DETAILED ACTION
This is the fourth Office action on the merits. Claims 1, 4-15, and 20-23 are currently pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 09/25/2024 are sufficient to overcome the objection to the specification.
The amendments are sufficient to overcome the objection to claim 11.
The amendments are sufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1, 4-15, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, the amendments introduce a new ground for rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
The amendments fail to overcome the rejections of claims 1, 4-15, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). An updated claim mapping is provided below with the updated claim language.
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/25/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Particularly, on pages 1-2 of the Remarks, the applicant argues that the reference Amzajerdian et al. ‘252 (US 20140036252 A1) does not point towards modifications proposed to Amzajerdian ‘702 (US 4995720 A) in the Non-Final rejection mailed on 03/25/2024 as it fails to teach operating switches in different modes. In further support of this, they state that Amzajerdian et al. ‘252 additionally fails to teach a timing of a switch or the use of a laser pulse, both of which would preclude its combination with the acousto-optic modulator taught by Amzajerdian ‘702.
However, in paragraph [0019] of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252 it states that, “[e]ach of the transmit/receive switches 62a, 62b, 62c directs a respective part of the first portion of the amplified laser beam from the amplifier 56 to a respective transmit/receive lens 60a, 60b, 60c, and directs the received reflected radiation from the respective transmit/receive lens 60a, 60b, 60c to a respective photoreceiver 70a, 70b, 70c[.]” Thus, the switches 62a-c do operate in two modes, one where the switches direct light from the amplifier to their respective transmit/receive lens and one where the switches direct light from respective transmit/receive lens to their respective photoreceiver. Further, the switch between these two modes would have to occur after the transmitting the first portion of the amplified laser beam, but before the reflected radiation returns to the lens, thus providing a timing window for when this transition would occur (Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, FIG. 1 and Paragraphs [0005] and [0019]). Additionally, it states that this first portion of amplified laser beam is generated by an amplifier operating in a pulsed mode, and thus this first portion of amplified laser beam is effectively a laser pulse (Amzajerdian et al. ‘252 Paragraph [0017]). As such, the teachings of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252 with regards to its switching system are applicable to Amzajerdian ‘720, and the current rejections of claims 1, 4-15, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 23 recites the limitation, “wherein the optical switch is configured to be operated in either the first mode or the second mode.” However, claim 1, upon which claim 23 depends already recites the limitation, “the optical switch configured to be switched between a first mode and a second mode[.]” As such, claim 1 already requires that the optical switch be operable in either the first or second mode, as it is being switched between these modes. Thus, claim 23 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-9, 20, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amzajerdian ‘720 (US 4995720 A), modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252 (US 20140036252 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Amzajerdian ‘720 teaches a LIDAR system, comprising:
the LIDAR system having multiple optical pathways along which light signals are guided (FIG. 1, propagation paths 22 and 24, Col 4 Lns 3-14), the optical pathways including a common optical pathway that is traveled by an outgoing light signal that exits the LIDAR system and also by an incoming light signal that enters the LIDAR system after being reflected by an object and that includes light from the outgoing light signal (FIG. 1, received signal 26, beam splitter 30, and telescope 40, Col 4 Lns 44-60. Outgoing and incoming light travel the same path between beam splitter 30 and telescope 40.);
[1…], [an] optical switch configured to be switched between a first mode and a second mode (FIG. 1, acousto-optic modulator 20, Col 4 Lns 3-25. AOM 20 functions as a switch.), and the optical pathways being configured such that the outgoing light signal exits from the LIDAR system in response to the optical switch being in the first mode (FIG. 1, acousto-optic modulator 20 and propagation path 22, Col 4 Lns 3-25. When turned off, thus in a first mode, the AOM directs light along path 22 where it will exit the system into the environment.), the optical pathways being configured such that the outgoing light signal does not exit from the LIDAR system in response to the optical switch being in the second mode (FIG. 1, acousto-optic modulator 20 and propagation path 24, Col 4 Lns 3-25. When turned on, thus in a second mode, the AOM directs light along path 24 where it will never exit the system into the environment.), [2…].
Amzajerdian ‘720 fails to teach [1 and 2…]: an optical switch positioned along the common optical pathway such that the optical switch receives the outgoing light signal and the incoming light signal, […], the optical pathways being configured such that the incoming light signal travels away from the optical switch along a first optical path when the optical switch is in the second mode, the first optical path being separate from the optical pathway from which the optical switch receives the outgoing light signal.
However, Amzajerdian et al. ‘252 does teach positioning an optical switch along a common pathway that receives outgoing and incoming light signals (FIG. 1, transmit/receive switches 62a-c, Paragraphs [0019] and [0020]), wherein the optical switch directs incoming light down a first pathway while in one mode (FIG. 1, transmit/receive switches 62a-c and reflected radiation 72a-c, Paragraphs [0019]-[0023]. This first pathway is indicated by reflected radiation 72a-c), this first pathway being separate from the pathway it received the outgoing light signal (FIG. 1, transmit/receive switches 62a-c, first portions of the laser beam 66a-c, and reflected radiation 72a-c, Paragraphs [0019]-[0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the LIDAR system taught by Amzajerdian ‘720 with the use of an optical switch to direct transmitting and receiving signals taught by Amzajerdian et al. ‘252. The reasoning for this is that by utilizing this optical switch, it will predictably allow for incoming and outgoing light signals to propagated by the same lens in a monostatic geometry, which can thus reduce the number of optical devices necessary to manufacture the invention.
Regarding claim 4 Amzajerdian ‘720, modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, further comprising a signal combiner configured to mix light from the outgoing light signal with light from the incoming light signal so as to generate a composite light signal when the optical switch is in the second mode (Amzajerdian ‘720, FIGS. 1 and 2, tail portion 18, propagation path 24, received signal 26, and beam splitter 32, Col 4 Lns 3-14 and Col 4 Ln 61 – Col 5 Ln 11; and Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, FIG. 1, transmit/receive switches 62a-c, photoreceivers 70a-c, and reflected radiation 72a-c, Paragraphs [0019]-[0023]. Both references teach a component which combines incoming and outgoing signals.).
Regarding claim 5 Amzajerdian ‘720, modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 4, wherein the optical paths are configured such that the composite light signal is not generated when the optical switch is in the first mode (Amzajerdian ‘720, FIG. 1, acousto-optic modulator 20 and propagation paths 22 and 24, Col 4 Lns 3-25. The combined signal cannot be generated when AOM 20 is turned off as it will only send light along path 22, and thus no light will be propagated along path 24 for combining.).
Regarding claim 6 Amzajerdian ‘720, modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 4, wherein optical paths are configured such that the incoming light signal and the outgoing light signal both travel along the common optical path when the optical switch is in the first mode (Amzajerdian ‘720, FIG. 1, acousto-optic modulator 20, propagation path 22, received signal 26, beam splitter 30, and telescope 40, Col 4 Lns 3-25 and Lns 44-60. Outgoing and incoming light travel along a common path when the AOM is turned off.).
Regarding claim 7 Amzajerdian ‘720, modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 4, wherein the optical paths are configured such that the incoming light signal travels along the common optical path when the optical switch is in the second mode (Amzajerdian ‘720, FIG. 1, acousto-optic modulator 20, propagation path 22, received signal 26, beam splitter 30, and telescope 40, Col 4 Lns 3-25 and Lns 44-60. When the AOM is turned on, the incoming light will continue to travel along the common pathway, as it is unaffected by the AOM.) but the outgoing light signal does not travel along the common optical path when the optical switch is in the second mode (Amzajerdian ‘720, FIG. 1, acousto-optic modulator 20 and propagation path 24, Col 4 Lns 3-25. When the AOM is turned on, the outgoing light signal will not be emitted and thus not travel along the common path.).
Regarding claim 8 Amzajerdian ‘720, modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 4, wherein the outgoing light signal travels away from the optical switch along a second optical path when the optical switch is in the second mode (Amzajerdian ‘720, FIG. 1, acousto-optic modulator 20 and propagation path 24, Col 4 Lns 3-25. When the AOM is turned on the outgoing light travels along path 24.), the first optical path being separate from the second optical path (Amzajerdian ‘720, FIG. 1, acousto-optic modulator 20 and propagation path 24, Col 4 Lns 3-25; and Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, FIG. 1, transmit/receive switches 62a-c and reflected radiation 72a-c, Paragraphs [0019]-[0023]. In the mapping of claim 1, the first path is taught by Amzajerdian et al. ‘252 as reflected radiation 72a-c where incoming light travels after being received by the switch from a common optical path. This is functionally equivalent to the light path taught by Amzajerdian ‘720 between beam splitters 30 and 32, as this is where incoming light is sent after the common path. This path is separate from propagation path 24, which was mapped as the second path.), and the common optical path being separate from the first optical path and being separate from the second optical path (Amzajerdian ‘720, FIG. 1, acousto-optic modulator 20 and propagation path 24, Col 4 Lns 3-25; and Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, FIG. 1, transmit/receive switches 62a-c and reflected radiation 72a-c, Paragraphs [0019]-[0023]. Both references teach a common path that is separate from either propagation path 24 taught by Amzajerdian ‘720, or reflected radiation 72a-c taught by Amzajerdian et al. ‘252 and its functionally equivalent path taught by Amzajerdian ‘720.).
Regarding claim 9 Amzajerdian ‘720, modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the optical paths are configured such that the outgoing light signal travels away from the optical switch along the common optical pathway (Amzajerdian ‘720, FIG. 1, acousto-optic modulator 20, propagation path 22, received signal 26, beam splitter 30, and telescope 40, Col 4 Lns 3-25 and Lns 44-60. The outgoing light travels from beam splitter 30 to telescope 40, and is thus propagating in a direction away from AOM 20.) and the incoming light signal travels toward the optical switch along the common optical pathway (Amzajerdian ‘720, FIG. 1, acousto-optic modulator 20, propagation path 22, received signal 26, beam splitter 30, and telescope 40, Col 4 Lns 3-25 and Lns 44-60. The incoming light travels from telescope 40 to beam splitter 30, and is thus propagating in a direction towards AOM 20.).
Regarding claim 20 Amzajerdian ‘720, modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 4, wherein when the optical switch is in the first mode, the incoming light signal travels away from the optical switch on the optical pathway from which the optical switch receives the outgoing light signal (Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, FIG. 1, transmit/receive switches 62a-c, first portions of the laser beam 66a-c, and reflected radiation 72a-c, Paragraphs [0019]-[0023]. The second mode was mapped as the mode where incoming light travels from the transmit/receive lens through the optical switch as reflected radiation 72a-c. The first mode would then be when outgoing light travels through the optical switch to the transmit/receive lens as the first portions of the laser beam 66a-c. Thus, while the light is in the first mode, any incoming light received by the switch would propagate towards the path for the first portion of light, and thus in the same direction the outgoing light was received by the switch, as that is the optical path provided by the switch in the first mode.).
Regarding claim 21 Amzajerdian ‘720, modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 4, wherein the optical pathway from which the optical switch receives the outgoing light signal does not extend to the signal combiner (Amzajerdian ‘720, FIGS. 1 and 2, laser beam 14, AOM 20, and beam splitter 32, Col 4 Lns 3-14 and Col 4 Ln 61 – Col 5 Ln 11; and Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, FIG. 1, transmit/receive switches 62a-c, first portions of the laser beam 66a-c, photoreceivers 70a-c, and reflected radiation 72a-c, Paragraphs [0019]-[0023]. Both references show that the path from which the optical switch receives the outgoing light does not extend to their signal combiners.).
Regarding claim 23 Amzajerdian ‘720, modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the optical switch is configured to be operated in either the first mode or the second mode (Amzajerdian ‘720, FIG. 1, acousto-optic modulator 20, Col 4 Lns 3-25. AOM 20 functions as a switch, which operates in two different modes.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amzajerdian ‘720 (US 4995720 A), modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252 (US 20140036252 A1) and Jenkins et al. (US 20110164845 A1).
Regarding claim 10 Amzajerdian ‘720, modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1.
This combination fails to teach wherein the optical switch is a cross-over switch.
However, Jenkins et al. does teach the use of a matrix switch to direct optical signals (FIG. 2, matrix switch 50, Paragraph [0055]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to further modify the LIDAR system taught by Amzajerdian ‘720, and previously modified with the use of an optical switch to direct transmitting and receiving signals taught by Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, with the matrix switch taught by Jenkins et al. The reasoning for this is that matrix switches, also known as cross-over switches, are capable of directing multiple inputs and outputs, which predictably would allow for a system to direct both incoming and outgoing optical signals along two separate paths at the same time while only requiring one switch.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amzajerdian ‘720 (US 4995720 A), modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252 (US 20140036252 A1) and Wagner et al. (US 20200225332 A1).
Regarding claim 11 Amzajerdian ‘720, modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1.
This combination fails to teach electronics that switch the optical switch between the first mode and the second mode, the electronics operating the switch through a series of periods that each includes a transmit segment and a receive segment, the electronics operating the switch in the first mode during the transmit segment and in the second mode during the receive segment.
However, Wagner et al. does teach an optical switch, that switches between transmitting and receiving modes based on a logic signal, which would be inherently electrical (FIG. 3, input/output 302, direction controller 304, and transmit/receive (T/R) logic 306, Paragraph [0091]), wherein the switch will thus possess transmitting and receiving periods corresponding to its two separate modes (FIG. 3, input/output 302, direction controller 304, and transmit/receive (T/R) logic 306, Paragraph [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to further modify the LIDAR system taught by Amzajerdian ‘720, and previously modified with the use of an optical switch to direct transmitting and receiving signals taught by Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, with the electrical control taught by Wagner et al. The reasoning for this is that by controlling the optical switch using electronic controls, the system will predictably be able to react and operate far faster than if controlled manually by human input.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amzajerdian ‘720 (US 4995720 A), modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252 (US 20140036252 A1), Wagner et al. (US 20200225332 A1), and Hall et al. (US 20170269215 A1).
Regarding claim 12 Amzajerdian ‘720, modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252 and Wagner et al., teaches the LIDAR system of claim 11.
This combination fails to teach wherein the electronics tune a duration of the transmit segment and/or the receive segment.
However, Hall et al. does teach a system which controls both the duration of a measurement window, where all time outside of the measurement window can be considered a transmit segment (FIG. 8, pulse firing signal 146 and TMEASUREMENT, Paragraphs [0063]-[0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to further modify the LIDAR system taught by Amzajerdian ‘720, and previously modified with the use of an optical switch to direct transmitting and receiving signals taught by Amzajerdian et al. ‘252 and the electrical control taught by Wagner et al., with the measurement window control taught by Hall et al. The reasoning for this is that by controlling the measurement window of a system, it predictably allows the system to reject light that would come from ranges deemed too far or too close (Hall et al., Paragraph [0064]) which would predictably reduce latency, ambient light intake, and the chances of receiving an erroneous measurement. From this reasoning it would also be obvious to adopt as small of measurement windows as possible, as this will further enhance these stated benefits.
Regarding claim 13 Amzajerdian ‘720, modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, Wagner et al., and Hall et al., teaches the LIDAR system of claim 12, wherein the duration of the transmit segment and/or the receive segment is tuned in response to a change in a distance between the LIDAR system and an object that is located remotely from the LIDAR system but reflects the outgoing light signal after the outgoing light signal exits from the LIDAR system (Hall et al., FIG. 8, pulse firing signal 146 and TMEASUREMENT, Paragraphs [0063]-[0065]). Teaches specifically setting the measurement window based on an expected return time for the light signal. When the distance to the object being detected by the system changes, this expected return time would change, and thus so would the measurement window.).
Regarding claim 14 Amzajerdian ‘720, modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, Wagner et al., and Hall et al., teaches the LIDAR system of claim 12, wherein the duration of the transmit segment and/or the receive segment is tuned in response to a change in a distance between the LIDAR system and a field of view associated with the LIDAR system (Hall et al., FIG. 8, pulse firing signal 146 and TMEASUREMENT, Paragraphs [0063]-[0065]). Teaches specifically setting the measurement window based on a maximum return distance, meaning that if the maximum distance changes, thus altering the field of view of the LIDAR, the measurement window would also change.).
Regarding claim 15 Amzajerdian ‘720, modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, Wagner et al., and Hall et al., teaches the LIDAR system of claim 12, wherein the duration of the transmit segment (tts) and/or the receive segment (trs) is tuned such that a value of (trs/( tts+trs)) is less than D'/(1+D') where D'= D/Dmax where D represents a distance between the LIDAR system and an object that is located remotely from the LIDAR system or a distance between the LIDAR system and a field of view and Dmax represents a maximum value for D for which the LIDAR system is configured to generate LIDAR data (Hall et al., FIG. 8, pulse firing signal 146 and TMEASUREMENT, Paragraphs [0063]-[0067]. Based on these equations the maximum amount of time the measurement window can take up would be 50% of the total time. Based on FIG. 8, the measurement window takes up roughly 50% and can be adjusted to other values based on expected return times, including values lower than this. The reasoning for this is given above.).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amzajerdian ‘720 (US 4995720 A), modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252 (US 20140036252 A1) and Dakin et al. (US 20130162976 A1).
Regarding claim 22 Amzajerdian ‘720, modified in view of Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 4.
This combination fails to teach wherein the optical switch receives the outgoing light signal from a utility waveguide and the first optical path is separate from the utility waveguide.
However, Dakin et al. does teach a system where an optical switch, similar to the ones taught by Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, is given an optical signal from a fiber optic waveguide (FIG. 4, optical fibers 125, optical amplifier 330, and optical switch 340, Paragraphs [0038], [0054], and [0055]), and wherein the path traveled by its incoming light from the optical switch, the equivalent of the first path mapped in claim 1 by Amzajerdian et al., ‘252, is separate from the waveguide which sends the outgoing light to the optical switch (FIG. 4, optical fibers 125, optical amplifier 330, and optical switch 340, Paragraphs [0038], [0054]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to further modify the LIDAR system taught by Amzajerdian ‘720, and previously modified with the use of an optical switch to direct transmitting and receiving signals taught by Amzajerdian et al. ‘252, with the optical fibers taught by Dakin et al. The reasoning for this is that optical fibers, which act as waveguides, allow light to be propagated in any number of non-linear directions without interference or significant loss. This offers several predictable advantages, such as being able to alter the shape of the system and light paths without worry of losing signal power. Additionally, systems utilizing fibers are more robust to vibrations and temperature variations then free space optics (Dakin et al., Paragraph [0038]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R HEBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5454. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:30-7:00 EST. 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on 571-270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BENJAMIN RICHARD HEBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights