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 .
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/03/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Embadi (US 20240053437 hereinafter Embadi) in view of Yamabayashi et al. (US 20130265188 hereinafter Yamabayashi).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 12-15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Embadi (US 20240053437 hereinafter Embadi) in view of Yamabayashi et al. (US 20130265188 hereinafter Yamabayashi).
Regarding claim 1, Embadi teaches A multi-radar positioning system, comprising (Abstract “Fine beamforming is performed on the calibrated radars”):
a first radar (fig 4), detecting a first object and a second object to respectively obtain a first coordinate and a second coordinate on a first coordinate system (fig 4 [shows 2 radars detecting N landmarks. Each radar’s detection corresponds to its coordinate system]);
a second radar, detecting the first object and the second object to respectively obtain a third coordinate and a fourth coordinate on a second coordinate system different from the first coordinate system (fig 4 [shows 2 radars detecting N landmarks. Each radar’s detection corresponds to its coordinate system]); and
a controller (0160 “As used herein, the term “processor” is not limited merely to those integrated circuits referred to in the art as a processor, a mobile processor, or a microprocessor, but broadly refers to a microcontroller, a microcomputer, a programmable logic controller,”), communicatively coupled to the first radar and the second radar and configured to: estimate a first candidate coordinate and a second candidate coordinate of the second radar on the first coordinate system according to the third coordinate and the fourth coordinate (fig 4 [18 different coordinate are calculated as illustrated in the figure]; 0107 “Based on the coarse beamforming from the first radar 304, the location 420 of the landmark 410 in the first radar's 304 coordinate can be defined as (R.sub.11, θ.sub.11, Φ.sub.11). Based on the coarse beamforming from the second radar 306, the location 422 of the landmark 410 in the second radar's 306 coordinate can be defined as (R.sub.21, θ.sub.21, Φ.sub.21). The location (x, y, z) of the second radar 306 can be calculated based on the following conversion formulas 1-3:”; 0106 “landmark 410 may comprise identifiable objects such as traffic signs, trees, buildings, or other distinguishable features. Such landmarks may be naturally occurring or intentionally placed into the environment to facilitate calibration.”; 0110 “By calibrating the radars 304 and 306 with higher quantities of landmarks and/or higher iterations of a single landmark can reduce (or average out) noise in the estimation of the (x, y, z) location.”);
(0016 “calculating the second radar's location based on the reference location, the first location of the landmark, and the second location of the landmark)
output the first radar coordinate (0016 “calculating the second radar's location based on the reference location, the first location of the landmark, and the second location of the landmark.”; 0017 “the techniques described herein relate to a radar system, wherein the instructions, when executed to calibrate the first radar and the second radar”).
Embadi does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Yamabayashi teaches select a first radar coordinate of the second radar from the first candidate coordinate and the second candidate coordinate according to the first coordinate and the second coordinate (claim 12 “wherein among two, first and second candidate locations of the plurality of candidate locations calculated by the candidate location calculating module, the selecting module selects the first candidate location as the location of the radar device”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Yamabayashi with the teachings of Embadi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously produce accurate results (Yamabayashi 0023). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Yamabayashi merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular calibration steps for a radar system. Since both Yamabayashi and Embadi disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: detect a third object through the first radar to obtain a fifth coordinate on the first coordinate system (Embadi fig 4); detect the third object through the second radar to obtain a sixth coordinate on the second coordinate system (Embadi fig 4); and select the first candidate coordinate as the first radar coordinate according to the fifth coordinate and the sixth coordinate (Yamabayashi claim 12 “wherein among two, first and second candidate locations of the plurality of candidate locations calculated by the candidate location calculating module, the selecting module selects the first candidate location as the location of the radar device”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Yamabayashi with the teachings of Embadi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously produce accurate results (Yamabayashi 0023). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Yamabayashi merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular calibration steps for a radar system. Since both Yamabayashi and Embadi disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Embadi teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 2, wherein the controller is further configured to:
Embadi does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Yamabayashi teaches calculate a first distance between the first candidate coordinate and the fifth coordinate (claim 14 “the representative relative azimuth of at least one of the plurality of transponder devices, and the selecting module selects the closest candidate location to the estimate location among the calculated plurality of candidate locations as the location of the radar device.”); obtain a second distance between the sixth coordinate and the second radar (Abstract “The radar device includes a representative distance calculating module for calculating a representative distance from the radar device to the transponder device based on the response waves that are continuous over a predetermined azimuth angle range”); and select the first candidate coordinate as the first radar coordinate, in response to the first distance being equal to the second distance (0023 “selecting module may select the closest candidate location to the estimate location among the calculated plurality of candidate locations as the location of the radar device.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Yamabayashi with the teachings of Embadi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously produce accurate results (Yamabayashi 0023). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Yamabayashi merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular calibration steps for a radar system. Since both Yamabayashi and Embadi disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: obtain a first vector from the first candidate coordinate to the first coordinate; obtain a second vector from the first candidate coordinate to the second coordinate (Yamabayashi 0117 “A line segment connecting between the two candidate locations P(x, y) and P'(x, y) (hereinafter, abbreviated as "PP'") and a line segment connecting between the two racon positional information R.sub.1(x.sub.1, y.sub.1) and R.sub.2(x.sub.2, y.sub.2) (hereinafter, abbreviated as "R.sub.1R.sub.2") are orthogonal to each other in any case and latitude lines and longitude lines thereof are also orthogonal to each other in any case.”); obtain a first angle of arrival according to the third coordinate (0107 “Based on the coarse beamforming from the first radar 304, the location 420 of the landmark 410 in the first radar's 304 coordinate can be defined as (R.sub.11, θ.sub.11, Φ.sub.11)”); obtain a second angle of arrival according to the fourth coordinate (0107 “Based on the coarse beamforming from the second radar 306, the location 422 of the landmark 410 in the second radar's 306 coordinate can be defined as (R.sub.21, θ.sub.21, Φ.sub.21).”);
Embadi does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Yamabayashi teaches select the first candidate coordinate as the first radar coordinate according to the first vector, the second vector, the first angle of arrival, and the second angle of arrival Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Yamabayashi with the teachings of Embadi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously produce accurate results (Yamabayashi 0023). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Yamabayashi merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular calibration steps for a radar system. Since both Yamabayashi and Embadi disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Embadi teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: obtain a first angle of arrival according to the first coordinate (0107 “the location 420 of the landmark 410 in the first radar's 304 coordinate can be defined as (R.sub.11, θ.sub.11, Φ.sub.11).”); obtain a second angle of arrival according to the third coordinate; obtain a first included angle formed by a second radar coordinate of the first radar, the first coordinate, and the first radar coordinate (0107 “Based on the coarse beamforming from the second radar 306, the location 422 of the landmark 410 in the second radar's 306 coordinate can be defined as (R.sub.21, θ.sub.21, Φ.sub.21)”); calculate a second included angle according to the first angle of arrival, the second angle of arrival, and the first included angle, wherein the second included angle indicates an included angle between a first lateral direction of the first radar and a second lateral direction of the second radar; and output the second included angle (0026 “calculating the second radar's location further includes determining a relative distance and orientation between the first radar and the second radar based on the first location of the landmark and the second location of the landmark, and applying the determined relative distance and orientation to calibrate the first radar and the second radar.”).
Regarding claim 9, Embadi teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 6, wherein the controller is further configured to: update a count value stored in the controller according to the second included angle (0110 “In another embodiment, a single landmark may be used to increase the accuracy of radars 304, 306, by calibrating the radars 304, 306 with the single landmark 410 over a specific number of iterations.”).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, claim 6 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 6. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 9. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 9.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Embadi (US 20240053437 hereinafter Embadi) in view of Yamabayashi et al. (US 20130265188 hereinafter Yamabayashi) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Garcia (US 20080252527).
Regarding claim 5, Embadi teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 4,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Garcia teaches
wherein the controller is further configured to: rotate the first vector according to the first angle of arrival to obtain a third vector (0195 “For all coordinates, rotate by angle alpha will cause the following: for an object with polar representation such as range=R, azimuth=theta, new polar representation becomes range=R, azimuth=theta-alpha”); rotate the second vector according to the second angle of arrival to obtain a fourth vector (0195 “For all coordinates, rotate by angle alpha will cause the following: for an object with polar representation such as range=R, azimuth=theta, new polar representation becomes range=R, azimuth=theta-alpha”); calculate a first included angle between the third vector and the fourth vector; and select the first candidate coordinate as the first radar coordinate (0192 “Compare with real walking direction provided by compass heading angle 2, obtain rotation angle of pseudo coordinate system alpha: alpha=angle 2-angle 1.”), in response to an absolute value of the first included angle corresponding to the first candidate coordinate being smaller than an absolute value of a second included angle corresponding to the second candidate coordinate (0200 “Heading change=Heading(new)-Heading(previous). If Heading change exceeds preset threshold, the second condition in said turning detection is satisfied.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Garcia with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve coverage area (Garcia 0445). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Garcia merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular localization features. Since both the cited prior art and Garcia disclose similar localization systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Embadi teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 9, further comprising: a third radar, communicatively coupled to the controller, wherein the controller is further configured to (0104 “In another embodiment, a plurality of radars may be strategically positioned on vehicular platform 302”): obtain a second radar coordinate of the third radar on the second coordinate system (0013 “The radar network is calibrated by setting the first radar as a reference point, and calculating the location of the second radar with respect to the first radar based on the first and second estimates of the location of the landmark.”); (0026 “determining a relative distance and orientation between the first radar and the second radar based on the first location of the landmark and the second location of the landmark, and applying the determined relative distance and orientation to calibrate the first radar and the second radar.”).
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Garcia teaches
rotate the second radar coordinate according to the count value (0194 “Rotate the entire coordinate system by alpha to match the real orientation with "north", hence we obtain the real coordinate system 710”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Garcia with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve coverage area (Garcia 0445). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Garcia merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular localization features. Since both the cited prior art and Garcia disclose similar localization systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Embadi (US 20240053437 hereinafter Embadi) in view of Yamabayashi et al. (US 20130265188 hereinafter Yamabayashi) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bilik et al. (US 20180284220 hereinafter Bilik).
Regarding claim 11, Embadi teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a first distance between the first object and the second radar according to the third coordinate (0108 “R is the distance between the landmark 410 and the appropriate radar (e.g., radar 304, radar 306), θ is the elevation azimuth angle, and ϕ is the elevation angle. In an embodiment, (x,y,z) is the relative location of the first radar 304 and second radar 306.”); determine a second distance between the second object and the second radar according to the fourth coordinate (0107 “in the second radar's 306 coordinate can be defined as (R.sub.21, θ.sub.21, Φ.sub.21).”); and determine that a fifth coordinate is one of the first candidate coordinate and the second candidate coordinate (fig 4 [N landmarks]; 0107 “in the second radar's 306 coordinate can be defined as (R.sub.21, θ.sub.21, Φ.sub.21).”),
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Bilik teaches
in response to a third distance between the fifth coordinate and the first coordinate on the first coordinate system being equal to the first distance and a fourth distance between the fifth coordinate and the second coordinate being equal to the second distance (Bilik 0026 “When the target reflector 210 is located on the perpendicular bisector 214 (i.e., when the perpendicular bisector 214 passes through the center 208 of the sphere), the radial lines 220 and 222 are equal in length to each other. FIG. 2 shows the target reflector 210 located on the perpendicular bisector 214. Thus, the lengths of these radial lines 220 and 222 are both the same and are indicated as R.sub.1.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Bilik with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously produce accurate results (Bilik 0023). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Bilik merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular calibration steps for a radar system. Since both Bilik and the cited prior art disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 7-8, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Embadi (US 20240053437 hereinafter Embadi) in view of Yamabayashi et al. (US 20130265188 hereinafter Yamabayashi) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Koppelaar et al. (US 20230152435 hereinafter Koppelaar).
Regarding claim 7, Embadi teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 6,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Koppelaar teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: calculate the second included angle according to a difference between a sum of the first angle of arrival and the first included angle and the second angle of arrival in response to the first angle of arrival being greater than 90 degrees (0094 “The response can be denoted with a vector: a.sub.1=a(θ.sub.1). When at least two antenna elements have a distance ≤λ/2, and the DoA angle θ may be between −90 and 90 degrees, any two single target responses will be different and therefore the DoA angle of a single target response can be unambiguously determined”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Koppelaar with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve processing capabilities (Koppelaar 0104). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Koppelaar merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular candidate features for a radar system. Since both the cited prior art and Koppelaar disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Embadi teaches The multi-radar positioning system according to claim 6,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Koppelaar teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: calculate a first difference between the first angle of arrival and the first included angle and calculate the second included angle according to a second difference between the first difference and the second angle of arrival, in response to the first angle of arrival being less than or equal to 90 degrees (0094 “The response can be denoted with a vector: a.sub.1=a(θ.sub.1). When at least two antenna elements have a distance ≤λ/2, and the DoA angle θ may be between −90 and 90 degrees, any two single target responses will be different and therefore the DoA angle of a single target response can be unambiguously determined”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Koppelaar with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve processing capabilities (Koppelaar 0104). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Koppelaar merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular candidate features for a radar system. Since both the cited prior art and Koppelaar disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, claim 7 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 8.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Alon (US PAT 6225942) discloses “The invention is a method for radar registration by determining initially unknown azimuth and range biases (errors) in a system of multiple, overlapping coverage radars. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on (571) 270-5144. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights