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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 17-18, 20, and 23 are moot in view of new grounds of rejection based on a new reference Kurstak ("Electronic Device and Method for Displaying Call Information Thereof", KR 20160024630 A, pub. date 03-07-2016).
Election/Restrictions
4. Previously withdrawn claim 22 has been reinstated and rejected due to incorporation of its distinct limitations in elected claim 17.
5. Claims 21, 31, and 32 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
6. Applicant’s initial invention was directed towards the calling preference configuration being determined based on answers from an accessibility questionnaire presented to one of the first UE or the second UE as stated in claim 17.
The newly submitted claims 21, 31, and 32 are directed towards (calling preference configuration being determined based on) processing visual content included in a communication during a call using image processing tools, the image processing tools configured to identify one or more objects within the visual content.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21, 31, and 32 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 17-18, 20, 23-25, 27-30, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behm (US 2020/0267259 A1) in view of Baek ("Authentication and Security System for the Disabled", KR 102142034 B1, pub. date 2020-08-06), and further in view of Kurstak ("Electronic Device and Method for Displaying Call Information Thereof", KR 20160024630 A, pub. date 03-07-2016).
Regarding claim 17, Behm teaches a system for managing voice and text communications during a call ([0040], “As shown in FIG. 3, these attributes include enabling Telecommunications Relay Services. One of these available services is Video Relay Service (VRS), which allows for sign-language interpreting services to be provided over video, audio and text connections (~voice and text communications during a call)”), the system ([0012], “FIG. 1 illustrates an overview of a system with a telecom network”; Fig. 1) comprising:
a mobile communications network ([0012], “a telecom network”; Fig. 1, mobile communications network);
at least one node configured to provide access to the mobile communications network (Fig. 1, node via connection 2 provides access to telecom network 5); and
a calling preference manager (Fig. 1, Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) 7) configured to:
determining a calling preference configuration of at least one of a first UE or a second UE during a call that includes the first UE and the second UE ([0050], “Session Description Protocol (SDP) modifications and enhancements include adding an accessibility value (~calling preference configuration) such as accommodation preferences (including but not limited to deaf, blind, deaf-blind), phone number for the service provider to call, language preferences such as foreign language (e.g., Spanish) or Voice-Carry-Over, and multiple party conference calls. The User Equipment or IMS Server will add/modify (~determine) a value for the person who wants to place (~first UE) or receive (~second UE) a call (with his/her accessibility settings (~calling preference configuration) enabled)”),
the calling preference configuration comprising one or more of a sending preference and a receiving preference ([0050], accessibility settings (~calling preference configuration) comprises a (~one or more of) value for the person who wants to place a call (~sending preference) and a (~one or more of) value for the person who wants to receive a call (~receiving preference));
based on the determined calling preference configuration of at least one of the first UE or the second UE, determining a call flow between the first UE and the second UE ([0050], based on determined accessibility value/setting (~calling preference configuration) of a person placing a call (~first UE) or a person receiving the call (~second UE), a call flow of implementing the accessibility is determined; [0033], determines call flows based on determined universal communication attributes (~calling preference configurations) of the first user (~first UE) and the second user (~second UE)); and
based on the determined call flow, coordinating the processing of communications between the first UE and the second UE, the communications being processed based on the calling preference configuration of at least one of the first UE or the second UE ([0033], “when both the initiating and receiving devices includes a list of enabled universal communication attributes of the first and second user (~based on the calling preference configuration of at least one of the first UE or the second UE); utilizing one or more of the enabled communication attributes of the first and second user to complete the communication connection between the initiating and receiving communication devices (~coordinating the processing of communications between the first UE and the second UE)”).
Behm does not explicitly teach wherein the calling preference configuration is determined at least partially based on answers from an accessibility questionnaire presented to one of the first UE or the second UE.
However, Baek teaches wherein a calling preference configuration is determined at least partially based on answers from an accessibility questionnaire presented to one of the first UE or the second UE (pg. 4, par. 9 - pg. 5, par. 3, “server 200 may request a user to join the server 200 for use of the security system, and may also register the user terminal 100 (~one of the first UE or the second UE) as a device to authenticate the identity of the user ... user may register ... The present invention may automatically perform a sign language interpretation function or a volume setting value change operation when the user is a disabled person (~a calling preference configuration is determined at least partially based on answers (~user’s yes or no answers on disability questionnaire) from an accessibility questionnaire presented) requiring sign language interpretation. To this end, the server 200 may request to register information on whether a person is disabled (~accessibility questionnaire presented to one of the first UE or the second UE)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Baek with the teaching of Behm in order to provide convenience to users with disabilities in communication (Baek pg. 2, par. 5) and to provide more personalized, efficient, and proactive communication service.
The combination does not explicitly teach saving a completed call in an interactive call log configured to enable a user to access an interactive call log using a different calling preference configuration.
However, Kurstak teaches saving a completed call in an interactive call log configured to enable a user to access an interactive call log using a different calling preference configuration (pg. 6, par. 1, “electronic device 101 can store the voice data received from the call log section 171 in the memory 130 or transmit it to another module in the electronic device 101. [ For example, the electronic device 101 can transmit the voice or converted voice data received from the call log section 171 to the data (~different calling preference configuration) extracting section 174”; pg. 5, par. 7, “call logger 171 may receive a voice signal communicated by the communication module 160”; pg. 15, par. 6, “data extracting unit 174 may convert at least one of the memory 130, the call log 171, or the voice data that can be transmitted and received by the microphone into text (~using a different calling preference configuration) data based on a known speech recognition technique”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kurstak with the teaching of Behm as modified by Baek in order to provide essential support for individuals who are deaf or blind by offering an alternative representation of communications in addition to helping non-native speakers better understand the communications.
Regarding claim 18, Behm in view of Baek, and further in view of Kurstak teaches the method of claim 17,
wherein the calling preference configuration further comprises a language preference (Behm [0050], “Session Description Protocol (SDP) modifications and enhancements include adding an accessibility value such as ... language preferences such as foreign language (e.g., Spanish)”).
Regarding claim 20, Behm in view of Baek, and further in view of Kurstak teaches the method of claim 17,
wherein the calling preference configuration of the first UE has a receiving preference for voice (Behm [0050], accommodation preferences for blind has a receiving preference as voice; [0053], “receive the audio (~voice) and/or video along with the unique attributes of voice-carry-over”).
-
Regarding claim 23, Behm in view of Baek, and further in view of Kurstak teaches the system of claim 17.
The combination of Behm and Kurstak does not explicitly teach wherein the accessibility questionnaire utilizes two or more accessibility features.
However, Baek further teaches wherein an accessibility questionnaire utilizes two or more accessibility features (pg. 8, par. 4, “may automatically select a form (at least one of text input (~visual accessibility feature), voice input (~auditory accessibility feature), and sign language input) of receiving a doctor's input from the user based on the user's disability information”; pg. 4, par. 9 - pg. 5, par. 3, “server 200 may request a user to join the server 200 for use of the security system, and may also register the user terminal 100 (~one of the first UE or the second UE) as a device to authenticate the identity of the user ... user may register ... The present invention may automatically perform a sign language interpretation function or a volume setting value change operation when the user is a disabled person (~accessibility questionnaire utilizes two or more accessibility features) from an accessibility questionnaire presented) requiring sign language interpretation. To this end, the server 200 may request to register information on whether a person is disabled (~accessibility questionnaire presented)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Baek with the teaching of Behm as modified by Baek and Kurstak in order to provide convenience to users with disabilities in communication (Baek pg. 2, par. 5) and to provide more personalized, efficient, and proactive communication service.
Regarding claim 24, Behm in view of Baek, and further in view of Kurstak teaches the system of claim 17.
The combination of Behm and Baek does not explicitly teach wherein the interactive call log is configured to enable a user to access a completed call and reprocess the call using a different calling preference configuration.
However, Kurstak further teaches wherein the interactive call log is configured to enable a user to access a completed call and reprocess the call using a different calling preference configuration (pg. 6, par. 1, “electronic device 101 can store the voice data received from the call log section 171 in the memory 130 or transmit it to another module in the electronic device 101. [ For example, the electronic device 101 can transmit the voice or converted voice data received from the call log section 171 to the data (~different calling preference configuration) extracting section 174”; pg. 5, par. 7, “call logger 171 may receive a voice signal communicated by the communication module 160”; pg. 15, par. 6, “data extracting unit 174 may convert at least one of the memory 130, the call log 171, or the voice data that can be transmitted and received by the microphone into text (~using a different calling preference configuration) data based on a known speech recognition technique”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kurstak with the teaching of Behm as modified by Baek and Kurstak in order to provide essential support for individuals who are deaf or blind by offering an alternative representation of communications in addition to helping non-native speakers better understand the communications.
Regarding claim 25, Behm in view of Baek, and further in view of Kurstak teaches the system of claim 17.
The combination of Behm and Kurstak does not explicitly teach wherein the accessibility questionnaire comprises interactive questions configured to determine the calling preference configuration based on user responses.
However, Baek further teaches wherein an accessibility questionnaire comprises interactive questions configured to determine a calling preference configuration based on user responses (pg. 4, par. 9 - pg. 5, par. 3, “server 200 may request a user to join the server 200 for use of the security system, and may also register the user terminal 100 (~one of the first UE or the second UE) as a device to authenticate the identity of the user ... user may register ... The present invention may automatically perform a sign language interpretation function or a volume setting value change operation when the user is a disabled person (~a calling preference configuration is determined at least partially based on answers (~user’s yes or no answers on disability questionnaire) from an accessibility questionnaire presented) requiring sign language interpretation. To this end, the server 200 may request to register information on whether a person is disabled (~accessibility questionnaire presented to one of the first UE or the second UE)”; pg. 10, “user's disability information (degree of disability, type of disability) (~interactive questions to determine the calling preference configuration)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Baek with the teaching of Behm as modified by Baek and Kurstak in order to provide convenience to users with disabilities in communication (Baek pg. 2, par. 5) and to provide more personalized, efficient, and proactive communication service.
Regarding claim 27, Behm in view of Baek, and further in view of Kurstak teaches the system of claim 17, wherein coordinating the processing of communications comprises converting incoming voice communications into text in real time (Behm [0039], “A suitable communication device used in this disclosure includes but is not limited to a mobile phone, smart home device, web browser, an over-the-top application running on a machine, or the like. Devices contain settings known as universal attributes that provide specific functions of data to be passed from one point to another. The device used to initiate a connection contains a list of enhanced universal attributes that assist with communication. Some examples of these universal attributes that assist with accessible communication contain Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), Real-Time-Text (RTT), multi-language services, etc.”; [0040], “As shown in FIG. 3, these attributes include enabling Telecommunications Relay Services. One of these available services is Video Relay Service (VRS), which allows for sign-language interpreting services to be provided over video, audio and text connections. Another enabled service is Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP-CTS) which allows for the use of a human or automated text transcription based on the audio feed during a connection. Deaf-blind users also have enhanced features with allowing combination of services with VRS, IP-CTS, the connection to RTT, Braille reader and screen readers”).
Regarding claim 28, Behm in view of Baek, and further in view of Kurstak teaches the system of claim 17.
The combination of Behm and Kurstak does not explicitly teach wherein coordinating the processing of communications comprises converting outgoing text communications into voice using a personalized computer-generated voice.
However, Baek further teaches wherein coordinating a processing of communications comprises converting outgoing text communications into voice using a personalized computer-generated voice (pg. 16, par. 3, “text-to-speech output depending on the situation through TTS for visually impaired Low vision Text enlargement function”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Baek with the teaching of Behm as modified by Baek and Kurstak in order to convert digital text into spoken words, primarily used for accessibility in helping those with visual impairments or learning disabilities like dyslexia, enhancing learning, convenience, and accessibility..
Regarding claim 29, Behm in view of Baek, and further in view of Kurstak teaches the system of claim 17, wherein the calling preference manager is further configured to apply a language translation to at least one communication during the call (Behm [0039], “Some examples of these universal attributes that assist with accessible communication contain Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), Real-Time-Text (RTT), multi-language services, etc.”; [0045], Foreign Language is another attribute listed to help with translation services from one language to another both by a human or by using automatic speech translation”).
Regarding claim 30, Behm in view of Baek, and further in view of Kurstak teaches the system of claim 17.
The combination of Behm and Baek does not explicitly teach wherein the interactive call log is configured to allow selective reprocessing of communications within a completed call.
However, Kurstak further teaches wherein an interactive call log is configured to allow selective reprocessing of communications within a completed call (pg. 6, par. 1, “electronic device 101 can store the voice data received from the call log section 171 in the memory 130 or transmit it to another module in the electronic device 101. [ For example, the electronic device 101 can transmit the voice or converted voice data received from the call log section 171 to the data (~different calling preference configuration) extracting section 174”; pg. 5, par. 7, “call logger 171 may receive a voice signal communicated by the communication module 160”; pg. 15, par. 6, “data extracting unit 174 may convert at least one of the memory 130, the call log 171, or the voice data that can be transmitted and received by the microphone into text (~using a different calling preference configuration) data based on a known speech recognition technique”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kurstak with the teaching of Behm as modified by Baek and Kurstak in order to provide essential support for individuals who are deaf or blind by offering an alternative representation of communications in addition to helping non-native speakers better understand the communications.
Regarding claim 33, Behm in view of Baek, and further in view of Kurstak teaches the system of claim 17.
The combination of Behm and Kurstak does not explicitly teach wherein the accessibility questionnaire utilizes at least one auditory accessibility feature and at least one visual accessibility feature.
However, Baek further teaches wherein an accessibility questionnaire utilizes at least one auditory accessibility feature and at least one visual accessibility feature (pg. 8, par. 4, “may automatically select a form (at least one of text input (~visual accessibility feature), voice input (~auditory accessibility feature), and sign language input) of receiving a doctor's input from the user based on the user's disability information”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Baek with the teaching of Behm as modified by Baek and Kurstak in in order to ensure that individuals with varying sensory impairments can independently perceive, understand, and interact with the accessibility questionnaire.
10. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behm in view of Baek, further in view of Kurstak, and further in view of Fukada ("Mobile Communication System", JP 2006135925 A, pub. date 2006-05-25).
Regarding claim 19, Behm in view of Baek, and further in view of Kurstak teaches the method of claim 17.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the interactive call log is configured to enable a user to access a completed call and replay the call as originally processed.
However, Fukada teaches wherein an interactive call log is configured to enable a user to access a completed call and replay the call as originally processed (pg. 3, par. 4, “call memo is configured so that all calls are once recorded and stored by a storage signal from the terminal”; pg. 3, par. 10, “call memo is configured to record all calls once and save them by a stored signal from the terminal, all calls are recorded for each call, There is no record omission when it becomes”; pg. 4, par. 1, “call memo after the call memo is played back is not stored in a recorded state indefinitely”; pg. 8, par. 10, “a call memo playback procedure which is an operation procedure in the latter half of the call memo function”; pg. 11, par. 6,“when the call memo is configured to record all calls once and save them by a stored signal from the terminal, the entire call is recorded for each call, so it is desired to record during the call”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Fukada with the teaching of Behm as modified by Baek and Kurstak in order to provide a mobile communication system capable of listening to a call memo including a memory capable of recording a sufficient recording capacity as a call memo (Fukada pg. 2, par. 7) and to provide an easily accessible record of all phone calls for playbacks, enabling better management of communications.
11. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behm in view of Kurstak.
Regarding claim 22, Behm teaches a system for managing voice and text communications during a call (Behm [0040], “As shown in FIG. 3, these attributes include enabling Telecommunications Relay Services. One of these available services is Video Relay Service (VRS), which allows for sign-language interpreting services to be provided over video, audio and text connections (~voice and text communications during a call)”), the system (Behm [0012], “FIG. 1 illustrates an overview of a system with a telecom network”; Fig. 1) comprising:
a mobile communications network (Behm [0012], “a telecom network”; Fig. 1, mobile communications network);
at least one node configured to provide access to the mobile communications network (Behm Fig. 1, node via connection 2 provides access to telecom network 5); and
a calling preference manager (Behm Fig. 1, Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) 7) configured to:
determining a calling preference configuration of at least one of a first UE or a second UE during a call that includes the first UE and the second UE (Behm [0050], “Session Description Protocol (SDP) modifications and enhancements include adding an accessibility value (~calling preference configuration) such as accommodation preferences (including but not limited to deaf, blind, deaf-blind), phone number for the service provider to call, language preferences such as foreign language (e.g., Spanish) or Voice-Carry-Over, and multiple party conference calls. The User Equipment or IMS Server will add/modify (~determine) a value for the person who wants to place (~first UE) or receive (~second UE) a call (with his/her accessibility settings (~calling preference configuration) enabled)”),
the calling preference configuration comprising one or more of a sending preference and a receiving preference (Behm [0050], accessibility settings (~calling preference configuration) comprises a (~one or more of) value for the person who wants to place a call (~sending preference) and a (~one or more of) value for the person who wants to receive a call (~receiving preference));
based on the determined calling preference configuration of at least one of the first UE or the second UE, determining a call flow between the first UE and the second UE (Behm [0050], based on determined accessibility value/setting (~calling preference configuration) of a person placing a call (~first UE) or a person receiving the call (~second UE), a call flow of implementing the accessibility is determined; [0033], determines call flows based on determined universal communication attributes (~calling preference configurations) of the first user (~first UE) and the second user (~second UE)); and
based on the determined call flow, coordinating the processing of communications between the first UE and the second UE, the communications being processed based on the calling preference configuration of at least one of the first UE or the second UE (Behm [0033], “when both the initiating and receiving devices includes a list of enabled universal communication attributes of the first and second user (~based on the calling preference configuration of at least one of the first UE or the second UE); utilizing one or more of the enabled communication attributes of the first and second user to complete the communication connection between the initiating and receiving communication devices (~coordinating the processing of communications between the first UE and the second UE)”).
Behm does not explicitly teach wherein a completed call between the first UE and the second UE is saved in an interactive call log, and wherein one of the first UE and the second UE re-processes at least one communication from the completed call using a different calling preference configuration than was used during the completed call.
However, Kurstak teaches wherein a completed call between a first UE and a second UE is saved in an interactive call log, and wherein one of the first UE and the second UE re-processes at least one communication from the completed call using a different calling preference configuration than was used during the completed call (pg. 6, par. 1, “electronic device 101 can store the voice data received from the call log section 171 in the memory 130 or transmit it to another module in the electronic device 101. [ For example, the electronic device 101 can transmit the voice or converted voice data received from the call log section 171 to the data (~different calling preference configuration) extracting section 174”; pg. 5, par. 7, “call logger 171 may receive a voice signal communicated by the communication module 160”; pg. 15, par. 6, “data extracting unit 174 may convert at least one of the memory 130, the call log 171, or the voice data that can be transmitted and received by the microphone into text (~using a different calling preference configuration) data based on a known speech recognition technique”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kurstak with the teaching of Behm in order to provide essential support for individuals who are deaf or blind by offering an alternative representation of communications in addition to helping non-native speakers better understand the communications.
12. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behm in view of Baek, further in view of Kurstak, and further in view of Serebrennikov (US 2003/0079124 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Behm in view of Baek, and further in view of Kurstak teaches the system of claim 17.
The combination of Behm and Baek does not explicitly teach wherein the interactive call log includes metadata indicating the calling preference configuration used during the completed call.
However, Kurstak further teaches wherein an interactive call log includes metadata used during the completed call (pg. 8, par. 6, “receive the metadata related to the call information”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kurstak with the teaching of Behm as modified by Baek and Kurstak in order to allow users to efficiently analyze, sort, filter, manage, and act upon this information about the call itself.
The combination does not explicitly teach that the metadata indicates the calling preference configuration used.
However, Serebrennikov teaches wherein a metadata indicates a calling preference configuration used ([0063], “User preferences (regular telecom services such as Caller ID, order and terms to switching to order facilities such as text mode, instant messaging mode, SMS mode etc)”; [0119], “preferences of both parties provided in Number File's metadata”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Serebrennikov with the teaching of Behm as modified by Baek and Kurstak in order to store information that defines how a communication system should handle or route calls based on predefined rules or user preferences, without needing to access the actual content of the call, allowing for systems to manage call behavior efficiently and consistently.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER YI whose telephone number is (571)270-7696. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 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, JINSONG HU, can be reached on (571) 272-3965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ALEXANDER YI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2643
/JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643