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 on 01/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes the limitations amended to the independent claims, notably that “the audio represents a composite of two or more audio layers” as included in claims 1 and 18, and that this audio is generated “by combining the audio layers associated with the two or more components” as included in claim 9. This combining of the audio layers to form a composite audio output is not further defined in the claims. Therefore, these limitations are given a broadest reasonable interpretation to include the process of taking two or more audio layers, such as audio signals, and performing an unspecified operation to produce a singular audio feedback from these two or more audio layers.
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 9 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 9 recites the limitation "…by combining the audio layers associated with…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as audio layers are not introduced in the claim prior to the recitation of “the audio layers”.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larimer (US 20140277614 A1) in view of Reno et al. (US 20100042281 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Larimer teaches a method comprising
using at least one hardware processor in a controller within a motor grader ([0018-0019]) to:
receive one or more operational parameters ([0019]),
wherein each of the two or more operational parameters represents a position of a respective cylinder of a plurality of cylinders of a work implement of the motor grader ([0021-0022], where the operational parameters are sensed displacements “in the hydraulic cylinder[s] 118, 124 and 128 indicative of the movement and/or position of the implement system”),
wherein each of the plurality of cylinders is external to a cabin of the motor grader, and wherein the position of each of the plurality of cylinders is controlled by at least one input device in the cabin ([0017] and [0021]; see Fig. 1, where the cylinders are external to the cabin);
execute a sound-generation algorithm that converts the two or more operational parameters into audio by, for each of the two or more operational parameters that reflects a change in the position of the respective cylinder, incorporating a synthetic audio associated with that respective cylinder into the audio ([0021], [0029], and [0032], where the displacement of the hydraulic cylinders is detected and outputted as a singular audio feedback that can be customized for each cylinder);
and output the audio to an operator in the cabin ([0029]).
The operational parameter being representing a position of a respective cylinder is disclosed Larimer in an alternate embodiment, and Larimer does not explicitly teach the limitations of the claim in a single embodiment. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to combine these embodiments so the operational parameter is a displacement of the hydraulic cylinder based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to make the operator aware of displacement of said hydraulic cylinder, thereby allowing them to better operate the work machine to avoid damages.
Although Larimer teaches that the synthetic audio feedback is generated from the feedback signals of each of the hydraulic cylinders ([0032]), it does not teach that this audio feedback is explicitly achieved by incorporating audio layers associated with the respective cylinders into the audio, wherein the audio represents a composite of two or more synthetic audio layers.
In the same field of endeavor, Reno discloses a system for providing feedback to a vehicle operator by generating audio layers based on operational parameters of respective cylinders for the outputting of a singular audio signal ([0042-0044]). Reno teaches that for multiple audio layers, the outputted audio represents a composite of two or more synthetic audio layers ([0089], where the audio layers of the two or more operation parameters are masked over each other to produce a singular audio feedback, i.e. a composite, based on the priority of the operational parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Larimer so that an audio layer is generated for each of the parameters, and that the audio layers are then masked to produce a composite audio feedback based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow the audio of each feedback signal to be individually modulated, thereby allowing the respective audio characteristics to be modified, such as the one source having a higher audio level or increased frequency compared to another source. As taught by Reno, this also allows sounds of higher priority to be heard by a vehicle operator ([0089]).
Regarding claim 2, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Larimer teaches wherein at least one of the two or more operational parameters is determined based on a control input to the at least one input device ([0018], where the hydraulic control system is controlled in response to an input received from the operator input devices).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Larimer teaches wherein at least one of the two or more operational parameters is determined based on an output of a sensor ([0021]).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art remains as applied in claim 3. Larimer teaches wherein the sensor is configured to sense one or more of the position of the respective cylinder, an activation of a solenoid valve, an activation of a relief valve, a position of a valve, a position of the work implement, a fluid flow, or a pressure amount ([0021], where the sensors “may be position sensor(s) to sense a displacement in the hydraulic cylinder(s)”).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Larimer teaches wherein the audio is output through at least one speaker in the cabin ([0023]).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Larimer teaches wherein a pitch of at least one synthetic audio layer that is incorporated into the audio is based on a relative position of a value of at least one of the two or more operational parameters ([0030]).
Although the pitch of the audio is based on the value of the operational parameter, Larimer does not explicitly teach that the value of the one or more operational parameters is within a range of possible values of that at least one operational parameter. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art understands that hydraulic cylinders have an allowable range of displacement values, where the lower end corresponds to the minimum degree of actuation/displacement, and the higher end corresponds to the maximum degree of actuation/displacement that the hydraulic cylinder can successfully operate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that the degree of modulation of the audio signal is based on a possible value within a range of possible values of that at least one operational parameter as the value of the displacement must be within a minimum and maximum value in order for the hydraulic cylinder to remain functional.
Regarding claim 9, Larimer teaches a method comprising using at least one hardware processor in a controller within a work machine ([0018-0020]) to, in real time:
receive two or more operational parameters associated with movement of at least one component of the work machine, external to a cabin of the work machine, under control of at least one input device in the cabin ([0019] and [0021]; see Fig. 1, where the components are external of the cabin);
execute a sound-generation algorithm that converts the two or more operational parameters into audio ([0029], where the displacement of the cylinders is detected and converted into audio feedback that is output to the operator);
and output the audio to at least one speaker in the cabin ([0029]).
The operational parameter being associated with movement is disclosed Larimer in an alternate embodiment, and Larimer does not explicitly teach the limitations of the claim in a single embodiment. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to combine these embodiments so the operational parameter is a displacement of the hydraulic cylinder based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to make the operator aware of displacement of said hydraulic cylinder, thereby allowing them to better operate the work machine to avoid damages.
Larimer does teach that the two or more operational parameters are associated with simultaneous movement of two or more of the plurality of components ([0021], where the cylinders move simultaneously while the machine operates, which are recognized as individual feedback signals from their respective sensors). However, Larimer does not teach that the method includes generating the audio by combining the audio layers associated with the two or more components based on the two or more operational parameters.
In the same field of endeavor, Reno discloses a system for providing feedback to a vehicle operator by generating audio layers based on operational parameters of respective cylinders for the outputting of a singular audio signal ([0042-0044]). Reno teaches a process for generating the audio by combining the audio layers associated with the two or more components based on the two or more operational parameters ([0089], where a singular audio feedback is generated by combining the audio layers via masking so that feedback sounds of a highest priority are transmitted to an operator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Larimer so that an audio layer is generated for each of the parameters, and that the audio layers are then masked to produce a composite audio feedback based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow the audio of each feedback signal to be individually modulated, thereby allowing the respective audio characteristics to be modified, such as the one source having a higher audio level or increased frequency compared to another source. As taught by Reno, this also allows sounds of higher priority to be heard by a vehicle operator ([0089]).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art remains as applied in claim 9. Larimer teaches wherein the at least one input device comprises a joystick ([0017]).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art remains as applied in claim 9. Larimer teaches wherein the sound-generation algorithm associates each of a plurality of components of the work machine, including the at least one component, with an audio layer that is different from the audio layer associated with at least one other one of the plurality of components ([0021], [0029], and [0032], where a feedback signal for each of the three hydraulic cylinders is associated with the other feedback signals to produce a single audio feedback; feedback signals are respectively generated audio layers as taught by Reno in the prior combination), and wherein converting the two or more operational parameters into audio comprises:
when the two or more operational parameters are associated with movement of only a single component of the work machine, generating the audio from the audio layer associated with that single component based on the one or more operational parameters ([0021], [0029], and [0032], where the audio feedback is outputted and customized for each feedback signal so that displacement of a single hydraulic sensor produces a corresponding audio feedback).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art remains as applied in claim 9. Larimer teaches
wherein the sound-generation algorithm converts the two or more operational parameters into the audio according to one or more operator-specified settings ([0030-0031], where the operator customizes the audio feedback),
and wherein the two or more operator-specified settings comprise a value for at least one characteristic of the audio ([0031], where “the operator may further customize the audio feedback by selecting adjustable volume, pitch, and frequency and other parameters associated with the audio feedback”).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art remains as applied in claim 9. Larimer teaches wherein the two or more operational parameters are received from one or more sensors that are each configured to monitor a state of a component of the work machine ([0021], where “the sensors may be position sensor to sense a displacement … indicative of the movement and/or position of the implement system”).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art remains as applied in claim 9. Larimer teaches wherein the at least one component comprises a valve or cylinder that actuates a work implement of the motor grader, and wherein the two or more operational parameters comprise an operational parameter associated with a position of the valve or cylinder ([0017] and [0021]).
The disclosed teachings of Larimer are embodied via a hydraulic excavator, and Larimer does not teach in a singular embodiment that these teachings are for a work machine that is a motor grader. However, Larimer does teach an alternate embodiment where the work machine may be a motor grader ([0013], where “the machine may be, but not limited to… a motor grader”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to combine the embodiments of Larimer to produce a motor grader system with the audio feedback signal disclosed based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to perform the well-known ground grading operations that a motor grader is designed to perform while still benefiting from the enhanced audio feedback system as disclosed by Larimer.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art remains as applied in claim 9. Larimer teaches wherein the sound-generation algorithm varies at least one characteristic of the audio based on a relative position of a value of at least one of the two or more operational parameters ([0030], where an audio signal corresponding a high value can include “a high pitch or high volume beep”).
Although the pitch of the audio is based on the value of the operational parameter, Larimer does not explicitly teach that the value of the one or more operational parameters is within a range of possible values of that at least one of the two or more operational parameters. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art understands that hydraulic cylinders have an allowable range of displacement values, where the lower end corresponds to the minimum degree of actuation/displacement, and the higher end corresponds to the maximum degree of actuation/displacement that the hydraulic cylinder can successfully operate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that the degree of modulation of the audio signal is based on a possible value within a range of possible values of that at least one of the two or more operational parameters as the value of the displacement must be within a minimum and maximum value in order for the hydraulic cylinder to remain functional.
Regarding claim 18, Larimer teaches a work machine comprising:
a machine body (see Fig. 1, machine 100)
a cabin comprising at least one joystick and at least one speaker ([0017]);
a work implement comprising a plurality of components ([0017]);
a controller ([0018]) configured to, in real time with movement of one or more of the plurality of components under control of the at least one joystick ([0017]),
receive two or more operational parameters associated with the movement of the one or more components ([0019] and [0021]),
execute a sound-generation algorithm that converts the two or more operational parameters into audio ([0029] and [0032]),
wherein the sound-generation algorithm associates each of the plurality of components with an audio layer that is different from the audio layer associated with at least one other one of the plurality of components ([0021], [0029], and [0032], where a feedback signal is associated for each of the three hydraulic cylinders),
and when the one or more operational parameters are two or more operational parameters associated with simultaneous movement of two or more of the plurality of components, generating the audio by combining the audio layers associated with the two or more components based on the two or more operational parameters ([0029] and [0032], where the feedback signals associated with the displacement of the hydraulic cylinders are combined into a singular audio feedback that is outputted).
The operational parameter being associated with movement is disclosed Larimer in an alternate embodiment, and Larimer does not explicitly teach the limitations of the claim in a single embodiment. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to combine these embodiments so the operational parameter is a displacement of the hydraulic cylinder based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to make the operator aware of displacement of said hydraulic cylinder, thereby allowing them to better operate the work machine to avoid damages.
Although Larimer teaches that the synthetic audio feedback is generated from the feedback signals of each of the hydraulic cylinders ([0032]), it does not teach that this audio feedback is explicitly achieved by incorporating audio layers associated with the respective cylinders into the audio, wherein the audio represents a composite of two or more audio layers.
In the same field of endeavor, Reno discloses a system for providing feedback to a vehicle operator by generating audio layers based on operational parameters of respective cylinders for the outputting of a singular audio signal ([0042-0044]). Reno teaches that for multiple audio layers, the outputted audio represents a composite of two or more audio layers ([0089], where the audio layers of the two or more operation parameters are masked over each other to produce a singular audio feedback, i.e. a composite, based on the priority of the operational parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Larimer so that an audio layer is generated for each of the parameters, and that the audio layers are then masked to produce a composite audio feedback based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow the audio of each feedback signal to be individually modulated, thereby allowing the respective audio characteristics to be modified, such as the one source having a higher audio level or increased frequency compared to another source. As taught by Reno, this also allows sounds of higher priority to be heard by a vehicle operator ([0089]).
Regarding claim 19, the prior art remains as applied in claim 18. Larimer teaches wherein the at least one component comprises a valve or cylinder that actuates a work implement of the motor grader, and wherein the one or more operational parameters comprise an operational parameter associated with a position of the valve or cylinder ([0017] and [0021]).
The disclosed teachings of Larimer are embodied via a hydraulic excavator, and Larimer does not teach in a singular embodiment that these teachings are for a work machine that is a motor grader. However, Larimer does teach an alternate embodiment where the work machine may be a motor grader ([0013], where “the machine may be, but not limited to… a motor grader”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to combine the embodiments of Larimer to produce a motor grader system based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to perform the well-known ground grading operations that a motor grader is designed to perform.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art remains as applied in claim 18. Larimer teaches wherein each of the audio layers is synthetically generated ([0030], where the layers of the prior combination produce an artificial ringtone based on the feedback signal of each cylinder).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larimer in view of Reno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Casey et al. (US 20070147626 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. The prior combination does not teach the limitations of the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Casey teaches a vehicular work machine configured to perform a method, wherein the synthetic audio layer associated with at least one of the plurality of cylinders is generated based on audio data captured by at least one microphone that is configured to capture sound around the at least one cylinder ([0029-0030], [0034], and [0044], where sounds generated by machine hydraulics are pre-recorded, stored, and outputted as audio feedback based on sensed output parameters).
A skilled artisan would have been able to modify the prior combination so that the audio feedback being output to the operator includes sounds that the operator would traditionally expect to be produced by the hydraulic cylinders. Although Casey does not explicitly include a microphone, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to include at least one microphone that is configured to capture sound around the at least one cylinder as it would be nonfunctional to not include a way to record the pre-recorded sounds of components that will be outputted via the audio feedback.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to include sounds produced by the components of the work machine in the audio feedback based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to enable the operator to hear the audio traditionally produced the components of the machine in order to mirror traditional operation of the machine that the operator may be accustomed to, as deafening the operator to the sounds they normally hear when operating the machine could impact their ability to operate it.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. The prior combination does not teach the limitations of the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Casey teaches a vehicular work machine configured to perform a method, wherein the audio is output to the operator at a timing that is based on audio data captured by at least one microphone that is configured to capture sound around one or more of the plurality of cylinders ([0029-0030], [0034], and [0044], where sounds generated by machine hydraulics are pre-recorded, stored, and outputted as audio feedback based on sensed output parameters, and where the frequency, i.e. timing, of the outputted sounds is based on operational parameters of the machine so as to mirror the audio “that an operator would expect to hear”).
A skilled artisan would have been able to modify the prior combination so that the audio feedback being output to the operator includes sounds that the operator would traditionally expect to be produced by the hydraulic cylinders. Although Casey does not explicitly include a microphone, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to include at least one microphone that is configured to capture sound around one or more of the plurality of cylinders as it would be nonfunctional to not include a way to record the pre-recorded sounds of components that will be outputted via the audio feedback.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to include sounds produced by the components of the work machine in the audio feedback based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to enable the operator to hear the audio traditionally produced the components of the machine in order to mirror traditional operation of the machine that the operator may be accustomed to, as deafening the operator to the sounds they normally hear when operating the machine could impact their ability to operate it.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larimer in view of Reno as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hatamura et al. (JPH 0849259 A).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art remains as applied in claim 9. Although Larimer teaches that the operator can customize the audio feedback so that the audio qualities are indicative of the sensed operational parameter ([0030-0031]), it does not teach the limitations of the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Hatamura teaches a work machine that performs a method comprising using the at least one hardware processor of the controller to, in response to a value of at least one of the one or more operational parameters reaching a limit at one end of a range of possible values for the at least one operational parameter, output an audio cue to the at least one speaker ([0022] and [0028-0029], where audio indicative of the operational parameter is constantly outputted, and the audio outputted when the operational parameter is reaching the limit is ”high-pitched and loud” and is increasing in frequency, with the frequency being at the highest value when the operating parameter reaches its maximum value as shown in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the audio output of Larimer so that the audio signal produced based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation so that the system automatically customizes the audio feedback so that the output can be indicative of the urgency of the detected value of the operating parameter, thereby allowing the audio signal to function as a form of an alarm when operation could risk damage to the machine.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art remains as applied in claim 9. Although Larimer teaches that the operator can customize the audio feedback so that the audio qualities are indicative of the sensed operational parameter ([0030-0031]), it does not teach the limitations of the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Hatamura teaches a work machine that performs a method comprising using the at least one hardware processor of the controller to, in response to a value of at least one of the one or more operational parameters reaching a center of a range of possible values for the at least one operational parameter, output an audio cue to the at least one speaker ([0022] and [0028-0029], where audio indicative of the operational parameter is constantly outputted, and the audio outputted when the operational parameter is reaching the center of a range is of an average pitch and frequency as shown in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the audio output of Larimer so that the audio signal produced based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation so that the system automatically customizes the audio feedback so that the output can be indicative of the urgency of the detected value of the operating parameter, thereby allowing the audio signal to reflect that the operating parameter is at an ideal level of operation and is not currently risking damages.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C 103, applicant argues against the combination of Larimer in view of Kosinski, stating that “While Kosinksi might be used to deliver multi-layered audio such as for entertainment or education, none of the prior art alone or in combination teaches multi-layered audio monitoring multiple control parameters of a machine.” As the independent claims have been modified to reflect this “multi-layered” audio, this argument is persuasive. Thus, a new rejection is put forth in the present office action over Larimer in view of Reno. Reno discloses how audio signals can be generated based on operational parameters, and that when multiple of these parameters are detected, audio masking is performed so that a singular audio feedback is outputted.
Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the composite audio that is outputted results in the different parameters being “heard simultaneously”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). Applicant is recommended to amend the claims to concretely define the claimed composite audio as an audio output wherein multiple parameters can be heard simultaneously.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JACK R BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK ROBERT BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights