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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 6-9, 12-13, and 18 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “the main filter comprises 2-8 crates”, and the claim also recites “comprises advantageously 4-6 crates”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “a UV-activated photocatalyst”, and the claim also recites “glass tubes coated with titanium dioxide” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitations “a highly light-permeable plastic” and “a thickness of 2-4 mm”, and the claim also recites “polymethyl methacrylate” and “a thickness of 2-3 mm” which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "advantageously" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation UVC emitting LED, and the claim also recites “advantageously 255-275 nm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "advantageously" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “a UV-activated photocatalyst”, and the claim also recites “titanium dioxide” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5, 9-11, 14, 22, and 24are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberry (US 20070041882 A1) in view of Yang (CN 108576192 A) and Boissinot (US 4553992 A).
Regarding claim 1, Rosenberry teaches a system for purifying air in closed storage/transport space, which system comprises an air purifier (air filtration system, abstract, and can be used in automobiles, ships, and mass transit vehicles, paragraph [0030]) comprising a casing with an air inlet opening and an air outlet opening (airtight housing with inlet and outlet, paragraph [0041], and ), wherein an air flow channel lies between the air inlet opening and air outlet opening inside the casing (Figure 1 airflow “7” through air filtration system “20”), a fan configured to suck air from the storage/transport space via the air inlet opening into the flow channel inside the air purifier and to blow the purified air vie the air outlet opening back into the storage/transport space (fan is disposed before the entrance of the system to force air into the system, paragraph [0085], and Figure 1 airflow “7” moves through system “20” and exits final filter “12”), a filter system arranged in the flow channel in such a manner that air flows through the filter system (Figure 1 airflow “7” moves through filters “19”, “10”, “11”, and “12”), wherein the filter system comprises as chemical filter material, both a UV-activated photocatalyst (photochemical filtration section with a photocatalytic material, paragraph [0017]) and a chemical filter material comprising potassium permanganate (second stage filtration section comprises alumina impregnated with potassium permanganate, paragraph [0073]), and a UV-emitting light source for activating the photocatalyst of the filter system (UV lamps generate bio-destruction and surface photochemical activity on a semiconductor catalyst material, abstract), wherein the filter system comprises a main filter, which forms a cassette that comprises at least two crates (Figure 1 static gas phase filtration “23” with a first stage filtration section “10” and a second stage filtration section “11”), wherein the filter material accommodated in the first crate contains potassium permanganate (second stage filtration section comprises activated alumina impregnated with potassium permanganate, paragraph [0073] ), and the second crate contains a selected chemical filter material (high surface area sorptive material such as activated carbon used for the media bed in the first stage filtration section, paragraph [0066]), and wherein air is made to flow through the crates (Figure 1 airflow “7” through first “10” and second “11” filtration stages), but does not teach wherein the system further comprises an ethylene sensor that measures an ethylene concentration in the air of the storage/transport space, and the main filter of the air purifier is arranged inside the casing by mean of slide rails in such a manner that the main filter can be removed without opening the casing. However, Yang teaches an ethylene sensor that measures an ethylene concentration in the air of the storage/transport space (ethylene sensor used to detect the ethylene concentration in the storage room, paragraph [0046]), but does not teach the main filter of the air purifier is arranged inside the casing by means of slide rails in such a manner that the main filter can be removed without opening the casing. However, Boissinot teaches the main filter of the air purifier is arranged inside the casing by means of slide rails in such a manner that the main filter can be removed without opening the casing (Figures 6 and 7 air filter “65” comprising a filter portion “51” that slides into opening “52” via guides “53” and “54” to create a drawer-like appearance “50”).
Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of chemical air purifiers. While Rosenberry does not specifically teach an ethylene sensor, it teaches an air monitor to monitor the overall condition of the filtered air exiting the system (paragraph [0082]) and the air monitor includes sensors such as total volatile organic compound sensors, carbon dioxide sensors, and carbon monoxide sensors among other air sensors (paragraph [0083]). Additionally, Yang teaches it is important to monitor ethylene concentration in air because it contributes to spoilage of fruits and vegetables in storage (paragraph [0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace one of the air monitoring sensors taught by Rosenberry with the ethylene concentration sensor taught by Yang with a reasonable expectation of successful air quality monitoring (See MPEP 2143 I (B)). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the air purifier as taught by Rosenberry with the sliding guides as taught by Boissinot because Boissinot teaches such a drawer for the filters advantageously allows for the filter means to positioned over the inlet opening of the central compartment (claim 8).
Regarding claims 3, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the system further comprises data transmission means for sending measurement data generated by the ethylene sensor to a server, and recording means for recording the measurement data (output signal of air monitor is available for remote monitoring through a networking protocol and data is retrievable externally , paragraph [0083], Rosenberry).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the crates can be removed from the cassette (static gas phase filtration section comprises media beds, paragraph [0062], Rosenberry).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the main filter comprises 2-8 crates, advantageously 4-6 crates (first stage filtration section and section stage filtration section each comprise a media bed, paragraph [0062]). While the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot does not explicitly disclose 4-6 crates, a duplication of parts holds no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the number of media beds to produce the desired filtration effect (See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B)).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the main filter of the air purifier comprises a fabric filter that comprises activated carbon, and which is advantageously the last filter of the filter system in the direction of air flow (non-woven fiber filter combined with carbon placed downstream of the media beds as a final safety mechanism, paragraph [0078], Rosenberry).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the UV-activated photocatalyst of the air purifier is titanium dioxide, copper oxide, or zinc oxide (semiconductor catalyst is titanium dioxide, paragraph [0054], Rosenberry).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the filter system of the air purifier also comprises activated carbon and/or nanosilver as filter material (activated carbon used in media bed of first stage filtration section, paragraph [0066], Rosenberry).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the main filter of the air purifier is fixed in the flow channel with fixation means in such a manner that the main filter can be removed without tools (Figures 6 and 7 air filter “65” comprising a filter portion “51” that slides into opening “52” via guides “53” and “54” to create a drawer-like appearance “50”, Boissinot).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot teaches wherein the system includes software means for reading both a real-time ethylene concentration (ethylene sensor used to detect the ethylene concentration in the storage room, paragraph [0011], Yang) and a parameter which describes the operation of the air purifier and which is added to the measurement data (STM32 module performs calculations to determine the current ethylene concentration according to predetermined gradient concentration threshold and controls the variable speed fan and ultraviolet lamp, paragraph [0011], Yang).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot teaches wherein the system comprises means for regulating a power of the fan and/or starting the fan when the ethylene concentration measured by the ethylene sensor exceeds a predetermined threshold value (STM32 module performs calculations to determine the current ethylene concentration according to predetermined gradient concentration threshold and controls the variable speed fan and adjusts the airflow of the variable speed fan, paragraph [0011], Yang).
Claims 4, 12, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot (US 4553992 A) in view of Kawagoshi (US 12631351 B2).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the main filter further comprises at least one fabric filter which advantageously comprises a selected chemical filter material. However, Kawagoshi teaches wherein the main filter further comprises at least one fabric filter which advantageously comprises a selected chemical filter material (activated carbon filter is a filter in which activated carbon is carried on a porous base material such as a nonwoven fabric, column 4 lines 52-54).
Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Kawagoshi ais considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of chemical air purifiers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the air purifier taught by Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot with the fabric filter taught by Kawagoshi because Kawagoshi teaches a porous base material such as a nonwoven fabric advantageously provides flexibility to the filter (column 4 lines 64-65).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the UV-emitting light source of the air purifier is UVC-emitting with a wavelength of advantageously 255-275 nm (UV lamps are configured to generate light in the range of 150-300 nm, paragraph [0048], Rosenberry), but does not teach wherein the UV-emitting light source is an LED. However Kawagoshi teaches wherein the UV-emitting light source is an LED (Light source includes a substrate and a plurality of LEDs, column 4 lines 18-19). While Rosenberry does not explicitly teach a wavelength range of 255-275 nm, in the case of overlapping ranges, a case of prima facie obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the UV wavelength taught by Rosenberry to 255-275 nm to achieve the desired sterilization effect (See MPEP 2144.05 I- II (A)).
Rosenberry, Yang, Boissinot, and Kawagoshi are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the UV-emitting light source as taught by Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot with the LED light source taught by Kawagoshi because Kawagoshi teaches that the plurality of LEDs advantageously allows for all the main surfaces of the photocatalytic filter to be exposed to the light (column 6 lines 23-24).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the filter system of the air purifier further comprises a pre-filter arranged in the flow channel (Figure 1 initial means of particulate filtration “19”, Rosenberry), but does not teach wherein the pre-filter comprises a nonwoven fabric that comprises a selected chemical filter material. However, Kawagoshi teaches wherein the pre-filter comprises a nonwoven fabric that comprises a selected chemical filter material (activated carbon filter is a filter in which activated carbon is carried on a porous base material such as a nonwoven fabric, column 4 lines 52-54).
Rosenberry, Yang, Boissinot, and Kawagoshi are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the air purifier taught by Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot with the fabric filter taught by Kawagoshi because Kawagoshi teaches a porous base material such as a nonwoven fabric advantageously provides flexibility to the filter (column 4 lines 64-65).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, Boissinot, and Kawagoshi teaches wherein the pre-filter is arranged in the flow channel upstream of the main filter in the direction of air flow (Figure 1 initial filter “19” upstream of static gas filtration section “23” in the direction of air flow “7”, Rosenberry).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, Boissinot, and Kawagoshi teaches wherein the nonwoven fabric of the pre-filter of the air purifier comprises a UV-activated photocatalyst, advantageously titanium dioxide, and a UV-emitting light source is directed at the prefilter (photocatalytic filter is carried on a porous base such as a nonwoven fabric and titanium dioxide is preferably used, column 4 lines 63-65 and column 5 lines 5-6, and excited by irradiation of ultraviolet light, column 4 line 67, Kawagoshi).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, Boissinot, and Kawagoshi teaches wherein the pre-filter of the air purifier is fixed in the flow channel with fixation means in such a manner in such a manner that the pre-filter can be removed without tools (Figures 6 and 7 air filter “65” comprising a filter portion “51” that slides into opening “52” via guides “53” and “54” to create a drawer-like appearance “50”, Boissinot).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, Boissinot, and Kawagoshi teaches wherein the pre-filter of the air purifier is arranged inside the casing by means of slide rails in such a manner that the pre-filter can be removed without opening the casing (Figures 6 and 7 air filter “65” comprising a filter portion “51” that slides into opening “52” via guides “53” and “54” to create a drawer-like appearance “50”, Boissinot).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot in view of Lee (US 20210213155 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the main filter of the air purifier includes at least one crate in which the accommodated filter material comprises a UV-activated photocatalyst (photochemical filtration section with surface photochemical activity on a photocatalytic material, paragraph [0018], Rosenberry), but does not teach advantageously glass tubes coated with titanium dioxide. However, Lee teaches glass tubes coated with titanium dioxide (titanium dioxide photocatalyst may be coated on transparent glass tube, paragraph [0082]).
Rosenberry, Yang, Boissinot, and Lee are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of chemical air purifiers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the air purifier taught by Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot with the titanium dioxide coated glass tubes taught by Lee because Lee teaches that the photocatalytic structure placed around the ultraviolet lamp (paragraph [0080]) allows for a method of removing ethylene without generating ozone (paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, Boissinot, and Lee teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the main filter of the air purifier has a cover made of a highly light-permeable plastic, advantageously polymethyl methacrylate (plexiglass wall structure provided between the housing and the work table, abstract, Boissinot). While the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, Boissinot, and Lee does not explicitly teach a thickness of 2-4 mm and more advantageously of a thickness of 2-3 mm, it has been established that if the only different between prior art and the claim is a recitation of relative dimensions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to scale the cover thickness to 2-3 mm with a reasonable expectation of success (See MPEP 2144.01 IV (A)).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot in view of Yancey (US 20230173133 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the air purifier comprises an auxiliary light source which is advantageously a blue light emitting LED. However Yancey teaches wherein the air purifier comprises an auxiliary light source which is advantageously a blue light emitting LED (multiple sources of UV light from another light source such as a blue light emitting diode, paragraph [0129]).
Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot are all considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Yancey is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of photocatalytic air filters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the air purifier taught by Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot with the blue light taught by Yancey because Yancey teaches that the sterilizing effect of the photocatalytic material will be further enhanced with the addition of multiple light sources, paragraph [0129]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot in view of Beasley (US 20190281867 A1).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the system includes software means configured to trigger an alarm if an ethylene concentration measured by the ethylene sensor exceeds a pre-defined threshold value. However, Beasley teaches wherein the system includes software means configured to trigger an alarm if an ethylene concentration measured by the ethylene sensor exceeds a pre-defined threshold value (user device activates an alarm when spoilage risk is greater than or equal to selected spoilage risk level, paragraph [0052], and perishable good parameters monitored included ethylene, paragraph [0039]).
Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot are all considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Beasley is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of cold storage monitoring systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the air purifier taught by Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot with the alarm system taught by Beasley because Beasley teaches such an alarm may advantageously provide resolution recommendations to deal with spoilage (paragraph [0052]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot in view of Arrigo (US 20140342064 A1).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the storage/transport space comprises an air-circulating refrigeration machine, and the air purifier is arranged on a ceiling of the storage/transport space near the refrigeration machine, and the refrigeration machine of the storage or transport space is configured to supply the air purifier with power. However, Arrigo teaches wherein the storage/transport space comprises an air-circulating refrigeration machine (chamber within the drawer housing is cooled by the refrigerator, abstract), and the air purifier is arranged on a ceiling of the storage/transport space near the refrigeration machine (Figure 1 ethylene scrubber sachet “112” located near the top of crisper drawer “100” and refrigeration system maintains chamber temperature, paragraph [0014]), and the refrigeration machine of the storage or transport space is configured to supple the air purifier with power (controller houses the circuit to drive the ozone generator and houses the electronic necessary for the crisper to function and regulate temperature, paragraph [0044]).
Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Arrigo is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of refrigeration air purifiers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the air purifier taught by Rosenberry, Yang, and Boissinot with the use in refrigeration storage device as taught by Arrigo because Arrigo teaches use of the air purifier in the crisper drawer of a refrigerator advantageously delays produce deterioration (paragraph [0010]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights