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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8 June 2026.
Claims 1-21 are pending in the instant application with claims 20 and 21 withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 28 September 2023, 13 April 2026, and 1 June 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS document(s) have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is invited to point out any particular references in the submitted IDS documents which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16, line 19 recites “in independently” but should read --independently--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 12, 13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 12, 13, 18, and 19 recite the limitation "support leg(s), but claims 1 and 16 only reference “leg(s)”. It is unclear if the support legs are intended to be the same as the legs.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (US 20070094798 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses a system for supporting a medical device (Figure 3, including the operating table), the system comprising a stabilizing base comprising (Figure 1): a plurality of legs (Figure 1, “21” and “34”); a platform (Figure 1, “10”)attached to the plurality of legs (Figure 1, “21” and “34”); a stabilizing system for receiving the medical device (Figure 3, the operating bed can be considered the stabilizing system, wherein the stabilizing base receives the medical device and the base is attached to the table), wherein the stabilizing system is removably attachable to the platform (Figure 4, set screw “253”); and wherein one or more of the plurality of legs is adjustable to change one or more of a vertical, horizontal, and angular position of the platform (Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Yu discloses one or more of the plurality of legs comprise an outer portion and an inner portion movably disposed within said outer portion (Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Yu discloses a first plate and a second plate, wherein the first plate and the second plate are parallel to one another and extend vertically downward from the platform on either side of the platform (Paragraph [0040], Figure 4, each leg comprises a lower side leg body “25” which can be interpreted as the plates.)
Regarding claim 4, Yu discloses a knob mechanism that extends through at least one of the first plate and the second plate (Figure 4, the lower side leg body comprises a set screw fastener “253”).
Regarding claim 5, Yu discloses mechanism to control the height of one or more of the plurality of legs (Paragraph [0040], Figure 4, “241”).
Regarding claim 6, Yu discloses the stabilizing system is a rail system for receiving the medical device, wherein the rail system is removably attachable to the platform (Figure 8, the operating bed comprises a rail system that the legs are able to be detached from).
Regarding claim 7, Yu discloses the medical device is a delivery system couplable to
the stabilizing system, and the system includes the delivery system (Paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 8, Yu discloses the plurality of legs comprises a first pair of legs and
a second pair of legs (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Yu discloses the platform can be tilted by adjusting the height of the first pair of support legs to a lower height than the height of the second pair of legs (Paragraph [0040], Figure 4, “241”, the legs can be adjusted individually so each corner can have a unique height).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US 20180311474 A1), in view of Keller (US 10349737 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Tyler discloses a system for supporting a medical device (Abstract, Figure 6), the system comprising a stabilizing base comprising (Figure 6): a plurality of legs (Figure 6, “120”); a platform attached to the plurality of legs (Figure 6, “108”); a stabilizing system for receiving the medical device (Figure 6, “106”), and wherein the stabilizing system is removably attachable to the platform (Figure 6, Clamp “148”);
Tyler does not disclose one or more of the plurality of legs is adjustable to change one or more of a vertical, horizontal, and angular position of the platform. Keller discloses a frame for a platform (Abstract), comprising a plurality of legs (Figure 1, “122”); wherein the legs are height adjustable (Abstract). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Tyler, wherein the frame system as taught by Keller is incorporated into the system of Tyler, so that one or more of the plurality of legs is adjustable to change a vertical position of the platform, since incorporating the frame system of Keller into Tyler would provide the predictable results of allowing platform to be optimally adjusted (Keller, Col 1, lines 14-15).
Regarding claim 2, Keller discloses the frame system comprises one or more of the plurality of legs further comprise an outer portion and an inner portion movably disposed within said outer portion (Keller, Col 8, lines 16-39).
Regarding claim 5, Keller discloses the frame system comprises a mechanism to control the height of one or more of the plurality of legs (Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, Tyler discloses the stabilizing system is a rail system for receiving the medical device (Paragraph [0088] Figure 10 “188”, the system comprises rails), wherein the rail system is removably attachable to the platform (Figure 6, Clamp “148”, the system is removable).
Regarding claim 7, Tyler discloses the medical device is a delivery system couplable to the stabilizing system, and the system includes the delivery system (Paragraph [0068], Figure 6).
Regarding claim 8, Keller discloses the frame system comprises the plurality of legs which comprises a first pair of legs and a second pair of legs (Figure 1, “121”, “221”).
Regarding claim 9, discloses the frame system comprises the first pair of legs and the second pair of legs being foldable between a stowed position and a deployed position (Figure 1).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US 20180311474 A1), in view of Keller (US 10349737 B2), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Linder (US 4113218 A).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified Tyler fails to disclose the system comprising a first plate and a second plate, wherein the first plate and the second plate are parallel to one another and extend vertically downward from the platform on either side of the platform, and further comprising a knob mechanism that extends through at least one of the first plate and the second plate. Linder teaches a platform (Figure 1, “18”) that comprises standard side rails mounted to the side of the platform (Figure 1, “17”) wherein the side rails comprise knob for securing a frame to the side rails (Figure 3, “98”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by modified Tyler, with the system comprising a first plate and a second plate, wherein the first plate and the second plate are parallel to one another and extend vertically downward from the platform on either side of the platform, and further comprising a knob mechanism that extends through at least one of the first plate and the second plate as taught by Linder, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of allowing for the mounting of additional devices to the side of the platform.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US 20180311474 A1), in view of Keller (US 10349737 B2), as applied to claims 1, 8 and 9 above, and further in view of Pinch (US 6058853 A).
Regarding claim 10, Tyler, as modified in claims 1, 8 and 9, does not disclose a first strut for retaining the first pair of legs in the deployed position and a second strut for retaining the second pair of legs in the deployed position, wherein the first strut and the second strut are slideably attached to the platform and can be released to facilitate folding of the first and second pairs of legs from the deployed to the stowed position. Pinch discloses a common design for folding tables (Figure 3), wherein the table comprises a first strut for retaining the first pair of legs in the deployed position (Figure 4, “58”) and a second strut for retaining the second pair of legs in the deployed position (Figure 4, “58”, the leg design is the same for both sides), wherein the first strut and the second strut are slideably attached to the platform (Col 5, line 45 to Col 6, line 11) and can be released to facilitate folding of the first and second pairs of legs from the deployed to the stowed position (Col 5, line 45 to Col 6, line 11). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by modified Tyler, with the folding legs comprising a sliding strut as taught by Pinch, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of allowing the base to be stored when not in use while also providing additional strength to the legs when folded out (Col 1, lines 57-64).
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US 20180311474 A1), in view of Keller (US 10349737 B2), as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Kieser (US 5758586 A).
Regarding claim 11, modified Tyler discloses a singular height adjustment mechanism for both legs (Figure 1), but fails to disclose a first height adjustment knob for adjusting the height of the legs of the first pair of legs and a second height adjustment knob for adjusting the height of the legs of the second pair of legs. Kieser discloses an adjustable height table (Abstract) wherein the height of the legs is driven by a knob attached to a threaded rod to manipulate the leg length (Figure 5, knob “28”, threaded rod “90”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by modified Tyler, with a first height adjustment knob for adjusting the height of the legs of the first pair of legs and a second height adjustment knob for adjusting the height of the legs of the second pair of legs as taught by Kieser, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of the provision of an adjustable table the height of which may be easily adjusted without the need for tools (Col 1, lines 47-49).
Regarding claim 12, modified Tyler fails to disclose a first height adjustment knob, a second height adjustment knob, an actuation shaft, a pair of drive gears, a pair of driven gears, and a pair of extension shafts; extendable portions of each support leg are attached to the extension shafts; wherein the drive gears are fixedly attached to the actuation shaft and the driven gears are fixedly attached to the extension shafts; and wherein rotating one of the first height adjustment knob and the second height adjustment knob rotates both of the extension shafts via the drive gears and driven gears to increase and decrease the height of the legs. Kieser discloses an adjustable height table (Abstract) wherein the table comprises a first height adjustment knob (Figures 16-18, “176”), a second height adjustment knob (Figures 16-18, “176”, the mechanism is duplicated for each leg, see figure 2), an actuation shaft (Figures 16-18, “160”), a pair of drive gears (Figures 16-18, “158”), a pair of driven gears (Figures 16-18, “156”), and a pair of extension shafts (Figures 16-18, “90”); extendable portions of each support leg are attached to the extension shafts (Figures 16-18, “82”); wherein the drive gears are fixedly attached to the actuation shaft and the driven gears are fixedly attached to the extension shafts (Figures 16-18); and wherein rotating one of the first height adjustment knob and the second height adjustment knob rotates both of the extension shafts via the drive gears and driven gears to increase and decrease the height of the legs (Col 9, line 41 to Col 10, line 53). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by modified Tyler, a first height adjustment knob, a second height adjustment knob, an actuation shaft, a pair of drive gears, a pair of driven gears, and a pair of extension shafts; extendable portions of each support leg are attached to the extension shafts; wherein the drive gears are fixedly attached to the actuation shaft and the driven gears are fixedly attached to the extension shafts; and wherein rotating one of the first height adjustment knob and the second height adjustment knob rotates both of the extension shafts via the drive gears and driven gears to increase and decrease the height of the legs as taught by Kieser, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of the provision of an adjustable table the height of which may be easily adjusted without the need for tools (Col 1, lines 47-49).
Regarding claim 13, modified Tyler discloses a singular height adjustment mechanism for both legs (Figure 1) and therefore fails to disclose the platform can be tilted by adjusting the height of the first pair of support legs to a lower height than the height of the second pair of legs. Kieser teaches a first height adjustment knob for adjusting the height of the legs of the first pair of legs and a second height adjustment knob for adjusting the height of the legs of the second pair of legs (see claim 11 supra) and since the legs can be adjusted individually the platform is configured to be tilted by adjusting the height of the first pair of support legs to a lower height than the height of the second pair of legs. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by modified Tyler, with a first height adjustment knob for adjusting the height of the legs of the first pair of legs and a second height adjustment knob for adjusting the height of the legs of the second pair of legs so that the legs can be adjusted individually and the platform is configured to be tilted by adjusting the height of the first pair of support legs to a lower height than the height of the second pair of legs as taught by Kieser, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of the provision of an adjustable table the height of which may be easily adjusted without the need for tools (Col 1, lines 47-49).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US 20180311474 A1), in view of Keller (US 10349737 B2), as applied to claims 1, 8, and 9 above, and further in view of Wilmore (US 5357872 A).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Tyler, as modified in claims 1, 8 and 9, does not disclose a retaining member for retaining each of the plurality of legs in the stowed position, wherein the retaining member is attached to a bottom cover of the platform. Wilmore discloses a common design for folding tables (Figure 2), wherein the legs are capable of folding (Col 1, lines 34-41) and the table top includes leg retainers attached to the bottom of the table top (Col 3, lines 31-34, Figure 4 “42” and “42’”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by modified Tyler, with a retaining member for retaining each of the plurality of legs in the stowed position, wherein the retaining member is attached to a bottom cover of the platform as taught by Wilmore, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of preventing the legs from opening while being stored.
Claim(s) 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US 20180311474 A1), in view of Keller (US 10349737 B2), and further in view of Kieser (US 5758586 A).
Regarding claim 16, Tyler discloses a system for supporting a medical device (Abstract, Figure 6),, the system comprising a stabilizing base (Figure 6) comprising a first pair of legs (Figure 6, “120); a second pair of legs (Figure 6, “120”); a platform attached to the first pair of legs and the second pair of legs (Figure 6, “108”); a stabilizing system for receiving the medical device (Figure 6, “106”), wherein the stabilizing system is removably attachable to the platform (Figure 6, Clamp “148”).
Tyler does not disclose wherein each leg of the first pair of legs and the second pair of legs comprises an outer portion and an inner portion movably disposed within said outer portion and wherein the first pair of legs are pivotable between a stowed position and a deployed position and the second pair of legs are pivotable between a stowed position and a deployed position. Keller discloses a frame for a platform (Abstract), wherein the legs are height adjustable (Abstract). Keller further discloses each leg of the first pair of legs and the second pair of legs comprises an outer portion and an inner portion movably disposed within said outer portion (Keller, Col 8, lines 16-39). Keller also further discloses the first pair of legs are pivotable between a stowed position and a deployed position (Figure 1) and the second pair of legs are pivotable between a stowed position and a deployed position (Figure 1). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Tyler, wherein the frame system as taught by Keller is incorporated into the system of Tyler, so that one or more of the plurality of legs is adjustable to change a vertical position of the platform, since incorporating the frame system of Keller into Tyler would provide the predictable results of allowing platform to be optimally adjusted (Keller, Col 1, lines 14-15).
Tyler, as modified by Keller, does not disclose a first knob coupled to the first pair of legs configured to adjust the height of the first pair of legs; a second knob coupled to the second pair of legs configured to adjust the height of the second pair of legs; and wherein the height of the first pair of legs and the height of the second pair of legs are each in independently adjustable to change a vertical position of the platform, a horizontal position of the platform, and angular position of the platform. Kieser discloses an adjustable height table (Abstract) wherein a first knob coupled to the first pair of legs configured to adjust the height of the first pair of legs; a second knob coupled to the second pair of legs configured to adjust the height of the second pair of legs (Figure 1, Figure 5, knob “28”, threaded rod “90”). As Keiser discloses the legs are manipulated by individual knobs and drive mechanisms, the mechanisms of Keiser would allow Keiser to be configured to adjust the height of the first pair of legs and the height of the second pair of legs each independently in order to change the vertical position of the platform. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by modified Tyler, with a first height adjustment knob for adjusting the height of the legs of the first pair of legs and a second height adjustment knob for adjusting the height of the legs of the second pair of legs so the platform is configured to adjust the height of the first pair of legs and the height of the second pair of legs each independently in order to change the vertical position of the platform as taught by Kieser, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of the provision of an adjustable table the height of which may be easily adjusted without the need for tools (Keiser, Col 1, lines 47-49).
Regarding claim 18, modified Tyler fails to disclose each of the first pair of legs and the second pair of legs comprise an actuation shaft, a pair of drive gears, a pair of driven gears, and a pair of extension shafts; extendable portions of each support leg are attached to the extension shafts; wherein the drive gears are fixedly attached to the actuation shaft and the driven gears are fixedly attached to the extension shafts; and wherein rotating one of the first knob and the second knob rotates both of the extension shafts via the drive gears and driven gears to increase and decrease the height of the legs. Kieser discloses an adjustable height table (Abstract) wherein the table comprises a first knob (Figures 16-18, “176”), a second knob (Figures 16-18, “176”, the mechanism is duplicated for each leg, see figure 2), an actuation shaft (Figures 16-18, “160”), a pair of drive gears (Figures 16-18, “158”), a pair of driven gears (Figures 16-18, “156”), and a pair of extension shafts (Figures 16-18, “90”); extendable portions of each support leg are attached to the extension shafts (Figures 16-18, “82”); wherein the drive gears are fixedly attached to the actuation shaft and the driven gears are fixedly attached to the extension shafts (Figures 16-18); and wherein rotating one of the first knob and the second knob rotates both of the extension shafts via the drive gears and driven gears to increase and decrease the height of the legs (Col 9, line 41 to Col 10, line 53). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by modified Tyler, an actuation shaft, a pair of drive gears, a pair of driven gears, and a pair of extension shafts; extendable portions of each support leg are attached to the extension shafts; wherein the drive gears are fixedly attached to the actuation shaft and the driven gears are fixedly attached to the extension shafts; and wherein rotating one of the first knob and the second knob rotates both of the extension shafts via the drive gears and driven gears to increase and decrease the height of the legs as taught by Kieser, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of the provision of an adjustable table the height of which may be easily adjusted without the need for tools (Col 1, lines 47-49).
Regarding claim 19, modified Tyler previously disclosed a first height adjustment knob for adjusting the height of the legs of the first pair of legs and a second height adjustment knob for adjusting the height of the legs of the second pair of legs so the platform is configured to adjust the height of the first pair of legs and the height of the second pair of legs each independently (See claim 16 supra), which would enable the system to be configured to allow the platform to be tilted by adjusting the height of the first pair of support legs to a lower height than the height of the second pair of legs.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US 20180311474 A1), in view of Keller (US 10349737 B2) and Kieser (US 5758586 A), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Pinch (US 6058853 A).
Regarding claim 17, Tyler, as modified in claims 16, does not disclose a first strut for retaining the first pair of legs in the deployed position and a second strut for retaining the second pair of legs in the deployed position, wherein the first strut and the second strut are slideably attached to the platform and can be released to facilitate folding of the first and second pairs of legs from the deployed to the stowed position. Pinch discloses a common design for folding tables (Figure 3), wherein the table comprises a first strut for retaining the first pair of legs in the deployed position (Figure 4, “58”) and a second strut for retaining the second pair of legs in the deployed position (Figure 4, “58”, the leg design is the same for both sides), wherein the first strut and the second strut are slideably attached to the platform (Col 5, line 45 to Col 6, line 11) and can be released to facilitate folding of the first and second pairs of legs from the deployed to the stowed position (Col 5, line 45 to Col 6, line 11). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by modified Tyler, with the folding legs comprising a sliding strut as taught by Pinch, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of allowing the base to be stored when not in use while also providing additional strength to the legs when folded out (Col 1, lines 57-64).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc D Honrath whose telephone number is (571)272-6219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Charles A Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/M.D.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights