DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Status
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on 6/9/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and considered below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Comparing claims 1-7 of the instant application with claims 8-15 of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538:
“A system for automatically moving articulating boom assemblies, comprising: an articulating boom, comprising: a base; at least one user input device at the base; and an articulating boom assembly coupled to the base, comprising: a lower boom coupled to the base; an upper boom coupled to the lower boom; and a boom tip coupled to the upper boom; at least one processor; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to carry out actions, comprising:” (claim 1) of the instant application would have been obvious over “A system for automatically moving a boom assembly, comprising: a boom assembly base supporting the boom assembly, the boom assembly comprising at least one boom section; at least one boom component, wherein the at least one boom component comprises at least one of a boom tip, a jib tip, or a joint of the boom assembly; at least one processor; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to carry out actions, comprising:” (claim 8) of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538;
“receiving, via the at least one user input device, a user input to move the boom tip to a desired end position” (claim 1) of the instant application would have been obvious over “receiving, via an input device located proximate the boom assembly base, user input indicative of an end position of the at least one boom component” (claim 8) of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538;
“determining a flight path for the boom tip from a start position to the desired end position by one of:” (claim 1) of the instant application would have been obvious over “generating a flight path from a start position of the at least one boom component to the end position” (claim 8) of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538;
“computing a plurality of coordinate waypoints between the start position and the desired end position” (claim 1) of the instant application would have been obvious over “wherein the flight path comprises a plurality of waypoints between the start position and the end position” (claim 8) of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538;
“determining a plurality of target joint angles for a plurality of joints of the articulating boom assembly” (claim 1) of the instant application would have been obvious over “wherein a target joint angle associated with the end position is provided for the lower boom section after the upper boom section reaches the threshold angle” (claim 11) of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538; and
“automatically moving the articulating boom assembly through the flight path to the desired end position” (claim 1) of the instant application would have been obvious over “automatically moving the boom assembly through the flight path” (claim 8) of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538.
Comparing claims 8-14 of the instant application with claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538:
“A method for automatically moving an articulating boom assembly, the articulating boom assembly comprising an upper boom coupled to a lower boom at a lower end and coupled to a boom tip at an upper end, the method comprising:” (claim 8) of the instant application would have been obvious over “A method for automatically moving an articulating boom assembly, the articulating boom assembly comprising an upper boom coupled to a lower boom at a first end and coupled to a boom tip at a second end, comprising:” (claim 1) of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538;
“receiving, via an input device located at a base of the articulating boom assembly, a momentary user input; determining a desired end position based on the momentary user input” (claim 8) of the instant application would have been obvious over “receiving, via an input device located proximate a base of the articulating boom assembly, user input indicative of an end position for the boom tip” (claim 1) and “wherein at least one of the first input or the second input is a momentary input” (claim 1) of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538;
“generating a flight path from a start position of the articulating boom assembly to the desired end position, the flight path comprising a plurality of checkpoints for the articulating boom assembly to move through from the start position to the desired end position” (claim 8) of the instant application would have been obvious over “generating a flight path from a second coordinate location of a starting position of the boom tip to the end position, wherein the flight path comprises a plurality of coordinate waypoints between the first coordinate location and the second coordinate location” (claim 1) of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538;
“automatically moving the articulating boom assembly through the flight path by articulating the upper boom and the lower boom” (claim 8) of the instant application would have been obvious over “automatically moving the articulating boom assembly to move the boom tip through each of the plurality of coordinate waypoints to the end position” (claim 1) of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538; and
“responsive to reaching the desired end position or to reaching a predefined distance from the desired end position, stopping motion of the articulating boom assembly” (claim 8) of the instant application would have been obvious over “responsive to reaching one of the end position or a predefined distance to the end position, stopping motion of the articulating boom assembly” (claim 1) of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538.
Comparing claims 15-20 of the instant application with claims 16-21 of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538:
“One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform a method of moving an articulating boom assembly that comprises an upper boom coupled to a lower boom, the method comprising:” (claim 15) of the instant application would have been obvious over “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform a method of automatically moving a boom assembly, comprising:” (claim 16) of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538;
“receiving, via an input device disposed at a base of the articulating boom assembly or at a boom tip of the articulating boom assembly, user input indicative of a desired end position of the boom tip” (claim 15) of the instant application would have been obvious over “receiving, via an input device located proximate a base of the boom assembly, user input indicative of an end position for a boom tip of the boom assembly” (claim 16) of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538;
“responsive to receiving the user input, determining whether the articulating boom assembly is above a flight deck; responsive to determining the articulating boom assembly is not above the flight deck, automatically moving the articulating boom assembly above the flight deck; when the articulating boom assembly is above the flight deck, determining a flight path to move the articulating boom assembly automatically moving the articulating boom assembly below the flight deck” (claim 15) of the instant application would have been obvious over “prior to automatically moving the boom assembly, raising the boom assembly above a flight deck associated with the boom assembly that is relative to a ground surface or to an origin position of the boom assembly” (claim 18) of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538; and
“automatically moving the boom tip to the desired end position by articulating the upper boom and the lower boom of the articulating boom assembly” (claim 15) of the instant application would have been obvious over “automatically moving the boom assembly to thereby move the boom tip through each of the plurality of waypoints and to the end position” (claim 16) of U.S. Patent Number 12,360,538.
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:
“input device” (claims 1-20) is a keypad device, a pendant device, a radio remote control, a lower control station of a boom assembly, or any other device that may be configured to accept input from a user, as disclosed in applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0035], [0075] and [0126] (PGPub); FIG. 1, input device-110; FIG. 2D, tablet input device-248; and FIG. 7, keypad input device-700.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pursimo et al. (US-2014/0110168-A1, hereinafter Pursimo).
Regarding claim 1, Pursimo discloses:
A system for automatically moving articulating boom assemblies, comprising: an articulating boom, comprising: a base; at least one user input device at the base; and an articulating boom assembly coupled to the base, comprising: a lower boom coupled to the base; an upper boom coupled to the lower boom; and a boom tip coupled to the upper boom (paragraph [0065]; and FIG. 2, rock drilling rig-1, carrier-2, boom-4, boom joints-5, and sensor-17);
at least one processor; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to carry out actions, comprising: receiving, via the at least one user input device, a user input to move the boom tip to a desired end position (paragraphs [0068-0069]; and FIG. 6, boom actuator-16, sensors-17, control unit-18, input means-24, control device-25, input device-26, operator-27, memory-28, and control strategy-29);
determining a flight path for the boom tip from a start position to the desired end position by one of: computing a plurality of coordinate waypoints between the start position and the desired end position; or determining a plurality of target joint angles for a plurality of joints of the articulating boom assembly (paragraphs [0013], [0021-0023] and [0069]; and FIG. 7, Moving boom of mining vehicle, Feeding control data for boom control, Measuring actual boom position, Defining in control unit actual boom position data, Retrieving or feeding predetermined target position data on one or more boom joint, Calculating or determining control values for reaching predetermined position, and Controlling automatically boom actuators); and
automatically moving the articulating boom assembly through the flight path to the desired end position (paragraphs [0013], [0021-0023] and [0069]).
Claims 2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pursimo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sykes et al. (U.S. Patent Number 11,660,750, hereinafter Sykes).
Regarding claim 2, Pursimo does not disclose a user touch screen device which displays video data from a camera disposed at a boom tip. However, Sykes discloses autonomous and semi-autonomous control of aerial robotic systems, including the following features:
wherein the articulating boom further comprises: (col. 5, line 29 - col. 6, line 46; and FIG. 1, boom assembly-104, lower boom section-108, upper boom section-110, and pivotable connection-118);
at least one video camera disposed at the boom tip configured to capture video data of an environment of the boom tip (col. 7, line 28 - col. 8, line 30; and FIG. 2, remote capture device-210, camera-212, and three-dimensional camera-216);
wherein the actions further comprise: causing display of the video data via a touch screen display of the at least one user input device (col. 11, lines 57-61; col. 15, line 49 - col. 16, line 67; and FIG. 4, remote operation system-400, operator-402, user device-404, display-406, camera robotic arm-432, and camera-434); and
wherein the user input is received via selecting the desired end position in the environment via a touch input to the touch screen display (col. 11, lines 57-61; col. 31, line 14 - col. 32, line 2; and FIG. 11, Obtain sensory information-1102, Create a three-dimensional representation-1104, Cause display of the captured video-1106, Receive instructions for the robot unit and/or boom-1108, Compare instructions to three-dimensional representation-1110, and Cause the robot unit to perform an action-1112).
Sykes teaches that a camera may be located at a boom tip (col. 7, line 28 - col. 8, line 30). Sykes further teaches that a touchscreen may be used by an operator of a boom assembly to view video data from the camera and input a desired end position for the camera (col. 11, lines 57-61; and col. 15, line 49 - col. 16, line 67). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the user touchscreen device which displays video data from a camera disposed at a boom tip of Sykes into the boom assembly with an operator input device and a control device which determines intermediate positions between an operating position and a predetermined target position of Pursimo. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing an operator with the information required to efficiently move the articulating boom while preventing the articulating boom from colliding with any objects which could be sensed in the environment. A person of ordinary skill would be familiar with video displays and touch panels on operator input devices.
Regarding claim 4, Pursimo does not disclose automatically adjusting a velocity of an articulating boom assembly based on a position of the articulating boom assembly. However, Sykes further discloses:
wherein the actions further comprise: while moving the articulating boom assembly through the flight path, automatically adjusting a velocity of the articulating boom assembly based on a position thereof (col. 21, line 41 - col. 22, line 63; and FIG. 5, operator input stage-502, feedback sensor input stage-508, and actuator velocity conversion stage-512).
Sykes teaches that an aerial robotic system should receive measured current positions of the boom assembly components (col. 22, lines 11-14). Sykes further teaches that the aerial robotic system should convert joint velocities into actuator velocities based on the geometry of the boom assembly and specific linkages associated with each joint (col. 22, lines 47-52). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the aerial robotic system which converts joint velocities into actuator velocities based on the geometry of the boom assembly and specific linkages associated with each joint of Sykes into the boom assembly with an operator input device and control device which determines intermediate positions between an operating position and a predetermined target position of Pursimo. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing components of the articulating boom assembly from moving beyond safe velocity constraints. A person of ordinary skill would be familiar with the danger of permitting a boom assembly to move with excessive speed for a current configuration of components.
Regarding claim 5, Pursimo does not disclose a turntable. However, Sykes further discloses:
wherein the articulating boom further comprises a turntable coupled to the base and to the lower boom (col. 5, line 29 - col. 6, line 46; and FIG. 1, utility vehicle-102, boom assembly-104, turntable-106, lower boom section-108, and upper boom section-110); and
wherein moving the articulating boom assembly through the plurality of target joint angles comprises: determining a first target joint angle for a first joint of the plurality of joints, the first joint between the upper boom and the lower boom; determining a second target joint angle for a second joint of the plurality of joints, the second joint between the lower boom and the turntable; and moving the upper boom to a threshold joint angle for the first joint before enabling movement of the lower boom to the second target joint angle (col. 21, line 64 - col. 22, line 63).
Sykes teaches that joint velocity is computed for a turntable, a lower boom cylinder, and an upper boom cylinder (col. 22, lines 1-3). Sykes further teaches providing a motion path for a boom assembly which includes a plurality of joint velocities to achieve requested Cartesian velocities at a predetermined point on the boom assembly (col. 22, lines 3-8). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the motion path for a boom assembly of Sykes into the boom assembly with an operator input device and control device which determines intermediate positions between an operating position and a predetermined target position of Pursimo. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of safely moving the articulating boom assembly. A person of ordinary skill would be familiar with the steps required to extend and retract an articulating boom assembly.
Regarding claim 6, Pursimo does not disclose a turntable. However, Sykes further discloses:
wherein determining the second target joint angle is performed after moving the upper boom to the threshold joint angle (col. 21, line 64 - col. 22, line 63).
Sykes teaches that joint velocity is computed for a turntable, a lower boom cylinder, and an upper boom cylinder (col. 22, lines 1-3). Sykes further teaches providing a motion path for a boom assembly which includes a plurality of joint velocities to achieve requested Cartesian velocities at a predetermined point on the boom assembly (col. 22, lines 3-8). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the motion path for a boom assembly of Sykes into the boom assembly with an operator input device and control device which determines intermediate positions between an operating position and a predetermined target position of Pursimo. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of safely moving the articulating boom assembly. A person of ordinary skill would be familiar with the steps required to extend and retract an articulating boom assembly.
Regarding claim 7, Pursimo does not disclose a drone. However, Sykes further discloses:
a drone configured to monitor the boom tip during operations of the articulating boom assembly (col. 18, line 59 - col. 19, line 10; and FIG. 4, user device-404, robotic assembly-420, drone-460, and drone sensor-462).
Sykes teaches that image data of a robotic assembly should be captured by a drone and transmitted to a user device (col. 19, lines 5-10). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system for transmitting drone image data to a user device of Sykes into the boom assembly with an operator input device and control device which determines intermediate positions between an operating position and a predetermined target position of Pursimo. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing an operator with the information required to efficiently move the articulating boom while preventing the articulating boom from colliding with any objects which could be sensed in the environment. A person of ordinary skill would be familiar with using drones to obtain image data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA L WEBER whose telephone number is (303)297-4249. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 MTN.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 3134464821. 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.
TAMARA L. WEBER
Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/TAMARA L WEBER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights