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 .
The previous Final Rejection of 4/1/2026 is vacated and replaced with the instant Office Action. The previous Final Rejection contained an issue regarding the prior art rejections which have been updated to reflect the canceled claims. Applicant is given a new time period to reply that begins with the mailing date of the instant Office Action.
This action is in response to the communication filed 3/29/2026.
Applicant is reminded that all amendments to the claims must be clearly indicated consistent with the requirements set forth in the MPEP. Claim 3, for example, has an amendment where applicant has added the number “1” after “claim” to therefore read “according to Claim 1” on lines 1-2. However, the original claims did not contain any claim number and instead read “according to Claim.” Applicant has added the number “1” which must be indicated by being underlined. All future claim amendments must be clearly indicated consistent with the requirements of the MPEP.
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully notes that no specific arguments are presented in the amendment of 3/29/2026.
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
The Examiner acknowledges the arguments noting certain amendments found in the response filed 12/24/2025, but that no specific arguments are presented as to why the prior art fails to disclose the claim features. As previously noted, the applied prior art (US 2021/0302613 to Wu et al.) is identical to the instant application. The Examiner respectfully notes that no amendment can remove this prior art reference as being applicable prior art, because it published more than one year before the earliest effective filing date of the instant application. Any reference that publishes more than one year before the earliest effective filing date of the instant application is available as prior art to reject the instant application, even if it was invented by the instant inventor or inventors of the instant application. To that point, the earliest effective filing date for the instant application is its actual filing date of 3/29/2024. The above Wu et al. reference, however, published 9/30/2021. This reference is therefore available prior art as its publication date is more than one year before 3/29/2024. As such, any amendment and any claim feature filed must be disclosed by this prior art reference, which is available as prior art against the instant application.
Lastly, the Examiner respectfully notes that not all previous 112 rejections have been responded to, either by way of argument or amendment. As such, those 112 rejections that have not been overcome are repeated below.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “trunk module” on lines 2-3 lacks proper written description. Applicant describes this module as a device that is capable of wireless data transfer and image capturing (see page 9, middle paragraph). However, a truck module is not reasonably a well-known device, and applicant does not reasonably provide any disclosure or explanation as to what the trunk module is or comprises to reasonably establish the manner in which applicant is implementing such a module. For example, it cannot be reasonably determined if this device is a processor of some type, a camera, or some other combination of components. The original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which this module is implemented, and again, such a module is not, as best understood, a well-known or conventional device. This phrase therefore lacks proper written description because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which this module is being implemented to establish possession.
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “wherein the airborne transient electromagnetic transmitter outputs a transmission signal to the transmitting loop through a transmitting cable, and observes an actual transmission signal from the transmitting loop” on lines 1-4 lacks proper written description.
Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant implements a transmitter that “observes” an actual transmission signal from the transmitting loop. While it is understood that the transmitter can be configured to output a signal to the loop, applicant does not reasonably disclose what additional ability it has by reciting that the transmitter “observes” an actual transmission signal. The disclosure is completely silent as to what such a phrase means or the manner in which the transmitter is configured or otherwise capable of implementing such a feature. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not reasonably recognize the manner in which the transmitter is capable or otherwise configured to observe the transmission signal, including what observing means or the manner in which observing is implemented. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the claim feature.
As to Claim 6,
The phrase “the airborne transient electromagnetic transmitter sends a real-time status thereof to the trunk module wirelessly, and receives instructions wirelessly through the trunk module” on lines 1-3 lacks proper written description.
1) As explained above, applicant does not reasonably demonstrate proper written description for the trunk module. As such, applicant further does not reasonably demonstrate possession for the above phrase, because applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the airborne transient electromagnetic transmitter sends a real-time status thereof to the trunk module wirelessly, and receives instructions wirelessly through the trunk module as claimed. The original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which the truck module is capable of wirelessly receiving a real-time status or allowing the transmitter to receive instructions wireless through the trunk module as claimed. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
2) Applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which the transmitter receives instructions wirelessly through the trunk module. Applicant does not reasonably explain what the trunk module is or its relationship to the transmitter, and the manner in which the transmitter can communicate in the claimed manner through the trunk module. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant has possession of the claim feature.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “the receiving system comprises at least one receiver, a sensor, and a sensor carrying structure, and a UAV is used as a carrying platform to carry the receiving system” on lines 2-3 lacks proper written description.
Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the above sensor is implemented in order to establish possession and proper written description. Applicant discloses that the sensor is a total field sensor or vector sensor, but neither of these disclosures reasonably identify an particular type of sensor. While sensors exist, such as a total field magnetometer, the sensor is not disclosed or described to be a magnetometer, or any other reasonably specific form of sensor. For example, Claim 9 makes clear that the sensor is able to “observe” an electric or magnetic field. However, a magnetometer is not reasonably capable of detecting an electric field. The same issue exists for a vector sensor. The original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which either type of sensor are implemented, and therefore claiming a sensor does not reasonably have proper written description because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant is implementing the claim features.
As to Claim 8,
The phrase “the receiver sends a real-time status thereof to the trunk module wirelessly, and receives instructions through the trunk module wirelessly” on lines 2-3 lacks proper written description.
1) As explained above, applicant does not reasonably demonstrate proper written description for the trunk module. As such, applicant further does not reasonably demonstrate possession for the above phrase, because applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the receiver sends a real-time status thereof to the trunk module wirelessly, and receives instructions wirelessly through the trunk module as claimed. The original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which the truck module is capable of wirelessly receiving a real-time status or allowing the receiver to receive instructions wireless through the trunk module as claimed. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
2) Applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which the receiver receives instructions wirelessly through the trunk module. Applicant does not reasonably explain what the trunk module is or its relationship to the receiver, and the manner in which the receiver can communicate in the claimed manner through the trunk module. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant has possession of the claim feature.
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “the sensor is configured to observe electric or magnetic field response generated by the earth under the excitation of the transmitting system, and transmits an observation result to the receiver through a data cable” on lines 2-4 lack proper written description.
Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the above sensor is implemented in order to establish possession and proper written description. Applicant discloses that the sensor is a total field sensor or vector sensor, but neither of these disclosures reasonably identify an particular type of sensor. While sensors exist, such as a total field magnetometer, the sensor is not disclosed or described to be a magnetometer, or any other reasonably specific form of sensor. This claim recites that the sensor is able to “observe” an electric or magnetic field. However, a magnetometer is not reasonably capable of detecting an electric field. The same issue exists for a vector sensor. The original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which either type of sensor are implemented and is in fact completely silent as to the manner in which the sensor is implemented. As such, the sensor does not reasonably have proper written description because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant is implementing the claim features.
As to Claims 2-4 and 6-9,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 2, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to Claim 2,
The phrase “the power module is an independent generator, an independent large-capacity battery pack, or a UVA power output module with a high-power power output function” on lines 2-3 is indefinite.
1) Applicant claims “an independent large-capacity battery pack” but provides no reasonable guidance as to what would and would not constitute a “large-capacity” battery pack. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not reasonably recognize the metes and bounds for this claim limitation, which is therefore indefinite.
2) Applicant claims “a UVA power output module with a high-power power output function,” but provides no reasonable guidance as to what would and would not constitute a “high-power” output function. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not reasonably recognize the metes and bounds for this claim limitation, which is therefore indefinite.
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “wherein the airborne transient electromagnetic transmitter outputs a transmission signal to the transmitting loop through a transmitting cable, and observes an actual transmission signal from the transmitting loop” on lines 2-4 is indefinite.
1) Applicant positively recites a use of the transmitter by reciting that it “outputs” and “observes,” and such a recitation is reasonably a method step of using the transmitter. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” This claim is therefore indefinite.
2) It is unclear what applicant means by reciting that the transmitter “observes” an actual transmission signal from the transmitting loop. While it is understood that the transmitter can be configured to output a signal to the loop, it is unclear what additional ability it has by reciting that the transmitter “observes” an actual transmission signal. The disclosure is completely silent as to what such a phrase means or the manner in which the transmitter is configured or otherwise capable of implementing such a feature. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not reasonably recognize the full scope of the claim because they would not reasonably recognize what limitation is being imposed by this claim feature. The claim scope is therefore unclear, and therefore indefinite.
As to Claim 6,
The phrase “the airborne transient electromagnetic transmitter sends a real-time status thereof to the trunk module wirelessly, and receives instructions wirelessly through the trunk module” on lines 2-3 is indefinite.
1) Applicant positively recites a use of the transmitter by reciting that it “sends” and “receives,” and such a recitation is reasonably a method step of using the transmitter. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” This claim is therefore indefinite.
2) As explained above, applicant does not reasonably demonstrate proper written description for the trunk module. As such, it is unclear what is meant by reciting that the airborne transient electromagnetic transmitter sends a real-time status thereof to the trunk module wirelessly, and receives instructions wirelessly through the trunk module, because it is unclear what devices would and would not reasonably meet the truck module claim recitation to therefore allow for these claim features.
3) It is unclear what is meant by reciting that the transmitter receives instructions wirelessly through the trunk module. Applicant does not reasonably explain what the trunk module is or its relationship to the transmitter. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand what devices or mechanism is being claimed, and thus would not reasonably recognize the full scope of this claim.
4) It is unclear what instructions this phrase is referencing and no device or component was previously claimed to be configured to generate or otherwise provide instructions. Instructions can only reasonably exist if some device either has them stored or otherwise generates them, but the instructions are not reasonably claimed to relate to any structural element in the claims that are necessary for these instructions to exist. As such, the relationship between the instructions and any of the claimed structural features of the claim combination is unclear.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “the receiving system comprises at least one receiver, a sensor, and a sensor carrying structure, and a UAV is used as a carrying platform to carry the receiving system” on lines 2-3 is indefinite.
1) This phrase is indefinite because it is unclear if applicant is reciting an intended use of the UAV or if applicant is positively reciting that the UAV actually carry the components recited. This is because applicant is not stating that the plurality of UAV are “for carrying” but instead is reciting that the UAV are used as carrying platforms to carry. As such, it is unclear if the UAV are required to actively carry the above components or instead are only required to be capable of such a use. To the extent that applicant intends the UAV to actively carry the above components, this phrase would further be indefinite because an active use of a device is a method step of using the device, and such a recitation is indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)). To the extent that applicant intends this phrase to recite an intended use, it is suggested to recite a plurality of UAVs for carrying the airborne transient electromagnetic
2) Applicant claims a sensor, but where the metes and bounds of what this sensor reasonably includes are unclear. Applicant discloses that the sensor is a total field sensor or vector sensor, but neither of these disclosures reasonably identify an particular type of sensor. While sensors exist, such as a total field magnetometer, the sensor is not disclosed or described to be a magnetometer, or any other reasonably specific form of sensor. The same issue exists for a vector sensor. The original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which either type of sensor are implemented, and therefore it is unclear what sensors would and would not reasonably meet the above claim limitation.
As to Claim 8,
The phrase “the receiver sends a real-time status thereof to the trunk module wirelessly, and receives instructions through the trunk module wirelessly” on lines 2-3 are indefinite.
1) Applicant positively recites a use of the receiver by reciting that it “sends” and “receives,” and such a recitation is reasonably a method step of using the receiver. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” This claim is therefore indefinite.
2) As explained above, applicant does not reasonably demonstrate proper written description for the trunk module. As such, it is unclear what is meant by reciting that the receiver sends a real-time status thereof to the trunk module wirelessly, and receives instructions wirelessly through the trunk module, because it is unclear what devices would and would not reasonably meet the truck module claim recitation to therefore allow for these claim features.
3) It is unclear what is meant by reciting that the receiver receives instructions wirelessly through the trunk module. Applicant does not reasonably explain what the trunk module is or its relationship to the receiver. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand what devices or mechanism is being claimed, and thus would not reasonably recognize the full scope of this claim.
4) It is unclear what instructions this phrase is referencing and no device or component was previously claimed to be configured to generate or otherwise provide instructions. Instructions can only reasonably exist if some device either has them stored or otherwise generates them, but the instructions are not reasonably claimed to relate to any structural element in the claims that are necessary for these instructions to exist. As such, the relationship between the instructions and any of the claimed structural features of the claim combination is unclear.
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “the sensor is configured to observe electric or magnetic field response generated by the earth under the excitation of the transmitting system, and transmits an observation result to the receiver through a data cable” on lines 2-4 is indefinite.
1) Applicant positively recites a use of the sensor by reciting that it “transmits,” and such a recitation is reasonably a method step of using the sensor. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” This claim is therefore indefinite.
2) It is unclear what applicant means by reciting that the sensor “observes” an electric or magnetic field response. It is unclear if such a recitation requires an actual detection of an electric or magnetic field, or if such a recitation requires something else such as merely being exposed to such a field. The disclosure is completely silent as to what such a phrase means or the manner in which the sensor is configured or otherwise capable of implementing such a feature. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not reasonably recognize the full scope of the claim because they would not reasonably recognize what limitation is being imposed by this claim feature. The claim scope is therefore unclear, and therefore indefinite.
3) No excitation of the transmitting system was previously recited, and it is therefore unclear what excitation this phrase is referencing.
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 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Wu et al. (WU) (US 2021/0302613 A1).
As to Claims 1-4 and 6-9,
Wu discloses these claims word-for-word in Claims 1-19, with Claims 1-3 meeting Claim 1 of the instant application, and the remaining claims being the same starting with Claim 7 of Wu meeting Claim 2 of the instant application. Wu has the same specification, figures, and claims as the instant application. As such, no further explanation is provided as Wu clearly anticipates the instant application.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858