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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-7, 12-13, and 16-18) in the reply filed on 03/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “WO '201 fails to disclose at least (1) the optically low-refractive layer in the reflection-increasing coating and (2) the specific silver-based reflective layer structure, claim 1 defines a contribution over the prior art and therefore constitutes a "special technical feature" within the meaning of PCT Rule 13.2 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.475(a).”
This is not found persuasive because a complete rejection of claim 1 using Hagen (WO 2021209201 A1) in view of Jiang (CN-113071165-A) is described in the rejection below. Claim 1 does not define a contribution over the prior art and therefore does not constitute a "special technical feature" within the meaning of PCT Rule 13.2 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.475(a).”
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/10/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on EP21207873.7 dated 11/12/2021.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the display region is located in a look-through region of the laminated pane, which region is intended to be used as a projection surface for a head-up display.” The phrase “which region is intended to be used” renders the claim unclear but is likely a typographical error. The office suggests the following correction:
“wherein the display region is located in a look-through region of the laminated pane, and wherein the display region is intended to be used as a projection surface for a head-up display.”
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 7 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 7 recites the limitation "the surface of the laminated pane" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, does not previously introduce “a surface of the laminated pane.” For examination purposes, ‘the surface’ will be interpreted as the entire lengthwise footprint of the laminated pane.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen (WO 2021209201 A1), as cited in the IDS, and further in view of Jiang (CN-113071165-A). All references to Hagen (WO 2021209201 A1) will be made to English language equivalence Hagen (US 20240210607 A1). All references to Jiang (CN113071165B) will be made to English language equivalence Jiang (US 20240025156 A1), as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, a projection arrangement (“generic projection assembly for an HUD”; [0078]), comprising:
a laminated pane (“composite pane 10”; [0079]) comprising an outer pane (“outer pane 1”; [0079]) and an inner pane (“inner pane 2”; [0079]) which are connected to one another via a thermoplastic intermediate layer (3) (“outer pane 1 and an inner pane 2 that are joined to one another via a thermoplastic intermediate layer 3”; [0079]), a reflective layer (“reflection coating 20”; [0082]) which is arranged between the outer pane (1) and the inner pane (2) in at least one display region of the laminated pane (10), and a reflection-increasing coating (“reflection-enhancing (highly refractive) coating 30”; [0083]) which is arranged at least within the display region on an interior-side surface of the inner pane (2) facing away from the thermoplastic intermediate layer (3) (see Fig. 3 in which the reflection-increasing coating is located on the inner surface of the inner pane) and
a projector (“HUD projector 4”; [0078]) the radiation of which is predominantly p-polarized (“The radiation of the projector 4 is fully p-polarized”; [0078]) and which is directed toward the display region (see the beam path of Fig. 2) and wherein the interior-side surface of the inner pane (2) is the face of the laminated pane closest to the projector (see the beam path of Fig. 2), …
the reflective layer (20) … comprises (Fig. 4), in this order, a first dielectric layer (“(22a) first lower dielectric layer/anti-reflection layer”; [0105], Fig. 4) or layer sequence, precisely one electrically conductive layer based on silver (“an electrically conductive layer 21 based on silver”; [0084], Fig. 4) and a second dielectric layer or layer sequence (“(23a) first upper dielectric layer/anti-reflection layer”; [0108], Fig. 4).
However, Hagen fails to teach: wherein the reflection-increasing coating comprises at least one optically high-refractive layer having a refractive index of greater than or equal to 1.9 and at least one optically low-refractive layer having a refractive index of less than or equal to 1.6, and the reflective layer is suitable for reflecting configured to reflect at least 5% of the p- polarized radiation of the projector.
In a related invention in the field of projection arrangements, Jiang teaches in Figs. 1 and 3-4: wherein the reflection-increasing coating (“enhanced reflection coating 50”; [0046]) comprises at least one optically high-refractive layer having a refractive index of greater than or equal to 1.9 (“high refractive-index layer 51 has a refractive index not less than 1.8”; [0064]) and at least one optically low-refractive layer having a refractive index of less than or equal to 1.6 (“The low refractive-index layer 52 has a refractive index not greater than 1.6”; [0064], see Fig. 4), and
the reflective layer (40) (“transparent conducting coating 40 to generate a secondary reflected light ray B2”; [0047]) is suitable for reflecting configured to reflect at least 5% of the p- polarized radiation of the projector (“projection unit 60”; [0046]) (“The transparent conducting coating has a reflectivity for P-polarized light not less than 6%”; [0007]).
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the at least one optically high-refractive layer having a refractive index of greater than or equal to 1.9, which overlaps the disclosed range of ‘a refractive index not less than 1.8’, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the reflective layer configured to reflect at least 5% of the p- polarized radiation, which overlaps the disclosed range of ‘not less than 6%’, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and In re Geisler 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) which found that a thickness of about 100 Angstroms directly teaches the use of a thickness within a claimed range of 50 to 100 Angstroms. See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Furthermore, Jiang teaches this configuration such that “the P-polarized light can be reflected by the enhanced reflection coating to form the first head up display image that serves as a primary image, and can be refracted by the enhanced reflection coating and be reflected by the transparent conducting coating to form the second head up display image that serves as a secondary image, so that the primary image can superimpose the secondary image, thereby increasing P-polarized light rays of a head up display image that enters human eyes” (Jiang, [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hagen to incorporate the teachings of Jiang to provide a device in which “the reflection-increasing coating comprises at least one optically high-refractive layer having a refractive index of greater than or equal to 1.9 and at least one optically low-refractive layer having a refractive index of less than or equal to 1.6, and the reflective layer is suitable for reflecting configured to reflect at least 5% of the p- polarized radiation of the projector,” for the purpose of increasing P-polarized light rays of a head up display image that enters human eyes (Jiang, [0028]).
Regarding claim 2, Hagen and Jiang teach the projection arrangement according to claim 1. Hagen further teaches in Figs. 2-4: wherein the inner pane (2) has a thickness of less than or equal to 1.6 mm (“The thickness of the outer pane and the inner pane can vary widely. Preferably used are panes with a thickness in the range from 0.8 mm to 5 mm, preferably from 1.4 mm to 2.5 mm, for example, those with the standard thicknesses of 1.6 mm or 2.1 mm.”; [0061]).
However, Hagen does not explicitly teach the minimization of the inner pane.
In a related invention in the field of projection arrangements, Jiang teaches in Figs. 1 and 3-4: the inner pane (20) has a thickness of less than or equal to 1.6 mm (“the inner glass sheet 20 has a thickness not greater than 1.4 mm. Optionally, the thickness of the inner glass sheet 20 ranges from 0.3 mm to 1.2 mm. Specifically, the thickness of the inner glass sheet 20 may be 0.3 mm, 0.4 mm, 0.5 mm, 0.6 mm, 0.7 mm, 0.8 mm, 0.9 mm, 1 mm, 1.1 mm, 1.2 mm, 1.3 mm, 1.4 mm, etc”; [0076]).
Furthermore, Jiang teaches this configuration such that “A ghosting offset distance between the primary image and the secondary image can be controlled to be imperceptible to human eyes by reducing the thickness of the inner glass sheet 20” (Jiang, [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hagen to incorporate the teachings of Jiang to provide a device in which “the inner pane has a thickness of less than or equal to 1.6 mm,” for the purpose of minimizing a ghosting offset distance between the primary image and the secondary image by reducing the thickness of the inner glass sheet (Jiang, [0076]).
Regarding claim 3, Hagen and Jiang teach the projection arrangement according to claim 1. Hagen generally teaches in Figs. 2-4: wherein the outer pane (1) is tinted or colored green or blue at least in the display region, (“The outer pane, the inner pane, and the thermoplastic intermediate layer can be clear and colorless, but also tinted or colored”; [0062]), …
and wherein the inner pane and the intermediate layer are clear, not tinted or colored (“The outer pane, the inner pane, and the thermoplastic intermediate layer can be clear and colorless, but also tinted or colored”; [0062]).
However, Hagen does not explicitly teach: the outer pane has a light transmittance of at least 80% and at most 90%.
In a related invention in the field of projection arrangements, Jiang teaches in Figs. 1 and 3-4: the outer pane has a light transmittance of at least 80% and at most 90% (“the outer glass sheet is a tinted glass sheet having a visible light transmittance not less than 70%”; [0020]).
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the outer pane having a light transmittance of at least 80% and at most 90%, which overlaps the disclosed range of not less than 70%, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and In re Geisler 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) which found that a thickness of about 100 Angstroms directly teaches the use of a thickness within a claimed range of 50 to 100 Angstroms. See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Furthermore, Jiang teaches this configuration such that “the outer glass sheet 10 is a tinted glass sheet having a visible light transmittance not less than 70%. Optionally, the outer glass sheet 10 is a green glass sheet and can absorb part of P-polarized light refracted by the transparent conducting coating 40, thereby further improving quality of a head up display image” (Jiang, [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hagen to incorporate the teachings of Jiang to provide a device in which “the outer pane has a light transmittance of at least 80% and at most 90%,” for the purpose of improving quality of a head up display image (Jiang, [0073]).
Regarding claim 4, Hagen and Jiang teach the projection arrangement according to claim 1. Hagen fails to teach: the optically high-refractive layer is arranged closer to the interior-side surface of the inner pane than the optically low-refractive layer.
In a related invention in the field of projection arrangements, Jiang teaches in Figs. 1 and 3-4: the optically high-refractive layer (51) is arranged closer to the interior-side surface of the inner pane (20) than the optically low-refractive layer (52) (see Fig. 4 in which 51 is arranged closer to pane 20 than 52).
Furthermore, Jiang teaches this configuration such that “The high refractive-index layer 51 and the low refractive-index layer 52 stacked sequentially can increase the reflectivity for P-polarized light while satisfying good light transmittance performance, thereby improving sharpness of the primary image” (Jiang, [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hagen to incorporate the teachings of Jiang to provide a device in which “the optically high-refractive layer is arranged closer to the interior-side surface of the inner pane than the optically low-refractive layer,” for the purpose of increasing the reflectivity for P-polarized light while satisfying good light transmittance performance, thereby improving sharpness of the primary image” (Jiang, [0064]).
Regarding claim 5, Hagen and Jiang teach the projection arrangement according to claim 1. Hagen further teaches: the optically low-refractive layer is formed on the basis of silicon oxide or doped silicon oxide (“The optically low-refractive-index layers 26.1, 26.2, 26.3, 26.4, 26.5 are based on silicon oxide”; [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to choose an optically low-refractive layer formed from silicon oxide or doped silicon oxide, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 6, Hagen and Jiang teach the projection arrangement according to claim 1. Hagen further teaches: the optically high-refractive layer is formed on the basis of silicon nitride, indium tin oxide, or silicon-zirconium mixed nitride (“the optically high-refractive-index layers 25.1, 25.2, 25.3, 25.4, 25.5, 25.6 are based on silicon nitride”; [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to choose an optically high-refractive layer formed on the basis of silicon nitride, indium tin oxide, or silicon-zirconium mixed nitride, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 7, Hagen and Jiang teach the projection arrangement according to claim 1. Hagen further teaches: the reflective layer (20) extends over at least 80% of the surface of the laminated pane (10) (see Fig. 3 in which 20 extends the entire length of the laminated pane 10).
Regarding claim 12, Hagen and Jiang teach the projection arrangement according to claim 1. Hagen further teaches: the display region is located in a look-through region of the laminated pane, which region is intended to be used as a projection surface for a head-up display (“The projection assembly also comprises an HUD projector 4 that is directed at a region of the composite pane 10. The radiation of the projector 4 is fully p-polarized. In this region, usually referred to as HUD region B, the projector 4 can generate images that are perceived by a viewer 5 (vehicle driver) as virtual images on the side of the composite pane facing away from him when his eyes are situated within the so-called eye box E”; [0078], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Hagen and Jiang teach the projection arrangement according to claim 1. Hagen further teaches: the projection arrangement is a head-up display projection arrangement (“The invention further includes the use of a projection assembly according to the invention as an HUD in a motor vehicle, in particular in a passenger car or a truck”; [0070]).
Regarding claim 17, Hagen and Jiang teach the projection arrangement according to claim 2. Hagen further teaches: the thickness of the inner pane is less than or equal to 1.4 mm (“The thickness of the outer pane and the inner pane can vary widely. Preferably used are panes with a thickness in the range from 0.8 mm to 5 mm, preferably from 1.4 mm to 2.5 mm, for example, those with the standard thicknesses of 1.6 mm or 2.1 mm.”; [0061]).
However, Hagen does not explicitly teach the minimization of the inner pane.
In a related invention in the field of projection arrangements, Jiang teaches in Figs. 1 and 3-4: the inner pane (20) has a thickness of less than or equal to 1.4 mm (“the inner glass sheet 20 has a thickness not greater than 1.4 mm. Optionally, the thickness of the inner glass sheet 20 ranges from 0.3 mm to 1.2 mm. Specifically, the thickness of the inner glass sheet 20 may be 0.3 mm, 0.4 mm, 0.5 mm, 0.6 mm, 0.7 mm, 0.8 mm, 0.9 mm, 1 mm, 1.1 mm, 1.2 mm, 1.3 mm, 1.4 mm, etc”; [0076]).
Furthermore, Jiang teaches this configuration such that “A ghosting offset distance between the primary image and the secondary image can be controlled to be imperceptible to human eyes by reducing the thickness of the inner glass sheet 20” (Jiang, [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hagen to incorporate the teachings of Jiang to provide a device in which “the inner pane has a thickness of less than or equal to 1.6 mm,” for the purpose of minimizing a ghosting offset distance between the primary image and the secondary image by reducing the thickness of the inner glass sheet (Jiang, [0076]).
Regarding claim 18, Hagen and Jiang teach the projection arrangement according to claim 3. Hagen further teaches: the entire outer pane is tinted or colored green or blue (“The outer pane, the inner pane, and the thermoplastic intermediate layer can be clear and colorless, but also tinted or colored”; [0062]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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:
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art, Hagen and Jiang, teach the projection arrangement according to claim 1. Hagen further teaches in Fig. 4: the first dielectric layer sequence (22) comprises, in this order, at least one silicon nitride layer (see Table 1 in which 22a is Si3N4), a silicon zirconium mixed nitride (see Table 1 in which 22c is SiZrN), … and the second dielectric layer sequence (23) comprises at least one zinc oxide layer (see Table 1 in which 23b is SnO).
However, Hagen fails to teach the claim in full such that the layers are disposed in order. Hagen fails to teach: the first dielectric layer sequence comprises, in this order, at least one silicon nitride layer, a silicon zirconium mixed nitride, a zinc tin oxide layer and a zinc oxide layer, and the second dielectric layer sequence comprises at least one zinc oxide layer and one silicon nitride layer.
In a related invention in the field of projection arrangements, Jiang teaches a flexibility in the material constraints of the dielectric layers in para [0061]: “The dielectric layer may be made of an oxide of at least one of zinc (Zn), magnesium (Mg), tin (Sn), titanium (Ti), niobium (Nb), zirconium (Zr), nickel (Ni), indium (In), Al, cerium (Ce), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), antimony (Sb), bismuth (Bi), or silicon (Si), and/or a nitride, an oxynitride, or a mixture thereof of at least one of Si, Al, Zr, yttrium (Y), Ce, or lanthanum (La).”
However, Hagen and Jiang cannot teach to a configuration that can render the structure of claim 13 obvious due to the material specificity of each dielectric layer and the physical relationship between each layer as described in claim 13.
Therefore, based on the configuration of Hagen and Jiang it would be improper to modify the prior art of record to provide a device in which “the first dielectric layer sequence comprises, in this order, at least one silicon nitride layer, a silicon zirconium mixed nitride, a zinc tin oxide layer and a zinc oxide layer, and the second dielectric layer sequence comprises at least one zinc oxide layer and one silicon nitride layer.” Therefore, the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBY L KAUFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/RUBY L KAUFFMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights