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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular passages including column and line numbers, paragraphs as designated numerically and/or figures as designated numerically in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages, paragraphs and figures of any and all cited prior art references may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing an eventual response, to fully consider the context of the passages, paragraphs and figures as taught by the prior art and/or cited by the examiner while including in such consideration the cited prior art references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/21/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,913,671. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the parent patent anticipated the claims of the instant application.
The depending claims of the present application are similarly either anticipated by the depending claims of the 671’ patent or inherent/obvious (see discussed prior art below).
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,962,241 in view of Kaga et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,276,440 (“Kaga”) and Paddock et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,866,007 (“Paddock”).
The claims of the present application, when viewed as a whole claim the same invention as that of the Parent patent except the instant application claimed an air terminals positioned within the different zones of the buildings that are configured to mix and diffuse air exiting the second end of the airflow regulating dampers, wherein the air terminals comprise sensors that are configured to determine temperature.
Kaga teaches an invention relates to a device for controlling diffused air for an air conditioning and heating device and so on. Specifically, Kaga teaches an air terminals [10] positioned within zones of the buildings that are configured to mix and diffuse air exiting the second end.
Paddock teaches another invention relates generally to HVAC systems for a building and more particularly to airside economizers in a building HVAC system wherein the system comprises airside system 300 may operate to heat or cool an airflow provided to building 10 using a heated or chilled fluid provided by waterside system 200 [SEE fig. 3]. Specifically, Paddock teaches an air terminal [314] positioned within zone of the buildings [306] and wherein the air terminals comprise sensors that are configured to determine temperature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art [SEE further discussion below in claim 1].
Regarding the depending claims of the present application, the examiner also finds that variations between the claims of the present application and the 241 patent are either anticipated, inherent, or obvious (see discussed prior art below).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 13-14, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shad US Pub. No. 2005/01560541 in view of Kaga et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,276,440 (“Kaga”) and Paddock et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,866,007 (“Paddock”).
Regarding claim 1, Shad teaches an indoor environmental control and air distribution system [see fig. 1] for a building comprising:
an air handling unit [Air Handler 24];
a manifold [31] connected to the air handling unit, said manifold comprising a chamber formed by a plurality of walls and a plurality of orifices [28, 30, 32] formed through at least one of the walls;
air distribution conduits each independently having a first end connected to the orifices of the manifold and a second end extending out from the manifold into different zones [#1, #2, #3] throughout the building [see Fig. 1]; and
an airflow modulating device comprising one or more airflow regulating dampers [34a, 34b, 34c] independently configured to move into at least two positions in which each position provides a different percentage of total air volume to each air distribution conduit, and
[0020] The flow of conditioned air communicated to each of the zones 1, 2, and 3 is controlled by the position of the damper 34a, 34b, and 34c located within each of the supply ducts 28, 30, and 32. The dampers 34a, 34b, and 34c may be selectively opened or closed to restrict or allow additional airflow into the zones 1, 2, and 3. Preferably, the damper 34a, 34b, and 34c may be positioned at incremental positions between the full open and the full closed positions.
[0025] A proportionality constant (Pi) is selected for each of zones 1, 2, and 3 in response to a user selected fan airflow level at step D. In one embodiment, a user selects one of four levels of airflow for each zone: HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, and OFF. Thus, the proportionality constant assigned to zone 1 by the system control 36 is as follows:
1 Selected Level of Airflow Pi HIGH 100% MEDIUM 75% LOW 50% OFF 0%
[0028] The system then proceeds to step F in which the dampers 34a, 34b, and 34c for each of zone is are modulated to a position Di as commanded by the system control 36. The position Di, or the percent travel of the damper blade from the fully closed to the fully open position, is equal to the proportionality constant (Pi). In one preferred embodiment, the damper 34 characteristics are linear. It should be understood that other damper 34 characteristics may be utilized by the system control 36.
air terminals [SEE fig. 1] positioned within the different zones of the buildings that are configured to provide air exiting the second end of the airflow regulating dampers
PNG
media_image1.png
764
799
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shad does not expressly teach air terminals positioned within the different zones of the buildings that are configured to mix and diffuse air exiting the second end of the airflow regulating dampers and wherein the air terminals comprise sensors that are configured to determine temperature.
Kaga teaches an invention relates to a device for controlling diffused air for an air conditioning and heating device and so on. Specifically, Kaga teaches an air terminals [10] positioned within zones of the buildings that are configured to mix and diffuse air exiting the second end [SEE fig. 1]
According to a first aspect of the present invention, there is provided a device for controlling diffused air comprising an air outlet structure connected to a terminal end of an air path so as to diffuse air into ambient air; a flap arranged in the air outlet structure for deflecting a diffusing direction of the diffused air; and ambient air drawing and mixing means for drawing the ambient air into the diffused air and mixing the ambient air with the flow air [Col. 2 lines 3-11].
Before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air terminal of Shad with an air terminals positioned within zones of the buildings that are configured to mix and diffuse air exiting the terminal. The motivation for doing so would has been to prevent air from rising, deduce pressure, and fan power as suggested by Kaga in Col. 3 line 51 to Col. 4 line 46.
Paddock teaches another invention relates generally to HVAC systems for a building and more particularly to airside economizers in a building HVAC system wherein the system comprises airside system 300 may operate to heat or cool an airflow provided to building 10 using a heated or chilled fluid provided by waterside system 200 [SEE fig. 3]. Specifically, Paddock teaches an air terminal [314] positioned within zone of the buildings [306] and wherein the air terminals comprise sensors that are configured to determine temperature [In some embodiments, AHU controller 330 receives a measurement of the supply air temperature from a temperature sensor 362 positioned in supply air duct 312 (e.g., downstream of cooling coil 334 and/or heating coil 336) – Col. 8 line62-66].
Before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air terminal of Shad with air terminals comprise sensors that are configured to determine temperature of Paddock. The motivation for doing so would has been to provide the controller the ability to monitor and control a variable state or condition of the air entering zone of the building.
Regarding claim 2, Shah teaches sensor devices positioned in at least one of the zones of the building, the sensor devices configured to determine temperature [par. 0018, 0031].
Regarding claim 3, Shah teaches a controller [36] in operable communication with the sensor devices and wherein the controller is configured to automatically control at least the air handling unit [par. 0018-0020].
Regarding claim 4, Shah teaches one or more computer-readable storage mediums in operable communication with the controller and containing programming instructions that, when executed, cause the controller to adjust a positioning of the modular airflow regulating device when at least a temperature set-point is exceeded [par. 0018-0019].
Regarding claim 5, Shad teaches airflow regulating dampers are adjusted in concert such that each air distribution conduit receives a desired percentage of air flow based on a total volume of air supplied by the air handling unit [par. 0028-0030].
Regarding claim 6, Shad teaches the manifold comprises ports formed through at least a second wall of the chamber [see fig. 1].
Regarding claim 13, Shad teaches the sensors are further configured to determine at least one of relative humidity, organism occupancy, carbon dioxide, infrared light intensity, and visible light intensity [par. 0048].
Regarding claim 14, Paddock teaches the air distribution conduits has a bend formed [SEE fig. 1 and 3]. Shah/Kaga/Paddock does not teach at least one of the air distribution conduits comprises a conduit bending device that secures a bend formed in a position of the at least one air distribution conduit. However, examiner takes official notice that such feature is old and well known in the art of bend support (e.g. SharkBite, HoldRite….). One of ordinary skill in the art would motivate to provide such feature in order to secure the conduits in to a position.
Regarding claim 19, Shad in view of Kaga/Paddock does not teach energy harvesting components are embedded in the air terminals to power the sensors. However, examiner take official notice that such component is old and well known in the art of power saving. One of ordinary skill in the art would motivate to provide such feature in order to reduce power consumption.
Claims 7, 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah/Kaga/Paddock as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holock et al. US Pub. No. 2012/0037713 (“Holock”)2.
Regarding claim 7, Shah/Kaga/Paddock does not expressly teach the manifold comprises a firestop mechanism formed within the chamber that is configured to prevent spread of combustion. However, such feature is old and well known in the art of fire prevention. For example:
Holock teaches an invention directed to fire dampers that are installed in ventilation ducts of building where the fire damper formed within a chamber [see fig. 1] that is configured to prevent spread of combustion.
[0008] The abovementioned aims are achieved by the present invention in particular by virtue of the fact that the drive apparatus is provided with a temperature sensor for measuring an air temperature value and a gas sensor for measuring a content of combustion gases in the air and comprises a switch module, which is connected to the temperature sensor and the gas sensor and is designed to interrupt the supply of current depending on the air temperature value and the content of combustion gases (or on a variable which is dependent on the content, for example a gradient or another defined function of the content) in the air. That is to say that the fire damper can be brought into the safety position depending on a combination of air temperature and content of combustion gases in accordance with defined conditions with respect to the pair of values comprising the air temperature and the content of combustion gases. In comparison with systems with thermal cutouts, the fire damper can therefore not be brought into the safety position in the event of a fire when the temperature prevailing at the thermal cutout is high, but possibly even earlier in the case of a development of smoke or gas caused by the fire, i.e. in the case of a specific combination of air temperature and content of combustion gases in the air. That is to say that, in comparison with conventional systems, more selective and, in many situations, quicker detection of fires is enabled. The gas sensor is, for example, a VOC (volatile organic compound) sensor for measuring a content of volatile organic compounds in the air.
At the time of the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the manifold of Shah/Kaga/Paddock with a firestop mechanism that is configured to prevent spread of combustion of Holock. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve safety in case of fired.
Regarding claim 9, Shah/Kaga/Paddock/Holock does not teach the air distribution conduits are made of a plastic material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to made use of plastic air conduits since selection of known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a low-cost material that is not susceptible to corrosion.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah/Kaga/Paddock as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DZK Daikin Zoning Kit Installation Manual Date 11-2013 (“Daikin”)3.
Regarding claim 8, Shah/Kaga/Paddock does not teach the manifold comprises a slot and the airflow modulating device is placed into the slot.
Daikin teaches an energy intelligent heating and cooling systems wherein the system comprises an airflow modulating device [DZK Zoning box with control board] is a separate container comprising a plurality of holes with airflow regulating dampers positioned within each of the holes [see page 61 – the zoning box is available in different sizes and damper configurations and by utilizing ducts for air supply it can be used to control the air temperature in up to 6 Zones…]. [see page 15-19, 61-62; page 8 – System Description]. Specifically, Daikin teaches the manifold comprises a slot and the airflow modulating device is placed into the slot [See drawing of page 16 of Daikin].
Before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the distribution system of Shah/Kaga/Paddock with manifold comprises a slot and the airflow modulating device is placed into the slot of Daikin. The motivation for doing so would has been to ease installation and expansion. Thus, reduces installation cost and increases the flexibility of the airflow distribution system.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah/Kaga/Paddock as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Douglas et al. US Pub. No. 2013/0161403 (“Douglas”)4.
Regarding claim 10, Shah/Kaga/Paddock does not teach the airflow regulating dampers comprise pressure sensors configured to determine volumetric airflow rate, and wherein the pressure sensors are in operable communication with the controller.
Douglas teaches a controller, an HVAC system employing the controller and a computer programmable product to implement a method of measuring and managing ventilation airflow of an HVAC system. Specifically, Douglas teaches the airflow regulating dampers comprise pressure sensors configured to determine volumetric airflow rate, and wherein the pressure sensors are in operable communication with the controller [par. 0007, 0026, 0029].
At the time of the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have to modify the system of Shah/Kaga/Paddock with the teaching of Douglas. The motivation for doing so would has been to optimize power consumption by provide the system the ability to control the ventilation flow rate.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah/Kaga/Paddock as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Dietz et al. US Pub. No. 2014/0065939 (“Dietz”).
Regarding claim 12, Shah/Kaga/Paddock teach the first end of the air distribution conduits connected to the orifices of the manifold. Shah/Kaga/Paddock does not teach the first end of the air distribution conduits have curved entry region to minimize energy loss.
Dietz teaches system and method permits zone-by-zone or area-by-area airflow regulation or control in non-demand areas in response to a demand or call for ventilation in demand areas. Specifically, Dietz teaches the first end of the air distribution conduits [18 - SEE fig. 2] connected to the orifices of the manifold [17] have curved entry region [SEE fig. 2] to minimize energy loss [inherent].
Before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shah/Kaga/Paddock with the first end of the air distribution conduits have curved entry region to minimize energy loss of Dietz. The motivation for doing so would has been to reduce energy.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah/Kaga/Paddock as applied to claim 1+14 above further in view of Crook U.S. Patent No. 8,038,175.
Regarding claim 15, Shah/Kaga/Paddock does not teach the conduit bending device comprises (i) an adjustable clasp at each end of the device and (ii) a support extending between the two clasps, and wherein the support is shaped to engage the bend formed in the portion of the at least one air distribution conduit.
Crook teaches a support assembly for supporting a flexible duct includes a radius strap for maintaining the desired angle of bend for the flexible duct. Specifically, Cook teaches the conduit bending device comprises (i) an adjustable clasp at each end of the device and (ii) a support extending between the two clasps, and wherein the support is shaped to engage the bend formed in the portion of the at least one air distribution conduit [SEE fig. 1-6].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shah/Kaga/Paddock with the conduit bending device comprises (i) an adjustable clasp at each end of the device and (ii) a support extending between the two clasps, and wherein the support is shaped to engage the bend formed in the portion of the at least one air distribution conduit of Crook. The motivation for doing so would has been to allow the bend device to remain firmly into the intended position and to prevent the connecting devices from sliding off of the of the bending device.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah/Kaga/Paddock as applied to claim 1+14 above further in view of Crook U.S. Patent No. 6,837,787.
Regarding claim 16, Shah/Kaga/Paddock does not teach the conduit bending device comprises a sleeve positioned over the bend formed in the portion of the at least one air distribution conduit, and wherein the sleeve is sized to prevent the sleeve from sliding along the bend and allowing the bend to move.
Crook teaches an invention relates generally to ductwork for heating, ventilating and air conditioning ("HVAC") systems, and in particular to a sleeve for protecting a length of flexible hose from crimping. Specifically, Crook teaches the conduit bending device comprises a sleeve positioned over the bend formed in the portion of the at least one air distribution conduit, and wherein the sleeve is sized to prevent the sleeve from sliding along the bend and allowing the bend to move [SEE fig. 1, 5-6].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shah/Kaga/Paddock with the conduit bending device comprises a sleeve positioned over the bend formed in the portion of the at least one air distribution conduit, and wherein the sleeve is sized to prevent the sleeve from sliding along the bend and allowing the bend to move of Crook. The motivation for doing so would has been to reduces crimping in flexible ducts, enhances air distribution system efficiency, efficient in operation, capable of a long operating life and particularly well adapted for the proposed uses thereof, as suggested by Crook in col. 2 lines 15-37.
Claims 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah/Kaga/Paddock as applied to claim 1+14 above further in view of Tuggle U.S. Patent No. 5,970,623.
Regarding claim 17, Shah/Kaga/Paddock does not teach the conduit bending device comprises a swivel sleeve comprising: (i) a first linear portion with a first diameter that is placed over a linear segment of the at least one air distribution conduit; and (ii) a second curved portion with a second diameter that is placed over the bend formed in the portion of the at least one air distribution conduit and partially over the first linear portion of the swivel sleeve.
Tuggle teaches bending device [SEE fig. 1] comprises a swivel sleeve [30] comprising: (i) a first linear portion with a first diameter [28] that is placed over a linear segment of the at least one air distribution conduit [20]; and (ii) a second curved portion with a second diameter [32] that is placed over the bend formed in the portion of the at least one air distribution conduit [18] and partially over the first linear portion of the swivel sleeve.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shah/Kaga/Paddock with the conduit bending device comprises a swivel sleeve comprising: (i) a first linear portion with a first diameter that is placed over a linear segment of the at least one air distribution conduit; and (ii) a second curved portion with a second diameter that is placed over the bend formed in the portion of the at least one air distribution conduit and partially over the first linear portion of the swivel sleeve of Tuggle. The motivation for doing so would has been to provide easy installed by one of little skill, produce a flexible duct arrangement with minimum modification.
Regarding claim 18, Tuggle teaches the first linear portion is secured to a distribution panel [SEE fig. 1].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. No. 2012/0232702 to Vass et al. teach an invention concern control of air handling units (AHUs), a part of heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in commercial and other buildings. A root cause of inefficient HVAC operation may typically be a poor choice of setpoints (for zone or supply air properties), or a poor control strategy to reach the chosen setpoints (e.g., the strategy may deliver the air of required properties, but may consume more energy than necessary). In many HVAC systems, setpoints may be defined only for air temperature (of zone air or supply air).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT HUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7210. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00.
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, Thomas C Lee can be reached on 571-272-3667. 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.
VINCENT H TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2115
/VINCENT H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 IDS filed on 06/21/2024
2 IDS
3 IDS
4 IDS