DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remark entered on January 30th, 2025.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 17, 18 and 20 are amended.
Claims 4 – 6, 9 – 16 and 19 are cancelled.
Claims 21 – 32 are newly added.
Claims 1 – 3, 7, 8, 17, 18 and 20 – 32 are pending in current application.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a).
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims;
Therefore, the recited essence claim limitation regarding, “a location relative to the aircraft”, “additional symbology”, “weather phenomena”, “a dedicated scan”, “a landing phase”, “a takeoff phase”, “alignment symbology”, “a departure path”, “a first mode” and “a second mode”, “a different modulation waveform”, “a first subset”, “a second subset” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered;
however, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). 37 CFR 1.83(a).
In this instant case, applicant recited claim regarding, “a dedicated scan of a runway during a landing phase”, “display runway alignment symbology concurrently with the symbology identifying the non-weather hazard to provide situational awareness”, “a dedicated scan for the non-weather hazard during a takeoff phase”, “a first mode to gather information regarding weather phenomena and a second mode to gather information”, “a doppler analysis over an extended dwell period of at least one second” are deemed to be conventional feature that ought to be illustrated.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 2, 18, 23, 25, 26 and 28 are 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “display additional symbology” does not provide claim subject matter that ought to be set forth within applicant’s written description convey to one skilled in the art that application possess the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Upon further review, skilled in the art could not locate the term “additional symbology” within applicant’s written description nor skilled in the art could no ascertain what exactly the additional symbology referring to as applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 23, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “display runway alignment symbology concurrently with the symbology identifying the non-weather hazard” does not provide claim subject matter that ought to be set forth within applicant’s written description convey to one skilled in the art that application possess the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Upon further review, skilled in the art could not locate the recited claim limitation regarding “display runway alignment symbology concurrently with the symbology identifying the non-weather hazard” within applicant’s written description nor skilled in the art could no ascertain what exactly the term/invention referring to. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 23, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “display runway alignment symbology concurrently with the symbology identifying the non-weather hazard” does not provide claim subject matter that ought to be set forth within applicant’s written description convey to one skilled in the art that application possess the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Upon further review, skilled in the art could not locate the recited claim limitation regarding “display runway alignment symbology concurrently with the symbology identifying the non-weather hazard” within applicant’s written description nor skilled in the art could no ascertain what exactly the term/the invention referring to. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 25, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “a first mode to gather information regarding weather phenomena and a second mode to gather information” does not provide claim subject matter that ought to be set forth within applicant’s written description convey to one skilled in the art that application possess the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Upon further review, skilled in the art could not locate the recited claim limitation regarding “a first mode…a second mode….” within applicant’s written description nor skilled in the art could no ascertain what exactly the term/the invention referring to. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 26, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “
a different modulation waveform than the first mode” does not provide claim subject matter that ought to be set forth within applicant’s written description convey to one skilled in the art that application possess the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Upon further review, skilled in the art could not locate the recited claim limitation regarding “a different modulation waveform” within applicant’s written description nor skilled in the art could no ascertain what exactly the term/ the invention referring to. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 28, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “a first subset…a second subset” does not provide claim subject matter that ought to be set forth within applicant’s written description convey to one skilled in the art that application possess the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Upon further review, skilled in the art could not locate the recited claim limitation regarding “a first subset…a second subset” within applicant’s written description nor skilled in the art could no ascertain what exactly the term/the invention referring to. Appropriate further clarification is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 18, 23, 25, 26 - 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is also noted that dependent claims based upon the rejected claims are also rejected based upon the dependency, in this instance, dependent claim 27 based upon rejected claim 25 is also rejected based upon dependency.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “display additional symbology” does not distinctly and particularly point out what or which additional symbology that applicant is referring to that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention in order to ascertain metes and bounds regards applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 23, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “runway alignment symbology concurrently with the symbology identifying the non-weather hazard” does not distinctly and particularly point out what or which runway alignment symbology concurrently that applicant is referring to that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention in order to ascertain metes and bounds regards applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 25, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “a first mode to gather information regarding weather phenomena and a second mode to gather information” does not distinctly and particularly point out what or which exactly the term “a first mode…a second mode” that applicant is referring to that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention in order to ascertain metes and bounds regards applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 26, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “a different modulation waveform than the first mode” does not distinctly and particularly point out what or which exactly the term “a different modulation waveform than the first mode” that applicant is referring to that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention in order to ascertain metes and bounds regards applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 28, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “a first subset…a second subset…” does not distinctly and particularly point out what or which exactly the term “a first subset…a second subset” that applicant is referring to that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention in order to ascertain metes and bounds regards applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
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 – 3, 7,8, 15,17, 18, 20 – 22, 24 and 29 - 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrico (US Pat No. 8,681,021) in view of Kalyandurg et al (US Pat Pub No. 2018/0164431).
Regarding claim 1, Carrico shows a system comprising: a weather radar (See at least Col 2 lines 50 – 55 for weather radar 110) configured to gather information about a region of three-dimensional space that includes a flight path of an aircraft (See at least Col 6, lines 10 - 15 and 29 – 50 for meteorological profile obtained from radar during flight operation as the space including the flight path on Col 5, lines 57 – 60 also on figure 3 and 4); output the gathered information (See at least Col 6, lines 11 – 20 also shown on figure 4);
a heads up display HUD configured to (See at least Col 5, lines 35 - 65): receive data comprising the gathered information from the weather radar (See at least Col 6, lines 10 - 20);
display symbology on the HUD based on the gathered information from the weather radar (See at least Col 6, lines 10 – 25 along with figure 4 for meteorological profile displayed on HUD);
Kalyandurg et al further shows the gathered information comprises a location relative to the aircraft for a non-weather hazard detected by the weather radar (See at least Para 0032 for bird flock positions 230 and 232 with reference to the aircraft position 200 with graphical output);
the weather radar to identify the location relative to the aircraft for the non-weather hazard (See at least Para 0032 for bird flock position 230 and 232 to be detected using weather radar system 102).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, provide further non-weather hazard information location of Kalyandurg, for the HUD of Carrico, in order to provide further information toward pilot during vehicle navigation , as discussed and desired by Carrico, as using a known technique of Kalyandurg to improve similar device of Carrico in order to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Carrico shows a method comprising: receiving information about a region of three-dimensional space by processor circuitry of an aircraft (See at least figure 1 for weather radar system 110 provide information in range 112 in horizontal space, azimuth 114 in 3 dimensional coordinate, and elevation in vertical space toward lateral profile generator 140),
the information is based on radar returns from a weather radar onboard the aircraft (See at least figure 1 for weather radar system 110 provide information in range 112 in horizontal space, azimuth 114 in 3 dimensional coordinate, and elevation in vertical space toward lateral profile generator 140 also shown on figure 5), the region of three-dimensional space includes a flight path of the aircraft (See at least figure 1 for weather radar system 110 provide information in range 112 in horizontal space, azimuth 114 in 3 dimensional coordinate, and elevation in vertical space toward lateral profile generator 140 during flight path operation also shown on figure 5); generating symbology configured to be displayed on a heads up display HUD of the aircraft by the processing circuitry (See at least figure 4 for meteorological profile displayed on the HUD),
the symbology is based on the information (See at least figure 1 for weather radar system 110 provide information forward to lateral profile generator 140); displaying the symbology on the HUD See at least figure 1 for lateral profile generator 140 providing generated information toward Head Up Display unit 154 shown on figure 4);
Kalyandurg et al further shows the gathered information comprises a location relative to the aircraft for a non-weather hazard detected by the weather radar (See at least Para 0032 for bird flock positions 230 and 232 with reference to the aircraft position 200 with graphical output);
the weather radar to identify the location relative to the aircraft for the non-weather hazard (See at least Para 0032 for bird flock position 230 and 232 to be detected using weather radar system 102).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, provide further non-weather hazard information location of Kalyandurg, for the HUD of Carrico, in order to provide further information toward pilot during vehicle navigation , as discussed and desired by Carrico, as using a known technique of Kalyandurg to improve similar device of Carrico in order to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Carrico shows the gathered information comprises a location (See at least Col 1, lines 37 – 50 for profile location data), movement relative to the aircraft (See at least Col 3 lines 15 – 33 for weather radar system 110 hazard scan with predictive overflight protection and turbulence detection), and track prediction for weather phenomena detected by the weather radar (See at least Col 3 lines 15 – 33 for weather radar system 110 hazard scan with predictive overflight protection and turbulence detection);
the HUD is further configured to display additional symbology based on the gathered information from the weather radar to identify the weather phenomena (See at least Col 5, lines 55 – 65 for HUD display meteorological profile with embedded thunderstorm on figure 3 provided by LPG 140 from the weather radar system 110 also including; also on Col 6, lines 10 – 30 for display one or more hazards).
Regarding claim 3, Carrico shows the weather phenomena comprise one or more of: wind shear, turbulence, a thunderstorm, a gust front, icing conditions, a microburst, lightning inference and downdrafts (See at least Col 3, lines 58 – 67 for thunderstorm, turbulence and icing).
Regarding claims 7, Carrico shows hazards comprise at least one of: unmanned aerial vehicles (See at least Col 3, lines 49 – 57 for METAR for hazard information, Aviation Routine Weather Report, includes UAV);
Kalyandurg et al further shows non-weather hazards detected by radar (See at least Para 0032 for bird flock positions 230 and 232 with reference to the aircraft position 200 with graphical output).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, provide further non-weather hazard detection mechanism/radar of Kalyandurg, for the non-weather hazard information desired by Carrico, in order to provide enhanced information toward pilot during vehicle navigation , as using a known technique/apparatus of Kalyandurg to improve similar radar device of Carrico in order to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Carrico shows the HUD is further configured to receive user input to adjust the display symbology on the HUD (See at least Col 5, lines 36 – 45 for HUD to be tailored by user for desired configuration; also on Col 3, lines 35 – 40 for inclusion hazard data from radar to HUD configured by end- user).
Regarding claim 20, Carrico shows the display symbology comprises a lead line indicating the track prediction (See at least figur2A for lead line 30 along with meteorological profile on figure 4A both represented on HUD 154);
Kalyandurg et al further shows the symbology is for non-weather hazard (See at least Para 0013);
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, provide further non-weather hazard information of Kalyandurg, for the HUD of Carrico, in order to provide further information toward pilot during vehicle navigation , as discussed and desired by Carrico, as using a known technique of Kalyandurg to improve similar device of Carrico in order to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 21, Kalyadurg et al shows weather radar is further configured to execute a dedicated scan of a runway during a landing phase of the aircraft to detect the non- weather hazard (See at least Para 0025 for scan during landing for runway on Para 0037 ), the non-weather hazard comprises a ground hazard located on the runway (See at least Para 0003 for bird hazard on runway area).
Regarding Claim 22, Kalyadurg et al shows the ground hazard comprises at least one of: a ground vehicle, a barrier, debris, or an animal (See at least Para 0003 for bird hazard on runway area).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, provide further non-weather hazard information of Kalyandurg, for the HUD of Carrico, in order to provide further information toward pilot during vehicle navigation , as discussed and desired by Carrico, as using a known technique of Kalyandurg to improve similar device of Carrico in order to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 24, Carrico shows the weather radar is further configured to execute a scan of the aircraft (See at least Col 3, lines 15 – 25 for radar system 110);
Kalyandurg et al further shows dedicated scan for the non-weather hazard during a takeoff phase (See at least Para 0002 for takeoff phase with non-weather bird hazard detecting as the main topic dedicated using radar on Para 0004),
the non-weather hazard comprises a bird flock or an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in a departure path of the aircraft (See at least Para 0002 for bird detection).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, provide further non-weather hazard information location of Kalyandurg, for the HUD of Carrico, in order to provide further information toward pilot during vehicle navigation , as discussed and desired by Carrico, as using a known technique of Kalyandurg to improve similar device of Carrico in order to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 29, Kalyandurg et al further shows weather radar is configured to discriminate between a cloud and the non-weather hazard by performing a doppler analysis over an extended dwell period of at least one second (See at least Para 0024 for DAPA radar using doppler smearing indicating birds or bat about three second but not for weather scan).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, provide further non-weather hazard information of Kalyandurg, for the HUD of Carrico, in order to provide further information toward pilot during vehicle navigation , as discussed and desired by Carrico, as using a known technique of Kalyandurg to improve similar device of Carrico in order to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 30, Carrico shows the HUD is configured to display the symbology (See at least Col 5, lines 35 - 65): receive data comprising the gathered information from the weather radar (See at least Col 6, lines 10 - 20);
Kalyandurg et al shows a look-down display configured to display a two-dimensional representation of the non-weather hazard based on the gathered information from the weather radar (See at least figure 4 for graphical display device); symbology identify the non-weather hazard concurrently with the two-dimensional representation on the look-down display (See at least figure 4 for graphical display device).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, provide further non-weather hazard information of Kalyandurg, for the HUD of Carrico, in order to provide further information to Kalyandurg et al toward pilot during vehicle navigation , as discussed and desired by Carrico, as using a known technique of Kalyandurg to improve similar device of Carrico in order to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 31, Kalyandurg et al further shows the non-weather hazard comprises a bird flock (See at least Para 0032 for bird flock positions 230 and 232 with reference to the aircraft position 200 with graphical output).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, provide further non-weather hazard information of Kalyandurg, for the HUD of Carrico, in order to provide further information to Kalyandurg et al toward pilot during vehicle navigation , as discussed and desired by Carrico, as using a known technique of Kalyandurg to improve similar device of Carrico in order to yield predictable results.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrico (US Pat No. 8,681,021) in view of Kalyandurg et al (US Pat Pub No. 2018/0164431) and further in view of Samuthirapandian et al (US Pat Pub No.20140015695, hereinafter Samuth et al).
Regarding Claim 23, Carrico shows the HUD is further configured to display symbology to identify hazard to provide situational awareness during a landing phase or a takeoff phase (See at least figure 4 for symbology; also Col 6, lines 50 – 65 for hazard using vertical sensor 170 on aircraft for hazard situation detection either in landing or take off);
Samuth et al further shows display runway alignment symbology concurrently with the symbology identifying the non-weather hazard (See at least figure 2 for runway 220 and with terrain 210 including three dimensional natural/man-made obstacle representation as non-weather hazard).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide surrounding information as taught by Samuth, for the HUD of Carrico, in order to provide immediate runway information of Samuth for takeoff and landing safety awareness, Para 0002, for the HUD of Carrico, in order to promote avionics safety, as desired by the both aircraft of Samuth and Carrico.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrico (US Pat No. 8,681,021) in view of Kalyandurg et al (US Pat Pub No. 2018/0164431) and further in view of Kai et al (US Pat Pub No.20090322592).
Regarding Claim 32, Carrico shows the weather radar to track hazard (See at least Col 3, lines 15 – 20 for weather radar for hazard detection);
Kalyandurg further shows the weather radar to track the non-weather hazard (See at least Para 0032 for bird flock position 230 and 232 to be detected using weather radar system 102); It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, provide further non-weather hazard information location of Kalyandurg, for the HUD of Carrico, in order to provide further information toward pilot during vehicle navigation , as discussed and desired by Carrico, as using a known technique of Kalyandurg to improve similar device of Carrico in order to yield predictable results.
Kai further shows the radar is configured to use monopulse angle measurement (See at least Para 0055 and 0056 for monopulse angle measurement).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, provide further non-weather hazard captured mechanism of Kai, for the
non-weather hazard captured desired by Carrico modified, in order to provide a known technique of Kai, for the improve similar device of Carrico modified in order to yield predictable results as desired by Carrico modified.
Response to Argument
In response to applicant’s remark that Carrico does not shows applicant newly recited claim limitation; however, upon further review, skilled in the art could not locate multiple instance of applicant newly amendment claim limitation within applicant’s written description nor has applicant’s remark discussed the origin of applicant newly amended claim limitation; applicant’s attention is directed to Page 11 above where applicant newly recited claim limitation is now addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oransky et al, US Pat No. 9,244,167, weather radar, weather profile, HUD, NEXRAD and UAV
Khattwa et al, US Pat Pub No. 2016/0011839, weather information, display, volcano ash, flight path, hazardous weather, weather icon, radar.
Underwood, US Pat Pub No. 2021/0157030, weather scan, lighting strike, HUD.
Marshall, US Pat No. 10,598,932, HUD.
Kronfeld, US Pat No.10,302,815.
Breiholiz et al, US Pat No. 9,535,158.
Jinkins et al, US Pat No. 10,228,460.
Duraisamy et al, US Pat Pub No. 2024/0161631.
Fersdahl et al, US Pat No. 9,057, 773.
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 com munications from the examiner should be directed to Ian JEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3274. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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.
/Ian Jen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights