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 .
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 15, 17 and 20 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.
The term “supervisory” in line 1 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “supervisory” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The amount or magnitude of supervising needed to meet the claim limitation is not known. Similar rejection applies to the term “alarm” and “tempered.” It is unclear how much “notice of approaching danger or warning” and “damage” are needed to meet the claim limitation. Same rejection applies to the term “low pressure” and high pressure in claim 10. Same or similar rejection applies to all pending claims.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “access barrier” in claim 6 is used by the claim to mean “valve actuator,” while the accepted meaning is “barrier for blocking access.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. In the interest of compact prosecution, the term will be interpreted, consisting with the specification and claims as a whole, as a “valve actuator.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 1-15 are apparatus claims. The term “to,” in line 2 of claim 1, clearly indicated that the “sensor data” is not a positively recited limitation, therefore, all limitations, in claims 2-15, further defining the “sensor data” fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim (the subject matter of the invention is an apparatus). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor et al. (US20050183868. Taylor hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Taylor discloses a fire suppression system (Figs. 1-8), comprising: a data processing system (10 ,40) communicably coupled with a sensor ([0004]; [0045] and the sensors shown in the references in [0008]- [0010]), the sensor to (capable of) detect sensor data indicative of a state of the fire suppression system (“normal operating condition,” “power failure with alternative or auxiliary power source” and “power failure with internal combustion engine ([0030])” switches via state transfer control module (TCM) 52. [0047]), the data processing system to (capable of): receive a signal from the sensor indicating the sensor data (via the LED indicator display 44 ([0051]) and SPC board ports. [0046]); determine the state of the fire suppression system based on the sensor data (pressure drops, phase or other power control variables and pump operation events. [0046]); identify a location ([0004], [0005] and [0026]) of a system connector (contacts of pumps) to apply a voltage in order to indicate the state of the fire suppression system ([0008], [0031], [0033], [0039], [0040], [0045]-[0048]); apply the voltage to the location; and at least one of (i) transmit, responsive to application of the voltage to the location, an indication of the state of the fire suppression system to an external computing device (remote start customer connection device 96. [0046]) and (ii) cause an indicator to present the indication (via the LED indicator display 44. [0051]).
With respect to claim 2, Taylor discloses the system of claim 1, comprising: the state of the fire suppression system is at least one of a supervisory state, an alarm state, and a tampered state (“normal operating condition,” “power failure with alternative or auxiliary power source” and “power failure with internal combustion engine. [0030]).
With respect to claim 3, Taylor discloses the system of claim 1, comprising: the data processing system is to compare the sensor data with a predetermined threshold to determine the state of the fire suppression system ([0044]), the state of the fire suppression system being at least one of a supervisory state, an alarm state, and a tampered state (“normal operating condition,” “power failure with alternative or auxiliary power source” and “power failure with internal combustion engine. [0030]).
With respect to claim 4, Taylor discloses the system of claim 1, comprising: the sensor data corresponds to at least one of a (connected) sprinkler system and the data processing system (pressure drops, phase or other power control variables and pump operation events. [0046]).
With respect to claim 7, Taylor discloses the system of claim 1, comprising: the sensor data indicated by the signal received from the sensor (of the sprinkler heads [0003], [0030], [0044] and the sprinkler heads shown in the references in [0008]- [0010] and sensors connected to the actuators of pump, valves, and the like in [0006]-[0007]) corresponds to entry data of an access barrier (signals from the actuators of pump, valves, and the like. [0006]-[0007]) of the data processing system, the entry data including at least one of a status of the access barrier (via the LED indicator display 44 ([0051]) and SPC board ports. [0046]), a time when the access barrier was opened (via the establish compliance… operating time and frequency. [0005]), and a duration for which the access barrier was open (via the transfer control relay board 58. [0039] or the transfer and re-transfer time delays. [0037]).
With respect to claim 9, Taylor discloses the system of claim 1, comprising: the location to apply the voltage is at least one of a first location, a second location, and a third location (on 44. Fig. 4), the first location corresponding to a supervisory state, the second location corresponding to an alarm state, and the third location corresponding to a tampered state (“normal operating condition,” “power failure with alternative or auxiliary power source” and “power failure with internal combustion engine. [0030]).
With respect to claim 11, Taylor discloses the system of claim 1, comprising: the data processing system to (capable of): receive a command (from control signals from the TCM 52 and/or the sensors. [0048]) to determine the state of the fire suppression system; and responsive to receiving the command to determine the state of the fire suppression system, transmit a command signal to the sensor to cause the sensor to detect the sensor data ([0048]).
With respect to claim 13, Taylor discloses the system of claim 1, comprising: the data processing system to (capable of) transmit the indication of the state of the fire suppression system to the external computing device based on a predetermined schedule (events that causes pressure drops, phase or other power control variables and pump operation events. [0046]), the predetermined schedule indicating at least one of transmitting the indication continuously ([0009], [0015], [0030]), transmitting the indication periodically ([0005]), and transmitting the indication responsive to a command (from control signals from the TCM 52 and/or the sensors. [0048]).
With respect to claim 14, Taylor discloses the system of claim 1, comprising: the sensor to (capable of) detect the sensor data based on previously provided instructions (establish compliance with the appropriate codes and regulations that govern fire suppression systems. [0005]), the previously provided instructions causing the sensor to continuously sense the sensor data ([0009], [0015], [0030], [0037], [0041], [0044]-[0045]), the data processing system to apply the voltage to the location only when the sensor data received via the signal from the sensor indicates a non-normal state.
With respect to claim 16, Taylor discloses a method (Figs. 1-8), comprising: receiving (via the LED indicator display 44 ([0051]) and SPC board ports. [0046]), by a data processing system (10 ,40), a signal from a sensor ([0004]; [0045] and the sensors shown in the references in [0008]- [0010]), the signal indicating system information, the system information associated with a fire suppression system ([0003]- [0006]); determining, by the data processing system, a state of the fire suppression system (“normal operating condition,” “power failure with alternative or auxiliary power source” and “power failure with internal combustion engine ([0030])” switches via state transfer control module (TCM) 52. [0047]) based on the system information; identifying, by the data processing system, a location ([0004], [0005] and [0026]) of a system connector (contacts of pumps) of a system connector (contacts of pumps) to apply a voltage in order to indicate the state of the fire suppression system ([0008], [0031], [0033], [0039], [0040], [0045]-[0048]); applying, by the data processing system, the voltage to the location; emitting, by an indicator of the data processing system (via the LED indicator display 44. [0051]), light indicative of the state (using the LED indicator display 44. [0051]); and transmitting, by the data processing system, an indication of the state of the fire suppression system to an external computing device (remote start customer connection device 96. [0046]).
With respect to claim 18, Taylor discloses the method of claim 16, comprising: the location to apply the voltage is at least one of a first location, a second location, and a third location (on 44. Fig. 4), applying, by the data processing system, the voltage to the first location indicates a high/low state, applying, by the data processing system, the voltage to the second location indicates an alarm state, and applying, by the data processing system, the voltage to the third location indicates a tampered state (“normal operating condition,” “power failure with alternative or auxiliary power source” and “power failure with internal combustion engine. [0030]).
With respect to claim 19, Taylor discloses the method of claim 16, comprising: receiving, by the data processing system, a command to determine the state of the fire suppression system ([0048]); and responsive to receiving the command to determine the state of the fire suppression system, transmitting, by the data processing system, a command signal to the sensor to cause the sensor to sense information indicative (using the LED indicator display 44. [0051]) of the state of the fire suppression system (from control signals from the TCM 52 and/or the sensors. [0048]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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(s) 5, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Taylor or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Taylor in view of Goyette et al. (US11458341. Goyette hereinafter).
With respect to claim 5, Taylor discloses the system of claim 1, comprising: the sensor data corresponds to at least one of pressure data of a dry pipe sprinkler system, pressure data of a wet pipe sprinkler system, and entry data of an access barrier (signals from the actuators of pump, valves, and the like. [0006]-[0007]) of the data processing system (pressure drops, phase or other power control variables and pump operation events. [0046]).
Alternatively, Taylor fails to disclose the sensor data corresponds to at least one of pressure data of a dry pipe sprinkler system, pressure data of a wet pipe sprinkler system.
Goyette teaches a fire suppression system (Figs. 1-13), comprising: a data processing system (control circuit 104), a display data monitoring platform 230, a differential pressure monitoring (DPM) system with a valve DPM device 2100 that includes pressure sensors to monitor the water pressure and the air pressure on the dry pipe valve, the DPM device 2100 include a (first) pressure sensor 2132 that senses the water pressure at the bottom of the clapper 20 b of the dry pipe valve 20 and a (second) pressure sensor 2130 that senses the air pressure on the top of the clapper 20 b when the valve is in a ready state (Figs. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the sensor data corresponds to at least one of pressure data of a dry pipe sprinkler system, pressure data of a wet pipe sprinkler system, as taught by Goyette, to Taylor’s sensor, in order to predicts whether a valve tripping event is expected to occur based on the computed ratio, and in response to predicting that the valve tripping event is expected to occur, provides a prediction that the valve tripping event is expected to occur for remedial action (Abstract).
With respect to claim 6, Taylor discloses the system of claim 1, comprising: the sensor is a first sensor (of the sprinkler heads [0003], [0030], [0044] and the sprinkler heads shown in the references in [0008]- [0010]) the data processing system is communicably coupled with a second sensor (connected to the actuators of pump, valves, and the like. [0006]-[0007]), the first sensor to sense pressure data of a pipe of a dry pipe sprinkler system and the second sensor to sense entry data of an access barrier (signals from the actuators of pump, valves, and the like. [0006]-[0007]) of the data processing system.
Alternatively, Taylor fails to disclose the sensor is a first sensor, the data processing system is communicably coupled with a second sensor, the first sensor to sense pressure data of a pipe of a dry pipe sprinkler system and the second sensor to sense entry data of an access barrier of the data processing system.
Goyette teaches a fire suppression system (Figs. 1-13), comprising: a data processing system (control circuit 104), a display data monitoring platform 230, a differential pressure monitoring (DPM) system with a valve DPM device 2100 that includes pressure sensors to monitor the water pressure and the air pressure on the dry pipe valve, the DPM device 2100 include a (second) pressure sensor 2132 that senses the water pressure at the bottom of the clapper 20 b of the dry pipe valve 20 and a (first) pressure sensor 2130 that senses the air pressure on the top of the clapper 20 b when the valve is in a ready state (Figs. 9), the sensor is a first sensor 2130, the data processing system is communicably coupled with a second sensor 2132, the first sensor to sense pressure data of a pipe of a dry pipe sprinkler system and the second sensor to sense entry data of an access barrier of the data processing system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the sensor data corresponds to at least one of pressure data of a dry pipe sprinkler system, pressure data of a wet pipe sprinkler system, as taught by Goyette, to Taylor’s sensor, in order to predicts whether a valve tripping event is expected to occur based on the computed ratio, and in response to predicting that the valve tripping event is expected to occur, provides a prediction that the valve tripping event is expected to occur for remedial action (Abstract).
With respect to claim 8, Taylor discloses the system of claim 1, comprising: the sensor data indicated by the signal received from the sensor corresponds to pressure data of at least one of a dry pipe of the fire suppression system and a wet pipe of the fire suppression system, the pressure data including at least one of a pressure and a rate of change of pressure (pressure drops, phase or other power control variables and pump operation events. [0046]).
Alternatively, Taylor fails to disclose the sensor data indicated by the signal received from the sensor corresponds to pressure data of at least one of a dry pipe of the fire suppression system and a wet pipe of the fire suppression system.
Goyette teaches a fire suppression system (Figs. 1-13), comprising: a data processing system (control circuit 104), a display data monitoring platform 230, a differential pressure monitoring (DPM) system with a valve DPM device 2100 that includes pressure sensors to monitor the water pressure and the air pressure on the dry pipe valve, the DPM device 2100 include a (second) pressure sensor 2132 that senses the water pressure at the bottom of the clapper 20 b of the dry pipe valve 20 and a (first) pressure sensor 2130 that senses the air pressure on the top of the clapper 20 b when the valve is in a ready state (Figs. 9), the sensor is a first sensor 2130, the data processing system is communicably coupled with a second sensor 2132, the first sensor to sense pressure data of a pipe of a dry pipe sprinkler system and the second sensor to sense entry data of an access barrier of the data processing system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the sensor data corresponds to at least one of pressure data of a dry pipe sprinkler system, pressure data of a wet pipe sprinkler system, as taught by Goyette, to Taylor’s sensor, in order to predicts whether a valve tripping event is expected to occur based on the computed ratio, and in response to predicting that the valve tripping event is expected to occur, provides a prediction that the valve tripping event is expected to occur for remedial action (Abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor.
With respect to claim 10, Taylor discloses the system of claim 1, comprising: the location corresponds to a supervisory state.
Taylor fails to disclose the voltage being less than or equal to a voltage threshold applied to the location indicates a low pressure state and the voltage being above the voltage threshold applied to the location indicates a high pressure state.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the voltage being less than or equal to a voltage threshold applied to the location indicates a low pressure state and the voltage being above the voltage threshold applied to the location indicates a high pressure state, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Goyette.
With respect to claim 12, Taylor discloses the system of claim 1 except for the external computing device disposed at a remote location, the data processing system to transmit the signal to the external computing device via a wireless connection (remote start customer connection device 96. [0046]).
Goyette teaches a fire suppression system (Figs. 1-13), comprising: a data processing system (control circuit 104), a display data monitoring platform 230, a differential pressure monitoring (DPM) system with a valve DPM device 2100 that includes pressure sensors to monitor the water pressure and the air pressure on the dry pipe valve, the DPM device 2100 include a (second) pressure sensor 2132 that senses the water pressure at the bottom of the clapper 20 b of the dry pipe valve 20 and a (first) pressure sensor 2130 that senses the air pressure on the top of the clapper 20 b when the valve is in a ready state (Figs. 9). Goyette also teaches an external computing device (external devices) disposed at a remote location, the data processing system to transmit the signal to the external computing device via a wireless connection (Col. 24, lines 28-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a wireless external computing device, as taught by Goyette, to Taylor’s system, in order to communicate wirelessly (Col. 24, lines 28-43).
With respect to claim 17, Taylor discloses method of claim 16, comprising: the signal from the sensor is a first signal from a first sensor (of the sprinkler heads [0003], [0030], [0044] and the sprinkler heads shown in the references in [0008]- [0010]); further comprising receiving a second signal from a second sensor (connected to the actuators of pump, valves, and the like. [0006]-[0007]).
Taylor fails to disclose the first signal indicating a first subset of the system information that relates to pressure data of a dry pipe of the fire suppression system and the second signal indicating a second subset of the system information that relates to entry data of an access barrier of the data processing system.
Goyette teaches a fire suppression system (Figs. 1-13), comprising: a data processing system (control circuit 104), a display data monitoring platform 230, a differential pressure monitoring (DPM) system with a valve DPM device 2100 that includes pressure sensors to monitor the water pressure and the air pressure on the dry pipe valve, the DPM device 2100 include a (second) pressure sensor 2132 that senses the water pressure at the bottom of the clapper 20 b of the dry pipe valve 20 and a (first) pressure sensor 2130 that senses the air pressure on the top of the clapper 20 b when the valve is in a ready state (Figs. 9), the sensor is a first sensor 2130, the data processing system is communicably coupled with a second sensor 2132, the first sensor to sense pressure data of a pipe of a dry pipe sprinkler system and the second sensor to sense entry data of an access barrier of the data processing system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the sensor data corresponds to at least one of pressure data of a dry pipe sprinkler system, pressure data of a wet pipe sprinkler system, as taught by Goyette, to Taylor’s sensor, in order to predicts whether a valve tripping event is expected to occur based on the computed ratio, and in response to predicting that the valve tripping event is expected to occur, provides a prediction that the valve tripping event is expected to occur for remedial action (Abstract).
Claim(s) 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Meier et al. (US 20130000927. Meier hereinafter).
With respect to claim 15, Taylor discloses the system of claim 1 except for the sensor data includes a rate of change of air pressure in a pipe indicative of an alarm state; and the data processing system to transmit a command signal to a valve coupled with a sprinkler system, the command signal causing the valve to open.
However, Meier teaches a fire suppression system (Figs. 1-16), comprising: a data processing system (314. Fig. 3) with sensors (316. [0068]) producing sensor data includes a rate of change of air pressure ([0065]) in a pipe indicative of an alarm state; and the data processing system to transmit a command signal to a valve (324) coupled with a sprinkler system (300), the command signal causing the valve to open. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of detecting a rate of change of air pressure, as taught by Meier, to Taylor’s sensor, in order to detect/predict a possible fire event ([0063]- [0066]).
With respect to claim 20, Taylor discloses the method of claim 16 except for the system information includes a rate of change in air pressure in a dry pipe system indicative of an alarm state; transmitting, by the data processing system, a command signal to a valve coupled with the dry pipe system of the fire suppression system, the command signal causing the valve to open to allow fire suppression fluid to flow through the dry pipe system to an outlet.
However, Meier teaches a fire suppression system (Figs. 1-16), comprising: a data processing system (314. Fig. 3) with sensors (316. [0068]) producing sensor data includes a rate of change of air pressure ([0065]) in a pipe indicative of an alarm state; and the data processing system to transmit a command signal to a valve (324) coupled with a sprinkler system (300), the command signal causing the valve to open. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of detecting a rate of change of air pressure, as taught by Meier, to Taylor’s sensor, in order to detect/predict a possible fire event ([0063]- [0066]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a fire suppression system: Henningsen ‘565, Nelson, Jr. et al., Henningsen et al., Henningsen ‘189, Lloyd et al. and Schnackenberg et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 March 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights