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 Arguments
Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 06/24/2026 in response to the Non-Final office action mailed on 05/12/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Objections: The objections are withdrawn, as the amendments to the claims have properly addressed the informalities recited in the Non-Final office action.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC §§ 102 and 103: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections have been fully considered.
Regrading claim 1, Applicant alleges that:
Jesewitz fails to explicitly or inherently disclose that the leg and roof actuators that are configured such that the associated roof maintains a substantially constant attitude as the pair of legs are moved between the upright and lowered configurations. Jesewitz clearly discloses that each of the actuators are independently controllable from one another, but fails to disclose in any manner that the actuators are controlled to maintain the associated roof in a substantially constant attitude as the legs are moved between the upright and lowered configurations. Further, the arrangement as disclosed by Jesewitz does not inherently disclose or that the arrangement necessarily operate in the manner as required in claim 1 (pg. 2, Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 06/24/2026).
Examiner disagrees.
Claim 1 recites “the at least one leg actuator and the roof actuator are configured such that the roof maintains a substantial constant attitude as the pair of legs are moved between the upright and the lowered configurations” (emphasis added). The phrase “configured such that” means “capable of” providing the recited function. As previously stated in the Non-Final office action mailed on 05/12/2026, Jesewitz discloses the mid height position in FIG. 3 and the stowed position in FIG. 4 showing that the cargo rack apparatus 500 (i.e., “roof”) maintains the substantial constant attitude as the tower bases 595a, 595b (i.e., “pair of legs”) are moved between the upright and the lowered configuration (see also para. [0104]-[0116]). Therefore, Jesewitz discloses the configuration or the capability of performing the claimed function. Moreover, Jesewitz states that “the tilting of the cargo rack apparatus 500 can be adjusted in coordination with the tilting of the tower 514” (emphasis added) (para. [0112]). Therefore, Jesewitz discloses the cargo rack apparatus 500 and the tower 514 specifically designed for the coordinated movement shown in FIGS. 3 and 4 which maintains the substantial constant attitude.
Regarding claims 7-9, Applicant further alleges that:
the Examiner improperly and arbitrarily groups numerous components or elements of the tower assembly (the upper and horizontal support 515) and elements of the roof structure (the wall supports 528, 530, the interconnecting rails 523a, 523b and the back rail 526) to constitute a cross-piece (pg. 2, Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 06/24/2026).
Examiner disagrees.
The “cross-piece” is merely claimed as an element “extending between the legs” in claim 1, and any one of the Examiner listed elements of Jesewitz extends between the tower bases 595a, 595b (i.e., “legs”). Examiner provided further explanation in the rejection attached below in the FINAL office action to address Applicant’s alleged concerns regarding the combination of the elements of claim 1 and 7-9.
Regrading claim 14, Applicant alleges that:
Claim 14 defines similar elements to those as discussed above with respect to claim 1 and therefore is also in condition for allowance (pg. 4, Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 06/24/2026).
Examiner disagrees.
Claim 14 recites “the roof actuator is configured to move the roof between a substantially horizontal orientation and a tilted orientation to allow access to the articles stored on the roof,” and the limitation has a distinctive scope than claim 1.
For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained in the FINAL office action.
It is also noted that Applicant has amended to introduce new claims and the new claims necessitate new grounds of rejection. Therefore, the Office has supplied new grounds of rejection attached below in the FINAL office action.
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
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.
Claims 1 and 3-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jesewitz (US 2015/0048130 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jesewitz discloses a foldable watersports tower for a boat, comprising:
a pair of legs configured to mount to the boat (Jesewitz at FIG. 1 and para. [0051]-[0052]: The tower bases 595a, 595b (i.e., “pair of legs”));
at least one leg actuator operable to move the legs between a raised configuration and a lowered configuration (Jesewitz at FIG. 1 and para. [0053]: The base actuator 592 (i.e., “at least one leg actuator”));
a cross-piece extending between the legs (Jesewitz at FIG. 5, 6a and para. [0050], [0078], [0079], [0083]: The horizontal support 515, port wall support 528, the starboard wall support 530, fore interconnecting rail 523a, the aft interconnecting rail 523b, or the cargo rack apparatus back rail 526 (i.e., “cross-piece”) extends between the tower bases 595a, 595b (i.e., “legs”));
a roof operably mounted to the legs (Jesewitz at FIGS. 1-4 and para. [0110]: The cargo rack apparatus 500 (i.e., “roof”)); and
a roof actuator operable to move the roof with respect to the pair of legs (Jesewitz at FIGS. 1, 6a and para. [0072], [0105], [0106]: The strut 568, the first worm 711, or the second worm 811 (i.e., “roof actuator”)), wherein the at least one leg actuator and the roof actuator are configured such that the roof maintains a substantial constant attitude as the pair of legs are moved between the upright and the lowered configurations (Jesewitz at FIGS. 3-4 and para. [0104]-[0116]: The mid height position in FIG. 3 and the stowed position in FIG. 4 show that the cargo rack apparatus 500 (i.e., “roof”) maintains the substantial constant attitude as the tower bases 595a, 595b (i.e., “pair of legs”) are moved between the upright and the lowered configuration; para. [0112]: “the tilting of the cargo rack apparatus 500 can be adjusted in coordination with the tilting of the tower 514”).
Office Note: The limitation “cross-piece” has been interpreted as “any horizontal structure” (See “Crosspiece.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crosspiece. Accessed 4 May. 2026.).
Office Note: The limitation “extending between the legs” has interpreted as “stretching in a space that separates the legs” (See “Extend.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extend. Accessed 4 May. 2026.; “Between.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/between. Accessed 4 May. 2026.)
Regarding claim 3, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 1.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the at least one leg actuator includes an electronic actuator (Jesewitz at para. [0055]: “The base actuator 592 of the preferred embodiment is an electromechanical actuator”).
Regarding claim 4, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 1.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the roof actuator includes an electronic actuator (Jesewitz at para. [0055]: “The base actuator 592 of the preferred embodiment is an electromechanical actuator”; para. [0072]: “The strut 568 may be a rigid link, an adjustable link, or an actuator similar to base actuator 592”; The strut 568 (i.e., “electronic actuator”)).
Regarding claim 5, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 1.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the pair of legs are configured to be pivotably coupled to the boat (Jesewitz at para. [0048]: “the integrated tower mount 590 is pivotally connected to a tower base 595”; para. [0049]: “a tower base 595a which itself is connected to a boat 512 Gunwale”).
Regarding claim 6, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 1.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the roof is pivotably coupled to the pair of legs (Jesewitz at para. [0048]: “the integrated tower mount 590 is pivotally connected to a tower base 595”; para. [0107]: “As the first rack connectors 714 translate along the first mounting track 712 the cargo rack 510 pivots about the strut 568, tilting the cargo rack 510 down and up while the second rack connectors 814 translate along the mounting track 812, lowering and raising the cargo rack 510 while in the tilted position, and the cargo rack 510 pivots about the tower upper end pivot joint 519”; The cargo rack apparatus 500 (i.e., “roof”) is pivotably coupled to the tower bases 595a, 595b (i.e., “pair of legs”); It is noted that “pivotably coupled” includes indirect coupling).
Regarding claim 7, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 6.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the roof is pivotably coupled to the pair of legs via a roof mount (Jesewitz at FIG. 1 and para. [0070]: “a cargo rack apparatus 500 supported by the upper ends of both the forward vertical support edge 516 near pivot joint 519 of each tower 514 upper end”; FIG. 1 and para. [0076]: “(FIG. 1 and para. [0076]: “strut 568 can be positioned directly on either edge (516,518) or at any location in between the edges (516, 518)”; The cargo rack apparatus 500 (i.e., “roof”) is pivotably coupled to the tower bases 595a, 595b (i.e., “pair of legs”) via the strut 568 (i.e., “roof mount”); It is noted that “pivotably coupled” includes indirect coupling).
Regarding claim 8, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 7.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the roof actuator extends between the cross-piece and the roof mount (Jesewitz at FIG. 1-6a: The first worm 711 or the second worm 811 (i.e., “roof actuator”) extends between the horizontal support 515 (i.e., “cross-piece”) and the strut 568 (i.e., “roof mount”)).
Regarding claim 9, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 8.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the roof actuator is pivotably coupled to the cross-piece and the roof mount (Jesewitz at FIG. 1-6a: The first worm 711 and the second worm 811 (i.e., “roof actuator”) is pivotably coupled to the horizontal support 515 (i.e., “cross-piece”) and the strut 568 (i.e., “roof mount”)).
Regarding claim 10, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 1.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the cross-piece is fixed with respect to the pair of legs (Jesewitz at FIG. 5 and para. [0050]: “the wakeboard tower 514 includes an interconnecting upper end horizontal support 515 which extends from the wakeboard tower 514 portion adjacent the port side gunnel (aka gunwale) to wakeboard tower 514 portion adjacent the starboard side gunnel (aka gunwale); The horizontal support 515 (i.e., “cross-piece”)).
Regarding claim 11, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 1.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the roof is configured to be pivoted with respect to the pair of legs when the legs are in the raised configuration (Jesewitz at FIG. 2 and para. [0111]: “this unique range of movement of the cargo rack apparatus 500 allows users to adjust the bow-to-stem walk-through height as desired, as well as provides for lowering the cargo rack into the tilted position for easy access to stored equipment”).
Regarding claim 12, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 1.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the roof maintains a substantially horizontal attitude as the pair of legs are moved between the raised and lowered configurations (Jesewitz at FIGS. 3-4 and para. [0104]-[0116]: The mid height position in FIG. 3 and the stowed position in FIG. 4 show that the cargo rack apparatus 500 (i.e., “roof”) maintains the substantial horizontal attitude as the tower bases 595a, 595b (i.e., “pair of legs”) are moved between the upright and the lowered configuration).
Regarding claim 13, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 1.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the cross-piece includes a tow point (Jesewitz at FIG. 5, 6a and para. [0083]: “A ski tow 520 is provided on the cargo rack apparatus rack rail 526”).
Regarding claim 14, Jesewitz discloses a foldable watersports tower for a boat, comprising:
a pair of legs configured to mount to the boat (Jesewitz at FIG. 1 and para. [0051]-[0052]: The tower bases 595a, 595b (i.e., “pair of legs”));
at least one leg actuator operable to move the legs between a raised configuration and a lowered configuration (Jesewitz at FIG. 1 and para. [0053]: The base actuator 592 (i.e., “at least one leg actuator”));
a cross-piece extending between the legs (Jesewitz at FIG. 5, 6a and para. [0050], [0078], [0079], [0083]: The horizontal support 515, port wall support 528, the starboard wall support 530, fore interconnecting rail 523a, the aft interconnecting rail 523b, or the cargo rack apparatus back rail 526 (i.e., “cross-piece”) extends between the tower bases 595a, 595b (i.e., “legs”));
a roof operably mounted to the legs and configured to store articles thereon (Jesewitz at FIGS. 1-4 and para. [0110]: Cargo rack apparatus 500 (i.e., “roof”)); and
a roof actuator operable to move the roof with respect to the pair of legs (Jesewitz at FIGS. 1, 6a and para. [0072], [0105], [0106]: Strut 568, first worm 711, or second worm 811 (i.e., “roof actuator”)), wherein the roof actuator is configured to move the roof between a substantially horizontal orientation and a tilted orientation to allow access to the articles stored on the roof (Jesewitz at FIG. 2 and para. [0079]: “Cargo rack apparatus 500 further includes wherein the fore interconnecting rail 523a and the aft interconnecting rail 523b interconnect opposing wall supports 528, 530 and also cooperate to provide a support surface for stored items”; para. [0111]: “this unique range of movement of the cargo rack apparatus 500 allows users to adjust the bow-to-stem walk-through height as desired, as well as provides for lowering the cargo rack into the tilted position for easy access to stored equipment”).
Office Note: “cross-piece” has been interpreted as “any horizontal structure” (See “Crosspiece.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crosspiece. Accessed 4 May. 2026.).
Office Note: The limitation “extending between the legs” has interpreted as “stretching in a space that separates the legs” (See “Extend.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extend. Accessed 4 May. 2026.; “Between.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/between. Accessed 4 May. 2026.)
Regarding claim 15, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 14.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the at least one leg actuator and the roof actuator are configured such that the roof maintains a substantial constant attitude as the pair of legs are moved between the upright and the lowered configurations (Jesewitz at FIGS. 3-4 and para. [0104]-[0116]: The mid height position in FIG. 3 and the stowed position in FIG. 4 show that the cargo rack apparatus 500 (i.e., “roof”) maintains the substantial constant attitude as the tower bases 595a, 595b (i.e., “pair of legs”) are moved between the upright and the lowered configuration).
Regarding claim 16, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 14.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the at least one leg actuator includes an electronic actuator (Jesewitz at para. [0055]: “The base actuator 592 of the preferred embodiment is an electromechanical actuator”).
Regarding claim 17, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 14.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the roof actuator includes an electronic actuator (Jesewitz at para. [0055]: “The base actuator 592 of the preferred embodiment is an electromechanical actuator”; para. [0072]: “The strut 568 may be a rigid link, an adjustable link, or an actuator similar to base actuator 592”; The strut 568 (i.e., “electronic actuator”)).
Regarding claim 18, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 14.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the pair of legs are configured to be pivotably coupled to the boat (Jesewitz at para. [0048]: “the integrated tower mount 590 is pivotally connected to a tower base 595”; para. [0049]: “a tower base 595a which itself is connected to a boat 512 Gunwale”).
Regarding claim 19, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 14.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the roof is pivotably coupled to the pair of legs (Jesewitz at para. [0048]: “the integrated tower mount 590 is pivotally connected to a tower base 595”; para. [0107]: “As the first rack connectors 714 translate along the first mounting track 712 the cargo rack 510 pivots about the strut 568, tilting the cargo rack 510 down and up while the second rack connectors 814 translate along the mounting track 812, lowering and raising the cargo rack 510 while in the tilted position, and the cargo rack 510 pivots about the tower upper end pivot joint 519”; The cargo rack apparatus 500 (i.e., “roof”) is pivotably coupled to the tower bases 595a, 595b (i.e., “pair of legs”); It is noted that the limitation “pivotably coupled” includes indirect coupling).
Regarding claim 20, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 19.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the roof is pivotably coupled to the pair of legs via a roof mount (Jesewitz at FIG. 1 and para. [0070]: “a cargo rack apparatus 500 supported by the upper ends of both the forward vertical support edge 516 near pivot joint 519 of each tower 514 upper end”; FIG. 1 and para. [0076]: “(FIG. 1 and para. [0076]: “strut 568 can be positioned directly on either edge (516,518) or at any location in between the edges (516, 518)”; The cargo rack apparatus 500 (i.e., “roof”) is pivotably coupled to the tower bases 595a, 595b (i.e., “pair of legs”) via the strut 568 (i.e., “roof mount”); It is noted that “pivotably coupled” includes indirect coupling).
Regarding claim 21, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 20.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the roof actuator extends between the cross-piece and the roof mount (Jesewitz at FIG. 1-6a: The first worm 711 or the second worm 811 (i.e., “roof actuator”) extends between the horizontal support 515 (i.e., “cross-piece”) and the strut 568 (i.e., “roof mount”)).
Regarding claim 22, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 14.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the cross-piece is fixed with respect to the pair of legs (Jesewitz at FIG. 5 and para. [0050]: “the wakeboard tower 514 includes an interconnecting upper end horizontal support 515 which extends from the wakeboard tower 514 portion adjacent the port side gunnel (aka gunwale) to wakeboard tower 514 portion adjacent the starboard side gunnel (aka gunwale); The horizontal support 515 (i.e., “cross-piece”)).
Regarding claim 23, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 14.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the cross-piece includes a tow point (Jesewitz at FIG. 5, 6a and para. [0083]: “A ski tow 520 is provided on the cargo rack apparatus rack rail 526”).
Regarding claim 24, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 1.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the least one leg actuator and the roof actuator are configured such that the roof maintains the substantially constant attitude as the pair of legs are moved from a completely upright position to a completely lowered position (Jesewitz at FIGS. 3-4 and para. [0104]-[0116]: The maximum height position in FIG. 1, the mid height position in FIG. 3, and the stowed position in FIG. 4 show that the cargo rack apparatus 500 (i.e., “roof”) maintains the substantial constant attitude as the tower bases 595a, 595b (i.e., “pair of legs”) are moved from the position shown in FIG. 1 (i.e., “completely upright position”) to the position shown in FIG. 4 (i.e., “completely lowered position”); para. [0112]: “the tilting of the cargo rack apparatus 500 can be adjusted in coordination with the tilting of the tower 514”).
Regarding claim 25, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 14.
Jesewitz further discloses wherein the least one leg actuator and the roof actuator are configured such that the roof maintains the substantially constant attitude as the pair of legs are moved from a completely upright position to a completely lowered position (Jesewitz at FIGS. 3-4 and para. [0104]-[0116]: The maximum height position in FIG. 1, the mid height position in FIG. 3, and the stowed position in FIG. 4 show that the cargo rack apparatus 500 (i.e., “roof”) maintains the substantial constant attitude as the tower bases 595a, 595b (i.e., “pair of legs”) are moved from the position shown in FIG. 1 (i.e., “completely upright position”) to the position shown in FIG. 4 (i.e., “completely lowered position”); para. [0112]: “the tilting of the cargo rack apparatus 500 can be adjusted in coordination with the tilting of the tower 514”).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jesewitz in view of Messik et al. (US 2022/0234688 A1, hereinafter “Messik”).
Regarding claim 2, Jesewitz discloses the foldable watersports tower of claim 1.
However, Jesewitz does not explicitly state wherein the at least one leg actuator includes a pair of leg actuators respectively coupled to one of the legs of the pair of legs.
Nevertheless, Jesewitz at least suggests that the tower bases 595a, 595b, integrated tower mounts 590a, 590b, and towers 514a, 514b are respectively symmetrical.
In the same field of endeavor, Messik teaches wherein the at least one leg actuator includes a pair of leg actuators respectively coupled to one of the legs of the pair of legs (Messik at FIG. 2, 5, 6 and para. [0035]: “The bimini top 22 has port and starboard lower actuators 52 coupled to the lower ends 44 of the support arms 42, respectively, and to the hull 24 of the marine vessel 20”).
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 tower of Jesewitz by adding the pair of leg actuators of Messik with a reasonable expectation of success. Moreover, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B)). The motivation to modify the tower of Jesewitz in view of Messik is to provide actively controllable port and starboard support arms.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JISUN CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-0710. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571)270-0151. 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.
/JISUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights