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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. (US 2025/0262810 A1 – of record), in view of Walsdorff et al. (WO 2020/094570 – of record), in view of at least one of Ichikawa et al. (US 7,655,195 B1 – of record), or Candler (US 2021/0291433 A1 – of record).
Regarding claims 1, 11, 14, Ng discloses a method and system for fabricating a porous structure based on extrusion- based additive manufacturing, see title, abstract – (corresponds to a method of manufacturing a three-dimensional porous structure and an additive manufacturing system adapted to perform the method). The method to include fabricating a variety of pore geometries between extruded paths. That is, a pore may be formed between two adjacent and opposing extruded material portions along two adjacent and opposing sections of the print path, respectively. And further to include forming the pores in a variety of sizes and shapes non-uniformly or heterogeneously distributed along 2D or 3D space within the printed structure, see at least [0078]. It being considered, under the broadest reasonable interpretation afforded the examiner, such a disclosure of a 3D space having distributed pores is indicative of depositing interconnected filaments in a predetermined arrangement in a plurality of stacked layers. And where this is a least readily envisioned in the figures 5-11 depiction of a plurality of consecutive layers which are connected to one another to obtain a porous structure with interconnected pores.
Ng does not explicitly disclose the filaments of the consecutive layers are at an angle to each other so as to form inter-layer pores, or the claimed waved paths.
Walsdorff discloses an inventive three-dimensional porous catalyst – (construed as a porous structure and manufactured for use as a porous catalyst) of stacked strands, which provides a benefit of high external surface area or high packing fraction, see page 3 lines1-4. And forms the strands by extrusion, see page 12 lines 25-29, whereby adjacent strands are connected to one another to obtain a porous structure with interconnected pores, see at least FIGS. 27-30. And configured to have the alternating layers be oriented at an angle to one another, see page 3 lines 25-30. It is considered, one of ordinary skill would readily envision forming Ng’s porous structure to have the filaments of the consecutive layers be formed at an angle to each other so as to form inter-layer pores as reasonably suggested by Walsdorff to provide a porous structure high external surface area and/or a high packing fraction.
As to the claimed waved path: Ichikawa discloses extruding material in an undulating pathway. The filaments in the layer are deposited along waved paths such that narrowed regions and widened regions between at least one subset of adjacent filaments deposited along the waved paths are formed. Each layer has multiple waved filaments deposited along waved lines, wherein a first subset of the waved lines is non-parallel with respect to each other, see at least FIGS. 1a, 1b, 2. Candler discloses a meandering path – (construed as a undulating or waved path) is beneficial for forming a more stable frame to reduce the risk of collapsing during printing, see [0010].
As to the plurality of stacked layers is positioned such that the widened regions formed in subsequent layers are at least partially overlapping so as to form intra-structure channels. As previously discussed, both Ng and Walsdorff reasonably suggest forming stacked layers and Ichikawa and Candler provide benefit for shaping the filament/strand path to be waved. Therefore, it is considered, forming the plurality of stacked layers such that the widened regions formed in subsequent layers are at least partially overlapping so as to form intra-structure channels would be readily envision by the combination. And where one would do so in practicing Ng’s fabrication of a variety of pore geometries between extruded paths.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ng’s filament extrusion orientation as taught by Walsdorff and have a waved path as taught by one of Ichikawa or Candler to provide the porous structure with the aforementioned benefits.
Regarding claims 2-4, modified Ng discloses widened regions are formed between opposite non-parallel waved lines, see at least Ichikawa FIG. 1a; and a second subset of the waved lines are parallel with respect to each other, see at least Ichikawa FIG. 3; and the narrowed regions are such that deposited filaments are adjacent each other in those regions, see at least Ichikawa FIGS. 1-2.
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Ng does not explicitly disclose the waved paths are periodic paths, wherein the periodic paths have a ratio of an amplitude of the wave to a width of the wave which is in a range between 0.1 to 100. However, a ratio of an amplitude of the wave to a width of the wave being 1.0 – (overlapping the claimed range) is readily envisioned form at least Ichikawa FIG. 1a. Moreover, one would do so as Ichikawa discloses the greater the amplitude and pitch of the undulated shape the better performance, see at least Col 4 lines 28-30. Ichikawa further discloses at least one periodic path has varying wave characteristics such that its ratio varies along its length, see at least FIG. 13b. Concerning the claimed range: 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”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 7-8, as previously discussed, modified Ng discloses the porous structure has outer side portions formed by portions of outer deposited filaments in the plurality of stacked layers, see at least Walsdorff Figs. 27-30. And the filaments are waved, see Ichikawa and Candler discussion in claim 1. And further where the layers are symmetrical with respect to at least one symmetry axis, see at least Walsdorff 27-30.
Regarding claims 9-10, as previously discussed, modified Ng discloses a pore may be formed between two adjacent and opposing extruded material portions along two adjacent and opposing sections of the print path, respectively. And further to include forming the pores in a variety of sizes and shapes non-uniformly or heterogeneously distributed along 2D or 3D space within the printed structure, see at least Ng [0078]. And Ichikawa and Candler provide benefit for forming the filaments in a waved path, see discussion of claim 1. Thus, it is considered one would readily envision or at least as a matter of routine experimentation form the three-dimensional structure has a first set of pores and a second set of pores, wherein pores of the first set of pores are larger than pores of the second set of pores, and wherein the first set of pores are formed at the widened regions, and wherein the second set of pores are formed at the narrowed regions. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Ng as claimed since: The combination provides the required structure and extrusion functionality. Moreover, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest expressly or in so many words the changes or possible improvements the inventor made but that the knowledge be clearly present, see at least MPEP 2144 and In re Sernaker, 217 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The combination providing an expected benefit of high external surface area or high packing fraction, as well as forming a more stable frame to reduce the risk of collapsing during printing.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. (US 2025/0262810 A1 – of record), in view of Walsdorff et al. (WO 2020/094570 – of record), in view of at least one of Ichikawa et al. (US 7,655,195 B1 – of record), or Candler (US 2021/0291433 A1 – of record).
Regarding claims 12-13, Ng discloses a method and system for fabricating a porous structure based on extrusion- based additive manufacturing, see title, abstract – (corresponds to a three-dimensional porous structure obtained by material extrusion). The system to include fabricating a variety of pore geometries between extruded paths. That is, a pore may be formed between two adjacent and opposing extruded material portions along two adjacent and opposing sections of the print path, respectively. And further to include forming the pores in a variety of sizes and shapes non-uniformly or heterogeneously distributed along 2D or 3D space within the printed structure, see at least [0078]. It being considered, under the broadest reasonable interpretation afforded the examiner, such a disclosure of a 3D space having distributed pores is indicative of having a porous structure with interconnected filaments in a predetermined arrangement in a plurality of stacked layers, wherein the filaments of the consecutive layers are connected to one another to obtain the porous structure with interconnected pores. And where this is a least readily envisioned in the figures 5-11 depiction of a plurality of consecutive layers which are connected to one another to obtain a porous structure with interconnected pores.
Ng does not explicitly disclose the filaments of the consecutive layers are at an angle to each other so as to form inter-layer pores, or the claimed waved paths.
Walsdorff discloses an inventive three-dimensional porous catalyst to include the catalyst being used as a packed catalyst bed – (construed as a porous structure and a packed bed comprising three-dimensional porous structures) of stacked strands, which provides a benefit of high external surface area or high packing fraction, see page 3 lines 1-4. And forms the strands by extrusion, see page 12 lines 25-29, whereby adjacent strands are connected to one another to obtain a porous structure with interconnected pores, see at least FIGS. 27-30. And configured to have the alternating layers be oriented at an angle to one another, see page 3 lines 25-30. It is considered, one of ordinary skill would readily envision forming Ng’s porous structure to have the filaments of the consecutive layers be formed at an angle to each other so as to form inter-layer pores as reasonably suggested by Walsdorff to provide a porous structure high external surface area and/or a high packing fraction.
As to the claimed waved path: Ichikawa discloses extruding material in an undulating pathway. The filaments in the layer are deposited along waved paths such that narrowed regions and widened regions between at least one subset of adjacent filaments deposited along the waved paths are formed. Each layer has multiple waved filaments deposited along waved lines, wherein a first subset of the waved lines is non-parallel with respect to each other, see at least FIGS. 1a, 1b, 2. Candler discloses a meandering path – (construed as a undulating or waved path) is beneficial for forming a more stable frame to reduce the risk of collapsing during printing, see [0010].
As to the plurality of stacked layers is positioned such that the widened regions formed in subsequent layers are at least partially overlapping so as to form intra-structure channels. As previously discussed, both Ng and Walsdorff reasonably suggest forming stacked layers and Ichikawa and Candler provide benefit for shaping the filament/strand path to be waved. Therefore, it is considered, forming the plurality of stacked layers such that the widened regions formed in subsequent layers are at least partially overlapping so as to form intra-structure channels would be readily envision by the combination. And where one would do so in practicing Ng’s fabrication of a variety of pore geometries between extruded paths.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ng’s filament extrusion orientation as taught by Walsdorff and have a waved path as taught by one of Ichikawa or Candler to provide the porous structure with the aforementioned benefits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed date have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues that: It is submitted that there is no motivation to modify the primary reference, Ng, as proposed in the Action as it would change the principle operation. "If [a] proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification." MPEP § 2143.0l(V) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). "[T]he claimed combination cannot change the principle of operation of the primary reference or render the reference inoperable for its intended purpose." See MPEP §§ 2143.01 , 2145(111). Here, Ng is directed to a method of fabricating a porous structure wherein porosity is created by controlling the extrusion flow rate while the print head moves along a standard print path. (See, for example, [0035] of Ng.) Ng teaches achieving porosity without disrupting the tool path geometry. However, modifying Ng to include a waved path as alleged would replace Ng' s principle operation of flow-rate modulation on an undisrupted path with a contradictory principle, i.e. a geometric path modification. Thus, there would be no motivation to modify Ng as alleged because it would render Ng inoperable for its intended purpose of utilizing undisrupted paths.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees: The applicant unduly limits the Ng reference for what it reasonably discloses. That is, the applicant’s reliance on “Ng' s principle operation of flow-rate modulation on an undisrupted path with a contradictory principle, i.e. a geometric path modification, citing support from Ng’s [0038]” does not limit the modification of Ng’s extruded pathway orientation. Particularly, Ng is concerned with extruded pathways which are “not disrupted”, that is the extruded material has a pathway that is continuous, i.e. “not disrupted”. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that a “not disrupted” print path would include various continuous pathways such as linear, wavy, meandering print pathways and the like. The emphasis being placed on nonstop material extrusion and not any particular pathway.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues that: In contrast, the claimed invention recites "wherein the filaments in the layers are deposited along waved paths such that narrowed regions and widened regions between at least one subset of adjacent filaments deposited along the waved paths are formed." (Claim 1 and 12, emphasis added.) The modification proposed by the Action to arrive at the claimed waved path introduces the very complexity that Ng explicitly sought to avoid. One of skill in the art looking to Ng would be motivated to maintain continuous, undisrupted toolpaths and optimize flow rate control. In fact, they would be discouraged from introducing waved paths that alter Ng' s principle of operation and comprise the efficiency Ng promotes. A reference teaches away "when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken" in the claim. Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Thus, Ng teaches away from the claimed wave path and proposed combination in the Action.
Examiner’s Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees: There is noting in the claims or specification that teaches or reasonably suggests the applicant’s waved path is disrupted or discontinuous. Thus, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the waved path is disrupted or discontinuous) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, it appears the specification is completely silent to the applicant’s implication that it’s claimed waved path is a disrupted or discontinuous path.
Applicant’s Argument #3
Applicant argues that: Ng relies on the decoupling of porosity design from the toolpath geometry. Porosity in Ng is achieved solely through volumetric control and modulating the extrusion flow rate, e.g. decreasing flow rate to create thinner sections that form a pore when opposed. (See [0039] and [0040] of Ng.) Ng found that by maintaining simple, undisrupted toolpaths, production efficiency can be maximized. ([0038] of Ng.) In contrast, the claimed invention relies on geometric control, the physical deviation of the "waved paths" moving apart to create widened regions. Introducing waved paths into Ng would re-couple the porosity to the toolpath geometry contrary to Ng's teachings and would sacrifice the efficiency gains taught in Ng.
Examiner’s Response #3
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Here the applicant offers a restricted interpretation for what the Ng reference reasonably discloses. That is, volumetric control and modulating the extrusion flow rate, e.g. decreasing flow rate to create thinner sections that form a pore; is completely different than providing a continuous vs discontinuous extrusion path. One of ordinary skill would readily envision extruding the material in any particular pathway orientation to form the pores without constraint, since the extruded pathway orientation is not germane to the volumetric control/extrusion flow rate of the extruded material. That is the controlled volume/extrusion flowrate of material in a continuously extruded pathway to form the pore does not affect the pathway orientation whether its linear, wavy, or meandering.
Applicant’s Argument #4
Applicant argues that: Walsdorff fails to teach non-parallel waved filaments. The Action relies on Walsdorff for teaching that the filaments of the consecutive layers are at an angle to each other. Walsdorff teaches that the its structure is "composed of alternating layers of linear spaced-apart parallel strands." (For example, Abstract of Walsdorff.) Thus, the strands in Walsdorff are straight, i.e. linear, and parallel to each other within the layer. In contrast, claim I recites "wherein a first subset of the waved lines are non-parallel with respect to each other." This is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Walsdorff regarding intra-layer filament geometry. That is, one of skill in the art looking at Walsdorff would include linear and parallel strands, not non-parallel lines as claimed. The Action contends that the motivation to combine Ng and Walsdorff is "to provide a porous structure high external surface area and/or a high packing fraction." (Page 5 of the Action.) Applicant disagrees because the benefits described by Walsdorff are intrinsically tied to its specific structure of linear, parallel strands. Walsdorff aims to optimize the structure by ensuring "the distance between inner spaced-apart parallel strands is larger than the distance between outer spaced-apart parallel strands.”
Examiner’s Response #4
Examiner respectfully disagrees: As discussed in the rejection, one of ordinary skill would readily envision forming Ng’s porous structure to have the filaments of the consecutive layers be formed at an angle to each other so as to form inter-layer pores as reasonably suggested by Walsdorff to provide a porous structure high external surface area and/or a high packing fraction. As to the applicant’s interpretation of “the benefits described by Walsdorff are intrinsically tied to its specific structure of linear, parallel strands”. It has been held that a reference is not limited to its preferred embodiment, but must be evaluated for all of its teachings, including its teachings of non-preferred embodiments. (In re Burckel, 201 USPQ 67). Here, at least from the Figs 27-30, one of ordinary skill would readily envision extruding the material in a lattice like manner wherein adjacent strands are connected to one another to obtain a porous structure with interconnected pores. This presents a reasonable expectation of success in forming a porous structure high external surface area and/or a high packing fraction, no matter the pathway orientation of the extruded material.
Applicant’s Argument #5
Applicant argues that: there would be no motivation to combine Ng with the teachings of Candler. The Action contends that Candler's meandering path "is beneficial for forming a more stable frame to reduce the risk of collapsing during printing, see [0010]." (Page 5 of the Action.) However, Candler utilizes these meandering paths exclusively for the intermediate region and is effectively sacrificial material printed between desired islands to manage ooze. (See [0007] and [0008] of Candler.) Candler does not recognized using the meandering paths for the functional porous structure itself Therefore, one of skill in the art would not be motivated to apply a technique used for stabilizing waste material to the design of the functional structure.
Examiner’s Response #5
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Candler clearly discloses extruding material in a meandering pathway is beneficial for forming a more stable frame to reduce the risk of collapsing during printing. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize such an extrusion technique would improve similar devices in the same way, and using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill. While evaluating obviousness, one must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions; see KSR Int. v. Teleflex 550 US (2007).
To determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the way a patent claims, it will often be necessary to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; to the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and to the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art; ibid.
The analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the challenged claimed specific subject matter, for a court can consider the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed; ibid. Note also that “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”); Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Further, the reason or motivation to modify a reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Therefore, modifying Ng' s extruded pathway orientation to have the undulating or waved pathway orientation as discussed by Candler, reasonably suggests a benefit of forming a more stable frame to reduce the risk of collapsing during printing as suggested by Candler.
Applicant’s Argument #6
Applicant argues that: Moreover, the prior art of record fails to teach the claimed "intra-structure channels." The Action contends this would be "readily envisioned by the combination." (Page 6 of the Action.) The Action cannot "pick and choose from any one reference only so much ... as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to ... [a PHOSITA]." In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (C.C.P.A. 1965). "The 'as a whole' instruction ... prevents evaluation of the invention part by part[;] ... [t]his form of hindsight ... , using the invention as a roadmap to find its prior art components, ... discount[s] the value of combining ... features or principles in a new way to achieve a new result - ... the very definition of invention." Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, the formation of the claimed intra-structure channels is not merely a result of stacking porous layers as alleged. It requires a precise coordination between a complex intra-layer geometry (the positioning, phase, and shape of the non-parallel waved paths) and the interlayer stacking (the angel and alignment of subsequent layers). This is not taught or suggested in the prior art of record. There is no teaching in the art regarding how the phases and positions of the non-parallel waves in a subsequent, angled layer should align with he previous layer. Thus, one of skill in the art would not have "readily envisioned" the claimed intra-structure channels as alleged. Rather, the Action is relying on the claimed invention as a roadmap, which is impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
Examiner’s Response #6
Examiner respectfully disagrees: As discussed above: While evaluating obviousness, one must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions; see KSR Int. v. Teleflex 550 US (2007).
To determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the way a patent claims, it will often be necessary to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; to the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and to the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art; ibid.
The analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the challenged claimed specific subject matter, for a court can consider the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed; ibid. Note also that “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”); Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Further, the reason or motivation to modify a reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Therefore, modifying Ng' s extruded pathway orientation to have the undulating or waved pathway orientation as discussed by Candler, reasonably suggests a benefit of forming a more stable frame to reduce the risk of collapsing during printing as suggested by Candler.
Moreover, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571) 272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights