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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/09/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 13, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, the acronym “LAT” should be fully spelled out. Based on instant specification paragraph [0033], line 8, Examiner suggests replacing the term “LAT” in claim 3 with “local activation time (LAT)”.
Claim 1, lines 6-7 recites “a number of data points deleted” but claim 5, line 2 recites “a number of points deleted”. Examiner suggests amending claim 5, line 2 to recite “a number of data points deleted”.
Claims 13 and 15 are objected to for reciting the same minor informality as claims 3 and 5, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 4-5, 8-9, 14-15, and 18-19 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 rendered indefinite for the following reasons. All of claim 4 appears to recite the same features as claim 1, from the start of line 4 to “information” in line 5. It is unclear if “procedure information” recited in claim 4, line 2 is the same as “procedure information” recited in claim 1, line 5. If so, Examiner suggests canceling claim 4. Examiner treats claim 4 as reciting the same features as claim 1, lines 4-5 as noted above.
Claim 5 is rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 4.
In claim 8, line 3, the limitation “deleted points” renders the claim indefinite. Parent claim 1 recites “a number of data points deleted” in lines 6-7. It is unclear if the deleted points in claim 8 are the same as the data points deleted in claim 1. Examiner treats “deleted points” in claim 8 to mean “the deleted data points”.
In claim 9, the term “wrong” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wrong” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “wrong” is a subjective term under MPEP 2173.05(b) subsection (IV) because the specification does not supply an objective standard for measuring the scope of the term. It is unclear how one differentiates a wrong channel from a correct channel. For purpose of examination, Examiner treats a wrong channel as an undesired channel.
Claims 14-15 and 18-19 are system claims which recite the same indefinite limitations as method claims 4-5 and 8-9, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 recite a method, and claims 11-20 recite a system comprising processors. Each a method and a system fall within one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 1
Step 2A Prong 1: Analyzing,
Identifying,
Step 2A Prong 2: Acquiring, by a filtering engine executed by one or more processors, a data set of electrophysical (EP) maps for one or more procedures amounts to mere data-gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). A filter engine executed by processors amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f).
The one or more filter settings and procedure information at least includes a number of data points collected and a number of data points deleted in acquiring each of the EP maps in the data set amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Outputting, by the filtering engine, the optimized filter set, the filter configuration and the procedure information as rejection criteria default for subsequent acquisition of EP data sets as preconfiguration settings for a device used for acquisition of EP data points amounts to mere data-gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). A device used for acquisition of EP data points amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements as disclosed above, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activities as disclosed in combination with generic computer functions and fields of use that are implemented to perform the abstract ideas disclosed above. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Acquiring, by a filtering engine executed by one or more processors, a data set of electrophysical (EP) maps for one or more procedures is analogous to receiving data over a network, which the courts have recognized as a well-understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). A filter engine executed by processors amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f).
The one or more filter settings and procedure information at least includes a number of data points collected and a number of data points deleted in acquiring each of the EP maps in the data set amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Outputting, by the filtering engine, the optimized filter set, the filter configuration and the procedure information as rejection criteria default for subsequent acquisition of EP data sets as preconfiguration settings for a device used for acquisition of EP data points is analogous to transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as a well-understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). A device used for acquisition of EP data points amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements as disclosed above, in combination with the abstract ideas, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas as they are well-understood, routine and conventional activities as disclosed in combination with generic computer functions and fields of use that are implemented to perform the abstract ideas disclosed above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated. Analyzing the data set to capture at least one filter and the one or more filter settings is an evaluation mental process which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The filtering engine amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 incorporates the rejection of claim 2.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 2 are incorporated.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The at least one filter comprises cycle length filter, a LAT stability filter, a position stability filter, or a minimal voltage filter amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated. Analyzing the data set to capture the one or more filter settings and procedure information is an evaluation mental process which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The filtering engine amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 incorporates the rejection of claim 4.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 4 are incorporated.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The procedure information comprises a number of data points, a number of points deleted, a correlation of time and quality, or a map quality amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The one or more filter settings comprise an identification of each filter and an exact setting of that filter used in generating each electrophysical map amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated. Identifying the optimized filter set is an observation mental process which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: A machine learning tool comprising a reinforcement learning algorithm that captures one or more setting attributes based on mapping time and quality metrics amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated. Identifying the optimized filter set is an observation mental process which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: A machine learning tool comprising a reinforcement learning algorithm that deletes one or more setting attributes based on deleted points amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The rejection criteria default provides automatic acquisition of electrophysical data points by filtering wrong channels amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The rejection criteria default is outputted on a per user basis amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites a system which implements the same features as the method of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
In Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, “a memory storing program code for a filtering engine thereon” and “one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the program code” amount to generic computer components for applying the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 12-20 each recites a system which implements the same features as the method of claims 2-10, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamilov et al. (US 20190279773 A1) in view of Volpe et al. (US 20160175598 A1) and Sorkin et al. (US 7945585 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Shamilov teaches: A method comprising: acquiring, by a
analyzing, by the
… preconfiguration settings for a device used for acquisition of EP data points. ([0033]-[0034]. “A device” is the probe, and “preconfiguration settings” are any settings that configure the probe to measure signals.)
However, Shamilov does not explicitly teach: a filtering engine
analyzing, by the filtering engine, the data set to capture one or more filter settings and procedure information utilized in acquiring the EP maps in the data set, wherein the one or more filter settings and procedure information at least includes a number of data points collected and a number of data points deleted
identifying, by the filtering engine, an optimized filter set, filter configuration and procedure information for the one or more procedures based at least on the number of data points collected and the number of data points deleted; and
outputting, by the filtering engine, the optimized filter set, the filter configuration and the procedure information as rejection criteria default for subsequent acquisition of EP data sets as preconfiguration settings for a device used for acquisition of EP data points.
But Volpe teaches: acquiring, by a filtering engine
identifying, by the filtering engine, an optimized filter set, filter configuration and procedure information for the one or more procedures based at least on the number of data points collected ([0122], final 6 lines. An optimized filter set, filter configuration, and procedure information correspond to the voltage sensitivity threshold, below which signals are filtered out.)
outputting, by the filtering engine, the optimized filter set, the filter configuration and the procedure information as rejection criteria default for subsequent acquisition of EP data sets ([0122], final 6 lines. Rejection criteria default are signals with a voltage below the sensitivity threshold, and electrophysical data includes ECG signals.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Volpe’s adjustable voltage sensitivity threshold into Shamilov. A motivation for the combination is to better detect the subject’s intrinsic cardiac activity. (Volpe, [0122])
However, Shamilov and Volpe do not explicitly teach: a number of data points deleted
But Sorkin teaches: acquiring, by a filtering engine delivered to the user. “Filter settings” are the user’s preferences for types of messages to receive.)
identifying, by the filtering engine, an optimized filter set, filter configuration
outputting, by the filtering engine, the optimized filter set, the filter configuration
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Sorkin’s agent into Shamilov and Volpe for learning which EP data points should be delivered to a physician during a procedure. A motivation for the combination is to automatically hide irrelevant data points acquired during the procedure.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin teaches: The method of claim 1,
However, Shamilov does not explicitly teach: wherein the filtering engine analyzes the data set to capture at least one filter and the one or more filter settings.
But Volpe teaches: wherein the filtering engine analyzes the data set to capture at least one filter and the one or more filter settings. ([0122])
A motivation for the combination is the same as the motivation given for claim 1.
Sorkin also teaches this limitation at C. 62, L. 53 to C. 63, L. 16.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin teaches: The method of claim 2,
However, Shamilov and Sorkin do not explicitly teach: wherein the at least one filter comprises cycle length filter, a LAT stability filter, a position stability filter, or a minimal voltage filter.
But Volpe teaches: wherein the at least one filter comprises cycle length filter, a LAT stability filter, a position stability filter, or a minimal voltage filter. ([0122], lines 1-11 discloses detecting signals above a voltage threshold, which filters out signals below a minimal voltage filter.)
A motivation for the combination is the same as the motivation given for claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin teaches: The method of claim 1,
Shamilov teaches: wherein the (system processor 40) analyzes the data set (LAT maps 62) to capture procedure information (measured signals).)
However, Shamilov does not explicitly teach: wherein the filtering engine analyzes the data set to capture the one or more filter settings and procedure information.
But Volpe teaches: wherein the filtering engine analyzes the data set to capture the one or more filter settings ([0122])
A motivation for the combination is the same as the motivation given for claim 1. Sorkin also teaches this limitation at C. 62, L. 53 to C. 63, L. 16.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin teaches: The method of claim 4,
Shamilov teaches: wherein the procedure information comprises a number of data points, ([0032], lines 6-12, where a number of data points is a number of measured signals)
a number of points deleted, a correlation of time and quality, or a map quality.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin teaches: The method of claim 1,
Shamilov teaches: generating each electrophysical map. ([0033], lines 5-7)
However, Shamilov does not explicitly teach: wherein the one or more filter settings comprise an identification of each filter and an exact setting of that filter used in generating each electrophysical map.
But Volpe teaches: wherein the one or more filter settings comprise an identification of each filter and an exact setting of that filter used ([0122], where an identification of a filter is a sensitivity threshold, and an exact setting is the voltage value.)
A motivation for the combination is the same as the motivation given for claim 1. Sorkin also teaches this limitation at C. 54, L. 5-16.
Regarding claim 7, Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin teaches: The method of claim 1,
Shamilov teaches: mapping time and quality metrics ([0020], lines 1-7 discloses a quality of match, which corresponds to “quality metrics” as claimed. [0021], lines 4-12 discloses local activation time map, which corresponds to “mapping time” as claimed.)
However, Shamilov and Volpe do not explicitly teach: wherein a machine learning tool comprising a reinforcement learning algorithm that captures one or more setting attributes based on mapping time and quality metrics identifies the optimized filter set.
But Sorkin teaches: wherein a machine learning tool comprising a reinforcement learning algorithm that captures one or more setting attributes based on [user input]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Sorkin’s agent into Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin for learning which EP data points should be delivered to a physician during a procedure. A motivation for the combination is to automatically hide irrelevant data points acquired during the procedure.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin teaches: The method of claim 1,
However, Shamilov and Volpe do not explicitly teach: wherein a machine learning tool comprising a reinforcement learning algorithm that deletes one or more setting attributes based on deleted points identifies the optimized filter set.
But Sorkin teaches: wherein a machine learning tool comprising a reinforcement learning algorithm that deletes one or more setting attributes based on deleted points identifies the optimized filter set. (C. 54, L. 5-16 and C. 62, L. 53 to C. 63, L. 16. Deleting setting attributes based on deleted points amounts to deleting “aircrafts” from the user’s profile.)
A motivation for the combination is the same as the motivation given for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin teaches: The method of claim 1,
However, Shamilov and Sorkin do not explicitly teach: wherein the rejection criteria default provides automatic acquisition of electrophysical data points by filtering wrong channels.
But Volpe teaches: wherein the rejection criteria default provides automatic acquisition of electrophysical data points by filtering wrong channels. ([0122], lines 1-11 discloses detecting signals above a voltage threshold. Any signal below the voltage threshold is considered noise and is thus a wrong channel.)
A motivation for the combination is the same as the motivation given for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin teaches: The method of claim 1,
However, Shamilov and Sorkin do not explicitly teach: wherein the rejection criteria default provides automatic acquisition of electrophysical data points by filtering wrong channels.
But Volpe teaches: wherein the rejection criteria default provides automatic acquisition of electrophysical data points by filtering wrong channels. ([0122], lines 1-11 discloses detecting signals above a voltage threshold. Any signal below the voltage threshold is considered noise and is thus a wrong channel.)
A motivation for the combination is the same as the motivation given for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Shamilov, Volpe, and Sorkin teaches: The method of claim 1,
However, Shamilov does not explicitly teach: wherein the rejection criteria default is outputted on a per user basis.
But Volpe teaches: wherein the rejection criteria default is outputted on a per user basis. ([0122], lines 5-11, where a “user” is a subject)
A motivation for the combination is the same as the motivation given for claim 1. Sorkin also teaches this limitation at C. 62, L. 44-51 and C. 63, L. 6-16.
Claim 11 recites a system which implements the same features as the method of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Shamilov teaches: A system comprising: a memory storing program code for a filtering engine thereon; and ([0035], line 1 to “processor 40” in line 4 and [0036], line 1 to “software” in line 2 discloses a memory 44 and software.)
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the program code to cause the system to perform: ([0035], line 1 to “processor 40” in line 4 and [0036], line 1 to “software” in line 2.)
Claims 12-20 each recites a system which implements the same features as the method of claims 2-10, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
The following is the Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments filed 12/09/2025.
Applicant’s Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. 112: On page 7 in the remarks, Applicant argues the amendments to pending claim 1 obviate the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b).
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. 101: On page 8 in the remarks, Applicant argues “the current invention makes it possible to analyze the effects of filtering in a combinational filtering sense” and further argues that the method provides an improvement in the device in acquiring an EP data set. Applicant argues the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of patent ineligibility under Prong One of Step 2A.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments that claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea amount to a general allegation. Pending claim 1 recites similar abstract ideas as the previously-filed claim 1, and these abstract ideas were identified in the Final Office Action issued 09/12/2025 (page 5). Pending claim 1 recites “analyzing… the data set to capture one or more filter settings and procedure information utilized in acquiring the EP maps in the data set” which is an evaluation mental process and “identifying… an optimized filter set, filter configuration and procedure information for the one or more procedures based at least on the number of data points collected and the number of data points deleted” which is an observation mental process. Applicant’s arguments fail to explain why these limitations allegedly are not abstract ideas. The claim 1 limitation of “a device used for acquisition of EP data points” is not part of an abstract idea. In Step 2A Prong Two, “a device used for acquisition of EP data points” amounts to a mere field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements as disclosed above, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activities as disclosed in combination with generic computer functions and fields of use that are implemented to perform the abstract ideas disclosed above. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Altmann et al. (US 20060253024 A1) at paragraph [0040] teaches a physician manually deleting contours of interest of an ultrasound.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Asher H. Jablon whose telephone number is (571)270-7648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abdullah Al Kawsar can be reached at (571)270-3169. 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.
/A.H.J./Examiner, Art Unit 2127
/ABDULLAH AL KAWSAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2127