DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action in response to communications received on 11/22/2024. 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 filed on 11/22/2024 are acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 9 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 4 recites “ …. a request to update the remote operation with the locomotive”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “ …. causing the brake system of the train to apply the preselected force to the brake of the train…”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11-12, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Klemanski (US 2017/0305449) in view of Liberatore (US 8,538,610).
Regarding claim 1, Klemanski discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
A method performed by an on-board controller onboard a lead locomotive of a train comprising the lead locomotive and a trailing locomotive different from the lead locomotive, the method comprising: receiving an activation command for a remote operation of the lead locomotive and a target locomotive; (Klemanski, Paras. [0009]-[0014], [0021]-[0027], [0032], [0035], Clause 1, [0039], Clause 5, “…an on-board computer programmed or configured to implement or facilitate at least one train action…”, “… the communication device … is programmed or configured to … transmit the data representing an independent brake demand and the data representing an automatic brake demand to the at least one trailing locomotive …”, “… the communication device … is programmed or configured to directly or indirectly transmit the data … via an ECP brake trainline …”, discloses a train having a lead locomotive/control car, at least one trailing locomotive/control car, and onboard computer/controller. Therefore, the lead locomotive controller receives and processes commands for controlling both the lead locomotive and remote trailing locomotive).
based on receiving the activation command, establishing communication between the lead locomotive and the target locomotive; (Klemanski, Paras. [0009]-[0014], [0021]-[0027], [0032], [0035], Clause 1, [0039], Clause 5, “…the communication device … is programmed or configured to directly or indirectly transmit the data…”, “… the communication device … is programmed or configured to directly or indirectly transmit the data … via an ECP brake trainline …”. Therefore, the communication between lead and trailing locomotive is expressly established through the ECP communication path).
including: causing a brake system of the train to apply a preselected force to a brake of the train, (Klemanski, Paras. [0015]-[0016], [0019]-[0024], [0028], [0047]-[0052], and Clauses 3-4, 11-12, teaches applying a braking force, and various percentage brake applications corresponding to one of multiple selectable brake force levels).
and based on confirming that the target locomotive matches the trailing locomotive, automatically allowing the remote operation of the train. (Klemanski, Paras. [0013]-[0016], [0020]-[0027], teaches when the locomotive is determined to be the trailing locomotive, then braking control based on the received commands may be executed).
Klemanski does not explicitly disclose:
determining whether the target locomotive matches the trailing locomotive,
receiving, from the target locomotive, target brake pipe pressure data indicative of a brake pipe pressure of the target locomotive, causing a monitored system of the train to monitor trailing brake pipe pressure data indicative of a brake pipe pressure of the trailing locomotive, determining whether the target brake pipe pressure data matches the trailing brake pipe pressure data, and based on determining that the target brake pipe pressure data matches the trailing brake pipe pressure data, confirming that the target locomotive matches the trailing locomotive;
However, Liberatore teaches:
determining whether the target locomotive matches the trailing locomotive, (Liberatore, Col. 1, ll. 50-65, “… a need to accurately and consistently determine whether a locomotive in a consist is in leading mode or trailing mode”, Col. 2, ll. 1-12, “… communicative connection for obtaining a pressure measurement at the port, wherein a comparison of the pressure measurement at the port to a value associated with a pressure of another component in the locomotive is indicative of whether the locomotive is in the leading mode or the trailing mode …”, Col. 7, ll. 20-25, “The determination of whether both port 63 and 53 are connected to the main reservoir air or only port 63, is based on the model of the braking system the lead (controlling) locomotive 4 is equipped with and is determined by the operator. This is evident from the two trail positions available on the MU-2-A valve 34”, and Col. 8, ll. 1-34, shows that the pressure switch output used to determine lead/trail status. Therefore, teaches obtaining pressure measurements from locomotives and comparing the measurements to determine locomotive status such as lead/trailing status, and suggests comparison of pressure data associated with locomotives in the consist to verify locomotive status/identity).
receiving, from the target locomotive, target brake pipe pressure data indicative of a brake pipe pressure of the target locomotive, (Liberatore, Col. 2, ll. 1-12, Col. 3, ll. 13-32, “… obtaining pressure measurement from locomotive port…”, a pressure reading at port 63 indicative of locomotive operating mode, and pressure at port 63 measured and compared. Therefore, teaches obtaining pressure data from the locomotive).
causing a monitored system of the train to monitor trailing brake pipe pressure data indicative of a brake pipe pressure of the trailing locomotive, (Liberatore, Col. 3, ll. 13-32, Col. 8, ll. 26-65, control system receives pressure indication from pressure switch, and pressure measurement device obtains pressure reading. Therefore, teaches a control system monitoring brake pipe related pressure data from the locomotive).
determining whether the target brake pipe pressure data matches the trailing brake pipe pressure data, (Liberatore, Col. 2, ll. 20-29, Col. 3, ll. 13-32, Col. 7, ll. 20-48, Col. 8, ll. 26-65, shows comparing pressure measurement to pressure of another component, determining based on the pressure measurement, and the reading is compared to expected values of pressure. Therefore, teaches comparison of pressure measurements to determine the locomotive mode/status).
based on determining that the target brake pipe pressure data matches the trailing brake pipe pressure data, confirming that the target locomotive matches the trailing locomotive; (Liberatore, Col. 7, ll. 20-48, Col. 8, ll. 1-32, shows pressure comparison indicates whether locomotive is in trail or lead position, and pressure switch status is used to determine lead or trail status. Therefore, teaches obtaining pressure measurements from locomotives and comparing the measurements to determine locomotive status such as lead/trailing status, and suggests comparison of pressure data associated with locomotives in the consist to verify locomotive status/identity).
Klemanski and Liberatore are combinable, because both are from the same field of railroad locomotive control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize lead/trail determination techniques as taught by Liberatore, in order to improve operational safety and reduce the risk of unintended remote control.
As per claims 11 and 16, claims 11 and 16 encompass same or similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claims 11 and 16 are rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Klemanski and Liberatore disclose the limitations of claim 1. Klemanski and Liberatore disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the target locomotive matches the trailing locomotive of the train further comprises: based on determining that the target brake pipe pressure data does not match the trailing brake pipe pressure data, determining that the target locomotive does not match the trailing locomotive. (Liberatore, Col. 2, ll. 1-12, Col. 3, ll. 12-32, Col. 7, ll. 20-63, Col. 8, ll. 1-32, 55-65, shows obtaining a pressure measurement and comparing the measurement to another pressure value to determine whether locomotive is in leading mode or trailing mode. And the determination is based on pressure measurement and comparison. If pressure corresponds to one state, then the locomotive is determined to be in trailing mode, otherwise not be in trail mode, the control system determines lead/trail status from pressure indications. Therefore, teaches making a determination from a pressure comparison, when the condition is satisfied, then the locomotive is trail locomotive, if not satisfied, then it is not a trail locomotive).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Klemanski and Liberatore disclose the limitations of claims 1-2. Klemanski and Liberatore discloses:
The method of claim 2, further comprising: based on determining that the target locomotive does not match the trailing locomotive, (Liberatore, Col. 2, ll. 1-12, Col. 3, ll. 12-32, Col. 7, ll. 20-63, Col. 8, ll. 1-32, 55-65, shows that the determining lead/trail status is used by a control system 66 to decide whether a locomotive is the lead or trailing locomotive. And further teaches that the pressure switch 64 generating ON/Off status, and control system 66 reads the status. Determining locomotive lead/trail status, and using the determination for locomotive control functions).
automatically preventing the remote operation of the train. (Klemanski, Paras. [0014]-[0016], [0021]-[0023], “…the communication device of the lead locomotive or control car is programmed or configured to directly or indirectly transmit the data representing an independent brake demand and the data representing an automatic brake demand to the at least one trailing locomotive or control car via an electronically-controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake trainline connecting the lead locomotive or control car to the at least one trailing locomotive or control car ….”, teaches that the remote control commands are transmitted and executed through the control system/controller).
Although neither of references recite “preventing remote operation”, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to prevent execution of remote control when the locomotive is determined not to be the proper trailing locomotive. Please note that, preventing execution of commands would have been an obvious use of the comparison results.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Klemanski and Liberatore disclose the limitations of claim 1. Klemanski and Liberatore disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the target brake pipe pressure data matches the trailing brake pipe pressure data includes: (Klemanski, Paras. [0014]-[0016], [0021]-[0023], [0065], [0076]-[0084], teaches communication between a lead locomotive and trailing locomotive, transmission of commands and information).
determining whether the target brake pipe pressure data matches the trailing brake pipe pressure data within a preselected range of brake pipe pressure. (Liberatore, Col. 7, ll. 53-67, Col. 8, ll. 1-25, “The pressure switch 64 in this embodiment is configured to turn "ON" when the pressure exceeds a specified set point (e.g. 50 PSI) and turn "OFF" when it drops below a pressure switch threshold …”, teaches pressure threshold, set points, hysteresis, and acceptable pressure ranges. Therefore, teaches obtaining pressure measurements from locomotive brake system components and comparing the measurements to determine locomotive status such as lead/trailing status, and suggests comparison of pressure data associated with locomotives in the consist to verify locomotive status/identity).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Klemanski and Liberatore disclose the limitations of claim 1. Klemanski discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein causing the brake system of the train to apply the preselected force to the brake of the train includes applying a set of preselected forces. (Klemanski, Paras. [0015]-[0016], [0019]-[0024], [0028], [0047]-[0052], and Clauses 3-4, 11-12, teaches various percentage brake applications corresponding to one of multiple selectable brake force levels (i.e., set of preselected forces)).
Regarding claim 12, Klemanski and Liberatore disclose the limitations of claim 11. Klemanski and Liberatore disclose:
The on-board controller of claim 11, wherein determining whether the target locomotive matches the trailing locomotive of the train further comprises: based on determining that the target brake pipe pressure data does not match the trailing brake pipe pressure data, determining that the target locomotive does not match the trailing locomotive, (Liberatore, Col. 2, ll. 1-12, Col. 3, ll. 12-32, Col. 7, ll. 20-63, Col. 8, ll. 1-32, 55-65, shows obtaining a pressure measurement and comparing the measurement to another pressure value to determine whether locomotive is in leading mode or trailing mode. And the determination is based on pressure measurement and comparison. If pressure corresponds to one state, then the locomotive is determined to be in trailing mode, otherwise not be in trail mode, the control system determines lead/trail status from pressure indications. Therefore, teaches making a determination from a pressure comparison, when the condition is satisfied, then the locomotive is trail locomotive, if not satisfied, then it is not a trail locomotive).
and automatically preventing the remote operation of the train. (Klemanski, Paras. [0014]-[0016], [0021]-[0023], “…the communication device of the lead locomotive or control car is programmed or configured to directly or indirectly transmit the data representing an independent brake demand and the data representing an automatic brake demand to the at least one trailing locomotive or control car via an electronically-controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake trainline connecting the lead locomotive or control car to the at least one trailing locomotive or control car ….”, teaches that the remote control commands are transmitted and executed through the control system/controller).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 11 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 17, claim 17 encompass same or similar scope as claim 12. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 12.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Klemanski (US 2017/0305449) in view of Liberatore (US 8,538,610), and further in view of Abrosimov (US 2021/0229715).
Regarding claim 4, Klemanski and Liberatore disclose the limitations of claims 1-3. Klemanski, Liberatore and Abrosimov disclose:
The method of claim 3, further comprising: transmitting a notification (Abrosimov, Paras. [0024]-[0025], [0041]-[0044], “The EOT device 104 may be programmed or configured to generate or receive an information notification …”, “The HOT device 102 may be programmed or configured to generate or receive an information notification…”, “The HOT device 102 may be programmed or configured to communicate an information notification…”).
including: the target locomotive does not match the trailing locomotive, (Liberatore, Col. 2, ll. 1-12, Col. 3, ll. 12-32, Col. 7, ll. 20-63, Col. 8, ll. 1-32, 55-65, shows that the determining lead/trail status is used by a control system 66 to decide whether a locomotive is the lead or trailing locomotive. And further teaches that the pressure switch 64 generating ON/Off status, and control system 66 reads the status. Determining locomotive lead/trail status, and using the determination for locomotive control functions).
the remote operation of the train is rejected, (Klemanski, Paras. [0014]-[0016], [0021]-[0023], “…the communication device of the lead locomotive or control car is programmed or configured to directly or indirectly transmit the data representing an independent brake demand and the data representing an automatic brake demand to the at least one trailing locomotive or control car via an electronically-controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake trainline connecting the lead locomotive or control car to the at least one trailing locomotive or control car ….”, teaches that the remote control commands are transmitted and executed through the control system/controller).
and a request to update the remote operation with the locomotive. (Abrosimov, Paras. [0024]-[0025], [0028], [0032]-[0034], [0037]-[0042], “The HOT device 102 can include a COMM TEST/ARM button to initiate a status update request (SUR)……….. the EOT device 104 responds by transmitting a second authorization signal. This signal contains a special message identifier and confirmation bit. Upon receiving the response from the EOT device 104, ………………. the HOT device 102 then displays the ARMED message and stores in its nonvolatile memory the identification code of the new EOT device 104 thereby overwriting the previously stored code.”, “The HOT device 102 may be programmed or configured to communicate an information notification…”, “The on-board computer 120a can receive updates from some remote server …”. Therefore, teaches transmitting notifications and receiving updates from remote systems).
Klemanski, Liberatore and Abrosimov are combinable, because all are from the same field of railroad locomotive control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to transmit a notification and request an update of locomotive information as taught by Abrosimov, in order to improve operational safety and reliability.
Claims 5-7, 10, 13-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Klemanski (US 2017/0305449) in view of Liberatore (US 8,538,610), and further in view of Kellner (US 2009/0248226).
Regarding claim 5, Klemanski and Liberatore disclose the limitations of claim 1. Klemanski, Liberatore and Kellner disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the target locomotive matches the trailing locomotive of the train further comprises: determining whether the lead locomotive and the trailing locomotive face a same direction, (Kellner, Paras. [0003]-[0006], [0028]-[0031], [0038], “As shown in FIG. 4, the short hood 15A of the remote locomotive 15 is facing in the same orientation in the train as the short hood 14A of the lead locomotive 14”, “… short hood forward…”, “… long hood forward…”, “…the verification…before the train 13 begins moving…”. Therefore, teaches determining locomotive orientation, whether locomotive face the same direction, or opposite directions, and verifies the correctness of the setup).
and based on determining that the lead locomotive and the trailing locomotive face the same direction, confirming that the target locomotive matches the trailing locomotive. (Kellner, Paras. [0003]-[0006], [0028]-[0031], [0035], “When the controller 24 determines there is an error, or the remote locomotive 15 setup data does not match the status data, an alarm may be generated so as to inform the operator ….”. Therefore, teaches using orientation information as a verification, before accepting a locomotive as target locomotive).
Klemanski, Liberatore and Kellner are combinable, because all are from the same field of railroad locomotive control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the confirmation process to determine whether the lead locomotive and trailing locomotive face the same direction as taught by Kellner, in order to improve operational safety and reliability of the selected locomotive.
Regarding claim 6, Klemanski, Liberatore and Kellner disclose the limitations of claim 5. Klemanski, Liberatore and Kellner disclose:
The method of claim 5, further comprising: based on determining that the lead locomotive and the trailing locomotive do not face the same direction, (Kellner, Paras. [0003]-[0006], [0028], [0031]-[0036], [0040], teaches determining whether locomotives are oriented in the same or opposite direction (i.e., does not match)).
determining that the target locomotive does not match the trailing locomotive. (Liberatore, Col. 2, ll. 1-12, Col. 3, ll. 12-32, Col. 7, ll. 20-63, 45-67, Col. 8, ll. 1-32, 55-65, shows that the control system determines lead/trailing status from pressure measurements. And further teaches determining whether a locomotive corresponds to a trailing locomotive by the lead/trailing status and information (i.e., match)).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 5 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Klemanski, Liberatore and Kellner disclose the limitations of claim 5. Klemanski, Liberatore and Kellner disclose:
The method of claim 5, wherein determining whether the lead locomotive and the trailing locomotive face the same direction includes: (Kellner, Paras. [0003]-[0006], [0028], [0031]-[0036], [0040], teaches determining whether locomotives are oriented in the same or opposite direction (i.e., does not match)).
causing the trailing locomotive to move within an allowable distance; (Kellner, Paras. [0003]-[0006], [0028]-[0032], [0036]-[0040], commanding the remote locomotive to move, detecting wheel rotation and direction of movement, determining orientation using GPS/receiver, and verifying the setup. Therefore, teaches moving the locomotive after a setup, so the orientation and movement direction can be verified).
and determining a direction of movement of the trailing locomotive. (Kellner, Paras. [0003]-[0006], [0028]-[0031], [0036]-[0040], GPS and receiver data are used to determine the movement direction).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 5 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claims 14 and 19, claims 14 and 19 encompass same or similar scope as claim 7. Therefore, claims 14 and 19 are rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Klemanski and Liberatore disclose the limitations of claim 1. Kellner discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the activation command includes; receiving the activation command while the train is stationary. (Kellner, Paras. [0028]-[0031], [0037]-[0041], “In order for the distributed power control system to be "set up" properly, an operator (not shown) will board the cab of the remote locomotive 15 and enter "SAME" on the display module 17A, and setup data for the SAME”, teaches receiving setup/activation information during the setup process. “…the verification of the power distribution system setup may be done before the train 13 begins moving on the track 18”, “In step 40 one or more remote locomotives are set up for linking to the lead locomotive”, GPS and receiver data are used to determine the movement direction. Therefore, teaches performing setup/verification activities before train movement (i.e., train in stationary)).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 5 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claims 15 and 20, claims 15 and 20 encompass same or similar scope as claim 10. Therefore, claims 15 and 20 are rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, Klemanski and Liberatore disclose the limitations of claim 11. Kellner discloses:
The on-board controller of claim 11, wherein determining whether the target locomotive matches the trailing locomotive of the train further comprises: determining whether the lead locomotive and the trailing locomotive face a same direction, (Kellner, Paras. [0003]-[0006], [0028]-[0031], [0038], “As shown in FIG. 4, the short hood 15A of the remote locomotive 15 is facing in the same orientation in the train as the short hood 14A of the lead locomotive 14”, “… short hood forward…”, “… long hood forward…”, “…the verification…before the train 13 begins moving…”. Therefore, teaches determining locomotive orientation, whether locomotive face the same direction, or opposite directions, and verifies the correctness of the setup).
based on determining that the lead locomotive and the trailing locomotive face the same direction, confirming that the target locomotive matches the trailing locomotive, (Kellner, Paras. [0003]-[0006], [0028]-[0031], [0035], “When the controller 24 determines there is an error, or the remote locomotive 15 setup data does not match the status data, an alarm may be generated so as to inform the operator ….”. Therefore, teaches using orientation information as a verification, before accepting a locomotive as target locomotive).
and based on determining that the lead locomotive and the trailing locomotive do not face the same direction, (Kellner, Paras. [0003]-[0006], [0028], [0031]-[0036], [0040], teaches determining whether locomotives are oriented in the same or opposite direction (i.e., does not match)).
determining that the target locomotive does not match the trailing locomotive. (Liberatore, Col. 2, ll. 1-12, Col. 3, ll. 12-32, Col. 7, ll. 20-63, 45-67, Col. 8, ll. 1-32, 55-65, shows that the control system determines lead/trailing status from pressure measurements. And further teaches determining whether a locomotive corresponds to a trailing locomotive by the lead/trailing status and information (i.e., match)).
Klemanski, Liberatore and Kellner are combinable, because all are from the same field of railroad locomotive control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the confirmation process to determine whether the lead locomotive and trailing locomotive face the same direction as taught by Kellner, in order to improve operational safety and reliability of the selected locomotive.
As per claim 18, claim 18 encompass same or similar scope as claim 13. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 13.
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Kernwein (US 2019/0344764) teaches a controller receiving train control data which includes information associated with the main reservoir pressure, brake pipe pressure, and brake cylinder pressure.
Fernandez (US 5,738,311) teaches comparing the speed and distance traveled of the lead and remote locomotives.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH BARZEGAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4755.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Samuel Morano can be reached on 571-272-6684. 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/patentcenter 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.
/P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights