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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recite a method for obtaining data associated with fiber testing operation performed by a fiber testing device. The method comprises obtaining data associated with a fiber testing operation performed by a fiber testing device, description of the obtained data, and generating, based on the data, a signature that identifies a fiber associated with the fiber testing operation.
As can be seen from the above description, the thrust of the claim invention is obtaining data, generating based on data a signature that identifies a fiber associated with the fiber testing operation.
As a result of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim invention, the limitations drawn to data gathering “obtaining data”, it’s getting data from an interface which is considered obtaining data necessary for the abstract mental steps, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Also, “generating, based on the data, a signature” is data manipulation/analysis; is a mental process which is being carried out by a computer, these limitations amount to a mental process that could be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Moreover, the limitation “identifies a fiber associated with the fiber testing operation”, is just a generic conventional consequence of the data analysis therefore is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally, even if the claimed abstract idea was performed on a special purpose computer, it has also been held that using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process is not significantly more than the judicial exception when the steps of the process are recited at a high level of generality and merely use computers as a tool to perform the process. See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Claim 1 recites additional elements as “fiber testing device”, “OTDR measurement” and “fiber”. These elements do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. As the “fiber testing device”, “OTDR” and “fiber” are not claimed with sufficient specificity, and no limitations are provided as to how the measurements are realized. Additionally, there are no steps as to how the data was obtained and how the signature was generated. Therefore, without any meaningfully claimed limitation as to how the data is obtained, and how the signature was generated, it is not possible for the claim abstract idea to be integrated into a judicial exception. Thus, it is not seen that the claims as a whole integrates the metal process or mathematic formula into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for similar reasons as set forth above as to why the claim is not integrated into a practical application. There do not appear to be any additional limitations in the claim other than the abstract idea of obtaining data and generating a signature. As there are no additional limitations, it is not possible for the claim to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following dependent claims 2-13 are rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the following reasons:
Regarding Claims 2-3, the claims further limits the signature functions, data information and data manipulation.
Regarding Claims 4 and 8, the claims further limits how the signature was generated by a machine learning model, is considered insignificant post-solution activity (or data output). Merely displaying, recording, or outputting the result of an abstract mathematical calculation does not transform the method into a tangible, technological solution. The Federal Circuit established in cases like Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (2025) that patents that do no more than apply generic machine learning to a new data environment—without improving the underlying ML model or technology itself—are patent-ineligible.
Regarding Claims 5-6 and 9-10, the claims further limits data manipulation of generated signature.
Regarding Claims 11-12, the claim recite additional element as a processing device, another device. This element do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. As the processing are not claimed with sufficient specificity, and no limitations are provided as to how is related the signature is generated. Additionally, the sending results to “another device” is just considered insignificant post-solution activity (or data output).
Regarding Claim 13, further limit data manipulation with insignificant post-solution activity (or data output).
Regarding claim 14, while the claim recites a device. The system involves the same limitations and process of claim 1. The claim recites additional elements as memories and a processor. These elements do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and only set forth a further limitation of the abstract idea of claim 1. Merely reciting a memory and a processor., does not integrate the mental process or mathematical formula into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for similar reasons as set forth above regarding the judicial exception not being integrated into a practical application.
The courts have decided: Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, abstract intellectual concepts, are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work (Gottschalk v Benson, 409 U.S.63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). It is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements, such as a data input or detection step, does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank, 573 US, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ.2d 1976 (2014)). Additionally, even if the claimed abstract idea was performed on a special purpose computer, it has also been held that using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process is not significantly more than the judicial exception when the steps of the process are recited at a high level of generality and merely use computers as a tool to perform the process. See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
As a result, claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following dependent claims 15-17 are rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the following reasons:
Regarding Claims 15-16, the claims further limits the signature functions, data information and data manipulation.
Regarding Claim 17, the claims further limits data manipulation of generated signature.
Regarding claim 18, while the claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication. The non-transitory computer-readable medium involves the same limitations and process of claim 1. The claim recites additional elements a processor. These elements do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and only set forth a further limitation of the abstract idea of claim 1. Merely reciting a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, does not integrate the mental process or mathematical formula into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for similar reasons as set forth above regarding the judicial exception not being integrated into a practical application.
The courts have decided: Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, abstract intellectual concepts, are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work (Gottschalk v Benson, 409 U.S.63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). It is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements, such as a data input or detection step, does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank, 573 US, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ.2d 1976 (2014)). Additionally, even if the claimed abstract idea was performed on a special purpose computer, it has also been held that using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process is not significantly more than the judicial exception when the steps of the process are recited at a high level of generality and merely use computers as a tool to perform the process. See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
As a result, claim 18 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following dependent claims 19-20 are rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the following reasons:
Regarding Claim 19, the claims further limits the signature functions, data information and data manipulation.
Regarding Claim 20, the claims further limits data manipulation of generated signature.
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 1-5, 8-9, 11, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kewitsch et al. (US 2023/0344720 A1, included in 07/28/205), Kewitsch.
Regarding claim 1, Kewitsch teaches a method, comprising:
obtaining data associated with a fiber testing operation performed by a fiber testing device, [0239-0241], [0215], wherein the data includes at least one of metadata (metadata “ length and fiber type”,, [0235]) or trace data associated with the fiber testing operation, [0026-0028], [0235], wherein the metadata includes at least one of a context, a description, a date, a timestamp, or an identifier associated with the fiber testing operation, (physical lengths, [0027]), and the trace data includes at least one of a loss measurement or an optical time domain reflectometer (OTDR) measurement associated with the fiber testing operation, (trace data generated by OTDR, [0217, 0222-0223], insertion loss, [0235]); and
generating, based on the data, a signature that identifies a fiber associated with the fiber testing operation, (Figs. 7A-E, step 706, 714, [0244-248], (“ Determine end-to-end, serial relationship of signatures along the link (at 718). For example, through a machine learning matching algorithm, correlate composite optical backscatter signature with the stored database of backscatter signatures for the constituent interconnection/cable elements and optionally for the ports of optical transceiver elements, to determine the end-to-end, serial relationship of each signature along the link.”, [0252).
Regarding claim 14, A device (Fig. 5) for wireless communication, [0222, 0289], Additionally the term " for wireless communication" in the preamble merely designates an intended use which does not carry enough weight so as to patentably distinguish from the cited prior See MPEP 2111.02) comprising: one or more memories (Fig. 5 element 512); and one or more processors (Fig. 5 element 510), coupled to the one or more memories, [0222, 0235], configured to cause the device to:
obtain data associated with a fiber testing operation [0239-0241], [0215],, wherein the data includes at least one of metadata (metadata “ length and fiber type”,, [0235]) or trace data associated with the fiber testing operation [0026-0028], [0235], wherein the metadata includes at least one of a context, a description, a date, a timestamp, or an identifier associated with the fiber testing operation (physical lengths, [0027]), and the trace data includes at least one of a loss measurement or an optical time domain reflectometer (OTDR) measurement associated with the fiber testing operation; (trace data generated by OTDR, [0217, 0222-0223], insertion loss, [0235]); and
generate, based on the data, a signature that identifies a fiber associated with the fiber testing operation, (Figs. 7A-E, step 706, 714, [0244-248], (“ Determine end-to-end, serial relationship of signatures along the link (at 718). For example, through a machine learning matching algorithm, correlate composite optical backscatter signature with the stored database of backscatter signatures for the constituent interconnection/cable elements and optionally for the ports of optical transceiver elements, to determine the end-to-end, serial relationship of each signature along the link.”, [0252).
Regarding claim 18, Kewitsch teaches non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fig. 5 element 506 + 510 + 12) storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, [0222, 0289], Additionally the term " for wireless communication" in the preamble merely designates an intended use which does not carry enough weight so as to patentably distinguish from the cited prior See MPEP 2111.02), the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (Fig. 5 element 510) of a device (Fig. 5 element 500 + 508) , cause the device to:
obtain data associated with a fiber testing operation [0239-0241], [0215],, wherein the data includes at least one of metadata (metadata “ length and fiber type”,, [0235]) or trace data associated with the fiber testing operation [0026-0028], [0235], wherein the metadata includes at least one of a context, a description, a date, a timestamp, or an identifier associated with the fiber testing operation (physical lengths, [0027]), and the trace data includes at least one of a loss measurement or an optical time domain reflectometer (OTDR) measurement associated with the fiber testing operation; (trace data generated by OTDR, [0217, 0222-0223], insertion loss, [0235]); and
generate, based on the data, a signature that identifies a fiber associated with the fiber testing operation, (Figs. 7A-E, step 706, 714, [0244-248], (“ Determine end-to-end, serial relationship of signatures along the link (at 718). For example, through a machine learning matching algorithm, correlate composite optical backscatter signature with the stored database of backscatter signatures for the constituent interconnection/cable elements and optionally for the ports of optical transceiver elements, to determine the end-to-end, serial relationship of each signature along the link.”, [0252).
Regarding claims 2, 15 and 19, Kewitsch teaches the method, device and the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the signature that identifies the fiber is an invariant signature that identifies the fiber in accordance with the data being associated with a plurality of test conditions, (“based on the unique and relatively constant Rayleigh backscatter signature of optical fiber as measured using an optical reflectometer, Each fiber segment may be represented as a two-dimensional array of points, giving optical backreflection signal strength as a function of length and providing a unique fingerprint.”, [0215], Fig. 7A-B).
Regarding claims 3, 16 and 20, Kewitsch teaches the method, device and the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the signature that identifies the fiber has a dimensionality that satisfies at least one of a performance requirement, a latency requirement, or a storage requirement, ( “Determine kind of problem (at 726): Analyze data to determine if this change corresponds to a disconnected cable, a high insertion loss event, a cable cut, bent or stressed cable, [0256], therefore the signature dimensionality satisfies the performance of determining a king of problem in a cable as in the method of Figs. 7A-7E).
Regarding claim 4, Kewitsch teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a machine learning model; and training the machine learning model using a fiber testing training dataset, wherein generating the signature using the machine learning operation comprises generating the signature using a machine learning operation that is performed by the machine learning model, (Determine signatures of physical network links: Measure composite optical backscatter signature of each physical network link at one or more optical wavelengths (at 708). 2. Identify serial relationships of signatures along the links: Correlate composite optical backscatter signature with the stored database of backscatter signatures for the constituent interconnection/cables elements and ports of optical transceiver elements, to identify the serial relationship of each signature along the link by a machine learning algorithm, [0244-0246]). Additionally, the claim recite “using a” is a contingent limitation and do not carry patentably weight as those steps are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, See Ex parte Schulhauser,, MPEP 2111.04),
Regarding claim 5, Kewitsch teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising identifying, based on a similarity between the signature associated with the fiber testing operation and another signature associated with another fiber testing operation, that the fiber testing operation and the other fiber testing operation are associated with the same fiber, (Fig. 7B element 710, composite optical backscatter signature with the stored database of backscatter signatures for the constituent interconnection/cables elements and ports of optical transceiver elements, to identify the serial relationship of each signature along the link , [0246, 0252]).
Regarding claim 8, Kewitsch teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: training a machine learning model for generating the signature; and identifying, in real time and using the machine learning model, one or more fiber testing operation records of a plurality of fiber testing operation records corresponding to a repeated test record, (“Identify serial relationships of signatures along the links: Correlate composite optical backscatter signature with the stored database of backscatter signatures for the constituent interconnection/cables elements and ports of optical transceiver elements, to identify the serial relationship of each signature along the link (at 710). This may be done, e.g., by application of a machine learning algorithm”, [0246], 0275-0276]). Additionally, the claim recite “using” is a contingent limitation and do not carry patentably weight as those steps are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, See Ex parte Schulhauser,, MPEP 2111.04).
Regarding claim 9, Kewitsch teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising identifying a similarity between a first fiber testing operation record and a second fiber testing operation record based (Identify serial relationships of signatures along the link) on a first signature (backscatter signature) associated with the first fiber testing operation record and a second signature associated with the second fiber testing operation record, (“Identify serial relationships of signatures along the links: Correlate composite optical backscatter signature with the stored database of backscatter signatures for the constituent interconnection/cables elements and ports of optical transceiver elements, to identify the serial relationship of each signature along the link (at 710). This may be done, e.g., by application of a machine learning algorithm”, [0246], 0275-0276]).
Regarding claim 11, Kewitsch teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the signature that identifies the fiber comprises generating the signature , [0252] using an embedded processing device, a processing device (510, [0223]) that is integrated into another device, [0205, 0200], an edge device, or a server that is accessible via one or more interfaces, [0278-0278, 0291]. Additionally, the claim recite “using a” is a contingent limitation and do not carry patentably weight as those steps are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, See Ex parte Schulhauser,, MPEP 2111.04).
Regarding claim 13, Kewitsch teaches the method of claim 1further comprising: analyzing a plurality of fiber testing operation records; and triggering a test process based on detecting one or more anomalies, similarities, repeated test records, or outliers associated with the plurality of fiber testing operation records (Fig. 7B elements 710 + 712, [0246-0247]) and (Fig. 7D, elements 730 + 732, [0261-0262]).
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 6-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kewitsch, in view of Yang et al. (CN 109990974 A), hereafter Yang.
Regarding claim 6, Kewitsch teaches the method of claim 1.
Even though Kewitsch teaches identifying, based on a similarity between the signature associated with the fiber testing operation and another signature associated with another fiber testing operation, [0246, 0252]). Kewitsch is silent about deleting one or more fiber testing operation records based on a similarity between two or more fiber testing operation records of a plurality of fiber testing operation records.
However, Yang related to optical fiber performance analysis and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches deleting one or more fiber testing operation records based on a similarity between two or more fiber testing operation records of a plurality of fiber testing operation records, [page 2, lines 18-25, 36-44], [page 9, lines 57-58].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kewitsch by including deleting one or more fiber testing operation records based on a similarity between two or more fiber testing operation records of a plurality of fiber testing operation records (as taught by Yang) for several advantages such as: allowing to obtain an analysis result of the performance of the optical fiber, thus increase the device efficiency, ([page 9, lines 57-58], Yang).
Regarding claim 7, Kewitsch teaches the method of claim 1. further comprising: processing a plurality of fiber testing operation records; identifying that a fiber testing operation record and another fiber testing operation record are repeated test records, wherein the other fiber testing operation record is included in the plurality of fiber testing operation records or is included in a plurality of stored fiber testing operation records; (Fig. 7B element 710, [0246, 0252]).
Kewitsch fail to teach deleting the fiber testing operation record based on the fiber testing operation record and the other fiber testing operation record being the repeated test records.
However, Yang related to optical fiber performance analysis and thus from the same field of endeavor further teaches deleting the fiber testing operation record based on the fiber testing operation record and the other fiber testing operation record being the repeated test records, [page 2, lines 18-25, 36-44], [page 9, lines 57-58].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kewitsch by including deleting the fiber testing operation record based on the fiber testing operation record and the other fiber testing operation record being the repeated test records (as taught by Yang) for several advantages such as: allowing to obtain an analysis result of the performance of the optical fiber, thus increase the device efficiency, ([page 9, lines 57-58], Yang).
Regarding claim 17, Kewitsch teaches the device of claim 14.
Even though Kewitsch teaches identifying, based on a similarity between the signature associated with the fiber testing operation and another signature associated with another fiber testing operation, [0246, 0252]). Kewitsch is silent about wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the device to delete one or more fiber testing operation records based on a similarity between two or more fiber testing operation records of a plurality of fiber testing operation records.
However, Yang related to optical fiber performance analysis and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more processors (401, page 11, lines 6-7]) are further configured to cause the device to delete one or more fiber testing operation records based on a similarity between two or more fiber testing operation records of a plurality of fiber testing operation records, [page 2, lines 18-25, 36-44], [page 9, lines 57-58].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kewitsch by including wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the device to delete one or more fiber testing operation records based on a similarity between two or more fiber testing operation records of a plurality of fiber testing operation records, (as taught by Yang) for several advantages such as: allowing to obtain an analysis result of the performance of the optical fiber, thus increase the device efficiency, ([page 9, lines 57-58], Yang).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kewitsch, in view of Chesneau et al. (US 20220334904 A1), hereafter Chesneau.
Regarding claim 10, Kewitsch teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: storing a plurality of signatures associated with a plurality of respective fiber testing operations, [0235].
Kewitsch fail to teach identifying, based on the plurality of signatures, one or more signatures having one or more characteristics that are outside of a range of fiber testing operation characteristics.
However, Chesneau related to processing signature data by a machine learning and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches identifying, based on the plurality of signatures, one or more signatures having one or more characteristics that are outside of a range of fiber testing operation characteristics, [0040].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kewitsch by including identifying, based on the plurality of signatures, one or more signatures having one or more characteristics that are outside of a range of fiber testing operation characteristics, (as taught by Chesneau) for several advantages such as: allows to generate an incident alert generated by incident detection and root cause analysis software code and displayed to user via GUI, thus increase the device accuracy and efficiency, ([0019], Chesneau).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kewitsch, in view of Perron et al. (US 2020/0386653 A1, included in IDS on 07/28/2025), hereafter Perron.
Regarding claim 12, Kewitsch teaches the method of claim 1.
Kewitsch fail to teach sending, to another device, a fiber testing operation result associated with the fiber testing operation.
However, Perron related to Optical Time-Domain Reflectometry measuring devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches sending, to another device (Fig. 1 element 114 + 112), a fiber testing operation result associated with the fiber testing operation, [0076, 0078].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kewitsch by including sending, to another device, a fiber testing operation result associated with the fiber testing operation. (as taught by Yang) for several advantages such as: allows to track the progress and completion of the test job, accept and/or verify OTDR measurement data files by a network operator worker or a subcontractor worker, thus increase the device efficiency, ([0076, 0078], Perron).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights