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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Argentina on 3/29/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the AR 1323821 and ARP 20210100780 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 12/5/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/5/2025.
The claim status is:
Claims 1-17 are examined on the merits;
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn;
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 4, 15-17 is/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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said EGC electrocardiograph" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 1 recites “an electrocardiograph ECG” with “ECG” instead of “EGC”. Claim terms should be consistent through the claim set.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the instruments" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates (US 20180365383 A1; 12/20/2018) in view of Bergougnan (US 20150294079 A1; 10/15/2015; cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Bates teaches an interactive remote clinical examination platform device (IRCEPD) comprising a power management unit (Fig. 2, 230), a rechargeable battery (Fig. 2, 232; [0060]; it is inherent that such a battery is rechargeable since devices commonly known to have/utilize rechargeable batteries are used such as “tablet computer…smart phone” in [0121]), a CPU (Fig. 2, 202; Fig. 5, 501; [0116]; [0119]), a memory ([0116]), an external communication WiFi circuit and a WiFi ([0019]) and BlueTooth® antenna (Fig. 1; [0059]; [0117]), and an internal instrument expansion circuit (Fig. 1-3; Fig. 5; [0027]; [0032] multiple medical instrument equipment are used/attached to system via controller which reads on “expansion circuit”), comprising a group of instruments formed by, but not limited to:
an electrocardiograph ECG ([0033] “Electrocardiography”);
a plethysmograph and pulse oximeter ([0033]; [0054]; [0072] “pulse oximeter”; blood measurements and oximetry read on the recited limitations);
Bates does not teach a pharyngoscope and dermatoscope. Note that Bates teaches taking images of throat, skin, ears ([0041]). However, Bergougnan teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 1) a pharyngoscope and dermatoscope ([0031] “dermatoscope…pharyngoscope”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Bates to include these features as taught by Bergougnan because this enables measuring vital signs with these devices ([0006]).
The combination of Bates and Bergougnan teaches an otoscope (Bates [0054] “otoscopes”);
a contact-free clinical thermometer (Bates [0055] “contact-less thermometer”); and
a digital electronic stethoscope (Bates [0054] “digital stethoscopes”).
Regarding claim 14, in the combination of Bates and Bergougnan, Bates teaches further comprising a clinical instrument selected from a group consisting of, but not limited to: a blood pressure meter derived from the oximeter and contained inside the IRCEPD; a blood pressure meter connected to the IRCEPD via Bluetooth® ([0053] “wireless”; [0054] “blood pressure meters”; [0059] “Bluetooth”); a spirometer contained inside the IRCEPD ([0054] “spirometers”); a spirometer connected to the IRCEPD via Bluetooth® ([0053] “wireless”; [0054] “spirometers”; [0059] “Bluetooth”); a bilirubinometer contained inside the IRCEPD; and an abdominal or cardiac ultrasound transducer contained inside the IRCEPD ([0033] “ultrasound”; [0041] “ultrasound”).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates and Bergougnan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blair (US 20160109371 A1; 4/21/2016; cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bates and Bergougnan does not teach further comprising a test strip analyzer spectrometer for rapid analysis by real-time spectroscopy. However, Blair teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 1) further comprising a test strip analyzer spectrometer for rapid analysis by real-time spectroscopy ([0021]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Bates and Bergougnan to include this feature as taught by Blair because this enables additional physiological data that can be obtained remotely (Fig. 1; [0021]; [0045]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates and Bergougnan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Worrell (US 20140018779 A1; 1/16/2014).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bates and Bergougnan does not teach wherein said power management unit comprise a wireless battery charger and a voltage regulator. However, Worrell teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 1) power management unit comprise a wireless battery charger and a voltage regulator ([0088] “transformers”; [0089] “to recharge batteries…the charging cradles include non-contact chargers, which can wirelessly transfer power to the instruments, such as through inductive transfer of energy using an electromagnetic field.”; it is inherent that such non-contact charging requires voltage regulator). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Bates and Bergougnan to include these features as taught by Worrell because this enables convenient powering of the instruments ([0089]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates and Bergougnan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Acquista (US 20170258402 A1; 9/14/2017) evidenced by Wikipedia (Operational amplifier; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_amplifier; accessed 12/17/2025).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bates and Bergougnan does not teach wherein said EGC electrocardiograph comprises a pair of electrodes connected to a programmable gain high impedance preamplifier, a plurality of filters and an A/D converter. However, Acquista teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract) wherein said EGC electrocardiograph comprises a pair of electrodes ([0050] “electrodes”) connected to a programmable gain high impedance preamplifier ([0050] “gain of each amplifier 230 can be adjusted…characteristics of each (gain, filtering…may be programmable”; Fig. 2A, 230 depicts op-amp diagram, as evidenced by Wikipedia, such amplifiers are high impedance “high input impedance at the input terminals”), a plurality of filters ([0050]) and an A/D converter ([0050]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Bates and Bergougnan to include these features as taught by Acquista because this enables wireless ECG monitoring (Fig. 3; [0002]; [0050]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates and Bergougnan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sethi (US 20090326386 A1; 12/31/2009).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bates and Bergougnan does not teach wherein said plethysmograph and pulse oximeter comprises an emitter for generating green/red LED pulsed light and an emitter for generating LED infrared pulsed light, both fed by a driver and controlled by the CPU by means of an internal pulse sequencer, and an optical window through which said pulsed light and said pulsed infrared light are applied to a patient; and wherein the device further comprises a measurement photosensor and a first A/D converter for the photosensor. However, Sethi teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 2) wherein said plethysmograph and pulse oximeter comprises an emitter for generating green/red LED pulsed light and an emitter for generating LED infrared pulsed light (Fig. 2; [0029]; [0035]-[0036]; [0041]), both fed by a driver and controlled by the CPU by means of an internal pulse sequencer (Fig. 3; [0036]; [0040]-[0042]), and an optical window through which said pulsed light and said pulsed infrared light are applied to a patient (Fig. 2); and wherein the device further comprises a measurement photosensor and a first A/D converter for the photosensor (Fig. 2). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Bates and Bergougnan to include these features as taught by Sethi because this enables continuous measuring of PPG (Fig. 2; Abstract).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates, Bergougnan, and Sethi as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Sahin (US 20150099946 A1; 4/9/2015), and further in view of Allec (US 20170325698 A1; 11/16/2017).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bates, Bergougnan, and Sethi does not teach further comprising an ambient light photosensor that provides an ambient light cancellation system to increase sensitivity and homogeneity measurement through different types of skin, and wherein the intensity of the ambient light level signal is injected to the CPU via a second A/D converter. However, Sahin teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 1) further comprising an ambient light photosensor that provides an ambient light cancellation system (Fig. 12; [0282] “pulse oximetry…photodiodes”; [0283] “One or more sensors communicating with the sensor interface 1230 can be used as a comparator or verification element, for example to filter, cancel, or reject other signals. For instance, a light sensor can pick up ambient light or color changes and use them to subtract or otherwise correct light-based signals”), and wherein the intensity of the ambient light level signal is injected to the CPU via a second A/D converter (Fig. 12; [0283]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Bates, Bergougnan, and Sethi to include these features as taught by Sahin because this enables obtaining more accurate signals ([0283]).
The combination of Bates, Bergougnan, Sethi, and Sahin does not explitly teach the ambient light cancellation system is to increase sensitivity and homogeneity measurement through different types of skin. For the purposes of examination, Applicant is reminded that this is a product claim. Intended use/functional language does not require that reference specifically teach the intended use of the element. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim; thus the ambient light cancelation as taught by Sahin ([0283]) would meet this limitation. However, for the sake of clarity of the record and to avoid doubt, Allec teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract) the ambient light cancellation system to increase sensitivity and homogeneity measurement through different types of skin ([0070] “cancel out any noise due to…ambient light”; [0145] “dynamically reconfigure…based on…user skin type”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Bates, Bergougnan, Sethi, and Sahin to include this feature as taught by Allec because this enables improved PPG signal ([0070]; [0145])
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates, Bergougnan, and Sethi as applied to claim 5 above, evidenced by Allec (US 20170325698 A1; 11/16/2017).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bates, Bergougnan, and Sethi teaches wherein, for the determination of a plethysmographic curve and oxygen saturation value of a patient, the device is capable of measuring the reflection of light modulated by the patient's blood vessels that expand and contract depending on the blood pulse that passes through them and, based on the fact that oxygenated hemoglobin absorbs more infrared light and allows more red light to pass while hemoglobin without oxygen absorbs more red light and allows more infrared to pass through, the device is capable of obtaining the plethysmographic curve and SpO2 oxygen saturation level (Sethi [0041]; the recited limitations are inherent to how PPG is measured as evidenced by Allec Fig. 9A-9B; [0061]; [0113]).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates and Bergougnan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boucher (US 20180353073 A1; 12/13/2018).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bates and Bergougnan does not teach wherein said pharyngoscope and dermatoscope comprises a camera and an optics and a LED (20a) to provide lighting powered by an LED driver, and wherein the camera and the LED driver are connected to the processor to perform a throat examination with adjustable illumination of compensated spectrum. However, Boucher teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 1) wherein said pharyngoscope (Fig. 34-35; Fig. 72-74; [0338] “throat visualizers”; [0357]; [0401] “to look into the throat (e.g. laryngoscope)”) and dermatoscope ([0365] “dermatoscopes”; [0401] “dermatoscope”) comprises a camera ([0021] “camera”; [0365]) and an optics (Fig. 34-36; [0295]-[0296]) and a LED (20a) ([0210] “LED”; [0295]) to provide lighting powered by an LED driver ([0286]; [0295]), and wherein the camera and the LED driver are connected to the processor to perform a throat examination with adjustable illumination of compensated spectrum ([0286] “lights may automatically be adjusted for intensity or angle”; [0176] “the provider may view the diagnostic information in real time and/or remotely control aspects of the diagnostic device (such as zooming, angling the camera, adjusting lighting, etc).). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Bates and Bergougnan to include these features as taught by Boucher because this enables remote inspection/diagnosis of throat (Fig. 1-2; [0002]; [0005]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bates and Bergougnan does not teach wherein said an otoscope comprises a camera, a lens for ear examination with a disposable and sanitizable removable speculum, and a LED to provide adjustable illumination of compensated spectrum inside the ear canal, and wherein the camera through a control interface and the driver of LEDs are connected to the processor. However, Boucher teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 1) wherein said an otoscope comprises a camera, a lens for ear examination (Fig. 34-35; [0340]) with a disposable and sanitizable removable speculum ([0342]; [0351]), and a LED ([0210] “LED”; [0295]) to provide adjustable illumination of compensated spectrum inside the ear canal (Fig. 36; [0340]; [0286] “lights may automatically be adjusted for intensity or angle”; [0176] “the provider may view the diagnostic information in real time and/or remotely control aspects of the diagnostic device (such as zooming, angling the camera, adjusting lighting, etc).), and wherein the camera through a control interface and the driver of LEDs are connected to the processor (Fig. 34-36; [0176]; [0286]; [0344]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Bates and Bergougnan to include these features as taught by Boucher because this enables remote inspection/diagnosis of ear (Fig. 1-2; [0002]; [0005]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates and Bergougnan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khachaturian (US 20190350470 A1; 11/21/2019).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bates and Bergougnan does not teach wherein said clinical thermometer comprises an infrared proximity body temperature sensor and a room temperature sensor, both connected to a third A/D converter. However, Khachaturian teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; [0003]) wherein said clinical thermometer comprises an infrared proximity body temperature sensor and a room temperature sensor, both connected to a third A/D converter (Fig.l 17; [0277]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Bates and Bergougnan to include these features as taught by Khachaturian because this enables reducing measurement error of temperature ([0277]).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates and Bergougnan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Verma (US 20180160907 A1; 6/14/2018).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Bates and Bergougnan does not teach wherein said digital electronic stethoscope comprises environmental noise cancellation processors, with gain and adjustable filters for auscultation with specialized filters. However, Verma teaches in the same field of endeavor (Fig. 1) wherein said digital electronic stethoscope comprises environmental noise cancellation processors, with gain and adjustable filters for auscultation with specialized filters (Fig. 1; Fig. 5; [0024] “filtering”; [0045] “control the digital filter”; [0051] “cancel the background noise…configured in these modes”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Bates and Bergougnan to include these features as taught by Verma because this enables remote telehealth with stethoscope (Fig. 1; [0015]).
Regarding claim 12, in the combination of Bates, Bergougnan, and Verma, Verma teaches wherein said specialized filters of said electronic stethoscope are applied to auscultate selected organs from a group consisting of: heart ([0024]; [0051] “heart”), abdomen ([0051] “abdomen”), lungs ([0024]; [0051] “lung”), vascular tracts.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates, Bergougnan, and Blair as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Cunningham (US 20190145889 A1; 5/16/2019).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Bates, Bergougnan, and Blair does not teach wherein said test strip analyzer spectrometer comprises a sequencer, a wide spectrum LED light emitter fed by a driver, a plurality of photosensors of different wavelengths calibrated to conform a spectral analysis and that feed their signal to a correction amplifier and with spectrum selection which is connected to an A/D converter that sends the data to the CPU. However, Cunningham teaches in the same field of endeavor ([0003] “point-of-use applications”) wherein said test strip analyzer spectrometer comprises a sequencer (interpreted in light of instant specification [001888]; Cunningham Fig. 8A-9B; [0052]), a wide spectrum LED light emitter fed by a driver (Fig. 8A-9B; [0052]; [0054] “broadband LED”), a plurality of photosensors of different wavelengths calibrated to conform a spectral analysis and that feed their signal to a correction amplifier and with spectrum selection which is connected to an A/D converter that sends the data to the CPU (Fig; 9A-9B; [0045]-[0046]; [0069] “corrected”; [0070]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Bates, Bergougnan, and Blair to include these features as taught by Cunningham because this enables “host of point-of-use medical diagnostic” ([0075]).
Claim(s) 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates (US 20180365383 A1; 12/20/2018) in view of Worrell (US 20140018779 A1; 1/16/2014), and further in view of Bergougnan (US 20150294079 A1; 10/15/2015; cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 15, Bates teaches an interactive remote clinical examination platform assembly, comprising:
a) an interactive remote clinical examination platform device IRCEPD (Fig. 1-2).
Bates does not teach b) a wireless charging base. However, Worrell teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 1) a wireless charging base ([0089] “to recharge batteries…the charging cradles include non-contact chargers, which can wirelessly transfer power to the instruments, such as through inductive transfer of energy using an electromagnetic field.”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Bates to include these features as taught by Worrell because this enables convenient powering of the instruments ([0089]).
The combination of Bates and Worrell teaches c) a cell phone in a support base so that the patient can interact with the doctor with image and sound with the doctor without occupying his hands (Bates Fig. 1; [0018]; [0121]; Worrell Fig. 1; Fig. 35; [0007]);
d) a set of accessories for the instruments of the IRCEPD (Bates Fig. 1-3; [00321]-[0034]; Worrell Fig. 5; [0080]; [0118] “accessory”).
The combination of Bates and Worrell does not teach e) a dermatoscope adapter. Note that Bates teaches taking images of throat, skin, ears ([0041]). However, Bergougnan teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 1) a dermatoscope adapter ([0031] “dermatoscope”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Bates to include these features as taught by Bergougnan because this enables measuring vital signs with these devices ([0006]).
The combination of Bates, Worrell, and Bergougnan teaches and an otoscope adapter (Bates [0053] “otoscopes”; Worrell [0091] “otoscope”; Bergougnan claim 2 “dermatoscope…otoscope”).
Regarding claim 17, in the combination of Bates, Worrell, and Bergougnan, Bates teaches further comprising a clinical instrument selected from a group consisting of, but not limited to: a blood pressure meter derived from the oximeter and contained inside the IRCEPD; a blood pressure meter connected to the IRCEPD via Bluetooth® ([0053] “wireless”; [0054] “blood pressure meters”; [0059] “Bluetooth”); a spirometer contained inside the IRCEPD ([0054] “spirometers”); a spirometer connected to the IRCEPD via Bluetooth® ([0053] “wireless”; [0054] “spirometers”; [0059] “Bluetooth”); a bilirubinometer contained inside the IRCEPD; and an abdominal or cardiac ultrasound transducer contained inside the IRCEPD ([0033] “ultrasound”; [0041] “ultrasound”).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Bates, Worrell, and Bergougnan as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Blair (US 20160109371 A1; 4/21/2016; cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bates, Worrell, and Bergougnan does not teach further comprising: f) reagent strips for rapid analysis in the real-time spectroscope. However, Blair teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 1) further comprising: f) reagent strips for rapid analysis in the real-time spectroscope ([0021]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Bates and Bergougnan to include this feature as taught by Blair because this enables additional physiological data that can be obtained remotely (Fig. 1; [0021]; [0045]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan T Kuo whose telephone number is (408)918-7534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. PT.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/JONATHAN T KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights