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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/12/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 3 and 6 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 9-10, and 13-14, and 16-18 have been amended. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments regarding Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 112 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been considered, but are newly rejected as discussed in the paragraphs below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are not found persuasive. These rejections are accordingly maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not teach the newly amended limitations of the claim, because “Petit teaches adaptive control in which scan parameters are changed based on a LIDAR measurement” (Remarks at pg. 11). Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees.
First, the language of claim 1 as amended is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as vague and indefinite as discussed in the paragraphs below.
Second, it is unclear what language of the claim is directed towards intended use and what language requires specific functional use.
Third, assuming the language of the claim specifically requires that “the first/second signal is supplied to the light source,” it would be obvious to exercise the invention more than a single time, in another environment, directed towards another “object” (i.e. use of the invention to detect an object would not be dependent on objects detected previously by the invention).
Finally, Bradley teaches a first signal supplied to a light source irrespective of the information about an object, and a second signal supplied to a light source irrespective of the information about an object (see e.g. at least ¶ 21-23, separately calibrating upper and lower sets of laser scanners before use).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: "A control apparatus that controls a laser radar apparatus including a scanner and a detector, the control apparatus causes the scanner to deflect a laser beam from a light source, scan an object and deflect reflected light from the object, the control apparatus causes the detector to detect the reflected light, the control apparatus further acquires information about the object based on an output from the detector, wherein the control apparatus comprises:
a memory storing instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
cause a light source to emit a first laser beam having a first output value by causing a first signal having a first signal value to be supplied to the light source,
wherein the first signal is predetermined to be supplied to the light source irrespective of the information about the object while a scanning angle of the scanner changes from a minimum value to a maximum value, and
cause the light source to emit a second laser beam having a second output value smaller than the first output value by causing a second signal having a second signal value smaller than the first signal value to be supplied to the light source,
wherein the second signal is predetermined to be supplied to the light source irrespective of the information about the object while the scanning angle of the scanner changes from the maximum value to the minimum value;
acquire information about the object in a first scanning range in a scanning range of the scanner in a case where the first laser beam is emitted;
acquire information about the object in a second scanning range in the scanning range of the scanner closer to the scanner than the first scanning range in a case where the second laser beam is emitted; and
cause a display to display information acquired by combining the information about the object in the first scanning range and the information about the object in the second scanning range."
This language is vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Intended Use: The claim contains the following language that is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated as an expression of intended use:
"A control apparatus that controls a laser radar apparatus including a scanner and a detector, the control apparatus causes the scanner to deflect a laser beam from a light source, scan an object and deflect reflected light from the object, the control apparatus causes the detector to detect the reflected light, the control apparatus further acquires information about the object based on an output from the detector”
“wherein the first signal is predetermined to be supplied to the light source irrespective of the information about the object”
“wherein the second signal is predetermined to be supplied to the light source irrespective of the information about the object”
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Generally Unclear: The language of the claim as currently amended is vague and indefinite and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical features to which it refers, thereby rendering the definition and scope of the subject-matter of said claim unclear. Namely, it is unclear whether the functional language introduced in the preamble is directed towards intended use language describing the invention and it’s purpose generally, or whether the use/functions are specifically required to be performed (and if so, when? E.g. before the functions recited in the body of the claim? During the functions recited in the body of the claim? Are they describing the functions recited in the body of the claim?). Moreover, it is unclear whether the first and second signals are in fact supplied to the light source, or whether they are more broadly “predetermined to be” or “intended to be” supplied. Moreover, it is unclear whether “the information about the object” is intended to refer to specific information other than information obtained by transmission of the first and/or second signal toward a same/other object, any previous first and/or second signals, or whether this language is intended to encompass any information about any/same object. For example, it is unclear whether this language is directed towards: 1) an initialization/calibration step before the transmission of the first and/or second signals, 2) whether the claim prohibits repeated use of the invention, or 3) whether the first and/or second signals can (or cannot) be transmitted based on information obtained by either the first and/or second signal transmissions, or some specific (unarticulated) “other” information about the object.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A control apparatus that controls a laser radar apparatus including a scanner and a detector, the control apparatus [is intended to cause ], the control apparatus [is intended to cause [is further intended to acquire information about the object based on an output from the detector], wherein the control apparatus comprises:
a memory storing instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
cause a light source to emit a first laser beam having a first output value by causing a first signal having a first signal value to be supplied to the light source,
wherein the first signal is [intended to be supplied to the light source irrespective of the information about the object while a scanning angle of the scanner changes from a minimum value to a maximum value], and
cause the light source to emit a second laser beam having a second output value smaller than the first output value by causing a second signal having a second signal value smaller than the first signal value to be supplied to the light source,
wherein the second signal is [intended to be supplied to the light source irrespective of the information about the object while the scanning angle of the scanner changes from the maximum value to the minimum value];
acquire information about the object in a first scanning range in a scanning range of the scanner in a case where the first laser beam is emitted;
acquire information about the object in a second scanning range in the scanning range of the scanner closer to the scanner than the first scanning range in a case where the second laser beam is emitted; and
cause a display to display information acquired by combining the information about the object in the first scanning range and the information about the object in the second scanning range."
Claims 2, 4-5, 7-9, and 12-18 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 10 recites: "A control method for controlling a laser radar apparatus, wherein the laser radar apparatus includes a scanner and a detector, wherein the scanner is [intended to deflect a laser beam from a light source, to scan an object, and to deflect reflected light from the object], wherein the detector is [intended to detect the reflected light], and wherein information about the object is [intended to be acquired based on an output from the detector], the control method comprising the steps of:
causing the light source to emit a first laser beam having a first output value by causing a first signal having a first signal value to be supplied to the light source, wherein the first signal is predetermined to be supplied to the light source irrespective of the information about the object while a scanning angle of the scanner changes from a minimum value to a maximum value;
causing the light source to emit a second laser beam having a second output value smaller than the first output value by causing a second signal having a second signal value smaller than the first signal value to be supplied to the light source, wherein the second signal is predetermined to be supplied to the light source irrespective of the information about the object while the scanning angle of the scanner changes from the maximum value to the minimum value;
acquiring information about the object in a first scanning range in a scanning range of the scanner in a case where the first laser beam is emitted;
acquiring information about the object in a second scanning range in the scanning range of the scanner closer to the scanner than the first scanning range in a case where the second laser beam is emitted; and
causing a display to display information acquired by combining the information about the object in the first scanning range and the information about the object in the second scanning range.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A control method for controlling a laser radar apparatus, wherein the laser radar apparatus includes a scanner and a detector, wherein the scanner is configured to deflect a laser beam from a light source, to scan an object, and to deflect reflected light from the object, wherein the detector is configured to detect the reflected light, and wherein information about the object is acquired based on an output from the detector, the control method comprising the steps of:
causing the light source to emit a first laser beam having a first output value by causing a first signal having a first signal value to be supplied to the light source, wherein the first signal is [intended to be supplied to the light source irrespective of the information about the object while a scanning angle of the scanner changes from a minimum value to a maximum value];
causing the light source to emit a second laser beam having a second output value smaller than the first output value by causing a second signal having a second signal value smaller than the first signal value to be supplied to the light source, wherein the second signal is [intended to be supplied to the light source irrespective of the information about the object while the scanning angle of the scanner changes from the maximum value to the minimum value];
acquiring information about the object in a first scanning range in a scanning range of the scanner in a case where the first laser beam is emitted;
acquiring information about the object in a second scanning range in the scanning range of the scanner closer to the scanner than the first scanning range in a case where the second laser beam is emitted; and
causing a display to display information acquired by combining the information about the object in the first scanning range and the information about the object in the second scanning range.”
Claim 11 is further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petit (US 2020/0033474 A1) in view of Thiessen (US 2022/0134940 A1), and in the alternative, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petit (US 2020/0033474 A1) in view of Thiessen (US 2022/0134940 A1), and further in view of Bradley (US 2019/0056484 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Petit discloses a control apparatus (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 1-2, and related text) that controls a laser radar apparatus (e.g. at least laser scanner 101, see e.g. at least Fig. 1-2, and related text) including a scanner (e.g. at least laser scanner 101, see e.g. at least Fig. 2, and related text) and a detector (e.g. at least detector 113, see e.g. at least Fig. 2, and related text), the control apparatus [is intended to cause the scanner to deflect a laser beam from a light source, scan an object and deflect reflected light from the object], the control apparatus [is intended to cause the detector to detect the reflected light], the control apparatus [is further intended to acquire information about the object based on an output from the detector] (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 1-2, and related text), wherein the control apparatus comprises:
a memory storing instructions (see e.g. at least ¶ 43, Fig. 1, and related text); and
a processor (id.) configured to execute the instructions to:
cause a light source to emit a first laser beam having a first output value by causing a first signal having a first signal value to be supplied to the light source (see e.g. at least ¶ 15, 33, 37, 59, 61-62, 65, 88-124, Fig. 11-12, and related text),
wherein the first signal is [intended to be supplied to the light source irrespective of the information about the object while a scanning angle of the scanner changes from a minimum value to a maximum value] (see e.g. at least ¶ 33, 69, 75, 88-124, Fig. 4, 7, and related text), and
cause the light source to emit a second laser beam having a second output value smaller than the first output value by causing a second signal having a second signal value smaller than the first signal value to be supplied to the light source (see e.g. at least ¶ 15, 33, 37, 59, 61-62, 65, 88-124, Fig. 11-12, and related text),
wherein the second signal is [intended to be supplied to the light source irrespective of the information about the object while the scanning angle of the scanner changes from the maximum value to the minimum value] (see e.g. at least ¶ 33, 69, 75, 88-124, Fig. 4, 7, and related text);
acquire information about the object in a first scanning range in a scanning range of the scanner in a case where the first laser beam is emitted (see e.g. at least ¶ 15, 33, 37, 59, 61-62, 65, 88-124, Fig. 11-12, and related text);
acquire information about the object in a second scanning range in the scanning range of the scanner closer to the scanner than the first scanning range in a case where the second laser beam is emitted (id.); and
acquire information by combining the information about the object in the first scanning range and the information about the object in the second scanning range (see e.g. at least ¶ 35-38, 42, 53).
Additionally, Thiessen teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Petit including namely: cause a display to display information acquired [about an object in a first scanning range and information about the object in a second scanning range] (see e.g. at least ¶ 9, 20).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Petit by cause a display to display information acquired by combining the information about the object in the first scanning range and the information about the object in the second scanning range as taught by Thiessen in order to provide improved environmental detection systems in a cost effective and space saving manner (Thiessen: ¶ 6).
Alternatively, assuming the language of the claim specifically requires that “the first/second signal is supplied to the light source,” it would be obvious to exercise the invention more than a single time, in another environment, directed towards another “object” (i.e. use of the invention to detect an object would not be dependent on objects detected previously by the invention).
Alternatively, Bradley teaches a first signal supplied to a light source irrespective of the information about an object, and a second signal supplied to a light source irrespective of the information about an object (see e.g. at least ¶ 21-23, separately calibrating upper and lower sets of laser scanners before use).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Petit teaches that the processor is configured to change a signal to be supplied to the light source according to a scanning angle of the scanner (Petit: see e.g. at least ¶ 49).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Petit teaches that the scanner is configured to scan in a first scanning direction and a second scanning direction that are orthogonal to each other (Petit: see e.g. at least ¶ 35),
wherein the processor is configured to:
cause the first signal to be supplied to the light source while a scanning angle in the first scanning direction of the scanner changes from a minimum value to a maximum value (Petit: see e.g. at least ¶ 33, 69, 75, 88-124, Fig. 4, 7, and related text), and
cause the second signal to be supplied to the light source while the scanning angle in the first scanning direction changes from the maximum value to the minimum value (Petit: id.).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Petit teaches that the processor is configured to:
cause the second signal to be supplied to the light source while a scanning angle of the scanner changes from a minimum value to a predetermined value (Petit: see e.g. at least ¶ 33, 69, 75, 88-124, Fig. 4, 7, and related text),
cause the first signal to be supplied to the light source while the scanning angle of the scanner changes from the predetermined value to a maximum value (Petit: id.),
cause the first signal to be supplied to the light source while the scanning angle of the scanner changes from the maximum value to the predetermined value (Petit: id.), and
cause the second signal to be supplied to the light source while the scanning angle of the scanner changes from the predetermined value to the minimum value (Petit: id.).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Petit teaches that the processor is configured to alternately perform processing of acquiring the information about the object in the first scanning range and processing of acquiring the information about the object in the second scanning range (Petit: see e.g. at least ¶ 10, 35-36, 38, 42, 53, Fig. 1-2, and related text).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Petit discloses a laser radar apparatus comprising:
a scanner configured to deflect a laser beam from a light source, to scan an object, and to deflect reflected light from the object (Petit: see e.g. at least ¶ 35-37, Fig. 1, and related text);
a detector configured to detect the reflected light (Petit: id.); and
the control apparatus according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Modified Petit teaches a pulse driver configured to cause the light source to emit pulsed light (Petit: e.g. at least laser scanner 101, see e.g. at least ¶ 10-17, 33-34, Fig. 1, 3, 14, and related text).
Regarding claim 10, Petit discloses a control method for controlling a laser radar apparatus, wherein the laser radar apparatus includes a scanner and a detector, wherein the scanner is [intended to deflect a laser beam from a light source, to scan an object, and to deflect reflected light from the object, wherein the detector is [intended to detect the reflected light], and wherein information about the object is [intended to be acquired based on an output from the detector] (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 3-4, 14, and related text), the control method comprising the steps of:
causing the light source to emit a first laser beam having a first output value by causing a first signal having a first signal value to be supplied to the light source (see e.g. at least ¶ 15, 33, 37, 59, 61-62, 65, 88-124, Fig. 11-12, and related text), wherein the first signal is [intended to be supplied to the light source irrespective of the information about the object while a scanning angle of the scanner changes from a minimum value to a maximum value] (see e.g. at least ¶ 33, 69, 75, 88-124, Fig. 4, 7, and related text);
causing the light source to emit a second laser beam having a second output value smaller than the first output value by causing a second signal having a second signal value smaller than the first signal value [intended to be supplied to the light source irrespective of the information about the object (see e.g. at least ¶ 15, 33, 37, 59, 61-62, 65, 88-124, Fig. 11-12, and related text), wherein the second signal is supplied to the light source while the scanning angle of the scanner changes from the maximum value to the minimum value] (see e.g. at least ¶ 33, 69, 75, 88-124, Fig. 4, 7, and related text);
acquiring information about the object in a first scanning range in a scanning range of the scanner in a case where the first laser beam is emitted (see e.g. at least ¶ 15, 33, 37, 59, 61-62, 65, 88-124, Fig. 11-12, and related text);
acquiring information about the object in a second scanning range in the scanning range of the scanner closer to the scanner than the first scanning range in a case where the second laser beam is emitted (id.); and
acquire information by combining the information about the object in the first scanning range and the information about the object in the second scanning range (see e.g. at least ¶ 35-38, 42, 53).
Additionally, Thiessen teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Petit including namely: causing a display to display information acquired [about an object in a first scanning range and information about the object in a second scanning range] (see e.g. at least ¶ 9, 20).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Petit by cause a display to display information acquired by combining the information about the object in the first scanning range and the information about the object in the second scanning range as taught by Thiessen in order to provide improved environmental detection systems in a cost effective and space saving manner (Thiessen: ¶ 6).
Alternatively, assuming the language of the claim specifically requires that “the first/second signal is supplied to the light source,” it would be obvious to exercise the invention more than a single time, in another environment, directed towards another “object” (i.e. use of the invention to detect an object would not be dependent on objects detected previously by the invention).
Alternatively, Bradley teaches a first signal supplied to a light source irrespective of the information about an object, and a second signal supplied to a light source irrespective of the information about an object (see e.g. at least ¶ 21-23, separately calibrating upper and lower sets of laser scanners before use).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Petit discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute the control method according to claim 10 (Petit: see e.g. at least ¶ 43, Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Petit discloses a moving apparatus comprising the laser radar apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the moving apparatus is configured to hold the laser radar apparatus (Petit: see e.g. at least ¶ 35-37, Fig. 1-2, and related text).
Claims 12-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petit (US 2020/0033474 A1) in view of Thiessen (US 2022/0134940 A1) and further in view of Bradley (US 2019/0056484 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim (US 2024/0046658 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Petit discloses an on-board system comprising the laser radar apparatus according to claim 8 (Petit: e.g. at least laser scanner 101, see e.g. at least Fig. 1-2, and related text, see also rejection of claim 8, above),
Additionally, Lim teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Petit including namely: that an on-board system determines a likelihood of collision between a moving apparatus and an object based on information about the object acquired by a laser radar apparatus (see e.g. at least ¶ 26, 63, 85, 98, Fig. 1-2, and related text).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Petit by configuring that the on-board system determines a likelihood of collision between a moving apparatus and the object based on information about the object acquired by the laser radar apparatus as taught by Lim in order to improve the quality and marketability of a vehicle with an object recognition function and autonomous driving function, user satisfaction, user convenience and vehicle safety, and product competitiveness can be secure (Lim: ¶ 328).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Petit teaches that the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the control apparatus to output a control signal [intended for generating a braking force to the moving apparatus in a case where the control apparatus determines that there is the likelihood of collision between the moving apparatus and the object (Lim: see e.g. at least ¶ 94, 99, Fig. 2, and related text).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Petit teaches that the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the control apparatus to warn a driver of the moving apparatus in a case where it is determined that there is the likelihood of collision between the moving apparatus and the object (Lim: see e.g. at least ¶ 26, 63, 85, 98, Fig. 2, and related text).
Regarding claim 16, Lim teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Petit including namely: that the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the control apparatus to determine a likelihood of collision between the moving apparatus and the object based on information about the object acquired by the laser radar apparatus (see e.g. at least ¶ 26, 63, 85, 98, Fig. 1-2, and related text).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Petit by determining a likelihood of collision between the moving apparatus and the object based on information about the object acquired by the laser radar apparatus as taught by Lim improve the quality and marketability of a vehicle with an object recognition function and autonomous driving function, user satisfaction, user convenience and vehicle safety, and product competitiveness can be secure (Lim: ¶ 328).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Petit teaches that the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the control apparatus to output a control signal to control movement of the moving apparatus in a case where it is determined that there is the likelihood of collision between the moving apparatus and the object (Lim: see e.g. at least ¶ 94, 146, Fig. 2, and related text).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Petit teaches that the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the control apparatus to warn a driver of the moving apparatus in a case where it is determined that there is the likelihood of collision between the moving apparatus and the object (Lim: see e.g. at least ¶ 26, 63, 85, 98, Fig. 2, and related text).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights