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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
in fig. 3, oblique hatching impedes the clear reading of one of the arrows (MPEP 1825, PCT Rule 11.13.b).
in figs. 1-5, instead of oblique hatch lines, dark shading is used to for cross-sections (MPEP 1825, PCT Rule 11.13.b).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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(s) 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(s) is/are the following:
In claim 1, “ventilation device” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitations are “ventilation” and “configured to generate an airflow.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “blower,” a “pump,” or an “impeller.”
In claims 6 and 17, “externalized assembly” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The generic placeholder is “assembly” and the functional limitation is “configured to display the airflow.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “wind blades” or a “turbine” and a “transparent lid.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Recommend amending claim 12 to recite: “an airflow generating device.”
Claim 13 is a duplicate of claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN-212912888-U, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Li et al. (WO-2020000911-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a lid assembly (lid assembly 100, fig. 1), comprising:
an upper lid (upper surface of lid body 10, fig. 2) having a first mounting region (annotated in fig. 2 below) and a second mounting region (annotated in fig. 2 below) in a projection of the upper lid on a first plane (plane of the drawing in fig. 2), the first mounting region and the second mounting region being spaced apart from each other (the construed “first mounting region” and the “second mounting region” are spaced apart from each other, annotated fig. 2), the first plane being perpendicular to a thickness direction (depth direction (not shown) in fig. 2; the thickness direction is the height of the pot lid assembly; this height dimension is the depth direction (not shown) in fig. 2) of the upper lid and a through hole (annotated in fig. 2 below) being formed in the first mounting region; and
a ventilation device (ventilation device 20, fig. 3; the airflow generation device 22 can be a “fan,” para 0078; a fan is construed as being equivalent to a “blower”) configured to generate an airflow (para 0056) and connected to the upper lid wherein the ventilation device is disposed in the second mounting region (the ventilation device 20 is in the view window 11, fig. 2).
Huang, fig. 2 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
782
936
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Huang does not explicitly disclose a first predetermined value; the through hole configured to discharge steam.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking apparatuses, Li teaches a first predetermined value (distance L between 182 and 151 in fig. 1; the distance L is construed as being a distance between 10 mm and 60 mm, page 3; air enters through suction ports 151 and exits through steam outlet 182, pages 13-14); the through hole configured to discharge steam (“steam will be vented via the steam inlet 181, the steam line 182, and the steam outlet 182,” page 13).
Li, fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
558
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huang, in view of the teachings of Li, by using a distance L that is between 10 and 60 mm, as taught by Li, between the construed first and second mounting regions, as taught by Huang, and by venting steam, as taught by Li, through the construed through hole, as taught by Li, in order to use a distance that is optimized as a results-effective variable, because if the distance is too small, then hot steam that is intended to be discharged through outlet 182 will instead return through port 151, reducing the desired cooling of the heating chamber, and if the distance is too large, then steam that is vented exits discontinuously and in low concentrations, and because in order for the steam to exit out of the cover, there needs to be a steam outlet on the top side of the cover (Li, pages 13-14; Huang, para 0069).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Huang teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first predetermined value is greater than or equal to 20 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking apparatuses, Li teaches wherein the first predetermined value (distance L between 182 and 151 in fig. 1) is greater than or equal to 20 mm (the distance L is construed as being a distance between 10 mm and 60 mm, page 3, which overlaps with the claimed range of greater than or equal to 20 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huang, in view of the teachings of Li, by using a distance L that is between 10 and 60 mm, as taught by Li, between the construed first and second mounting regions, as taught by Huang, in order to use a distance that is optimized as a results-effective variable, because if the distance is too small, then hot steam that is intended to be discharged through outlet 182 will instead return through port 151, reducing the desired cooling of the heating chamber, and if the distance is too large, then steam that is vented exits discontinuously and in low concentrations (Li, pages 13-14) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 3, Huang teaches wherein: the upper lid further has a third mounting region (annotated in fig. 2 above) spaced apart from each of the first mounting region and the second mounting region (the construed “first mounting region” and the “second mounting region” are spaced apart from the construed “third mounting region,” annotated fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Huang teaches wherein: the ventilation device comprises an airflow generating device (airflow generating device 22, fig. 3) configured to generate the airflow in an operating state (“the cooking chamber 2102 is connected to the airflow generating device 22 ,” para 0056).
Regarding claim 6, Huang teaches wherein the ventilation device (ventilation device 20, fig. 3) further comprises an externalized assembly (wind duct 23 and moving part 21, fig. 3; the duct 23 is “transparent,” para 0075 and is construed as being a transparent lid; the moving part is a “turbine or impeller,” para 0013) in communication with the airflow generating device (air flows and is in communication between the duct 23 and the generating device 22, para 0052), the externalized assembly being configured to display the airflow (para 0050).
Regarding claim 7, Huang teaches wherein the second mounting region is located between the first mounting region and the third mounting region (in the annotated fig. 2 above, the construed second mounting region is between the construed first and third mounting regions).
Regarding claim 8, Huang teaches wherein the externalized assembly (wind duct 23 and moving part 21, fig. 3) comprises:
a movable component (moving part 21, fig. 3) configured to move under pushing of the airflow generated by the airflow generating device (paras 0053 and 0060); and
a transparent lid (wind duct 23, fig. 3; the duct 23 is “transparent,” para 0075) disposed above the movable component (moving part 21, fig. 3) and configured to observe movement of the movable component (para 0057).
Regarding claim 9, Huang teaches wherein:
the upper lid (upper surface of lid body 10, fig. 2) has a first accommodation cavity (space inside duct 23, fig. 3; para 0058), the movable component being accommodated within the first accommodation cavity (“the moving part 21 is disposed in the air duct 23,” para 0057) and the transparent lid being fixedly connected to the upper lid to close an opening at an end of the first accommodation cavity (“the second viewing window 231 of the air duct 23 is corresponding to the first viewing window 11 of the cover 10,” para 0057; construed such that the window 231 is the window 11, which is fixedly connected to the cover 10 and which closes the space above the duct 23, figs. 2-3); or
the externalized assembly (wind duct 23 and fan blade 222, fig. 6; the fan blade 222 is construed as the claimed “movable component”) further comprises a housing (housing 221, fig. 6), the housing having a second accommodation cavity (space inside housing 221, fig. 6), the movable component (fan blade 222, fig. 6) being accommodated within the second accommodation cavity (para 0063), the transparent lid being connected to the housing to close an opening at an end of the second accommodation cavity (window 2211 covers the housing 221, fig. 6), wherein the externalized assembly is fixedly connected to the upper lid (“the third viewing window 2211 of the housing 221 is corresponding to the first viewing window 11 of the cover 10,” para 0063; construed such that the window 2211 is the window 11, which is fixedly connected to the cover 10 and which closes the space above the housing 221, para 0064).
Regarding claim 10, Huang teaches a cooking apparatus (cooking appliance 200, fig. 7), comprising:
the lid assembly (lid assembly 100, fig. 1) according to claim 1 (please see the rejection for claim 1 above); and
a body (body of pot assembly 210, fig. 8) having a cooking cavity (cavity 2102, fig. 8) with an opening at an end of the body (opening at the top of assembly 210, fig. 8), wherein:
the lid assembly is configured to expose or close the opening of the cooking cavity (lid assembly 100 closes or covers over the assembly 210, para 0071); and
the ventilation device (ventilation device 20, fig. 3) is configured to generate an airflow to disturb gas in the cooking cavity (“ventilating” the cavity 2102 is construed as disturbing the gas in the cavity, para 0071).
Regarding claim 11, Huang teaches wherein the lid assembly further comprises a control panel disposed in the third mounting region (annotated in fig. 2 below).
Huang, fig. 2 (annotated)
PNG
media_image3.png
674
813
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Huang teaches wherein: the upper lid further has a third mounting region (annotated in fig. 2 above) spaced apart from each of the first mounting region and the second mounting region (the construed “first mounting region” and the “second mounting region” are spaced apart from the construed “third mounting region,” annotated fig. 2); and the lid assembly further comprises a control panel disposed in the third mounting region (annotated in fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 18, Huang teaches wherein the second mounting region is located between the first mounting region and the third mounting region (in the annotated fig. 2 above, the construed second mounting region is between the construed first and third mounting regions).
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN-212912888-U, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Li et al. (WO-2020000911-A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, 10, and 14 above and further in view of Zhu et al. (CN-109549460-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 4, Huang teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second mounting region and the third mounting region are spaced apart from each other by a second predetermined value greater than or equal to 20 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking apparatuses, Zhu teaches wherein the second mounting region (outer cover 30, fig. 5) and the third mounting region (panel 20, fig. 5) are spaced apart from each other by a second predetermined value greater than or equal to 20 mm (“the distance between the midpoint of each side and the inner wall of the outer cover 30 is represented by L2 …it can be… 20 mm,” para 0047).
Zhu, fig. 5
PNG
media_image4.png
750
716
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huang, in view of the teachings of Zhu, by using a distance of 20 mm, as taught by Zhu, as the distance between the construed second and third mounting regions, as taught by Huang, where the distance is a results-effective variable that should be optimized in order to avoid contact between the panel and the window 11 but the distance is not so far that the control panel is unreliably fixed to the cover 10 or so far as to detract from actual needs, e.g., the wiring between the control panel and the heater (Zhu, para 0047).
Regarding claim 15, Huang teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second mounting region and the third mounting region are spaced apart from each other by a second predetermined value greater than or equal to 20 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking apparatuses, Zhu teaches wherein the second mounting region (outer cover 30, fig. 5) and the third mounting region (panel 20, fig. 5) are spaced apart from each other by a second predetermined value greater than or equal to 20 mm (“the distance between the midpoint of each side and the inner wall of the outer cover 30 is represented by L2 …it can be… 20 mm,” para 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huang, in view of the teachings of Zhu, by using a distance of 20 mm, as taught by Zhu, as the distance between the construed second and third mounting regions, as taught by Huang, where the distance is a results-effective variable that should be optimized in order to avoid contact between the panel and the window 11 but the distance is not so far that the control panel is unreliably fixed to the cover 10 or so far as to detract from actual needs, e.g., the wiring between the control panel and the heater (Zhu, para 0047).
Claims 12, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN-212912888-U, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Li et al. (WO-2020000911-A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, 10-11, and 14 above and further in view of Gong et al. (CN-112806828-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 12, Huang teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the control panel is configured to control the airflow generating device to operate.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking apparatuses, Gong teaches wherein the control panel (control unit 206, fig. 2) is configured to control the airflow generating device to operate (the control unit initiates a command signal for the ventilation component if the freshness of the aged material is lower than a predetermined standard, para 0029).
Gong, fig. 2
PNG
media_image5.png
530
478
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huang, in view of the teachings of Gong, by using the construed control panel to control the ventilation device 20, as taught by Huang, when the freshness of the aged material is lower than a predetermined standard, as taught by Gong, in order to ventilate based on the type of rice, because the ventilation time should be adjusted based on the type of rice to improve the efficiency of removing rice odor substances (Gong, para 0071).
Regarding claim 16, Huang teaches wherein: the ventilation device comprises an airflow generating device (airflow generating device 22, fig. 3) configured to generate the airflow in an operating state (“the cooking chamber 2102 is connected to the airflow generating device 22 ,” para 0056).
Huang does not explicitly disclose the control panel is configured to control the airflow generating device to operate.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking apparatuses, Gong teaches the control panel (control unit 206, fig. 2) is configured to control the airflow generating device to operate (the control unit initiates a command signal for the ventilation component if the freshness of the aged material is lower than a predetermined standard, para 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huang, in view of the teachings of Gong, by using the construed control panel to control the ventilation device 20, as taught by Huang, when the freshness of the aged material is lower than a predetermined standard, as taught by Gong, in order to ventilate based on the type of rice, because the ventilation time should be adjusted based on the type of rice to improve the efficiency of removing rice odor substances (Gong, para 0071).
Regarding claim 17, Huang teaches wherein the ventilation device (ventilation device 20, fig. 3) further comprises an externalized assembly (wind duct 23 and moving part 21, fig. 3; the duct 23 is “transparent,” para 0075 and is construed as being a transparent lid; the moving part is a “turbine or impeller,” para 0013) in communication with the airflow generating device (air flows and is in communication between the duct 23 and the generating device 22, para 0052), the externalized assembly being configured to display the airflow (para 0050).
Regarding claim 19, Huang teaches wherein the externalized assembly (wind duct 23 and moving part 21, fig. 3) comprises:
a movable component (moving part 21, fig. 3) configured to move under pushing of the airflow generated by the airflow generating device (paras 0053 and 0060); and
a transparent lid (wind duct 23, fig. 3; the duct 23 is “transparent,” para 0075) disposed above the movable component (moving part 21, fig. 3) and configured to observe movement of the movable component (para 0057).
Regarding claim 20, Huang teaches wherein:
the upper lid (upper surface of lid body 10, fig. 2) has a first accommodation cavity (space inside duct 23, fig. 3; para 0058), the movable component being accommodated within the first accommodation cavity (“the moving part 21 is disposed in the air duct 23,” para 0057) and the transparent lid being fixedly connected to the upper lid to close an opening at an end of the first accommodation cavity (“the second viewing window 231 of the air duct 23 is corresponding to the first viewing window 11 of the cover 10,” para 0057; construed such that the window 231 is the window 11, which is fixedly connected to the cover 10 and which closes the space above the duct 23, figs. 2-3); or
the externalized assembly (wind duct 23 and fan blade 222, fig. 6; the fan blade 222 is construed as the claimed “movable component”) further comprises a housing (housing 221, fig. 6), the housing having a second accommodation cavity (space inside housing 221, fig. 6), the movable component (fan blade 222, fig. 6) being accommodated within the second accommodation cavity (para 0063), the transparent lid being connected to the housing to close an opening at an end of the second accommodation cavity (window 2211 covers the housing 221, fig. 6), wherein the externalized assembly is fixedly connected to the upper lid (“the third viewing window 2211 of the housing 221 is corresponding to the first viewing window 11 of the cover 10,” para 0063; construed such that the window 2211 is the window 11, which is fixedly connected to the cover 10 and which closes the space above the housing 221, para 0064).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Linnewiel et al. (US-9353954-B2) teach ventilation of coking devices.
Gill et al. (US-20190231127-A1) teach a cooking device that includes a ventilation device.
Luo et al. (US-20240115067-A1) teach an application similar to the Instant Application
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 6/4/2026
Prosecution Insights