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 . Claims 7-10 are were previously pending. Claim 7 has been amended. No claims have been cancelled or newly added. Accordingly, claims 7-10 remain pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “a next flight route” in two instances, but the second instance should recite --the next flight route--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
(also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the
specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following
three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “mobile body control device” and “ground monitoring apparatus” in claims 7-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “mobile body control device” and “ground monitoring apparatus” all use a generic placeholder “device” or “apparatus” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Mobile body control device: [0024] “The mobile body control device 20 is a device that controls the flight of a mobile body. The mobile body control device 20 is basically provided on board the mobile body. The mobile body control device 20 may also be installed on the ground and operate remotely, or the mobile body control device 20 installed in one mobile body may control other mobile bodies that are present nearby, for example. The mobile body control device 20 may have a redundant (duplex) configuration to ensure safety and availability. In other words, a backup system is built by providing the same device such as a computer for monitoring and control, redundantly to the mobile body control device 20, or by providing the same device in another mobile body control device 20, for example.”
Ground monitoring apparatus: [0016] “The ground monitoring device 10 is a device that is installed on the ground, and that monitors and controls takeoff and landing of a plurality of mobile bodies. The ground monitoring device 10 may be implemented by a server, for example. One ground monitoring device 10 may monitor all the mobile bodies, or may monitor only the mobile bodies flying within a predetermined area. The predetermined area herein is, for example, an area required for monitoring and controlling the takeoff and landing of the mobile bodies with respect to the target skyport.”
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 2021/0209953 A1) in view of Nagai (US 2021/0248913 A1), Johnson (US 2017/0278409 A1), and Chambers (US 9,997,080 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou discloses a mobile body control system (Fig. 1, [0039] - S) comprising: a ground monitoring apparatus that monitors and controls takeoff and landing of a plurality of mobile bodies capable of vertical takeoff and landing (Fig. 1, [0039, 0041-0042] – UTMS 2 and PMS 3 may be configured as one management system… UTMS 2 manages traffics and flights of the plurality of UAVs 1… PMS 3 manages a partition obtained by virtually partitioning a part of a landing area in a port); and a mobile body control device that is capable of communicating with the ground monitoring apparatus and is provided on board each mobile body (Fig. 2, [0039, 0048] - 15), wherein the mobile body control device controls a flight of each respective mobile body provided with the corresponding mobile body control device (Fig. 2, [0048]), the ground monitoring apparatus allocates a respective flight route for each mobile body by which the respective mobile body makes a takeoff or landing ([0041-0042] – flight plan including takeoff and landing), and when there is an interference space between a first flight route of a first mobile body and a second flight route of a second mobile body, the ground monitoring apparatus first permits a first reservation of the first mobile body and notifies holding of the first reservation to the mobile body control device of the first mobile body, and at this time, the ground monitoring apparatus does not permit a second reservation of the second mobile body, and after the first mobile body has moved out of the interference space of the first flight route, the ground monitoring apparatus permits the second reservation to the second mobile body, and notifies holding of the second reservation to the mobile body control device of the second mobile body ([0051-0052, 0060] – The reservation information of a partial area includes an aircraft ID of a UAV 1 that reserves the partial area (landing reservation), reservation date and time, a landing situation of the UAV 1, and the like. The aircraft ID of the UAV 1 is identification information that identifies the UAV 1. The reservation date and time may be a reservation date and a reservation time zone (start time (e.g., 10 o'clock) to end time (e.g., 13 o'clock)). The landing situation of the UAV 1 indicates whether or not the UAV 1 has landed on the reserved partial area… Incidentally, a case where the UAV 1 is evacuated (retreated) from the partial area by, for example, a staff member after landing on the partial area; and a case where the UAV 1 takes off from the partial area. In the case where the UAV 1 takes off from the partial area, reservation information of the partial area includes scheduled takeoff time of the UAV 1. Moreover, in the case where the UAV 1 is evacuated or takes off from the partial area after the landing, the size information, the position information, and the reservation information of the partial area are deleted from the storage unit 32. By this configuration, the partial area is released for landing of a different UAV 1, and a new partition can be set in the portion. Incidentally, a fact that occupation of the partition is ended may be recorded instead of deleting the size information, the position information, and the reservation information of the partial area from the storage unit 32, and the partial area corresponding to the partition may be released as an available area even before the end time of the reservation.), and with respect to whether or not the first mobile body has moved out of the interference space of the first flight route, the ground monitoring apparatus determines that the first mobile body has moved out of the interference space using a sensor, and notifying the ground monitoring apparatus with a notification that indicates that the first mobile body has moved out of the interference space, wherein the first mobile body having moved out of the interference space remains in the first flight route, and wherein the ground monitoring apparatus, responsive to receiving the notification, releases the first reservation of the first flight route such that the first reservation becomes available for a next flight route that shares the interference space with the first flight route ([0041-0042, 0046-0049, 0051-0052] – UTMS 2 manages traffics and flights of the plurality of UAVs 1… the management and control of the flight status of the UAV 1 is performed on the basis of position information of the UAV 1… the positioning unit 12 includes a radio wave receiver, an altitude sensor, and the like… detects a current position of the UAV 1… when the UAV 1 takes off or is evacuated from the partial landing area), wherein the ground monitoring apparatus, responsive to receiving information from the mobile body control device indicating that the first mobile body has moved out of the interference space, releases the first reservation of the first flight route such that the first reservation becomes available for a next flight route that shares the interference space with the first flight route ([0041-0042, 0046-0049, 0051-0052] – UTMS 2 manages traffics and flights of the plurality of UAVs 1… the management and control of the flight status of the UAV 1 is performed on the basis of position information of the UAV 1… the positioning unit 12 includes a radio wave receiver, an altitude sensor, and the like… detects a current position of the UAV 1… in the case where the UAV 1 is evacuated or takes off from the partial area after the landing, the size information, the position information, and the reservation information of the partial area are deleted from the storage unit 32 and by this configuration, the partial area is released for landing of a different UAV 1, and a new partition can be set in the portion).
Zhou does not appear to explicitly disclose when there is an interference space between a first flight route of a first mobile body and a second flight route of a second mobile body, the ground monitoring apparatus first permits a first reservation of the first flight route of the first mobile body with higher priority and notifies holding of the first reservation of the first flight route to the mobile body control device of the first mobile body, and at this time, the ground monitoring apparatus does not permit a second reservation of the second flight route of the second mobile body with lower priority, and after the first mobile body has moved out of the interference space of the first flight route, the ground monitoring apparatus permits the second reservation of the second flight route to the second mobile body, and notifies holding of the second reservation to the mobile body control device of the second mobile body, the first mobile body detecting that the first mobile body has moved out of the interference space, the sensor provided in the first mobile body.
Nagai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: when there is an interference space between a first flight route of a first mobile body and a second flight route of a second mobile body, the monitoring apparatus first permits a first reservation of the first mobile body with higher priority and at this time does not permit a second reservation of the second mobile body with lower priority ([0126-0128, 0140-0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Nagai into the invention of Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is that certain uses may be more important than others. For example, emergency uses (see [0128] of Nagai) would be more important than entertainment uses (see [0128] of Nagai) and therefore emergency use should be prioritized over entertainment use. Another obvious prioritization scheme would be to give priority based on who reserves first, as this is a well-known concept that could be applied to this particular application and yield predictable results.
Johnson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the ground monitoring apparatus permits a first reservation of the first flight route of the first mobile body and notifies holding of the first reservation of the first flight route to the mobile body control device of the first mobile body ([0051-0058] – airspace management system 350 approves flight authorization request 314… airspace reservation module 302 can define one or more geofences for containing the UAV within the airspace authorized for the approved flight plan), and at this time, the ground monitoring apparatus does not permit a second reservation of the second flight route of the second mobile body ([0051-0053] – airspace management system 350 rejects flight authorization request 314 when the airspace has already been reserved), and after the first mobile body has moved out of the interference space of the first flight route, the ground monitoring apparatus permits the second reservation of the second flight route to the second mobile body, and notifies holding of the second reservation to the mobile body control device of the second mobile body ([0051-0058] – an adjacent airspace block may not become available until a later time… the UAV may fly a holding or hovering pattern until the airspace block becomes available… approves flight authorization request 314).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Johnson into the invention of Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of efficiently reserving airspace for safe UAV operations (Johnson – [0002]). Johnson’s ability to reserve airspace organized into 3-dimensional blocks would further improve safety by preventing not only landing and takeoff collision, but also preventing in flight collisions. Furthermore, it is well known in air traffic control that in flight collisions need to be avoided by making sure that there is no overlap in flight paths during flight, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement this modification to yield predictable results.
Chambers, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the first mobile body detecting that the first mobile body has moved out of the interference space using a sensor provided in the first mobile body, and notifying with a notification that indicates that the first mobile body has moved out of the interference space (see at least column 11, lines 29-35 and column 14, lines 23-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Chambers into the invention of Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of more reliably and accurately indicating when UAVs enter and leave certain reserved spaces. The true position/location information of the UAVs in Zhou is provided by the positioning system, and therefore the most accurate, reliable, and safe way in order to determine if the UAVs have entered and left the reserved spaces would be using positioning information from one or more sensors onboard the UAVs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the sensor indicating the position (i.e., and whether or not the UAV is in the interference space or not) would be onboard the corresponding UAV because this would be the most accurate and reliable information. Therefore, implementing this modification would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Zhou does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the ground monitoring apparatus determines whether the first flight route is available for the first reservation based on a request to hold the first reservation of the first flight route, the request being issued by the mobile body control device of a respective mobile body.
Johnson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the ground monitoring apparatus determines whether the first flight route is available for the first reservation based on a request to hold the first reservation of the first flight route, the request being issued by the mobile body control device of a respective mobile body ([0038, 0042-0043, 0053] – a UAV operator can send an airspace reservation request 312 to flight planning system 201, the request is based on a flight plan having taken off and/or landing areas and a sequence of waypoints that define a flight path along with a specified desired time window… a flight authorization response 316 specifies whether the request is approved or rejected, the rejection reason can be that the requested airspace is not available (e.g., the airspace has already been reserved)).
The motivation to combine Zhou and Johnson is the same as in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Zhou discloses wherein each of the mobile body control devices has a function of detecting an obstacle around the respective mobile body, using a second sensor different from the first sensor ([0047] - imaging unit 14 includes a camera… continuously captures images of a real space… output to the control unit 15).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Nagai, Johnson, Chambers, and DiCosola (US 2020/0349852 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou discloses wherein the ground monitoring apparatus controls the flights of the plurality of mobile bodies in a flight area in which there are a plurality of locations where the plurality of mobile bodies make the takeoff or the landing ([0041-0042]).
Zhou does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of locations are skyports.
DiCosola, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the plurality of locations are skyports (see Figs. 7, 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of DiCosola into the invention of Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of accessing various locations such as rooftops of commercial and residential buildings for landing and takeoff.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-17 filed 5/18/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Zhou does not disclose or suggest the newly added limitations.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Zhou is directed to reserving physical landing partitions, not flight routes through shared airspace. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s specification (see Figure 3 and paragraphs [0019, 0022]) defines a flight route as a flight space taken up by the mobile body that is to take off or to land. In figure 3 the flight route is show to be only a portion of an entire flight route. Similarly, Zhou sets the partitions to secure an area required for takeoff or landing of a UAV (see at least Zhou, paragraphs [0067-0068, 0086]).
Applicant further argues that Zhou does not disclose determining that a first mobile body has moved out of the interference space, and responsive to receiving information releasing the first reservation, instead Zhou deletes the reservation information after the UAV takes off. Zhou’s disclosure of deleting reservation information is fundamentally different from releasing the first reservation. The examiner respectfully disagrees. See Zhou, paragraph [0052] which in part reads “Moreover, in the case where the UAV 1 is evacuated or takes off from the partial area after the landing, the size information, the position information, and the reservation information of the partial area are deleted from the storage unit 32. By this configuration, the partial area is released for landing of a different UAV 1, and a new partition can be set in the portion. Incidentally, a fact that occupation of the partition is ended may be recorded instead of deleting the size information, the position information, and the reservation information of the partial area from the storage unit 32, and the partial area corresponding to the partition may be released as an available area even before the end time of the reservation.” Thus Zhou does teach releasing the partition as an available area in at least paragraph [0052].
Applicant further argues that Zhou does not disclose that the ground monitoring apparatus receives information from the mobile body control device indicating that it has moved out of the interference space. The examiner respectfully disagrees. See Zhou, paragraph [0041], which in part reads “The UTMS 2 includes one or more servers and the like. The UTMS 2 manages traffics and flights of the plurality of UAVs 1. The traffic management of the UAV 1 includes management of a traffic plan before flight of the UAV 1 and management and control of a flight status of the UAV 1 in flight. The traffic plan before the flight of the UAV 1 is a flight plan including a scheduled route from a departure place to a destination of the UAV 1, and the like. The flight plan may include a scheduled takeoff time, a scheduled passage time at each point on the scheduled route, and a scheduled landing time. The management and control of the flight status of the UAV 1 is performed on the basis of position information of the UAV 1. The position information of the UAV 1 indicates a current position (for example, latitude, longitude, and altitude) of the UAV 1. The current position of the UAV 1 is a flight position of the UAV 1 in flight. The management and control of the flight status of the UAV 1 may also be performed on the basis of the position information of the UAV 1, speed information of the UAV 1, and the like.” Thus Zhou does teach receiving position information from the UAV indicating that the UAV has moved out of the interference space.
Applicant further argues that Zhou does not disclose multiple flight routes sharing a common interference space, and fails to disclose claimed coordination between overlapping flight routes and release of a reservation. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s specification (see Figure 3 and paragraphs [0019, 0022]) defines interference space as a space where one flight route may interfere with another flight route. Similarly, Zhou teaches releasing a previously scheduled or reserved portion of a partition so that it is available for landing of a different unmanned aerial vehicle, which prevents overlapping or collision (see Zhou, at least paragraphs [0013-0015, 0052, 0086, 0090]).
Applicant further argues that Nagai, Johnson, and Chambers also fail to disclose the newly amended limitation. However, the examiner does not rely upon Nagai, Johnson, or Chambers for this limitation and so the arguments relating to Nagai, Johnson, and Chambers are moot.
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 CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights