DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to RCE amendments/arguments for U.S. Application No. 19/028433 filed on April 09, 2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response Arguments
3. The Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
On Pg. 8 and 9 in regards, “Without any admissions and solely in an effort to expedite prosecution of the present application, amended claim 1 clarifies the tag information is received "by reading a tag to which the second device has written the tag information." Meyer provides no teaching or suggest of a tag, writing metadata to a tag, or reading metadata from a tag. Therefore, Meyer does not teach or suggest these features”.
Examiner replies that Meyer does teach this concept. Col. 15 Lines 21-25 and Col. 15 Lines 33-55 Meyer discloses the first user capture device deciding to record a video and the capture device annotating the content with metadata such as storing the location stamp of the location where the content was captured. The content contains the metadata that displays the capture location. Displaying the capture location is seen the reproduction location within the content. The metadata is displayed on the display device. The capture device is seen as the second content playback device. The metadata is seen as the tag information. Col. 15 Lines 45-53 Meyer discloses tags may be written within the media object. Col. 17 Lines 65-67 & Col. 18 Lines 1-10 Meyer discloses the playback player application can play content by receiving the titles. The tag information is related to titles).
On Pg. 8 and 9 in regards, “controlling the content to be continuously played from the reproduction location included in the tag information, on the first device, based on the tag information being received by the first device from the second device”.
Examiner replies that Meyer does teach this concept. Par. 0058 and Fig. 6 Jain discloses playing content on the first device from the intermediate time within the media chunk based upon the requested start time. The requested start time is seen as the tag. The first device is seen as the output device. The reproduction location is seen as the intermediate time within the media chunk. Using a request for playing content on the first device is seen as continuously playing the content from the reproduction location included in the tag. The second device is the server.
On Pg. 10 in regards, “Therefore, the cited references do not teach or suggest "receiving tag information from a second device by reading a tag to which the second device has written the tag information, the tag information including information about content displayed on the second device and a reproduction location indicating which part of the content was playing on the second device at a time of writing the tag information to the tag," as claimed. Accordingly, the cited references, whether considered alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest every feature that is claimed. As a result, independent claim 1 is patentable over the cited references.”
Examiner replies that Meyer does teach this concept. Col. 15 Lines 21-25 and Col. 15 Lines 33-55 Meyer discloses the first user capture device deciding to record a video and the capture device annotating the content with metadata such as storing the location stamp of the location where the content was captured. The content contains the metadata that displays the capture location. Displaying the capture location is seen the reproduction location within the content. The metadata is displayed on the display device. The capture device is seen as the second content playback device. The metadata is seen as the tag information. Col. 15 Lines 45-53 Meyer discloses tags may be written within the media object. Col. 17 Lines 65-67 & Col. 18 Lines 1-10 Meyer discloses the playback player application can play content by receiving the titles. The tag information is related to titles.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being in unpatentable by Meyer et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,829,368 (herein as ‘Meyer’) and further in view of view Liu et al. U.S. Patent No. 7,818,762 (herein as ‘Liu’) and Jain et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0183120 (herein as ‘Jain’).
As to claim 1 Meyer teaches a method of displaying content in a first device, the method comprising:
Receiving tag information, from a second, device by reading a tag to which the second device has written the tag information, the tag information including information about content displayed on the second device and a reproduction location indicating which part of the content was playing on the second device at a time of writing to the tag (Col. 15 Lines 21-25 and Col. 15 Lines 33-55 Meyer discloses the first user capture device deciding to record a video and the capture device annotating the content with metadata such as storing the location stamp of the location where the content was captured. The content contains the metadata that displays the capture location. Displaying the capture location is seen the reproduction location within the content. The metadata is displayed on the display device. The capture device is seen as the second content playback device. The metadata is seen as the tag information. Col. 15 Lines 45-53 Meyer discloses tags may be written within the media object. Col. 17 Lines 65-67 & Col. 18 Lines 1-10 Meyer discloses the playback player application can play content by receiving the titles. The tag information is related to titles);
Meyer does not teach but Jain teaches and controlling the content to be continuously played, from the reproduction location included in the tag information, on the first device, based on the tag information being received by the first device from the second device (Par. 0058 and Fig. 6 Jain discloses playing content on the first device from the intermediate time within the media chunk based upon the requested start time. The requested start time is seen as the tag. The first device is seen as the output device. The reproduction location is seen as the intermediate time within the media chunk. Using a request for playing content on the first device is seen as continuously playing the content from the reproduction location included in the tag. The second device is the server);
Meyer and Jain are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, transaction processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the digital broadcaster of Meyer to include digital broadcaster of Jain, to allow the device to produce content. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in order to improve personal video recorder experience (Par. 0004 Jain).
Meyer does not teach but Liu teaches wherein the content displayed on the first device is the same as the content displayed on the second device (Col. 5 Lines 3-13 Liu discloses the device can play the audiovisual content locally on multiple different devices. The device can also play from the service provider to the multiple different devices).
Meyer and Liu are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, transaction processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the digital broadcaster of Meyer to include digital broadcaster of Liu, to allow the device to obtain information from other users. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in order to obtain valuable information (Col. 1 Lines 30-43 Liu).
As to claim 5 Meyer in combination with Jain and Liu teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
Meyer teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store one or more computer programs including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to control performance of the method of claim 1. (Col. 16 Lines 43-47 Meyer disclose a computer storage medium).
As to claim 6 Meyer teaches a method of transmitting information about content in a second device, the method comprising:
And providing tag information, to a first device by writing the tag information to a tag, while displaying the content on the second device, the tag information including information about the content and a reproduction location indicating which part of the content was playing on the second device at a time of writing the tag information to the tag (Col. 15 Lines 21-25 and Col. 15 Lines 33-55 Meyer discloses the first user capture device deciding to record a video and the capture device annotating the content with metadata such as storing the location stamp of the location where the content was captured. The content contains the metadata that displays the capture location. Displaying the capture location is seen the reproduction location within the content. The metadata is displayed on the display device. The capture device is seen as the second content playback device. The metadata is seen as the tag information. Col. 15 Lines 45-53 Meyer discloses tags may be within the media object. Col. 17 Lines 65-67 & Col. 18 Lines 1-10 Meyer discloses the playback player application can play content by receiving the titles. The tag information is related to titles);
Meyer does not teach but Liu teaches wherein the content displayed as continuous playback, (Col. 10 Lines 28-37 Liu discloses the mobile television displays the content and the user provided comments associated with the content. Col. 10 Lines 25-30 Liu discloses information is submitted to the broadcaster/mobile television that is continuously displayed along with the content to the local server. Displaying information to the local server is seen as not displaying information to the user devices. The local sever is seen as the first content playback device. The user device is seen as the second content playback device);
from the reproduction location on the first device is the same as the content displayed on the second device (Col. 5 Lines 3-13 Liu discloses the device can play the audiovisual content locally on multiple different devices. The device can also play from the service provider to the multiple different devices).
Meyer and Liu are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, transaction processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the digital broadcaster of Meyer to include digital broadcaster of Liu, to allow the device to obtain information from other users. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in order to obtain valuable information (Col. 1 Lines 30-43 Liu).
Meyer does not teach but Jain teaches wherein the tag information controls the content to be continuously played on the first device from the reproduction location included in the tag information (Par. 0058 and Fig. 6 Jain discloses playing content on the first device from the intermediate time within the media chunk based upon the requested start time. The requested start time is seen as the tag. The first device is seen as the output device. The reproduction location is seen as the intermediate time within the media chunk. Using a request for playing content on the first device is seen as continuously playing the content from the reproduction location included in the tag);
Meyer and Jain are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, transaction processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the digital broadcaster of Meyer to include digital broadcaster of Jain, to allow the device to produce content. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in order to improve personal video recorder experience (Par. 0004 Jain).
As to claim 9 Meyer teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store one or more computer programs including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to control performance of the method of claim 6 (Col. 16 Lines 43-47 Meyer disclose a computer storage medium).
As to claim 10 Meyer teaches a first device for displaying content, the first device comprising:
and at least one processor configured to control the first device to: receive tag information, from a second, device by reading a tag to which the second device has written the tag information, the tag information including information about content displayed on the second device and a reproduction location indicating which part of the content was playing on the second device at a time of writing the tag information to the tag (Col. 15 Lines 21-25 and Col. 15 Lines 33-55 Meyer discloses the first user capture device deciding to record a video and the capture device annotating the content with metadata such as storing the location stamp of the location where the content was captured. The content contains the metadata that displays the capture location. Displaying the capture location is seen the reproduction location within the content. The metadata is displayed on the display device. The capture device is seen as the second content playback device. The metadata is seen as the tag information. Col. 15 Lines 45-53 Meyer discloses tags may be within the media object. Col. 17 Lines 65-67 & Col. 18 Lines 1-10 Meyer discloses the playback player application can play content by receiving the titles. The tag information is related to titles);
Meyer does not teach but Jain teaches a display; and control the display continuously display the content, from the reproduction location included in the tag information, on the first device, based on the tag information being received by the first device from the second device (Par. 0058 and Fig. 6 Jain discloses playing content on the first device from the intermediate time within the media chunk based upon the requested start time. The requested start time is seen as the tag. The first device is seen as the output device. The reproduction location is seen as the intermediate time within the media chunk. Using a request for playing content on the first device is seen as continuously playing the content from the reproduction location included in the tag. The second device is the server);
Meyer and Jain are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, transaction processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the digital broadcaster of Meyer to include digital broadcaster of Jain, to allow the device to produce content. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in order to improve personal video recorder experience (Par. 0004 Jain).
Meyer does not teach but Liu teaches wherein the content displayed on the first device is the same as the content displayed on the second device (Col. 5 Lines 3-13 Liu discloses the device can play the audiovisual content locally on multiple different devices. The device can also play from the service provider to the multiple different devices).
Meyer and Liu are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, transaction processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the digital broadcaster of Meyer to include digital broadcaster of Liu, to allow the device to obtain information from other users. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in order to obtain valuable information (Col. 1 Lines 30-43 Liu).
As to claim 12 Meyer teaches a second device for transmitting information about content, the second device comprising: a display for displaying content on the second device; and at least one processor configured to control the second device to: display content on the display; and provide tag information, to a first, device by writing the tag information to a tag while the content is displayed on the display, the tag information including information about the content and a reproduction location indicating which part of the content was playing on the second device at a time of writing the tag information to the tag (Col. 15 Lines 21-25 and Col. 15 Lines 33-55 Meyer discloses the first user capture device deciding to record a video and the capture device annotating the content with metadata such as storing the location stamp of the location where the content was captured. The content contains the metadata that displays the capture location. Displaying the capture location is seen the reproduction location within the content. The metadata is displayed on the display device. The capture device is seen as the second content playback device. The metadata is seen as the tag information. Col. 15 Lines 45-53 Meyer discloses tags may be within the media object. Col. 17 Lines 65-67 & Col. 18 Lines 1-10 Meyer discloses the playback player application can play content by receiving the titles. The tag information is related to titles);
Meyer does not teach but Liu teaches wherein the content displayed as continuous playback, (Col. 10 Lines 28-37 Liu discloses the mobile television displays the content and the user provided comments associated with the content. Col. 10 Lines 25-30 Liu discloses information is submitted to the broadcaster/mobile television that is continuously displayed along with the content to the local server. Displaying information to the local server is seen as not displaying information to the user devices. The local sever is seen as the first content playback device. The user device is seen as the second content playback device);
from the reproduction location on the first device is the same as the content displayed on the second device (Col. 5 Lines 3-13 Liu discloses the device can play the audiovisual content locally on multiple different devices. The device can also play from the service provider to the multiple different devices).
Meyer and Liu are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, transaction processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the digital broadcaster of Meyer to include digital broadcaster of Liu, to allow the device to obtain information from other users. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in order to obtain valuable information (Col. 1 Lines 30-43 Liu).
Meyer does not teach but Jain teaches wherein the tag information controls the content to be continuously played on the first device from the reproduction location included in the tag information (Par. 0058 and Fig. 6 Jain discloses playing content on the first device from the intermediate time within the media chunk based upon the requested start time. The requested start time is seen as the tag. The first device is seen as the output device. The reproduction location is seen as the intermediate time within the media chunk. Using a request for playing content on the first device is seen as continuously playing the content from the reproduction location included in the tag);
Meyer and Jain are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, transaction processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the digital broadcaster of Meyer to include digital broadcaster of Jain, to allow the device to produce content. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in order to improve personal video recorder experience (Par. 0004 Jain).
5. Claims 14-16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,829,368 (herein as ‘Meyer’) in combination with Liu et al. U.S. Patent No. 7,818,762 (herein as ‘Liu’), Jain et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0183120 (herein as ‘Jain’) and further in view of Richardson et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/00345095 (herein as ‘Richardson’).
As to claim 14 Meyer in combination with Jain and Liu teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
Meyer does not teach but Richardson teaches wherein the controlling the content to be continuously displayed comprises seamlessly playing the content that was playing on the second device on the first device without being stopped (Par. 0024 Richardson discloses playing the first video using the first event identifier on the first device and playing the same video on the second device from a second identifier).
Meyer and Richardson are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, transaction processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the digital broadcaster of Meyer to include playing videos on different devices of Richardson, to allow the user to continue with watching the same content. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in order to provide a better viewing experience (Par. 0002-0003 Richardson).
As to claim 15 Meyer in combination with Jain and Liu teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
Meyer does not teach but Richardson teaches wherein the controlling the content to be continuously displayed comprises seamlessly playing a video file that was playing on the second device on the first device without being stopped (Par. 0024 Richardson discloses playing the first video using the first event identifier on the first device and playing the same video on the second device from a second identifier).
Meyer and Richardson are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, transaction processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the digital broadcaster of Meyer to include playing videos on different devices of Richardson, to allow the user to continue with watching the same content. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in order to provide a better viewing experience (Par. 0002-0003 Richardson).
As to claim 16 Meyer in combination with Jain and Liu teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
Meyer does not teach but Richardson teaches wherein the controlling the content to be continuously displayed comprises seamlessly playing the content that was playing on the second device on the first device when desired by a user (Par. 0020 Richardson discloses the user selecting media representation event. Par. 0024 Richardson discloses playing the first video using the first event identifier on the first device and playing the same video on the second device from a second identifier).
Meyer and Richardson are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, transaction processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the digital broadcaster of Meyer to include playing videos on different devices of Richardson, to allow the user to continue with watching the same content. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in order to provide a better viewing experience (Par. 0002-0003 Richardson).
8. Claims 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,829,368 (herein as ‘Meyer’) in combination with Jain et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0183120 (herein as ‘Jain’), Liu et al. U.S. Patent No. 7,818,762 (herein as ‘Liu’) and further in view of ROGERS U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0229227 A1.
As to claim 2 Meyer in combination with Jain and Liu teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
Meyer in combination with Liu does not teach but ROGERS further teaches that the information comprises address information of a web site related to the content (ROGERS, FIG. 23 & [0144]).
Meyer and Rogers are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, transaction processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the digital broadcaster of Meyer to include same broadcast on different devices of Liu, to allow the device to obtain information from other users. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in that it is one of three ways in which to store temporal data, and would lead to high availability. (Par. 0010-0017 Rogers).
As to claim 3 Meyer in combination with Jain and Liu teaches each and every limitation of claim 2.
Meyer in combination with Liu does not teach but ROGERS further teaches that wherein the displaying further comprises receiving the content of the web site, based on the address information, and displaying the received content on the first device (ROGERS, FIG. 23 & [0144]).
Meyer and Rogers are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, transaction processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the digital broadcaster of Meyer to include same broadcast on different devices of Liu, to allow the device to obtain information from other users. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in that it is one of three ways in which to store temporal data, and would lead to high availability. (Par. 0010-0017 Rogers).
As to claim 4 Meyer in combination with Jain and Liu teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
Meyer in combination with Liu does not teach but ROGERS further teaches, wherein the information about the content comprises content data for displaying the content on the first device (ROGERS, FIG. 22 & [0141]).
Meyer and Rogers are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, transaction processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the digital broadcaster of Meyer to include same broadcast on different devices of Liu, to allow the device to obtain information from other users. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in that it is one of three ways in which to store temporal data, and would lead to high availability. (Par. 0010-0017 Rogers).
As to claim 7 Meyer in combination with Jain and Liu teaches each and every limitation of claim 6.
Meyer in combination with Liu does not teach but ROGERS further teaches that wherein the information about the content comprises address information of a web site related to the content (ROGERS, FIG. 23 & [0144]).
Meyer and Rogers are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, transaction processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the digital broadcaster of Meyer to include same broadcast on different devices of Liu, to allow the device to obtain information from other users. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in that it is one of three ways in which to store temporal data, and would lead to high availability. (Par. 0010-0017 Rogers).
As to claim 8 Meyer in combination with Jain and Liu teaches each and every limitation of claim 6.
Meyer in combination with Liu does not teach but ROGERS further teaches that wherein the information about the content comprises content data for displaying the content on the first device (ROGERS, FIG. 23 & [0144]).
Meyer and Rogers are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, transaction processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the digital broadcaster of Meyer to include same broadcast on different devices of Liu, to allow the device to obtain information from other users. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in that it is one of three ways in which to store temporal data, and would lead to high availability. (Par. 0010-0017 Rogers).
As to claim 11 Meyer in combination with Jain and Liu teaches each and every limitation of claim 10.
Meyer in combination with Liu does not teach but ROGERS further teaches wherein the information about the content comprises content data for displaying the content on the first device (ROGERS, FIG. 22 & [0141]).
Meyer and Rogers are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, transaction processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the digital broadcaster of Meyer to include same broadcast on different devices of Liu, to allow the device to obtain information from other users. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in that it is one of three ways in which to store temporal data, and would lead to high availability. (Par. 0010-0017 Rogers).
As to claim 13 Meyer in combination with Jain and Liu teaches each and every limitation of claim 12.
Meyer in combination with Liu does not teach but ROGERS further teaches wherein the information about the content comprises content data for displaying the content on the first device (ROGERS, FIG. 22 & [0141]).
Meyer and Rogers are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, transaction processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the digital broadcaster of Meyer to include same broadcast on different devices of Liu, to allow the device to obtain information from other users. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in that it is one of three ways in which to store temporal data, and would lead to high availability. (Par. 0010-0017 Rogers).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMAINE A MINCEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5010. The examiner can normally be reached 8am EST until 5pm EST.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/JERMAINE A MINCEY/ May 30, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights