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 .
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the claims filed 05/09/2026.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed 05/09/2026 in response to office action mailed 04/01/2026. The Applicant’s remarks and any amendments to the claims or specification have been considered with the results that follow.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112
In Remarks page 6, Argument 1
(Examiner summarizes Applicant’s argument) Applicant argues that claim 13 has been canceled thus obviating the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Examiner’s response to Argument 1
The 112 rejections for claim 13 have been withdrawn accordingly.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101
In Remarks page 7, Argument 2
(Examiner summarizes Applicant’s argument) Applicant argues that claim 1 cannot be executed exclusively by the human mind because it involves MIMO arrays and mutual communication among hardware.
Examiner’s response to Argument 2
Examiner does not contest that some elements of the claim cannot be performed entirely by the human mind. These limitations are treated under 2A prong 2 and 2B of the subject matter eligibility test. However, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see responses to arguments and 101 rejections below).
In Remarks page 7, Argument 3
(Examiner summarizes Applicant’s argument) Applicant argues that claim 1 requires specialized hardware of MIMO antenna arrays and that the capabilities of the antennas (including CIR signal amplitude and phase difference) improves system throughput and communication quality.
Examiner’s response to Argument 3
Examiner disagrees. MIMO is not specialized hardware, but instead is merely generic/general-purpose off-the-shelf hardware added to the claim after the fact. This is further supported by Applicant’s own arguments in the 2B section (Remarks page 8) “The present invention […] only uses general-purpose MIMO antennas and conventional WI-FI hardware”. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(a) recites
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.
[…]
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology.
It is not apparent to the examiner from the disclosure how the claimed invention would improve technology. Additionally, any alleged improvements are not reflected in the claims in that the particular components or steps do not indicate how an improvement would be accomplished by the invention.
In Remarks page 8, Argument 4
(Examiner summarizes Applicant’s argument) Applicant paraphrases claim elements and argues that claim 1 realizes recognition and detection of indoor human behavior and has practical applications of indoor sensing, elderly care security, and behavior analysis. Applicant further argues that the WI-Fi sensing system does not require cameras or wearable devices using only general-purpose hardware, thus being simple and low-cost. Applicant further argues that the claim provides excellent privacy because it only collects signals without images, sounds or private information.
Examiner’s response to Argument 4
The claim does not recite any details about elder care security monitoring, behavior analysis, nor privacy. Similar to the last argument, the details of how the alleged improvements Applicant argued is not reflected in the claims, and evidence from the disclosure was not provided. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, the additional elements are merely generic off-the-shelf additions to the claim and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are patentable under 35 U.S.C. 103. Rejections remain under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 103 which must be addressed prior to allowance.
This communication warrants no examiner's reason for allowance, as the record makes evident the reason for allowance, satisfying the record "as a whole" as required by rule 37 CFR 1.104 (e). Accordingly, the reason for allowance is in all probability evident from the record and no statement for examiner's reason for allowance is necessary (see MPEP 1302.14).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a plurality of regions which are formed by dividing an indoor activity space into” should read “a plurality of regions which are formed by dividing an indoor activity space [[into]]”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites the abstract ideas of:
the processor performing calculation according to the CIR data packet collected by the MIMO antenna array to obtain an H (M, N, Z) matrix, wherein M denotes a region number, N denotes a human activity type, and Z denotes the CIR data packet — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical process, and mathematical calculations in particular (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.). The claim explicitly describes obtaining a matrix by mathematical calculation.
Step 2: preprocessing, by the processor, the H (M, N, Z) matrix to obtain a preprocessed H (M, N, Z) matrix — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to evaluating points of data to prepare it for further evaluation, for example calculating normalizations.
Step 3: extracting, by the processor, features of the preprocessed H (M, N, Z) matrix to obtain a training sample of a CNN (convolutional neural network) model — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to evaluating data to determine, for example, a classification result of an activity represented in a data sample.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
executed by a MIMO antenna array comprising one transmitter and three receivers provided indoors at a height above a ground for collecting a reflection signal and a processor — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using generic Wi-Fi hardware to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
collecting, by the MIMO antenna array, a CIR (channel impulse response) data packet of a reflection signal of each activity in each region of a plurality of regions which are formed by dividing an indoor activity space into — This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 4: performing transfer learning on the CNN model, by the processor, using the training sample, so as to obtain a trained CNN model — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using ordinary machine learning training to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the training is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
and Step 5: obtaining, by the processor, an indoor CIR amplitude value, inputting the CIR amplitude value into the trained CNN model, and outputting a human behavior — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using machine learning inference to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the machine learning inference is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
executed by a MIMO antenna array comprising one transmitter and three receivers provided indoors at a height above a ground for collecting a reflection signal and a processor —Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
collecting, by the MIMO antenna array, a CIR (channel impulse response) data packet of a reflection signal of each activity in each region of a plurality of regions which are formed by dividing an indoor activity space into — This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering of transmitting and receiving data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 4: performing transfer learning on the CNN model, by the processor, using the training sample, so as to obtain a trained CNN model — Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
and Step 5: obtaining, by the processor, an indoor CIR amplitude value, inputting the CIR amplitude value into the trained CNN model, and outputting a human behavior —Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Claim 2
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 2 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 2). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 1:
wherein a calculation formula for the CIR is as follows:
H
i
=
H
i
e
j
∠
H
i
wherein
H
i
denotes channel state information of an i-th sub-carrier,
H
i
denotes an amplitude of the i-th sub-carrier,
∠
H
i
denotes a phase of the i-th sub-carrier, and j is an imaginary part of a complex number — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical process, and mathematical formulas or equations in particular (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. B.). The claim describes the mathematical channel impulse response formula.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 3
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 3). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 1:
wherein an acquisition method for the region number is as follows: dividing the activity space into M regions with the same area and in a n×n distribution, and starting from the top left corner, numbering the regions in each row from left to right in turn — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to procedurally evaluating a 2D plane by dividing it into a grid and assigning numbers, which could be done in the human mind. For example, one could imagine a room that they are familiar with and mentally divide up the space as in the picture below:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 1:
The indoor passive human behavior recognition method according to claim 1, wherein Step 2 comprises the following steps: filtering the CIR data packet of the H (M, N, Z) matrix using hampel, so as to obtain a filtered H (M, N, Z) matrix — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical process, and mathematical calculations in particular (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.). The claim describes the mathematical operation of calculating a hampel filter of a matrix to obtain a new matrix.
interpolating the CIR data packet of the filtered H (M, N, Z) matrix to obtain an interpolated H (M, N, Z) matrix —This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical process, and mathematical calculations in particular (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.). The claim describes the mathematical operation of interpolating data (for example via linear interpolation).
preforming Kalman smoothing filtering on the CIR data packet of the interpolated H (M, N, Z) matrix to obtain a smoothed H (M, N, Z) matrix — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical process, and mathematical calculations in particular (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.). The claim describes the mathematical operation of calculating a kalman smoothing filter of a matrix to obtain a new matrix.
performing wavelet transform on the CIR data packet of the smoothed H (M, N, Z) matrix to obtain a denoised H (M, N, Z) matrix — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical process, and mathematical calculations in particular (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.). The claim describes the mathematical operation of calculating a wavelet transform on entries of a matrix.
and performing data dimension reduction processing on the CIR data packet of the denoised H (M, N, Z) matrix using PCA (Principal Component Analysis), so as to obtain a dimension-reduced H (M, N, Z) matrix — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical process, and mathematical calculations in particular (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.). The claim describes the mathematical operation of calculating principal component analysis on a matrix.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 5
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 1:
wherein Step 3 comprises the following steps: clustering CIR amplitude values of various regions for various activities to obtain n major types — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to an opinion of a group from a list of groups that a numerical value belongs to.
dividing the M regions for various activities into n major types — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to an opinion of a group from a list of groups that a region of a room belongs to.
calculating MKMMD (Multiple Kernel Maximum Mean Discrepancy) values of the CIR amplitude values of various regions for each type of activity, and obtaining a number of a region corresponding to the minimum MKMMD value — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical process, and mathematical calculations in particular (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.). The claim explicitly describes the mathematical calculation of multiple kernel maximum mean discrepancy in words.
acquiring a number of a region corresponding to a human reflection path from the regions corresponding to the minimum MKMMD values in various types of activity according to the wireless sensing principle of a Fresnel zone — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to an observation of a reflection path related to regions and the Fresnel zone based on numerical values.
Step 2A Prong 2:
using a CIR amplitude value of the region corresponding to the human reflection path of each type of activity as a first training sample; and using CIR amplitude values corresponding to the remaining numbered regions for various activities as a second training sample — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the judicial exception to using amplitude values in a training (computer) environment.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
using a CIR amplitude value of the region corresponding to the human reflection path of each type of activity as a first training sample; and using CIR amplitude values corresponding to the remaining numbered regions for various activities as a second training sample — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
The indoor passive human behavior recognition method according to claim 1, wherein Step 4 comprises the following steps: training the CNN model using the first training sample, so as to obtain initial parameters of the CNN model — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using generic machine learning training to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the training is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
substituting the initial parameters of the CNN model into the CNN model, freezing parameters of a convolution layer and a pooling layer before a fully connected layer of the CNN model — This limitation is directed to insignificant application of data, which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
and then selecting a certain number of second training samples to form secondary training data to train the fully connected layer of the CNN model, thus obtaining a trained CNN model — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using generic machine learning training to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the training is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
The indoor passive human behavior recognition method according to claim 1, wherein Step 4 comprises the following steps: training the CNN model using the first training sample, so as to obtain initial parameters of the CNN model — Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
substituting the initial parameters of the CNN model into the CNN model, freezing parameters of a convolution layer and a pooling layer before a fully connected layer of the CNN model — This limitation is recited in a merely generic manner and amounts to freezing layers of a neural network which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. A factual determination that this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.) is supported by Isikdogan et al. “SemifreddoNets: Partially Frozen Neural Networks for Efficient Computer Vision Systems”, which recites that (figure 1 caption) “A high-level illustration of how the vertical freezing scheme in SemifreddoNets (right) differs from traditional layer-level parameter freezing approaches (left)”. Therefore, the additional element cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
and then selecting a certain number of second training samples to form secondary training data to train the fully connected layer of the CNN model, thus obtaining a trained CNN model — Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the CNN model comprises three convolution layers, a pooling layer is connected after each convolution layer, output ends of all pooling layers are connected with two fully connected layers after fusion calculation; a Dropout layer is connected after the last fully connected layer, and a softmax layer is connected after the Dropout layer — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using a generic neural network archictecture to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the architecture is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the CNN model comprises three convolution layers, a pooling layer is connected after each convolution layer, output ends of all pooling layers are connected with two fully connected layers after fusion calculation; a Dropout layer is connected after the last fully connected layer, and a softmax layer is connected after the Dropout layer — Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 8
Claim 8 is identical in scope to claim 7, except that claim 8 is dependent upon claim 2 instead of claim 1. Therefore, the same rejection and rationale applies to claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9
Claim 9 is identical in scope to claim 7, except that claim 9 is dependent upon claim 3 instead of claim 1. Therefore, the same rejection and rationale applies to claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10
Claim 10 is identical in scope to claim 7, except that claim 10 is dependent upon claim 4 instead of claim 1. Therefore, the same rejection and rationale applies to claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11
Claim 11 is identical in scope to claim 7, except that claim 11 is dependent upon claim 5 instead of claim 1. Therefore, the same rejection and rationale applies to claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12
Claim 12 is identical in scope to claim 7, except that claim 8 is dependent upon claim 6 instead of claim 1. Therefore, the same rejection and rationale applies to claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chen et al. “Space Division Multiple Access With Distributed User Grouping for Multi-User MIMO-VLC Systems” teaches using MIMO technology and dividing a region into sub-regions.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ezra J Baker whose telephone number is (703)756-1087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 8:00 pm ET.
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, David Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519. 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.
/E.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2126
/DAVID YI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights