DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-19 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
A system for a simulation of a marine pollution dispersion using a numerical tracer technique, the system comprising:
a data collection unit that performs a process of collecting various data predetermined in order to perform the simulation on the marine pollution dispersion;
a simulation processing unit that performs the simulation on the marine pollution dispersion according to a predetermined setting using the numerical tracer technique on a basis of various data collected through the data collection unit; and
an output unit that performs a process of outputting various data, each processing procedure, and a processing result that are collected and processed through the data collection unit and the simulation processing unit according to the predetermined setting.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: a data collection unit that performs a process of collecting various data predetermined in order to perform the simulation on the marine pollution dispersion; a simulation processing unit …; and an output unit that performs a process of outputting various data, each processing procedure, and a processing result that are collected and processed through the data collection unit and the simulation processing unit according to the predetermined setting.
The limitation “a data collection unit that performs a process of collecting various data predetermined in order to perform the simulation on the marine pollution dispersion; a simulation processing unit” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data using a computer component) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a data collection unit or generic computer component.
The limitations “an output unit that performs a process of outputting various data, each processing procedure, and a processing result that are collected and processed through the data collection unit and the simulation processing unit according to the predetermined setting” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structures performing a generic computer function of processing and outputting information) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic an output unit or computer components.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as collecting data using a generic computer components and processing and outputting information using a computer/computing components). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Hu et al. CN 113688555 A (hereinafter, Hu), (Abstract and pages 4, 8), and Kim et al. KR 2006-0092420 A (hereinafter, Kim), (pages 6 and 15). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4-13, and 17, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2, recite additional element of “a communication unit that performs a process of communicating with an external device including a server or a user terminal through at least one of a wired and wireless communication in order to transmit and receive various data; and a controller that performs a process of controlling an overall operation of the system”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer components) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Hu, (pages 8 and 13), and Kim, (pages 6 and 15). Therefore, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 3, recites additional element of “wherein the data collection unit performs a process of receiving through a separate input means directly or externally from an outside a basic data such as grids, depths, tides and current information for implementing a hydrodynamic model of a region to be simulated, a data on environmental conditions, or a data on a pre-implemented hydrodynamic model about the corresponding region.” However, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Hu, (page 4), and Kim, (pages 6 and 15). Therefore, claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 14, recites additional element of “wherein the output unit performs a process of visually displaying various data received through the data collection unit and various information including the processing procedure and the result of the simulation processing unit through a monitor or display”. However, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as outputting information using a computer components) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Hu, (pages 8 and 13), and Kim, (page 15). Therefore, claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 15, recites additional element of “wherein the output unit performs a process of: visually displaying various information through a monitor or display, and at the same time audibly transmitting various information through an audio output means including a speaker”. However, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as outputting information using a computer components) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Hu, (pages 8 and 13), and Kim, (page 15). Therefore, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 16, recites additional element of “wherein the controller performs a process of transmitting various data received through the data collection unit and various information including the processing procedure and analysis results of the simulation processing unit to an external device including a server or a user terminal according to predetermined settings through the communication unit”. However, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as transmitting information using a computer components) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Hu, (pages 8 and 13), and Kim, (page 15). Therefore, claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 18, recites the limitations “ a marine pollution dispersion simulation execution unit that performs a process of performing simulations after receiving various information for simulations of marine pollution dispersion, and building a database related to simulations of marine pollution dispersion for each region by collecting various data including information received for simulations and a simulation result; a user terminal for each user to input information related to simulations of marine pollution dispersion and request and receive a desired service; and a service server that performs a process of receiving various data including the simulation results from the simulation execution unit, and providing the corresponding services according to information received from each of the user terminal and the user's request, while being interlocked with the simulation execution unit and the user terminal, wherein the marine pollution dispersion simulation execution unit uses the system for the simulation of the marine pollution dispersion using the numerical tracer technique.”
The claim limitations “a user terminal for each user to input information related to simulations of marine pollution dispersion and request and receive a desired service; and a service server that performs a process of receiving various data including the simulation results from the simulation execution unit, and providing the corresponding services according to information received from each of the user terminal and the user's request, while being interlocked with the simulation execution unit and the user terminal”, are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., transmitting and receiving information using computer components) such that they amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Hu, (pages 6 and 8), and Kim, (pages 8 and 15). Therefore, claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 19, recites additional elements of “wherein the user terminal comprises at least one of a personal portable information communication terminal including a smart phone or a tablet PC, and an information processing device including a PC or a laptop”. However, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer components) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Hu, (pages 8 and 13), and Kim, (page 7). Therefore, claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 3 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
7. Claim 3 recites the limitations “wherein the data collection unit performs a process of receiving through a separate input means directly or externally from an outside a basic data such as grids, depths, tides and current information for implementing a hydrodynamic model of a region to be simulated, a data on environmental conditions, or a data on a pre-implemented hydrodynamic model about the corresponding region.” However, the claim language “such as” are not limiting the scope of the claims, which renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
8. Claim 4 recites the limitation “a step of pollutant sedimentation and decomposition modeling in which a sedimentation of suspended sediments (SS) and a decomposition of COD are modeled using a relational equation for a number of particles in seawater….” However, the claim language “COD” is unclear. The term “COD” is not defined in the claim, which renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Objection
9. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites “…but by estimating ….” should read “…[[but by]] estimating ….” for clarity purpose. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
10. Claims 1-19 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) Claims 1, 2, 10-15, and 18 limitation use the terms “data collection unit, simulation processing unit, and output unit” that are generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the terms “data collection unit, simulation processing unit, and output unit” or the generic placeholder are 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 terms “data collection unit, simulation processing unit, and output unit” or the generic placeholder are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the terms “data collection unit, simulation processing unit, and output unit” 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 terms “data collection unit, simulation processing unit, and output unit” 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 terms “data collection unit, simulation processing unit, and output unit” 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 terms “data collection unit, simulation processing unit, and output unit” 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
12. Claims 1, 3, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. CN 113688555 A (hereinafter, Hu), in view of Huang et al. CN 105956664 A (hereinafter, Huang).
13. Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses a system for a simulation of a marine pollution dispersion using a numerical [value], the system comprising:
a data collection unit that performs a process of collecting various data predetermined in order to perform the simulation on the marine pollution dispersion (Abstract, page 4: invention provides a water body pollution diffusion simulation and prediction method based on concentration analysis, which comprises the steps of carrying out grid division on a simulation area according to small grids, recording the pollutant concentration at the center of each grid by using a numerical value, forming a concentration matrix representing pollutant distribution by using the numerical values corresponding to all the grids);
a simulation processing unit that performs the simulation on the marine pollution dispersion according to a predetermined setting using the numerical [value] on a basis of various data collected through the data collection unit (Abstract, page 4); and
an output unit that performs a process of outputting various data, each processing procedure, and a processing result that are collected and processed through the data collection unit and the simulation processing unit according to the predetermined setting (pages 4, 8, and 13).
Hu does not disclose:
a predetermined setting using the numerical tracer technique.
However, Huang discloses:
a predetermined setting using the numerical tracer technique (Abstract,: pollutant diffusion model).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hu to use a predetermined setting using the numerical tracer technique as taught by Huang. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to improve the degree of accuracy of parameter optimization result (Huang, page 11).
14. Regarding claim 3, Hu in view of Huang disclose the system of claim 1,
as disclosed above.
Hu further discloses wherein the data collection unit performs a process of receiving through a separate input means directly or externally from an outside a basic data such a grids, depths, tides and current information for implementing a hydrodynamic model of a region to be simulated, a data on environmental conditions, or a data on a pre-implemented hydrodynamic model about the corresponding region (page 4: recording the pollutant concentration at the center of each grid by using a numerical value, forming a concentration matrix representing pollutant distribution by using the numerical values corresponding to all the grids).
15. Regarding claim 14, Hu in view of Huang disclose the system of claim 1,
as disclosed above.
Hu further discloses wherein the output unit performs a process of visually displaying various data received through the data collection unit and various information including the processing procedure and the result of the simulation processing unit through a monitor or display (pages 4, 8, and 13).
16. Regarding claim 15, Hu in view of Huang disclose the system of claim 14,
as disclosed above.
Hu further discloses wherein the output unit performs a process of: visually displaying various information through a monitor or display, and at the same time transmitting various information (pages 4, 8, and 13: displaying the simulation result. The specific functions are as follows: and reading simulation result data from the grid data file, and performing visual display in a graphic and animation mode). Further, Huang discloses mobile water quality monitoring platform Real-time Feedback system (page 4). Hu in view of Huang does not disclose at the same time audibly transmitting various information through an audio output means including a speaker. However, at the same time audibly transmitting various information through an audio output means including a speaker would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Hu and Huang as explained above.
17. Regarding claim 17, Hu in view of Huang disclose a method for a simulation of a marine pollution dispersion using a numerical [value], according to claim 1,
as disclosed above.
Hu further discloses a step of system construction that performs a process of constructing a simulation system where the simulation of the marine pollution dispersion is performed using the numerical [value] (Abstract, page 4); and
a step of simulation execution that performs the simulation of the marine pollution dispersion using the simulation system, wherein the simulation system uses the system for the simulation of the marine pollution dispersion using the numerical [value] (pages 4, 9, and 13).
Hu does not disclose:
dispersion is performed using the numerical tracer technique.
However, Huang discloses:
dispersion is performed using the numerical tracer technique (Abstract,: pollutant diffusion model).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hu to use dispersion is performed using the numerical tracer technique as taught by Huang. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to improve the degree of accuracy of parameter optimization result (Huang, page 11).
18. Claims 2, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu, in view of Huang, in further view of Kim et al. KR 2006-0092420 A (hereinafter, Kim).
19. Regarding claim 2, Hu in view of Huang disclose the system of claim 1,
as disclosed above.
Hu further discloses a controller that performs a process of controlling an overall operation of the system (page 8).
Hu in view of Huang does not disclose:
a communication unit that performs a process of communicating with an external device including a server or a user terminal through at least one of a wired and wireless communication in order to transmit and receive various data.
However, Kim discloses:
a communication unit that performs a process of communicating with an external device including a server or a user terminal through at least one of a wired and wireless communication in order to transmit and receive various data (pages 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hu in view of Huang to use a communication unit that performs a process of communicating with an external device including a server or a user terminal through at least one of a wired and wireless communication in order to transmit and receive various data as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to provide pollution information based on user’s request (Kim, page 7).
20. Regarding claim 16, Hu in view of Huang in view of Kim disclose the system of claim 2, as disclosed above.
Hu further discloses wherein the controller performs a process of transmitting various data received through the data collection unit and various information including the processing procedure and analysis results of the simulation processing unit to an external device including a server or a user terminal according to predetermined settings through the communication unit (pages 4, 8, and 13). See also Kim (pages 2-3).
21. Regarding claim 18, Hu in view of Huang disclose marine pollution dispersion simulation service supply system, according to claim 1 as disclosed above.
Hu further discloses the system comprising: a marine pollution dispersion simulation execution unit that performs a process of performing simulations after receiving various information for simulations of marine pollution dispersion (Abstract, and page 4); and building a database related to simulations of marine pollution dispersion for each region by collecting various data including information received for simulations and a simulation result (pages 4 and 14);
wherein the marine pollution dispersion simulation execution unit uses the system for the simulation of the marine pollution dispersion using the numerical [value] (Abstract, and page 4).
Hu does not disclose:
a user terminal for each user to input information related to simulations of marine pollution dispersion and request and receive a desired service; and a service server that performs a process of receiving various data including the simulation results from the simulation execution unit, and providing the corresponding services according to information received from each of the user terminal and the user's request, while being interlocked with the simulation execution unit and the user terminal; and a dispersion using the numerical tracer technique.
However, Huang discloses:
a dispersion using the numerical tracer technique (Abstract,: pollutant diffusion model).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hu to use a dispersion using the numerical tracer technique as taught by Huang. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to improve the degree of accuracy of parameter optimization result (Huang, page 11).
Hu in view of Huang does not disclose:
a user terminal for each user to input information related to simulations of marine pollution dispersion and request and receive a desired service; and a service server that performs a process of receiving various data including the simulation results from the simulation execution unit, and providing the corresponding services according to information received from each of the user terminal and the user's request, while being interlocked with the simulation execution unit and the user terminal.
However, Kim discloses:
a user terminal for each user to input information related to simulations of marine pollution dispersion and request and receive a desired service (pages 6-7); and
a service server that performs a process of receiving various data including the simulation results from the simulation execution unit, and providing the corresponding services according to information received from each of the user terminal and the user's request, while being interlocked with the simulation execution unit and the user terminal (pages 2-3 and 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hu in view of Huang to use a user terminal for each user to input information related to simulations of marine pollution dispersion and request and receive a desired service; and a service server that performs a process of receiving various data including the simulation results from the simulation execution unit, and providing the corresponding services according to information received from each of the user terminal and the user's request, while being interlocked with the simulation execution unit and the user terminal as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to provide pollution information based on user’s request (Kim, page 7).
22. Regarding claim 19, Hu in view of Huang in view of Kim disclose the system of claim 18 as disclosed above.
Hu further discloses wherein the user terminal comprises at least one of a personal portable information communication terminal including a smart phone or a tablet PC, and an information processing device including a PC or a laptop (pages 3-4). See also Kim (page 7).
Examiner’s Notes
23. Claims 4-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, and 112 second paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
24. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or make obvious the claim invention in claim 4.
Conclusion
25. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
26. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights