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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention II, claims 5–12 in the reply filed on April 24, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that all the claims are closely related so that searching and examination of all the claims does not represent a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because examining all of the claims simultaneously would represent a serious burden for the reasons stated in the Requirement for Restriction/Election dated March 23, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 5–12 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.
Claim 5 recites:
5. A humidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation, the humidifying device with VPD control comprising:
a power unit for providing electric power to the humidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation;
a DC fan driven by a DC motor;
a humidifier for providing moisture to the humidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation, wherein the humidifier includes a plurality of humidifying power gears under a humidifying mode;
an IO interface for input and output of control information and status information;
a temperature-humidity sensor for sensing an environmental temperature value T and an environmental relative humidity value RH within an indoor cannabis cultivation environment, wherein a leaf VPD value is calculated from the environmental temperature value T and the environmental relative humidity value RH; and
a main control unit for communicating with and controlling the power unit, the DC fan, the DC motor, the humidifier, the IO interface, and the temperature-humidity sensor, wherein, in a VPD humidifying mode of the humidifying device with VPD control, the leaf VPD value calculated from the environmental temperature value T and the environmental relative humidity value RH is implemented to control the humidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation. Emphasis added.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is a single claim that claims both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 5 is an apparatus claim because it is to a humidifying device. The claim also recites method steps for using the apparatus in the limitations—“a leaf VPD value is calculated from the environmental temperature value T and the environmental relative humidity value RH” and “the leaf VPD value calculated from the environmental temperature value T and the environmental relative humidity value RH is implemented to control the humidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation.” The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when a humidifying device is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement would require that the method steps actually be performed. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II (a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite).
To overcome this rejection, claim 5 could be rewritten as (assuming support from the original disclosure):
5. A humidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation, the humidifying device with VPD control comprising:
a power unit for providing electric power to the humidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation;
a DC fan driven by a DC motor;
a humidifier for providing moisture to the humidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation, wherein the humidifier includes a plurality of humidifying power gears under a humidifying mode;
an IO interface for input and output of control information and status information;
a temperature-humidity sensor for sensing an environmental temperature value T and an environmental relative humidity value RH within an indoor cannabis cultivation environment, wherein
a main control unit for communicating with and controlling the power unit, the DC fan, the DC motor, the humidifier, the IO interface, and the temperature-humidity sensor, wherein, in a VPD humidifying mode of the humidifying device with VPD control, wherein the main control unit is configured to calculate a leaf VPD value from the environmental temperature value T and the environmental relative humidity value RH and control the humidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation based on the leaf VPD value calculated from the environmental temperature value T and the environmental relative humidity value RH
Claims 6–12 are indefinite because they depend from claim 5.
Also, claims 6 and 7 recite:
6. The humidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation of claim 5, wherein the leaf VDP is calculated from the environmental temperature value T and the environmental relative humidity value RH by:
PNG
media_image1.png
123
1298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, VPD unit is in Pa, T is temperature of the air in degrees Celsius, RH is relative humidity of air in % unit and e ≈ 2.71828. Emphasis added.
7. The humidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation of claim 6, wherein when the Leaf Offset is defaulted to 0°C, the leaf VPD value is calculated from the environmental temperature value T and the environmental relative humidity value RH via:
PNG
media_image2.png
98
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Leaf VPD unit is in Pa, T is temperature of the air in degrees Celsius, RH is relative humidity of air in % unit and e ≈ 2.71828. Emphasis added.
Claims 6 and 7 are each indefinite because they are each a single claim that claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus. Specifically, claims 6 and 7 are each apparatus claims because they are to a humidifying device. But each claim also recites method steps of using the apparatus in the limitation “the leaf VDP is calculated.” Therefore, each claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when a humidifying device is created that allows the calculation to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the calculation actually be performed. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II (a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite).
Claims 8–12 are indefinite because they depend from claim 6.
Also, claim 9 recites:
9. The humidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation of claim 7, wherein in an VPD humidifying mode, when the leaf VPD is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold VPDs, the humidifying power gear is increased gradually to a Max-level humidifying power gear set in the ON humidifying mode, wherein when the leaf VPD is lower than the predetermined threshold VPDs, the humidifying power gear is decreased gradually to a Min- level humidifying power gear set in the OFF humidifying mode. Emphasis added.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it is a single claim that claims an apparatus and method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 9 is an apparatus claim because it is to a humidifying device. The claim also recites method steps for using the apparatus in “the humidifying gear is increased” and “the humidifying power gear is decreased.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when a humidifying device is created that allows the humidifying gear to be increased and decreased, or whether infringement requires that the humidifying gear is actually increased and decreased. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II.
Claim 9 is also indefinite because “gradually” is relative terminology that the disclosure fails to define and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 9 is further indefinite because “the ON humidifying mode” and “the ON humidifying mode” lack antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
Claim 10 recites:
10. The humidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation of claim 7, wherein in an AUTO humidifying mode, a humidity threshold value is set between 0 and 100 using the IO interface, when the environmental humidity value H is lower than or equal to the humidity threshold value, the humidifying power gear is increased gradually to the Max-level humidifying power gear set in the ON humidifying mode, when the environmental humidity value H is greater than the humidity threshold value, the humidifying power gear is decreased gradually to the Min-level humidifying power gear set in the OFF humidifying mode. Emphasis added.
Claim 10 is indefinite because it is a single claim that claims an apparatus and method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 10 is an apparatus claim because it is to a humidifying device. The claim also recites method steps for using the apparatus in “a humidity threshold value is set between 0 and 100 using the IO interface,” “the humidifying power gear is increased,” and “the humidifying power gear is decreased.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when a humidifying device is created that allows the humidity threshold value to be set using the interface, with the humidifying gear to be increased and decreased, or whether infringement requires that the humidity threshold value is actually set and with humidifying gear is actually increased and decreased. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II.
Claim 10 is also indefinite because the following limitations lack antecedent basis:
“the environmental humidity value H”
“the Max-level humidifying power gear”
“the ON humidifying mode”
“the Min-level humidifying power gear”
“the OFF humidifying mode.”
Claim 10 is further indefinite because “gradually” is relative terminology that the disclosure fails to define and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 11 recites:
11. The humidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation of claim 7, wherein in a TIMER humidifying mode, a countdown timer is set using the IO interface, wherein when the countdown time is not zero, the Max-level humidifying power gear is run, wherein when the countdown time reaches zero, the Min-level humidifying power gear is run. Emphasis added.
Claim 11 is indefinite because it is a single claim that claims an apparatus and method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 11 is an apparatus claim because it is to a humidifying device. The claim also recites method steps for using the apparatus in “a countdown timer is set using the IO interface,” “the Max-level humidifying power gear is run” and “the Min-level humidifying gear is run.” See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II.
Claim 11 is also indefinite because the following limitations lack antecedent basis:
“the countdown time”
“the Max-level humidifying power gear”
“the Min-level humidifying power gear.”
Claim 12 recites:
12. The humidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation of claim 7, wherein in a CYCLE humidifying mode, an ON-time is set, and an OFF-time is set using the IO interface, wherein during the ON-time, the Max-level humidifying power gear is run, wherein during the OFF-time, the Min-level humidifying power gear is run. Emphasis added.
Claim 12 is indefinite because it is a single claim that claims an apparatus and method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 12 is an apparatus claim because it is to a humidifying device. The claim also recites method steps for using the apparatus in “an ON-time is set, and an OFF-time is set using the IO interface,” “the Max-level humidifying power gear is run,” and “the Min-level humidifying power gear is run.” See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II.
Claim 12 is also indefinite because the following limitations lack antecedent basis:
“the Max-level humidifying power gear”
“the Min-level humidifying power gear.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferkey et al., US 2024/0117981 A1 in view of Lewis, US 2020/0253133 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Ferkey teaches a humidity control system 100 form controlling vapor pressure deficit, which reads on the claimed “humidifying device.” See Ferkey Fig. 1, [0019]. Note that the preamble limitation describing the humidifying device as being “with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2111.02, subsection II. The humidity control system 100 comprises:
A “power unit for providing electric power” to the humidity control system, which is the source of electricity used to run the humidity control system.
A fan 107 driven by a motor. See Ferkey Fig. 1, [0019].
A humidification system 105 (the “humidifier”) for providing moisture to the humidity control system 100. See Ferkey Fig. 1, [0019]. The humidification system 105 comprises a plurality of humidifying power gears under a humidifying mode, as claimed, because the system may utilize variable humidification. See Ferkey [0031].
A user interface 130 (the “IO interface”) for input and output of control information and status information, as claimed. See Ferkey Fig. 1, [0021].
One or more sensors 125 (the “temperature-humidity sensor”) for sensing an environmental temperature value and an environmental relative humidity value within an indoor space. See Ferkey Fig. 1, [0021]. Note that the limitation of “within an indoor cannabis cultivation environment” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because the “indoor cannabis cultivation environment” is not a positively recited element of the claimed humidifying device. See MPEP 2115 (a claim is only limited by positively recited elements). Also, the limitation of “wherein a leaf VPD value is calculated from the environmental temperature value T and the environmental relative humidity value RH” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
A controller 120 (the “main control unit”) for communicating with and controlling the power unit of the humidity control system 100, the fan, the fan motor, the humidification system 105, the interface 130 and the one or more sensors 125. See Ferkey Fig. 1, [0020].
The limitation of “the leaf VPD value calculated from the environmental temperature value T and the environmental relative humidity value RH is implemented to control the humidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114. Note that the claim fails to specify that main control unit is programmed to control the humidifying the device with the leaf VPD value, and therefore this limitation is not a structural component of the main control unit. Note also that the controller 120 calculates the vapor pressure deficit based on received measurement of humidity level within the space and a received temperature measurement of the space, with the controller 120 controlling the humidity control system 100 using the calculated vapor pressure deficit. See Ferkey [0024]–[0025].
PNG
media_image3.png
926
1167
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ferkey differs from claim 5 because it is silent as to the fan 107 and fan motor being a DC fan and a DC motor.
But Lewis teaches a crop production system comprising an air flow circulation device that can be an AC fan, a DC fan or a passive fan. See Lewis [0131]. It would have been obvious for the fan 107 and fan motor to be a DC fan and a DC motor because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
Claims 6–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferkey et al., US 2024/0117981 A1 in view of Lewis, US 2020/0253133 A1, optionally in view of “The Ultimate (Practical) Vapor Pressure Deficit Guide” (December 11, 2018) (hereinafter “the NPL document”).
Regarding claim 6, the limitation of “leaf VPD is calculated from the environmental temperature value T and the environmental relative humidity value RH by…” fails patentably distinguish over the prior art because this limitation describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
But it also would have been obvious to modify Ferkey to teach the limitations of claim 6 for the following reasons. Specifically, the humidity control system 100 of Ferkey can be used to control the humidity of an indoor space for growing plants. See Ferkey [0023]. Ferkey also teaches that the controller 120 calculates vapor pressure deficit (VPD) and uses this calculation to control the system 100. Id. at [0024]–[0025]. Further, the NPL document explains that leaf VPD can be used to improve growth of plants. See NPL document, p. 2. The NPL document explains that leaf VPD can be calculated using the formula:
L
e
a
f
V
P
D
=
L
S
V
P
-
(
A
S
V
P
x
R
H
100
)
Id. at p. 4 (How to Calculate Leaf VPD). ASVP (air SVP, which is the same as SVP) is calculated using the equation:
A
S
V
P
=
610.78
x
e
(
T
/
T
+
238.3
x
17.2694
)
)
Id. Also, the equation for LSVP is the same as ASVP, but using the leaf temperature in the calculation, which is typically 1–3°C cooler. Id. This is interpreted as “T + Leaf offset.” Therefore, LSVP would be calculated with the equation:
L
S
V
P
=
610.78
x
e
(
(
T
+
L
e
a
f
o
f
f
s
e
t
)
/
T
+
L
e
a
f
o
f
f
s
e
t
+
238.3
x
17.2694
)
)
Therefore, Leaf VPD would be calculated using the equation:
L
e
a
f
V
P
D
=
610.78
x
e
(
(
T
+
L
e
a
f
o
f
f
s
e
t
)
/
T
+
L
e
a
f
o
f
f
s
e
t
+
238.3
x
17.2694
)
)
-
(
610.78
x
e
(
T
/
T
+
238.3
x
17.2694
)
)
x
R
H
100
)
This equation is substantially the same as the claimed formula of:
PNG
media_image1.png
123
1298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for vapor pressure deficit determined by the controller 120 of Ferkey to be Leaf VPD to improve the growth of the plants in the indoor space. It also would have been obvious to use the formula for Leaf VPD provided in Ferkey because this is a suitable equation for determining leaf VPD.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation of “wherein when the Leaf Offset is defaulted to 0°C, the leaf VPD value is calculated from the environmental temperature value T and the environmental relative humidity value RH…” fails patentably distinguish over the prior art because this limitation describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
But it also would have been obvious to use the leaf VPD equation of the NPL document, for the reasons explained above. With this modification, the NPL document explains that leaf ASVP is the same, except for the leaf temperature offset. See NPL document, p. 4 (How to Calculate Leaf VPD). Therefore, when the leaf offset is 0°, it would have been obvious to merely calculate leaf VPD with ASVP x RH/100 because there would be no need for an offset. This would result in leaf VPD being calculated using the equation:
L
e
a
f
V
P
D
=
(
610.78
x
e
(
T
/
T
+
238.3
x
17.2694
)
)
x
R
H
100
)
This equation from the NPL document is substantially the same as the claimed formula of:
PNG
media_image2.png
98
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the limitation of “the user can set a Leaf Offset value between -10°C and 10°C” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because this limitation describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114. Note also that the limitation is optional because it says that a user “can set.”
Further, the NPL document teaches that the leaf offset can be 1–3°C because the leaf temperature is typically 1–3°C cooler than air temperature T. See NPL document p. 4 (“How to Calculate Leaf VPD”). The prior art range of 1–3°C is within the claimed range of -10°C and 10°C.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation of—“when the leaf VPD is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold VPDs, the humidifying power gear is increased gradually to a Max-level humidifying power gear set in the ON humidifying mode, wherein when the leaf VPD is lower than the predetermined threshold VPDs, the humidifying power gear is decreased gradually to a Min- level humidifying power gear set in the OFF humidifying mode”—fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
But, also note that Ferkey as modified teaches this feature because the controller 120 compares the determined humidity level (e.g., leaf VPD) to a humidity setpoint (a threshold), with the controller 120 generating a humidification call to the humidification system 105 to humidity the indoor space when the determined humidity level is below the setpoint, and with the controller 120 generating a dehumidification call (i.e., turns off the humidification system 105) when the determined humidity level is above the humidity setpoint. See Ferkey [0025].
Regarding claim 10, the limitation of—"in an AUTO humidifying mode, a humidity threshold value is set between 0 and 100 using the IO interface, when the environmental humidity value H is lower than or equal to the humidity threshold value, the humidifying power gear is increased gradually to the Max-level humidifying power gear set in the ON humidifying mode, when the environmental humidity value H is greater than the humidity threshold value, the humidifying power gear is decreased gradually to the Min-level humidifying power gear set in the OFF humidifying mode”—fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
But the humidity control system 100 of Ferkey is capable of performing the claimed functions because the system 100 is able to operate in an automatic mode using a humidity setpoint, which is a threshold (see Ferkey [0023]–[0025]), and the interface 130 is capable of receiving user commands related to operation of the system (see Ferkey [0021]). Therefore, a user could enter a setpoint into the interface between 0 and 100. Also, the humidity setpoint is compared to a determined humidity level, which can be relative humidity in the indoor space. Id. at [0023]. When the determined humidity level is less than the setpoint, the controller 120 generates a humidification call to the humidification system 105 requesting humidification of the space (the level that the humidification system 105 eventually runs at is a “Max-level” and the period for powering it to its operating level is increasing it gradually to the max level). Id. at [0025]. Also, when the humidity level is greater than the setpoint, the controller 120 generates dehumidification call, which is interpreted as involving turning off the humidification system 105. Id. This reads on “when the environmental humidity value H is greater than the humidity threshold value, the humidifying power gear is decreased gradually to the min-level humidifying power gear set in the OFF humidifying mode.”
Regarding claim 11, the limitation of—“in a TIMER humidifying mode, a countdown timer is set using the IO interface, wherein when the countdown time is not zero, the Max-level humidifying power gear is run, wherein when the countdown time reaches zero, the Min-level humidifying power gear is run”—fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
But Ferkey also teaches that the controller 120 may utilize a time-based schedule for controlling the humidity in the indoor space, with the schedule being set by a user at the interface 130, with each time period having a start time (when the humidification system 105 is turned on, i.e., at a Max level) and end time (when the humidification system 105 is turned off, i.e., at a Min level). See Ferkey [0034]. This reads on “in a TIMER humidifying mode, a countdown timer is set using the IO interface, wherein when the countdown time is not zero, the Max-level humidifying power gear is run, wherein when the countdown time reaches zero, the Min-level humidifying power gear is run.”
Regarding claim 12, the limitation of—“in a CYCLE humidifying mode, an ON-time is set, and an OFF-time is set using the IO interface, wherein during the ON-time, the Max-level humidifying power gear is run, wherein during the OFF-time, the Min-level humidifying power gear is run”—fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
But Ferkey also teaches that a time-based humidity control schedule can be set by a user at the interface 130, where the humidification system 105 cycles on and off during preset time periods (the on time is a max-level, and the off time is a min-level). See Ferkey [0034]. This reads on “a CYCLE humidifying mode, an ON-time is set, and an OFF-time is set using the IO interface, wherein during the ON-time, the Max-level humidifying power gear is run, wherein during the OFF-time, the Min-level humidifying power gear is run.”
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stark, US 2024/0349660 A1 (system for managing vapor pressure difference in agricultural environment); Sadelman, US 2024/0196913 A1 (method of controlling environment in a grow room); Vijayan et al., US 2024/0003615 A1 (vapor pressure deficit control for food preservation); Mihelich, US 2023/0014943 A1 (control system for controlling humidity in indoor growing environment).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights