DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the applicant’s response dated March 23, 2026.
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are as previously presented.
Claims 2, 13, and 16 are canceled.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are currently pending.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futaki (US PG Pub #2019/0028862) in view of Shiga et al. (Shiga; US PG Pub #2018/0049088).
As to claim 1, Futaki teaches a method (Paragraph [0009]), comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors of a server, data from one or more sensors associated with one or more of: one or more vehicles, one or more infrastructure components, or one or more fixtures (Paragraph [0037] teaches a road side unit RSU monitoring conditions of roads in its management area using sensors to autonomously generate V2X report information; Paragraph [0038] teaches the server receiving the V2X report information from the RSU; Paragraphs [0103]-[0104] teaches the server includes a processor);
determining, by the one or more processors of the server, and based upon the data, that a second vehicle, distinct from the one or more vehicles, is driving in an anomalous manner (Paragraph [0037] teaches the RSU monitors for a traffic jam or an accident and generates V2X report information based on the monitoring; Paragraph [0038] teaches the server generates a V2X control message based on the V2X report information; Paragraph [0104] teaches the processor of the server executes loaded software to perform processing); and
in response to the one or more processors of the server determining that the second vehicle is driving in an anomalous manner, automatically communicating, by the one or more processors of the server, an indication of the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner to an electronic device associated with a third vehicle for presentation via a user interface associated with the third vehicle, the third vehicle being distinct from the second vehicle (Paragraph [0038] teaches that the V2X control message includes a warning about the occurrence of an accident or a traffic jam and transmitting the V2X control message to vehicle UEs 100-102).
Futaki does not explicitly teach the server receiving sensor data only and determining based upon the sensor data.
In the field of vehicle communication systems, Shiga teaches the server receiving sensor data only and determining based upon the sensor data (Paragraph [0053] teaches a V2X server storing data from multiple vehicles, analyzing the data, and distributing the result obtained by analyzing the stored information to the vehicles, where an example is given of the data being speed information of the vehicles). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Futaki with the processing of Shiga because transmitting sensor data for central processing yields the predictable result of reducing the necessary processing capabilities of each individual local sensor device.
As to claim 3, depending from the method of claim 1, Futaki teaches wherein determining that the second vehicle is driving in the anomalous manner further comprises monitoring a set of current behaviors of one or more other vehicles, the one or more other vehicles including the second vehicle (Paragraph [0037] teaches monitoring conditions of roads including traffic jams and accidents to generate V2X report information; Paragraph [0038] teaches the server generates a V2X control message based on the V2X report information).
As to claim 4, depending from the method of claim 1, Futaki teaches wherein determining that the second vehicle is driving in the anomalous manner further comprises monitoring a set of current contextual conditions of a vehicle environment of the one or more vehicles (Paragraph [0037] teaches monitoring the weather with weather instruments to generate V2X report information; Paragraph [0038] teaches the server generates a V2X control message based on the V2X report information).
As to claim 8, depending from the method of claim 1, Futaki does not explicitly teach the method further comprising mitigating an effect of the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner by at least one of:
providing a first instruction to automatically modify an operating behavior of at least one vehicle of the one or more vehicles, the first instruction based upon the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner; or
providing a second instruction to automatically modify an operating behavior of the third vehicle, the second instruction based upon the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner.
In the field of vehicle communication systems, Shiga teaches the method further comprising mitigating an effect of the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner by at least one of:
providing a first instruction to automatically modify an operating behavior of at least one vehicle of the one or more vehicles, the first instruction based upon the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner; or
providing a second instruction to automatically modify an operating behavior of the third vehicle, the second instruction based upon the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner (Paragraph [0037] teaches vehicle terminals used to receive a vehicle related service such as automatic driving and high-tech driving assistance; Paragraph [0040] teaches the server provides automatic driving and high-tech driving assistance; Paragraph [0041] teaches the server distributing a message indicating vehicle operation contents). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Futaki with that of Shiga such that operation of vehicles are automatically modified because this uses the information of a vehicle in a traffic jam or applying the brake to prevent a collision of following vehicles (Paragraph [0096]).
As to claim 9, depending from the method of claim 1, Futaki teaches the method further comprising mitigating an effect of the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner by at least one of:
providing an indication of the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner for presentation via a user interface disposed in at least one vehicle of the one or more vehicles; or
providing an indication of a suggested modification to an operating behavior of the at least one vehicle for presentation via the user interface disposed in the at least one vehicle (Paragraph [0038] teaches the server generating a V2X control message including a warning about road conditions such as the occurrence of an accident or a traffic jam).
As to claim 10, depending from the method of claim 1, Futaki does not explicitly teach the method further comprising mitigating an effect of the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner by automatically notifying a public safety authority of the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner.
In the field of vehicle communication systems, Shiga teaches the method further comprising mitigating an effect of the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner by automatically notifying a public safety authority of the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner (Paragraphs [0054]-[0055] teach the server providing an analysis result or collected information to the police). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Futaki with the police transmission of Shiga because this yields the predictable result of expediting a remedy for the second vehicle in case of emergency.
As to claim 12, Futaki teaches a system (Paragraph [0001]), comprising:
one or more processors of a server configured to receive data from one or more sensors associated with one or more of: one or more vehicles, one or more infrastructure components, or one or more fixtures (Paragraph [0037] teaches a road side unit RSU monitoring conditions of roads in its management area using sensors to autonomously generate V2X report information; Paragraph [0038] teaches the server receiving the V2X report information from the RSU; Paragraphs [0103]-[0104] teaches the server includes a processor);
one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media coupled to the one or more processors; and
computer-executable instructions stored on the one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media that, when executed by the one or more processors of the server (Paragraph [0104] teaches the processor of the server executes loaded software to perform processing; Paragraph [0107] teaches the processor of the server executes programs stored using non-transitory computer readable media), cause the system to:
determine, based upon the data, that a second vehicle, distinct from the one or more vehicles, is driving in an anomalous manner (Paragraph [0037] teaches the RSU monitors for a traffic jam or an accident and generates V2X report information based on the monitoring; Paragraph [0038] teaches the server generates a V2X control message based on the V2X report information); and
in response to the one or more processors of the server determining that the second vehicle is driving in an anomalous manner, automatically communicate an indication of the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner to an electronic device associated with a third vehicle for presentation via a user interface associated with the third vehicle, the third vehicle being distinct from the second vehicle (Paragraph [0038] teaches that the V2X control message includes a warning about the occurrence of an accident or a traffic jam and transmitting the V2X control message to vehicle UEs 100-102).
Futaki does not explicitly teach the server receiving sensor data only and determining based upon the sensor data.
In the field of vehicle communication systems, Shiga teaches the server receiving sensor data only and determining based upon the sensor data (Paragraph [0053] teaches a V2X server storing data from multiple vehicles, analyzing the data, and distributing the result obtained by analyzing the stored information to the vehicles, where an example is given of the data being speed information of the vehicles). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Futaki with the processing of Shiga because transmitting sensor data for central processing yields the predictable result of reducing the necessary processing capabilities of each individual local sensor device.
As to claim 17, depending from the system of claim 12, Futaki does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the one or more vehicles or the third vehicle is an autonomous vehicle.
In the field of vehicle communication systems, Shiga teaches wherein at least one of the one or more vehicles or the third vehicle is an autonomous vehicle (Paragraph [0037] teaches vehicle terminals used to receive a vehicle related service such as automatic driving; Paragraph [0040] teaches the server provides automatic driving). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Futaki with the automatic driving of Shiga because ensuring vehicles of all types operate within the system yields the predictable result of increasing the reliability of the system to increase safety on the road.
As to claim 18, depending from the system of claim 12, Futaki teaches wherein at least one of the one or more vehicles, and the third vehicle, are communicatively connected via one or more communication interfaces (Paragraph [0033] teaches the vehicle UEs 100-102 support a V2V service; Paragraph [0037] teaches vehicle UEs receive a V2V message from another vehicle UE).
As to claim 19, Futaki teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer-readable instructions to be executed on one or more processors of a server, the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors (Paragraph [0104] teaches the processor of the server executes loaded software to perform processing; Paragraph [0107] teaches the processor of the server executes programs stored using non-transitory computer readable media), causing the server to:
receive data from one or more sensors associated with one or more of: one or more vehicles, one or more infrastructure components, or one or more fixtures (Paragraph [0037] teaches a road side unit RSU monitoring conditions of roads in its management area using sensors to autonomously generate V2X report information; Paragraph [0038] teaches the server receiving the V2X report information from the RSU; Paragraphs [0103]-[0104] teaches the server includes a processor);
determine, based upon the data, that a second vehicle, distinct from the one or more vehicles, is driving in an anomalous manner (Paragraph [0037] teaches the RSU monitors for a traffic jam or an accident and generates V2X report information based on the monitoring; Paragraph [0038] teaches the server generates a V2X control message based on the V2X report information); and
in response to the one or more processors of the server determining that the second vehicle is driving in an anomalous manner, automatically communicate an indication of the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner to an electronic device associated with a third vehicle for presentation via a user interface associated with the third vehicle, the third vehicle being distinct from the second vehicle (Paragraph [0038] teaches that the V2X control message includes a warning about the occurrence of an accident or a traffic jam and transmitting the V2X control message to vehicle UEs 100-102).
Futaki does not explicitly teach the server receiving sensor data only and determining based upon the sensor data.
In the field of vehicle communication systems, Shiga teaches the server receiving sensor data only and determining based upon the sensor data (Paragraph [0053] teaches a V2X server storing data from multiple vehicles, analyzing the data, and distributing the result obtained by analyzing the stored information to the vehicles, where an example is given of the data being speed information of the vehicles). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Futaki with the processing of Shiga because transmitting sensor data for central processing yields the predictable result of reducing the necessary processing capabilities of each individual local sensor device.
As to claim 20, depending from the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 19, Futaki teaches wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the server to at least one of:
(a) provide a first instruction to automatically modify an operating behavior of at least one vehicle of the one or more vehicles, the first instruction based upon the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner;
(b) provide a second instruction to automatically modify an operating behavior of the third vehicle, the second instruction based upon the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner;
(c) provide an indication of the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner for presentation via at least one of a user interface disposed in at least one vehicle of the one or more vehicles or a user interface disposed in the third vehicle operating; or
(d) provide an indication of a suggested modification to an operating behavior of at least one vehicle of the one or more vehicles for presentation via the user interface disposed in the at least one vehicle of the one or more vehicles (Paragraph [0038] teaches the server generating a V2X control message including a warning about road conditions such as the occurrence of an accident or a traffic jam).
Claims 5-7, 11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futaki (US PG Pub #2019/0028862) in view of Shiga et al. (Shiga; US PG Pub #2018/0049088) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Tatourian et al. (Tatourian; US PG Pub #2016/0284212).
As to claim 5, depending from the method of claim 1, Futaki does not explicitly teach wherein determining that the second vehicle is driving in the anomalous manner includes comparing a set of characteristics indicative of one or more behaviors of the second vehicle with a set of anomalous vehicle behavior characteristics by applying a model to the set of characteristics indicative of the one or more behaviors of the second vehicle, the model generated based upon a statistical analysis or a learning method performed on a set of historical vehicle behavior data, the set of historical vehicle behavior data based upon data obtained by a plurality of sensors while a plurality of drivers operated a plurality of vehicles.
In the field of detecting traffic anomalies, Tatourian teaches wherein determining that the second vehicle is driving in the anomalous manner includes comparing a set of characteristics indicative of one or more behaviors of the second vehicle with a set of anomalous vehicle behavior characteristics by applying a model to the set of characteristics indicative of the one or more behaviors of the second vehicle, the model generated based upon a statistical analysis or a learning method performed on a set of historical vehicle behavior data, the set of historical vehicle behavior data based upon data obtained by a plurality of sensors while a plurality of drivers operated a plurality of vehicles (Paragraphs [0038]-[0041] and [0048] teach determining historical traffic patterns to predict expected traffic patterns based on hysteresis and/or learning algorithms and compare the expected behavior with present behavior such that the expected pattern reads on the claimed model). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the condition detection of Futaki with the historical patterns of Tatourian because using learned historical patterns yields the predictable result of successfully identifying anomalies to increase safety on the roadway.
As to claim 6, depending from the method of claim 5, Futaki does not explicitly teach wherein determining the second vehicle is driving in the anomalous manner comprises determining the second vehicle is driving in the anomalous manner based upon an output generated from applying the model to the set of characteristics indicative of the one or more behaviors of the second vehicle.
In the field of detecting traffic anomalies, Tatourian teaches wherein determining the second vehicle is driving in the anomalous manner comprises determining the second vehicle is driving in the anomalous manner based upon an output generated from applying of the model to the set of characteristics indicative of the one or more behaviors of the second vehicle (Paragraphs [0016] and [0045] teach detecting an anomaly by comparing present behavior with historical patterns; Paragraphs [0050] and [0051] teach identifying vehicles associated with anomalies). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the condition detection of Futaki with the historical patterns of Tatourian because using learned historical patterns yields the predictable result of successfully identifying anomalies to increase safety on the roadway.
As to claim 7, depending from the method of claim 6, Futaki does not explicitly teach wherein:
the output generated from applying the model to the set of characteristics indicative of the one or more behaviors of the second vehicle includes an indication of one or more mitigation actions; and
mitigating an effect of the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner by suggesting or performing the one or more mitigation actions.
In the field of detecting traffic anomalies, Tatourian teaches the output generated from applying the model to the set of characteristics indicative of the one or more behaviors of the second vehicle includes an indication of one or more mitigation actions; and
mitigating an effect of the second vehicle driving in the anomalous manner by suggesting or performing the one or more mitigation actions (Paragraphs [0016], [0043], and [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the condition detection of Futaki with the historical patterns of Tatourian because using learned historical patterns yields the predictable result of successfully identifying anomalies to increase safety on the roadway.
As to claim 11, depending from the method of claim 1, Futaki does not explicitly teach the method further comprising determining the set of anomalous vehicle behavior characteristics based upon a set of historical vehicle behavior data, the set of historical vehicle behavior data including data indicative of historical contextual conditions.
In the field of detecting traffic anomalies, Tatourian teaches the method further comprising determining a set of anomalous vehicle behavior characteristics based upon a set of historical vehicle behavior data, the set of historical vehicle behavior data including data indicative of historical contextual conditions (Paragraph [0076] teaches generating historical data including external influence factors; Paragraphs [0045] and [0046] teach examples of external influence factors). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the condition detection of Futaki with the historical patterns of Tatourian because using learned historical patterns yields the predictable result of successfully identifying anomalies to increase safety on the roadway.
As to claim 14, depending from the system of claim 12, Futaki does not explicitly teach wherein: the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to determine that the second vehicle is driving in the anomalous manner based on comparing a set of characteristics indicative of one or more behaviors of the second vehicle with a set of anomalous vehicle behavior characteristics.
In the field of detecting traffic anomalies, Tatourian teaches wherein: the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to determine that the second vehicle is driving in the anomalous manner based on comparing a set of characteristics indicative of one or more behaviors of the second vehicle with a set of anomalous vehicle behavior characteristics (Paragraph [0016] teaches the traffic analysis server detecting an anomaly based on expected traffic behavior or historical traffic patterns; Paragraph [0039] teaches detecting anomalies based on expected traffic behaviors where the expected traffic behaviors which are any type of behaviors exhibited by vehicles; Paragraph [0041] teaches detecting anomalies based on a comparison between expected behavior and current behavior; Paragraphs [0040] and [0044] teach the current behavior is any type of behavior exhibited by vehicles; Paragraph [0045] teaches detecting anomalies by comparing present behavior with historical behavior). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the condition detection of Futaki with the anomaly detection of Tatourian because using historical or expected patterns yields the predictable result of successfully identifying anomalies to increase safety on the roadway.
As to claim 15, depending from the system of claim 12, Futaki does not explicitly teach wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to determine that the second vehicle is driving in the anomalous manner based on comparing a set of characteristics indicative of one or more behaviors of the second vehicle with a set of anomalous vehicle behavior characteristics; and wherein at least a subset of the set of anomalous vehicle behavior characteristics is generated from a set of historical vehicle behavior data by using at least one of a statistical analysis or a learning method, the set of historical vehicle behavior data corresponding to data obtained by a plurality of sensors while a plurality of drivers operated a plurality of vehicles.
In the field of detecting traffic anomalies, Tatourian teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to determine that the second vehicle is driving in the anomalous manner based on comparing a set of characteristics indicative of one or more behaviors of the second vehicle with a set of anomalous vehicle behavior characteristics; and wherein at least a subset of the set of anomalous vehicle behavior characteristics is generated from a set of historical vehicle behavior data by using at least one of a statistical analysis or a learning method, the set of historical vehicle behavior data corresponding to data obtained by a plurality of sensors while a plurality of drivers operated a plurality of vehicles (Paragraphs [0038]-[0041] and [0048] teach determining historical traffic patterns to predict expected traffic patterns based on hysteresis and/or learning algorithms and compare the expected behavior with present behavior such that the expected pattern reads on the claimed model). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the condition detection of Futaki with the historical patterns of Tatourian because using learned historical patterns yields the predictable result of successfully identifying anomalies to increase safety on the roadway.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed March 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 of the response, the applicant argues that Futaki does not disclose determining a particular vehicle is driving in an anomalous manner. The applicant supports this argument with a reference to their own specification. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, with reference to paragraph [0020] of the applicant’s specification, the cited language does not define anomalous vehicle behavior as being dependent on “given contextual or environmental conditions, but rather provides an exemplary interpretation as evidenced by the “e.g.” preceding that language in the specification. Therefore, any vehicle behavior that is unexpected behavior can be interpreted as anomalous.
With respect to Futaki, monitoring for a traffic jam or an accident qualifies as anomalous driving behavior because both are unexpected vehicular events that are not indicative of typical traffic flow. Therefore, the interpretation given in the rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 19 is valid. Claims 1, 3-12, 14-15, and 17-20 remain properly rejected.
Conclusion
Although this was previously cited and discussed in the January 2026 interview, the following prior art remains especially pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lai (US Patent #9,533,688) teaches service provider processing an image received from a camera on a vehicle to determine driver behavior data of a target vehicle (Column 3, Lines 16-25; Column 6, Lines 27-50) so that law enforcement can be notified of the anomalous behavior (Column 7, Lines 17-43).
Conclusion
12. 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.
Contact Information
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN W SHERWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-8:00, 9:00-3:00 and 4:00-5:00 EST.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571.270.1210. 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.
/RYAN W SHERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights