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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: "34" - Side opposite the base. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters, “17” – support region, and “24” - Tab, both references refer to the same part on the drawings (See Figs 2 and 3).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters, “16” – Spring Element, and “26” – Leaf spring, both references refer to the same part on the drawings (See Figs 1, 2, and 3).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters, “12” – Current supply devices, “32” – Electrical leads, and “27” - Electrode, all 3 references refer to the same part on the drawings (See Fig 1 for references 12 and 32; See Fig 2 and 3 for references 12 and 27).
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. 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.
Specification
The amendment to the Specification filed 11/14/2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a)). An international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. See MPEP 1893.03(b) and 35 U.S.C. 363. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
“[0001] This is a U.S. national phase patent application of PCT/EP2022/062946 filed May 12, 2022 which claims the benefit of and priority to German Patent Application No. 10-2021-112-603.7, filed on May 14, 2021, the entire contents of each of which are incorporated herein by reference”.
The incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT/EP2022/062946 and of the German patent application No. 10-2021-112-603.7 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 05/12/2022, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 11/14/2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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: “heating element” in Claim 13, “current supply devices” in Claim 13 and “pressing part/surface” in Claims 17 and 19.
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.
Heating Element
Prong (A) is invoked by the claim reciting the generic placeholder “element”.
Prong (B) is satisfied because “element” is modified by the functional language “heating” in line 2 of Claim 13.
Under Prong (C), the corresponding structure provided in the disclosure for performing the claimed heating element is “the heating element is preferably a PTC element. PTC stands for ‘positive Temperature Coefficient’ and means that the heating element in this design had a positive temperature coefficient. The PTC element can be described as a temperature-dependent resistance element” ([0015]). Additionally, the disclosure defines the heating element as being preferably of plate-shaped design ([0022]).
Current Supply Devices
Prong (A) is invoked by the claim reciting the generic placeholder “devices”.
Prong (B) is satisfied because “devices” is modified by the language “current supply” in line 3 of Claim 13.
Under Prong (C), the corresponding structure provided in the disclosure for the claimed “current supply device” is one that comprises an electrode ([0033]). Therefore, the interpretation of the “current supply device” is any current supplying device that incorporates an electrode, and is capable of supplying current to the heating device.
Pressing part/surface
Prong (A) is invoked by the claims reciting the generic placeholders “part” and “surface”.
Prong (B) is satisfied because “part” and “surface” is modified by the language pressing in lines 2 and 4 of Claim 17, and lines 1 and 3 of Claim 19.
Under Prong (C), the corresponding structure provided in the disclosure for performing the claimed pressing part/surface is a part that serves as a force transmission element to transfer the clamping force gently and evenly distributed over a wide area ([0030]). Therefore, the interpretation of the “pressing part/surface” is any surface capable of transferring the clamping force gently and evenly over a distributed area of the heating device.
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.
Claims 13, 15 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Franz (US-2005/0230377-A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Franz teaches (Figures 1-6) a heating device [0043] comprising: at least one heating element (78), at least two current supply devices (contacts 16; defined by sheet-metal strips 30a, 30b, and 30c; sheet metal strips 72a, 72b, 72; [0044], and [0054]), and a heat exchanger body (layered structure 80), with a receiving cavity (reception slots 40) for receiving at least one heating element, where the heating element is connected in a thermally conductive manner (Fig 5 and 6). A spring element (spring element 82, with individual spring segments 84) is supported on at least one support region (spring contact surface 46) of the heat exchanger body, and applies a clamping force towards at least one heating element in such a way that the heating element is pressed against the at least two current supply devices and a base (radiator elements 74) of the heat exchanger body (See Fig 5 and 6).
Regarding Claim 15, Franz teaches the at least one spring element (spring element 82) rests against an inner side of the at least one support region racing the receiving cavity (spring contact surface 46) (See Fig 2 and 5).
Regarding Claim 20, Franz teaches the at least one spring element is arc shaped in cross-section (spring segments 84 are convex towards the layered structure) and has an apex region that faces the at least one heating element for transmitting the clamping force (Fig 4, 5 and 6).
Regarding Claim 21, Franz teaches the at least one spring element is a pretensioned leaf spring (spring segments 84 are elastically pretensioned towards the sheet-metal strip) and/or a respective one of the at least two current supply devices further comprises an electrode ((Fig 4, 5, and 6) and [0057]-[0058]).
Regarding Claim 22, Franz teaches the receiving cavity is closed at an end by at least one cover (transverse legs 26a and 26b of lower housing component 8), wherein the at least one cover engages positively at least in sections in an inner contour of the heat exchange body (plate shaped positioning means 38) ((Fig 2 and 4) and [0044], [0045], [0055]).
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.
Claims 14, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz in view of Thomas (US-2018/0015805-A1).
With regards to Claim 14, Franz teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim at least one heating element arranged between two current supply devices to form a sandwich package.
With regards to Claim 23, Franz teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim at least one insulating device arranged between the heat exchanger body and the sandwich package.
Regarding Claim 24, Franz teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, and further includes the method steps of inserting the heat-emitting elements and current supply devices into the layered structure before inserting the layered structure into the housing component without pretension, where the PTC elements and contacts are prepared for use ([0017]-[0022]). The spring element is also inserted into the housing component to provide contact pressure against the layered structure ([0025]-[0028]).
Thomas teaches (Figures 1-8) an electric heating device to heat fluid ([0004]). Specifically, Thomas teaches the components for a heat-generating element (16), where a flat tube is lined with insulation (28.1) in the form an insulating film, that can also comprise electrically insulating and heat resistive properties ([0034]-[0036]). Within the insulation, are conductor elements (28.2 and 28.3), with PTC elements (28.4) received between the conductor elements ([0034]-[0036]). Each conductor plate has as contract strip (28.5) in electrical contact with a printed circuit board (64) to control the heat generating elements ([0035] and [0046]). Thomas further teaches that the layers of the heat-generating element (16) are pressed together due to an external force, such as a spring element (46), which provides good electrical contact for the contact surfaces (28.2 and 28.3) to the PTC element (28.4).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Franz teaches the electric heating device, and a method of producing the electric heating device, with heating elements and current supply devices set inside of a heat exchanger body, and held in place by a spring, pressing the heat exchanger body, heating elements, and current supply devices together inside the frame of the heating device. Franz further teaches that the PTC heating elements and current supply devices are connected and contacted to receive current. Thomas teaches the sandwich package, where one heating element and two current supply devices are arranged together. Thomas also teaches an insulating film layer arranged on the inner surface of the flat tube of the heat generating element, to electrically insulate the package from the heat radiation fins, preventing short circuits while transferring heat. An artisan of ordinary skill would have been able to combine the heating device, and the method for producing the heating device, with heating elements and current supply devices in the heat exchanger body as taught by Franz, to incorporate insulation around the PTC heating elements and power suppling electrodes of the sandwich package taught by Thomas, thereby separating the package from the heat exchanging body, because the known elements would retain their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single heating device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heating device as taught by Franz to incorporate the insulation between the heat radiation fins and the sandwich package containing the heating elements and current supplying electrodes as taught by Thomas, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz in view of Coccia (EP-2840329-A1).
With regards to Claim 16, Franz teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim at least one support region being formed by a tab extending from one side wall of the heat exchanger body, that runs along a longitudinal direction of the side wall.
Regarding Claim 16, Coccia teaches (Figures 1, 2, 11, and 12) a heating device for heating the passenger compartment of an automobile. Specifically, Coccia teaches a heating device (1), that comprises a support frame (2) and radiating elements or bars (3) installed on the support frame and contained inside of the containment tube (31), with a plurality of dissipation fins (4) in thermal contact with the radiating bars ([0021]-[0022]). Coccia further teaches that the radiating elements having terminals (33) and plate (35) relative to longitudinal housing (32), with respective seat (32’) ([0038]-[0039]). The seats (32’) are inclined with respect to base (32”) and are intended to interfere with tabs or springs (35’) when the plate moves from the rest to operative position ([0039]). Additionally, Coccia teaches that the fins (4) have holes for which containment tubes (31) pass through, where the tubes are expanded to adhere the fins and the tube together, forming a mechanical bond. ([0035]). Coccia goes on to teach that the current passes through the electrodes (33) of the radiating bars (3), and through the PTC elements, which are held in placed to the inner surface of the radiating tube by the force exerted by the spring (35’) ([0030]-[0032]). Coccia also teaches that when the switch to operative position is made, the tabs are inserted into the respective seat, mounting the plate in a stable position with respect to the longitudinal housing ([0039]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Franz teaches the heating device with at least one heating element and at least two current supply devices, as well as a heat exchanger body with a receiving cavity for receiving the heating element. Franz also teaches the spring element with a support region to apply a clamping force that clamps the heating element and the current supply devices with the base of the heat exchanger body. Coccia teaches supporting tabs that run along the longitudinal direction of the longitudinal housing, and are used to stably mount the PTC elements and electrodes to the dissipation fins of the heating device. An artisan of ordinary skill would have been able to combine the heating device with heating elements and current supply devices in the heat exchanger body as taught by Franz, to incorporate a supporting region with tabs running along the inner surface of the heat exchanger body as taught by Coccia, because the known elements would retain their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single heating device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heating device taught by Franz, to incorporate the supporting tabs taught by Coccia, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz in view Oya (WO-2018101407-A1).
With regards to Claims 17, Franz teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim at least one heating element in contact with the at least two current supply devices through at last one pressing surface, wherein the at least one spring element applies the clamping force transverse to the pressing surface to the at least one heating element and/or at last one of the two current supply devices.
With regards to Claims 18, Franz teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim the heat exchanger body has two oppositely arranged side walls, on each of which the at least one support region for the at least one spring element is formed.
With regards to Claims 19, Franz teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim wherein at least one pressing part is arranged between the at least one spring element and one of the at least two supply devices, wherein the pressing part transmits the clamping force from the at least one spring element to the at least one heating element and/or to at least one of the at least two current supply devices.
Regarding Claims 17-19, Oya teaches (Figures 1-3, and 24) an electric heater (1) where electric current is applied to a PTC element (2) ([0002]). Specifically, Oya teaches that the frames (6A and 6B) are used to bring the PTC elements (2), electrode plates (3), heat dissipation fin (4), and resin plate (5) of the laminate (10) into close contact with east other by receiving a pressing load from the pressing spring (7) and clamping portion (72) ([0032] & [0034]). Oya also teaches that the frames are used to increase the rigidity of the heater, and the pressing force applied from the spring onto the laminate can be applied evenly to the multiple PTC elements ([0032]). Oya also teaches that the spring clamps in a transverse direction to the PTC heating elements (2) and the electrode plates (3) through the pair of frames (6A and 6B) (Figures 1-3). Oya further includes resin covers (81) that engage with the two frames (6A and 6B) to enclose the outer edge of the heat exchanger ([0035]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Franz teaches the electric heating device with heating elements and current supply devices set inside of a heat exchanger body, and held in place by a spring, pressing the heat exchanger body, heating elements, and current supply devices together inside the frame of the heating device. Oya teaches the heating element, current supply devices, and heat radiation fins being pressed together by the spring pressure acting on the frames of the electric heater in a direction perpendicular to the heating elements and current supply devices (See Modified Figure 2). Oya also teaches that the oppositely arranged side frames that surround the electric heater, also form the basis for supporting the spring element (See Figures 2 and 3). Lastly, Oya teaches the frames being pressed between the spring and the heating elements and/or current supply devices. An artisan of ordinary skill would have been able to combine the heating device with heating elements and current supply devices in the heat exchanger body as taught by Franz, to incorporate a spring element that clamps together the side walls of the frame, the heat dissipation fins, the PTC heating elements, and the electrode current supply devices, because the known elements would retain their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single heating device.
PNG
media_image1.png
702
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heating device as taught by Franz to incorporate the spring clamping the frames that encapsulate the heater as taught by Oya because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bohlender (US-20090026191-A1) teaches (Figures 1-7) a electric heating device and method of manufacturing electric heating devices, where a layered heat block consists of parallel heat generating components, with optional spring elements to mount in a housing ([0008]).
Han (US-20050205552-A1) teaches (Figures 1-5) an electric heater that mechanically and electrically protects the heating means from the outside, increasing the thermal conductivity and efficiency among components ([0002]).
Hillinger (DE-3942266-C1) teaches a PTC heater element that comprises an aluminum profile and electric insulation set between the contact plates and pressure spring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER HEMMINGS whose telephone number is (571)467-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Ned 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.
/HUNTER G HEMMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights