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 .
Status of the Claims
This is in response to a letter for a patent filed 18 September 2025 in which claims 1-7 were presented for examination. Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 April 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. However, the Patent(s) and/or publication(s) cited in the office actions submitted in the information disclosure statement(s) have not been separately considered. A copy of PTO-1449s are attached hereto.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 15, after “upon”, insert “receiving.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, Claims 1-7 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent claim 1 substantially recite:
receiving a request for the ending of the rental [ ];
checking whether a communication connection currently exists between the terminal and the vehicle;
in response to the checking:
waiting for the communication connection, or ending the method, when the communication connection does not currently exist, and
when the communication connection does currently exist, requesting [ ] the deletion of the key in the vehicle by means of a delete command via the communication connection;
deleting the key in the vehicle upon the request;
after deleting the key, sending a message about the deletion [ ];
upon the message, marking the key for termination [ ];
confirming the termination of the key;
ending the rental when the producer [ ] has confirmed the termination of the key.
The aforementioned limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping which may be interpreted as at least as “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” which includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and/or “Commercial Interactions” which includes agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements: “a terminal,” “a digital key,” “a producer backend,” and “a communication connection” to perform the “receiving,” “checking,” “waiting or ending,” “requesting,” “deleting,” “sending,” “marking,” “confirming,” and “ending” steps. The claimed computer components in the steps of claim 1 are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., “a terminal,” “a digital key,” “a producer backend,” and “a communication connection” in claim 1 performing generic computer functions of “receiving,” “checking,” “waiting or ending,” “requesting,” “deleting,” “sending,” “marking,” “confirming,” and “ending”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (i.e. reciting “a terminal,” “a digital key,” “a producer backend,” and “a communication connection” in claim 1). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in claim 1). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the (“terminal,” “digital key,” “producer backend,” and “communication connection” in the context of claim 1 to perform the “receiving,” “checking,” “waiting or ending,” “requesting,” “deleting,” “sending,” “marking,” “confirming,” and “ending” steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are patent ineligible.
As per dependent claim 2, the recitations, “sends the message directly to the producer”; ”terminates the key”; and “confirms the termination of the key” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity and a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 3, the recitations, “sends the message…”; “sends the message to the producer,” and “confirms the termination of the key” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity and a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 4, the recitations, “checks whether it has already received the message directly from the vehicle”; “wherein when the producer has not already received the message: the producer initially marks the key as a key to be terminated until it receives the message directly from the vehicle and finally terminates the key, and already confirms the key to be terminated as terminated” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity and a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 5, the recitations, “a rental application” and “a rental agency backend” are other computer components recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 6, the recitation of “a direct connection” is another computer component recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 7, the limitations merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Dependent claim 7 recites before the deletion of the key in the vehicle, it is checked whether the vehicle is in a target status, and wherein, when the vehicle is in a target status, the key is deleted, and when the vehicle is not in the target status, the method returns to the check or the method is ended. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 7, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-7 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 2-7, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea of the independent claims. The dependent claims recite no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esselink et al. (US PG Pub. 20150161832 A1) in view of Matsushita et al. (US PG Pub. 20240227733 A1) and Kim et al. (KR 20240103967 A).
As per claim 1, Esselink et al. discloses a method for ending a rental of a vehicle rented by a renter from a rental agency, wherein a terminal is assigned to the renter and the terminal contains a digital key for the vehicle, which is managed by a producer backend (Esselink et al.: [0040] remote server; [0037] cloud server), the method comprising:
receiving a request for the ending of the rental at the terminal (Esselink et al.: [0076] [0079] If the system has both an infotainment or telematics system and connectivity available 815 (i.e., the user has returned to an area with coverage, possibly a designated area), the user will put the vehicle in park and power off the ignition 817. The user then (if this has not already been done) indicates that the rental process should end 819.));
checking whether a communication connection currently exists between the terminal and the vehicle (Esselink et al.: [0076]-[0077] FIGS. 8A-8D show an illustrative example of a vehicle return process. In this illustrative example, the user decides to begin a rental end process 807. The process checks to see if a cellular modem is provided with the vehicle 805. If a cellular modem is provided, and if cellular coverage exists 801, the process will perform a return process for a connected vehicle 803, such as that shown in FIG. 7A, for example. Since the vehicle is connected to the cloud via a vehicle-based modem, check-out and return handling is made easy by direct communication between the vehicle and the cloud. Any temporary keys can be disabled, PINS can be disabled and/or reset, and a vehicle location can be logged via the cloud for a next renter);
in response to the checking: waiting for the communication connection, or ending the method, when the communication connection does not currently exist (Esselink et al. [0079], and
when the communication connection does currently exist, requesting by the terminal the deletion of the key in the vehicle Esselink et al. [0021] Provided within the vehicle, the processor allows onboard processing of commands and routines; [0076] Since the vehicle is connected to the cloud via a vehicle-based modem, check-out and return handling is made easy by direct communication between the vehicle and the cloud. Any temporary keys can be disabled, PINS can be disabled and/or reset, and a vehicle location can be logged via the cloud for a next renter); and [0079] If the system has both an infotainment or telematics system and connectivity available 815 (i.e., the user has returned to an area with coverage, possibly a designated area), the user will put the vehicle in park and power off the ignition 817. The user then (if this has not already been done) indicates that the rental process should end 819.);
deleting the key in the vehicle upon the request (Esselink et al. [0080] The process then disables the keys and/or drive authorization for that user 821. This can be done, for example, by disabling a remote key, invalidating a code, or through any other means of deactivating whatever activation process was used to engage the vehicle);
Esselink et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Matsushita et al. discloses:
requesting by the terminal the deletion of the key in the vehicle by means of a delete command The server deletes the key data from the corresponding terminal by transmitting a deletion instruction command to the mobile terminal corresponding to the key to be deleted);.
after deleting the key, sending a message about the deletion to the producer backend (Matsushita et al.: ([Abstract: [0005] According to an example, an owner terminal is configured so that a deletion target key, which is a guest key to be deleted, can be selected via a guest list screen. When the key to be deleted is selected, the owner terminal sends a signal requesting the deletion of the guest key to the server. The server deletes the key data from the corresponding terminal by transmitting a deletion instruction command to the mobile terminal corresponding to the key to be deleted. Further, the server transmits a data set for deleting the key to be deleted from an authentication ECU to each of the corresponding terminal and the owner terminal).
upon the message, marking the key for termination in the producer backend (Matsushita et al.: [Abstract: [0005] The server deletes the key data from the corresponding terminal by transmitting a deletion instruction command to the mobile terminal corresponding to the key to be deleted);
confirming the termination of the key (Matsushita et al.: See FIG. 31; [0095] In addition to acquiring the service key for the own terminal, the service key management unit F1 executes a process for displaying a status confirmation screen regarding the service key for the own terminal and a process for deleting the service key for the own terminal. The status confirmation screen is a screen image showing the status of the service key for the own terminal. The service key status includes expiration date, authority setting, valid/invalid status, and so on. The status confirmation screen may include information regarding the name of the user corresponding to the issue source). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Esselink et al. to include the confirmation message/status of termination screen as taught by Matsushita et al. in order to provide the user the convenience of checking the status and deleting/invalidating the service key for the terminal (Matsushita et al.: [0097]).
Esselink et al. in view of Matsushita et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Kim et al. discloses:
ending the rental when the producer backend has confirmed the termination of the key (Kim et al.: Page 8, paragraph 11, In addition, in the accommodation sharing method, when it is confirmed that the door lock 300 has deleted the accommodation VP, the accommodation sharing server 200 deletes the accommodation VP and reservation VP and sends an termination notification informing the end of sharing of the accommodation to the guest terminal ( 100) may further include the step of transmitting), page 10, paragraphs 9-10; Afterwards, when the accommodation sharing server 200 confirms that the door lock 300 has deleted the accommodation VP (Verifiable Presentation) (S825), it can delete the accommodation VP and reservation VP it owns (S830). In addition, the accommodation sharing server 200 may deliver a termination notification informing of the termination of sharing of accommodations to the guest terminal 100 and the terminal owned by the manager (S835)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Esselink et al. in view of Matsushita et al.’s confirmation message/status of termination to include the ending of the rental after the confirmation of the deletion of the keys as taught by Kim et al. in order to not complete rental contracts prematurely.
As per claim 2, Esselink et al. in view of Matsushita et al. and Kim et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. Esselink et al. and Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Matsushita et al. discloses:
wherein the vehicle sends the message directly to the producer backend (Matsushita et al.: ([0047] communicating by the vehicular device with the guest terminal or the server to delete the guest key stored in the vehicle-side memory),
wherein the producer backend terminates the key (Matsushita et al.: [0047] communicating by the vehicular device with the guest terminal or the server to delete the guest key stored in the vehicle-side memory), and
wherein the producer backend confirms the termination of the key (Matsushita et al.: FIG. 31 [T36], [0254] Step T36 is a step in which the DKS 3 notifies the owner terminal that the deletion of the guest key is completed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Esselink et al. in view of Kim et al. to include the confirmation message/status of termination screen as taught by Matsushita et al. in order to provide the user the convenience of checking the status and deleting/invalidating the service key for the terminal (Matsushita et al.: [0097]).
As per claim 3, Esselink et al. in view of Matsushita et al. and Kim et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. Esselink et al. and Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Matsushita et al. discloses:
wherein the vehicle sends the message to the terminal (Matsushita et al.: [0047] communicating by the vehicular device with the guest terminal or the server to delete the guest key stored in the vehicle-side memory),
wherein the terminal sends the message to the producer backend (Matsushita et al.: Abstract: When the key to be deleted is selected, the owner terminal sends a signal requesting the deletion of the guest key to the server.), and
wherein the producer backend confirms the termination of the key (Matsushita et al.: Abstract, [0005] The server deletes the key data from the corresponding terminal by transmitting a deletion instruction command to the mobile terminal corresponding to the key to be deleted. Further, the server transmits a data set for deleting the key to be deleted from an authentication ECU to each of the corresponding terminal and the owner terminal.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Esselink et al. in view of Kim et al. to include the confirmation message/status of termination screen as taught by Matsushita et al. in order to provide the user the convenience of checking the status and deleting/invalidating the service key for the terminal (Matsushita et al.: [0097]).
As per claim 5, Esselink et al. in view of Matsushita et al. and Kim et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. Esselink et al. further discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein the terminal contains a rental application of the rental agency communicating with a rental agency backend (Esselink et al.: [0036] In this illustrative example, a cloud server 201 is capable of controlling accounts for various vehicles 205. For example, if a fleet had a number of vehicles with the capabilities described herein, the server could associate all those vehicles with a fleet account. The vehicles, in this example, also include a keypad (for vehicle access) and a clock to track vehicle usage and rental start/end times. In some examples the cloud server may be a service provider engaged by the rental owner, or a service provided by the owner, in other examples for smaller fleets, the function of the cloud server may even be performed by the owner's phone); and (Esselink et al.: [0037] Through an internet connection or app on a phone, the users can access the fleet account to request vehicles. In another embodiment, if someone was borrowing a friend's car, for example, the borrower could access a lender account to request access. Information relating to the use of the vehicle, including access codes and start codes, can be delivered from the cloud server to the user's wireless device 203), and
wherein the method with respect to the terminal is at least partially carried out at the rental application and/or at the rental agency backend (Esselink et al.: [0037] The accounts can also communicate with any number of users 203. Through an internet connection or app on a phone, the users can access the fleet account to request vehicles. In another embodiment, if someone was borrowing a friend's car, for example, the borrower could access a lender account to request access. Information relating to the use of the vehicle, including access codes and start codes, can be delivered from the cloud server to the user's wireless device 203.).
As per claim 6, Esselink et al. in view of Matsushita et al. and Kim et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. Esselink et al. further discloses, wherein a direct connection between terminal and vehicle is checked as the communication connection (Esselink et al. [0081] In this example, the telematics system is connected to the cloud through a wireless phone, wirelessly connected to the vehicle system. The process transmits check-in/return notification through the connected phone 823. This can be done using the phone as a pass-through, or through an actual application running on the phone and communicating with both the vehicle and the cloud.).
As per claim 7, Esselink et al. in view of Matsushita et al. and Kim et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. Esselink et al. further discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein, before the deletion of the key in the vehicle, it is checked whether the vehicle is in a target status (Esselink et al [0079] If the system has both an infotainment or telematics system and connectivity available 815 (i.e., the user has returned to an area with coverage, possibly a designated area), the user will put the vehicle in park and power off the ignition 817. The user then (if this has not already been done) indicates that the rental process should end 819. The vehicle system may use a variety of methods to receive the renter's intention to end the rental. As a non-limiting example, the user may enter his intention into vehicle HMI or a phone APP, or by placing a smart key into a LF backup pocket. A rental time may have passed, triggering the end process, or the user could, for example, manually initiate rental end), and
wherein, when the vehicle is in a target status, the key is deleted, and when the vehicle is not in the target status, the method returns to the check or the method is ended (Esselink et al. :[0080] The process then disables the keys and/or drive authorization for that user 821. This can be done, for example, by disabling a remote key, invalidating a code, or through any other means of deactivating whatever activation process was used to engage the vehicle).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esselink et al. (US PG Pub. 20150161832 A1) in view of Matsushita et al. (US PG Pub. 20240227733 A1) and Kim et al. (KR 20240103967 A) as applied to claim 3 above and in further view of Knott et al. EP 4301020 A1).
As per claim 4, Esselink et al. in view of Matsushita et al. and Kim et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. Esselink et al. in view of Kim et al. do not explicitly disclose, however, Knott et al. discloses:
wherein the producer backend checks whether it has already received the message Knott et al.: In some embodiments, method 100 may also provide that the vehicle presents a recommendation to revoke the digital key to a user of the vehicle and the digital key is revoked if the user confirms the revocation in response to the recommendation); and (Knott et al.:. [0066] The request indicates that the holder intends to give back the digital key, i.e., that the digital key gets revoked or invalidated. In order to verify that the holder requested to revoke the digital key, it may be checked or verified whether the request for revocation was submitted by the same user device that "carries" (i.e., stores) the digital key and whether this user device has a network connection. Additionally or alternatively, it may be checked or verified whether the request was submitted by an owner of this user device, e.g., by checking whether the request was submitted using Remote Device Wipe (also called "Remote Wipe") and/or whether the user device is in Device Lost Mode), and
wherein when the producer backend has not already received the message: the producer backend initially marks the key as a key to be terminated until it receives the message directly from the vehicle and finally terminates the key (Knott et al.: [0080, In yet another exemplary scenario, the person holding the shared digital key may lose the user device storing this digital key and put this user device into a "lost mode" (e.g., using another user device and via an OEM, original equipment manufacturer, cloud). In this case, the information on the use status may accordingly indicate that the user device storing the shared digital key and, thus, the shared digital key is lost, thereby indicating that the digital key is to be revoked for security reasons), and
already confirms the key to be terminated as terminated (Knott et al.: [0080], In this case, the digital key is revoked (immediately). In applications in which an OEM backend or server handles the digital key, the digital key may be at least revoked as soon as the OEM backend or server can reach the lost user device. In this way, the lost user device and the shared digital key cannot be used). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Esselink et al. in view of Kim et al. and Matsushita et al. to include the confirmation messages for terminating/revoking key as taught by Knott et al. in order to possibly stop the usage of a lost user device and a shared digital key from being used by unauthorized persons or a potential thief (Knott et al.: [0080]).
Knott et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Matsushita et al. discloses the message is directly from the vehicle (Matsushita et al.: [0047] communicating by the vehicular device with the guest terminal or the server to delete the guest key stored in the vehicle-side memory). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Esselink et al. in view of Kim et al. and Knott et al. to include the communicating/messaging from the vehicle as taught by Matsushita et al. in order to make changes immediately via the connection of the vehicle and server.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
` 1) “How Tesla's Digital Key Transforms Your Rental Experience”; 07/28/2023, hertz.com, 11 pages discloses the Tesla digital key is an innovative feature on the Tesla mobile app. It turns your phone into a multifunctional tool for your Tesla rental car – allowing full access to your vehicle in the palm of your hand; and this seamless digital experience elevates Tesla rentals from Hertz to new levels – and all new Tesla rentals from Hertz come equipped with this digital key functionality.
2) Rajamohan, Winona; ”How car sharing APIs create a seamless rental experience”, March 17, 2023, smartcar.com, 11 pages discloses that vehicle inventory levels in the US were at their lowest in 2021 since the Global Financial Crisis and this has pushed rental prices to record highs. Last summer, average car rental prices were 60% higher than
pre-pandemic levels — that’s $99 a day. Now, the potential for car sharing is immense
because it allows commuters to rent vehicles from hosts without having to rely on rental fleets; and with car sharing APIs, businesses can empower vehicle hosts and renters with more convenient, reliable, and affordable options.
3) Beller, Markus, “10 innovative applications for the digital vehicle key”, 13/09/2023; blog.doubleslash.de; 11 pages disclose that doubleSlash develops backend systems for the introduction of the digital vehicle key and integrates them seamlessly into your existing connected mobility system landscape - in accordance with the established Car Connectivity Consortium standards Release 2 and 3 and, in future, Release 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDA A. NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/F.A.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights