DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 02 July 2025.
Claims 1-35 are canceled by a preliminary amendment.
Claims 36-55 are newly presented by a preliminary amendment.
Claims 36-55 are currently pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted was/were considered by the examiner.
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.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 36-38, 40-43, and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wei et al (CN 211648538) English Translation, hereafter referred to as Wei.
For clarity see Examiner Annotated Figures 1 and 4 of Wei.
PNG
media_image1.png
709
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
524
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 36, Wei discloses the following:
A volute (1) comprising:
an enclosing plate (1-100) enclosing an air duct (space within volute); and
an end plate (1-200) connected to an end of the enclosing plate (1-100), the end plate (1-200) being formed with an air inlet (11) and a convex surface (as seen in FIG. 3) arranged around the air inlet (11);
wherein the convex surface (as seen in FIG. 3) is located at a side of the end plate (1-200) away from the air duct (space within volute), and extends from the enclosing plate (1-100) toward the air inlet (11).
Regarding Claim 37, Wei discloses the following:
The volute (1) according to claim 36, wherein:
the end plate (1-200) includes:
a first guide section (1-210), an end of the first guide section (1-210) being connected to the enclosing plate (1-100), and another end of the first guide section (1-210) extending toward the air inlet (11),
and a first curved surface section (1-2101) being formed at a side of the first guide section (1-210) away from the air duct (space within volute); and
a second guide section (1-220) connected to the first guide section (1-210), the air inlet (11) being formed at the second guide section (1-220), a second curved surface section (1-2201) being formed at a side of the second guide section (1-220) away from the air duct (space within volute), and the second curved surface section (1-2201) extending toward an inner side of the enclosing plate (1-100); and
the convex surface (as seen in FIG. 3) includes the first curved surface section (1-2101) and the second curved surface section (1-2201).
Regarding Claim 38, Wei discloses the following:
The volute (1) according to claim 37, wherein:
the end plate (1-200) further includes a transition section (1-230) connected between the first guide section (1-210) and the second guide section (1-220), a transition curved surface section (1-2301) being formed at a side of the transition section (1-230) away from the air duct (space within volute), two ends of the transition curved surface section (1-2301) being respectively connected to the first curved surface section (1-2101) and the second curved surface section (1-2201), and the first curved surface section (1-2101) and the second curved surface section (1-2201) each smoothly transitioning to the transition curved surface section (1-2301); and
the convex surface (as seen in FIG. 3) further comprises the transition curved surface section (1-2301).
Regarding Claim 40, Wei discloses the following:
The volute (1) according to claim 36, further comprising:
an air outlet guide (14), formed with an air outlet (141) and an air outlet channel (channel within 14) that are in communication with each other;
wherein the enclosing plate (1-100) is formed with an exhaust port (141) that is in communication with the air duct (space within volute), and the air outlet guide (14) is disposed at the exhaust port (141), the air outlet channel (channel within 14) being in communication with the air duct (space within volute) through the exhaust port (141).
Regarding Claim 41, Wei discloses the following:
The volute (1) according to claim 36, wherein:
the enclosing plate (1-100) includes at least two first plate-shaped members (as seen in FIG. 2) sequentially connected along a circumferential direction of the air inlet (11) to enclose the air duct (space within volute);
the end plate (1-200) includes at least two second plate-shaped members (as seen in FIG. 2);
each of the at least two first plate-shaped members (as seen in FIG. 2) is connected to one of the at least two second plate-shaped members (as seen in FIG. 2); and
each of the at least two second plate-shaped members (as seen in FIG. 2) is formed with a notch (15), and at least two of the at least two second plate-shaped members (as seen in FIG. 2) are connected to make at least two notch (15)es interface with each other to form the air inlet (11).
Regarding Claim 42, Wei discloses the following:
The volute (1) according to claim 36, wherein:
or the enclosing plate (1-100) and the end plate (1-200) are an integrated structure (The Examiner notes, it has been held that the term "integral" is not limited to a fabrication of parts from a single piece of metal, but inclusive of other means for maintaining parts fixed together as a single unit. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). In this case the parts are fixed together as a single unit, therefore "the parts" of Wei can be considered integrally formed.).
Regarding Claim 43, Wei discloses the following:
A fan comprising:
the volute (1) according to claim 36; and
an impeller (2) rotatably disposed in the air duct (space within volute) and disposed toward the air inlet (11).
Regarding Claim 55, Wei discloses the following:
An air conditioner (see for example abstract) comprising the fan according to claim 43.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (CN 211648538) English Translation, hereafter referred to as Wei.
Regarding Claim 18, Wei discloses the following:
The volute (1) according to claim 38,
Wei does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein a ratio of a chord height to a chord length of each curved surface section is less than or equal to 0.5.
However the Examiner notes the following:
Wei discloses a volute having curved surfaces with chord heights and chord lengths, but is silent on the specific dimensions of the heights and lengths. In other words, Wei discloses the same structure as the Applicant, except the relative dimensions claimed. The Instant Application has not disclosed the limitation(s) of: wherein a ratio of a chord height to a chord length of each curved surface section is less than or equal to 0.5; provides any criticality. Note that the mere existence of these relative dimensions themselves in the claim cannot impart criticality as any volute could be described in such a way. Therefore without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result, it appears Wei would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant. Since the courts have held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heights and lengths of the chords of the curved surfaces, as disclosed by Wei, by utilizing the specific value(s) (relative dimensions) as described above, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing specific dimensions to form the volute. (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Claims 44-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (CN 211648538) English Translation, hereafter referred to as Wei, Hall (US 20150260201), hereafter referred to as Hall, and Ghosh (US 9989066)
Regarding Claim 44, Wei discloses the following:
The fan according to claim 43, wherein the impeller (2) includes:
a hub (FIG. 2);
a plurality of blade structures (22) arranged at an interval along a circumferential direction of the hub (FIG. 2) and a blade centerline of each of the blade structures being a conic curve (as seen in FIG. 2); and a hoop (22b), to which ends of the blade structure (22) are connected.
Wei does not explicitly disclose the following:
a plurality of blade structures each penetrating through the hub,
However Hall teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to provide impellers with a plurality of blade structures (30) each penetrating through the hub (50, 54; FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the impeller as disclosed by Wei, with the impeller comprising blade structures each penetrating through the hub, as taught by Hall, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing an impeller for a fan that reduces noise (see Hall, for example Abstract). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the impeller of Wei, with the impeller of Hall yields the predictable result of providing airflow for a fan (i.e. substituting one known means to provide airflow for a fan, for another known means to provide airflow for a fan). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Further regarding Claim 44, Wei as modified by Hall does not teach the following:
the blade structures being made of plastic,
However Ghosh teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to make impeller blades from plastic (see Col. 3, lines 7-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unknown blade material, as disclosed by Wei and modified by Hall, wherein the impeller blades are made of plastic, as disclosed by Ghosh, with the reasonable expectation of successfully selecting a known material to make fan blades. The Examiner notes, it has been held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination and in this case Ghosh discloses the aforementioned materials are known materials suitable for the intended purpose of impeller blades (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 45, Wei as modified by Hall and Ghosh discloses the following:
The fan according to claim 44,
Hall continues to teach the following:
a cross-sectional contour of each of the blade structures includes a leading edge end curve, through which an end of the blade centerline passes (as seen in FIG. 2);
Wei as modified by Hall and Ghosh does not disclose the following:
a ratio of an arch height of the leading edge end curve to a chord length of the leading edge end curve is greater than or equal to 0.3 and less than or equal to 0.8 (claim 45)
However the Examiner notes the following:
Wei discloses fan blade structures having a leading end curve and a chord length. In other words, Wei discloses the same structure as the Applicant, except the relative dimensions claimed. The Instant Application has not disclosed the limitation(s) of: a ratio of an arch height of the leading edge end curve to a chord length of the leading edge end curve is greater than or equal to 0.3 and less than or equal to 0.8 (claim 45); provides any criticality. Note that the mere existence of these relative dimensions themselves in the claim cannot impart criticality as any volute could be described in such a way. Therefore without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result, it appears Wei would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant. Since the courts have held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heights and lengths of the chords of the curved surfaces, as disclosed by Wei, by utilizing the specific value(s) (relative dimensions) as described above, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing specific dimensions to form the blade structures. (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Regarding Claim 46, Wei as modified by Hall and Ghosh discloses the following:
The fan according to claim 45,
Hall continues to teach the following:
the cross-sectional contour of each of the blade structures (30) further includes:
an outlet end line, through which an end of the blade center line away from the leading edge end curve passes;
a positive pressure surface curve located at a side of the blade centerline, two ends of the positive pressure surface curve being respectively connected to the leading edge end curve and the outlet end line; and
a negative pressure surface curve located at another side of the blade centerline,
two ends of the negative pressure surface curve being respectively connected to the leading edge end curve and the outlet end line; and
each of the positive pressure surface curve and the negative pressure surface curve is a streamlined curve (as seen in FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 47, Wei as modified by Hall and Ghosh discloses the following:
The fan according to claim 46,
Hall continues to teach the following:
the cross-sectional contour of each of the blade structures (30) further includes an outlet transition line connected between the outlet end line and the positive pressure surface curve; and
the outlet transition line is an arc line (as seen in FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 48-50, Wei as modified by Hall and Ghosh discloses the following:
The fan according to claim 46, and claim 44 (respectively)
Wei as modified by Hall and Ghosh does not teach the following:
wherein a distance from the positive pressure surface curve to the blade centerline is same as a distance from the negative pressure surface curve to the blade centerline (claim 48); an eccentricity of the blade centerline is greater than or equal to 0.3 and less than or equal to 0.6; and/or an air inlet (11) angle of the blade structure is greater than or equal to 60° and less than or equal to 85° and/or an air outlet angle of the blade structure is greater than or equal to 140° and less than or equal to 166°; and/or a central angle of the blade structure is greater than or equal to 3° and less than or equal to 6° (claim 49); wherein a thickness of the blade structure increases first and then decreases along a direction from an air inlet end of the blade centerline to an air outlet end of the blade centerline (claim 50);
However the Examiner notes the following:
Wei discloses fan blade structures having a leading end curve and a chord length. In other words, Wei discloses the same structure as the Applicant, except the relative dimensions claimed. The Instant Application has not disclosed the limitation(s) of: wherein a distance from the positive pressure surface curve to the blade centerline is same as a distance from the negative pressure surface curve to the blade centerline (claim 48); an eccentricity of the blade centerline is greater than or equal to 0.3 and less than or equal to 0.6; and/or an air inlet (11) angle of the blade structure is greater than or equal to 60° and less than or equal to 85° and/or an air outlet angle of the blade structure is greater than or equal to 140° and less than or equal to 166°; and/or a central angle of the blade structure is greater than or equal to 3° and less than or equal to 6° (claim 49); wherein a thickness of the blade structure increases first and then decreases along a direction from an air inlet end of the blade centerline to an air outlet end of the blade centerline (claim 50); provides any criticality. Note that the mere existence of these relative dimensions themselves in the claim cannot impart criticality as any volute could be described in such a way. Therefore without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result, it appears Wei would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant. Since the courts have held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heights and lengths of the chords of the curved surfaces, as disclosed by Wei, by utilizing the specific value(s) (relative dimensions) as described above, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing specific dimensions to form the blade structures. (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Claims 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (CN 211648538) English Translation, hereafter referred to as Wei, Hall (US 20150260201), hereafter referred to as Hall, and Ghosh (US 9989066)
Regarding Claim 44, Wei discloses the following:
The fan according to claim 43, wherein the impeller (2) includes:
a hub (FIG. 2); a hoop (22b), to which ends of the blade structure are connected.
a plurality of blade structures (22) arranged at an interval along a circumferential direction of the hub (FIG. 2) and a blade centerline of each of the blade structures including a conic curve segment.
Wei does not explicitly disclose the following:
a plurality of blade structures each penetrating through the hub,
However Hall teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to provide impellers with a plurality of blade structures (30) each penetrating through the hub (50, 54; FIG. 4), and a blade centerline of each of the blade structures (30) including a conic curve segment (as seen in FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the impeller as disclosed by Wei, with the impeller comprising blade structures each penetrating through the hub, as taught by Hall, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing an impeller for a fan that reduces noise (see Hall, for example Abstract). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the impeller of Wei, with the impeller of Hall yields the predictable result of providing airflow for a fan (i.e. substituting one known means to provide airflow for a fan, for another known means to provide airflow for a fan). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Further regarding Claim 51, Wei as modified by Hall does not teach the following:
the blade structures being made of sheet metal,
However Ghosh teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to provide impeller blades (316) made of sheet metal, (see for example [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unknown blade material, as disclosed by Wei and modified by Hall, wherein the impeller blades are made of sheet metal, as disclosed by Ghosh, with the reasonable expectation of successfully selecting a known material to make fan blades. The Examiner notes, it has been held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination and in this case Ghosh discloses the aforementioned materials are known materials suitable for the intended purpose of impeller blades (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claims 52-54, Wei as modified by Hall and Hancock teaches the following:
The fan according to claim 51 or alternatively claim 52,
Wei as modified by Hall and Hancock does not teach the following:
the blade centerline further includes a straight line segment connected to an end of the conic curve segment, a smooth transition being provided between the straight line segment and the conic curve segment; and the straight line segment is close to an air inlet (11) end of the blade structure, the conic curve segment being close to an air outlet end of the blade structure (claim 52); the straight line segment is tangent to the conic curve segment; or a ratio of a length of the straight line segment to a chord length of the conic curve segment is less than or equal to 0.2 (claim 53); an eccentricity of the blade centerline is greater than or equal to 0.25 and less than or equal to 0.6; and/or an air inlet (11) angle of a blade body is greater than or equal to 50° and less than or equal to 75°; and/or an air outlet angle of the blade body is greater than or equal to 135° and less than or equal to 170°; and/or a central angle of the blade body is greater than or equal to 3° and less than or equal to 8°; and/or a thickness of the blade structure is consistent along a direction from the air inlet (11) end of the blade structure to the air outlet end of the blade structure (claim 54);
However the Examiner notes the following:
Wei discloses fan blade structures having a centerline. In other words, Wei discloses the same structure as the Applicant, except the relative dimensions claimed. The Instant Application has not disclosed the limitation(s) of:the blade centerline further includes a straight line segment connected to an end of the conic curve segment, a smooth transition being provided between the straight line segment and the conic curve segment; and the straight line segment is close to an air inlet (11) end of the blade structure, the conic curve segment being close to an air outlet end of the blade structure (claim 52); the straight line segment is tangent to the conic curve segment; or a ratio of a length of the straight line segment to a chord length of the conic curve segment is less than or equal to 0.2 (claim 53); an eccentricity of the blade centerline is greater than or equal to 0.25 and less than or equal to 0.6; and/or an air inlet (11) angle of a blade body is greater than or equal to 50° and less than or equal to 75°; and/or an air outlet angle of the blade body is greater than or equal to 135° and less than or equal to 170°; and/or a central angle of the blade body is greater than or equal to 3° and less than or equal to 8°; and/or a thickness of the blade structure is consistent along a direction from the air inlet (11) end of the blade structure to the air outlet end of the blade structure (claim 54); provides any criticality. Note that the mere existence of these relative dimensions themselves in the claim cannot impart criticality as any volute could be described in such a way. Therefore without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result, it appears Wei would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant. Since the courts have held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heights and lengths of the chords of the curved surfaces, as disclosed by Wei, by utilizing the specific value(s) (relative dimensions) as described above, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing specific dimensions to form the blade structures. (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Conclusion
See form No. 892 for other references pertinent to the application that may not have been cited within the Office Action.
For references which show similar fan arrangements see Pages 1-2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights