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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to, specifically Figs. 4-6, because shading should not be used for sectional views; instead, the appropriate hatching/drawing symbol should be used. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(h)(3), (m); MPEP § 608.02(IX).
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1-3 and 7 are low resolution, dithered, and/or in grayscale/halftones, rendering them visually unclear. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1), black and white drawings are normally required; India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined, and the weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(l). Moreover, the clarity of the drawings must be sufficient for clear reproduction to two-thirds size. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(k).
For examples of acceptable drawing clarity and quality, see US 20220362902 A1, US 20230076152 A1, US 20230286103 A1, and US 20240009795 A1. Examiner suggests outputting and resubmitting the drawings as vector graphics instead of raster images (bitmap) and uploading them to USPTO Patent Center as “Drawings-other than black and white line drawings”, which should cause the filed image file to be stored in the SCORE database without any image conversion.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the phrase (that could be implied) “is provided”, and (2) the last sentence refers to purported merits of the invention. Correction is required. MPEP § 608.01(b). No new matter should be entered.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “and a tool holder mounted on the carriage able to rotate with respect to an axis perpendicular to the guide and having a drive handle” (lines 4-6). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means for two reasons. First, the phrase “an axis perpendicular to the guide” is unclear because no direction is specified; that is, the guide is a three dimensional object and it is unclear what feature of the guide the perpendicular limitation is based on. Second, the phrase “and having a drive handle” is ambiguous because it is unclear if this means that the carriage has a drive handle, or that the tool holder has a drive handle, or something else. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as the tool holder having a drive handle. Claims 2-11 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 1.
Claim 2 includes the limitation “wherein the guide has a cross-section with a general T-shaped configuration” (lines 1-2). This limitation is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention because it fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means for two reasons. First, it is unclear what “general” in the context of a “T-shaped configuration” means. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). Although the specification uses this term (Spec. p. 4, lines 1-4) and provides one example (Spec. Figs. 4-6), the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the scope of this limitation. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as “a T-shaped configuration”. Second, it is unclear if the guide has a second, different cross-section with a T-shaped configuration or if the limitation refers to the same cross-section of claim 1. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as the same cross-section of claim 1. Claims 3-5 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the linear roller of the carriage comprises...rail bearings...and self-adjusting bearings”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means because the term “the linear roller” appears to refer to a single roller (e.g., a single wheel or a single bearing); the term “linear roller” only appears in the claims, whereas the specification uses the term “rolling means” (e.g., Spec. p. 4, line 16). However, this “linear roller” is modified in claim 4 to comprise rail bearings and self-adjusting bearings, and it is unclear how a single roller (as opposed to a roller system or roller means) could comprise the multiple bearings as recited. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claim 5 is rejected on the basis it incorporates this limitation of claim 4.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “which is open inferiorly”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means because it is unclear if this limitation refers to the “two lateral wings” or to the carriage, or something else. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as referring to the carriage. Claim 7 is rejected on the basis it incorporates this limitation of claim 6.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the axis of rotation of the tool holder comprises two independent semi-axes of rotation mounted on lateral wings of the carriage” (lines 1-3). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means for two reasons. First, the term “the axis of rotation of the tool holder” lacks sufficient antecedent basis, which renders the claim unclear and ambiguous. Second, it is unclear how an axis or “two independent semi-axes” could be mounted as these are non-structural features. Does this limitation refer to fasteners 41a and 41b depicted in Spec. Fig. 4, or does the claim purposefully not recite the depicted fasteners and only refers to the axis and semi-axes? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the tool holder laterally comprises” (lines 1-2). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, what does “laterally comprises” mean in this context? Does this mean that the two recited extensions are on the lateral sides of the tool holder, or something else? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claim 11 is rejected on the basis it incorporates this limitation of claim 10.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a rear end carrying the axis of rotation of the roller” (line 3). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, it is unclear how an axis could be carried as this is a non-structural feature. Does this limitation refer to the object 45 at serves as an axle for roller 43 as depicted in Spec. Fig. 3, or does the claim purposefully not recite the object 45 and only refers to the axis? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claim 11 is rejected on the basis it incorporates this limitation of claim 10.
Claim 10 is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations listed below, which render the claim unclear and ambiguous. For examination purposes, these limitations are interpreted as best understood.
“the axis of rotation of the roller” (line 3);
“the axis of rotation of the tool holder” (line 4).
Claim 11 is rejected on the basis it incorporates these limitations of claim 10.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the axis of rotation of the blank holder” (lines 1-2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, which renders the claim unclear and ambiguous. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “said axis of rotation” (line 4). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means because it is unclear which of the three preceding “axis of rotation” is being referred to. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as referring to the axis of rotation of the blank holder.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Ambrogiani in view of Harris
Claims 1, 6-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 12673446 B2 (“Ambrogiani”) in view of US 3756670 A (“Harris”).
Ambrogiani pertains to a tile cutting machine (Abstr.; Figs. 1-24). Harris pertains to a track and carriage assembly for tools, including cutting tools (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5; 1:5-16). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Ambrogiani discloses a monoguide manual cutter (Figs. 1-7, manual tile cutter as shown, with a single guide 6), comprising:
a base for supporting a ceramic part to be cut (Fig. 1, base 35 for supporting tile 14);
a guide arranged longitudinally above the base (Figs. 1-7, guide 6 arranged longitudinally above base 35);
a carriage configured to be moved along said guide and a tool holder mounted on the carriage able to rotate with respect to an axis perpendicular to the guide and having a drive handle (Figs. 1-19; 3:58-4:13, carriage 5 is capable of moving along guide 6, and a tool holder 1 that rotates in an axis perpendicular to the longitudinal length of guide 6, tool holder 1 includes handle 7);
a roller for marking a cutting line on the ceramic part and a blank holder for breaking said ceramic part along the cutting line (Figs. 1-19; 3:58-4:13, roller 3 is capable of marking a cutting line (i.e., scoring) tile 14, splitter 2 (“blank holder”) is capable of breaking tile 14 along the cutting line);
wherein the guide is an aluminium extrusion guide having a cross-section with a narrow lower portion and a wider upper portion (3:32-35; claim 14, guide 6 is an extruded metal guide with recited cross section (see annotated Fig. 2 below); see discussion below re “aluminium”);
and wherein the wider upper portion comprises longitudinal tracks configured to support a linear roller of the carriage (Figs. 1-19, the “wider upper portion” includes a longitudinal track (running the longitudinal length of guide 6) that supports linear roller 9 in carriage 5 (see discussion below re “tracks”).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (“Narrow lower portion”)][AltContent: textbox (“Wider upper portion”)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
617
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ambrogiani Fig. 2 (annotated)
Ambrogiani does not explicitly disclose wherein the wider upper portion comprises longitudinal tracks configured to support a linear roller of the carriage. However, the Ambrogiani/Harris combination makes obvious this claim.
Harris discloses:
wherein the guide is an aluminium extrusion guide having a cross-section with a narrow lower portion and a wider upper portion (Figs. 1-5; 1:5-16, 2:55-3:51, aluminum extrusion guide 14 with a wider upper portion (e.g., the portion in contact with upper rollers 20 as shown in Fig. 5) and a narrow lower portion (e.g., the lower portion below reference 16 in Fig. 5));
and wherein the wider upper portion comprises longitudinal tracks configured to support a linear roller of the carriage (Figs. 1-5; 1:5-16, 2:55-3:51, the wider upper portion includes longitudinal tracks (at upper reference 18 in Fig. 5) capable of supporting linear rollers 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Harris with Ambrogiani by modifying the carriage 5, rollers 9, 9’, 9’’, and guide 6 to use the carriage 12, rollers 20, and guide 14 design of Harris (but the guide not necessarily having the same width/vertical height proportion (i.e., the overall width could be narrower)). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this modification would result in a more stable roller/guide assembly and would allow for a more precise scoring/cut without lateral (transverse to the carriage’s travel) movement. In contrast to the Ambrogiani design which uses three rollers that are vertically inline with each other and oriented in the same angular orientation (see Ambrogiani Fig. 6, rollers 9, 9’, 9’’), the arrangement of Harris’s rollers 20 (especially their angular orientation to each other) causes the carriage to self-center on guide 14, where any lateral movement is minimized or eliminated due to the rollers’ configuration relative to the tracks 18 of guide 14.
To the extent Ambrogiani does not disclose “an aluminium extrusion guide”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify the metal extrusion guide (Ambrogiani claim 14) to be made of aluminum. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because Ambrogiani discusses the use of aluminum extrusion guides in the prior art (Ambrogiani 1:33-46). Further, the use of aluminum for an extrusion is known in the art (Harris 1:5-16; US 20180361621 A1 (“Sighinolfi”) Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0047, 0150, guide 20 is an aluminum extrusion that serves as a track for rollers 32) and is merely a design choice and is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to the use of aluminum (as opposed to another metal) in this application. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 6, the Ambrogiani/Harris combination makes obvious the monoguide manual cutter of claim 1 as applied above. Harris further discloses wherein the carriage, made of cast aluminium, comprises an inverted U-shaped cross-section, with two lateral wings, which is open inferiorly, and arranged on the guide (Fig. 5, lower portion of carriage 12 has an inverted U-shaped cross-section with two lateral wings, and the carriage is open inferiorly and arranged on the guide 14 when assembled; see discussion below re “made of cast aluminium”).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 1, where the carriage 5, rollers 9, 9’, 9’’, and guide 6 are modified to use the carriage 12, rollers 20, and guide 14 design of Harris. Regarding the limitation “made of cast aluminium”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify the carriage 5 to be made of cast aluminum. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because Ambrogiani discusses the use of aluminum in the prior art (Ambrogiani 1:33-46). Further, the use of cast aluminum for a carriage and tool holder is known in the art (US 6240914 B1 (“Yasuga”) Fig. 1, 6:19-24 “the sliding portion 49 die-cast with aluminum”) and is merely a design choice and is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to the use of cast aluminum (as opposed to another material) in this application. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 7, the Ambrogiani/Harris combination makes obvious the monoguide manual cutter of claim 6 as applied above. Harris further discloses wherein the carriage comprises an upper protective cover made of aluminium (Fig. 5, upper portion of carriage 12; see discussion below re “made of aluminium”).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 6. Regarding the limitation “made of aluminium”, the obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 6, but also applied to the “upper protective cover” of the carriage.
Regarding claim 8, the Ambrogiani/Harris combination makes obvious the monoguide manual cutter of claim 1 as applied above. Ambrogiani further discloses wherein the tool holder, made of cast aluminium, has an annular cross-section arranged around the carriage and the guide (Figs. 1, 9, tool holder 1 has an annular cross-section arranged around the carriage 5 and guide 6; “annular” does not require a ring-like shape (see Spec. p. 5, lines 6-8; Fig. 4) see discussion below re “made of cast aluminium”).
Regarding the limitation “made of cast aluminium”, the obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 6, but applied to the tool holder.
Regarding claim 10, the Ambrogiani/Harris combination makes obvious the monoguide manual cutter of claim 1 as applied above. Ambrogiani further discloses wherein the tool holder laterally comprises at its lower end two extensions oriented towards a rear area of the cutter and ending in a rear end carrying the axis of rotation of the roller and spaced from the axis of rotation of the tool holder (Figs. 1-22, 22A-B, tool holder 1 includes element 1C that has two lateral extensions with a rear end as recited (see Fig. 22A, rear end is the end with hole 62) and carries shaft 16, on which roller 15 rotates, where shaft 16 is spaced from the axis of rotation of the tool holder (about pin 4)).
Regarding claim 11, the Ambrogiani/Harris combination makes obvious the monoguide manual cutter of claim 10 as applied above. Ambrogiani further discloses wherein the axis of rotation of the blank holder is arranged between the axis of rotation of the roller and the axis of rotation of the tool holder, and that in an operative position of the blank holder said axis of rotation is arranged close to a vertical plane coinciding with the axis of rotation of the tool holder (Figs. 1-22, 22A-B, splitter 2 (“blank holder”) has an axis of rotation about pin 4A (see Fig. 18), and is between the recited features (e.g., as shown in Figs. 11-13), where when put into the operative position (Fig. 17), the axis of rotation of pin 4A is close to a vertical plane coinciding with the axis of rotation of the tool holder (pin 4); Examiner interprets the term “close to” broadly (see Spec. Fig. 3, position of element 46 vs. position of element 41)).
Ambrogiani in view of Harris and Weatherill
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 12673446 B2 (“Ambrogiani”) in view of US 3756670 A (“Harris”) and US 20170058461 A1 (“Weatherill”).
Ambrogiani pertains to a tile cutting machine (Abstr.; Figs. 1-24). Harris pertains to a track and carriage assembly for tools, including cutting tools (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5; 1:5-16). These references are in the same field of endeavor. Weatherill pertains to a railroad grinding tool with a track carriage (Abstr.; Figs. 1-10). To the extent Weatherill is not in the same field of endeavor, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it discloses a tool having a carriage that travels on a single rail, providing for a smooth movement.
Regarding claim 2, the Ambrogiani/Harris combination makes obvious the monoguide manual cutter of claim 1 as applied above. Ambrogiani and Harris do not explicitly disclose wherein the guide has a cross-section with a general T-shaped configuration, with two lateral wings at the wider upper portion. However, the Ambrogiani/Harris/Weatherill combination makes obvious this claim.
Weatherill discloses:
wherein the guide has a cross-section with a general T-shaped configuration, with two lateral wings at the wider upper portion (Figs. 1, 4-5, extrusion guide (rail) 6 has a narrow lower portion and a wider upper portion (see annotated Fig. 4 below), not including the base portion (at reference 6 in Fig. 4), that form a T-shaped configuration with two lateral wings at the wider upper portion; “a cross-section with a...T-shaped configuration” is interpreted as a cross section in the form of a capital, roman letter “T”, which has a lateral element and a transverse element perpendicular to the lateral element, extending downward from the center of the lateral element (and not extending above the lateral element like a lower case “t”)).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (“Narrow lower portion”)][AltContent: textbox (“Wider upper portion”)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
1359
1091
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Weatherill Fig. 4 (annotated)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Weatherill with the Ambrogiani/Harris combination by further modifying the guide to have a T-shaped cross section (e.g., to include a vertical element extending downward from the center of guide 14 of Harris). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this modification would increase the moment of inertia of the guide in order to resist bending (and damage) due to a user’s downward force on the handle when using the tool (especially when using the tile breaking function)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, as set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 3, the Ambrogiani/Harris/Weatherill combination makes obvious the monoguide manual cutter of claim 2 as applied above.
Harris further discloses:
wherein the longitudinal tracks of the guide comprise...two respective oblique planes defined at an upper end of the guide and laterally inclined in opposite directions (Figs. 1-5, the wider upper portion includes longitudinal tracks (at upper reference 18 in Fig. 5) capable of supporting linear rollers 20, where the tracks include oblique planes as recited).
Ambrogiani, Harris, and Weatherill do not explicitly disclose wherein the longitudinal tracks of the guide comprise two steel rails inserted under the two lateral wings of said guide.
US 20180050468 A1 (“Soler Balcells”) discloses:
wherein the longitudinal tracks of the guide comprise two steel rails inserted under the two lateral wings of said guide (Figs. 1-2, two steel rails 21 and 22 inserted under lateral wings of guide 2 (lateral wings (at reference 3) when view is rotated 90 degrees in Fig. 2)).
Despite the prior art of record teaching all of the limitations of claim 3, it would appear that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application would not have further modified the Ambrogiani/Harris/Weatherill combination with the teachings of Soler Balcells to add the two steel rails under the two lateral wings of the guide as recited without hindsight based on Applicant’s disclosure.
In view of the prior art of record and its deficiencies, Applicant’s invention is novel, non-obvious, and allowable as claimed. Claims 4-5 are allowable for depending from claim 3 (subject to overcoming the § 112(b) rejection of claim 4).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 1-11 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because the references pertain to tile cutters and similar tools or devices having a guide rail similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/ Date: August 8, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights