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
Claim 47 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected a method of measuring chlorophyll fluorescence, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/26/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of 1, 4-9, 11-15, 17, 19, 33, 35, 43, and 45-46 in the reply filed on 08/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that concurrent examination of the pending claims would not preset a serious burden to the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the restriction meets the requirement for lack unity of invention. Even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of "a system comprising: a light source including a laser, an optical sensor with a field of view of no more than 400 deg2, and an actuator”, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Guo et al. (US 20210223178 A1).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 33 recites “wherein the or each light source” should recite “wherein at least one light source”.
Claim 33 should also add the phrase ‘and’ between “50 cm2,at least ”. It should recite “…50 cm2, and at least…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 35 is 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 35 recites the limitation "the actuator". This limitation is indefinite since it is unclear which “actuator” is being referenced in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jalink et al (WO 2004040274 A1) in view of Guo et al. (US 20210223178 A1), and further in view of Popp et al. (WO 2020125859 A2). The examiner has obtained a machine translation of the WO 2020125859 A2 document above. The rejection below is based off the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Jalink teaches a system for measuring chlorophyll fluorescence (pg 9, line 5-6), the system comprising:
at least one light source configured to emit substantially collimated or convergently focussed light so as to irradiate an area with light, wherein the at least one light source comprises a laser configured to irradiate a spot-shaped area with light (pg 9, line 8, Figure 1);
an optical sensor configured to detect chlorophyll fluorescence from each area irradiated with light (“fluorescence is measured with a camera”, pg 9, line 18).
Jalink does not teach an optical sensor that has a field of view of no more than 400 deg2, an actuator configured to controllably direct the light from the light source so as to enable the light source to irradiate a plurality of different areas with light; and an actuator configured to move the optical sensor and/or to move one or more optical elements relative to the optical sensor so as to enable the optical sensor to detect chlorophyll fluorescence from each area irradiated with light.
Guo teaches an optical system for biological assays that includes a light source directed at the specimen to detect the emission light (Abstract). Guo teaches parameters in the analogous art of fluorescence imaging of biological specimen (para 1849). Gou teaches an optical sensor with a field of view of no more than 400 deg2 (para 1554, pg 47 Table 1) to reduce detection errors (para 1512). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before ethe effective filing date to modify Jalink with optical sensor with a field of view of no more than 400 deg2 as taught by Guo to reduce detection errors (para 1512).
Jalink in view of Guo does not teach an actuator configured to controllably direct the light from the light source so as to enable the light source to irradiate a plurality of different areas with light; and an actuator configured to move the optical sensor and/or to move one or more optical elements relative to the optical sensor so as to enable the optical sensor to detect chlorophyll fluorescence from each area irradiated with light.
Popp teaches an invention for identifying optical properties of a biological sample which include a light beam directed at the sample and an optical sensor for detecting the transmitted light (pg 2, Abstract). Popp further teaches an evaluation unit which includes actuators that controllably direct the light from the light source and move optical sensors (pg 8) for the benefit of influencing the interference behavior for accuracy (pg 8). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Jalink in view of Guo with an actuator configured to controllably direct the light from the light source so as to enable the light source to irradiate a plurality of different areas with light; and an actuator configured to move the optical sensor and/or to move one or more optical elements relative to the optical sensor so as to enable the optical sensor to detect chlorophyll fluorescence from each area irradiated with light as taught by Popp for the benefit of influencing the interference behavior for accuracy (pg 8).
Regarding claim 4, Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp teaches the invention of claim 1.
Jalink in view of Guo does not teach the actuator configured to move the optical sensor and/or to move one or more optical elements relative to the optical sensor is the same actuator configured to direct the light from the light source.
However, Popp teaches the actuator configured to move the optical sensor and/or to move one or more optical elements relative to the optical sensor is the same actuator configured to direct the light from the light source (figure 17, [14]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Jalink in view of Guo with the actuator configured to move the optical sensor and/or to move one or more optical elements relative to the optical sensor is the same actuator configured to direct the light from the light source as taught by Popp for the benefit of synchronized movements to ensure accurate results.
Regarding claim 5, Jalink in view of in Guo and further in view of Popp teaches the invention of claim 1.
Jalink does not teach the optical sensor has a field of view that is smaller than the total space accessible for irradiation by at least one light source.
Guo teaches the optical sensor has a field of view that is smaller than the total space accessible for irradiation by the at least one light source (para 1554) for the benefit of improved resolution of the system (para 1554). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before ethe effective filing date to modify Jalink in view Guo further in view of Popp with the optical sensor having a field of view that is smaller than the total space accessible for irradiation by the at least one light source as taught by Guo for the benefit improved resolution of the system (para 1554).
Regarding claim 6, Jalink in view of in Guo and further in view of Popp teaches the invention of claim 1.
Jalink does not teach the optical sensor has a field of view no more than 200 deg2.
Guo teaches the optical sensor has a field of view no more than 200 deg2 (para 1556) for the benefit of achieving high throughput (para 1554). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jalink in view Guo further in view of Popp with the optical sensor having a field of view no more than 200 deg2 as taught by Guo the benefit of achieving high throughput (para 1554). Regarding claim 7, Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp teaches the invention of claim 1. Jalink further teaches at least one light source and optical sensor are fixedly mounted relative to one another (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp teaches the invention of claim 1. Jalink further teaches the optical sensor comprises an imaging sensor (“fluorescence is measured with a camera”, pg 9, line 18).
Regarding claim 14, Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp teaches the invention of claim 1. Jalink further teaches that the optical sensor is a non-imaging sensor (‘photodiodes’, pg 6, line 14-17). Jalink also teaches that the optical sensor is an imaging sensor (‘camera’, pg 6, line 14-17).
Jalink does not teach the imaging sensor has a wider field of view than the non-imaging optical sensor.
Guo further teaches how the optical sensor can have various fields of view (para 1527). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp with the imaging sensor having a wider field of view than the non-imaging sensor as taught by Guo for the benefit of covering more area for spatial information.
Regarding claim 15, Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp teaches the invention of claim 1. Jalink further teaches an optical filter arranged to block reflected light from the at least one light source and allow the optical sensor to detect light resulting from chlorophyll fluorescence (pg 9, line 18-20).
Regarding claim 17, Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp teaches the invention of claim 15.
Jalink does not teach the optical filter is an interference filter.
Guo teaches the optical filter is an interference filter for the benefit of selectively transmitting a reflecting light of different wavelengths (para 1557). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp, with the optical filter being an interference filter as taught by Guo of selectively transmitting a reflecting light of different wavelengths (para 1557).
Regarding claim 33, Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp teaches the invention claim 1.
Jalink does not teach each light source is configured to irradiate an area of less than 50 cm2 and at least at one working distance in the range 0.1 m to 20 m.
Guo teaches teach each light source is configured to irradiate an area of less than 50 cm2 (para 1092). Gou further teaches longer working distances to enable imaging of larger areas (para 1627). It would be obvious to one in the art to modify the working distance to be with the range 0.1 m to 20 m distances to enable imaging of larger areas as a design choice. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp with each light source being configured to irradiate an area of less than 50 cm2 and at least at one working distance in the range 0.1 m to 20 m as taught by Guo for the benefit of enabling imaging of larger areas (para 1627).
Claims 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jalink et al (WO 2004040274 A1) in view of Guo et al. (US 20210223178 A1) in view of Popp et al. (WO 2020125859 A2) and further in view of Ntziachristos et al. (US 20180177399 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp teaches the invention of claim 8.
Jalink in view of Guo, and further in view of Popp does not teach a controller configured to distinguish between a target area containing the area irradiated with light from the at least one light source and at least one background area in a measurement image and configured to adjust the detected intensity in the target area based on the detected intensity in the background area.
Ntziachristos teaches fluorescence imaging of biological samples using light source, processor, and optical detector (Abstract). Ntziachristos further teaches a controller which can be used to control the processor device (para 0046). Ntziachristos further teaches distinguishing between a target area containing the area irradiated with light from the at least one light source and at least one background area in a measurement image and adjusting the detected intensity in the target area based on the detected intensity in the background area (para 0033 and 0040) for the benefit of accurate detection of the sample (para 0033). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Jalink in view of Guo in view of Popp with a controller configured to distinguish between a target area containing the area irradiated with light from the at least one light source and at least one background area in a measurement image and configured to adjust the detected intensity in the target area based on the detected intensity in the background area as taught by Ntziachristos for the benefit of accurate detection of the sample (para 0033).
Regarding claim 11, Jalink in view of Guo in view of Popp further in view of Ntziachristos teaches the invention of claim 9.
Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp does not teach a controller is configured to select a part of the measurement image outside of the target area as the background area, based on the detected intensities across the measurement image.
Ntziachristos teaches a controller is configured to select a part of the measurement image outside of the target area as the background area, based on the detected intensities across the measurement image (para 0046 and 0040). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before ethe effective filing date to modify Jalink in view of Guo in view of Popp with a controller that is configured to select a part of the measurement image outside of the target area as the background area, based on the detected intensities across the measurement image as taught by Ntziachristos for the benefit of distinguishing background light for improved specific detection of the sample (para 0040).
Regarding claim 12, Jalink in view of Guo in view of Popp further in view of Ntziachristos teaches the invention of claim 9.
Jalink in view of Guo in view of Popp does not teach the controller is configured to adjust the detected intensity in the target area based on the detected intensity in the background area by calculating an average background intensity across the background area and subtracting the average background intensity from the detected intensity in the target area.
Ntziachristos teaches a controller is configured to adjust the detected intensity in the target area based on the detected intensity in the background area by calculating an average background intensity across the background area and subtracting the average background intensity from the detected intensity in the target area (para 0046 and 0093). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jalink in view of Guo in view of Popp with a controller that is configured to adjust the detected intensity in the target area based on the detected intensity in the background area by calculating an average background intensity across the background area and subtracting the average background intensity from the detected intensity in the target area as taught by Ntziachristos for the benefit of enabling simultaneous measurements and remove unwanted light contributions (para 0093).
Claims 13, 19, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jalink et al (WO 2004040274 A1) in view of Guo et al. (US 20210223178 A1) in view of Popp et al. (WO 2020125859 A2) and further in view of Seino et al. (US 20040239916 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp teaches the invention claim 8.
Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp does not teach a controller configured to identify a target area in a measurement image of the imaging sensor, the target area being a central portion of the irradiated spot-shaped area.
Seino teaches fluorescence imaging of a biological sample (Abstract). Seino further teaches a controller configured to identify a target area in a measurement image of the imaging sensor, the target area being a central portion of the irradiated spot-shaped area. (Figure 1, Figure 3(a), para 0075-0077) for the benefit of determining accurate location of the fluorescence in a sample (Abstract). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp with a controller configured to identify a target area in a measurement image of the imaging sensor, the target area being a central portion of the irradiated spot-shaped area as taught by Seino for the benefit of determining accurate location of the fluorescence in a sample (Abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp teaches the invention claim 1.
Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp does not teach a controller configured to determine a target distance based on a position of the irradiated area within the field of view of the optical sensor.
Seino teaches fluorescence imaging of a biological sample (Abstract). Seino teaches a controller configured to determine a target distance based on a position of the irradiated area within the field of view of the optical sensor (para 0083) for accurate and reliable measurements. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp with a controller configured to determine a target distance based on a position of the irradiated area within the field of view of the optical sensor as taught by Seino for accurate and reliable measurements.
Regarding claim 35, Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp teaches the invention claim 1.
Jalink does not teach irradiating a second area and detecting fluorescence of chlorophyll in the second area.
Guo teaches an optical system that capture images of fluorescent images from two or more sample surfaces (para 0346). Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp irradiating a second area and detecting fluorescence in the second area as taught by Guo for the benefit of obtaining two fluorescent images for a higher contrast-to-noise ratio (para 0307).
Furthermore, Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp does not teach a controller configured to:
a) irradiate a first area with light using the at least one light source;
b) detect chlorophyll fluorescence from the first area using the optical sensor;
c) redirect the light from the at least one light source using the actuator;
d) irradiate a second area with light using the at least one light source; and
e) detect chlorophyll fluorescence from the second area using the optical sensor.
However, Seino teaches a controller that can irradiate a first area with light using the at least one light source and detect fluorescence from the first area using the optical sensor (para 0075-0077, para 0117-0118). Seino further teaches the actuator (“motion control unit”) which is controlled by the controller (para 0117). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller as taught by Seino being configure to: a) irradiate a first area with light using the at least one light source; b) detect a sample fluorescence from the first area using the optical sensor; c) redirect the light from the at least one light source using the actuator; d) irradiate a second area with light using the at least one light source; and e) detect sample fluorescence from the second area using the optical sensor for the for the benefit of automated imaging with improved detection sensitivity (para 0092).
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp in view of Seino with a controller configured to: a) irradiate a first area with light using the at least one light source; b) detect chlorophyll fluorescence from the first area using the optical sensor; c) redirect the light from the at least one light source using the actuator; d) irradiate a second area with light using the at least one light source; and e) detect chlorophyll fluorescence from the second area using the optical sensor for the benefit of automated imaging with improved detection sensitivity (para 0092).
Claims 43, 45, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jalink et al (WO 2004040274 A1) in view of Guo et al. (US 20210223178 A1) in view of Popp et al. (WO 2020125859 A2) and further in view of Masumura (US 20180302542 A1).
Regarding claim 43, Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp teaches the invention claim 1.
Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp does not teach a controller configured to control the at least one light source to irradiate each area with light such that, in a first measurement phase, the light is modulated in intensity to define one or more pulses of light with a low average intensity, and in a second measurement phase, the light is modulated in intensity to define a plurality of discrete different pulse types, together having a high average intensity.
Masumura teaches an image capturing device including a light source and a controller to detect luminescence values in a target area (Abstract). Masumura further teaches a controller that performs a measurement process and controls the light source (para 0031). Masumura further teaches the controller irradiating pulsed light (para 0033). Masumura also teach the intensity of the light being adjusted (para 0028). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller as taught by Masumura that is configured to control the at least one light source to irradiate each area with light such that, in a first measurement phase, the light is modulated in intensity to define one or more pulses of light with a low average intensity, and in a second measurement phase, the light is modulated in intensity to define a plurality of discrete different pulse types, together having a high average intensity for the benefit of optimizing the objective function values for improved images which can be used for detection (para 0043).
Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date to modify the teachings of Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp in view of Masumura with a controller configured to control the at least one light source to irradiate each area with light such that, in a first measurement phase, the light is modulated in intensity to define one or more pulses of light with a low average intensity, and in a second measurement phase, the light is modulated in intensity to define a plurality of discrete different pulse types, together having a high average intensity for the benefit of optimizing the objective function values for improved images which can be used for detection (para 0043).
Regarding claim 45, Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp teaches the invention claim 1.
Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp do not teach a controller configured to control the at least one light source to irradiate each area with light such that, in a first measurement phase, the light is modulated in intensity to define one or more discrete pulses of light making up a first proportion of the first measurement phase and having a low average intensity, and such that in a second measurement phase, the light is modulated in intensity to define a plurality of discrete pulses making up a second proportion of the second measurement phase greater than the first proportion of the first measurement phase and having a high average intensity.
Masumura further teaches a controller that performs a measurement process and controls the light source (para 0031). Masumura further teaches the controller irradiating pulsed light (para 0033). Masumura also teach the intensity of the light being adjusted (para 0028). Masumura also teaches adjusting the new delay time to provide the highest signal intensity which can be done using the controller (para 0034). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller as taught by Masumura to be configured to control the at least one light source to irradiate each area with light such that, in a first measurement phase, the light is modulated in intensity to define one or more discrete pulses of light making up a first proportion of the first measurement phase and having a low average intensity, and such that in a second measurement phase, the light is modulated in intensity to define a plurality of discrete pulses making up a second proportion of the second measurement phase greater than the first proportion of the first measurement phase and having a high average intensity for the benefit of effectively irradiating the pulsed light into the sample for improve image quality (para 0044).
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Jalink in view of Guo and further in view of Popp in view of Masumura with a controller configured to control the at least one light source to irradiate each area with light such that, in a first measurement phase, the light is modulated in intensity to define one or more discrete pulses of light making up a first proportion of the first measurement phase and having a low average intensity, and such that in a second measurement phase, the light is modulated in intensity to define a plurality of discrete pulses making up a second proportion of the second measurement phase greater than the first proportion of the first measurement phase and having a high average intensity for the benefit of effectively irradiating the pulsed light into the sample for improve image quality (para 0044).
Regarding claim 46, Jalink in view of Guo in view of Popp in view of Masamura teaches the invention claim 45.
Jalink in view of Guo in view of Popp does not teach the pulses in the first measurement phase have a first frequency and the pulses in the second measurement phase have a second frequency higher than the first frequency, wherein preferably the pulses in the first and second measurement phases have the same intensity and duration.
Masumura teaches that the pulse repetitive frequency can be arbitrarily selected (para 0026). Masumura further teaches the light intensity can also be selected as well as arbitrary delay time (para 0095). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller as taught by Masumura with the pulses in the first measurement phase have a first frequency and the pulses in the second measurement phase have a second frequency higher than the first frequency, wherein preferably the pulses in the first and second measurement phases have the same intensity and duration as a design choice to improve the image quality.
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jalink in view of Guo in view of Popp in view of Masumura with the pulses in the first measurement phase have a first frequency and the pulses in the second measurement phase have a second frequency higher than the first frequency, wherein preferably the pulses in the first and second measurement phases have the same intensity and as a design choice to improve the image quality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENA BERA whose telephone number is (571)272-9964. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00pm 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/H.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights