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 amendment filed 7/13/2026 has been fully considered. The amendments have overcome the previous grounds of rejection; however, new grounds of rejection are made under 35 U.S.C. 103. The amendments to claims 2 and 12 have overcome the claim objections.
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, 3-8, 10-11, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helsloot (US 20210033711 A1), in view of Wang (US 20230194684 A1), further in view of Droz (US 20200141716 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Helsloot discloses a lidar device (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising:
channels ([0035] a channel = light source + corresponding groups of pixels)
a controller (Fig. 2, system controller 23) wherein the controller is configured to:
cause one or more of the light emitters in the array of channels to emit light pulses ([0057] “the laser sources of the illumination unit 10 are triggered by the system controller 23”),
determine, based on a reflection pulse detected by a first light detector of a first channel in the array of channels, that a high reflectivity surface is present in a surrounding environment (Fig. 3A and 3B showing glare artifact 300; Fig. 4, APD(n) corresponds to a signal that was reflected by retroreflector 40 and represents the actual location of the retroreflector) and a distance between the lidar device and the high-reflectivity surface (Fig. 4, the distance can be determined from the time of flight, which is recorded as ToF1 on the graph along the time axis);
determine, based on: (i) a position of the first light detector ([0071] and Fig. 4, pixel APD(n) is retro-reflector pixel); (ii) positions of other light detectors within the array of channels ([0071] “Those pixels adjacent to the retro-reflector pixel that experience crosstalk may be referred to as crosstalk pixels or simply neighboring pixels”), and (iii) the distance between the lidar device and the high reflectivity surface, which of the other light detectors within the array of channels are susceptible to crosstalk from the first channel ([0091] detect potential presence of retroreflector defined by firing angle, pixel number, and distance; [0094] and Fig. 6);
identify one or more detected pulses that represent crosstalk from the first channel ([0094] and Fig. 6, APD(n-2) is determined as most likely being a result of crosstalk), wherein the one or more detected pulses that represent crosstalk are associated with the light detectors susceptible to crosstalk and are identified based on the distance between the lidar device and the high-reflectivity surface ([0091] detect potential presence of retroreflector defined by firing angle, pixel number, and distance; [0094] and Fig. 6);
and wherein identifying the one or more detected pulses that represent crosstalk from the first channel comprises determining whether distances to objects in the surrounding environment associated with each of the one or more detected pulses are different from the distance to the high-reflectivity surface (Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0093] and [0094] because APD(n-2) has a first detection at ToF1 and a second detection at a later time ToF2, the detection at ToF1 is likely an artifact/glare); and
prevent the one or more detected pulses that represent crosstalk from the first channel from being included in a dataset usable to generate a point cloud ([0085] “a probability of identifying a crosstalk pixel is increased and steps can be taken by a DSP to mitigate the identified crosstalk event and possibly remove glare artefacts from the point cloud”).
Helsloot does not expressly teach: an array of channels, wherein each channel comprises a light detector and a corresponding light emitter or that responsive to the first light detector detecting the reflection pulse corresponding to the high reflectivity surface, cause a first light emitter of the first channel to emit a series of light pulses according to a predefined firing sequence and that detectors susceptible to crosstalk are also identified based on the predefined firing sequence.
Wang teaches a lidar system that has an array of channels (Fig. 3, with array of channels 302a through 302h, which each have a transmitter to emit an optical signal and a detector to receive a signal. Here, channel 302a is the “active” channel, but this is merely an example. It is understood that any one of the channels is capable of being an “active” channel).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the LDIAR device disclosed by Helsloot, such that the transmitters and receivers are arranged into an array of channels where each transmitter has its corresponding receiver, as taught by Wang. This would be a different design option and “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.” See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (F).
However, Helsloot and Wang do not expressly teach: that responsive to the first light detector detecting the reflection pulse corresponding to the high reflectivity surface, cause a first light emitter of the first channel to emit a series of light pulses according to a predefined firing sequence and that detectors susceptible to crosstalk are also identified based on the predefined firing sequence.
Droz teaches a lidar device for identifying retroreflective surfaces in the environment ([0040]), where responsive to the first light detector detecting the reflection pulse corresponding to the high reflectivity surface, the device will cause a first light emitter of the first channel to emit a series of light pulses according to a predefined firing sequence ([0047], [0206], and [0238] emitting coded sequence of pulses used to classify object as retroreflector and the sequence can also be adjusted upon detection of retroreflector. Figs. 14-16 with Fig. 17, steps 1702, 1704, and then 1706) and that the predefined firing sequence is used to identify crosstalk and susceptibility to crosstalk (Figs. 9A, 9B, and 10, and [0179] determining received signal 971 is likely crosstalk. [0236] based on the predefined firing sequence in Fig. 16, and the mismatch between emitted and detected signals, determining that there is crosstalk/invalid signal).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of lidar technologies before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the lidar device taught by Helsloot and Wang, such that a series of pulses is emitted, responsive to identifying crosstalk, and that the pulse sequence is also used to identify pulses representative of crosstalk, as further taught by Droz. This pulse sequence taught by Droz includes pulses of different intensities (Fig. 14, primary pulse 1461 and secondary pulses 1481 and 1482 for example). This pulse sequence, with a combination of primary and secondary pulses, is beneficial because the received signals in the pulse sequence can be compared to a threshold intensity; the intensity of the secondary signals may be selected such that the secondary signals would be detected if incident on a retroreflector (Droz, [0215]), but the secondary signals would not be detected if incident on an object that is not highly reflective (Droz, Fig. 15 and [0222]).
Regarding Claim 11: Claim 11 is essentially the method version of system claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13: Helsloot, Wang, and Droz, teach the lidar device of claim 1 and the method of claim 11. In this combination, Droz further teaches that the predefined firing sequence comprises a modulated emitted wavelength, a modulated emitted polarization, or a modulated emitted intensity ([0211] and Figs. 14-16, primary and secondary pulses have first and second intensities respectively).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14: Helsloot, Wang, and Droz, teach the lidar device of claim 1 and the method of claim 11.
Helsloot further discloses wherein the controller is configured to buffer, within the memory, a series of detected pulses for each light detector susceptible to crosstalk (Fig. 7, DSP line processing 50 and [0112] “The DSP line processing circuit 50 also includes a multiplexer configured to receive targeted pixel information and selectively output detected pulse information to either the targeted scene processing circuit 61 or to the non-targeted scene processing circuit 62 based on the received targeted pixel information”), and the memory has sufficient storage so as to store a number of detected pulses in the series of detected pulses for each light detector susceptible to crosstalk ([0023] “multiple TOF hit times are stored and the counter counts until the end of predefined measurement period, which is defined by a maximum distance to be observed”; Fig. 6, it is seen that for APD(n-2), not only is TOF1 stored, but TOF2 is also stored. According to paragraph [0093], TOF2 corresponds to an object at a further distance and TOF1 is indicative of crosstalk because the detectors show signs of vertical crosstalk and APD(n-2) has a secondary signal).
In this combination, Droz further teaches that the predefined firing sequence comprises a first predefined number of emission pulses (Figs. 14-16, three pulses. Fig. 7, two pulses, and [0229]), and that the memory has sufficient storage so as to store a number of detected pulses in the series of detected pulses for each light detector when the number of detected pulses is equal to the first predefined number ([0224] determining valid or invalid signal based on a mismatch between number of pulses and number of detected pulses).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15: Helsloot, Wang, and Droz, teach the lidar device of claim 4 and the method of claim 14. Helsloot further discloses wherein preventing the one or more detected pulses that represent crosstalk from the first channel from being included in the dataset usable to generate the point cloud comprises removing, from the memory, those detected pulses buffered within the memory that represent crosstalk ([0098] “The system controller 23 may compare each probability score to a predefined probability threshold, and discard any TOF hits with a probability score less than the predefined probability threshold. For example, a predefined probability threshold of 50% would result in any TOF hit having a probability score less than 50% be discarded and not reported (output) to the system controller 23.” Fig. 7 shows that the targeted pixel information is buffered in the DSP Line processing 50, and according to paragraph [0098], if the measurement is determined to be crosstalk, it will not be outputted).
Regarding Claim 6: Helsloot, Wang, and Droz, teach the lidar device of claim 4. In this combination, Helsloot further discloses wherein the controller comprises a FPGA ([0056] The controller may be a FPGA that generates the control signals) communicatively coupled to the memory ([0119] “The implementation can be performed using a digital storage medium, for example a floppy disk, a DVD, a Blue-Ray, a CD, a ROM, a PROM, an EPROM, an EEPROM or a FLASH memory, having electronically readable control signals stored thereon, which cooperate (or are capable of cooperating) with a programmable computer system such that the respective method is performed”; Fig. 7, the controller 23 communicates the processing systems 50, 61, and 62 which store and process information on the detections).
This combination does not teach that the memory comprises a RAM.
Droz further teaches that the memory comprises a RAM for implementing the method of the lidar system ([0124]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the lidar device taught by Helsloot, Wang, and Droz, by using RAM as the memory as further taught by Droz, instead of the memory employed by Helsloot, which could be a ROM, for example. This would be a simple substitution for one type of memory for another type of memory and would yield predictable results (See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale B).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16: Helsloot, Wang, and Droz, teach the lidar device of claim 1 and the method of claim 11. Helsloot further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to generate the point cloud using detected pulses detected by the light detectors ([0065] The system controller 23 includes signal processing circuitry that receives the raw digital data as well as serial data of a differential time between start and ToF hit digital signals generated by an ADC, and uses the received data to calculate time-of-flight information for each field position within the field of view, to generate object data (e.g., point cloud data), and to generate a 3D point cloud”; Figs. 3B and 5, which show the point cloud).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17: Helsloot, Wang, and Droz, teach the lidar device of claim 1 and the method of claim 11. Helsloot further discloses wherein the high-reflectivity surface comprises a surface of a retroreflective object ([0071] “a light source of illumination unit 10 fires a laser beam that is reflected by a retro-reflector 40”; [0068] “FIG. 3B shows an example of a point cloud of a 1D scanning LIDAR system with the retro-reflector glare artefact 300”).
Regarding Claim 10: Helsloot, Wang, and Droz, teach the lidar device of claim 1. In this combination, Droz further teaches that determining that the high reflectivity surface is present in the surrounding environment comprises comparing an intensity of the reflection pulse detected by the first light detector to a threshold intensity ([0128] and [0215] – [0219] intensity of received signals are compared to a threshold to determine if they are representative of a normal object, or if they are representative of a retroreflective object. Thresholds can be distance dependent as well).
Regarding Claim 19: Helsloot discloses a system (Fig. 2, LIDAR scanning system 200) comprising:
a computing device configured to generate a point cloud from a dataset usable to generate the point cloud (Fig. 7, point cloud processing circuit 80; [0117] “the crosstalk processing circuit 70 transmits ToF data and possibly crosstalk information to a point cloud processing circuit 80 that is configured to generate point cloud data based thereon and output a point cloud”); and
a lidar device (Fig. 2, transmitter unit 21 and receiver unit 22) comprising:
channels ([0035] a channel = light source + corresponding groups of pixels)
a controller (Fig. 2, system controller 23) wherein the controller is configured to:
cause one or more of the light emitters in the array of channels to emit light pulses ([0057] “the laser sources of the illumination unit 10 are triggered by the system controller 23”),
determine, based on a reflection pulse detected by a first light detector of a first channel in the array of channels, that a high reflectivity surface is present in a surrounding environment (Fig. 3A and 3B showing glare artifact 300; Fig. 4, APD(n) corresponds to a signal that was reflected by retroreflector 40 and represents the actual location of the retroreflector) and a distance between the lidar device and the high-reflectivity surface (Fig. 4, the distance can be determined from the time of flight, which is recorded as ToF1 on the graph along the time axis);
determine, based on: (i) a position of the first light detector ([0071] and Fig. 4, pixel APD(n) is retro-reflector pixel); (ii) positions of other light detectors within the array of channels ([0071] “Those pixels adjacent to the retro-reflector pixel that experience crosstalk may be referred to as crosstalk pixels or simply neighboring pixels”), and (iii) the distance between the lidar device and the high reflectivity surface, which of the other light detectors within the array of channels are susceptible to crosstalk from the first channel ([0091] detect potential presence of retroreflector defined by firing angle, pixel number, and distance; [0094] and Fig. 6);
identify one or more detected pulses that represent crosstalk from the first channel ([0094] and Fig. 6, APD(n-2) is determined as most likely being a result of crosstalk), wherein the one or more detected pulses that represent crosstalk are associated with the light detectors susceptible to crosstalk and are identified based on the distance between the lidar device and the high-reflectivity surface ([0091] detect potential presence of retroreflector defined by firing angle, pixel number, and distance; [0094] and Fig. 6);
and wherein identifying the one or more detected pulses that represent crosstalk from the first channel comprises determining whether distances to objects in the surrounding environment associated with each of the one or more detected pulses are different from the distance to the high-reflectivity surface (Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0093] and [0094] because APD(n-2) has a first detection at ToF1 and a second detection at a later time ToF2, the detection at ToF1 is likely an artifact/glare); and
prevent the one or more detected pulses that represent crosstalk from the first channel from being included in a dataset usable to generate a point cloud ([0085] “a probability of identifying a crosstalk pixel is increased and steps can be taken by a DSP to mitigate the identified crosstalk event and possibly remove glare artefacts from the point cloud”) and transmit to the computing device the dataset usable to generate the point cloud ([0100] controller reports the hits that are likely to be representative of valid detections in the environment).
Helsloot does not expressly teach: an array of channels, wherein each channel comprises a light detector and a corresponding light emitter or that responsive to the first light detector detecting the reflection pulse corresponding to the high reflectivity surface, cause a first light emitter of the first channel to emit a series of light pulses according to a predefined firing sequence and that detectors susceptible to crosstalk are also identified based on the predefined firing sequence.
Wang teaches a lidar system that has an array of channels (Fig. 3, with array of channels 302a through 302h, which each have a transmitter to emit an optical signal and a detector to receive a signal. Here, channel 302a is the “active” channel, but this is merely an example. It is understood that any one of the channels is capable of being an “active” channel).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the LDIAR device disclosed by Helsloot, such that the transmitters and receivers are arranged into an array of channels where each transmitter has its corresponding receiver, as taught by Wang. This would be a different design option and “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.” See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (F).
However, Helsloot and Wang do not expressly teach: that responsive to the first light detector detecting the reflection pulse corresponding to the high reflectivity surface, cause a first light emitter of the first channel to emit a series of light pulses according to a predefined firing sequence and that detectors susceptible to crosstalk are also identified based on the predefined firing sequence.
Droz teaches a lidar device for identifying retroreflective surfaces in the environment ([0040]), where responsive to the first light detector detecting the reflection pulse corresponding to the high reflectivity surface, the device will cause a first light emitter of the first channel to emit a series of light pulses according to a predefined firing sequence ([0047], [0206], and [0238] emitting coded sequence of pulses used to classify object as retroreflector and the sequence can also be adjusted upon detection of retroreflector. Figs. 14-16 with Fig. 17, steps 1702, 1704, and then 1706) and that the predefined firing sequence is used to identify crosstalk and susceptibility to crosstalk (Figs. 9A, 9B, and 10, and [0179] determining received signal 971 is likely crosstalk. [0236] based on the predefined firing sequence in Fig. 16, and the mismatch between emitted and detected signals, determining that there is crosstalk/invalid signal).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of lidar technologies before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the lidar device taught by Helsloot and Wang, such that a series of pulses is emitted, responsive to identifying crosstalk, and that the pulse sequence is also used to identify pulses representative of crosstalk, as further taught by Droz. This pulse sequence taught by Droz includes pulses of different intensities (Fig. 14, primary pulse 1461 and secondary pulses 1481 and 1482 for example). This pulse sequence, with a combination of primary and secondary pulses, is beneficial because the received signals in the pulse sequence can be compared to a threshold intensity; the intensity of the secondary signals may be selected such that the secondary signals would be detected if incident on a retroreflector (Droz, [0215]), but the secondary signals would not be detected if incident on an object that is not highly reflective (Droz, Fig. 15 and [0222]).
Regarding Claim 20: Helsloot, in view of Wang and Droz, teaches the system of claim 19. Helsloot further discloses wherein transmitting, to the computing device, the dataset usable to generate the point cloud, comprises transmitting a datastream to the computing device, and wherein preventing the one or more detected pulses that represent crosstalk from the first channel from being included in the dataset usable to generate the point cloud comprises removing the one or more detected pulses from the datastream ([0098] “The system controller 23 may compare each probability score to a predefined probability threshold, and discard any TOF hits with a probability score less than the predefined probability threshold. For example, a predefined probability threshold of 50% would result in any TOF hit having a probability score less than 50% be discarded and not reported (output) to the system controller 23.” The probability threshold discussed in this paragraph represents the likelihood that the detected TOF hit is valid, depending on distance, amplitude, and how many hits the pixel has, for example, as described in [0097]).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helsloot (US 20210033711 A1), in view of Wang (US 20230194684 A1), further in view of Droz (US 20200141716 A1), further in view of Ulrich (US 20200096637 A1). Helsloot, in view of Wang and Droz, teaches the device of claim 1 and the method of claim 11.
In this combination, Helsloot further discloses that there is a plurality of combinations of: (i) distances between the lidar device and the high-reflectivity surface and (ii) light detectors detecting reflection pulses that correspond to a high-reflectivity surface ([0071] based on distance to the retro-reflector, there may be two or more retro-reflector pixels/target pixels APD(n) which correspond to an actual location of the retro-reflector. Fig. 4, the target pixel is APD(n), and the neighboring pixels are labeled APD(n±3), APD(n±2), and APD(n±1), based on their location relative to the target pixel. In the illustration of Fig. 4, the first set of light detectors within a first distance are APD(n±2), and APD(n±1), which experience vertical crosstalk).
They do not expressly teach that the determining which of the other light detectors within the array of channels are susceptible comprises accessing a lookup table, and wherein the lookup table stores a list of detectors that may be susceptible for crosstalk.
However, Ulrich teaches the use of a lookup table to store information about an incident light beam on an array of pixels in paragraph [0073]: “The function
Φ
r
→
describes a phase delay of the incident light spot, which may be caused, for example, by phase crosstalk/signal crosstalk between the pixels. Since this is not necessarily isotropic, it may be necessary to model
Φ
r
→
as a two-dimensional function (e.g., a 2D spline or a 2D lookup table).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lidar system taught by Helsloot, Wang, and Droz, such that the pixels that are susceptible to crosstalk are stored in a lookup table as taught by Ulrich. There are many ways to store information about which pixels/detectors are susceptible to experiencing crosstalk. Storing this information in the form of a list in a lookup table would just be using a different type of data structure. This variation in data structure is known in the art and would yield the predictable result of storing information that can be accessed. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helsloot (US 20210033711 A1), in view of Wang (US 20230194684 A1), further in view of Droz (US 20200141716 A1), further in view of Zhu2 (US 10983197 B1). Helsloot, in view of Wang and Droz, teaches the device of claim 1 and the method of claim 11.
Helsloot further discloses wherein which of the light detectors within the array of channels are susceptible to crosstalk from the first channel is further based on an emission vector associated with a first emitter of the channel ([0085] “By combining two or more crosstalk indicators and recording the transmission angle, pixel number, and distance, a probability of identifying a crosstalk pixel is increased”; [0107] “the system controller 23 also tracks which pixel column is targeted and which pixel column(s) is not targeted based on the transmission angle of the MEMS mirror 12”).
They do not expressly teach that it is a pitch angle and a yaw angle that is used.
However, Zhu2 teaches this limitation in Col. 12 line 54 through Col. 13 line 4: “each VCSEL may have an angle (e.g., pitch angle, yaw angle, etc) with respect to the horizontal or vertical direction” and “The dimension and configuration of the emitter array 207 and the emitting optical system 203, 205, and receiving optical system 213 are designed such that the emitter and return paths can be predicted, which means that the yaw and pitch of the lasers and their respective angles are taken into account into the prediction of the return path.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system taught by Helsloot, Wang, and Droz, such that the yaw and pitch angles of the emitted light are both taken into account in predicting the return path of the light as taught by Zhu2. The pitch and yaw angles are two angles that can be used to describe the “transmission angle” disclosed by Helsloot. Because lidar systems are used in the real world where there are only three dimensions, there are only three angles (pitch, yaw, and roll) that can be used to describe a vector, and choosing to use the pitch and yaw angles to define a “transmission angle” would be “obvious to try” with the reasonable expectation of success (See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale E).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM whose telephone number is (571)270-0570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Fridays 8am-12pm.
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 at (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 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.
/ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights