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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “wherein controller” should read “wherein the controller”.
In claim 1, “to appropriate receptacle” should read “to an appropriate receptacle”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“each processor is configured to process containers” in claim 1 (see Page 9).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11 and 21 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.
Claim 11 recites “at least one processor set configured to process containers made of metal and heavily colored plastics”, however the specification does not describe the processor configured to process containers made of these materials.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the at least three sets of processors are implemented by one processor”, however the specification does not describe this feature.
Claim 23 recites “wherein a single processor operates the processing of the at least three processors”, however the specification does not describe this feature.
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 4, 11, 19-21 and 23 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 4, the functional limitation(s) “configured to accept and autonomously sort a single container made out from various materials” render(s) the claim indefinite, as the limitation does not provide a clear link to a structural element that performs the claimed function. As written, the language does not set forth well-defined boundaries of the invention, but rather serves to only state a result obtained. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear since the Applicant is avoiding structural claiming at the point of novelty by utilizing functional claiming to imply an unknown/unclaimed structural relationship.
The term “heavily” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavily” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the multiple image capturing devices". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “favorable” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “favorable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In claim 20, the functional limitation(s) “further configured to provide raw material having a reduced volume and favorable recycling qualities” render(s) the claim indefinite, as the limitation does not provide a clear link to a structural element that performs the claimed function. As written, the language does not set forth well-defined boundaries of the invention, but rather serves to only state a result obtained. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear since the Applicant is avoiding structural claiming at the point of novelty by utilizing functional claiming to imply an unknown/unclaimed structural relationship.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the at least three sets of processors are implemented by one processor” wherein it is unclear how three separate elements may be implemented by a single element. Further, the specification does not describe this limitation, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the “one processor” is interpreted as an element of the control unit.
Claim 23 recites “wherein a single processor operates the processing of the at least three processors”, wherein it is unclear how three separate elements may be implemented by a single element. Further, the specification does not describe this limitation and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the “single processor” is interpreted as an element of the control unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13, 15-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martinsen (US 2019/0374977).
Regarding claim 1, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) teaches a reverse vending RV system (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-3), comprising:
(i) at least one image capturing device (Paragraph 0049 lines 1-13),
(ii) a sorting apparatus (Fig. 2 #7),
(iii) at least three sets of processors (Fig. 2 #9, 11, Paragraph 0068 lines 1-13), and
(iv) at least three sets of receptacles (Fig. 2 receptacle below #9, 11, Paragraph 0066 lines 1-6),
(v) an interface compartment having an intake chute (Fig. 2 #3), and
(vi) a controller configured to control the operation of the RV system (Paragraph 0049 lines 6-12),
wherein the intake chute (Fig. 2 #3) is configured to accept containers made out of various types of recyclable materials (Paragraph 0044 lines 1-7),
whereby the sorting apparatus (Fig. 2 #7) is configured to autonomously sort any container inserted into the intake chute (Paragraph 0047 lines 1-5),
wherein each processor (Fig. 2 #9, 11, Paragraph 0068 lines 1-13) is configured to process containers made from predetermined materials (Paragraph 0045 lines 5-8, Paragraph 0068 lines 1-13),
wherein controller is configured to control the diversion of processed container to appropriate receptacle (Paragraph 0049 lines 6-12), and
wherein each receptacle (Fig. 2 receptacle below #9, 11, Paragraph 0066 lines 1-6) is configured to store processed containers made of predetermined specific materials (Paragraph 0045 lines 5-8, Paragraph 0068 lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 4, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) teaches the system of claim 1, further configured to accept and autonomously sort a single container made out from various materials (Paragraph 0049 lines 1-13), Paragraph 0069 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 6, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) teaches the system of claim 1, further configured to accept and sort containers in various shapes and sizes (Paragraph 0043 lines 1-6, Paragraph 0070 lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 7, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) teaches the system of claim 1, further configured to accept and sort deformed containers (Paragraph 0043 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one processor set (Fig. 2 #11) is configured to process containers made of white and light blue plastic (Paragraph 0045 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 9, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one processor set is configured to process containers made of glass (Paragraph 0068 lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 10, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one processor set (Fig. 2 #9) is configured to process containers made of metal (Paragraph 0045 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 13, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one processor (Fig. 2 #9, 11) incorporates a crusher configured to crush containers into minimal volumes or particles (Paragraph 0045 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 15, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) teaches the system of claim 1, further configured to prevent mixing of processed containers made from different materials (Paragraph 0068 lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 16, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising an intermediate section (Fig. 2 #5) configured to connect between the interface compartment and the set of processors (Fig. 2 #5 connecting #3 to #9, 11, Paragraph 0068 lines 1-13) such that the interface compartment is accessible to users (Fig. 2 see #3 accessible to user) while the processing operations are conducted in greater distance from the user (Fig. 2 see #9, 11 conducted greater distance from user).
Regarding claim 17, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one image capturing device is a barcode scanner configured to scan the barcode of a particular container (Paragraph 0049 lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 18, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one image capturing device is a camera configured to capture images of a particular container (Paragraph 0049 lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 20, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) teaches the system of claim 1, further configured to provide raw material having a reduced volume and favorable recycling qualities (Paragraph 0047 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 21, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least three sets of processors (Fig. 2 #9, 11, Paragraph 0068 lines 1-13) are implemented by one processor (Paragraph 0049 lines 6-12, processor of “control unit”).
Regarding claim 22, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) teaches a method for using an RV system (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-3) having at least three sets of processors (Fig. 2 #9, 11, Paragraph 0068 lines 1-13) and at least three receptacles (Fig. 2 receptacle below #9, 11, Paragraph 0066 lines 1-6), comprising the steps of:
(i) inserting containers made of various materials (Paragraph 0044 lines 1-6, Paragraph 0047 lines 1-3),
(ii) detecting features and parameters related to each accepted container (Paragraph 0049 lines 1-13),
(iii) sorting the inserted containers based on detected features and parameters related to each container (Paragraph 0049 lines 6-12),
(iv) processing each type of material forming a sorted container in a designated processor (Paragraph 0045 lines 1-8, Paragraph 0068 lines 1-13), and
(v) storing each of the processed containers' materials (Paragraph 0045 lines 5-8, Paragraph 0068 lines 1-13) within a designated receptacle (Fig. 2 receptacle below #9, 11, Paragraph 0066 lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 23, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) teaches the method of claim 22, wherein a single processor (Paragraph 0049 lines 6-12, processor of “control unit”) operates the processing of the at least three processors (Paragraph 0049 lines 6-12).
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 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) in view of Anker (WO 2011066839).
Regarding claim 2, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) lacks teaching the system of claim 1, further configured to accept and autonomously sort a bundle of multiple containers made of various materials jointly loaded into the intake chute.
Anker (WO 2011066839) teaches a reverse vending RV system (Page 1 lines 5-10), further configured to accept and autonomously sort a bundle of multiple containers made of various materials (Page 2 lines 18-20) jointly loaded into the intake chute (Page 3 lines 22-29, Page 4 lines 1-2).
Anker (WO 2011066839) explains that by batch feeding, the user no longer needs to manually feed the reverse vending machine one by one (Page 4 lines 11-12), as feeding one by one is not an effective solution for the consumer due to the amount of containers that can be processed per unit time and the speed at which the user can feed the containers one at a time (Page 3 lines 8-16).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) to include the system configured to accept and autonomously sort a bundle of multiple containers made of various materials jointly loaded into the intake chute as taught by Anker (WO 2011066839) in order to increase the number of containers which can be processed per unit time.
Regarding claim 3, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) lacks teaching the system of claim 2, wherein intake chute is coupled with a hopper.
Anker (WO 2011066839) teaches a reverse vending RV system (Page 1 lines 5-10), wherein intake chute (Fig. 3a #3) is coupled with a hopper (Fig. 3b-c, see hopper formed by #10).
Anker (WO 2011066839) explains that by batch feeding, the user no longer needs to manually feed the reverse vending machine one by one (Page 4 lines 11-12), as feeding one by one is not an effective solution for the consumer due to the amount of containers that can be processed per unit time and the speed at which the user can feed the containers one at a time (Page 3 lines 8-16).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) to include wherein intake chute is coupled with a hopper as taught by Anker (WO 2011066839) in order to provide multiple containers to the system at once, and therefore increase the number of containers which can be processed per unit time.
Regarding claim 5, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) lacks teaching the system of claim 1, wherein intake chute is incorporated with a user interface.
Anker (WO 2011066839) teaches a reverse vending RV system (Page 1 lines 5-10), wherein intake chute (Fig. 2 #3) is incorporated with a user interface (Fig. 2 #24).
Anker (WO 2011066839) explains that the monitor provides information to the user (Page 8 lines 26-27), wherein this information may include the status of the recording process (Page 9 lines 2-6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) to include wherein intake chute is incorporated with a user interface as taught by Anker (WO 2011066839) in order to provide the user with information regarding the status of the process.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) in view of LaKind (2012).
Regarding claim 11, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one processor set (Fig. 2 #9) is configured to process containers made of metal (Paragraph 0045 lines 1-8).
Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) lacks teaching containers made of metal and heavily colored plastics.
LaKind (2012) teaches can coatings for food and beverage cans (Abstract lines 1-7), wherein containers are made of metal (Section 2.1 lines 1-3) and heavily colored plastics (Section 3 lines 1-10, Section 4 lines 5-15).
LaKind (2012) explains that canned food and beverages are able to maintain their flavor, texture and color and be free of illness-causing pathogens by coating can interiors with protective resins (Abstract liens 1-7), and explains that agents are added to the resin blend coatings to create desired properties such as color (Section 3 lines 6-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) to include containers made of metal and heavily colored plastics as LaKind (2012) explains that metal containers are commonly coated with protective resins with desired properties to maintain the flavor, texture and color of the food or beverages.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) in view of Thompson et al. (US 4248389).
Regarding claim 12, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) lacks teaching the system of claim 1, wherein at least one processor incorporates a shredder configured to shred containers into flakes.
Thompson et al. (US 4248389) teaches a reverse vending RV system (Col. 1 lines 6-10) wherein at least one processor incorporates a shredder configured to shred containers into flakes (Col.4 lines 61-68).
Thompson et al. (US 4248389) explains that the system includes means for compacting, crushing, or shredding the containers once separated into their various types into a compact mass for efficient handling (Col. 3 lines 23-26), and explains that this system reduces storage areas and losses assumed by the store, and eliminates the handling and trucking of uncompacted containers by the various container distributors (Col. 3 lines 34-42).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) to include wherein at least one processor incorporates a shredder configured to shred containers into flakes as taught by Thompson et al. (US 4248389) in order to provide more efficient handling of the containers processed into a compact mass.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) in view of Morishita et al. (US 8851265).
Regarding claim 14, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) lacks teaching the system of claim 1, further comprising a user interface configured to provide instructions and feedback to a user.
Morishita et al. (US 8851265) teaches a reverse vending RV system (Col. 1 lines 10-12), further comprising a user interface (Fig. 2 #22) configured to provide instructions and feedback to a user (Col. 4 lines 58-61).
Morishita et al. (US 8851265) explains that one or more video displays are mounted so that users may conveniently view the user instructions, transaction information, public information, advertisements, etc. (Col. 4 lines 58-61).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) to include a user interface configured to provide instructions and feedback to a user as taught by Morishita et al. (US 8851265) in order for the user to conveniently view user instructions, transaction information, public information, advertisements, etc.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) in view of Kirkerud et al. (EP 2538392).
Regarding claim 19, Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) lacks teaching the system of claim 1, wherein the multiple image capturing devices are arranged in a circular formation in order to capture a substantially 360 degree view of a particular container.
Kirkerud et al. (EP 2538392) teaches a reverse vending RV system (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4), wherein the multiple image capturing devices (Fig. 5 #41) are arranged in a circular formation in order to capture a substantially 360 degree view of a particular container (Paragraph 0029 lines 1-13).
Kirkerud et al. (EP 2538392) explains that dents in cans or bottles provides specular surfaces reflecting light in an unpredictable way, often creating errors when reading the barcode (Paragraph 0031 lines 1-3), and the arrangement of adjacent cameras prevents these errors since the field of view of each camera overlaps the field of view of the adjacent camera, which provides an image of the barcode without specular reflections (Paragraph 0031 lines 9-23).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinsen (US 2019/0374977) to include wherein the multiple image capturing devices are arranged in a circular formation in order to capture a substantially 360 degree view of a particular container as taught by Kirkerud et al. (EP 2538392) in order to prevent errors when inspecting the containers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. 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 McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights