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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments to the Claims filed 12/19/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-10 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection previously set forth in the non-final rejection dated 10/01/2025. Due to amendments to the claims new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1 the limitation(s):
acquiring a plurality of machining signals of the controller and the main shaft via an acquisition module implemented by a computer when the machine tool processes a target machining object;
processing the plurality of machining signals via a target module of an analysis module implemented by the computer to obtain target information, wherein the target information includes processing results and diagnosis opinions;
graphically presenting a machining path of the target machining object via an interaction module implemented by the computer on a display interface according to the processing results; and
displaying the diagnosis opinions corresponding to the machining path by the display interface,
wherein the target module is a machine learning model to classify and mark the plurality of machining signals into a plurality of states.
These limitation(s) highlighted in (bold) is/are directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. The above portion(s) of the claim(s) constitute(s) an abstract idea because:
The limitation(s) regarding “processing the plurality of machining signals via a target module of an analysis module implemented by the computer to obtain target information, wherein the target information includes processing results and diagnosis opinions”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “an analysis module,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “an analysis module” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually processing signals to obtain processing results and diagnosis opinions.
The limitation(s) regarding “wherein the target module is a machine learning model to classify and mark the plurality of machining signals into a plurality of states”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “an analysis module,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “an analysis module” language, “classify and mark” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually classifying and marking machine states.
Further, the limitation regarding “wherein the target module is a machine learning model to classify and mark the plurality of machining signals into a plurality of states”, as drafted, falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. This interpretation is supported by the recitation of a mathematical operation acting on one or more variables to determine another. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Further, referring to the MPEP 2106.04, the claim limitations are analogous to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations, then it fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the non- abstract additional elements of the claims do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s) recited in the preceding claim(s). In particular, the claims recited the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “A machine tool diagnosis method for applying to a machine tool configured with a controller and a main shaft” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because it is recited at such a high-level of generality that it is viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to machine tools. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to.
The limitation(s) regarding “acquiring a plurality of machining signals of the controller and the main shaft when the machine tool processes a target machining object” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. data gathering. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are regarded as data gathering steps necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea.
The limitation(s) regarding “graphically presenting a machining path of the target machining object on a display interface according to the processing results,” and “displaying the diagnosis opinions corresponding to the machining path by the display interface” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. insignificant application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are regarded as data outputting steps necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea. Further, referring to the MPEP 2106.05(g), the claim limitations are analogous to a claim to Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.
The limitation(s) regarding “a controller,” “a computer,” “a target module,” “an acquisition module,” “an analysis module,” and “an interaction module” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitation is a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims:
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field;
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b);
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c); or
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) data gathering functions.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a machine tool” is/are seen as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Linking a judicial exception to a technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Similarly, with regards to the additional element(s) of “acquiring a plurality of machining signals,” “graphically presenting a machining path,” and “displaying the diagnosis opinions” is/are viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data gathering in a conventional way and, therefore, does not provide an inventive concept. Similarly, with regards to the additional element(s) of “a controller,” “a computer,” “a target module,” “an acquisition module,” “an analysis module,” and “an interaction module” is/are view as a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well- understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) as evidenced by: Ando (US 20160346891 A1), Kummari et al. (US 20190152011 A1), Toyoshima (US 20250229341 A1), Aizawa et al. (US 20240302813 A1), Wang et al. (US 20200166906 A1), Iwashita et al. (US 8432120 B2), Okita et al. (US 20110015877 A1), Izawa et al. (US 5144212 A), Park et al. (US 20230071496 A1), and Yamamoto (US 20190210176 A1).
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claims fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitation regarding “a machine tool,” “acquiring a plurality of machining signals,” “graphically presenting a machining path,” “displaying the diagnosis opinions,” “a controller,” “a computer,” “a target module,” “an acquisition module,” “an analysis module,” and “an interaction module” can be viewed as a field of use, necessary data gathering, and any device and do not impose a meaningful limitation describing what problem is being remedied or solved.
The Independent claim(s) 6 is also rejected under 35 USC 101, because they contain limitations substantially similar to the independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there are no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Claims 2, 5, 7, and 10 recite limitations regarding data gathering steps and insignificant application necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea and thus are not significantly more than the abstract idea and viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by the prior art shown above.
Claims 3-4 and 8-9 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea, such as an “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts”, and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US 20160346891 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 20230071496 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6. Ando teaches:
A machine tool diagnosis method for applying to a machine tool configured with a controller and a main shaft, the machine tool diagnosis method comprising:
acquiring a plurality of machining signals of the controller and the main shaft via an acquisition module implemented by a computer when the machine tool processes a target machining object (See Fig. 1, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, para[0034], para[0040] – para[0041]: The main spindle housing 1 includes vibration sensors 2a to 2c, which are acceleration sensors. The machine operation determining unit 16 acquires a current main spindle rotation speed. One recorded data set includes the time, the program name, the execution code of the program, the tool blade edge position, the tool number, the main spindle rotation speed, the vibration value, or similar data.);
processing the plurality of machining signals via a target module of an analysis module implemented by the computer to obtain target information (See Fig. 1, Fig. 7, para[00035]: The FFT calculation device 11 performs a Fourier analysis based on vibration acceleration, which is detected by the vibration sensors 2a to 2c.),
wherein the target information includes processing results (See Fig. 1, Fig. 7, para[0015], para[0036]: The display control unit displays a position of the chatter vibrations on a trajectory of the blade edge of the tool. The FFT calculation device 11 and a threshold set by an operator to determine whether chatter vibrations occur or not.) and
diagnosis opinions (See Fig. 1, Fig. 7, para[0015], and para[0042]: When the position is selected with the input unit, the display control unit displays the screen regarding countermeasures to restrain the chatter vibrations at the selected position on the monitor.);
graphically presenting a machining path of the target machining object via an interaction module implemented by the computer on a display interface according to the processing results (See Fig. 7, para[0015], and para[0043] – para[0044]: Display the vibration information on the monitor together with the trajectory information of the blade edge of the tool, the display control unit displays a position of the chatter vibrations on a trajectory of the blade edge of the tool.); and
displaying the diagnosis opinions corresponding to the machining path by the display interface (See Fig. 7, para[0015], and para[0043] – para[0044]: When the position is selected with the input unit, the display control unit displays the screen regarding countermeasures to restrain the chatter vibrations at the selected position on the monitor.).
Ando is silent as to the language of:
wherein the target module is a machine learning model to classify and mark the plurality of machining signals into a plurality of states.
Nevertheless Park teaches:
wherein the target module is a machine learning model to classify and mark the plurality of machining signals into a plurality of states (See Fig. 9B, Fig. 9D, Fig. 10D, Fig. 13, para[0009], para[0031], and para[0043]: States of the machine 200 classified by the data classification apparatus 100 may include a zeroth state, a first state, a second state, and 2-1st to 2-3rd states. The data classification apparatus 100 may classify the state of the machine 200 corresponding to the first processed data by using a first machine learning classification model that receives an input of the first processed data and the second processed data and classifies the state of the machine.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ando wherein the target module is a machine learning model to classify and mark the plurality of machining signals into a plurality of states such as that of Park. Park teaches, “Machine learning is an application of AI that gives computers the ability to automatically learn and improve from experience without explicit programs” (See para[0051). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Ando, because using a machine learning model to classify and mark a plurality of states would have helped to automatically classify machine states, as recognized by Park.
Regarding Claims 2 and 7. Ando teaches:
The machine tool diagnosis method of claim 1 or the machine tool diagnosis system of claim 6,
wherein the plurality of machining signals are obtained by the acquisition module from machining parameter data from the controller (See Fig. 1, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, para[0034], para[0040] – para[0041]: The machine operation determining unit 16 acquires a current main spindle rotation speed. One recorded data set includes the time, the program name, the execution code of the program, the tool blade edge position, the tool number, the main spindle rotation speed, the vibration value, or similar data.) and
sensing data measured by sensors on the main shaft (See Fig. 1, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, para[0034], para[0040] – para[0041]: The main spindle housing 1 includes vibration sensors 2a to 2c, which are acceleration sensors.).
Regarding Claims 3 and 8. Ando teaches:
The machine tool diagnosis method of claim 1 or the machine tool diagnosis system of claim 6,
further comprising performing a feature acquisition operation on the plurality of machining signals to acquire machining signals of required signal feature type for processing by the target module (See Fig. 1 and para[0035] – para[0036]: The FFT calculation device 11 performs a Fourier analysis based on vibration acceleration, which is detected by the vibration sensors 2a to 2c. The vibration determination unit 13 compares a vibration value (a maximum acceleration) on which the Fourier analysis has been performed by the FFT calculation device 11 and a threshold set by an operator to determine whether chatter vibrations occur or not. The vibration frequency is transmitted to an optimum rotation speed calculation unit 14.).
Regarding Claims 5 and 10. Ando teaches:
The machine tool diagnosis method of claim 1 or the machine tool diagnosis system of claim 6,
wherein the display interface further displays parameter information corresponding to the machining path (See Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, para[0012], para[0038], para[0041], and para[0045]: The display control unit displays the vibration information and the operating information stored in the storage unit on the monitor. Alternatively, the display control unit displays the vibration information stored in the storage unit on the monitor together with trajectory information of a blade edge of the tool included in the operating information.).
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US 20160346891 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 20230071496 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (US 20190210176 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 9. Ando teaches:
The machine tool diagnosis method of claim 1 or the machine tool diagnosis system of claim 6,
wherein the plurality of states include a machining chatter state (See para[0012] and para[0050]: The machine tool has a vibration detection configured to detect chatter vibrations that occur during the processing. The processing state is analyzed, and the analysis result is transmitted to the NC device over the network), and
a force vibration abnormal state (See para[0012] and para[0050]: The machine tool has a vibration detection configured to detect chatter vibrations that occur during the processing. The processing state is analyzed, and the analysis result is transmitted to the NC device over the network).
Ando is silent as to the language of:
wherein the plurality of states include a normal state and a tool wear state.
Nevertheless Park teaches:
wherein the plurality of states include a normal state (See para[0036]: That is, the 2-1st state may include a state in which the machine 200 is powered on and the machine 200 is operating normally.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ando wherein the plurality of states include a normal state such as that of Park. Park teaches, “Machine learning is an application of AI that gives computers the ability to automatically learn and improve from experience without explicit programs” (See para[0051). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Ando, because using a machine learning model to classify and mark a plurality of states would have helped to automatically classify machine states, as recognized by Park.
Park is silent as to the language of:
wherein the plurality of states include a tool wear state.
Nevertheless Yamamoto teaches:
wherein the plurality of states include a tool wear state (See para[0121] and para[0129]: The abnormality can be classified according to the cause of the abnormality in the tool T. For example, if the measurement data belongs to abnormality data space 1, the abnormality is classified into abnormality 1, which means that the cause is tool wear; if it belongs to abnormality data space 2, the abnormality is classified into abnormality 2, which means that the cause is tool snapping.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ando wherein the plurality of states include a tool wear state such as that of Yamamoto. Yamamoto teaches, “While machining/grinding is performed using a machine tool, if wear or chipping occurs in the tool, the machining precision for the workpiece deteriorates, producing defective workpieces” (See para[0002]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Ando, because using machine learning to identify tool wear state would have helped to prevent a machine from producing defective workpieces, as recognized by Yamamoto.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: The acquisition module, the analysis module, and the interaction module are implemented as software/firmware operating on the computer. Accordingly, the present application is not merely directed to mental processes or mathematical concepts, and therefore does not fall within the category of abstract ideas.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the amended independent claims 1 and 6 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As described in further detail under the 35 USC 101 rejection above, the judicial exceptions recited in the independent claims are seen as being practically performed in the human mind because nothing in the claims prevents a user from manually performing the recited judicial exceptions. Referring to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The test for whether the a claim recites a judicial exception is not whether each and every limitation recited in a claim can practically be performed in the human mind, but rather if the recited judicial exception can practically be performed in the human mind. Further, the non-abstract additional elements recited in the independent claims are seen as either generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. necessary data gathering; or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Applicant argues that: The additional elements add meaningful limitations to any abstract idea, reflect improvements in computer functionality, and are not known, routine, or conventional in the art.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the amended independent claims 1 and 6 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As described in further detail under the 35 USC 101 rejection above, the non-abstract additional elements are viewed as well-understood, routine, or conventional (WURC) as evidenced by: Ando (US 20160346891 A1), Kummari et al. (US 20190152011 A1), Toyoshima (US 20250229341 A1), Aizawa et al. (US 20240302813 A1), Wang et al. (US 20200166906 A1), Iwashita et al. (US 8432120 B2), Okita et al. (US 20110015877 A1), Izawa et al. (US 5144212 A), Park et al. (US 20230071496 A1), and Yamamoto (US 20190210176 A1).
Applicant argues that: By providing a specific interface, the present application improves machine tool operation and diagnosis capability, enabling operators to quickly and accurately locate problems and take corrective action. This constitutes a concrete technical improvement in machine tool diagnosis, not an abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the amended independent claims 1 and 6 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Referring to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Step 2A: whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, “Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.” As described in further detail under the 35 USC 101 rejection above, the non-abstract additional elements of the independent claims are seen as either generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. necessary data gathering; or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Further, the non-abstract additional elements are not seen as integrating the claim as a whole into a practical application because the non-abstract additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional activity that as shown by the recited references is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. As the amended claims 1 and 6 both recite a judicial exception and are not integrated into a practical application the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that: Kummari does not teach labeling clusters, and neither the key features nor the identified clusters relate to the present application's classifications of "normal state, machining chatter state, tool wear state, and force vibration abnormal state."
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 6 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.
Applicant argue that: Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) has no motivation to combine Ando and Kummari.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 6 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oikawa et al. (US 20200272122 A1) discloses using machine learning to cluster vibration data and identify chatter (See Abstract and para[0008]).
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 CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857