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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 07/24/2025. The objections to the drawing and claims as well as the claim interpretations have been withdrawn. Furthermore, the previous 35 USC 112 rejections have also been withdrawn. Claims 1-10 remain pending for consideration.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athanasiou (DE102012202790A1), in view of Lee et al. (US20100122543A1, herein after referred to as Lee), and in further view of Yagi (JP2011021814A).
Regarding claim 1, Athanasiou teaches a control method (the method of controlling heater 205 Fig. 2 of Ice maker 201 described in paragraph [0048]) of an ice making device (ice maker 201 Fig. 2), comprising: receiving first detection data (understood to be any signal generated by the disclosed “capacitive liquid sensor” in paragraph [0048] that would indicate the presence of ice in water line 203 Fig. 2) of a detection sensor (disclosed “capacitive liquid sensor” in paragraph [0048]) on an ice-making water injection pipe (water line 203 Fig. 2) in an ice making process (the ice making process described in paragraph [0037]); judging whether water or ice exists (paragraph [0048] where it is disclosed that the state of the water inside water line 203 is being determined by a capacitive liquid sensor) in the ice-making water injection pipe according to the first detection data (paragraph [0048]); turning on a heating assembly (heater 205 Fig. 2 and paragraph [0038]) comprising a heating wire (disclosed “heating coil” in paragraph [0036]) wound around an outer wall of the ice-making water injection pipe (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0036]) when water or ice exists in the ice-making water injection pipe (Fig. 3 and paragraph [0038] where one embodiment of Athanasiou teaches that heater 205 is designed to on when water or ice is present in water line 203 since heater 205 maintains water line 203 at a temperature above 2 degrees Celsius even 10 minutes into the ice making process); and turning off the heating assembly (paragraph [0038] where heater 205 is turned off interval “b” elapses).
Athanasiou teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the first detection data of the detection sensor is received at an interval of a first preset time”.
However, Lee teaches a first detection data (the temperatures detected periodically by temperature sensor 141 in step S4 Fig. 7 and paragraph [0051] correspond to the first detection data of Athanasiou) of a detection sensor (temperature sensor 141 Fig. 2 corresponds to the detection sensor of Athanasiou) is received at an interval of a first preset time (paragraph [0042] where it is understood that the temperatures periodically detected by temperature sensor 141 in step S4 is done by the sensor at a predetermined time interval).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Athanasiou to include “the first detection data of the detection sensor is received at an interval of a first preset time” in view of the teachings of Lee to obtain a temperature that is indicative of a steady-state condition of the ice-making water injection pipe.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “turning off the heating assembly when no water exists in the ice-making water injection pipe”.
However, Yagi teaches turning off a heating assembly (step S29 in paragraph [0032] where pipe heater 24 Fig. 1 corresponds to the heating assembly of Athanasiou) when no water exists in an ice-making water injection pipe (paragraphs [0031] to [0032] where water supply pipe 22 Fig. 1 corresponds to the ice-making water injection pipe of Athanasiou) to prevent the remaining melted water in the ice-making water injection pipe “to form a drop of water droplets dropped on the top surface of the ice” (paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “turning off the heating assembly when no water exists in the ice-making water injection pipe” in view of the teachings of Yagi to prevent the remaining melted water in the ice-making water injection pipe “to form a drop of water droplets dropped on the top surface of the ice”.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athanasiou, in view of Lee, in view of Yagi, in view of Lee (KR20050099887A, herein after referred to as Lee’87), and in further view of Park et al. (US20120222433A1, herein after referred to as Park).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein after the step of turning on the heating assembly when water or ice exists in the ice- making water injection pipe (paragraphs [0047] and [0048] of Athanasiou), the method further comprises: receiving second detection data of the detection sensor (the temperatures detected by temperature sensor 141 in step S7 Fig. 7 and paragraph [0052] of Lee) at an interval of a second heating time (paragraph [0042] of Lee where it is understood that the temperatures detected by temperature sensor 141 in step S7 is done by the sensor at a predetermined time interval); judging whether the water or ice exists in the ice-making water injection pipe according to the second detection data (step S7 Fig. 7 and paragraph [0052] of Lee where the detected temperatures determine the formation or not of ice).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the method further comprises: judging whether a first heating time is exceeded; receiving the second detection data of the detection sensor when the first heating time is not exceeded”.
However, Lee’87 teaches a method (the method illustrated in Fig. 4 corresponds to the method of Athanasiou) further comprises: judging whether a first heating time (disclosed “predetermined time” in paragraphs [6] and [7] of page 4) is exceeded; receiving a second detection data (the disclosed “temperature of the ice making sensor” in paragraph [7] page 4 corresponds to the second detection data of Lee) of a detection sensor (the disclosed “ice making sensor” in paragraph [7] page 4 corresponds to the detection sensor of Athanasiou) when the first heating time is not exceeded (paragraph [7] page 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the method further comprises: judging whether a first heating time is exceeded; receiving the second detection data of the detection sensor when the first heating time is not exceeded” in view of the teachings of Lee’87 to prevent the heating assembly to reach an overheating temperature.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the method further comprises: the second heating time being shorter than the first heating time”.
However, Park teaches a method (the method illustrated in Fig. 5 corresponds to the method of Athanasiou) further comprises: a second heating time (the disclosed “first drive time” in paragraph [0069] corresponds to the second heating time of Lee) being shorter than a first heating time (the disclosed “second drive time” in paragraph [0069] corresponds to the first heating time of Lee’87).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the method further comprises: the second heating time being shorter than the first heating time” in view of the teachings of Park to operate the heating assembly for a longer or shorter period of time based on the amount of defrosting needed.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athanasiou, in view of Lee, in view of Yagi, in view of Lee’87, in view of Park, and in further view of An (KR101139419B1).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein after the step of judging whether the first heating time is exceeded (paragraphs [6] and [7] of page 4 of Lee’87).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the method further comprises: turning off the heating assembly when the first heating time is exceeded; and displaying ice-making water injection pipe freezing information on a display panel”.
However, An teaches a method (the method illustrated in Fig. 3 corresponds to the method of Athanasiou) further comprises: turning off a heating assembly (heater 15 Fig. 2 corresponds to the heating assembly of Athanasiou) when a first heating time (the disclosed “preset time” in paragraph [9] page 4 corresponds to the first heating time of Lee’87) is exceeded (paragraph [9] page 4); and displaying ice-making water injection pipe freezing information (disclosed “error” in paragraph [10] page 4) on a display panel (display unit 18 Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the method further comprises: turning off the heating assembly when the first heating time is exceeded; and displaying ice-making water injection pipe freezing information on a display panel” in view of the teachings of An to provide visual information to a user about an error status of the ice maker.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein after the step of displaying the ice-making water injection pipe freezing information on the display panel (paragraph [10] page 4 of An), the method further comprises: checking whether the ice-making water injection pipe freezing information is displayed on the display panel after a second preset time (paragraph [8] to [10] of An where the second preset time is understood to be the time it takes for the system to get to step 13), the second preset time being longer than the first preset time (paragraph [8] where the disclosed “predetermined time” corresponds to the first preset time of Athanasiou); and when the ice-making water injection pipe freezing information is not displayed on the display panel (paragraph [11] page 4 of An), executing the step of receiving first detection data (understood to be any signal generated by the disclosed “capacitive liquid sensor” in paragraph [0048] of Athanasiou that would indicate the presence of ice in water line 203 Fig. 2) of a detection sensor (disclosed “capacitive liquid sensor” in paragraph [0048] of Athanasiou) on an ice-making water injection pipe (water line 203 Fig. 2 of Athanasiou) at an interval of a first preset time (paragraph [0042] of Lee where it is understood that the temperatures periodically detected by temperature sensor 141 in step S4 is done by the sensor at a predetermined time interval) in an ice making process (the ice making process described in paragraph [0037] of Athanasiou).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athanasiou, in view of Lee, in view of Yagi, in view of Lee’87, in view of Park, and in further view of Fu et al. (CN107576117A, herein after referred to as Fu).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein after the step of turning off the heating assembly when no water exists in the ice- making water injection pipe (paragraphs [0031] and [0032] of Yagi).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the method further comprises: removing an ice-making water injection pipe freezing mark”.
However, Fu teaches a method (the disclosed “control method” in paragraph [1] corresponds to the method of Athanasiou) further comprises: removing an ice-making water injection pipe freezing mark (disclosed “fault” that is cleared in paragraph [14]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the method further comprises: removing an ice-making water injection pipe freezing mark” in view of the teachings of Fu to provide a control method that indicates faulty situation to the user.
Claims 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athanasiou, in view of Lee, in view of Yagi, and in further view of Fu.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach wherein after the step of turning on the heating assembly when water or ice exists in the ice- making water injection pipe (paragraphs [0047] and [0048] of Athanasiou).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the method further comprises: setting the ice-making water injection pipe freezing mark and stopping the ice making process”.
However, Fu teaches a method (the disclosed “control method” in paragraph [1] corresponds to the method of Athanasiou) further comprises: setting the ice-making water injection pipe freezing mark (corresponds to the disclosed “fault information” being displayed in paragraph [14]) and stopping an ice making process (paragraph [14]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the method further comprises: setting the ice-making water injection pipe freezing mark and stopping the ice making process” in view of the teachings of Fu to provide a system that would interrupt the ice making process upon detection of a fault preventing therefore further damage to the ice maker.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach “wherein after the step of judging whether water or ice exists in the ice-making water injection pipe according to the first detection data (paragraph [0048] of Athanasiou where it is disclosed that the state of the water inside water line 203 is being determined by a capacitive liquid sensor).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the method further comprises: removing the ice-making water injection pipe freezing mark when no water exists in the ice-making water injection pipe”.
However, Fu teaches a method (the disclosed “control method” in paragraph [1] corresponds to the method of Athanasiou) further comprises: removing the ice-making water injection pipe freezing mark (disclosed “fault” that is cleared in paragraph [14]) when no water exists in the ice-making water injection pipe (here, the condition of no water existing in the ice-making water injection pipe corresponds to a condition where a fault has been automatically repaired as disclosed in paragraph [6] and cleared as disclosed in paragraph [14]) to improve the running reliability of the ice machine and improving the user experience (paragraph [6]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the method further comprises: removing the ice-making water injection pipe freezing mark when no water exists in the ice-making water injection pipe” in view of the teachings of Fu to improve the running reliability of the ice machine and improving the user experience.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach a control system (control device 403 Fig. 4 of Athanasiou) of the ice making device, comprising: the detection sensor configured to detect whether water or ice exists in the ice-making water injection pipe (paragraph [0048] of Athanasiou where it is disclosed that the state of the water inside water line 203 is being determined by a capacitive liquid sensor).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “a control module comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program operable on the processor, and the processor implementing steps of the control method of the ice making device when executing the computer program”.
However, Fu teaches a control module (computer device 600 Fig. 6) comprising a memory (memory 602 Fig. 6) and a processor (processor 604 Fig. 6), the memory storing a computer program (paragraph [137]) operable on the processor (paragraph [137]), and the processor implementing steps of a control method (paragraph [137]) of an ice making device (disclosed “ice making machines” in paragraph [1] corresponds to the ice making device of Athanasiou) when executing the computer program (paragraph [137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “a control module comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program operable on the processor, and the processor implementing steps of the control method of the ice making device when executing the computer program” in view of the teachings of Fu to efficiently control the system.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach a refrigerator (Fig. 1 of Lee), comprising a refrigerating chamber (refrigerating chamber 2 Fig. 1 of Lee) and a freezing chamber (freezing chamber 5 Fig. 1 of Lee), wherein the freezing chamber is provided therein with the ice making device (paragraphs [0007], [0009], and [0038] of Athanasiou), and the ice making device comprises an ice making tray (bowls 207 Fig. 2 of Athanasiou), the ice-making water injection pipe for supplying water to the ice making tray (paragraph [0034] of Athanasiou); a water outlet of the ice-making water injection pipe (water outlet of water line 203 Fig. 2 of Athanasiou) is provided above the ice making tray in the freezing chamber (Fig. 2 of Athanasiou); a water or ice detection sensor (disclosed “liquid sensor” in paragraph [0048] of Athanasiou) and the heating assembly comprising the heating wire wound around an outer wall of the ice- making water injection pipe (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0036] of Athanasiou) are provided on the ice-making water injection pipe (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0048] of Athanasiou), the detection sensor is configured as a capacitive sensor (disclosed “capacitive sensor” on paragraph [0048] of Athanasiou).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athanasiou, in view of Lee, in view of Yagi, and in further view of An.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach “wherein before the step of receiving the first detection data of the detection sensor on the ice-making water injection pipe (paragraph [0048] of Athanasiou) at the interval of the first preset time in the ice making process (paragraph [0042] of Lee).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the method further comprises: judging whether the ice-making water injection pipe freezing mark is set; and when the ice-making water injection pipe freezing mark is not set, executing the step of receiving the first detection data of the detection sensor on the ice-making water injection pipe at the interval of the first preset time in the ice making process”.
However, An teaches a method (the method illustrated in Fig. 3 corresponds to the method of Athanasiou) further comprises: judging whether an ice-making water injection pipe freezing mark is set (corresponds to step 11 paragraph [11] of page 4 where it is determined if the thawing was sufficiently performed); and when the ice-making water injection pipe freezing mark is not set (corresponds to when it is determined that the pulse is greater than zero in paragraph [11] of page 4), executing the step of receiving first detection data (the pulse signals generated by flow rate sensor 12 Fig. 2 in paragraph [8] of page 4 correspond to the first detection data of Athanasiou) of a detection sensor (flow rate sensor 12 Fig. 2 corresponds to the detection sensor of Athanasiou) on an ice-making water injection pipe (the disclosed “water supply pipe” in paragraph [8] of page 4 and Fig. 2 corresponds to the ice-making water injection pipe of Athanasiou) at an interval of a first preset time (the disclosed “predetermined time” in paragraph [8] of page 4 corresponds to the interval of the first preset time of Athanasiou) in an ice making process (the ice making process disclosed in page 4 corresponds to the ice making process of Athanasiou).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the method further comprises: judging whether the ice-making water injection pipe freezing mark is set; and when the ice-making water injection pipe freezing mark is not set, executing the step of receiving the first detection data of the detection sensor on the ice-making water injection pipe at the interval of the first preset time in the ice making process” in view of the teachings of An to determine whether the system is facing a water supply system or a water supply hose freezing issue.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 8 that Athanasiou teaches away from the claim method disclosed in claim 1, Examiner disagrees and Applicant is reminded that a reference "teaches away" when it states that something cannot be done. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
In the case at hand, contrary to Applicants belief, the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of the alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed (See MPEP 2145). Athanasiou does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed which is to turn on a heater when “water or ice exits” in the pipe (see paragraph [0038] where in one of the disclosed embodiments, heater 205 is designed to be on when water or ice is present in water line 203 since heater 205 maintains water line 203 at a temperature above 2 degrees Celsius even 10 minutes into the ice making process). Therefore, the reference does not teach away from the claimed method.
Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9, that the combination of Athanasiou and Lee lacks motivation and constitute impermissible hindsight, Examiner disagrees.
It is noted 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. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Examiner has met all requirements establishing a prima facie case: all factual findings required by Graham were supplied in the previous and present Actions; the references are related art, and Applicant has supplied no evidence that there is no reasonable expectation of success; all claim limitations were met in the previous and present Actions, and Applicant has merely made the allegation that the limitations are not met, and thus has not provided any evidence or argument directed to how the identified elements in the first action fail to meet the claimed limitations or to how the identified elements are otherwise distinguishable from the claimed limitations. Neither has Applicant supplied any evidence or argument addressing any failure of Examiner's application of the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation Test (TSM), pursuant to current governing law (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Further, motivation was provided in all present and previous combinations of references. Although a specific motivation may not have been explicitly stated within one of the references, the motivation was not improper, and provided in accordance with the TSM. As such, Examiner's use of these facts as a motivation statement is in compliance with the requirements of the TSM test, since the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation (TSM) test should be flexibly applied and the teaching, suggestion, or motivation need not be written within the reference. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (US 2007); Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Lab., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ex Parte Kubin, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 9 that the combination of Athanasiou and Lee fails to teach “a heating wire wound around an outer wall of the ice-making water injection pipe” as recited by amended claim 1, Examiner disagrees.
For clarity purpose, the above rejection of amended claim 1 is repeated here. Athanasiou does teach a heating wire (disclosed “heating coil” in paragraph [0036]) wound around an outer wall of the ice-making water injection pipe (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s comments on pages 9-10 with regard to dependent claims 2-10, Applicant has not provided any arguments as to why the applied references do not teach the claimed features. Therefore, the previous rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763