DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is drafted in response to amendments/remarks dated 06/25/2026. Claims 1-2, and 4-7 are pending. Claim 3 is cancelled, and claims 6-7 are new. Claims 1-2, and 4-7 are rejected as cited below. This action is made FINAL.
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 Specification Objections
Examiner withdraws the title objection in view of Applicant’s arguments.
Response to Claim Interpretation
Examiner maintains the claim interpretation set forth for the terms noted in the Claim Interpretation section below. Examiner notes that while air-conditioning systems are well known in the art, a “device” for air conditioning constitutes a generic placeholder. When a generic placeholder is coupled with functional language, the specification must provide clarification as to the structural elements which constitute said generic placeholder. An “in-vehicle air conditioning device” still invokes a 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation, as the specific structural component is not explicit given the plain meaning of the term “device”.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Examiner maintains the 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claims 1-2, and 4-5. On page 5 of Applicant arguments, Applicant states “an "air-conditioning device" of a vehicle is a device widely recognized by those skilled in the art as referring to an HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) system, which adjusts temperature and humidity in the cabin of a vehicle (see page 4, lines 5-6 of the pending application). Like terms such as "motor" or "sensor", an "air-conditioning device" provides sufficient structural meaning and does not constitute a generic placeholder.” Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined statement. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an air conditioning system in a vehicle comprises multiple components (e.g. compressor, condenser, control knob, blower motor, etc.). Any one of which could potentially adjust the temperature/humidity of the vehicle cabin (e.g. control knob sends signal to ECU; compressor slows rotation; etc.). Applicant’s disclosure is devoid of any such information which explicitly states which specific air conditioning system component is analogous to the claimed “in-vehicle air-conditioning device.” This device is merely shown/described as a “black box” component and could be any one of the components listed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have the requisite information, given Applicant’s disclosure, to positively understand which component is analogous to the claimed device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 6-7 of the arguments, Applicant states “Vader fails to disclose or suggest any concept of fatigue-based temperature control, nor does it disclose gradually changing the temperature over a predetermined time period. The technical purpose of Vader is fundamentally different from that of the present application, and there is no motivation to combine Motoyama with Vader to arrive at claim 1.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Motoyama and Vader contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor, and one goal of the Motoyama invention is to control the HVAC system based on an action performed by an occupant before entering the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the acquisition of destination information by Vader may help the Motoyama system predict which activity was taking place, given the specific destination information (construction site, gym, restaurant, music festival, etc.). This may lead to increased comfort for passengers utilizing the Motoyama system.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
an in-vehicle air-conditioning device configured to (claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the specification does not define the corresponding structure of an “in-vehicle air-conditioning device.” Please refer to the 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 reference “an in-vehicle air-conditioning device”, however, there is no corresponding structure recited detailing a “device” for conditioning of air.
Claim 5 is rejected by virtue of the dependency on claim 1, and not fixing the deficiencies stated above.
Claim 1 recites “a first predetermined time period” and “a second predetermined time period”. The disclosure is devoid of any description regarding “time periods”, any description regarding specific first and second time periods, and how said time periods affect the functioning of the claimed apparatus. Thus, these limitations constitute new matter and are rejected as such.
Claims 2, and 4-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 and not fixing the deficiencies stated above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, and 4-7 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 recite limitation “an in-vehicle air-conditioning device” which invokes 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. 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 5 is rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1 and not fixing the deficiencies stated above.
For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret “an in-vehicle air-conditioning device” to mean any system, component, or device which may influence a characteristic of air inside of an enclosed structure.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOTOYAMA et al. (US Pub. 2024/0109396 A1; hereafter MOTOYAMA), in view of Vader et al. (US Pat. 11,801,730 B1; hereafter Vader).
Motoyama and Vader were cited in the previous Office action.
Regarding claim 1, MOTOYAMA teaches:
A cabin environment control apparatus comprising
a microprocessor (processor 300) connected to an in-vehicle air-conditioning device (air conditioning device 400) configured to adjust a temperature in a cabin of a vehicle (vehicle 1) according to a designated air-conditioning temperature, wherein
the microprocessor is configured to perform;
calculating a degree of fatigue of an occupant of the vehicle based on biological information of the occupant (At least ¶ [0094] “the vehicle 1 may also acquire biometric information such as a heart rate or a body temperature, as the information related to the occupant's action. Based on such information, the estimator 200 may estimate the fatigue state of the occupant, and the processor 300 may control the air conditioning device 400.”); and
instructing the in-vehicle air-conditioning device to gradually change, over a first predetermined time period, the air-conditioning temperature from a first temperature designated by the occupant to a second temperature lower than the first temperature when the degree of fatigue of the occupant is equal to or higher than a predetermined value (At least ¶ [0055] “to cool down the occupant when the fatigue degree of the occupant is at a high level, the processor 300 may set the temperature of the air conditioning device 400 low, for example, to 20° C., and set the air volume to an outputtable maximum air volume.” A fatigue degree being at a high level is analogous to a degree of fatigue being equal to a predetermined value (e.g. “high”).);.
MOTOYAMA does not teach:
acquiring destination information related to a destination of the vehicle
the microprocessor is configured to perform;
the instructing including instructing the in-vehicle air-conditioning device to gradually change the air-conditioning temperature from the second temperature to the first temperature over a second predetermined time period, as the vehicle approaches the destination.
However, Vader, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
acquiring destination information related to a destination of the vehicle (At least ¶ [0100] “the climate controller 120 may determine the time to travel between the destination location at the end of the current journey and the next pick-up location … ”. Travel time between a destination and another location is analogous to destination information.);
the microprocessor is configured to perform:
the instructing including instructing the in-vehicle air-conditioning device to gradually change the air-conditioning temperature from the second temperature to the first temperature over a second predetermined time period, as the vehicle approaches the destination (At least Col 25, line 55 “comprise a destination for the user occupying the first seating position; and ii) indicate that the user occupying the first seating position has exclusively booked the vehicle, and that no other booking will be accepted to potentially occupy the second seating position before the vehicle arrives at the destination, and wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system to change the HVAC system to the second temperature setting before the vehicle arrives at the destination.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MOTOYAMA with Vader. This modification would have been obvious as both MOTOYAMA and Vader contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle climate control) and MOTOYAMA ¶ [0015] notes “It is desirable to provide a vehicle that is able to control an air conditioning device depending on a fatigue degree based on an action performed by an occupant before getting in the vehicle.” Introducing Vader to MOTOYAMA helps further control a vehicle air-conditioning device based on an action performed by an occupant before getting in the vehicle. Vader details setting a climate control before an autonomous vehicle arrives at a destination. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the climate control of the MOTOYAMA vehicle may be preemptively set based on the destination information (e.g. job site, gym, etc. ) taught by Vader. This may lead to increased comfort for passengers utilizing the MOTOYAMA system.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of MOTOYAMA and Vader teaches The cabin environment control apparatus according to claim 1. MOTOYAMA further teaches:
the microprocessor is configured to perform:
the instructing including instructing the in-vehicle air-conditioning device to lower the second temperature as the degree of fatigue of the occupant becomes higher (At least ¶ [0061] “The processor 300 may, for example, perform setting to direct cold air to cool the fatigue part when the fatigue degree is at a high level, and direct hot air to heat the fatigue part when the fatigue degree is at a low level, as with the temperature setting of the air conditioning.” Setting hot air when the fatigue degree is low and cold air when the fatigue degree is high is analogous to lowering the temperature as the fatigue degree becomes higher.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of MOTOYAMA and Vader teaches The cabin environment control apparatus according to claim 1. MOTOYAMA further teaches:
the microprocessor is configured to perform:
the calculating including calculating the degree of fatigue for occupants in the cabin individually (At least ¶ [0064] “when the fatigue degree estimated for each of the occupants in the vehicle differs in level, the processor 300 may cause low-temperature air to be blown from the air conditioning device 400 for the seat where the occupant estimated to have a high fatigue degree is seated … ”); and
the instructing including instructing the in-vehicle air-conditioning device regarding the air-conditioning temperature for each of the occupants, based on the degree of fatigue of each of the occupants (At least ¶ [0080] “the processor 300 may execute, based on the estimated fatigue degree of each occupant and a preset algorithm, the air conditioning control including setting of the temperature and setting of the air volume on the individual air conditioning devices 400 (400A, 400B, 400C, etc.) installed for each occupant in the vehicle compartment, as illustrated in FIG. 6 (step S330).”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of MOTOYAMA and Vader teaches The cabin environment control apparatus according to claim 1. Vader further teaches:
wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform:
the instructing including instructing the in-vehicle air-conditioning device to change the air-conditioning temperature from the second temperature to the first temperature, when a remaining time until an estimated time of arrival at the destination becomes equal to or less than the second predetermined time period (At least Col 25, line 55 “comprise a destination for the user occupying the first seating position; and ii) indicate that the user occupying the first seating position has exclusively booked the vehicle, and that no other booking will be accepted to potentially occupy the second seating position before the vehicle arrives at the destination, and wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system to change the HVAC system to the second temperature setting before the vehicle arrives at the destination.”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of MOTOYAMA and Vader teaches The cabin environment control apparatus according to claim 1. MOTOYAMA further teaches:
wherein
the instructing including instructing the in-vehicle air-conditioning device to maintain the first temperature, when the degree of fatigue of the occupant is less than the predetermined value (At least ¶ [0061] “perform setting to direct cold air to cool the fatigue part when the fatigue degree is at a high level, and direct hot air to heat the fatigue part when the fatigue degree is at a low level, as with the temperature setting of the air conditioning.” A fatigue degree being at a low level is analogous to occupant fatigue being less than a predetermined value.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOTOYAMA in view of Vader, in further view of NAKAYAMA et al. (US Pub. 2024/0131895 A1; hereafter NAKAYAMA).
NAKAYAMA was cited in the previous Office action.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of MOTOYAMA and Vader teaches The cabin environment control apparatus according to claim 1. MOTOYAMA further teaches:
wherein
the microprocessor includes a communication module capable of wireless communication (At least ¶ [0022] “the information receiver 100 may communicate with the mobile terminal 10 of the occupant by short-range wireless communication such as Wi-Fi or Bluetooth.”) with a terminal carried by the occupant (mobile terminal 10),
the microprocessor is configured to further perform acquiring the biological information of the occupant from the terminal via the communication module (At least ¶ [0094] “When the mobile terminal 10 is a wearable device, the vehicle 1 may also acquire biometric information such as a heart rate or a body temperature … ”),
the biological information includes detection data of a biosensor included in the terminal (At least ¶ [0094] “The vehicle 1 may also acquire information acquirable from various sensors mounted on the mobile terminal 10, as the information related to the occupant's action acquired from the mobile terminal 10 of the occupant … the vehicle 1 may also acquire biometric information such as a heart rate or a body temperature …”), and
the microprocessor is configured to perform the calculating including calculating the degree of fatigue of the occupant based on the biological information (At least ¶ [0094] “When the mobile terminal 10 is a wearable device, the vehicle 1 may also acquire biometric information such as a heart rate or a body temperature, as the information related to the occupant's action. Based on such information, the estimator 200 may estimate the fatigue state of the occupant, and the processor 300 may control the air conditioning device 400.”), using machine learning.
Although MOTOYAMA discloses calculating the degree of fatigue of the occupant based on the biological information, it does not explicitly teach that the calculating is performed using machine learning.
However, NAKAYAMA, within the same field of endeavor, teaches controlling a vehicle air-conditioner using machine learning (At least ¶ [0022] “The air-conditioning control unit 11 can perform the above-described air-conditioning control (second air-conditioning control) based on a learned model learned in advance by machine learning or on a predetermined rule.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of MOTOYAMA and Vader with NAKAYAMA. This modification would have been obvious as both the MOTOYAMA/Vader combination and NAKAYAMA contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle climate control) and MOTOYAMA ¶ [0014] notes “ … can make it difficult to accurately determine the fatigue degree of the occupant when the occupant gets in the vehicle.” Introducing the machine learning of NAKAYAMA may help the MOTOYAMA system more accurately determine the fatigue degree. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that advancements in machine learning systems with respect to human patterns may help determine emotional states. A human emotional state is closely linked with fatigue degree. Using the NAKAYAMA machine learning model may help the MOTOYAMA system more accurately determine occupant fatigue degree, which would lead to increased occupant comfort and/or occupant fatigue relief. This combination would make the MOTOYAMA system more efficient and therefore, cost effective.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tamura (US Pub. 2011/0172880 A1)
KUSUKAME et al. (US Pub. 2019/0299744 A1)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights