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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1-3 and 5 are currently pending.
2. Claim 4 is canceled.
3. Claims 1-3 and 5 are currently amended.
4. The 112(a) and 112(b) rejections to Claims 1-3 and 5 have not been overcome.
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.
5. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
6. 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 limitations in Claims 1 and 5 are:
A current position detector
A docking position determinator
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.
7. Claims 1-3 and 5 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 claims contain 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 2-3, have been included based on its dependency.
The disclosure does not describe the claimed functions of “a current position detector configured to detect a current position of the boat” and “a docking position determinator configured to determine a docking position,” which are critical or essential to the practice of the invention. The omitted subject matter is critical for one of ordinary skill in the art to know what specific computer components may accomplish the claimed functionality.
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.
8. Claims 1-3, 5 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 2-4, have been included based on its dependency.
9. Claim limitation including “a current position detector configured to detect a current position of the boat” and “a docking position determinator configured to determine a docking position” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. A current position detector and a docking position determinator are being interpreted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as a processor for the determination of positions.
10. The disclosure does not explicitly define the structure of the current position detector and the docking position determinator. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dake (US 20210347449 A1) in view of Tyers (US 20220206496 A1).
15. Regarding Claim 1, Dake teaches an automatic docking device for automatically docking a boat, the boat including (Dake: [0040]):
A boat propulsor configured to generate a propulsion force of the boat (Dake: [0044]);
A propulsion direction variable mechanism configured to change a left-right direction of the propulsion force (Dake: [0045]);
And a joystick boat maneuvering device including an operation lever, a manual operation processor, and a propulsion controller, the manual operation processor being configured to (Dake: [0060]):
Detect a displacement of the operation lever in a case where the operation lever is operated (Dake: [0060]);
And output a lever operation signal corresponding to the detected displacement of the operation lever to the propulsion controller, and the propulsion controller is configured to control the boat propulsor and the propulsion force variable mechanism, based on the lever operation signal, to move the boat, the automatic docking device comprising (Dake: [0060]);
A current position detector configured to detect a current position of the boat based on radio wave received (Dake: [0051] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a GNSS device uses radio waves to transmit and receive signals.);
A docking position determinator configured to determine a docking position based on a designated docking position (Dake: [0017]);
And an automatic docking processor configured to, in a case where the operation lever is not operated and an instruction to automatically dock the boat is input, output a lever operation signal to the propulsion controller of the joystick boat maneuvering device, the lever operation signal corresponding to a displacement of the operation lever, the displacement being required to move the boat from the current position of the boat detected by the current position detector to the docking position determined by the docking position determinator (Dake: [0011] and [0064]).
Dake fails to explicitly teach the automatic docking processor is configured to, in a case where the operation lever is operated while the lever operation signal is being output from the automatic docking processor to the propulsion controller, stop outputting the lever operation signal from the automatic docking processor to the propulsion controller.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tyers teaches the automatic docking processor is configured to, in a case where the operation lever is operated while the lever operation signal is being output from the automatic docking processor to the propulsion controller, stop outputting the lever operation signal from the automatic docking processor to the propulsion controller (Tyers: [0047] and [0119]).
Dake and Tyers are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of marine vessel control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dake to incorporate the teachings of Tyers to stop outputting the lever operation signal from the automatic docking processor in a case where the operation lever is operated while the lever operation signal is being output because it provides the benefit of quickly disengaging the automatic docking operation when requested by the operator to move the vessel from its holding position as explicitly explained [0119] of Tyers.
16. Regarding Claim 3, Dake and Tyers remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Dake teaches the boat includes an object detection device configured to detect an obstacle around the boat, and the automatic docking processor is configured to (Dake: [0019], [0020], and [0025]):
Determine a route along which the boat is moved from the current position of the boat detected by the current position detector to the docking position determined by the docking position determinator without the boat coming into contact with the obstacle detected by the object detection device (Dake: [0024] and [0093]);
And output a lever operation signal to the propulsion controller of the joystick boat maneuvering device, the lever operation signal corresponding to a displacement of the operation lever required to move the boat along the route (Dake: [0027] and [0061]).
17. Regarding Claim 5, Dake teaches an automatic docking system for automatically docking a boat, the automatic docking system comprising (Dake: [0040]):
A boat propulsor configured to generate a propulsion force of the boat (Dake: [0044]);
A propulsion direction variable mechanism configured to change a left-right direction of the propulsion force (Dake: [0045]);
A joystick boat maneuvering device; and an automatic docking device, wherein the joystick boat maneuvering device includes an operation lever, a manual operation processor, and a propulsion controller, the manual operation processor is configured to (Dake: [0060]):
Detect a displacement of the operation lever in a case where the operation lever is operated, and output a lever operation signal to the propulsion controller, the lever operation signal corresponding to the detected displacement of the operation lever (Dake: [0060]),
The propulsion controller is configured to control the boat propulsor and the propulsion direction variable mechanism, based on the lever operation signal, to move the boat, and the automatic docking device includes (Dake: [0060]):
A current position detector configured to detect a current position of the boat based on radio wave received (Dake: [0051] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a GNSS device uses radio waves to transmit and receive signals.);
A docking position determinator configured to determine a docking position based on a designated docking position (Dake: [0017]);
And an automatic docking processor configured to, in a case where the operation lever is not operated and an instruction to automatically dock the boat is input, output a lever operation signal to the propulsion controller of the joystick boat maneuvering device, the lever operation signal corresponding to a displacement of the operation lever, the displacement being required to move the boat from the current position of the boat detected by the current position detector to the docking position determined by the docking position determinator (Dake: [0011] and [0064]).
Dake fails to explicitly teach the automatic docking processor is configured to, in a case where the operation lever is operated while the lever operation signal is being output from the automatic docking processor to the propulsion controller, stop outputting the lever operation signal from the automatic docking processor to the propulsion controller.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tyers teaches the automatic docking processor is configured to, in a case where the operation lever is operated while the lever operation signal is being output from the automatic docking processor to the propulsion controller, stop outputting the lever operation signal from the automatic docking processor to the propulsion controller (Tyers: [0047] and [0119]).
Dake and Tyers are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of marine vessel control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dake to incorporate the teachings of Tyers to stop outputting the lever operation signal from the automatic docking processor in a case where the operation lever is operated while the lever operation signal is being output because it provides the benefit of quickly disengaging the automatic docking operation when requested by the operator to move the vessel from its holding position as explicitly explained [0119] of Tyers.
18. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dake (US 20210347449 A1), in view of Tyers (US 20220206496 A1), and in further view of Johnson (EP 3639104 B1; already of record).
19. Regarding Claim 2, Dake and Tyers remain as applied above in Claim 1.
Dake fails to explicitly teach in a case where the displacement of the operation lever by an operation on the operation lever and the displacement of the operation lever required to move the boat from the current position of the boat detected by the current position detector to the docking position determined by the docking position determinator are the same, the automatic docking processor outputs a lever operation signal to the propulsion controller, the lever operation signal being same as the lever operation signal output from the manual operation processor to the propulsion controller.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Johnson teaches in a case where the displacement of the operation lever by an operation on the operation lever and the displacement of the operation lever required to move the boat from the current position of the boat detected by the current position detector to the docking position determined by the docking position determinator are the same, the automatic docking processor outputs a lever operation signal to the propulsion controller, the lever operation signal being same as the lever operation signal output from the manual operation processor to the propulsion controller (Johnson: [0096] and [0180] Note that the displacement of the operation lever by an operation on the operation lever and the displacement of the operation lever required to move the boat being the same is interpreted as initializing the autonomous docking when the vessel speed is at a predefined threshold.).
Dake, Tyers, and Johnson are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of marine vessel control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dake and Tyers to incorporate the teachings of Johnson to output a lever operation signal from the automatic docking processor in a case where the displacement of the operation lever by an operation on the operator lever and the displacement on the operation lever required to move the boat are the same because it provides the benefit of the user deciding when to engage the autonomous docking process as explicitly explained in [0096] of Johnson.
Response to Arguments
20. Applicant's arguments regarding the U.S.C 112(a) and 112(b) rejections filed 4/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
21. First, the Applicant has alleged "As these terms are deemed to contain structure, then the Applicant has done what the Examiner suggested in item 9(a), page 6 of the Office Action, namely, the claims have been amended so that the claim interpretation will no longer be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Therefore, the claims are deemed to be such that they convey that the inventor(s) at the time the application was filed has possession of the claimed invention and that they are definite." The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant replaces the generic placeholders of a current position diction unit and docking position determination unit with different generic placeholders (current position detector and docking position determinator). As a result, it is still unclear what the specific structure of the detector and determinator are.
In order to overcome the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections, the Applicant may overcome the 112(f) interpretation of the claims. For example, the claims may be amended to remove the language that invokes the 112(f) interpretation and may recite specific structure that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize (e.g., processor or controller). However, as currently claimed, the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections remain for the same reasoning as the Non-final Office Action mailed 2/18/2026.
22. Applicant's arguments regarding the U.S.C 103 rejections filed 4/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
23. First, the Applicant has alleged "Although Dake discloses a joystick as an example of the thruster operation unit in paragraph [0060], Dake does not disclose that the thruster operation unit is provided with the processing unit and the control unit. Rather, as shown in Figure 1 of Dake, the control unit 43 is provided on the ship." The Examiner disagrees.
Nowhere in the claims does it say that the thruster operation unit is provided with the processing unit and control unit. The claims indicate a joystick boat maneuvering device including an operation lever, manual operation processor, propulsion controller, and manual operation controller. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the joystick boat maneuvering device is equivalent to the control unit 43 (that is used for manual operation), propulsion operation unit, and the joystick (operation lever). As currently claimed, there is no indication where each device included the joystick boat maneuvering device is provided. Also, it appears the Applicant is reading the claims narrower than they actually appear because "including” language recited in the claims is much broader than the "provided with" language recited in the arguments. As a result, Dake teaches a joystick boat maneuvering device that includes an operation lever, manual operation processor, propulsion controller, and manual operation processor.
24. Second, the Applicant has alleged "there is no motivation or suggestion that would achieve amended claim 1 even assuming arguendo that it was proper to combine Dake and Tyers because Tyers does not contemplate the configuration in which automatic docking is performed by the propulsion controller of a joystick boat maneuvering device." The Examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Tyers teaches in [0047] that the forward/reverse drive selector is in operation and the automatic docking system is selected to be on in order to activate it. The automatic docking system travels into a position automatically and will maintain its final position until an operator assumes control. This is equivalent to the claimed configuration of a case where the operation lever is operated while the lever operation signal is being output from the automatic docking processor to the propulsion controller to maintain the vessel final position.
Additionally, Dake teaches the configuration where the operation lever is not operated and the instruction to automatically dock the boat is input. It would have been obvious to combine Dake and Tyers because stopping the output of the lever operation signal in a case where the operation lever is operated while the lever operation signal provides the benefit of quickly disengaging the automatic docking operation when requested by the operator. This explicit motivation from [0119] of Tyers is the strongest type of motivation.
25. Third, the Applicant has alleged "in Tyers, such cancellation merely stops control by the CPU 1103 (the central processing unit 1003 may then disengage the automatic location placement system), and the type and path of the signal, as well as the configuration for receiving the signal, are different from those recited in amended claim 1." The Examiner disagrees.
As currently claimed, the automatic docking processor is stops outputting the lever operation signal from the automatic docking processor to the propulsion controller. This is equivalent to Tyers' [0047] where the automatic docking system maintains the final position until the operator assumes control [operation lever is operated]. Tyers explains the automatic docking system automatically controls the actuators to engage the main drive to stop the marine vessel at the final position. Therefore, when the operator assumes manual control, the actuators that engage the main drive are stopped. This is equivalent to stopping the output of the lever operation signal from the automatic docking processor to propulsion controller because the marine drives are no longer controlled by the automatic docking processor. Further, Tyers' operator assuming manual control is equivalent to the operation lever being operated. Before the manual operation, the lever operation signal being output from the automatic docking processor is maintaining a final position.
As a result, there is no indication from the claim language that there is a difference between the type and path of the operation signal of Tyers and the claims as currently presented. Therefore, Dake in view of Tyers teach each and every limitation of the independent claims.
26. Dake (US 20210347449 A1), in view of Tyers (US 20220206496 A1), and in further view of Johnson (EP 3639104 B1; already of record) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
27. Claims 1-3 and 5 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
28. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
29. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights