DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant’s reply filed on May 4, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
In response to the applicant’s amendments to the abstract to remove an implied phrase, the objections to the Specification have been withdrawn.
In response to the applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 16 to address minor informalities and improve clarity of the claims, the objections to claims 1 and 16 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 4 and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 1-3 and 5-120 filed May 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Applicants have argued that Yano et al., US 2009/0026803 (hereinafter Yano) in view of Rogers et al., German Patent No. DE 602 15 252 T2 (hereinafter Rogers) fails to discloses the limitations of the claims. Specifically, the applicant has argued that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the latch assembly of Yano with the latch assembly of Rogers. The Examiner disagrees with this position.
Applicant has argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to modify the latch assembly of Yano with the latch assembly of Rogers as there is no motivation to combine the two references. Specifically, applicant indicates that the current rejection does not explain why Yano’s existing, function lock would need a modification in the first place and there is no articulated deficiency in Yano’s lock mechanism which would require one to seek out a different lock mechanism. However, there is no requirement that Yano’s lock assembly have a deficiency in order to modify it. Further as both Yano and Rogers disclose lock assemblies the finding the substitution of one lock assembly for another lock assembly would yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art is a rationale to support the conclusion that the substation would have been obvious, MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Additionally, Applicant asserts that this is not a simple substitution because the latch mechanism of Yano and Rogers are designed for fundamentally incompatible pin structures and engagement methods. Specifically, the applicant indicates that latch mechanisms of Yano and Rogers are designed for fundamentally incompatible pin structures and engagement methods. However, as indicated in the current rejection, the lock assembly of Yano on its entirety has been modified with the lock assembly of Rogers in its entirety, which would include the would include the locking pins and associated pin structures as well as the engagement methods.
Further Applicants indicated that the latching and release sequences reflect opposite designs and are therefor not interchangeable mechanisms. However, as previously state the locking mechanism of Yano in its entirety has been modified by the locking mechanism of Rogers in its entirety and therefore the latching and release sequences being incompatible is not relevant as the locking mechanism of Yano would not be used with the locking mechanism of Rogers. Instead, as indicated in the current rejection, the locking mechanism of Rogers replaces the locking mechanism of Yano.
Applicant has indicated that there is no explanation as to how a person of ordinary skill in the art would make the necessary adjustments to adapt Rogers latch to work with Yano’s system. Again, as previously indicated Rogers locking mechanism is substituted in its entirety for the locking mechanism of Yano and therefore the two locking mechanisms do not need to be compatible with each other. Further, as the entire locking mechanism has been substituted, this would not render Yano’s locking mechanism inoperable as it has been modified completely by Rogers.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant has argued that the feature of “the secondary locking plate provides a backup latch that prevents the locking pin from exiting an enclosure defined by the mounting plate, the secondary locking plate, and the cover plate” is a true failsafe for work vehicle vibration and impact scenarios and prevents the pin from becoming dislodged from the primary locking plate. Further, this differs from Rogers which functions as an “anti-release mechsim”, which prevents the detent lever from returning to the latched position before the deck lid is opened. Applicant argues that this is fundamentally different from a backup latch that physically blocks the locking pin from exiting. While the intended use for “the secondary locking plate provides a backup latch that prevents the locking pin from exiting an enclosure defined by the mounting plate, the secondary locking plate, and the cover plate” may be different between the instant invention and Rogers, there are no limitations in claim 5 that distinguish the instant invention from Rogers. As indicated in the current rejection Rogers meets the limations of claim 5 as, the secondary locking plate (40, 44) of Rogers does provide a backup latch that prevents the locking pin (16) from exiting an enclosure defined by the mounting plate (17), the secondary locking plate (40, 44), and the cover plate (narrow portion of 11) as the locking plate (angle lever 40 and the pawl 44) both in their respective positions in Figure 3 hold the locking pin (16) from being released. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a failsafe for vehicle vibration scenarios) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claims 2-3, 5-15, and 17-20, the applicants arguments with respect to claims 1 and 16 are equally applicable to claims 2-3, 5-15, and 17-20.
Applicant’s arguments, filed May 4, 2026, with respect to claim 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Specifically, the applicant’s amendments to claim 4 have overcome the current rejection of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al., US 2009/0026803 (hereinafter Yano) in view of Rogers et al., German Patent No. DE 602 15 252 T2 (hereinafter Rogers).
Claim 1: Yano discloses a latch assembly (lock mechanism 544) for securing a window frame (window frame 542) to a fixed housing (tongue piece portions 62, 63 of rail member 56 of frame body cab 5, see Fig 3-5, 8-9) comprising:
a mounting plate (plate-like portion 544A) configured to fixedly secure the latch assembly (544) to the window frame (plate-like portion 544A that projects in an out-of-plane direction of the rear surface of the window frame 542, see Fig 5);
the latch assembly (544) mounted to the mounting plate (544A), including a notch (recessed portions 544C, 544D) for receiving a locking pin (engaging pins 621, 631).
Yano fails to disclose a primary locking plate mounted to the mounting plate, including a notch for receiving a locking pin, wherein the primary locking plate is rotatable around a first hinge pin, and movable between an open position and a closed position by rotating about the first hinge pin; a secondary locking plate mounted to the mounting plate, rotatable around a second hinge pin, and movable between an undeflected position and a deflected position; a release lever connected to the mounting plate and rotatable around a third hinge pin from an unlocked position to a locked position to prevent rotational movement of the primary locking plate; wherein the secondary locking plate is configured to engage a locking pin mounted on the fixed housing, wherein the primary locking plate is configured to rotate from the open position to the closed position when the locking pin is received in the notch, and wherein the primary locking plate is configured to secure the locking pin against the mounting plate, when the primary locking plate is in the closed position.
Rogers discloses a latch assembly (vehicle compartment lock 10) for securing a frame (vehicle compartment closure such as a trunk lid 12) to a fixed housing (driver 16 on vehicle body 17) (see Fig 1) comprising:
a mounting plate (connection of driver to vehicle body 17) configured to fixedly secure the latch assembly (10) to the frame (12);
a primary locking plate (fork bolt 14) mounted to the mounting plate (11), including a notch (slot 52) for receiving a locking pin (driver 16), wherein the primary locking plate (14) is rotatable around a first hinge pin (pivot 15), and movable between an open position (as seen in Fig 1) and a closed position (as seen in Fig 2) by rotating about the first hinge pin (15);
a secondary locking plate (angle lever 40 with pawl 44) mounted to the mounting plate (11), rotatable around a second hinge pin (pivot 42), and movable between an undeflected position (as shown in Fig 2) and a deflected position (as shown in Fig 1);
a release lever (locking lever 18 with upper arm 25) connected to the mounting plate (11) and rotatable around a third hinge pin (pivot 19) from an unlocked position (as seen in Fig 1) to a locked position (as seen in Fig 2) to prevent rotational movement of the primary locking plate (14) (pg 3);
wherein the secondary locking plate (40, 44) is configured to engage (via arm 50) a locking pin (16) mounted on the fixed housing (17) (see Fig 2),
wherein the primary locking plate (14) is configured to rotate from the open position (see Fig 1) to the closed position (see Fig 2-3) when the locking pin (16) is received in the notch (52) (see Fig 2-3, pg 4), and
wherein the primary locking plate (14) is configured to secure the locking pin (16) against the mounting plate (11), when the primary locking plate (14) is in the closed position (see Fig 2-3, pg 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the latch assembly of Yano with the latch assembly as disclosed by Rogers as the need for a latching assembly for securing a window frame to a housing would have lead one skilled in the art to choose an appropriate latching assembly, such as the latching assembly as disclosed by Rogers . One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily substituted the known latching assembly of Rogers for the other known latching assembly of Yano and the results of the substitution would have been predictable as the latching assemblies both serve the same purpose of securing to parts together.
Claim 2: Yano, as modified by Rogers, discloses the secondary locking plate (Rogers, angle lever 40 with pawl 44) comprises an arm (Rogers, arm 50), a pin guide (Rogers, end of arm 50 that contacts driver 16) disposed at a front end portion of the arm (Rogers, as shown in Fig 2-3), and a shoulder (at opposite end of arm 50 from driver 16) disposed at a rear end portion (see Fig 2-3) of the arm (50).
Claim 3: Yano, as modified by Rogers, discloses a biasing element (return spring 54) attached to the secondary locking plate (40) and configured to retain the secondary locking plate in the undeflected position (Fig 2) (the pawl 44 is biased off in the non-engaged position 1, as seen in Fig 1, pg 3-4).
Claim 5: Yano, as modified by Rogers, discloses a cover plate (narrow portion of holder 11) enclosing the primary locking plate (14) and the secondary locking plate (40, 44), wherein when the secondary locking plate (40, 44) is in the undeflected position (locked, Fig 2-3, pg 3) and the locking pin (16) is received in the latch assembly (10) (see Fig 2-3), the secondary locking plate (40, 44) provides a backup latch that prevents the locking pin (16) from exiting an enclosure defined by the mounting plate (17), the secondary locking plate (40, 44), and the cover plate (narrow portion of 11) (the angle lever 40 and the pawl 44 both in their respective in 3 shown engagement positions are now the trunk lid 12 be opened at any time, pg 3).
Claim 6: Yano, as modified by Rogers, discloses wherein the release lever (Rogers, locking lever 18 with upper arm 25) engages the shoulder of the secondary locking plate (Rogers, 40, 44) to move the secondary locking plate (Rogers, 40, 44) from the undeflected position (Fig 2-3) to the deflected position (Fig 1) (Rogers, lock the locking lever 18 from the locked position in the in Fig 3 to move to shown release position in Fig 1, whereby opening the trunk lid 12 is possible, pg 3).
Claim 7: Yano, as modified by Rogers, discloses wherein when the secondary locking plate (Rogers, 40, 44) is in the deflected position (shown in Fig 1), the locking pin (16) can exit the latch assembly (Rogers, vehicle compartment lock 10 is open as shown in Fig 1).
Claim 8: Yano, as modified by Rogers, discloses wherein the primary locking plate (14) comprises a shoulder (locking shoulder 23) circumferentially spaced apart from the notch (slot 52) (Rogers, locking shoulder 23 is circumferentially spaced from the slot 52 as shown in Fig 1-3).
Claim 9: Yano, as modified by Rogers, discloses wherein when the release lever (Rogers 18) is in the locked position (Rogers, shown in Fig 2), the release lever (18) engages the shoulder (Rogers 23) of the primary locking plate (Rogers, 14) to prevent the primary locking plate from moving from the closed position (Rogers, locked or closed position as shown in Fig 2) to the open position (Rogers, unlocked or open positron shown in Fig 1) (Rogers, see Fig 1-2, pg 3).
Claim 10: Yano, as modified by Rogers, discloses wherein when the release lever (Rogers, 18) is moved from the locked position (Rogers, shown in Fig 2) to the unlocked position (Rogers, shown in Fig 1), the release lever (18) disengages the shoulder (Rogers 23) of the primary locking plate (Rogers, 14) to permit the primary locking plate (Rogers, 14) to move from the closed position (see Fig 2) to the open position (moves to position in Fig 3 and then to position in Fig 1, pg 4).
Claim 11: Yano, as modified by Rogers, discloses further comprising a biasing element (Rogers, fork bolt 14 is actuated by a clockwise acting spring bias shown in Fig 1 by pivot 19 arranged around torsion spring 20, torsion spring 20 trained extension stands with locking lever 18 engaged such that the locking lever 18 is subject to clockwise acting spring bias by torsion spring 20 and thereby against shock 21 and into the locking position in Fig 2, pg 3) operationally connected to the release lever (Rogers, 18) and configured to return the locking lever from the unlocked position (Rogers, shown in Fig 1) to the locked position (Rogers, shown in Fig 2) (pg 3).
Claim 12: Yano, as modified by Rogers, discloses wherein the primary locking plate (Rogers, 14) comprises a cam portion (Rogers, end 22) that engages the release lever (Rogers, 18) and prevents the release lever (Rogers, 18) from moving from the unlocked position (Rogers, Fig 1) to the locked position (Rogers, Fig 2) when the primary locking plate (Rogers 14) is in the open position (as shown in Fig 1).
Claim 13: Yano, as modified by Rogers, discloses when the locking pin (driver 16) is received in the notch (slot 52) of the primary locking plate (14), the locking pin (Rogers 16) engages a side portion of the notch (Rogers 52) of the locking plate (Rogers 14) to rotationally move the primary locking plate (Rogers 14) from the open position (Rogers as shown in Fig 1) to the closed position (Rogers as shown in Fig 2) (Rogers the fork bolt occurs 14 with the driver 16 engaged and the fork bolt 14 is due to the closing boot lid 12 counterclockwise from the open or unlocked position in Fig 1 pivoted to the closed or locked position in Fig 2, wherein the driver 16 is shown in the slot 52 of the fork bolt 14 is caught, pg 4).
Claim 14: Yano, as modified by Rogers, discloses a biasing element (rogers, torsion spring 20) operationally attached to the primary locking plate (Rogers 14) and configured to return the primary locking plate (Rogers, 14) to the open position (Rogers, allowing the fork bolt 14 under the action of the spring 20 to turn clockwise to the non-engaged position in Figure1, the driver 16 out of the slot 52 moves out, the angle lever 40 pivoted counterclockwise and returns back to the non-engaged position in Figure 1).
Claim 15: Yano, as modified by Rogers, discloses wherein moving the release lever (Rogers, lever 18) from the locked position (shown in Fig 2) to the unlocked position both releases the primary locking plate (Rogers 14) to return to the open position (as shown in Fig 1) and moves the secondary locking plate (Rogers, 40, 44) from the undeflected position (locked position shown in Fig 2) to the deflected position (Rogers unlocked position shown in Fig 1) (Rogers, the push-pull cable 33 is opened, the locking lever 18 moves counterclockwise from the engaged position in Fig 2 to the release position shown in Fig 3, driver 16 exits course from slot 52 fork bolt 14 turns clockwise into the non-engaged position in Fig 1, pg 4).
Claim 16: Yano discloses a work vehicle (hydraulic excavator 1) comprising:
an operator cab (cab 5) having a fixed housing (tongue piece portions 62, 63 of rail member 56 of frame body cab 5, see Fig 3-5, 8-9) and a locking pin (engaging pins 621, 631) mounted to the fixed housing (62, 63, of 56) (see Fig 5);
a window (glass window 54 in window frame 542); and
a latch assembly (544) mounted to the window (54 of 542) and configured to releasably secure the window (54 of 542) to the housing (62, 63, 56) of the operator cab (5), the latch assembly comprising:
a mounting plate (plate-like portion 544A) having configured to fixedly secure the latch assembly to the window (plate-like portion 544A projects in an out-of-plane direction of the rear surface of the window frame 542, and a lock portion 544B rotatably mounted to the plate-like portion 544A, par [0057]);
a cover plate (tongue piece portion 62, 63) vertically spaced apart from the mounting plate (544A) and partially defining an enclosure between the cover plate (63, 63) and the mounting plate (544A) (as seen in Fig 9-10, par [0064], [0075]) ;
Yanno fails to disclose the latch assembly comprising: a first locking plate mounted to the mounting plate and rotatable around a first hinge pin between an open position and a closed position and including a notch configured to receive the locking pin; a second locking plate mounted to the mounting plate and rotatable around a second hinge pin between a deflected position and an undeflected position; and a release lever mounted to the mounting plate and rotatable around a third hinge pin between a locked position and an unlocked position; wherein when the notch of the first locking plate receives the locking pin, the first locking plate is urged by the locking pin from the open position to the closed position and the release lever engages the first locking plate to prevent the first locking plate from returning to the open position, and wherein when the locking pin is contained within the enclosure, and the second locking plate is in the undeflected position, the second locking plate prevents the locking pin from exiting the enclosure.
Rogers discloses a latch assembly (vehicle compartment lock 10) for securing a frame (vehicle compartment closure such as a trunk lid 12) to a fixed housing (driver 16 on vehicle body 17) (see Fig 1) comprising:
a first locking plate (fork bolt 14) mounted to the mounting plate (11) and rotatable around a first hinge pin (pivot 15) between an open position (as seen in Fig 1) and a closed position (as seen in Fig 2) and including a notch (slot 52) configured to receive the locking pin (driver 16) (Rogers, Fig 1-2, pg 3);
a second locking plate (angle lever 40 with pawl 44) mounted to the mounting plate (11), rotatable around a second hinge pin (pivot 42), and movable between an undeflected position (as shown in Fig 2) and a deflected position (as shown in Fig 1); and
a release lever (locking lever 18 with upper arm 25) connected to the mounting plate (11) and rotatable around a third hinge pin (pivot 19) between a locked position (as seen in Fig 2) and an unlocked position (as seen in Fig 1);
wherein when the notch (slot 52) of the first locking plate (14) receives the locking pin (16), the first locking plate (14) is urged by the locking pin (16) from the open position (shown in Fig 1) to the closed position (shown in Fig 2) (see Fig 2-3, pg 3-4), and the release lever (locking lever 18 with upper arm 25) engages the first locking plate (14) to prevent the first locking plate (14) from returning to the open position (Rogers, see Fig 1-2, pg 3), and
wherein when the locking pin (16) is contained within the enclosure (shown in Fig 2), and the second locking plate (40, 44) is in the undeflected position (see Fig 2), the second locking plate (40, 44) prevents the locking pin (16) from exiting the enclosure (52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the latch assembly of Yano with the latch assembly as disclosed by Rogers as the need for a latching assembly for securing a window frame to a housing would have lead one skilled in the art to choose an appropriate latching assembly, such as the latching assembly as disclosed by Rogers . One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily substituted the known latching assembly of Rogers for the other known latching assembly of Yano and the results of the substitution would have been predictable as the latching assemblies both serve the same purpose of securing to parts together.
Claim 17: Yano, as modified by Rogers, discloses a first biasing element (torsion spring 20) operatively connected to the first locking plate (14) and configured to return the first locking plate (14) from the closed position to the open position (shown in Fig 1) (Rogers, fork bolt under action of spring 20 turns clockwise to the non-engaged position in Fig 1);
a second biasing element (Rogers, return spring 54) operatively connected to the second locking plate (Rogers, 40, 44) and configured to return the second locking plate (Rogers, 40, 44) from the deflected position (Rogers, shown in Fig 1) to the undeflected position (Rogers, shown Fig 2) (Rogers, pawl 44 is biased off in the non-engaged position 1, pg 3-4); and
a third biasing element (shock 21) operatively connected to the release lever (Rogers, locking lever 18) and configured to return the release lever from the unlocked position (Rogers, Fig 1) to the locked position (Rogers, Fig 2) (Rogers, locking lever 18 by the torsion spring 20 subjected to a clockwise acting spring bias and thereby against the shock 21 the holder 11 in Figure 1 and pressed into the locking position as shown in Fig 2, see pg 3).
Claim 18: Yano, as modified by Rogers, discloses wherein the second locking plate (Rogers, 40, 44) comprises a leading edge portion (Rogers, along arm 50), and when the locking pin (Rogers, driver 16) is introduced into the enclosure (Rogers, driver 16 is located in the enclosure in Fig 2), the locking pin (Rogers, 16) engages the leading edge portion of the second locking plate (Rogers, driver 16 engages arm 50 of angle lever arm 40) to urge the second locking plate from the undeflected position (as shown in Fig 1) to the deflected position (as shown in Fig 2) (see Fig 1-2, pg 3-4).
Claim 19: Yano, as modified by Rogers, discloses wherein the first locking plate (Rogers, 14) comprises a cam portion (Rogers, end 22) that engages the release lever (Rogers, 18) and prevents the release lever (Rogers, 18) from entering the locked position (Rogers, Fig 2) when the first locking plate (Rogers 14) is in the open position (as shown in Fig 1) (Rogers, Fig 1-2, pg 4).
Claim 20: Yano, as modified by Rogers, discloses when a user moves the release lever (Rogers, lever 18) from the locked position (shown in Fig 2) to the unlocked position (as shown in Fig 1), the release lever:
disengages the first locking plate (Rogers 14), allowing the first locking plate (Rogers 14) to return from the locked position (locked position shown in Fig 2) to the unlocked position (as shown in Fig 1), and engages the second locking plate (Rogers, 40, 44), urging the second locking plate (Rogers, 40, 44) from the undeflected position (locked position shown in Fig 2) to the deflected position (Rogers unlocked position shown in Fig 1) (Rogers, the push-pull cable 33 is opened, the locking lever 18 moves counterclockwise from the engaged position in Fig 2 to the release position shown in Fig 3, driver 16 exits course from slot 52 fork bolt 14 turns clockwise into the non-engaged position in Fig 1, pg 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 4 contains allowable subject matter over the closest prior art as cited above.
Regarding claim 4, Rogers discloses wherein a leading edge of the pin guide (end of arm 50 that contacts driver 16) of the secondary locking plate (40, 44) engages the locking pin (16) as the latch assembly (10) is engaged with the housing (driver 16 is attached to vehicle body 17), and wherein the secondary locking plate (40, 44) is moved from the undeflected position (in Fig 2-3) to the deflected position (in Fig 1) to admit the locking pin (16) into the latch assembly (10) (latch assembly 10 is in the open or unlocked position so that driver 16 can move into the latch assembly 10 in Fig 2-3).
Rogers does not disclose a leading edge of the pin guide of the secondary locking plate engages the locking pin prior to the locking pin engaging the notch of the primary locking plate.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
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 CAROLINE N BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 pm EST.
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, Tara E Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/CAROLINE N BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights