DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“of the track and pinion…” should be corrected to “of the rack
Appropriate corrections are required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the controller, the orientation sensor, the control station, the communication link, the electric steering control system, the steering rack, an actuator, a controller, an angular hitching sensor, the chassis, the rack and pinon, a steering wheel, connecting pins, and the electric architecture must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-15 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.
Regarding Claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the angular orientation”, “the angle of the wheels”, “the yaw angular orientation”, “the chassis”, “the preceding vehicle” and “the hitch”.
Regarding Claim 2, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the output” and “the angle of the rack”.
Regarding Claim 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the free end”.
Regarding Claim 4, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the longitudinal direction”, “the vicinity” and “the rear of the steering axle”. Additionally, the term “in the vicinity and preferably at…” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree (i.e. how close a location is required to be, in order to be considered close enough to be in a “vicinity”), and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, it is unclear exactly where the hitching articulation is installed relative to the vehicle. Furthermore, it is ambiguous whether the limitation introduced by “preferably” is intended to be required or not(i.e. optional), therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding Claim 11, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the electric architecture” and “the position”.
Regarding Claim 13, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the orientation of the wheels”, “the angle of the wheels”, “the hitching angle” and ‘the optimal angle” .
Regarding Claim 14, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the sub-steps”, “the measurement”, “the optimal angular position” . Additionally, the term “its position” is unclear and indefinite. The limitation is unclear because the term doesn’t specify what “it” is.
Regarding Claim 15, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the steps” and “the lateral acceleration”.
Claims 2-15 are further is rejected as indefinite as they are dependent upon a rejected parent claim (See above).
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Du Toit (WO 9840263 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Du Toit anticipates a motorised road train 24 (Fig 2) comprising a lead vehicle 23 (Fig 2) and at least one hitched follower vehicle 10 (Fig 2) [as well as a CAN communication link linking the vehicles] 20,21 (Fig 1, “The front and rear of the car 10 have affixed thereto and protruding therefrom, front and rear couplers 20, 21. The couplers 20, 21 are designed and arranged so that when one of the cars 10 drives up to a similar car in front, the coupler 20, extends so as to engage coupler 21 to co-act and thence perform various functions.” pg 5 lines 17-21 ) of the train 24 (Fig 2) , each of the vehicles 10,23 (Figs 1 and 2) comprising a rear axle 12 (Fig 1) a front steering axle 11 (Fig 1) [an electric steering control system comprising a steering rack acting on the angular orientation of the front steering axle 11 (Fig 1) and a controller driving the actuator] (“Steering input by the driver, for example by rotation of a steering wheel, is sensed by a sensor unit SI connected to the steering control unit Cl.’ pg 7 lines 26-27 and “The front wheels 11 are steered by a steering actuator Cl.” Pg 5 lines 11-12), each of the vehicles 10,23 also comprising [front hitching members 20 (Figs 1 and 5) and rear hitching members 21 (Figs 1 and 6) so that the follower vehicle 10 (Figs 2-4) is hitched to the lead vehicle 10,23 or to another follower vehicle 10] (“The couplers 20, 21 are designed and arranged so that when one of the cars 10 drives up to a similar car in front, the coupler 20, extends so as to engage coupler 21 to co-act and thence perform various functions.” Pg 5 lines 19-21) [the controllers of the vehicles Cl (Fig 1) being configured to generate angular orientation instructions of the front steering axle 11 of the or of each follower vehicle] (“In Figure 1 , a motor car 10 has front and rear wheels 1 1, 12 respectively. The front wheels 11 are steered by a steering actuator Cl.” Pg 5 lines 11-12) wherein each of the vehicles 10,23 is equipped both with an orientation sensor for determining the angle of the wheels of the front steering axle 11 [and with an angular hitching sensor S2L, S2R (Fig 1) for determining the yaw angular orientation of the hitch relative to the chassis of the vehicle 10,23] (“Lateral forces on the yokes 32, 33 are sensed by sensors S2R and S2L which also feed into the steering control unit Cl.” pg 7 lines 28-29) [the controller of the or of each follower vehicle 10 delivering an optimal angle instruction of the wheels and specific to the actuator of the follower vehicle 10 in question, said optimal angle instruction being defined by using a kinematic control law that is dependent on the angle of the wheels of the steering axle 11 of the preceding vehicle and on the yaw angular orientation of the hitch relative to the chassis of the follower vehicle 10 in question, so as to obtain a single-track train] (“A fourth requirement may be to detect lateral force exerted from one coupler 20, 21 to the other. Trains of wheeled vehicles, especially those having rubber tyred road wheels are inherently unstable laterally and tend to "snake". By measuring the lateral force by means of sensors S2L and S2R in one or both of the couplers 20, 21, a stabilising force can be imposed on the steering mechanism, as by an actuator Ml. Alternatively a lateral acceleration transducer on the car 10 may be used to control the actuator Ml.” pg 6 lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 3, Du Toit anticipates the front hitching members 20 (Fig 5) comprise a hitching drawbar 31 (Fig 5, “An inner tubular casing 31 is a sliding fit within the outer casing 30 and carries at the front end a U-shaped outer yoke 32 in which a U-shaped inner yoke 33 is rotatable by a worm gear 34 engaged with teeth on the outside of the inner yoke 33.” pg 6 lines 13-16 ) to one single hitching articulation 30 (Fig 5) [located under the vehicle] (“An outer tubular casing 30 is fastened firmly to the centre front of the car 10.” pg 6 line 13), and the free end 32-34 (Fig 5) [of which is angularly locked with the rear hitching members 35 (Fig 6) of the preceding vehicle] (“As shown in Figure 5, the yokes 32, 33 are aligned so that a vertical pin 35, shown in Figure 6, can enter from the front and pass to the centre of the yokes 32, 33. When the worm gear 34 is rotated by supply of electric current to an electric yoke drive motor or coupling lock M2.” Pg 6 lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 4, Du Toit anticipates that the hitching articulation 30 (Fig 5) [is located in a plane transverse to the longitudinal direction of the follower vehicle 10 (Fig 1)] (Fig 1 of Du Toit shows the connection elements 20 and 21 are positioned longitudinally relative to the vehicle body) [ in question, in the vicinity and preferably at the rear of the front steering axle] (“The front and rear of the car 10 have affixed thereto and protruding therefrom, front and rear couplers 20, 21. The couplers 20, 21 are designed and arranged so that when one of the cars 10 drives up to a similar car in front, the coupler 20, extends so as to engage coupler 21 to co-act and thence perform various functions.” Pg 5 lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 5, Du Toit anticipates the rear hitching members 21 (Fig 5) comprises a hitch clevis 35 (Fig 6, “Convergent guide plates 53 are fastened on the rear of the short member 50 and carry the vertical locking pin 35. Thus, as two cars 10 move towards each other, the yoke 32 is guided by the plates 53 until the locking pin 35 is centered in the yokes 32, 33, whereupon the inner yoke 33 is rotated to retain the locking pin 35 and couple the cars 10 together.” pg 7 lines 14-19).
Regarding claim 6, Du Toit anticipates the lead vehicle comprises [a control station equipped with a steering wheel to manually or remotely control the angular orientation of the of the front steering axle of the lead vehicle 23] (“Steering input by the driver, for example by rotation of a steering wheel, is sensed by a sensor unit SI connected to the steering control unit Cl. Lateral forces on the yokes 32, 33 are sensed by sensors S2R and S2L which also feed into the steering control unit Cl.” Pg 7 lines 29-31)
Regarding claim 7, Du Toit anticipates a lead vehicle 23 (Fig 2) and at least one follower vehicle 10 (Fig 2) , [the follower vehicle having no control station] (“the power vehicle 23 has a motor generator capable of generating enough electricity to be fed through the couplers 20, 21 to the motors M4R, M4L of the cars 10 and thereby to drive the cars 10 in the train 24 without drawing electricity from their energy storage device B 1.” Pg 8 lines 24-27).
Regarding claim 9, Du Toit anticipates the lead vehicle 23 (Fig 2) [comprising a control station equipped with a steering wheel to manually or remotely control the angular orientation of the front steering axle of the lead vehicle] (“Steering input by the driver, for example by rotation of a steering wheel, is sensed by a sensor unit SI connected to the steering control unit Cl. Lateral forces on the yokes 32, 33 are sensed by sensors S2R and S2L which also feed into the steering control unit Cl.” Pg 7 lines 29-31), [and wherein the lead vehicle is used in an autonomous train] (“as shown in Figure 2, the train 24 of cars 10 is headed by a power vehicle 23. This is in the nature of a heavy goods vehicle which preferably includes an engine generating enough power to drive itself and to pull the cars 10 in the train 24, without using motors M4R, M4L of the cars 10.” pg 8 lines 18-22).
Regarding claim 10, Du Toit anticipates the road train of claim 6 further comprising [two, three or four follower vehicles] (Fig 4) [identical to the lead vehicle 23 (Fig 4)] (“Electrical signals passed through the couplers 20, 21 control the motors M4R, M4L through the controllers C2 to accelerate all the cars 10 in the train together. Similarly the electrical signals can be used to apply the brakes 19 simultaneously, or cause regenerative braking to be initiated. The train is preferably controlled by the driver of the front car 10, the drivers of the other cars 10 in the train taking no further part in the train operation.” Pg 8 lines 4-10).
Regarding claim 11, Du Toit anticipates the road train wherein the communication link 20,21 (Figs 5 and 6) comprises [connecting pins to electrically link the hitched vehicles and the electrical architecture of which makes it possible to identify the position of each vehicle in the train] (“A second requirement of the couplers 20, 21 is to transmit electrical power, for driving the motors M4R, M4L from one car 10 to the next. For this purpose, suitable electrical contacts are built into the couplers 20, 21, the contacts being able to conduct despite any normal articulation or fore-and-aft movements between the couplers 20, 21. A third requirement is to transmit information signals, such as electrical pulse trains or the like from one car 10 to the next.” pg 5 lines 33-36).
Regarding claim 12, Du Toit anticipates [the connecting pins are integrated into the front 20 (Fig 1) and rear 21 (Fig 1) hitching members of the lead and follower vehicles 10 (Fig 1)] (“A second requirement of the couplers 20, 21 is to transmit electrical power, for driving the motors M4R, M4L from one car 10 to the next. For this purpose, suitable electrical contacts are built into the couplers 20, 21, the contacts being able to conduct despite any normal articulation or fore-and-aft movements between the couplers 20, 21. A third requirement is to transmit information signals, such as electrical pulse trains or the like from one car 10 to the next.” pg 5 lines 33-36).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du Toit (WO 9840263 A1) in view of Kim (US 20190270481 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Du Toit teaches the motorized train of claim 1.
Du Toit does not teach the orientation sensor is an angle sensor of a steering rack and pinion, which is located at the output of the steering rack, which measures the angle of the rack and pinion relative to a position of the track and pinion in a straight line, said rack and pinion angle making possible a determination by calculation of the angle of the wheels of the steering axle.
Kim teaches an equivalent vehicle with a rack and pinon, comprising [an orientation sensor is an angle sensor] 110 (Fig 1) of a steering rack and pinion, [which is located at the output of the steering rack, which measures the angle of the rack and pinion relative to a position of the track and pinion in a straight line, said rack and pinion angle making possible a determination by calculation of the angle of the wheels of the steering axle] (“The vehicle sensor 110 may include a sensor configured to sense a steering angle of the vehicle wheel. For instance, the vehicle sensor 110 may include a linear angle sensor configured to sense the displacement of a rack bar, a pinion angle sensor configured to sense an angle of a pinion, and the like. The vehicle sensor 110 may sense vehicle information corresponding to the steering angle of the vehicle wheel, and may transmit the sensed vehicle information to the vehicle steering control apparatus 120.” para 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the angular orientation sensor of Kim with the vehicle of Du Toit with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide additional measurements that can be fed back into the control unit to better correct and control the position of the vehicle while driving. By including an angular orientation sensor that detects the change of the rack and pinion, the control unit of the vehicle has more information to process and correct the driving according to the signals fed back into itself.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du Toit (WO 9840263 A1) in view of Thieberger et al (US 20200307437 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Du Toit teaches the road train comprising a lead vehicle 23 (Fig 2) having at least one follower vehicle 10 (Fig 2).
Du Toit does not teach the lead and follower vehicles having no control station to constitute an autonomous train.
Thieberger teaches an equivalent road train that is autonomous (Figs 58a and 58b, “FIG. 58a and FIG. 58b illustrate autonomous connectable vehicles powered by an unmanned powering vehicle. FIG. 59 illustrates an unmanned powering vehicle connected behind an autonomous vehicle.” para 0406).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the autonomous train of Thieberger with the road train of Du Toit with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for an autonomous train that can automatically drive and control the train without user input. By making the train autonomous, the risk of crashing is reduced and the overall safety of the riders is increased.
Claim 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du Toit (WO 9840263 A1) in view of Cervantes (US 20160016619 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Du Toit teaches a control method to control a road train of claim 1.
Du Toit does not teach a method for controlling the orientation of the wheels of the front steering axle of a follower vehicle for a single-track motorised road train comprising the steps:
a) determining the angle of the wheels of the front steering axle relative to the chassis of the lead vehicle,
b) measuring the hitching angle of the follower vehicle corresponding to the angular orientation of the hitch relative to the chassis of said follower vehicle,
c) using a mathematical law deduced from a geometric modelling of the train, to determine the optimal angle of the wheels of the front steering axle of the follower vehicle from the angle of the wheels determined in a) and of the hitching angle measured in b), and
d) delivering, by way of the controller of the follower vehicle an instruction to the actuator of the motorised steering of said follower vehicle, said instruction enabling the actuator to orient the wheels of the front steering axle of the follower vehicle, along an angle corresponding to the optimal angle determined in c).
Cervantes teaches a[ method for controlling the orientation of the wheels of the front steering axle of a follower vehicle for a single-track motorised road train] (Fig 24) comprising the steps:
[a) determining the angle of the wheels of the front steering axle relative to the chassis of the lead vehicle] (“During a step 500, the unit 430 verifies automatically if the convoy is in an aligned position. For example, the unit 430 collects the values of the angles θ.sub.1 and θ.sub.2 measured by the respective sensors 33B of the devices 30 of the vehicles 410 and 412 and compares these measured values to predefined limit values. In this example, if at least one of the measured absolute values of the angles θ.sub.1, θ.sub.2 and φ is greater than a predefined limit value equal to 10° or 5° or 3° or 1° then the convoy is considered not to be in an aligned position.” Para 0276 ),
[b) measuring the hitching angle of the follower vehicle corresponding to the angular orientation of the hitch relative to the chassis of said follower vehicle] 506 (Fig 24, para 0281 ),
[c) using a mathematical law deduced from a geometric modelling of the train, to determine the optimal angle of the wheels of the front steering axle of the follower vehicle from the angle of the wheels determined in a) and of the hitching angle measured in b), and ] 506 (Fig 24, para 0281 ),
[d) delivering, by way of the controller of the follower vehicle an instruction to the actuator of the motorised steering of said follower vehicle, said instruction enabling the actuator to orient the wheels of the front steering axle of the follower vehicle, along an angle corresponding to the optimal angle determined in c).] 506 (Fig 24, para 0282-286).
Cervantes further teaches step a) comprises the sub-steps:
[a1) measuring the angle of the rack and pinion of the lead vehicle relative to its position in a straight line, ] (“slaving (506) the articulation devices of the first and second vehicles so as to maintain the path followed by the geometrical center of the front set of wheels of the first vehicle tangential to a turning circle the center of which is situated at the intersection of the transverse axes of the rear sets of wheels (414, 418) of the first and second vehicles.” claim 15 and “slaving the articulation angle θ1 of the first vehicle (410) to a setpoint cθ1, the value of the first setpoint cθ1 being equal at all times to φ×[d×(a+b)]/[a×d+a×b+a.sup.2+b×d] to within 20% where: φ is the current value of the steering angle of the wheels of the front set of wheels (416) of the first vehicle” claim 16)
[a2) using a first passage law to determine the angle of the wheels of the front steering axle of the lead vehicle from the measurement taken in a1), ] (“slaving the articulation angle θ1 of the first vehicle (410) to a setpoint cθ1, the value of the first setpoint cθ1 being equal at all times to φ×[d×(a+b)]/[a×d+a×b+a.sup.2+b×d] to within 20%” claim 16)
and in that step d) comprises the sub-steps:
[d1) using a second passage law to determine the optimal angular position of the rack and pinion of the follower vehicle from the optimal angle determined in c), ] (“and simultaneously slaving the articulation angle θ2 of the second vehicle (412) to a setpoint cθ2, the value of the second setpoint cθ2 being equal to all times to φ×[a×(c+d)]/[a×d+a×b+a.sup.2+b×d] to within 20%. “ claim 16)
[d2) delivering by way of the controller of the follower vehicle an angular position instruction of the rack and pinion to the actuator, said angle instruction corresponding to the optimal angle of the rack and pinion determined in d1).] (“slaving the articulation angle θ1 of the first vehicle (410) to a setpoint cθ1, the value of the first setpoint cθ1 being equal at all times to φ×[d×(a+b)]/[a×d+a×b+a.sup.2+b×d] to within 20%... and simultaneously slaving the articulation angle θ2 of the second vehicle (412) to a setpoint cθ2, the value of the second setpoint cθ2 being equal to all times to φ×[a×(c+d)]/[a×d+a×b+a.sup.2+b×d] to within 20%.” claim 16)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the method of Cervantes with the road train of Du Toit with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for an autonomous train that can automatically drive and control the train using an internal processor. By making the train include a control step to connect the vehicles and make the wheels follow one another, the overall direction and control of the train can be controlled by the primary vehicle, and the secondary vehicles can follow the directions of the primary vehicle.
Regarding claim 15, Du Toit and Cervantes fully teach the vehicle train of claim 13 that stabilizes the train using the following steps:
[-measure the lateral acceleration of the vehicle] Du Toit, Cl, S2L and S2R (Fig 1 “By measuring the lateral force by means of sensors S2L and S2R in one or both of the couplers 20, 21,” pg 6 lines 5-10 see also claim 6)
[-measure the lateral acceleration of the secondary vehicle] Du Toit, Cl, S2L and S2R (Fig 1 “By measuring the lateral force by means of sensors S2L and S2R in one or both of the couplers 20, 21,” pg 6 lines 5-10 see also claim 6)
[-calculate a stabilizing angle instruction by increasing the optimal angle instruction of the rack and pinon of the vehicle of a compensation term] (Du Toit claim 6)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kogure (US 20200298909 A1) teaches a steering device includes: an electric motor configured to apply a driving force to cause a wheel of a vehicle to roll; a transmission unit configured to transmit the driving force of the electric motor to the wheel; an input determination unit 221 configured to determine whether an excessive external force equal to or greater than a predetermined force is input… and a final target current setting unit 23 configured to, in response to the input determination unit 221 determining that the excessive force is input…reduce the driving force of the electric motor so that a load on the transmission unit does not exceed an upper limit that is preset according to strength of the transmission unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORGAN M KNAUF whose telephone number is (703)756-4532. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM -4:30 PM.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/M.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights