DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of priority from U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/357,504, filed June 30, 2022.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-29 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the limitation “automatically updating the tool configuration parameters to correspond to the result values of the selected one or more user-selectable image metadata elements to generated revised tool configuration parameters for the tool”. Specifically, Applicant argues that Bergkvist’s teaching of loading parameters based on a selected target object is not sufficient to teach the limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that the specification is not read into the claims, and thus the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation is herein applied. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, Bergkvist’s loading of parameters based on a selection of a target object is sufficient to teach “updating tool configuration parameters to correspond to the result values of the selected one or more user-selectable image metadata elements”. The category of the target object in Bergkvist corresponds to the “result values” of the user-selectable image metadata elements (i.e., the selected target object of Bergkvist) (see Bergkvist, Para. [0028]). Additionally, the Bergkvist reference is combined with the Blanford reference. Blanford teaches user-selectable metadata elements (see Blanford, Para. [0046]) but simply does not teach to update the tool configuration parameters to correspond to the result values of the selected elements. Thus, Blanford is combined with Bergkvist to teach an automatic update of tool parameters based on a user selection.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine these references and that the combination is based on hindsight reconstruction. Examiner respectfully disagrees. One having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine these references because it would allow for improved object detection by taking the operator-driven parameter setting of Blanford and making it an automatic update based on a user selection as taught by Bergkvist. Applicant is reminded of MPEP 2145.X.A, which states that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. Examiner asserts that the combination is not based on only knowledge gleaned from applicant’s disclosure, but rather from the Blanford and Bergkvist references themselves, which teach user-selectable elements and an automatic parameter update based on a user selection. Thus, the 35 USC 103 rejection of the claims is maintained, and consequently, THIS ACTION IS FINAL.
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.
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 1-4, 6-7, 13-18, 20-21 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanford (US 2008/0101682 A1) in view of Hannes Bergkvist (US 2023/0162483 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Blanford teaches a method for auto-configuring a tool for one or more imaging device jobs, the method comprising:
displaying, by one or more processors via a display screen, an interactive graphical user interface (GUI) of an application (Blanford, Para. [0040], the display devices and input devices can be used to display a user interface, which may include various graphical user interface (GUI) features), the application configured to generate job runs for the imaging devices in a job edit mode (Blanford, Para. [0069], the arc tool portion may comprise an arc tool edit mode portion and a tool parameters portion);
displaying, by the one or more processors within the interactive GUI, an image (Blanford, Para. [0040], the user interface may include various GUI features that are usable to view the images captured by the camera system);
detecting, by the one or more processors, a selection of a region of interest (ROI) of the image (Blanford, Para. [0052], the arc tool may include the ROI, which is defined by a ROI boundary having portions comprising specific inner and outer radii and first and second ends).
analyzing, by the one or more processors, the ROI of the image using a tool to identify one or more targets in the image based on tool configuration parameters of the tool (Blanford, Para. [0045], Fig. 3, The FOV window includes one exemplary instance of an arc tool superimposed upon the workpiece image. The appearance of editing handles indicates that the arc tool has been selected by a user for editing. The user interface may display an arc tool parameter dialog box. Para. [0051], Fig. 5B represents an initial state of one instance of the arc tool just after its initial drawing or creation);
selecting a target among the one or more targets in the image and displaying user-selectable image metadata elements and result values of each element corresponding to the selected target (Blanford, Para. [0044], the user interface display includes a field of view (FOV) window that displays a workpiece image that includes two surfaces that about one another along an edge. The user interface also includes various measurement and/or operation selection bars such as the selection bars, a real-time X-Y-Z (position), coordinate window, and light control window);
selecting one or more user-selectable image metadata elements (Blanford, Para. [0046]; Figs. 4A-4C, a tabbed dialog box configuration, which includes user-selectable tabbed portions 491a, 491b, and 491c. FIG. 4A illustrates the tabbed portion 491a, which may reflect the X and Y coordinates of the center of curvature of the arc tool, the inner and outer radii of the arc tool ROI, denoted R1 and R2, respectively, as well as the start and stop angles of the defined ROI);
re-analyzing and displaying the ROI of the image using the tool with the revised tool configuration (Blanford, Para. [0045], Fig. 3, The FOV window includes one exemplary instance of an arc tool superimposed upon the workpiece image. The appearance of editing handles indicates that the arc tool has been selected by a user for editing. The user interface may display an arc tool parameter dialog box. Para. [0049], the OK button accepts the current parameters and closes the arc tool parameter dialog box. Para. [0068], Fig. 14 represents a state of the arc tool after a user has adjusted its ROI and tool parameters to a desired state for detecting the workpiece edge, and furthermore run the arc tool to perform the edge detection. As a result, the detected edge points are displayed in the GUI of the arc tool and the edge slope indicated displayed).
Although Blanford teaches user-updatable parameters for the tool (Blanford, Para. [0046]-[0049]), Blanford does not explicitly teach “automatically updating the tool configuration parameters to correspond to the result values of the selected one or more user-selectable image metadata elements to generate revised tool configuration parameters for the tool”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Bergkvist teaches a user selection of an object using an object selector, and then the user device loads one or more first parameters including a first parameter of a detection model of an object detector according to the chosen object (Bergkvist, Para. [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Blanford with the teachings of Bergkvist by including automatically updating the tool configuration parameters to correspond to the result values of the selected one or more user-selectable image metadata elements (i.e., metadata elements corresponding to the selected target). One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for an improved object detection in images, as recognized by Bergkvist. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 2, Blanford in view of Bergkvist teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
revising the job to include the tool with revised tool configuration (Blanford, Para. [0068], Fig. 14 represents a state of the arc tool after a user has adjusted its ROI and tool parameters to a desired state for detecting the workpiece edge, and furthermore run the arc tool to perform the edge detection. As a result, the detected edge points are displayed in the GUI of the arc tool and the edge slope indicated displayed); and
deploying the revised job to the imaging device for execution during a job runtime mode (Blanford, Para. [0068], a “run” arc tool. Para. [0003], acquire (and additionally analyze or inspect) images of a workpiece during “run mode”).
Regarding claim 3, Blanford in view of Bergkvist teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches wherein each of the user-selectable image metadata elements corresponds to a different element in the tool configuration (Blanford, Paras. [0046]-[0048], a tabbed dialog box configuration, which includes user-selectable tabbed portions 491a, 491b, and 491c. FIG. 4A illustrates the tabbed portion 491a, which may reflect the X and Y coordinates of the center of curvature of the arc tool, the inner and outer radii of the arc tool ROI, denoted R1 and R2, respectively, as well as the start and stop angles of the defined ROI. Tabbed portion 491b, which reflects the edge search parameters to be employed within the selected ROI. The tabbed portion 491b may reflect a slope parameter type that specifies whether the edge intensity profile is to exhibit a falling slope (light to dark), a rising slope (dark to light) or any (either) slope when proceeding along the arc edge detection scan line direction indicated by the arc tool, as described further below. The tabbed portion 491b may reflect a parameter type that specifies whether the edge intensity profile corresponds to a strong edge or a weak edge. The tabbed portion 491c also includes a portion that reflects edge detection threshold values that may govern edge detection operations).
Regarding claim 4, Blanford in view of Bergkvist teaches the method of claim 1, wherein automatically updating the tool configuration parameters comprises: for each selected one or more user-selectable image metadata elements applying an auto-configuration parameter to automatically adjust the tool configuration (Bergkvist, Para. [0028], the user device loads one or more first parameters including a first parameter of a detection model of an object detector according to the chosen object (i.e., automatically adjusts the tool configuration)).
Regarding claim 6, Blanford in view of Bergkvist teaches the method of claim 4, and further teaches wherein the auto-configuration parameter represents a combination of auto-configuration parameters, each for revising a different element of the tool configuration (Blanford, Paras. [0046]-[0048], a tabbed dialog box configuration, which includes user-selectable tabbed portions 491a, 491b, and 491c. FIG. 4A illustrates the tabbed portion 491a, which may reflect the X and Y coordinates of the center of curvature of the arc tool, the inner and outer radii of the arc tool ROI, denoted R1 and R2, respectively, as well as the start and stop angles of the defined ROI. Tabbed portion 491b, which reflects the edge search parameters to be employed within the selected ROI. The tabbed portion 491b may reflect a slope parameter type that specifies whether the edge intensity profile is to exhibit a falling slope (light to dark), a rising slope (dark to light) or any (either) slope when proceeding along the arc edge detection scan line direction indicated by the arc tool, as described further below. The tabbed portion 491b may reflect a parameter type that specifies whether the edge intensity profile corresponds to a strong edge or a weak edge. The tabbed portion 491c also includes a portion that reflects edge detection threshold values that may govern edge detection operations).
Regarding claim 7, Blanford in view of Bergkvist teaches the method of claim 4, and teaches the method further comprises for each of the one or more user-selectable image metadata elements displaying a current parameter value corresponding to the one or more targets and displaying a user selection button (Blanford, Para. [0049], the OK button accepts the current parameters (i.e., current parameter value corresponding to the one or more targets) and closes the arc tool parameter dialog box).
Regarding claim 13, Blanford in view of Bergkvist teaches the method of claim 4, and further teaches wherein the tool is an edge detection tool, and wherein analyzing the ROI of the image using the tool to identify the one or more targets in the image comprises: identifying, as the one or more targets, one or more edges in the image (Blanford, Para. [0068], run the arc tool to perform the edge detection).
Regarding claim 14, Blanford in view of Bergkvist teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the one or more user-selectable image metadata elements comprises an edge angle, edge length, or edge polarity (Blanford, Para. [0046], the start and stop angles of the defined ROI correspond to the orientations of the end portions of an arc tool ROI boundary. Para. [0047], the tabbed portion 491b may reflect a slope parameter type that specifies whether the edge intensity profile is to exhibit a falling slope, a rising slope, or any (either) slope).
Claims 15-18, 20-21, and 27-28 recite systems with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 13-14, respectively. Therefore, the recited elements of these claims are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Blanford and Bergkvist references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Blanford and Bergkvist references discloses a machine vision camera (Blanford, Para. [0033], machine vision inspection system 100 with camera system 260), a client computing device (Blanford, Para. [0031], controlling computer system 14), and a processor (Blanford, Para. [0033], workpiece program generator and executor 170).
Claim 29 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed reference in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Blanford and Bergkvist references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Blanford and Bergkvist references teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Bergkvist, Para. [0093], non-transitory computer readable medium).
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanford (US 2008/0101682 A1) in view of Hannes Bergkvist (US 2023/0162483 A1), as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 13-18, 20-21, and 27-29 above, and further in view of Graham (US 2019/0279017 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Blanford in view of Bergkvist teaches the method of claim 4, as described above.
Although Blanford in view of Bergkvist teaches auto-configuration parameters (Bergkvist, Para. [0028]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the auto-configuration parameter is a percentage range parameter or a binary parameter”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Graham teaches an overlap threshold with a range between 30%-50% (Graham, Para. [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Blanford in view of Bergkvist with the teachings of Graham by including a percentage range parameter. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would for performing object detection on an image of a scene, as recognized by Graham. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 19 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 5. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Blanford, Bergkvist, and Graham references, presented in rejection of Claim 5, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Blanford, Bergkvist, and Graham references discloses a machine vision camera (Para. [0033], machine vision inspection system 100 with camera system 260), a client computing device (Para. [0031], controlling computer system 14), and a processor (Para. [0033], workpiece program generator and executor 170).
Claims 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanford (US 2008/0101682 A1) in view of Hannes Bergkvist (US 2023/0162483 A1), as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 13-18, 20-21, and 27-29 above, and further in view of Ferren (US 2021/0302128 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Blanford in view of Bergkvist teaches the method of claim 4, as described above.
Although Blanford in view of Bergkvist teaches an arc edge detection by an arc tool (Blanford, Para. [0068]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the tool is a blob detection tool, and wherein analyzing the ROI of the image using the tool to identify the one or more targets in the image comprises: identifying, as the one or more targets, uniform blobs of pixel intensity or pixel color”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Ferren teaches a blob detection module that thresholds the image by executing a programing function in the thresholding submodule that removes pixels with luminance/intensity values below a particular threshold (Ferren, Para. [0079]) and teaches the determination of a contour’s intensity, angular position, and (x, y) position constitutes the detection/identification of a blob/contour (Ferren, Para. [0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Blanford in view of Bergkvist with the teachings of Ferren by including a blob detection module that identifies uniform blobs of pixel intensity. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for detecting objects in an image, as recognized by Ferren. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 22 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 8. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Blanford, Bergkvist, and Ferren references, presented in rejection of Claim 8, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Blanford, Bergkvist, and Ferren references discloses a machine vision camera (Para. [0033], machine vision inspection system 100 with camera system 260), a client computing device (Para. [0031], controlling computer system 14), and a processor (Para. [0033], workpiece program generator and executor 170).
Claims 9-10 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanford (US 2008/0101682 A1) in view of Hannes Bergkvist (US 2023/0162483 A1) further in view of Ferren (US 2021/0302128 A1), as applied to claims 8 and 22 above, and further in view of Nakamura (US 2021/0158562 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Blanford in view of Bergkvist further in view of Ferren teaches the method of claim 8, as described above. Although Blanford in view of Bergkvist further in view of Ferren teaches user-selectable image metadata elements (Blanford, Paras. [0046]-[0048]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the one more user-selectable image metadata elements are selected from the group consisting of area, major axis length, and minor axis length”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Nakamura teaches blob analysis for analyzing feature quantities (area, center of gravity, major axis, minor axis, number of corners, etc.) of pixel clusters (Nakamura, Para. [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Blanford in view of Bergkvist further in view of Ferren with the teachings of Nakamura by including major axis, minor axis, and area as user-selectable image metadata elements. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for the detection of the position of an object, as recognized by Nakamura. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 10, Blanford in view of Bergkvist further in view of Ferren teaches he method of claim 8, as described above.
Although Blanford in view of Bergkvist further in view of Ferren teaches tool configuration parameters (Blanford, Paras. [0046]-[0048]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the tool configuration of the blob detection tool comprises area, major axis length, and minor axis length, axis, center X-axis position, and center Y-axis position”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Nakamura teaches blob analysis for analyzing feature quantities (area, center of gravity, major axis, minor axis, number of corners, etc.) of pixel clusters (Nakamura, Para. [0040]).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Blanford, Bergkvist, Ferren, and Nakamura references presented in the rejection of Claim 9, apply to Claim 10 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 10 is met by Blanford in view of Bergkvist further In view of Ferren and Nakamura.
Claims 23-24 recite systems with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claims 9-10, respectively. Therefore, the recited elements of these claims are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Blanford, Bergkvist, Ferren, and Nakamura references, presented in rejection of Claim 9, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Blanford, Bergkvist, Ferren, and Nakamura references discloses a machine vision camera (Para. [0033], machine vision inspection system 100 with camera system 260), a client computing device (Para. [0031], controlling computer system 14), and a processor (Para. [0033], workpiece program generator and executor 170).
Claims 11-12 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanford (US 2008/0101682 A1) in view of Hannes Bergkvist (US 2023/0162483 A1), as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 13-18, 20-21, and 27-29 above, and further in view of Ozserin (US 2022/0019780 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Blanford in view of Bergkvist teaches the method of claim 4, as described above.
Although Blanford in view of Bergkvist teaches an arc edge detection by an arc tool (Blanford, Para. [0068]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the tool is a barcode detection tool, and wherein analyzing the ROI of the image using the tool to identify the one or more targets in the image comprises: identifying, as the one or more targets, one or more barcodes in the image”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Ozserin teaches the image processing model detecting a barcode (Ozserin, Para. [0045])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Blanford in view of Bergkvist with the teachings of Ozserin by including the tool being a barcode detection tool. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for an accurate barcode scanner system, as recognized by Ozserin. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 12, Blanford in view of Bergkvist further in view of Ozserin teaches the method of claim 11, and further teaches wherein the one or more user-selectable image metadata elements comprises a barcode symbology type or a barcode percentage overlap in the ROI (Ozserin, Para. [0051], a first feature associated with a barcode (e.g., images of types of barcodes in the set of observations). The first feature may have a value of Barcode Type1).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Blanford, Bergkvist, and Ozserin references presented in the rejection of Claim 11, apply to Claim 12 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 12 is met by Blanford in view of Bergkvist further in view of Ozserin.
Claims 25-26 recite systems with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claims 11-12, respectively. Therefore, the recited elements of these claims are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Blanford, Bergkvist, and Ozserin references, presented in rejection of Claim 11, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Blanford, Bergkvist, and Ozserin references discloses a machine vision camera (Para. [0033], machine vision inspection system 100 with camera system 260), a client computing device (Para. [0031], controlling computer system 14), and a processor (Para. [0033], workpiece program generator and executor 170).
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 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 Emma Rose Goebel whose telephone number is (703)756-5582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/Emma Rose Goebel/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights