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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12159367. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in scope and not patentably distinct from each other.
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.
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: “front-end image processing system” and “back-end image processing system” in claims 1 and 11.
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 17-20 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..
Claims 17-20 recites that the front-end performs various functions, but the specification paragraphs 62-68 appears to indicate that it is the back-end processing unit system
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 1-20 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 “a second resolution image storage”. The specification does not appear to disclose this terminology, but does disclose a browse image storage 124.(see paragraph 35). For purpose of examination, the Examiner in interpreting these as equivalents.
Claim 11 is rejected under similar grounds as claim 1.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected as dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,5-9, 11-13, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padwick (20140267390) in view of Beckett(2016/0300375)
Padwick discloses 1. A method for generating a geospatial mosaic image from a plurality of geospatial images (Padwick, Abstract), comprising:
defining, by a front-end image processing system, an area of interest as a selected geographic area, wherein the area of interest is divided into geographically indexed tiles; (Padwick, “[0104] The source selection process 110 may include identifying 112 an area of interest to be covered by the mosaic 30. With respect to FIG. 3, one such identified area of interest 400 is shown. The area of interest 400 of FIG. 3 generally corresponds to the island of Sardinia, which may be used as an example area of interest 400 throughout this disclosure. In this regard, it may be appreciated the area of interest 400 may be relatively large. For example, the area of interest 400 may cover geographic areas corresponding to large landmasses, entire countries, or even entire continents. However, it may be appreciated that the source selection process 110 may also be performed on much smaller areas of interest 400.”)
retrieving, by the front-end image processing system, from an image storage, geospatial images corresponding to the area of interest, the front-end image processing system including a first plurality of nodes of a cloud computing infrastructure; (Padwick, “[0105] The source selection process 110 may also include accessing 114 source images 22 for the area of interest 400. With further reference to FIG. 4, the area of interest 400 is depicted along with a plurality of polygons 410, each represent one source image 22 available for selection for inclusion in the mosaic 30. As may be appreciated in FIG. 4, the number of source images 22 available for the area of interest 400 may be quite large (e.g., totaling in the hundreds or thousands). This may provide context with respect to the amount of time it may require for a human operator to review each of the source images 22.”)
rendering, by the front-end image processing system, browse version images of at least a portion of the geospatial images from the image storage in a map display of a user interface, wherein the browse version images includes first resolution image versions of corresponding geospatial images; and (Padwick, “[0110] With returned reference to FIG. 2, the source selection process 110 may include retrieving 118 a base layer chip 44 corresponding to a tile 500. In this regard, as described above with respect FIG. 1, a base layer image 42 may be a lower resolution global mosaic in which colors have been adjusted manually. Various sources may be used as the base layer image 42 from which the base layer chip 44 may be retrieved 118. For example, one potential base layer image 42 corresponds to a TerraColor global mosaic available from Earthstar Geographics LLC of San Diego, Calif. The TerraColor global mosaic includes primarily imagery captured from the Landsat 7 remote-sensing satellite. In any regard, the base layer image 42 (e.g., such as the TerraColor mosaic) may be a manually color balanced (e.g., using contrast stretching or other color balancing techniques). Accordingly, the base layer image 42, may have a relatively uniform color balancing despite the base layer image 42 having relatively low resolution (e.g., on the order of 15 m or less).” Additionally see paragraph 112 “[0112] The source selection process 110 may also include calculating 120 a merit value for each source image chip 24 with coverage in a given tile 500. The merit value may be at least partially based on the degree to which the source image chip 24 matches a corresponding base layer 44. For example, as shown in FIG. 2 the calculating 120 may include a number of substeps 122-126. For instance, the calculating 120 may include downsampling 122 each source image chip 24 (e.g., utilizing the downsampling module 26). For example, the downsampling 122 may produce a downsampled source image chip 24' at a corresponding resolution to that of the base layer chip 44. However, the downsampled source image need not correspond to the resolution of that of the base layer chip 44. The downsampling 122 may include reducing the resolution in both the horizontal and vertical extents. For example, the downsampling 122 may reduce a geospatial source image 22 from a resolution of 0.5 m or more to 15 m or less.”)
receiving, from a user, via the user interface, a selection of one or more geospatial images for each geographically indexed tile based on the browse version images; (Padwick, “[0105] The source selection process 110 may also include accessing 114 source images 22 for the area of interest 400. With further reference to FIG. 4, the area of interest 400 is depicted along with a plurality of polygons 410, each represent one source image 22 available for selection for inclusion in the mosaic 30. As may be appreciated in FIG. 4, the number of source images 22 available for the area of interest 400 may be quite large (e.g., totaling in the hundreds or thousands). This may provide context with respect to the amount of time it may require for a human operator to review each of the source images 22.”)
defining a mosaic recipe of the geospatial images based on the selection of the one or more geospatial images; based on the defined mosaic recipe, retrieving, by a back-end image processing system, the geospatial images, in a second resolution, from a second resolution image storage, wherein the first resolution is lower than the second resolution, the back-end image processing system including a second plurality of nodes of the cloud computing infrastructure; (Padwick, “[0236] In view of the foregoing, it may be appreciated that each of the automatic source selection, automatic outline generation, and radiometric normalization may be utilized to produce a high spatial resolution orthomosaic image from source geospatial images as described above. For instance, a finished orthomosaic 30 for the area of interest 400 corresponding with Sardinia is shown in FIG. 23. In this regard, for each tile 400 in the area of interest 400, the selected chip 24 may be disposed in the mosaic based on the corresponding geographic coverage of the chip 24. That is, the selected images 22 may be located in the mosaic 30 based on their geographic coverage.” See above paragraph 112 which shows chips of different resolution)
based on receipt of the geospatial images, in strips, from the image storage, queuing, by the back-end image processing system, a plurality of strip operations; and (Padwick, paragraph 163,
PNG
media_image1.png
142
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
executing the queue of the plurality of strip operations, on the strips of the geospatial images, in parallel, using the second plurality of nodes of the cloud computing infrastructure, to generate the geospatial mosaic image. (Padwick, “[0236] In view of the foregoing, it may be appreciated that each of the automatic source selection, automatic outline generation, and radiometric normalization may be utilized to produce a high spatial resolution orthomosaic image from source geospatial images as described above. For instance, a finished orthomosaic 30 for the area of interest 400 corresponding with Sardinia is shown in FIG. 23. In this regard, for each tile 400 in the area of interest 400, the selected chip 24 may be disposed in the mosaic based on the corresponding geographic coverage of the chip 24. That is, the selected images 22 may be located in the mosaic 30 based on their geographic coverage.”)
While Padwick discloses the algorithm, it does not expressly discloses the cloud computing infrastructure.
Beckett discloses using cloud computing (Beckett, paragraph 114 and 170)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to use cloud computing to perform the function of Beckett
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been better scalability and using community sourced imagery.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Padwick with Beckett to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Padwick in view of Beckett discloses 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising automatically populating the area of interest with the browse version images of the at least a portion of the geospatial images in the map display of the user interface based on metadata information regarding the geospatial images corresponding to the area of interest. (Padwick, paragraph 12, “[0012] Furthermore, it may be appreciated that such automatic cutline generation techniques, when applied to very large images (e.g., very high resolution geospatial images) may require large computational resources. In this regard, a "brute force" approach where each and every adjacent pixel pair of overlapping portions of an image are analyzed to determine the cutline may inefficiently utilize computational resources, adding to the time and cost of generating orthomosaics. Accordingly, the automatic cutline generation described herein comprises a staged approach using downsampled or low resolution versions of high-resolution images at least a portion of the automatic cutline generation. For example, in an embodiment, a low resolution cutline is determined based on downsampled versions of the images to be merged. The low resolution cutline is then expanded to define a cutline area defined by cutline area boundaries. The cutline area boundaries from the low resolution image may be applied to the high-resolution version of the images to define a corresponding cutline area in the high-resolution images. In turn, the analysis of adjacent pixels may be limited to the subset (e.g., a subset of pixels of the images less than all of the pixels) of pixels defined within the cutline area such that the amount of computational resources is reduced and the speed at which the analysis is performed may be increased. In this regard, a second stage of the determination of a high resolution cutline may be performed. As such, a high resolution cutline may be determined without having to perform calculations with respect to each and every overlapping pixel of the merged image.”)
Padwick in view of Beckett 3. The method of claim 2, further comprising: searching the image storage for the at least a portion of the geospatial images based on metadata information; and presenting geospatial image search results comprising browse version images to the user in the map display. (Padwick, “[0237] Notably, the foregoing description includes automated processes such that upon identification of an area of interest and an identification of source of geospatial images, the process for generating a mosaic may be, in at least some embodiments, completely automated.”, where completely automated identification of source images would require searching automatically based on metadata; see claim 2 for the presenting step)
Padwick in view of Beckett 5. The method of claim 1, further comprising performing, by the back-end image processing system, at least one correction technique on one or more of the geospatial images, prior to executing the queue of the plurality of strip operations. (Padwick, paragraph 86, “The images to be selected for inclusion in a mosaic may comprise raw image data or pre-processed geospatial images (e.g., that have undergone orthorectification, pan-sharpening, or other processes known in the art that are commonly applied to geospatial imagery).”f
Padwick in view of Beckett 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the at least one correction technique includes one or more of orthorectification, atmospheric compensation, and pan sharpening on the geospatial images. (Padwick, paragraph 86, “The images to be selected for inclusion in a mosaic may comprise raw image data or pre-processed geospatial images (e.g., that have undergone orthorectification, pan-sharpening, or other processes known in the art that are commonly applied to geospatial imagery).”
Padwick in view of Beckett 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising storing the strips of the geospatial images in a scalable cloud objects storage for access by the second plurality of nodes of the cloud computing infrastructure, based on the strip operations being queued. (Beckett, paragraph 170, 0“[0170] In another example aspect of the system, the system is configured for auto scaling. Auto scaling allows the system to scale its cloud computing capacity up or down automatically according to predefined conditions. With auto scaling, the system is able to increase the amount of data space or units of cloud computing power seamlessly during demand spikes to maintain performance, and to decrease the amount of data space or units of cloud computing power automatically during demand lulls to reduce costs. Auto scaling is particularly well suited for applications that experience hourly, daily, or weekly variability in usage.”)
Padwick in view of Beckett discloses 8. The method of claim 7, further comprising: receiving, by the back-end image processing system, confirmation of availability of image tiles for ones of the geospatial images; determining, by the back-end image processing system, available tile-level operations capable of being performed for image tiles corresponding to the mosaic recipe for a given geographically indexed tile; generating a queue of tile-level operations comprising the available tile-level operations to be performed relative to the image tiles; and executing, by the back-end image processing system, the queue of operations to generate the geospatial mosaic image. (Beckett, paragraph 255-258, “[0255] The encoder service module saves the scene in the scene catalog database (1220). A confirmation that the scene has been updated may be sent from the scene database to the encoder service module (1221).
[0256] After operation 1220, the encoder service module sends a notification to the ESB notifying that the scene is ready for example, so that the MTS can perform operations (1222). A confirmation from the ESB may be sent to the encoder service module indicating that the notification has been received (1223).
[0257] Responsive to the confirmation in operation 1223, the encoder service module may send a confirmation to the encoded tiler indication that the ESB has been notified that the scene is ready (1224).
[0258] Responsive to the received confirmation in operation 1224, the encoding tiler may send a confirmation to the worker node that the scene is also ready (1225), in order to ensure the queue is cleared of existing encoding jobs for the encoding tile job“)
Padwick in view of Beckett 9. The method of claim 8, further comprising storing the image tiles in a scalable cloud objects storage for access by the second plurality of nodes of the cloud computing infrastructure, based on the tile-level operations being queued. (Beckett, paragraph 170, 0“[0170] In another example aspect of the system, the system is configured for auto scaling. Auto scaling allows the system to scale its cloud computing capacity up or down automatically according to predefined conditions. With auto scaling, the system is able to increase the amount of data space or units of cloud computing power seamlessly during demand spikes to maintain performance, and to decrease the amount of data space or units of cloud computing power automatically during demand lulls to reduce costs. Auto scaling is particularly well suited for applications that experience hourly, daily, or weekly variability in usage.”)
Claims 11-13,15-19 are rejected under similar grounds as claims 1-3, 5-9.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padwick in view of Beckett in further view of Kumar (US-2015/0363641).
Padwick in view of Beckett discloses 4. The method of claim 1,
But does not expressly disclose “further comprising creating an image stack of the browse version images comprising a plurality of zoom level instances of the map display; and in response to zooming in or out input to the map display, retrieving a different one of the plurality of zoom level instances and displaying the browse versions images for the different one of the plurality of zoom level instances.”
Kumar discloses “further comprising creating an image stack of the browse version images comprising a plurality of zoom level instances of the map display; and in response to zooming in or out input to the map display, retrieving a different one of the plurality of zoom level instances and displaying the browse versions images for the different one of the plurality of zoom level instances.”(Kumar, Para 203:
PNG
media_image2.png
85
839
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; Kumar describes a predefined plurality of zoom level;
Kumar, Para 204:
PNG
media_image3.png
237
844
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; Kumar describes a corresponding image layer and spatial resolution for each of the predefined zoom levels. Zoom levels can be sorted in a magnification level stack; )
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the systems and methods of Padwick in view of Beckett such that a progressive list of images with different spatial resolution was created to reflect corresponding zoom levels on a map display, as taught by Kumar.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to throttle the computational expense of image presentation to the display by only using a browse version image resolution appropriate for the corresponding zoom level.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Padwick in view of Beckett with Kumar to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claim 14 is rejected under similar grounds as claim 4.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padwick in view of Beckett oin further view of Furlani et al. (US-6741255-B1).
Padwick in view of Beckett discloses 10. The method of claim 1,
But does not expressly disclose “wherein executing the queue of the plurality of strip operations includes executing the queue of the plurality of strip operations in relation to a temporal order in which the geospatial images are received at a scalable cloud storage with parallel operations performed according to a directed acyclic graph (DAG).”
Furlani discloses “wherein executing the queue of the plurality of strip operations includes executing the queue of the plurality of strip operations in relation to a temporal order in which the geospatial images are received at a scalable cloud storage with parallel operations performed according to a directed acyclic graph (DAG).” ((Furlani, Col 1, Lines 58-61:
PNG
media_image4.png
134
642
media_image4.png
Greyscale
; Furlani describes the invention to include a sequence of operations performed on individual tiles of an image;
Furlani, Col 6, Lines 8-10:
PNG
media_image5.png
98
638
media_image5.png
Greyscale
;)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the systems and methods of Padwick in view Beckett such that a directed acyclic graph was used to govern the processing of geospatial images, as taught by Furlani.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to encourage scalability given larger input sets of lesion images.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Padwick in view of Beckett with Furlani to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Claim 20 is rejected under similar grounds as claim 10
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GANDHI THIRUGNANAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5PM.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/GANDHI THIRUGNANAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights