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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to “communication unit”.
Applicant contends:
PNG
media_image1.png
260
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s Specification states:
[0034] The assistance system 2 may be provided in particular in a stationary form in the vehicle 1. The assistance system 2 may be equipped with a communication unit 23 that enables the data to be transmitted between the data glasses 3 and the assistance system 2 via the communication connection 4.
Examiner notes this is the only discussion of “communication unit” in the specification and it is not clear whether it is hardware, software, or some combination. Examiner was unable to find any reference of a “component” or “communication interfere.” The communication device is number 39 and the communication unit is number 23. Currently the communication unit appears to be a black box. the word ‘unit’ does not provide any indication of structure and sets forth the same black box recitation of structure ... as if the term ‘means’ had been used, [t]he prefix communication does not impart structure into the term ‘unit,’ and the written description fails to impart any structural significance to the term. Under the 3-prong analysis, the bolded limitation should be interpreted under § 112(f) because: the word “unit” acts as a generic placeholder for the term “means,” the generic placeholder “unit” is modified by functional language “communication,” and the generic placeholder “unit” is not modified by sufficient structure.
PNG
media_image2.png
750
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant contends:
PNG
media_image3.png
82
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Poulos teaches embodiments are disclosed that relate to operating a user interface on an augmented reality computing device comprising a display system. For example, one disclosed embodiment includes displaying a virtual object via the display system as free-floating, detecting a trigger to display the object as attached to a surface, and, in response to the trigger, displaying the virtual object as attached to the surface via the display system. The method may further include detecting a trigger to detach the virtual object from the surface and, in response to the trigger to detach the virtual object from the surface, detaching the virtual object from the surface and displaying the virtual object as free-floating.
Applicant further contends:
PNG
media_image4.png
402
704
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Border teaches a system and method for providing assisted safety to an operator of a vehicle using a head-mounted display that provides displayed content and a see-through view of a surrounding environment, includes determining whether the operator is looking through the windshield of the vehicle or is not looking through the windshield, if the user is looking through the windshield, preventing displayed content from being provided within a display field of view of the head-mounted display, thereby providing an unencumbered see-through view of the surrounding environment, if the user is not looking through the windshield, providing displayed content for viewing by the user within the display field of view, and if important information relating to the safety of the vehicle is detected by a system associated with the vehicle while the user is looking not looking through the windshield, interrupting the displayed content and providing an alert to the operator.
MPEP 2143.01 V states:
V. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION CANNOT RENDER THE PRIOR ART UNSATISFACTORY FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE
If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Claimed device was a blood filter assembly for use during medical procedures wherein both the inlet and outlet for the blood were located at the bottom end of the filter assembly, and wherein a gas vent was present at the top of the filter assembly. The prior art reference taught a liquid strainer for removing dirt and water from gasoline and other light oils wherein the inlet and outlet were at the top of the device, and wherein a pet-cock (stopcock) was located at the bottom of the device for periodically removing the collected dirt and water. The reference further taught that the separation is assisted by gravity. The Board concluded the claims were prima facie obvious, reasoning that it would have been obvious to turn the reference device upside down. The court reversed, finding that if the prior art device were turned upside down it would be inoperable for its intended purpose because the gasoline to be filtered would be trapped at the top, the water and heavier oils sought to be separated would flow out of the outlet instead of the purified gasoline, and the screen would become clogged.). But see In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1244, 117 USPQ2d 1499, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (The patent claims were directed to a method of enzymatic hydrolysis of soy fiber to reduce water holding capacity, requiring reacting the soy fiber and enzyme in water for about 60-120 minutes. The claims were rejected over two prior art references, wherein the primary reference taught using a longer reaction time of 5 to 72 hours and the secondary reference taught using a reaction time of 100 to 240 minutes, preferably 120 minutes. The applicant argued that modifying the primary reference in the manner suggested by the secondary reference would forego the benefits taught by the primary reference, thereby teaching away from the combination. The court held that both prior art references "suggest[ed] that hydrolysis time may be adjusted to achieve different fiber properties. Nothing in the prior art teaches that the proposed modification would have resulted in an ‘inoperable’ process or a dietary fiber product with undesirable properties." (emphasis in original)).
"Although statements limiting the function or capability of a prior art device require fair consideration, simplicity of the prior art is rarely a characteristic that weighs against obviousness of a more complicated device with added function." In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1344, 48 USPQ2d 1635, 1638 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Court held that claimed catheter for removing obstruction in blood vessels would have been obvious in view of a first reference which taught all of the claimed elements except for a "means for recovering fluid and debris" in combination with a second reference describing a catheter including that means. The court agreed that the first reference, which stressed simplicity of structure and taught emulsification of the debris, did not teach away from the addition of a channel for the recovery of the debris.). Similarly, in Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381, 119 USPQ2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court stated "[a]lthough modification of the movable blades may impede the quick change functionality disclosed by Caterpillar, ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine’" (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted)).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Poulos states:
[0012] In order to keep such virtual objects in persistent view of a user while reducing intrusiveness of the virtual object on a user's field of view, in some examples, persistent virtual objects may be attached to real-world surfaces in the environment, e.g., attached to walls, so that the virtual object may float across the surface of the wall. For example, while displayed on a surface, a rotation of the virtual object may be aligned with the surface and may slide across the surface to a comfortable viewing position for the user. Similarly, virtual objects also may be attached to virtual surfaces, such as a virtual wall or other virtual environment structures.
Border states:
[0283] In further embodiments, specific to operating vehicles such as for example: automobiles, planes, ships or trains, displayed content may only be provided within the display field of view of the head-mounted display when the gaze direction of the user is away from the transparent portion of the windshield or other windows and toward a portion of the vehicle where the displayed content will not impede the user's view of the surrounding environment, thereby enhancing safety. FIG. 60 shows an illustration of the interior of an automobile including a windshield 6010, a steering wheel 6020, an audio player 6022 and gauges 6624. In a normal course of operation, the user looks through the windshield 6010 or adjacent windows to view the surrounding environment while operating the automobile and during this time the head-mounted display does not distract the user, thereby improving safety. In embodiments, when the user is detected to be looking at a windshield, displayed content is prevented or prohibited from being displayed in a field of view of the head-mounted display. Thus, for the majority of time, displayed content is not provided within the display field of view so that the user has an unimpeded see-through view of the surrounding environment as viewed through the head-mounted display and through the windshield 6010 or adjacent windows. However, if the user looks away from the windshield toward a portion of the interior of the automobile, displayed content associated with the location that the user is looking at is then provided within the display field of view. For example, when the user looks at position 6012 that includes a position of a rear view mirror, an image from a backup camera associated with the automobile may be provided within the display field of view of the head-mounted display. In another example, when the user looks at a position 6014 that includes a center portion of the automobile dashboard, images associated with a GPS map or associated navigational information can be provided in the display field of view. Similarly, if the user looks at position 6013, which includes a position behind and just above the steering wheel, information associated with the automobile systems (e.g. images of gauges) may be provided to the user within the display field of view, or if the user looks at position 6015, information associated with the audio system may be provided to the user within the display field of view.
Examiner asserts it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the features of Border because Poulos is trying to address virtual objects in persistent view of a user while reducing intrusiveness of the virtual object on a user's field of view. Borders realizes there are safety issues when operating a vehicle and a users is looking at a windshield [283] and modifies the virtual object so they are no longer persistent. Both Poulos and Border are addressing issues of intrusiveness of virtual object by tying them to a suitable surface [0014] Poulos and fig. 60 6022 Borders, while Borders builds on this of when to start/stop displaying virtual object [283]. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Examiner notes the Court also said, “[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Examiner asserts safety (abstract) is the reason expressly recited by Borders
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: communication unit in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner was unable to locate the disclosure of the claimed structure for communication unit
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. Examiner is unable to determine whether communication unit is hardware, software, or some combination of.
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.
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) 1 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulos et al (2014/0333666) hereinafter, Poulos in view of Croy et al (2010/0046082) hereinafter, Croy further in view of Ashman (2016/0163063) hereinafter, Ashman further in view of Border et al (2022/0017012) hereinafter, Border.
In regards to claim 1, Poulos teaches a method for operating a display system with an assistance system (abstract)
Embodiments are disclosed that relate to operating a user interface on an augmented reality computing device comprising a display system. For example, one disclosed embodiment includes displaying a virtual object via the display system as free-floating, detecting a trigger to display the object as attached to a surface, and, in response to the trigger, displaying the virtual object as attached to the surface via the display system. The method may further include detecting a trigger to detach the virtual object from the surface and, in response to the trigger to detach the virtual object from the surface, detaching the virtual object from the surface and displaying the virtual object as free-floating.
Poulos fails to teach a presentation surface has been brought from a stowed position into a position of use.
However, Croy teaches a presentation surface has been brought from a stowed position into a position of use (figs. 3a-3d and fig. 4a-d) stowed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Poulos to further include to teach a presentation surface has been brought from a stowed position into a position of use as taught by Croy in order to be hidden when not in use [002-005].
Poulos fail to teach wherein the presentation surface is dark or black.
However, Ashman teaches wherein the presentation surface is dark or black [0019] Ashman
[0019] The technique introduced here enables the use of a conventional image display device (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD)), for example in an HMD or AR-enabled mobile device, to create a visual “portal” that appears as a porous interface between the real world and a virtual world, with optional AR content overlaid on the user's real-world view. This technique has advantages for (among other things) HMD devices, for example, since the dark background of the screen can provide an improved contrast ratio, which addresses the technical challenges for HMD devices that display AR content without occluding real world content in the background, e.g., because they have transparent or semi-transparent displays that only add light to a scene.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Poulos and Croy to further include wherein the presentation surface is dark or black as taught by Ashman in order to improve contrast ratios [0019].
Poulos and Croy in view of Ashman fail to expressly teach automatically starting to display media information in the data glasses so as to become visible in the data glasses depending on the start information.
However, Border teaches starting to display media information in the data glasses so as to become visible in the data glasses depending on the start information.[283] (fig. 60 (6014))Border
[0283] In further embodiments, specific to operating vehicles such as for example: automobiles, planes, ships or trains, displayed content may only be provided within the display field of view of the head-mounted display when the gaze direction of the user is away from the transparent portion of the windshield or other windows and toward a portion of the vehicle where the displayed content will not impede the user's view of the surrounding environment, thereby enhancing safety. FIG. 60 shows an illustration of the interior of an automobile including a windshield 6010, a steering wheel 6020, an audio player 6022 and gauges 6624. In a normal course of operation, the user looks through the windshield 6010 or adjacent windows to view the surrounding environment while operating the automobile and during this time the head-mounted display does not distract the user, thereby improving safety. In embodiments, when the user is detected to be looking at a windshield, displayed content is prevented or prohibited from being displayed in a field of view of the head-mounted display. Thus, for the majority of time, displayed content is not provided within the display field of view so that the user has an unimpeded see-through view of the surrounding environment as viewed through the head-mounted display and through the windshield 6010 or adjacent windows. However, if the user looks away from the windshield toward a portion of the interior of the automobile, displayed content associated with the location that the user is looking at is then provided within the display field of view. For example, when the user looks at position 6012 that includes a position of a rear view mirror, an image from a backup camera associated with the automobile may be provided within the display field of view of the head-mounted display. In another example, when the user looks at a position 6014 that includes a center portion of the automobile dashboard, images associated with a GPS map or associated navigational information can be provided in the display field of view. Similarly, if the user looks at position 6013, which includes a position behind and just above the steering wheel, information associated with the automobile systems (e.g. images of gauges) may be provided to the user within the display field of view, or if the user looks at position 6015, information associated with the audio system may be provided to the user within the display field of view.
PNG
media_image5.png
548
824
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Poulos in view of Croy and Ashman to starting to display media information in the data glasses so as to become visible in the data glasses depending on the start information as taught by Border in order to no distract the operator of a motorized vehicle [0283].
Therefore, Poulos in view of Croy and Ashman and Border teaches
operating a display system with an assistance system tied to (abstract) Poulos the vehicle (fig. 1 and 2 car) Croy) and data glasses (fig. 2 (glasses) Poulos) in a vehicle, the method comprising:
monitoring (fig. 11 (1104 triggering event) Poulos) whether a presentation surface has been brought from a stowed position into a position of use in which the presentation surface faces (fig. 3c-3d 30) Croy) the data glasses (fig. 2 (glasses) Poulos), wherein the presentation surface is a dark or black [0019] Ashman, in particular unstructured surface (figs 1 and 2 (20 and 30)) Croy;
transmitting start information from the assistance system (fig. 11 (1104) to 1110)) Poulos) to the data glasses in response to recognizing that the presentation surface has been brought into the position of use (fig. 11 (1110) (fig. 1 and 1b) Poulos;
automatically starting to display media information in the data glasses so as to become visible in the data glasses depending on the start information. (fig. 11 (1110, 1112, 1114) Poulos) .[283] (fig. 60 (6014))Border
In regards to claim 7, Poulos teaches an apparatus for operating a display system with data glasses (abstract) Poulos
Poulos fails to teach a presentation surface has been brought from a stowed position into a position of use.
However, Croy teaches a presentation surface has been brought from a stowed position into a position of use. (figs. 3a-3d and fig. 4a-d) stowed). Croy
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Poulos to further include to teach a presentation surface has been brought from a stowed position into a position of use as taught by Croy in order to be hidden when not in use [002-005].
Poulos fail to teach wherein the presentation surface is dark or black.
However, Ashman teaches wherein the presentation surface is dark or black [0019] Ashman
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Poulos and Croy to further include wherein the presentation surface is dark or black as taught by Ashman in order to improve contrast ratios [0019].
Poulos and Croy in view of Ashman fail to expressly teach automatically start to display media information in the data glasses so as to become visible in the data glasses
However, Border teaches automatically start to display media information in the data glasses so as to become visible in the data glasses.[283] (fig. 60 (6014))Border
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Poulos in view of Croy and Ashman to automatically start to display media information in the data glasses so as to become visible in the data glasses as taught by Border in order to not distract the operator of a motorized vehicle [0283].
Therefore, Poulos in view of Croy in view of Ashman and Border teaches an apparatus for operating a display system with data glasses in a vehicle, comprising: a control unit configured to monitor(fig. 11 (1104 triggering event) Poulos) whether a presentation surface has been brought from a stowed position into a position (figs 1 and 2 (20 and 30)[0034-0045]) Croy; of use in which the presentation surface faces the data glasses, wherein the presentation surface is a dark or black [0019] Ashman, in particular unstructured surface; and
a communication unit configured to transmit start (fig. 11 (1110) (fig. 1 and 1b) Poulos; information from the assistance system to the data glasses, in response to the control unit detecting that the presentation surface has been brought into the position of use. (fig. 11 (1110, 1112, 1114) Poulos) wherein the start information triggers the data glasses to automatically start to display media information in the data glasses so as to become visible in the data glasses. [283] (fig. 60 (6014))Border
In regards to claim 6, Poulos in view of Croy in view of Ashman teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the media information is displayed in a contact-analog manner with respect to a coordinate system tied to the vehicle on or in front of the presentation surface (fig. 11 (pinned to surface 1116)) Poulos and (fig. 2 (22) Ashman).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 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.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRANT SITTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1542. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-6084. 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.
/GRANT SITTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights