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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on February 26, 2026. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “offboard” is clear (Applicant’s Response, pg. 12), the examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no disclosure stating how the term offboard is being used and one of ordinary skill would understand offboard to mean not located on. Additionally, paragraph 0018 states that the system 100 is implement onboard a vehicle and paragraph 0017 states that the system includes a computing device, a primary computer system, and a mirror system.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the two processing systems being disconnected yet the primary processing system being able to broadcast to the mirror processing system is not incompatible (Applicant’s Response, pg. 13), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0023 states that the mirror computer system 102 lacks a communication connection to the primary computer system 102. Thus, there would be no communication system for the primary processing system to broadcast data to the mirror processing system.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Chong teaches that the master and spare FMS are coupled via data, control and command lines which is not present in the application and claims (Applicant’s Response, pg. 16). It is noted that Chong is not used to meet the limitation that the primary FMS and mirror FMS are not connected.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Chong does not broadcast parameters automatically, the parameters are already there and are being controllably shared via the layered sync protocols. (Applicant’s Response, pg. 16), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Chong discloses synching the master FMC with the spare FMC by having the master FMC sending the synchronization data to the spare FMC. This synchronization data is used to ensure that the master FMC and spare FMC are receiving the same results from the data received.
Drawings
The drawings were received on February 26, 2026. These drawings are unacceptable.
The amendment filed February 26, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Box 101 in Fig. 1 appears to be new matter. Paragraph 0018 states that the system 100 is implemented onboard a vehicle and paragraph 0017 states that the system 100 includes a computing device 106, primary computer system 102, mirror computer system 104, and data communication network 108. Thus, the computing device 106 should additionally encompassed within the box 101.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Specification
Amendments to the specification were received on February 26, 2026.
The amendment filed February 26, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
In paragraph 0004, “wherein ‘offboard’ means that the computing device that performs the data validation is not a physical part of an aircraft or vehicle” appears to be new matter. There is no definition of what “offboard” means in the originally filed disclosure. Additionally, it is noted that paragraph 0018 states that the computing device can be implemented using an integrated computer system onboard an aircraft which contradicts that offboard is not a physical part of an aircraft or vehicle.
In paragraph 0017, “the primary computer system 102…[is] fixed onboard components in a vehicle” appears to be new matter. There is no disclosure stating that the primary computer system is fixed to the aircraft. Paragraph 0035 states that the primary computer system may is an integrated computer system onboard an aircraft. However, paragraph 0018 states that an integrated computer system can be brought onboard an aircraft meaning that an integrated computer system is not fixed to an aircraft.
In paragraph 0017, “the mirror computer system 104…[is] fixed onboard components in a vehicle” appears to be new matter. There is no disclosure stating that the mirror computer system is fixed to the aircraft. Paragraph 0023 states that the mirror computer system may be implemented as any computer system or avionics device onboard the aircraft, but it does not require that it be fixed to the aircraft.
In paragraph 0017, “the computing device 106…is a portable offboard device” appears to be new matter. Paragraph 0018 states that the computing device can be implemented using an integrated computer system onboard an aircraft which contradicts that it is an offboard device.
In paragraph 0018, “the computing device 106 may be implemented by any computing device…which relationship is referred to herein as being ‘offboard’” appears to be new matter. Paragraph 0018 states that the computing device can be implemented using an integrated computer system onboard an aircraft which contradicts that it is an offboard device.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs 0002, 0004, 0014, and 0048 state that the data validation is done offboard, however, 0023 states the mirror computer system is onboard an aircraft, 0033 states the primary computer system is onboard an aircraft, and 0018 states the computing device is onboard an aircraft.
In paragraph 0018, “as illustrated in Fig. 4” is inaccurate as Fig. 4 does not show the computing device being implemented by any computing device that is not an affixed physical part of the vehicle.
In paragraph 0050, it states that the primary FMS automatically broadcasts data to the mirror FMS, but paragraphs 0047 and 0049 state the primary and mirror FMS are disconnected.
The title states that the validation is done offboard, however, 0023 states the mirror computer system is onboard an aircraft, 0033 states the primary computer system is onboard an aircraft, and 0018 states the computing device is onboard an aircraft.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 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.
In claim 1, lines 10-11, the limitation “wherein the mirror FMS and primary FMS are not connected with a command bus or data bus” appears to be new matter. Paragraphs 0047 and 0049 state the primary and mirror FMS are disconnected, but there is no detail within the specification referencing a command bus or data bus.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-9 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.
In claim 1, line 18, the limitation “an external set of data” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same as the incoming data previously recited on line 4 or a new set of data. For the purposes of examination, the external set of data is interpreted to be the same as the incoming data.
In claim 6, line 2, the limitation “the processed data” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if this is the processed data of the first instance of incoming data or the processed data of the second instance of incoming data.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
In claim 9, lines 2-3, the limitation “establishing a hardwired communication connection between the primary FMS and the mirror FMS” fails to include all of the limitation of claim 1 as lines 10-11 state the primary FMS and mirror FMS are not connected with a command bus or data bus.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toews (US 2018/0351966) in view of Chong (US 5,790,791).
Regarding claim 1, Toews discloses a method for validating data for a Flight Management System (FMS) comprising a primary FMS and a mirror FMS onboard an aircraft, comprising:
simultaneously receiving a first instance of incoming data with the primary FMS (Toews, [0050] regarding the primary computer system receiving incoming data) and
a second instance of the incoming data with the mirror FMS (Toews, [0050] regarding the mirror computer system receiving identical incoming data simultaneously as the primary computer system);
wherein the mirror FMS is identical to the primary FMS (Toews, [0049] regarding the mirror computer system receiving duplicate software used by the primary computer system to perform functionally identical to the primary computer system);
wherein the mirror FMS and primary FMS are not connected with a command bus or data bus (Toews, [0050] regarding the primary and mirror computer system not having a communication connection);
wherein the first instance of incoming data and the second instance of incoming data are equal (Toews, [0050] regarding the mirror computer system receiving identical incoming data simultaneously as the primary computer system);
processing the first instance of incoming data with the primary FMS (Toews, [0054] regarding processing the first instance of the incoming data by the primary computer);
processing the second instance of incoming data with the mirror FMS (Toews, [0051] regarding processing the second instance of the incoming data by the mirror computer); and
validating results using an external set of data in a computing device when the processed data of the primary FMS and the results of the processed data of the mirror FMS are equal (Toews, [0052] regarding determining whether the output from the mirror computer comprises an acceptable result).
Toews does not explicitly disclose automatically broadcasting current parameters and conditions of the primary FMS to the mirror FMS.
Chong teaches automatically broadcasting current parameters and conditions of the primary FMS to the mirror FMS (Chong, Col. 6, lines 22-23 regarding the spare FMC receiving master FMC synchronization data in addition to the same data the master FMC receives).
Toews and Chong are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of flight management systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Toews to incorporate having the master FMC send synchronization data to the spare FMC, as disclosed by Chong, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of having the results from the primary and mirror be the same as they are using the same criteria when running the data.
Regarding claim 2, Toews in view of Chong teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, where:
processing the first instance of incoming data with the primary FMS uses software associated with the primary FMS that is stored, maintained, and executed using at least one processor and system memory of the primary FMS (Toews, Fig. 2 regarding the primary computer system having at least one processor and system memory); and
processing the second instance of incoming data with the mirror FMS uses a duplicate of software associated with the primary FMS that is stored, maintained, and executed using at least one processor and system memory of the mirror FMS (Toews, Fig. 3 regarding the mirror computer system having a duplicate primary computer system software module, at least one processor, and system memory).
Regarding claim 3, Toews in view of Chong teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, where:
processing the second instance of incoming data with the mirror FMS results in a simulation of processing of the first instance of incoming data with the primary FMS (Toews, [0038] regarding the duplicate primary computer system software module being configured to simulate operation of the primary computer system).
Regarding claim 4, Toews in view of Chong teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
retaining the external set of data in a data buffer that is part of the primary FMS (Toews, [0051] regarding retaining the first instance of the incoming data in a data buffer of the primary computer system which processing the second set of the incoming data by the mirror computer system).
Regarding claim 5, Toews in view of Chong teaches the method as claimed in claim 4, further comprising:
extracting the external set of data from the data buffer; and
processing the external set of data in the primary FMS responsive to validating results (Toews, [0054] regarding extracting the first instance of the incoming data from the data buffer of the primary computer system and processing the first instance of the incoming data by the primary computer system when the output from the mirror computer system is acceptable).
Regarding claim 6, Toews in view of Chong teaches the method as claimed in claim 5, further comprising:
presenting the validated results of the processed data to a user via a display device communicatively coupled to the mirror FMS (Toews, [0052] regarding the output from the mirror computer system being presented to the user to confirm or reject the results & [0040] regarding using a display device to present the output results to the user).
Regarding claim 7, Toews in view of Chong teaches the method as claimed in claim 6, further comprising:
receiving a first user input verifying the validated results of the processed data via a first user interface communicatively coupled to the mirror FMS (Toews, [0052] regarding receiving a first user input to verify the validity of the output using a first user interface communicatively couple to the mirror computer system);
receiving a second user input permitting the incoming data for use by the primary FMS via a second user interface communicatively coupled to the FMS (Toews, [0052] regarding receiving a second user input permitting the incoming data for use by the primary computer system, via a second user interface communicatively coupled to the primary computer system); and
extracting the first instance of the incoming data from the data buffer by the primary FMS in response to the second user input (Toews, [0054] regarding extracting the first instance of the incoming data form the data buffer of the primary computer system).
Regarding claim 8, Toews in view of Chong teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
establishing a wireless communication connection between the primary FMS and the mirror FMS; and
where the incoming data is received simultaneously by the primary FMS and the mirror FMS via the wireless communication connection (Toews, [0048] regarding the primary and mirror computer system being connected via a wireless communication connection to the computing device. By being a wireless communication connection the incoming data would be received using the wireless connection).
Regarding claim 9, Toews in view of Chong teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
establishing a hardwired communication connection between the primary FMS and the mirror FMS ; and
where the incoming data is received simultaneously by the primary FMS and the mirror FMS via the hardwired communication connection (Toews, [0048] regarding the primary and mirror computer system being connected via a hardwired communication connection to the computing device. By being a hardwired communication connection the incoming data would be received using the hardwired connection).
Regarding claim 10, Toews discloses a system for validating data for a Flight Management System (FMS) onboard an aircraft, comprising:
a primary FMS (Toews, Fig. 2 regarding a primary computer system), comprising,
a primary memory element (Toews, Fig. 2 regarding the primary computer system having a system memory),
a primary communication device, configured to receive a first instance of incoming data at a particular time (Toews, Fig. 2 regarding the primary computer system having a communication device & [0050] regarding the primary computer system receiving data), and
a primary processor, communicatively coupled to the primary memory element and the primary communication device; and (Toews, Fig. 2 regarding the primary computer system having at least one processor & [0054] regarding processing the first instance of the incoming data when the output from a mirror computer system is acceptable);
a mirror FMS (Toews, Fig. 3 regarding a mirror computer system), comprising,
a mirror memory element (Toews, Fig. 3 regarding the mirror computer system having a system memory),
a mirror display device, configured to simulate a primary display device (Toews, Fig. 3 regarding the mirror computer system having a simulated display module),
a mirror communication device, configured to receive a second instance of the incoming data at the particular time (Toews, Fig. 3 regarding the mirror computer system having a communication device & [0050] regarding the mirror computer system receiving data),
a mirror processor, communicatively coupled to the mirror memory element, the mirror display device, and the mirror communication device, the mirror processor configured to:
process the second instance of the incoming data, when received via the mirror communication device (Toews, [0051] regarding processing the second instance of the incoming data by the mirror computer),
present output via the mirror display device, based on processing the second instance of the incoming data, where the output comprises either acceptable results or unacceptable results (Toews, [0052] regarding the output from the mirror computer system being presented to the user to confirm or reject the results & [0040] regarding using a display device to present the output results to the user); and
wherein the primary processor is configured to process the first instance of the incoming data, when the output comprises acceptable results (Toews, [0054] regarding processing the first instance of the incoming data by the primary computer system when the output from the mirror computer system is acceptable).
Toews does not explicitly disclose where current parameters and conditions of the primary FMS are automatically broadcasted by the primary FMS to the mirror FMS prior to processing the second instance of incoming data by the mirror FMS.
Chong teaches where current parameters and conditions of the primary FMS are automatically broadcasted by the primary FMS to the mirror FMS prior to processing the second instance of incoming data by the mirror FMS (Chong, Col. 6, lines 22-23 regarding the space FMC receiving master FMC synchronization data in addition to the same data the master FMC receives).
Toews and Chong are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of flight management systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Toews to incorporate having the master FMC send synchronization data to the spare FMC, as disclosed by Chong, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of having the results from the primary and mirror be the same as they are using the same criteria when running the data.
Regarding claim 11, Toews in view of Chong teaches the system as claimed in claim 10, where:
software associated with the primary FMS which processes the first instance of incoming data with the primary FMS, where the software associated with the primary FMS that is stored, maintained, and executed using the processor and the system memory of the primary FMS (Toews, Fig. 2 regarding the primary computer system having at least one processor and system memory); and
duplicate of software associated with the primary FMS which processes the first instance of incoming data with the mirror FMS, where the duplicate of software associated with the primary FMS is stored, maintained, and executed using the processor and the system memory of the mirror FMS (Toews, Fig. 3 regarding the mirror computer system having a duplicate primary computer system software module, at least one processor, and system memory).
Regarding claim 12, Toews in view of Chong teaches the system as claimed in claim 11, where:
processing the second instance of incoming data with the mirror FMS results in a simulation of processing of the first instance of incoming data with the primary FMS (Toews, [0038] regarding the duplicate primary computer system software module being configured to simulate operation of the primary computer system).
Regarding claim 13, Toews in view of Chong teaches the system as claimed in claim 10, further comprising:
a data buffer that is part of the primary FMS which retains a first instance of the incoming data in, after simultaneously receiving the first instance of incoming data by the primary FMS and the second instance of the incoming data by the mirror FMS and during processing of the second instance of the incoming data by the mirror FMS (Toews, [0051] regarding retaining the first instance of the incoming data in a data buffer of the primary computer system while processing the second set of the incoming data by the mirror computer system).
Regarding claim 14, Toews in view of Chong teaches the system as claimed in claim 13, where:
the first instance of the incoming data is extracted from the data buffer to process the first instance of the incoming data with the primary FMS when an output from the mirror FMS comprises the validated results of the processed data (Toews, [0054] regarding extracting the first instance of the incoming data from the data buffer of the primary computer system and processing the first instance of the incoming data by the primary computer system when the output from the mirror computer system is acceptable).
Regarding claim 15, Toews in view of Chong teaches the system as claimed in claim 14, further comprising:
a display device communicatively coupled to the mirror FMS that presents the validated results of the processed data to a user (Toews, [0052] regarding the output from the mirror computer system being presented to the user to confirm or reject the results & [0040] regarding using a display device to present the output results to the user).
Regarding claim 16, Toews in view of Chong teaches the system as claimed in claim 15, further comprising:
a first user interface communicatively coupled to the mirror FMS that receives a first user input verifying the validated results of the processed data (Toews, [0052] regarding receiving a first user input to verify the validity of the output using a first user interface communicatively couple to the mirror computer system);
a second user interface communicatively coupled to the FMS that receives a second user input permitting the incoming data for use by the primary FMS (Toews, [0052] regarding receiving a second user input permitting the incoming data for use by the primary computer system, via a second user interface communicatively coupled to the primary computer system); and
where the first instance of the incoming data is extracted from the data buffer by the primary FMS in response to the second user input (Toews, [0054] regarding extracting the first instance of the incoming data form the data buffer of the primary computer system).
Regarding claim 17, Toews in view of Chong teaches the system as claimed in claim 10, further comprising:
a wireless communication connection that is established between the primary FMS and the mirror FMS; and
where the first and second instances of incoming data is received simultaneously by the primary FMS and the mirror FMS via the wireless communication connection (Toews, [0048] regarding the primary and mirror computer system being connected via a wireless communication connection to the computing device. By being a wireless communication connection the incoming data would be received using the wireless connection).
Regarding claim 18, Toews in view of Chong teaches the system as claimed in claim 10, further comprising:
a hardwired communication connection that is established between the primary FMS and the mirror FMS; and
where the first and second instances incoming data is received simultaneously by the primary FMS and the mirror FMS via the hardwired communication connection (Toews, [0048] regarding the primary and mirror computer system being connected via a hardwired communication connection to the computing device. By being a hardwired communication connection the incoming data would be received using the hardwired connection).
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 ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights