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 .
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 21 July 2026.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 4, 11, and 15-20 have been amended.
The objection to the specification/abstract has been withdrawn as neccessited by the amendment.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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) 1-5, 8-12 and 15-19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farooq et al (US20220334641, 2022) in further view of Grard et al (US20240034358, EFD 7/28/2020)
As per independent claim 1, Farooq discloses a vehicle control system for use with a semi-autonomous vehicle (0030), said vehicle control system comprising:
a hazard-detection system comprising: a hazard-detection memory having hazard-detection instructions stored therein; and a hazard-detection processor configured to execute the hazard-detection instructions to cause said hazard-detection system to: detect a hazard; and output a hazard-detection signal based on the detected hazard;(0030, 0035: discloses sensors that senses hazards such as pedestrians and parked cars. Sensor includes LIDAR which is a form of a processor. Once sensed, the vehicle displays and highlights of pedestrians and parked cars to the user. In addition, 0032, 0050 discloses a memory. One of a skilled artisan would realize that instructions for determining and displaying the hazard information would require pre-stored instructions be stored and executed to performing these functionalities.)
an eye-tracking system comprising: an eye-tracking memory having eye-tracking instructions stored therein; and an eye-tracking processor configured to execute the eye-tracking instructions to cause the eye-tracking system to: detect where a driver of the semi-autonomous vehicle is looking; and output an eye-tracking signal based on where the driver is looking; (0024, 0037: discloses an eye sensor that analyzes where the user is looking while steering/driving an semi-autonomous vehicle (0030). Machine learning, image processing and mathematical algorithms can be used to process the captured image and determine the gaze direction and gaze point of the driver. (form of a processor) 0037, 0041: discloses where the user is looking and is aware and outputs a signal where the driver is looking. In addition, 0032, 0050 discloses a memory. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that instructions for determining where the user is looking and outputting the gazing information would require pre-stored instructions be stored and executed by a processor in order to perform these functionalities)
a brain-function system comprising: a brain-function memory having brain-function instructions stored therein; and a brain-function processor configured to execute the brain-function instructions to cause the brain-function system to: detect a parameter of a brain of the driver; and output a brain-function signal based on the detected parameter; and (0025-0027: EEG sensor that senses brainwave activity. 0035: determines if the driver is aware of the warnings or objects/hazards in front of the vehicle. EEG data is compared with stored EEG data to determine if the driver is aware of the warnings or objects/hazards in front of the vehicle. In response the processing circuitry performs a control action based on the EEG detected data. In addition, 0032, 0050 discloses a memory. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that instructions for determining if the driver is aware of the warning and/or highlighted would require pre-stored instructions be stored and executed by a processor, such as the processing circuitry, in order to perform these functionalities)
a driving-control system comprising: a driving-control memory having driving-control instructions stored therein; and a driving-control processor configured to execute the driving-control instructions to cause the driving-control system to: determine whether the driver comprehends the hazard based on the hazard-detection signal, the eye-tracking signal and the brain-function signal; (0035-0037, 0041: determines if the driver is aware based on the detected hazard, the detected eye gaze, and detected EEG data; 0036 discloses processing circuitry to perform the determine if the user is aware. In addition, 0032, 0050 discloses a memory. One of a skilled artisan would have realized instructions for determining if the user is aware of the warning and/or highlighted based the eye gaze and determined EEG data would require pre-stored instructions be stored and executed by a processor, such as the processing circuitry, in order to perform these functionalities)
and operate in: a driver-controlled state so as to enable the driver to control at least one of steering of the semi-autonomous vehicle, braking of the semi-autonomous vehicle, and a combination thereof; and a driving-control-system-controlled state so as to enable the driving-control system to control the at least one of steering of the semi-autonomous vehicle, braking of the semi-autonomous vehicle, and a combination thereof (0006, 0029: the visual stimulus (warning/highlighted cars) is displayed as the user operates the steering wheel. 0036, 0042: If it’s determined that driver is not aware of the warnings and/or highlight obstacles being displayed, then the processing circuitry of vehicle takes control of the steering, from the driver, to perform a steering action OR controls the vehicle to stop (form of braking). Furthermore, if it determines the user is aware of the warning and/or highlighted cars, the display of the warning and/or highlighted cars ceases. Therefore, one of skilled artisan would have realized that since the warnings and images decrease, then the processing circuitry does not take control from the driver, as explained above, and lets the driver continue driving as is which includes steering the vehicle, without the processing circuitry control, to avoid pedestrian or a parked car if needed.)
Furthermore, Farooq discloses a memory having instructions and a processor executing instructions (0032, 0050). In addition, Farooq discloses if the driver is aware or not aware of the hazard ahead and determines the predetermined response accordingly. Farooq et al discloses that the vehicle automatically steers away or stops after it determines the driver is not aware/paying attention. (0036) Thus, Farooq appears to disclose some form of response time threshold related to a reaction time since one of a skilled artisan would realize that the driver wouldn’t be able to react in time if the driver isn’t paying attention. However, Farooq fails to disclose a memory having threshold response time data related to a reaction time stored therein; and a system controller: determine a time of collision of the semi-autonomous vehicle with the detected hazard; and compare the time of collision with the threshold response time data.
However, Grard et al discloses the use of an electronic control unit (ECU) calculating the time to collision (TTC) of a semi-autonomous vehicle to and the detected object (hazard). (0084, 0103, 0136) Then the ECU compares the TTC with a threshold (form of threshold response time data) to determine if the TTC is greater than or less than the threshold and perform an action based on the comparison. (0106-108, 0136; FIG. 8) Each threshold is a select point in time until the vehicle collides with the object. The first threshold (S1) is at 2 seconds, the second threshold (S2) is at 1.4 seconds, and the third threshold (s3) is at 1 second. These thresholds indicate the amount of time left for the vehicle or for the driver in the vehicle to react appropriately based on the determined circumstances. In other words, the thresholds are used for the amount of time the vehicle has to perform an action (form of a reaction time), either by the driver or the vehicle automatically, before impact. For example, if the TTC is before threshold S1, the driver is in control on making any decision in which one of a skilled artisan would have realized the driver has plenty of time to avoid the object (plenty of time to react). (0106) If the determined TTC is between S1 and s2, the vehicle will warn the driver to perform an action quickly to avoid the object which one of a skilled artisan would have realized that the reaction time for the driver to respond is less than previous (with threshold s1) and the driver would (have or need to) react quickly. (0107, FIG 8) If the TTC is between S2 and s3, then the vehicle triggers the braking of the vehicle automatically which one of a skilled artisan would have realized that there isn’t enough time for the driver to react in time. Thus, one of a skilled artisan would have realized Grard discloses at least a threshold of if the human driver has the ability or enough time to react on their own. Thus, Grard discloses threshold response time data related to a reaction time. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that an ECU comprises a processor and a memory. In addition, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that instructions for determining a TTC and/or comparing the calculated TTC with a threshold would require pre-stored instructions and threshold data be stored and executed by a processor, such as the ECU, in order to perform these functionalities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Grard et al since it would have provided the benefit of providing a system for assisting with driving a vehicle that makes it possible to avoid a collision with an object that is an obstacle, in the event that the speed of the vehicle is too high for it to be able to be braked in time (0162-0165)
As per dependent claim 2, Farooq et al discloses a warning system configured to provide a warning related to said driving-control system controlling the at least one of steering of the semi-autonomous vehicle, braking of the semi-autonomous vehicle, and a combination thereof when said driving-control system is operating in the driving-control system controlled state. (FIG 3; 0035-0036: display warning and highlighted images of objects)
As per dependent claim 3, Farooq et al discloses wherein the warning system comprises a display configured to display an image related to said driving-control system controlling the at least one of steering of the semi-autonomous vehicle, braking of the semi-autonomous vehicle, and a combination thereof when said driving-control system is operating in the driving-control system state (FIG 3; 0035-0036: displays warning and highlighted images of objects; flashing warning and images)
As per dependent claim 4, Farooq et al fails to specifically disclose the threshold response time data comprises a priori threshold response time data related to a threshold time for which a human can react to a hazard. However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Grard discloses the use of an electronic control unit (ECU) calculating the time to collision (TTC) of a semi-autonomous vehicle to and the detected object (hazard). (0084, 0103, 0136) Then the ECU compares the TTC with a threshold (form of threshold response time data) to determine if the TTC is greater than or less than the threshold and perform an action based on the comparison. (0106-108, 0136; FIG. 8) Each threshold is a select point in time until the vehicle collides with the object. These thresholds indicate the amount of time left for the vehicle or for the driver in the vehicle to react appropriately based on the determined circumstances. In other words, the thresholds are used for the amount of time the vehicle has to perform an action (form of a reaction time), either by the driver or the vehicle automatically, before impact. For example, if the determined TTC is between S1 and s2 (in other words, before S2), the vehicle will warn the driver to perform an action quickly to avoid the object which one of a skilled artisan would have realized that there is enough time for the driver to react in time before colliding with the obstacle in response to being alerted. (0107, FIG 8) 0107 clearly states a warning is given to the driver so that the driver may decide what action to take to avoid the collision; thus stating the user still has the ability to react to the oncoming obstacle. If the TTC is between S2 and s3 (in other words, after S2), then the vehicle/ECU of the vehicle triggers the braking of the vehicle automatically which one of a skilled artisan would have realized that there isn’t enough time for the driver to react in time before colliding with the obstacle. In other words, Grard is comparing the TTC versus a threshold on whether or not the ECU needs to take control of the vehicle (since it is determined the user does not have time to react) or the ECU does not need to take control of the vehicle (since its determined the user still has time to control the vehicle to avoid the obstacle). In particular, threshold S2 acts like a priori threshold response time related to a threshold time for a human can react to a hazard since if the TTC is greater than S2, the ECU warns the driver so that he may decide what action to take to avoid the collision enabling the driver to react according. If the TTC is falls below S2, then the ECU takes control and brakes the car since it is determined the driver did not react in time. Thus, threshold S2 acts as the determining threshold time for whether or not a human can react to a hazard. If the TTC remains above threshold S2, then the driver has time to react to the hazard. Once the TTC falls below the S2 threshold time, then the ECU/vehicle takes control and stops the vehicle. Thus, Grard teaches the threshold response time data comprises a priori threshold response time data related to a threshold time for which a human can react to a hazard. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that an ECU comprises a processor and a memory. In addition, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that instructions for determining a TTC and/or comparing the calculated TTC with a threshold would require pre-stored instructions and threshold data be stored and executed by a processor, such as the ECU, in order to perform these functionalities.
As per dependent claim 5, Farooq et al discloses wherein said warning system comprises a speaker configured to output an audible warning related to said driving-control system controlling the at least one of steering of the semi-autonomous vehicle, breaking of the semi-autonomous vehicle, and a combination thereof when said driving-control system is operating in the driving-control system controlled state. (0036, 0042: sound is played as the vehicle is automatically steered away)
As per independent claims 8 and 15, Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Farooq et al discloses a medium (0032, 0055)
As per dependent claims 9-12 and 16-19, Claims 9-12 and 16-19 recite similar limitations as in Claims 2-5 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farooq et al in further view of Grard et al in further view of Elkins et al (US20200073379, 2020)
As per dependent claim 6, the cited art fails to specifically disclose determine whether the semi-autonomous vehicle has cleared the hazard; and operate in the driver-controlled state if the semi-autonomous vehicle has cleared the hazard and when previously operating in the driving-control-system-controlled state. However, Elkins discloses the vehicle automatically taking control of the semi-autonomous vehicle to avoid an obstacle when the operator is not paying attention and misses the presence of the obstacle. Once the vehicle autonomously avoids the obstacle, the vehicle returns control of the vehicle to the driver after confirming the driver is ready. (0022,0024, 0034-0035, 0037)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Elkins et al since it would have provided the benefit of significantly increases overall safety by being able to receive autonomous control automatically and not return manual control to the operator of until the operator demonstrates that they are engaged and able to safely take manual control (0049)
As per dependent claims 13 and 20, Claims 13 and 20 recite similar limitations as in Claim 6 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7, 14 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farooq et al in further view of Grard et al in further view of Akamatsu et al (JP6472709B) (Examiner previously provided an English translation of JP6472709B which the paragraphs disclosed below reference to)
As per dependent claim 7, the cited art fails to specifically disclose detect a gamma power in a visual cortex part of the brain as the parameter of the brain of the driver. However, Akamatsu et al discloses taking gamma band reading from the visual cortex of the brain and detecting the intensity of the gamma band. (0008, 0015; Claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Akamatsu since it would have provided the benefit of provide guidance on safe driving tailored to specific characteristics and to promote license return (0009)
As per dependent claim 14, Claim 14 recite similar limitations as in Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 12, in regards to the rejection of the independent claims, Applicant argues that it would have not been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Farooq with the ECU in Grard since combining/incorporating Grard’s ECU into Farooq would change the principle of operation of Farooq. In particular, Applicant argues that “Farooq already determines whether the driver is aware and then responds accordingly. Importing Grard's ECU would not merely add a known component to perform a predictable use, such a modification would instead change the principle of operation of the system disclosed in Farooq by imposing a different decision framework on the system disclosed in Farooq.” However, the Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner respectfully states that Appellant merely made conclusionary
statements in regards to Farooq and Grard if the cited features of Grard were combined with Farooq. The Examiner respectfully states that the Applicant has provided the Examiner with no evidence in Applicant’s statements that principle of operation of Farooq would change if Grard was combined. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully states that Applicant is attempting to bodily incorporate Grard into Farooq when the rejection presented by enhancing the existing features of Farooq with the missing feature(s) taught by Grard. Farooq discloses if the vehicle is approaching a parked car on the street and if there is a possibility for collision, displaying a warning and/or highlight the obstacle/parked car on the display. If it’s determined that driver is not aware of the warnings and/or highlight obstacles being displayed, then the processing circuitry of vehicle takes control of the steering, from the driver, to perform a steering action OR controls the vehicle to stop (form of braking). In other words, Farooq et al discloses that the vehicle automatically steers away or stops after it determines the driver is not aware/paying attention. (0036) Thus, Farooq appears to disclose some form of response time threshold related to a reaction time since one of a skilled artisan would realize that the driver wouldn’t be able to react in time if the driver isn’t paying attention. Thus, in summary, Farooq discloses the vehicle’s processing circuity recognizing that the user is not reacting to the displayed warning and automatically take control of the vehicle (away from the driver) and perform an action to prevent a collision from happening. Thus, the vehicle’s processing unit acts like a ECU for controlling the movement of the vehicle. However, Farooq is missing the feature(s) of a memory having threshold response time data related to a reaction time stored therein; and a system controller: determine the time of collision of the semi-autonomous vehicle with the detected hazard; and compare the time of collision with the threshold response time data. In other words, Farooq fails to disclose the operation to determine if the amount of time the vehicle being driven has before hitting the parked car and comparing that amount of time to a threshold. However, Grard et al discloses the use of an electronic control unit (ECU) calculating the time to collision (TTC) of a semi-autonomous vehicle to and the detected object (hazard). (0084, 0103, 0136) Then the ECU compares the TTC with a threshold (form of threshold response time data) to determine if the TTC is greater than or less than the threshold and perform an action based on the comparison. (0106-108, 0136; FIG. 8) Each threshold is a select point in time until the vehicle collides with the object. The first threshold (S1) is at 2 seconds, the second threshold (S2) is at 1.4 seconds, and the third threshold (s3) is at 1 second. These thresholds indicate the amount of time left for the vehicle or for the driver in the vehicle to react appropriately based on the determined circumstances. In other words, the thresholds are used for the amount of time the vehicle has to perform an action (form of a reaction time), either by the driver or the vehicle automatically, before impact. For example, if the TTC is before threshold S1, the driver is in control on making any decision in which one of a skilled artisan would have realized the driver has plenty of time to avoid the object (plenty of time to react). (0106) If the determined TTC is between S1 and s2, the vehicle will warn the driver to perform an action quickly to avoid the object which one of a skilled artisan would have realized that the reaction time for the driver to respond is less than previous (with threshold s1) and the driver would (have or need to) react quickly. (0107, FIG 8) If the TTC is between S2 and s3, then the vehicle triggers the braking of the vehicle automatically which one of a skilled artisan would have realized that there isn’t enough time for the driver to react in time. Thus, one of a skilled artisan would have realized Grard discloses at least a threshold of if the human driver has the ability or enough time to react on their own. Thus, Grard discloses threshold response time data related to a reaction time. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that an ECU comprises a processor and a memory. In addition, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that instructions for determining a TTC and/or comparing the calculated TTC with a threshold would require pre-stored instructions and threshold data be stored and executed by a processor, such as the ECU, in order to perform these functionalities. In summary, Grard discloses if the amount of time the vehicle has before colliding with the obstacle/hazard and compares the time against a threshold to determine if the ECU of the vehicle need to take control of the vehicle to prevent a collision with the detected obstacle/hazard. Thus, the Examiner is combining the feature(s) of determining the time left the vehicle has before collision before automatically steering or stopping the car based on a comparison with a threshold that was missing from Farooq since Farooq was silent on any time determination and comparison of the determine time before taking control the vehicle. In addition, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive as the rejection would be enhancing the existing features of Farooq with the missing feature taught by Grard. Therefore, the Examiner is not combining whole references together. Furthermore, both Farooq and Grard share a common field of endeavor since both references deal with detecting objects in the road for possible collision, determine if the user is responding, and automatically stopping or steering the vehicle if the user does not respond. Thus, combining the cited feature(s) of Farooq with Grard would not change the principle of either; therefore, the references are combinable.
On page 12, in response to the independent claims, Applicant argues the “Office Action has not articulated a non-hindsight reason why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Farooq to incorporate Grard's ECU and threshold-response architecture, particularly where Farooq already determines whether the driver is aware and responds based on that determination. The proposed combination therefore represents an impermissible reconstruction of Applicant's claim rather than a predictable use of prior art elements for their established functions.” In other words, the Applicant is arguing by using the instant application as a roadmap to combine the art is impermissible hindsight reconstruction. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
On page 13, in regards to dependent claim 4, Applicant argues that claim 4 was amended to state the threshold response time data to comprise a priori threshold response time data related to a threshold time for which a human can react to a hazard. Applicant argues that Grard that failed to teach this limitation since Grard only discloses time to collision (TTC) thresholds use to trigger different response. However, the Examiner disagrees.
After consideration of Applicants arguments of claim 4 of this particular subject matter/limitation(s), the Examiner respectfully states Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive to overcome the cited rejection and respectfully direct the Applicant to the rejection explained above for the reasons why the claim remains rejected under the same combination of references.
All other arguments on pages 13-16 that were not addressed by the Examiner, are referring to the dependent claims which are in reference or depend to the topics above, thus the rationale above can be used to respond to the similar arguments and/or Examiner's explanation used in the rejection of those claims as described in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights