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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reference to the communication filed on 20 SEPT 2024.
Claims 1-8 are present and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 (and by virtue of dependency, claim 5) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites the limitation “first subject image is used to determine a possibility of contracting a predetermined disease in the external device.” The scope of the claim is indefinite as it is unclear how an external device would contract a predetermined disease. Examiner assumes the intention of the claim is for the subject image to be used to determine a possibility of a subject to contract a predetermined disease, and has provided relevant citations to that end. Correction is required.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the determination" in the claim. Claim 5 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1. Claim 4 recites “a possibility of contracting a predetermined disease…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 5, as neither claim 1 nor 4 recite “a determination,” claim 4 only recites that the disease itself is “predetermined” rather than an actual step. The claim is indefinite.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 6 recites an “assistance tool to be inserted into the natural opening together with at least a part of the imaging device by covering the part.” Claim 6 depends from claim 1, which notes “a part of a natural opening of one or a plurality of subject persons.” Claim 6 itself recites “inserted into the natural opening together with at least a part of the imaging device by covering the part.” At the very least the scope of the claim is indefinite as it is not clear from which “part” the last word takes antecedent basis – a part of the natural opening as in claim 1, or a part of the imaging device. For example if assuming antecedent basis from claim 1, a tongue depressor would read on the claimed limitation in that it would be inserted into the mouth to facilitate viewing, and if assuming antecedent from within claim 6 some sort of device would be affixed to the camera itself. As such, it is unclear/indefinite if the part of the imaging device is covered or the part of the natural opening is covered.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to for grammatical reasons. Claim 8 appears to be missing a verb – Examiner assumes the intent is for the computer readable instructions to be executed on the processor rather than just residing on the processor. Correction/clarification is suggested. Examiner suggests amending along the lines of: “A method executed by at least one processor, the at least one processor performing the steps of: providing an imaging device to capture an image of the subject including at least a part of…a subject person;” and then the subsequent steps as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As explained below, the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One: Is the Claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1-8 the independent claim(s) (1, 7, 8) recite(s) a device, a computer program product, and a method, each of which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1-8, the independent claim(s) (claims 1, 7, 8) is/are directed, in part, to:
receive subject person information including first subject person information associated with the one or each of the plurality of subject persons including the first subject person via a communication interface
in a case of outputting, as a list, pieces of subject person information of unimaged subject persons among the one or the plurality of subject persons, output the list without including the first subject person information before the first subject person information associated with the first subject person is registered
These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which include commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Receiving subject information and modifying the output of the subject information based on registration status would be accomplished in the course of a business. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claims are further directed to mental process, in that the claims ensconce concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion functions. The outputting based on the status of a subjects registration and outputting the subject person information involves observation, evaluation of status, and outputting based on the evaluation or opinion thereof. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a concept performed in the human mind, then it/they falls/ fall into the “mental processes” category.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) additional elements: claim 1 recites an “imaging device comprising a camera and a processor configured to execute instructions”, claim 7 recites similar features including a “computer program product embodying computer readable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” to control the image capturing, claim 8 recites at least one processor to execute the method/computer readable instructions, and each of claims 1, 7, 8 recite an external device in communication with the imaging device. The imaging device/camera common to all of claims 1, 7, 8 is recited at a high level of generality and as such amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer/camera, or merely uses the computer/camera as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f), or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use/computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05h). Examiner finds similarly with regard to the processor and computer program product embodying computer readable instructions in claims 1, 7, 8 - or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer/camera, or merely uses the computer/camera as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f), or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use/computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05h). In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner also notes similarly with regard to the “external device” common to the claims – while there is no description of what said external device is, Examiner presumes it is a computing device. The sending and receiving of data between the above identified elements (i.e. the imaging device, the external device, and the processor/computer program product) is noted as adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception(s) identified (see MPEP 2106.05g). Examiner finds no improvement to the functioning of the computer or any other technology or technical field (i.e. the imaging or cameras or processors are not improved in any functional way) as claimed (see MPEP 2106.05a), nor any other application or use of the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond a general like between the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05e).
Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO.
The independent claim(s) is/are additionally directed to claim elements such as: claim 1 recites an “imaging device comprising a camera and a processor configured to execute instructions”, claim 7 recites similar features including a “computer program product embodying computer readable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” to control the image capturing, claim 8 recites at least one processor to execute the method/computer readable instructions, and each of claims 1, 7, 8 recite an external device in communication with the imaging device. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification.
[0050] Further, the imaging device 200 includes a camera 211, a light source 212, a processor 213, a memory 214, an output interface 215, an input interface 210, and a communication interface 216. These components are electrically connected to each other via a control line and a data line. Note that the processing device 100 and the imaging device 200 do not need to include all of the components illustrated in FIG. 4, and can also be configured without some of the components, or can also be configured by adding other components. For example, the processing device 100 and the imaging device 200 can include a battery for driving each of the components and the like. Note that, as described with reference to FIG. 3, the processing device 100 and the imaging device 200 only need to be communicably connected via the wired or wireless network, and are not necessarily configured to be directly communicable.
[0056] In the imaging device 200, the camera 211 functions as an imaging unit that generates the subject image by detecting reflected light reflected on the oral cavity which is the subject. In order to detect the light, the camera 211 includes, as an example, a CMOS image sensor, a lens system, and a drive system for implementing a desired function. The image sensor is not limited to the CMOS image sensor, and other sensors such as a CCD image sensor can also be used. Although not particularly illustrated, the camera 211 can have an autofocus function, and it is preferable that a focus of the camera be set, for example, on the front of the lens to match a specific site. Further, the camera 211 can have a zoom function, and is preferably set to capture an image at an appropriate magnification according to a size of the pharynx or the influenza follicles.
[0051] First, in the processing device 100, the processor 111 functions as a control unit that controls other components of the processing system 1 based on a program stored in the memory 112. The processor 111 executes processes related to the input of the subject person information, the interview information, the finding information, and the like, the output of the subject image captured by the imaging device 200, and the output of the determination result of the possibility of contracting the predetermined disease based on the program stored in the memory 112… The processor 111 mainly includes one or a plurality of CPUs, and may be appropriately combined with GPU, an FPGA, or the like.
[0052] The memory 112 includes a RAM, a ROM, a nonvolatile memory, an HDD, and the like, and functions as a storage unit. The memory 112 stores instruction commands for various control operations of the processing system 1 according to the present embodiment as a program. Specifically, the memory 112 stores the program for the processor 111 to execute “the process…”
These passages, as well as others, makes it clear that the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. The above identified elements are discussed in functional terms only – i.e. no special elements or equipment required and any device capable of performing the claimed limitations is suitable. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
As per dependent claims 2-6:
Dependent claims 2-5 are not directed any additional abstract ideas and are also not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as additional details about the outputting of the subject person. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Dependent claim 6 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but in the interest of compact prosecution Examiner notes that an assistance tool is nominally recited. Examiner notes that the use of the assistance tool is only suggested rather than actively claimed, and as such, is not sufficient to amount to a practical application nor significantly more. Prompting the use of the assistance tool is more appropriately considered at the abstract idea, with the assistance tool being descriptive in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hosoya et al (US 20050177394 A1, hereinafter Hosoya).
In reference to claim 1, 7, 8:
Hosoya teaches: (claim 1) An imaging device comprising: a camera configured to capture an image of a subject including at least a part of a natural opening of one or a plurality of subject persons including a first subject person (at least [fig 1 and related text] “…electronic endoscope device 14 comprises an electronic endoscope and a processor device for processing and the output of an image signal, the configuration of which is the same as that of a well-known electronic endoscope device, so that details thereof are not shown in drawings. The electronic endoscope comprises an elongated insertion unit to be inserted into the body and an operating unit attached to the distal end of the insertion unit.“); and at least one processor, wherein
the at least one processor is configured to execute computer readable instructions so (at least [fig 1 and related text] personal computer 8) as to:
(claim 7) A computer program product embodying computer readable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for causing an imaging device including a camera configured to capture an image of a subject including at least a part of a natural opening of one or a plurality of subject persons including a first subject person (at least [fig 1 and related text] “…electronic endoscope device 14 comprises an electronic endoscope and a processor device for processing and the output of an image signal, the configuration of which is the same as that of a well-known electronic endoscope device, so that details thereof are not shown in drawings. The electronic endoscope comprises an elongated insertion unit to be inserted into the body and an operating unit attached to the distal end of the insertion unit.“, see also fig 1 for computer 8), the imaging device configured to perform the steps of:
(claim 8) A method executed by at least one processor, the method for causing the processor in an imaging device including a camera configured to capture an image of a subject including at least a part of a natural opening of one or a plurality of subject persons including a first subject person the method comprising the computer readable instructions on the processor (at least [fig 1 and related text] “…electronic endoscope device 14 comprises an electronic endoscope and a processor device for processing and the output of an image signal, the configuration of which is the same as that of a well-known electronic endoscope device, so that details thereof are not shown in drawings. The electronic endoscope comprises an elongated insertion unit to be inserted into the body and an operating unit attached to the distal end of the insertion unit.“, see also fig 1 for computer 8) the steps of:
receive subject person information including first subject person information associated with the one or each of the plurality of subject persons including the first subject person via a communication interface from an external device communicably connected to the imaging device via a network (at least [fig 20 and related text] “As for the display of the patient profile information which is obtained from the notandum table 105 in the database 21, two kinds of patient profile information, i.e. the patient profile information obtained at the time when the order information was issued, and the most recently obtained patient profile information 108 are displayed with the dates that the information was obtained respectively. In addition, patient profile information 1105 is displayed together with examination date information 111 in addition to a status 109 and a name (infection, allergy information, notandum, disability information and the like) 110 so that the validity of information can be confirmed. The profile information of each patient as above is displayed by obtaining it from the notandum table of the database 21.” At [0152] “Specifically, GW application software 20 on the GW 1 receives information from the HIS, and the received information is registered in an examination table 65, a patient master file 66 and an order information table 57 of the database 21.” See [fig 1 and related text] for more discussion of database 21), and
in a case of outputting, as a list, pieces of subject person information of unimaged subject persons among the one or the plurality of subject persons, output the list without including the first subject person information before the first subject person information associated with the first subject person is registered in the external device, and output the list including the first subject person information after the first subject person information is registered in the external device (at least [figs 7, 12, 14] and related text: "List of examinations whose preprocedures are not registered" window 76 as shown in FIG. 12 can be opened. On the "List of examinations whose preprocedures are not registered" widow 76, a "List of examinations whose preprocedures are not registered" 77 can be displayed. (A list of examinations which are received and whose preprocedures are not registered can be displayed by referring to the examination table 65 in the database 21.)”, "List of examinations whose implementation is registered" window 90 can be achieved by selecting the "List of examinations whose implementation has been transmitted" button 91 ("List of examinations whose implementation has not been transmitted" button) in the same manner as the transition between the "List of not arrived patients" window 1060 and the "List of arrived patients" window 72.””Further, the transitions between the "List of examinations whose preprocedures are not registered" window 76 and the "List of examinations whose preprocedures are registered" window 79 can be conducted by selecting the "List of processed patients" button 80 (the "List of not processed patients" button)
In reference to claim 2:
Hosoya further teaches: wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute computer readable instructions so as to output attribute information of the first subject person when receiving selection of the first subject person information from the list output including the first subject person information (at least [figs 12-14 and related text] attributes of the subject includes name of patient, patient ID, inpatient/outpatient indicator, at [fig 20 and related text] “s for the display of the patient profile information which is obtained from the notandum table 105 in the database 21, two kinds of patient profile information, i.e. the patient profile information obtained at the time when the order information was issued, and the most recently obtained patient profile information 108 are displayed with the dates that the information was obtained respectively. This is because there is a possibility that modification of the patient profile information has occurred between the issue of the examination order and the actual day of the examination in the case that a long period of time has elapsed between the day of the issue of the examination order and the actual day of the examination.” – i.e. when the patient record is selected from figs 12-13, or via the process in fig 7, the information in fig. 20 is presented).
In reference to claim 3:
Hosoya further teaches: wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute a computer readable instructions so as to, after receiving selection of the first subject person information from the list output including the first subject person information, transmit the first subject person information and a first subject image to the external device in association with each other when the first subject image including at least a part of a natural opening of the first subject person is captured by the camera (at least [fig 23 and related text] “By opening the above "Photography" window 83, photography can be conducted. The "Photography" window 83 displays, in addition to the patient information and the examination order information which are displayed on the left of the window, examination room/examination device information 125, photographed image information 126, and an examination implementation information input area 127 on the right of the window. When the "Photography" window 83 is displayed, patient information is transmitted to the input/examination terminal 3 installed in the examination room, so that the patient information is displayed on the electronic endoscope device 14 connected to the terminal 3. On a photographed image display area 126, reduced images photographed for each release operation of the electronic endoscope device 14 are displayed in a sequentially arrangement. When a release operation is conducted, the photographed image is firstly transmitted to the compressing/expanding device 13 so that the image is compressed. The compressed image is temporarily recorded in the memory of the compressing/expanding device 13 together with the patient basic information and forwarded to the server 5 via the LAN card. Even if the transmission of the images fails due to a network failure or the like, the photography can be continued without pause because the photographed images can be temporarily recorded in the memory of the compressing/expanding device 13.” See also [fig 1 and related text] for discussion of compression device 13/server 5).
In reference to claim 4:
Hosoya further teaches: wherein the first subject image is used to determine a possibility of contracting a predetermined disease in the external device (at least [fig 62-3 and related text] “The above configuration comprises the database 361 for data storage, the search processing unit 362 for searching the database 361 for data, the search condition setting unit 363 for setting conditions for conducting the search, a diagnosis statistical processing unit 375 for conducting a statistical diagnosis process, the graph display processing unit 366 for displaying the result of the statistical diagnosis process of the diagnosis statistical processing unit 375… , when the condition of implemented "Operation" is set in the search condition setting unit 363 of FIG. 62, a search regarding the name of disease based on the diagnosis of the second follow-up examination is conducted in the search processing unit 362 in the case that, for example, the second follow-up examination is implemented after the first operation, and the search is conducted based on the information regarding the technique associated with the implementation management table of FIG. 43 and the diagnosis information associated with the report managing table of FIG. 44. Thereafter, the percentage of the diagnosis for the number of the implemented examinations is processed in the diagnosis statistical processing unit 375 so that the processed result is displayed as a graph in the graph display processing unit 366.”).
In reference to claim 5:
Hosoya further teaches: wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute computer readable instructions so as to receive discrimination information indicating whether or not the first subject image is suitable for use in the determination from the external device, and outputting the received discrimination information (at least [fig 31 and related text] “The pointer information of the image selected to be attached to the report in the "Photography" window 83 is managed by the selected image table 138 of the database 21 so that images attached to report 182 can be displayed by referring to the above pointer information in the table 138. Because the above images attached to the report can be displayed without being superimposed on the input area for the report information, the report information can be input while referring to the images.” At [fig 23 and related text] a user selects an image to register/attach to the report.).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoya in view of Ariyoshi et al (US 20140204188 A1, hereinafter Ariyoshi).
In reference to claim 6:
Hosoya teaches all the limitations above, and further at least indicates that an additional manipulation may be needed to obtain an image successfully (see [fig 28 and related text] which implies dilation may be required for imaging). Ariyoshi however further teaches: wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute computer readable instructions so as to output an attachment indication that prompts attachment of an assistance tool to be inserted into the natural opening together with at least a part of the imaging device by covering the part (at least [fig 6 and related text] “The CPU 41 executes a white balance adjustment process which is a same process as step 51 in FIG. 5 (S1). In the white balance adjustment process, the user is prompted to cover the distal end portion of the insertion portion 2 with a predetermined white balance cap to perform white balance adjustment, and image pickup by the image pickup device 17 is performed in the state that the distal end portion of the insertion portion 2 is covered with the predetermined white balance cap. In the white balance adjustment process, gain adjustment for each of RGB color signals is performed for an obtained image, and the CPU 41 acquires a gain value of each of the RGB color signals (S21).” ). Hosoya and Ariyoshi teach analogous means of collecting endoscopic imaging, with Hosoya specifically providing for scope make/model information to be collected during imaging. As such one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the prompted suggestions of Ariyoshi to have been an obvious improvement to the image collection common to both references.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220328168, to Shimizu discloses determining if an image is sufficient or a “failed” image.
US 20120183191, to Hikosaka, discloses a scheduling/management system for in-office imaging.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at 571-270-1813. 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.
/KATHERINE . KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights