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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 09/04/2025. Claims 1-38 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 09/04/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 13-14, 19-20, 22, 29-30 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivac (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0291362)-IDS in view of Pivac et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0215692), herein Pivac II, in further view of Pivac et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0206923), herein Pivac III.
Regarding claim 19 and similarly with respect to claim 1
Pivac discloses “A mobile robotic device, comprising: a body;” (See Pivac Fig. 1A, Chars. 100, 111, 112, & 113 disclosing a robotic system with a base (body).).
Pivac discloses “an end effector coupled to the body;” (See Pivac Fig. 1A, Chars. 111, & 113 disclosing an end effector coupled to the base (body).).
Pivac discloses “and at least one controller configured to: obtain a current pose of the body and a predicted future trajectory of the end effector;” (See Pivac Fig. 1A, Char. 130 disclosing a control system, and Fig. 16A, Chars. 1604-1610 & [0214]-[0219] disclosing determining the current pose of the robot base, and determining the path to be traversed by the end effector to perform an interaction according to a schedule is within an interaction window, and monitoring the transversal of the path to determine if it is progressing on schedule.).
Pivac discloses all the elements of claim 19 except “determine, based at least in part on the current pose of the body and the predicted future trajectory of the end effector, that the predicted future trajectory of the end effector would move the end effector outside of a useable workspace;”, “determining, based at least in part on the current pose of the body, a body trajectory of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace, the body trajectory being in a direction corresponding to a direction of the predicted future trajectory of the end effector;” and “and control the body to move along the body trajectory.” (See Pivac [0213] and [0224] disclosing determining if/when the path of the end effector is behind schedule, the motion of the boom, which corresponds to part of the robot body, is slowed down so that the base may remain in the interaction window, enabling the end effector to stay in the “usable workspace” and see Pivac [0224]-[0225] disclosing using the control system to control the base and the end effector to perform the motion.).
Pivac II discloses “determine, based at least in part on the current pose of the body and the predicted future trajectory of the end effector, that the predicted future trajectory of the end effector would move the end effector outside of a useable workspace;” (See Pivac II [0305] disclosing based on a robot pose and future end-effector trajectory, if an end-effector may deviate from a working envelope or range.).
Pivac and Pivac II are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotics. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pivac to incorporate the teachings of Pivac II to include determining if a robot body pose and end-effector trajectory will cause an end-effector to deviate from a usable workspace. Doing so provides a known method in the art for mitigating collisions in robotics, provided with a reasonable expectation of success as it advantageously provides dynamic compensation, to generate path correction to control a robot so the robot follows a modified path to mitigate deviation of an end-effector, see Pivac II [0195].
Pivac III discloses “determining, based at least in part on the current pose of the body, a body trajectory of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace, the body trajectory being in a direction corresponding to a direction of the predicted future trajectory of the end effector;” (See Pivac III Fig. 9, Chars. 900-935 and [0175] disclosing modifying the speed of a robot base (trajectory) from an original path profile to maintain an end effector at a desired position within an upcoming interaction window (usable workspace). The robot base speed modification is based on a proximity to an entry to and/or exit from the interaction window, and thus the direction of the trajectory (reverse from the travel direction if slowing down) corresponds to the direction of the end-effector interaction window path (forward if entering the interaction window).).
Pivac III discloses “and control the body to move along the body trajectory.” (See Pivac III [0175] disclosing control of the robot base speed at step 935.).
Pivac and Pivac III are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotics. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pivac to incorporate the teachings of Pivac II to include path correction for a robot body if a robot body pose and end-effector trajectory causes an end-effector to deviate from a usable workspace. Doing so provides a known method in the art for mitigating collisions in robotics, provided with a reasonable expectation of success as it advantageously provides dynamic compensation to generate path correction to control a robot so the robot follows a modified path to mitigate deviation of an end-effector, see Pivac III [0181].
Regarding claim 2 and similarly with respect to claim 20
Pivac discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the predicted future trajectory comprises determining the predicted future trajectory based on data indicating one or more prior poses of the end effector.” (See Pivac [0087] disclosing planning of an end effector path may extend from an expected previous position of an end effector.).
Regarding claim 3
Pivac discloses “The method of claim 2, wherein the one or more prior poses of the end effector are represented by data previously measured by the robot.” (See Pivac [0087] disclosing planning of an end effector path may extend from an expected previous position of an end effector. A previous position corresponds to data previously measured.).
Regarding claim 5 and similarly with respect to claim 22
Pivac discloses “The method of claim 2, further comprising determining the predicted future trajectory based on a type of task currently being performed.” (See Pivac [0215] disclosing planning of an end effector path may be based upon the next step for a task, such as brick laying.).
Regarding claim 13 and similarly with respect to claim 29
Pivac discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising determining the predicted future trajectory of the end effector while controlling motion of the end effector.” (See Pivac [0227] disclosing determination of an end effector path with the end effector being moved along the end effector path to a destination.).
Regarding claim 14 and similarly with respect to claim 30
Pivac discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising determining the predicted future trajectory based on a pose of the end effector and based on data describing an environment proximate to the end effector.” (See Pivac [0087] disclosing planning of an end effector path may extend from an expected previous position of an end effector. Additionally, the path is typically planned based on an ideal position of the robot base relative to the environment.).
Regarding claim 38
Pivac modified in view of Vu, Pivac II, and Pivac III discloses “The method of claim 1,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the useable workspace comprises a set of relative positions and orientations between the end effector and the body that do not impinge upon a task being performed by the end effector.”
Pivac II discloses “wherein the useable workspace comprises a set of relative positions and orientations between the end effector and the body that do not impinge upon a task being performed by the end effector.” (See Pivac II [0305] defining outside a working envelope as including the actual position and orientation of the dynamic base coordinate system would place the robot in a pose beyond its working range of axis travel or the TCP outside of the working envelope of the robot arm, or exceed the end effectors dynamic limits of jerk, acceleration, or velocity the amount of shift of the base dynamic coordinate system from the programmed location to the actual location.).
The motivation to combine is similar to the rationale under the rejection of claims 1/19.
Claims 7-10, 11-12, 15-18, 23-26, 27-28, 31-35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivac (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0291362)-IDS in view of Pivac et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0215692), herein Pivac II in further view of Pivac et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0206923), herein Pivac III in even further view of Vu et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0205995).
Regarding claim 7 and similarly with respect to claim 23
Pivac modified in view of Pivac II, and Pivac III discloses “The method of claim 1,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “further comprising reducing a velocity of the end effector in response to determining that controlling the body to move along the body trajectory while the end effector moves according to the predicted future trajectory will not maintain the end effector within the useable workspace.”
Vu discloses “further comprising reducing a velocity of the end effector in response to determining that controlling the body to move along the body trajectory while the end effector moves according to the predicted future trajectory will not maintain the end effector within the useable workspace.” (See Vu [0081]-[0083] disclosing a safe action determination module via a robot controller, altering the robot's trajectory, including velocity control for the end-effector (appendage).).
The motivation to combine is similar to the rationale under the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 8 and similarly with respect to claim 24
Pivac modified in view of Pivac II, and Pivac III discloses “The method of claim 1,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein determining the body trajectory of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace comprises determining a first body trajectory of the body that meets a first steering objective when the end effector is moved along the predicted future trajectory.”
Vu discloses “wherein determining the body trajectory of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace comprises determining a first body trajectory of the body that meets a first steering objective when the end effector is moved along the predicted future trajectory.” (See Vu [0082] and Fig. 5, Chars. 502, 508, and 510 disclosing modulating the robots (or appendages) velocity in proportion to a distance threshold, the “first” steering objective including a full speed operation of the robot, if an obstacle is present outside of all zones or within the Full Speed Zone.).
The motivation to combine is similar to the rationale under the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 9 and similarly with respect to claim 25
Pivac discloses “The method of claim 8, wherein the first steering objective constrains a pose of the end effector relative to a pose of the body and/or constrains an angle of at least one joint of an articulated arm that couples the end effector to the body.” (See Pivac [0199] disclosing determining an end effector pose relative to the robot base coordinate system.).
Regarding claim 10 and similarly with respect to claim 26
Pivac discloses “The method of claim 9, wherein the first steering objective constrains the pose of the end effector relative to the pose of the body to: avoid hyperextension of the articulated arm; and/or avoid collisions between the end effector and the body.” (See Pivac [0204] disclosing determination of the end effector path, which corresponds to the pose see [0199], is performed to ensure that the robot arm is able to perform the necessary motion. Also see [0218] disclosing collision avoidance.).
Regarding claim 11 and similarly with respect to claim 27
Pivac modified in view of Pivac II, and Pivac III discloses The method of claim 8,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein determining the body trajectory of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace further comprises determining a second body trajectory of the body that meets a second steering objective, different from the first steering objective, when the end effector is moved along the predicted future trajectory.”.
Vu discloses “wherein determining the body trajectory of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace further comprises determining a second body trajectory of the body that meets a second steering objective, different from the first steering objective, when the end effector is moved along the predicted future trajectory.” (See Vu [0082] and Fig. 5, Chars. 502, 508, and 510 disclosing modulating the robots (or appendages) velocity in proportion to a distance threshold, the “second” steering objective including a slow speed operation of the robot, if an obstacle is present within the Dynamic Slowdown Zone.).
The motivation to combine is similar to the rationale under the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 12 and similarly with respect to claim 28
Pivac modified in view of Pivac II, and Pivac III discloses “The method of claim 11,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein determining the body trajectory of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace comprises combining the determined first body trajectory of the body that meets the first steering objective with the determined second body trajectory of the body that meets the second steering objective.”.
Vu discloses “wherein determining the body trajectory of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace comprises combining the determined first body trajectory of the body that meets the first steering objective with the determined second body trajectory of the body that meets the second steering objective.” (See Vu [0082] and Fig. 5, Chars. 502, 508, and 510 disclosing modulating the robots (or appendages) velocity in proportion to a distance threshold, the combining of the “first” and “second” steering objectives including dynamically modulating the speed operation of the robot, depending which zones an obstacle crosses into or out of, including halting operation if an obstacle enters the safe operational stop zone.).
The motivation to combine is similar to the rationale under the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 15
Pivac modified in view of Pivac II, and Pivac III discloses “The method of claim 1,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the determined body trajectory of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace is determined based on a pose of the end effector and/or a current velocity of the end effector.”.
Vu discloses “wherein the determined body trajectory of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace is determined based on a pose of the end effector and/or a current velocity of the end effector.” (See Vu [0074]-[0075] disclosing a robot state determination module may determine for the robot or any appendage or end effector thereof, the pose and location within workspace and the planned future trajectory, needed in order to determine subsequent motion constraints.).
The motivation to combine is similar to the rationale under the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 16 and similarly with respect to claim 31
Pivac modified in view of Pivac II, and Pivac III discloses “The method of claim 1,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein determining the body trajectory of the body is further based on output from a collision avoidance system.”.
Vu discloses “wherein determining the body trajectory of the body is further based on output from a collision avoidance system.” (See Vu [0081] disclosing the safe action constraints for the robot are determined to ensure that robot does not collide with any stationary object, and also that robot does not come into contact with a person who may be moving toward the robot.).
The motivation to combine is similar to the rationale under the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 17 and similarly with respect to claim 32
Pivac modified in view of Pivac II, and Pivac III discloses “The method of claim 1,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein determining the body trajectory of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace comprises determining the body trajectory of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace when the end effector is moved along the predicted future trajectory.”.
Vu discloses “wherein determining the body trajectory of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace comprises determining the body trajectory of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace when the end effector is moved along the predicted future trajectory.” (See Vu [0082] and Fig. 5, Chars. 502, 508, and 510 disclosing modulating the robots (or appendages) velocity in proportion to a distance threshold, the combining of the “first” and “second” steering objectives including dynamically modulating the speed operation of the robot, depending which zones an obstacle crosses into or out of, including halting operation if an obstacle enters the safe operational stop zone.).
The motivation to combine is similar to the rationale under the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 18 and similarly with respect to claim 33
Pivac modified in view of Pivac II, and Pivac III discloses “The method of claim 1,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein controlling the body to move along the body trajectory comprises controlling the body to move along the body trajectory while the end effector moves according to the predicted future trajectory.”
Vu discloses “wherein controlling the body to move along the body trajectory comprises controlling the body to move along the body trajectory while the end effector moves according to the predicted future trajectory.” (See Vu [0083] & Fig. 4E, Char. 445 disclosing a safe action determination module via a robot controller, altering the robot's trajectory.).
The motivation to combine is similar to the rationale under the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 34
Pivac modified in view of Pivac II, and Pivac III discloses “The method of claim 1,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the body trajectory comprises a translation and/or a rotation of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace.”.
Vu discloses “wherein the body trajectory comprises a translation and/or a rotation of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace.” (See Vu [0082] and Fig. 5, Chars. 502, 508, and 510 disclosing modulating the robots (or appendages) velocity in proportion to a distance threshold, the combining of the “first” and “second” steering objectives including dynamically modulating the speed operation of the robot, depending which zones an obstacle crosses into or out of, including halting operation if an obstacle enters the safe operational stop zone.).
The motivation to combine is similar to the rationale under the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 35
Pivac modified in view of Pivac II, and Pivac III discloses “The method of claim 1,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein determining the body trajectory of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace comprises determining a plurality of candidate body trajectories, each of the candidate body trajectories meeting a different constraint associated with a steering objective,”, & “and wherein determining the body trajectory of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace comprises combining the plurality of candidate body trajectories.”.
Vu discloses “wherein determining the body trajectory of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace comprises determining a plurality of candidate body trajectories, each of the candidate body trajectories meeting a different constraint associated with a steering objective,” (See Vu [0086] disclosing trajectories (plurality) delivered in the form of waypoints , and target joint torques used to drive the trajectories computed in accordance.).
Vu discloses “and wherein determining the body trajectory of the body that will maintain the end effector within the useable workspace comprises combining the plurality of candidate body trajectories.” (See Vu [0086] disclosing trajectories delivered in the form of waypoints (a plurality of connected waypoints are combined trajectories), and target joint torques used to drive the trajectories computed in accordance.).
The motivation to combine is similar to the rationale under the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 37
Pivac modified in view of Pivac II, and Pivac III discloses “The method of claim 1,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “further comprising using the at least one processor to control the end effector to perform a constrained manipulation task having at least one constrained degree of freedom of movement,”, & “wherein the predicted future trajectory of the end effector comprises a prediction of movement of the end effector constrained by the at least one constrained degree of freedom of movement.”
Vu discloses “further comprising using the at least one processor to control the end effector to perform a constrained manipulation task having at least one constrained degree of freedom of movement,” (See Vu [0082] and Fig. 5, Chars. 502, 508, and 510 disclosing modulating the robots (or appendages) velocity in proportion to a distance threshold, the combining of the “first” and “second” steering objectives including dynamically modulating the speed operation of the robot, depending which zones an obstacle crosses into or out of, including halting operation if an obstacle enters the safe operational stop zone.).
Vu discloses “wherein the predicted future trajectory of the end effector comprises a prediction of movement of the end effector constrained by the at least one constrained degree of freedom of movement.” (See Vu [0061] disclosing predicting the future state of the end-effector and [0074]-[0075] disclosing the future trajectory is used to determine motion constraints.).
The motivation to combine is similar to the rationale under the rejection of claim 19.
Claims 4 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivac (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0291362)-IDS in view of in view of Pivac et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0215692), herein Pivac II in further view of Pivac et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0206923), herein Pivac III, in even further view of Krasny et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0297204).
Regarding claim 4 and similarly with respect to claim 22
Pivac discloses “The method of claim 2,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “further comprising determining the predicted future trajectory by fitting the data indicating the one or more prior poses of the end effector to a line, circle, or curve.”.
Krasny discloses “further comprising determining the predicted future trajectory by fitting the data indicating the one or more prior poses of the end effector to a line, circle, or curve.” (See Krasny [0032] disclosing calculating a best-fit circular arc and best-fit linear segment to fit a tool center point sample to perform inverse kinematics for determining a required joint angle of a robot to achieve the calculated tool center point position, using a recent history of the motion of tool. The developed path is a predicted path see Fig. 6, Char. 660. The tool is an end effector, see [0028].).
Pivac, Pivac II, Vu and Krasny are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotics. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pivac to incorporate the teachings of Krasny to include data fitting to determine a predicted future trajectory of an end effector. Doing so provides a known method in the art for guiding a robotic manipulator, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it is known to advantageously aid in prediction and collision avoidance of a robotic system, see Krasny [0007]-[0010].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivac (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0291362)-IDS in view of Pivac et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0215692), herein Pivac II in further view of Pivac et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0206923), herein Pivac III in even further view of Gaschler (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0339390).
Regarding claim 6
Pivac discloses “The method of claim 2,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the predicted future trajectory is determined under an assumption that a velocity of the end effector is constant.”.
Gaschler discloses “wherein the predicted future trajectory is determined under an assumption that a velocity of the end effector is constant.” (See Gaschler [0064] disclosing simulating the motion of an end effector under the assumption of constant velocity.).
Pivac, Pivac II, Vu and Gaschler are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotics. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pivac to incorporate the teachings of Gaschler to include trajectory planning of a robot end effector under the assumption of constant velocity. Doing so provides a known method in the art for guiding a robotic manipulator, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it is known to advantageously limit a search space of the number of possible control points and robot controller parameters, such that the planning system can automatically generate a trajectory, see Gaschler [0006].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 36 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 36
The recitation “The method of claim 35, wherein the plurality of candidate body trajectories comprise: a translational velocity at a shoulder of the body, a translational velocity at a contact point between the body and the end effector, and a yaw rotation about a center of the body.” Overcomes the art of record, rendering the claims in a manner specific enough to overcome the methods disclosed in the closest prior art, Pivac (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0291362). The claims specifically overcome the art of record, because of the limitation directed to defining the candidate body trajectories that will maintain an end effector within a useable workspace. For example, the closest prior art discloses modifying the trajectory of a robot body to maintain the end-effector of the robot within a usable workspace, including modulating the velocity of the body or modifying the joints of the robot body, however the specifically claims translational velocity at a shoulder and a contact point and a yaw rotation, are not disclosed nor rendered obvious in view of the art of record. The subject matter of the claims is therefore allowable.
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 JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights