akao, to yield the predictable result of preventing collisions if the ramp extends outside the nearby area, and/or increasing the number of available parking spaces the vehicle recognizes.
In paragraphs 82-87, Darnaud discloses, instead of activating the detection module when the activation module detects the presence of a person after the vehicle stops, the detection module may instead be activated when the vehicle is in use, is running, or is temporarily immobilized. Darnaud does not disclose deactivating the detection module, therefore, it appears the detection module of Darnaud continues monitoring during the passage of the ramp from the retracted to the deployed configuration, and vice versa. As noted above, the claims only explicitly require the monitoring to be performed while the wheelchair is moving, however, it is unclear if Darnaud, as modified, further discloses stopping or reversing the ramp, while it is moving, when an object is determined to be present in the safety zone.
Hildom, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle accessibility devices), discloses performing operations while a wheelchair access device is moving between a deployed position and a stowed position comprising monitoring whether an object is present in a safety zone based on input from one or more perception sensors and, if the object is determined to be present in the safety zone, generating an interlock command stopping or reversing operation of the wheelchair access device (Hildom; para. 85: In an example embodiment, assembly 100 includes photoelectric sensors 190 and 192 to detect when an object or person is obstructing the path for the operation of wheelchair lift 1. Sensors 190, 191, 192, and 193 can include a transmitter and a receiver located within the line-of-sight of the transmitter. For example, in FIG. 25, a transmitter can be arranged in B pillar plate 180 and a receiver can be arranged in plate 170, or vice versa, and when a transmitted beam is interrupted by an object or a person, the wheelchair lift can be stopped to prevent injury. Any suitable sensor can be used, for example, a garage door safety sensor. Sensors 190, 191, 192, and 193 may be motion detectors such as passive infrared sensors, microwave detectors, ultrasonic wave detectors, tomographic motion detectors, video camera software, and gesture detectors.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified, in response to the detection of an obstacle that may hinder the movement of the ramp, the blocking of the passage of the ramp by the command module of Darnaud, as modified, to explicitly stop the moving ramp when an object or person obstructing the path for operation is detected, as disclosed by Hildom, with the motivation of preventing injury to a person that approaches the ramp while it is moving (Hildom; para. 85).
Regarding claim 2, Darnaud, as modified, discloses the one or more perception sensors comprises one or more of a camera sensor (Darnaud; para. 47: at least one of the sensors 24 is a camera embedded in the vehicle 10. The camera is oriented toward the outside of the vehicle 10. The camera is for example arranged near the door), a LiDAR sensor, a ToF sensor, a RADAR sensor, a EmDAR sensor, a SONAR sensor, a SODAR sensor, a GNSS sensor, an accelerometer sensor, a gyroscope sensor, an IMU sensor, an infrared sensor, a laser rangefinder sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, an infrasonic sensor, and a microphone.
Regarding claim 3, Darnaud, as modified, discloses the wheelchair access device and the safety zone are disposed approximate a door opening of the wheelchair accessible vehicle (Darnaud; fig. 3: ramp 22 and nearby area 40 are positioned outside of door 20).
Regarding claim 4, Darnaud, as modified, discloses the wheelchair access device is one of a wheelchair ramp (Darnaud; fig. 2: access ramp 22) and a wheelchair lift.
Regarding claim 8, Darnaud, as modified, discloses ascertaining whether the wheelchair access device is operating (Darnaud; para. 85: the presence sensor 46C near the door 20 detects the person 44 [i.e., begins operating] and sends a signal to the activation module 42 in order to indicate the presence of said person 44 in the nearby area 40 [i.e., the activation module ascertains that the wheelchair access device is operating when it receives a signal from the presence sensor]); issuing the interlock command to stop operation of the wheelchair access device only if the wheelchair access device is operating and the object is detected in the safety zone (Darnaud; para. 88: Then, during a step 110, the detection module 34 detects, via the sensor 24, each element of interest 38 located in the area 40 near the door 20 [i.e., nearby objects are not detected until after the wheelchair access device has been activated and is operating].; para. 90: During a step 120, the command module 36 next commands the passage of the ramp 22 from the retracted configuration to the deployed configuration as a function of the detection of element(s) of interest 38, for example the presence of at least one element of interest 38.; para. 92: the command module 36 blocks the passage of the ramp 22 from the retracted configuration to the deployed configuration in case of detection of an obstacle 41 that may hinder the deployment of the ramp).
Regarding claim 9, Darnaud, as modified, discloses the ascertaining operation is based on the input from the one or more perception sensors (Darnaud; para. 85: the presence sensor 46C near the door 20 detects the person 44 [i.e., begins operating] and sends a signal to the activation module 42 in order to indicate the presence of said person 44 in the nearby area 40 [i.e., the activation module ascertains that the wheelchair access device is operating when it receives a signal from the presence sensor]).
Regarding claim 12, Darnaud, as modified, discloses if the object is determined to be present in the safety zone, providing feedback including a status information associated with the wheelchair access device (Darnaud; para. 74: electronic control device 26 further includes a generating module 47 configured to generate an information signal S relative to the configuration of the ramp 22. The information signal S is intended for a user or an electronic supervision system, not shown. The information signal S for example comprises information on the current configuration of the ramp 22 and/or on the passage of the ramp 22 from one configuration to the other).
Regarding claim 13, Darnaud, as modified, discloses if the object is determined to be present in the safety zone, providing feedback including data associated with the one or more perception sensors (Darnaud; para. 88: the detection module 34 detects, via the sensor 24, each element of interest 38 located in the area 40 near the door 20. The detection module 34 then sends a message to the command module 36 comprising at least one piece of information on each element 38 detected by the sensor).
Regarding claim 14, Darnaud, as modified, discloses identifying a location of a wheelchair pick-up/drop-off location based on the input from the one or more perception sensors (Darnaud; para. 85: the presence sensor 46C near the door 20 detects the person 44 and sends a signal to the activation module 42 in order to indicate the presence of said person 44 in the nearby area); determining if the wheelchair access device is aligned with the wheelchair pick-up/drop-off location based on the input from the one or more perception sensors (Darnaud; para. 140: the command module 36 commands the passage of the ramp 22 from the retracted configuration to the deployed configuration only in case of detection of a characteristic of a PRM located outside the travel of the ramp).
Regarding claim 18, Darnaud, as modified, discloses the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle (Darnaud; para. 37: vehicle 10 is preferably an autonomous motor vehicle).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darnaud in view of Akao and Hildom as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Götvall et al. (WO 2019/245440), hereinafter Götvall.
Regarding claim 5, Darnaud, as modified, discloses the boundary for the safety zone (Darnaud; para. 59: As shown in FIG. 3, for each point P of the nearby area 40, the distance d between the door 20 and said point P is smaller than a predetermined maximum distance D … The predetermined maximum distance D is for example between 20 cm and 75 cm. The nearby area 40 is for example a half-disc like in the example of FIG. 3, an elliptical half-surface, a half-stage, an oblong surface or a disc portion with an angular opening smaller than 180°.).
Darnaud, as modified, does not explicitly disclose setting the boundary for the safety zone based on input from the one or more perception sensors.
Götvall, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle loading ramp controls), discloses setting a boundary for a safety zone based on input from one or more perception sensors (Götvall; pg. 9: Figs 4a and b depicts sensor representations of two situations where the ramp is closed (Fig. 4a) and one where it is deployed (Fig. 4b). In Fig. 4a the ramp is not yet deployed but the system has made a representation of the quay 5, cargo items 25 and other objects 20, and overlaid a model 403 of the ramp to indicate where the ramp 2 would be deployed. In Fig. 4a the safety zone 30 is also indicated. This safety zone may be set manually by an operator or automatically by the system 100 knowing the dimensions of the ramp 2 and with error margins either pre-set or manually entered. The safety zone is set to cover the actual landing area and some distance outside the actual landing area so as to provide a margin around the actual landing area.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to determine a safety zone and its boundary using cameras, as disclosed by Götvall, in the control system of Darnaud, as modified, in order to yield the predictable result of accurately depicting and responding to the environment around the vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, Darnaud, as modified, discloses the boundary approximately corresponds to the portion of the perimeter of the wheelchair access device (Götvall; pg. 9: Figs 4a and b depicts sensor representations of two situations where the ramp is closed (Fig. 4a) and one where it is deployed (Fig. 4b). In Fig. 4a the ramp is not yet deployed but the system has made a representation of the quay 5, cargo items 25 and other objects 20, and overlaid a model 403 of the ramp to indicate where the ramp 2 would be deployed. In Fig. 4a the safety zone 30 is also indicated. This safety zone may be set manually by an operator or automatically by the system 100 knowing the dimensions of the ramp 2 and with error margins either pre-set or manually entered. The safety zone is set to cover the actual landing area and some distance outside the actual landing area so as to provide a margin around the actual landing area.).
Regarding claim 7, Darnaud, as modified, discloses re-setting the boundary if a position or a size of the portion of the perimeter of the wheelchair access device changes (Götvall; pg. 7: The model of the ramp simulates the size and position of the ramp 2 in the field of view of the representation for various deployment positions of the ramp, e.g. when deployed onto the quay 5 for transportation of cargo. The model may be determined during installation of the ramp positioning system 100 knowing the ramp dimensions and location in relation to the sensor(s) or at intervals by sensor analysis when the ramp is deployed, i.e. a self-learning solution.; pg. 9: In Fig. 4a the safety zone 30 is also indicated. This safety zone may be set manually by an operator or automatically by the system 100 knowing the dimensions of the ramp 2 and with error margins either pre-set or manually entered. The safety zone is set to cover the actual landing area and some distance outside the actual landing area so as to provide a margin around the actual landing area.).).
Claim(s) 10-11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darnaud in view of Akao and Hildom as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of MacPherson et al. (US 2021/0155264), hereinafter MacPherson.
Regarding claim 10, Darnaud, as modified, discloses the ascertaining operation is based on feedback (Darnaud; para. 85: the presence sensor 46C near the door 20 detects the person 44 [i.e., begins operating] and sends a signal to the activation module 42 in order to indicate the presence of said person 44 in the nearby area 40 [i.e., the activation module ascertains that the wheelchair access device is operating when it receives a signal from the presence sensor]).
Although Darnaud in paragraph 42, discloses the vehicle comprises an electronic device for controlling the ramp, it is unclear if Darnaud, as modified, explicitly discloses the ascertaining operation is based on feedback from the wheelchair access device.
MacPherson, in the same field of endeavor (passenger access systems), discloses an ascertaining operation based on feedback from a wheelchair access device (MacPherson; para. 140: a current sensor 207, 208 can be adapted to register a rise in current as the ramp motor attempts to completed the desired deployment. This can [cause] controller(s) 300, 304, 312 etc., to compensate in a variety of ways).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to determine the operating condition of the ramp based on data from its sensors, as disclosed by MacPherson, in the controller of the Darnaud, as modified, to yield the predictable result of accurately determining the ramp’s operating conditions.
Regarding claim 11, Darnaud, as modified, discloses, in paragraphs 74-75, displaying information on the current configuration and/or passage of the ramp.
However, Darnaud, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose if the object is determined to be present in the safety zone, triggering at least one of a visual and an audible alert.
MacPherson discloses if an object is determined to be present in a safety zone, triggering at least one of a visual and an audible alert (MacPherson; para. 141: the controller can determine that the ramp 200 has encountered obstruction, can alert an operator of the bus 100 with an audible signal using a dashboard- or otherwise mounted loudspeaker or signal generator).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to trigger an alert when an obstruction is detected in a safety zone near the ramp, as disclosed by MacPherson, in the controller of Darnaud, as modified, to yield the predictable result of notifying a person about the operating conditions of the ramp.
Regarding claim 15, Darnaud, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Darnaud, as modified, does not explicitly disclose providing control signals to adjust the position of the vehicle so that the object is outside of the safety zone.
MacPherson discloses providing control signals to adjust the position of a vehicle so that an object is outside of a safety zone (MacPherson; para. 140: if a ramp 200 encounters a stone or other obstruction before reaching a desired angular or height configuration, a current sensor 207, 208 can be adapted to register a rise in current as the ramp motor attempts to completed the desired deployment. This can [cause] controller(s) 300, 304, 312 etc., to compensate in a variety of ways, including … bus 100 to navigate to a location more suited for ramp deployment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to generate signals for moving the vehicle until the ramp is clear of an obstruction, as disclosed by MacPherson, in the controller of Darnaud, as modified, to yield the predictable result of accurately deploying the ramp based on current environmental conditions.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darnaud in view of Akao and Hildom as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Breed (US 2017/0276489).
Darnaud, as modified, discloses a wheelchair pick-up/drop-off location (Darnaud; para. 84: the location or the stop where the person 44 wishes to enter the vehicle).
Darnaud, as modified, does not explicitly disclose a map including a wheelchair pick-up/drop-off location.
Breed, in a reasonably pertinent field of endeavor (vehicle monitoring systems), discloses a map including a pick-up/drop-off location (Breed; paras. 51-52: map update 58 is then broadcast … a vehicle may receive only those broadcasts that are relevant to its path from its current location to its destination and not other broadcasts. This may be determined from the known destination [i.e., pick-up/drop-off location] or travel path of the vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have used a map containing a pick-up/drop-off location, as disclosed by Breed, to store the wheelchair pick-up/drop-off location in the controller of Darnaud, as modified, to yield the predictable result of accurately navigating the vehicle.
Darnaud, as modified, does not explicitly disclose updating a map based on the detection of the object in the safety zone.
Breed further discloses updating a map based on the detection of an object (Breed; para. 73: the map update with the object of concern to drivers is automatically placed on the map update since the condition detectors 64, or cameras 8, function automatically to detect conditions that require issuance of a map update. Such conditions are mentioned above and include, but are not limited to, the presence of a large animal on the road, a disabled vehicle on the road, cargo that has fallen from a truck onto the road, black ice on the roadway, and a boulder on the road. Once an object is automatically detected, issuance of a map update does not require manual entry of data about the object. Similarly, once absence of a previously detected object is assessed, issuance of another map update to effect removal of the object from the map being displayed by the navigation system also does not require manual entry of data but is automatic as soon as the condition detector 64, or cameras 8, provides information indicative of the absence of the object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have added an object to the map, as disclosed by Breed, when it is detected in the safety zone by the controller of Darnaud, as modified, to yield the predictable result of accurately navigating the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights