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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed with the written response received on 23 June 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, and 12-14 has/have been amended, claim(s) 15 is/are canceled, and claim(s) 21 has/have been added. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-14 and 16-21 is/are pending in this application with an action on the merits to follow.
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed 02 April 2026, are hereby withdrawn:
The first and second issues of the Drawing Objections
Claim 7 in the Drawing Objections and the Specification Objections
Objections to the Claims
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 12, and 14-15 under 35 USC 112(b)
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following structures from the claims must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claim 1: “wherein the posterior heel wall is removed from the heel strap and is laid against the insole when the heel cup is in the folded position”
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the heel strap is and elastic heel strap defined by at least 50% elasticity” which is not found in the Specification. The Specification ¶0041 supports “the elastic strap 82 is defined by 50% or more elasticity” but does not mention the heel strap nor an elastic heel strap specifically have 50% or more elasticity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/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.
Claim 4 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “wherein the heel strap is an elastic heel strap defined by at least 50% elasticity”. The Specification ¶0041 supports “the heel strap 80 is provided by one or more elastic straps 82” and the “elastic strap 82 is defined by 50% or more elasticity” but does not mention a heel strap nor an elastic heel strap specifically have 50% or more elasticity. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, the heel strap, elastic straps, and elastic heel strap as the same overall structure and this structure has 50% or more elasticity.
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(s) 1-3, 5, 7, and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis US 20210282495 in view of Dillenbeck US 20110271556.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Davis discloses an article of footwear (Figs. 1-2 & 8-12 #210) including a heel region (Figs. 1-2 #24), a midfoot region (Figs. 1-2 #22), and a forefoot region (Figs. 1-2 #24), the article of footwear comprising: a sole (Figs. 8-12 #212); an upper connected to the sole (Figs. 8-12 #214), the upper and the sole forming a foot cavity (Figs. 8-12 #218 and interior of shoe), the upper comprising (i) a heel cup (Figs. 8-12 #250) defining a posterior heel wall (Fig. 9 shows the wall-shaped #250) and (ii) a heel strap (Figs. 8-12 #254) that extends around (Figs. 8-12) an exterior surface of the posterior heel wall (Figs. 8-12); and an insole (¶0036) positioned within the foot cavity (¶0036); wherein the heel cup is configured to be moved between an upright position and a folded position (Figs. 8-12), wherein the exterior surface of the posterior heel wall is adjacent to the heel strap when the heel cup is in the upright position (Figs. 8-11), and wherein the posterior heel wall is removed from the heel strap (Figs. 8-12), but does not expressly disclose that the heel cup is laid against the insole when the heel cup is in the folded position.
Dillenbeck teaches an article of footwear (Figs. 1-6 #10) with an adjustable heel cup (Figs. 1-6 #18) that is laid against an insole (Figs. 1-6 #84) when the heel cup is in a folded position (Figs. 1-6).
Both Davis and Dillenbeck teach analogous inventions in the art of articles of footwear with adjustable heel cups. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Davis with the teachings of Dillenbeck such that the heel cup folds inward and lays against the insole so that the heel cup, “provides support and comfort to a user's heel when the heel portion is folded downward to form a mule-type shoe,” (Dillenbeck ¶0013).
Regarding Claim 2, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 1 wherein the heel strap is freely moveable relative to the posterior heel wall of the heel cup (Fig. 10), and wherein the heel strap includes a strap crest (Figs. 8-12 #254c) that is higher than a lateral end (Figs. 8-12 #254a lateral side #30; ¶0057) and a medial end of the heel strap (Figs. 8-12 #254a medial side #28; ¶0057).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 2 wherein the heel strap is moveable between (i) a first position (Fig. 8) wherein the strap crest is higher than the lateral end and the medial end of the heel strap on the article of footwear (Fig. 8) and (ii) a second position (Fig. 12) wherein the strap crest is below the lateral end and the medial end of the heel strap on the article of footwear (Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 1 wherein a medial seam (Figs. 8-12 #236 medial; ¶0054 notes this as a “collar”) separates a midfoot portion of the upper (Fig. 9) from the heel cup on a medial side of the article of footwear (Figs. 8-12 medial), and wherein a lateral seam (Figs. 8-12 #236 lateral; ¶0054 notes this as a “collar”) separates the midfoot portion of the upper from the heel cup on a lateral side (Figs. 8-12 lateral).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 5 wherein the sole includes a midsole (Figs. 1-2 #32), wherein a lower perimeter of the heel cup (Figs. 8-12 #251) is non-removably connected to (Figs. 8-12 #252) the article of footwear (Figs. 8-12; ¶0058) along an upper perimeter of the midsole (Figs. 8-12 show the hinge connected to the upper perimeter which is attached to the midsole top surface), wherein a lateral side of the heel cup (Figs. 8-12; ¶0058) is non-removably connected to the lateral seam (Figs. 8-12; ¶0058), and wherein a medial side of the heel cup (Figs. 8-12; ¶0058) is non-removably connected to the medial seam (Figs. 8-12; ¶0058).
Regarding Independent Claim 16, Davis discloses a method of donning an article of footwear (Figs. 1-2 & 8-12 #210) comprising: inserting a foot of a wearer into a foot cavity of the article of footwear (Abstract, ¶0003-0004) with a foldable heel cup (Figs. 8-12 #250) in an upright configuration (Fig. 8) and a heel strap (Figs. 8-12 #254) extending around an exterior surface of the foldable heel cup (Figs. 8-11); removing the foot from the foot cavity (¶0018); moving the foldable heel cup to a folded position (Fig. 12; ¶0018, 0054-0055); and inserting the foot of the wearer into the foot cavity of the article of footwear with the foldable heel cup in a folded position (¶0018, 0054-0055), but does not expressly disclose a heel of the foot of the wearer on top of the exterior surface of the foldable heel cup.
Dillenbeck teaches an article of footwear (Figs. 1-6 #10) with an adjustable heel cup (Figs. 1-6 #18) where a heel of the foot of the wearer (Fig. 6) on top of the exterior surface of the foldable heel cup (Figs. 5-6).
Both Davis and Dillenbeck teach analogous inventions in the art of articles of footwear with adjustable heel cups. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Davis with the teachings of Dillenbeck such that a heel of the foot of the wearer on top of the exterior surface of the foldable heel cup so that the heel cup, “provides support and comfort to a user's heel when the heel portion is folded downward to form a mule-type shoe,” (Dillenbeck ¶0013).
Regarding Claim 17, the modified method of Davis discloses the method of claim 16 wherein inserting the foot into the foot cavity with the foldable heel cup in the folded position comprises inserting the foot into an opening between the heel strap and a dorsum of the article of footwear such that the heel of the foot is on top of the heel strap (Davis ¶0055-0064; Dillenbeck Figs. 5-6).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified method of Davis discloses the method of claim 17 further comprising pulling the heel strap from under the heel and positioning a strap crest of the heel strap around an Achilles tendon of the wearer (Fig. 8 would have the heel strap #254 around the Achilles tendon of a wearer when the heel strap is up, as shown).
Regarding Claim 19, the modified method of Davis discloses the method of claim 18 wherein the heel strap is an elastic heel strap (¶0056).
Regarding Claim 20, the modified method of Davis discloses the method of claim 16 wherein inserting the foot into the foot cavity with the foldable heel cup in the folded position comprises inserting the foot into an opening between the heel strap and a sole of the article of footwear such that the heel strap is positioned above a dorsum of the foot of the wearer (Davis ¶0055-0064; Dillenbeck Figs. 5-6).
Regarding Claim 21, the modified method of Davis discloses the method of claim 16 wherein the heel strap is an elastic heel strap (¶0056), and wherein moving the foldable heel cup to a folded position (Davis ¶0055-0064; Dillenbeck Figs. 5-6) comprises disengaging a the exterior surface of the foldable heel cup from the elastic heel strap (Davis Fig. 12; ¶0018, 0054-0055; Dillenbeck Figs. 5-6).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis and Dillenbeck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Granek US 3482337.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 1 wherein the heel strap is an elastic heel strap has elasticity (¶0053, 0064), but does not expressly disclose that the elasticity is defined by at least 50% elasticity.
Granek teaches an article of footwear (Figs. 1-6) with elastic straps (Figs. 1-2 #13/28) that have at least 50% elasticity (Col. 3:63-72).
Both Davis (as modified by Dillenbeck) and Granek teach analogous inventions in the art of articles of footwear with adjustable heel cups. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Davis (as modified by Dillenbeck) with the teachings of Granek such that the elastic heel strap would have at least 50% elasticity in order to produce a shoe that, “readily and easily conforms to the foot of the wearer to minimize abrasion and obviate an important cause of calluses and blisters. Moreover, the improved sandal is highly attractive, rugged, long wearing, highly comfortable and of low cost,” (Granek Col. 2:32-40).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis and Dillenbeck as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Wilson US 20030200679.
Regarding Claim 6, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 5, but does not expressly disclose wherein a reinforced cord structure extends along the medial seam and the lateral seam.
Wilson teaches an article of footwear (Figs. 1-5 #100) wherein a reinforced cord structure (Figs. 1-5 #62/66/70/72/82; ¶0020) extends along a medial seam and a lateral seam (Figs. 1-5 #72/70, respectively).
Both Davis (as modified by Dillenbeck) and Wilson teach analogous inventions in the art of articles of footwear. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Davis (as modified by Dillenbeck) with the teachings of Wilson such that there would be a reinforced cord structure extending along the medial and lateral seams in order to give the shoe seams additional abrasion resistance.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Granek.
Regarding Independent Claim 8, Davis discloses an article of footwear (Figs. 1-2 & 8-12 #210) comprising: a sole (Figs. 1-12 #212); a midfoot portion (Figs. 1-2 #22) connected to the sole (Figs. 1-12), the midfoot portion including a medial side (Figs. 1-2 medial) and a lateral side (Figs. 1-2 lateral); a heel cup (Figs. 8-12 #250) connected to the sole and the midfoot portion (Figs. 1-9), the heel cup the heel cup being moveable between an upright position and a folded position (Figs. 1-9); and at least one strap (Figs. 1-9 #254) extending around an exterior surface of the heel cup (Figs. 1-12), wherein the heel at least one strap is an elastic heel strap (Abstract).
Davis does not expressly disclose wherein the elastic heel strap is defined by at least 50% elasticity.
Davis does not expressly disclose that the elasticity is defined by at least 50% elasticity.
Granek teaches an article of footwear (Figs. 1-6) with elastic straps (Figs. 1-2 #13/28) that have at least 50% elasticity (Col. 3:63-72).
Both Davis and Granek teach analogous inventions in the art of articles of footwear with adjustable heel cups. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Davis with the teachings of Granek such that the elastic heel strap would have at least 50% elasticity in order to produce a shoe that, “readily and easily conforms to the foot of the wearer to minimize abrasion and obviate an important cause of calluses and blisters. Moreover, the improved sandal is highly attractive, rugged, long wearing, highly comfortable and of low cost,” (Granek Col. 2:32-40).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 8 wherein a medial seam (Figs. 8-12 #236 medial; ¶0054 notes this as a “collar”) is provided between the medial side of the midfoot portion and the heel cup (Figs. 1-12), wherein a lateral seam (Figs. 8-12 #236 lateral; ¶0054 notes this as a “collar”) is provided between the lateral side of the midfoot portion and the heel cup (Figs. 1-12), and wherein ends of the at least one strap (Figs. 8-12; ¶0058) are connected to the medial seam and the lateral seam (Figs. 8-12; ¶0058).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 9 wherein the ends of the at least one strap include a medial end (Fig. 8 #254a medial) connected to the medial seam (Fig. 8; ¶0059) and a lateral end (Fig. 8 #254a lateral) connected to the lateral seam (Fig. 8; ¶0059), and wherein the at least one heel strap is freely moveable relative to the heel cup between the medial end and the lateral end of the at least one heel strap (Figs. 8-12).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 12 wherein the at least one strap defines a strap crest (Fig. 8 #254c area) that is higher than the lateral end and the medial end of the at least one strap on the article of footwear (Fig. 8; ¶0059).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 13 wherein the at least one strap is moveable between (i) a first position (Figs. 1-12) wherein the strap crest is higher than the lateral end and the medial end of the at least one strap (Figs. 1-12) and (ii) a second position (Figs. 1-12) wherein the strap crest is below the lateral end and the medial end of the heel strap (Figs. 1-12).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis and Granek as applied to claims 8-9 above, and further in view of Wilson.
Regarding Claim 10, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 9 but does not expressly disclose wherein a reinforced cord structure extends along the medial seam and the lateral seam.
Wilson teaches an article of footwear (Figs. 1-5 #100) wherein a reinforced cord structure (Figs. 1-5 #62/66/70/72/82; ¶0020) extends along a medial seam and a lateral seam (Figs. 1-5 #72/70, respectively).
Both Davis (as modified by Granek) and Wilson teach analogous inventions in the art of articles of footwear. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Davis (as modified by Granek) with the teachings of Wilson such that there would be a reinforced cord structure extending along the medial and lateral seams in order to give the shoe seams additional abrasion resistance.
Regarding Claim 11, the modified article of footwear of Davis discloses the article of footwear of claim 10 wherein the reinforced cord structure further extends across a dorsum of the article of footwear (Wilson Fig. 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 23 June 2026, with respect to the Drawing Objections, Specification Objections, 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 3-4, and 15, and 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the Drawing Objections, Applicant argues:
The Drawings clearly show “wherein the posterior heel wall is removed from the heel strap and is laid against the insole when the heel cup is in the folded position” in Figs. 2 and 7 (Remarks Pgs. 9-10).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Drawings do not show the “heel wall is removed from the heel strap”. The Drawings also do not show the heel wall… is laid against the insole” nor that the “heel wall… is in the folded position.” What Fig. 7 shows is the absence of a heel wall, not where that heel wall went. Therefore the Drawing Objection to this limitation in claim 1 stands. See Drawing Objection above.
Regarding the Specification Objections, Applicant argues:
The amendments to the claims overcome the Specification objections (Remarks Pg. 9)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 4 recites, “wherein the heel strap is an elastic heel strap defined by at least 50% elasticity” which is not found in the Specification. The Specification ¶0041 supports “the elastic strap 82 is defined by 50% or more elasticity” but does not mention the heel strap nor an elastic heel strap specifically have 50% or more elasticity, only the elastic strap, therefore the limitation, “wherein the heel strap is an elastic heel strap defined by at least 50% elasticity” lacks antecedence in the Specification.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 4, Applicant argues:
The amendments overcome the rejection. (Remarks Pg. 10)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 4 recites “wherein the heel strap is an elastic heel strap defined by at least 50% elasticity”. The Specification ¶0041 supports “the heel strap 80 is provided by one or more elastic straps 82” and the “elastic strap 82 is defined by 50% or more elasticity” but does not mention the heel strap nor an elastic heel strap specifically have 50% or more elasticity, only the elastic strap, therefore the limitation, “wherein the heel strap is an elastic heel strap defined by at least 50% elasticity” lacks antecedence in the Specification and it is unclear if the elastic straps are the elastic heel strap. See 35 USC 112(b) rejection above.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1 and 16, Applicant argues:
The heel cup of Davis is not designed to fold inwardly and be laid against the insole of the shoe, and to use Dillenbeck to modify the heel cup of Davis to do so would not have been obvious as Davis teaches away from this modification. This modification would “render Davis unsatisfactory for its intended purpose,” and would make it “impossible for the wearer to return to its upward position to enclose the foot of the wearer.” Further, there is no case for prima facie obviousness to perform the modification made between Davis and Dillenbeck (Remarks Pg. 10-13).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The structure of Davis supports the heel cup being folded inwardly as the heel flap is not mentioned to be stiff, rigid, or otherwise noted as not being capable of inversion should the user choose to wear the shoe in a mule-style, which is well-known in the art as a style user’s often choose. This common modification of wearing shoes with heel cups inverted does not prevent the heel cup from being utilized in the future, and the same would hold true for the device of Davis as the heel cup is not noted as being stiff, rigid, or incapable of inversion. The modification of Davis with Dillenbeck is obvious because, as stated above, wearing shoes in a mule-style is a common practice among shoe-wearing users for a myriad of reasons, including heel comfort in shoes that are too big or small, for ease of donning/doffing of the shoe, and for style reasons. It would have been obvious to take a shoe with an adjustable heel cup and have that heel cup fold inwardly because folding a heel cup inward is one of the most obvious and well-known modifications for a heel cup. The heel cup of Davis can already fold inward [to sit upright] and outward (as seen in Figs. 8-12) and therefore to have that same heel cup fold further inward would not be an unreasonable modification since the heel cup can already articulate in a hinge manner. See 35 USC 103 rejections above.
Applicant' s arguments, filed 23 June 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 8-9 and 12-14 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. In view of Applicant' s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant' s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant submits that the dependent claims are patentable based on their dependencies from claim(s) 1, 8, and 16; however, as discussed in the rejection and in the arguments above, claim(s) 1, 8, and 16 are not allowable over the prior art. Therefore, these arguments have not been found convincing and the rejections of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 have been maintained.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL M. WEIS whose telephone number is 571-272-6804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 0800-1700.
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, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS can be reached on 571-272-3425. 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.
/RAQUEL M. WEIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights