DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on: 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 12/03/2025.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, 16, 24-25, and 29-37 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, 16, 24-25, and 29-30 have been amended.
Claims 3-5, 8-10, 13-15, 17-23, and 26-28 have been cancelled.
NEW Claims 31-37 have been added.
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's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 6, 11, and 16, Applicant argues that the references applied in the previous Office Action fail to teach/suggest the amended claim subject matter of: “wherein the single DCI comprises a single UL-SCH indicator field that is applied to a cell with the lowest cell index… and the UE determines whether to transmit UL-SCH data on a PUSCH of the cell with the lowest cell index based on the single UL-SCH indicator field.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 11. The Examiner agrees.
However, a new grounds of rejection is applied in the present Office Action to substantially read on all of the above claim subject matter at issue. Independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are now rejected under §103 based on the prior art combination of: Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan, where Yi is only relied upon to teach/suggest: RRC configuration signaling for UL scheduling of one or more CCs, which is related to preconfiguring a UE with parameters/tables for DCI field correspondence.
Yuan is the new reference relied upon to teach: application of an UL-SCH indicator field to a cell with a lowest cell index among the plurality of cells (para. [0060] —an UL-SCH indicator field value of “0,” of a multi-CC DCI, can indicate a UE is to only transmit the PUSCH on a cell with a lowest cell index value). Moreover, it would be obvious to modify Takeda and Yi’s UL-SCH indicator field of a multi-CC DCI to have a value, i.e., value “0,” designated to indicate a UE PUSCH transmission only on a cell with a lowest cell index value, as taught by Yuan, to simplify DCI-based, UE selection of a CC cell for multiplexing UCI (i.e., w/a A-CSI report) on the PUSCH.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments against only the prior art combination of the previous office Action, relating to its independent claims, are determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise been rendered moot based on the new grounds of rejection, i.e., the new §103 combination including Takeda and Yuan. Further, Applicant’s substantial claim amendments warranted applying the new grounds of rejection in the instant Office Action. Applicant is hereby referred to this new grounds of rejection, below, for further explanation as to how the amended/new claim features are rejected under §103.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 15-17. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, 16, 25, 30-32 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2023/0180220 A1, Takeda et al. (hereinafter “Takeda”) in view of US PG Pub. 2022/0039140 A1, Yi et al. (hereinafter “Yi”), in further view of US PG Pub. 2023/0095833 A1, Yuan et al. (hereinafter “Yuan”).
With respect to claim 1, Takeda teaches:
A method performed by a user equipment (UE) (UE 115 of Figs. 1 and 15), the method comprising:
receiving a configuration related to multi-cell uplink scheduling (paras. [0005], [0036], [0072], [0074], [0083]-[0084], and [0114]-[0115]]; Fig. 2 and 2105 of Fig. 21 —a UE can receive configuration for multi-cell, i.e., PCell and SCell (cells of Fig. 1), UL scheduling where a single DCI (205 of Fig. 2) facilitates multiple cells/CCs receiving grants for uplink scheduling, i.e., for scheduling PUSCH, at para. 0072 —a BS can configure a UE “related to” such multi-cell scheduling for carrier aggregation by signaling the UE, at paras. [0083]-[0084] —RRC protocol provides configuration of an RRC connection between a UE 115 and a base station 105, at paras. [0114]-[0115]);
receiving single downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling a plurality of physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) in a plurality of cells (paras. [0004], [0019], [0072], and [0121]-[0128]; Fig. 2 and block 1605 Fig. 16 —a multi-CC DCI 205 can be received by a UE for scheduling multiple PUSCHs 210/215 in multiple CC cells, i.e., a P(S)Cell and a SCell as depicted in Fig. 2); and
transmitting, based on the single DCI, the plurality of PUSCHs in the plurality of cells (paras. [0004], [0019]-[0020], and [0072]; and Fig. 2 —the UE can transmit, based on the received multi-CC DCI 205, a plurality of PUSCHs 210/215 in a plurality of cells, i.e., a P(S)Cell and a SCell as depicted in Fig. 2)
wherein the single DCI comprises a single uplink-shared (UL-SCH) indicator field and the UE determines whether to the transmit UL-SCH data on a PUSCH based on the single UL-SCH indicator field (paras. [0123], [0129], and [0114] —the multi-CC DCI can comprise a UL-SCH indicator field that the UE can use to determine whether the PUSCH shall carry UL-SCH data for a CC). Takeda also teaches for multiple CCs, i.e., CC1 and CC2, a UE can determine which CC PUSCH to use for multiplexed data transmission based at least in part on which of the serving cell indexes of CC1 and CC2 is lower (para. [0129]).
However, Takeda does not explicitly teach:
the configuration related to multi-cell uplink scheduling is received through radio resource control (RRC) signaling.
Yi does teach:
A configuration related to multi-cell uplink scheduling is received through RRC configuration (paras. [0211]-[0212], [0223]-[0224], and [0241] —a UE can receive RRC configuration for scheduling UL transmissions for a PCell and/or an SCell ).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeda’s multi-CC DCI configuration to be received through RRC signaling for one or more cells, as taught by Yi.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provision a UE with configuration parameters related to various DCI fields via RRC to facilitate UL scheduling, i.e., for one or more cells in dual-connectivity, as recognized by Yi (paras. [0211]-[0212], [0223]-[0224], and [0241]).
Takeda and Yi do not explicitly teach:
where the UL-SCH indicator field is applied to a cell with a lowest cell index among the plurality of cells.
Yuan does teach:
application of an UL-SCH indicator field to a cell with a lowest cell index among the plurality of cells (para. [0060] —an UL-SCH indicator field value of “0,” of a multi-CC DCI, can indicate a UE is to only transmit the PUSCH on a cell with a lowest cell index value).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeda and Yi’s UL-SCH indicator field of a multi-CC DCI to have a value, i.e., value “0,” designated to indicate a UE PUSCH transmission only on a cell with a lowest cell index value, as taught by Yuan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to simplify DCI-based, UE selection of a CC cell for multiplexing UCI (i.e., w/a A-CSI report) on the PUSCH, as recognized by Yuan (para. [0060]).
With respect to claim 2, Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan teach the method of claim 1.
Takeda does not teach:
wherein the single DCI includes a single bandwidth part indicator field, and wherein the single bandwidth part indicator field is applied to each of the plurality of cells independently
Yi does teach:
a single DCI that includes a single BWP indicator field that can be applied to each of the plurality of cells independently (paras. [0116], [0223], [0238), and [0290]; BWP index field 2013/2112 of Figs. 20-21 —a single BWP indicator field of a DCI can be applied to both a first and a second carrier/cell(s), i.e., when the numerology is the same).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeda’s multi-CC DCI indicator fields to also include a single BWP indicator field to apply to individual cells, as taught by Yi.
The motivation for doing so would have been to further designates CC BWP(s) to which DCI scheduling will be applied, as recognized by Yi (paras. [0116], [0223], [0238), and [0290]; BWP index field 2013/2112 of Figs. 20-21).
With respect to claim 6, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 6 is directed to a user equipment (UE) comprising at least on processor and at least one computer memory executable by the at least one processor (Takeda: UE 115 of Figs. 1 and 15 and UE of Fig. 11 with processor 1140 and memory 1130). As such, claim 6 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 7, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2. As such, claim 7 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
With respect to claim 11, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 11 is written from the perspective of a base station (Takeda: BS 105 of Figs. 1 and 15). As such, claim 11 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 12, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2. As such, claim 12 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
With respect to claim 16, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 11 is directed to a base station comprising at least one processor and at least one executable computer memory coupled thereto (Takeda: BS 105 of Figs. 1 and 15 and BS of Fig. 11 with processor 1140 and memory 1130). As such, claim 16 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 25, Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan teaches the method of claim 1.
Takeda does not explicitly teach:
wherein the configuration related to multi-cell uplink scheduling includes a configuration related to a TDRA table, and wherein the row of the TDRA table has first TDRA information for a first cell and second TDRA information for a second cell.
Yi does teach:
A configuration related to multi-cell uplink scheduling that includes a configuration related to a TDRA table, and wherein the row of the TDRA table has first TDRA information for a first cell and second TDRA information for a second cell (paras. [0242], [0279], [0281]-[0284], and [0286]; and TDRA field 2016 of Fig. 20 —a BS can send a UE an RRC message(s) with configuration parameters prior to transmitting DCI, at para. [0279] —these configuration parameters can be related to a first TDRA table and/or a second TDRA table, with corresponding row entries for a first/second DL carriers, at paras. [0281]-[0282] —a DCI TDRA field can reference a row/entry within a configured TDRA table(s), at para. [0242]).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeda TDRA indicators for multiple CCs with RRC TDRA table configuration and corresponding DCI TDRA entry/row referencing for multiple CCs, as taught by Yi.
The motivation for doing so would have been to include TDRA table configuration for multiple CCs and referencing thereof via DCI TDRA field values, as recognized by Yi (paras. [0242], [0279], [0281]-[0284], and [0286]; and TDRA field 2016 of Fig. 20).
With respect to claim 30, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 25. As such, claim 30 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 25.
With respect to claim 31, Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan teach the method of claim 1.
Takeda does not teach:
wherein, based on a value of the single UL-SCH indicator field being a first value, the PUSCH of the cell with the lowest cell index is transmitted without the UL-SCH data.
Yuan does teach:
wherein, based on a value of the single UL-SCH indicator field being a first value, the PUSCH of the cell with the lowest cell index is transmitted without the UL-SCH data (para. [0060] —when the UL-SCH value is “0,” only UCI is transmitted on the PUSCH of a cell with a lowest cell index, i.e., an A-CSI report info, as opposed to UL-SCH data).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeda’s UL-SCH indicator field of a multi-CC DCI to have a value, i.e., value “0,” designated to indicate a UE PUSCH transmission of only UCI on a cell with a lowest cell index value, as taught by Yuan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to simplify DCI-based, UE selection of a CC cell for multiplexing UCI (i.e., w/a A-CSI report) on the PUSCH without UL-SCH data, as recognized by Yuan (para. [0060]).
With respect to claim 32, Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan the method of claim 31.
Takeda does not teach:
wherein, based on the value of the single UL-SCH indicator field being the first value, PUSCHs of remaining cells are transmitted with UL-SCH data, respectively.
Yuan does teach:
based on the value of the single UL-SCH indicator field being the first value, PUSCHs of remaining cells are transmitted with UL-SCH data, respectively (para. [0060] —when the UL-SCH value is “1,” all the PUSCH of other cells can be transmitted with UL-SCH data).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeda’s UL-SCH indicator field of a multi-CC DCI to have a value, i.e., value “1,” designated to indicate UE PUSCH transmission on all other cells of UL-SCH data, as taught by Yuan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to simplify DCI-based, UE selection of all other CC cells for PUSCH transmission of UL-SCH data, as recognized by Yuan (para. [0060]).
With respect to claim 37, Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan teach:
A non-transitory medium storing instructions, that when executed by a processor of a user equipment (UE) (Takeda: UE 115 of Figs. 1 and 15; and UE 1105 with Processor 1140 and Memory 1130 of Fig. 11), causes the UE to perform the method of claim 1 (See supra, rejection of claim 1).
Claims 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan, in yet further view of US PG Pub 2020/0228190 A1, Cirik et al. (hereinafter “Cirik”).
With respect to claim 24, Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Takeda does not teach:
wherein the single SRS request entry includes a second SRS request index for a second scheduled cell.
Cirik does teach:
a single SRS request entry with a second SRS request index for a second scheduled cell (paras. [0337]-[0338], [0340]-[0343], and [0348] —an SRS request can include multiple SR indices identifying one or more second SRS resources of a secondary scheduled cell(s)).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeda’s SRS request entry indicating a first SRS request index for a first cell, to further include an SRS request index for a second cell, as taught by Cirik.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the SRS request operations to include SR indexes for multiple cells in a CA scenario, as recognized by Cirik (paras. [0337]-[0338], [0340]-[0343], and [0348]).
With respect to claim 29, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 24. As such, claim 29 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Takeda in view of Yi, Yuan, and Cirik, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 24.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan, in yet further view of US PG Pub 2023/0073686 A1, Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”).
With respect to claim 33, Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan teach the method of claim 1.
However, Takeda does not teach:
an FDRA field that allocates resource block groups (RBGs) based on a first RBG size configured for the single DCI, and wherein, for a same bandwidth part size, the first RBG size is larger than a second RBG size configured for DCI supporting single-cell uplink scheduling only.
Li does teach:
an FDRA field that allocates resource block groups (RBGs) based on a first RBG size configured for the single DCI, and wherein, for a same bandwidth part size, the first RBG size is larger than a second RBG size configured for DCI supporting single-cell uplink scheduling only (paras. [0054], [0069], and [0088]-[0095]; and Fig. 2 —the FDR group size is equivalent to a RBG size, at para. [0073] —for a multi-CC DCI FDRA allocation of RBGs can be based on RBG size of a same BW, where RBG size P for multi-cell scheduling is cumulatively larger than that of RBG size of any single CC cell, i.e., as a sum of parts/cells).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeda’s multi-cell DCI FDRA field allocation to indicated a RBG size for multiple cells to be larger than that of a single cell, as taught by Li.
The motivation for doing so would have been to designate RBG size for multi-CC scheduling to be larger than RBG size of a single cell, as recognized by Li (paras. [0054], [0069], and [0088]-[0095]; and Fig. 2).
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan, in yet further view of US PG Pub 2018/0034526 A1, Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”).
With respect to claim 34, Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan teach the method of claim 1.
However, Takeda does not teach:
wherein the CSI request triggering an aperiodic CSI reporting is applied to the cell with the lowest cell index.
Lee does teach:
a CSI request triggering aperiodic CSI reporting that can be applied to a cell with the lowest cell index (paras. [0014], [0022], and [0156] —a CSI request can trigger aperiodic CSI reporting for a cell with a lowest cell index).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeda’s CSI request field in a multi-CC DCI, triggering aperiodic CSI reporting, to be applied to a cell with a lowest cell index, as taught by Lee.
The motivation for doing so would have been to trigger aperiodic CSI reporting via a multi-cell DCI field for a cell with a lowest cell index, as recognized by Lee (paras. [0014], [0022], and [0156]).
With respect to claim 35, Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan teach the method of claim 34.
However, Takeda does not teach:
wherein the aperiodic CSI report is generated for the cell with the lowest cell index, and is transmitted through the PUSCH on the cell with the lowest cell index.
Lee does teach:
wherein the aperiodic CSI report is generated for the cell with the lowest cell index, and is transmitted through the PUSCH on the cell with the lowest cell index (paras. [0014], [0022], and [0156] —upon receiving a request for the aperiodic CSI report, a UE can generate the report, and transmitted the report via a PUSCH on a cell with a lowest cell index).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeda’s CSI request field in a multi-CC DCI, triggering aperiodic CSI reporting, to be applied to a cell with a lowest cell index, as taught by Lee.
The motivation for doing so would have been to trigger aperiodic CSI reporting via a multi-cell DCI field for a cell with a lowest cell index, as recognized by Lee (paras. [0014], [0022], and [0156]).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan, in yet further view of US PG Pub 2021/0289525 A1, Khoshnevisan et al. (hereinafter “Khoshnevisan”).
With respect to claim 36, Takeda in view of Yi and Yuan teach the method of claim 1.
However, Takeda does not explicitly teach:
wherein the configuration related to multi-cell uplink scheduling includes at least one of a configuration related to transmission configuration index (TCI) or a configuration related to a sounding reference signal (SRS).
Khoshnevisan does teach:
wherein the configuration related to multi-cell uplink scheduling includes at least one of a configuration related to transmission configuration index (TCI) or a configuration related to a sounding reference signal (SRS) (paras. [0090]-[0091] and [0109]-[0110] —an RRC config for multi-cell PUSCH scheduling can include configuration related to a SRS —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation —Alternative Claim Language section).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeda’s RRC configuration for multi-CC DCI, to include SRS configuration related information, as taught by Khoshnevisan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to designate SRS configuration via RRC preconfiguration, as recognized by Khoshnevisan (paras. [0090]-[0091] and [0109]-[0110]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm 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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418