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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-12 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claims 1 and 7, they recite the limitation “spaced apart from the second virtual displacement sensor a first spacing” which would be better as spaced apart from the second virtual displacement sensor by a first spacing”.
As per claim 8, it recites the limitation “wherein step of computing” in line 1 which would be better as “wherein the step of computing”.
As per claim 10, it recites the limitation “before step of sending” in line 1 1 which would be better as “before the step of sending.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
3. Claims 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan (US 2019/0039625 A1) in view of Fukuman (US 2016/0116583 A1), further in view of Frucht (US 8842261 B2).
As per Claim 1 and 7, Stefan teaches a computing device/method for virtual environment measurement ([0036], [0067]), comprising:
load an object under detection into the virtual environment, wherein the object under detection corresponds to a physical object in a real environment ([0058] “The definition of a reflection factor 6 is associated with objects present in the virtual test environment.”; [0060] “The reflection factor enables materials to be modeled, which only reflect weakly because of a shape, structure, nature, etc. thereof, for example, some items of clothing.”: objects present in the virtual test environment model real materials such as items of clothing, i.e., the “object under detection” placed in the virtual environment corresponds “to a physical object in a real environment” as claimed); and
make the first virtual displacement sensor send a first distance-measuring signal to the object under detection … to compute a first distance between the first virtual displacement sensor and the object under detection ([0052] “The propagation speed 4 is used to define a delay, after which, at a distance at which the raycast strikes an object, an echo value of the raycast is available in the sensor.”: the raycast emitted by the virtual sensor model is the simulated distance-measuring signal, and the echo value available after the distance-dependent delay computes the distance from the sensor to the struck object). In particular, Stefan teaches a virtual test environment in which a wave-based motor vehicle sensor is modeled as a raycast-emitting avatar placed in the virtual environment, the raycasts striking objects present in the environment and returning echo values from which the distance to the struck object is computed, so that a real sensor may be tested against modeled objects in the virtual environment.
However, Stefan fails to teach explicitly an input-output module, configured to receive a control instruction; a processor, connected with the input-output module and configured to: generate a virtual environment comprising a first virtual displacement sensor and a second virtual displacement sensor, wherein the first virtual displacement sensor is spaced apart from the second virtual displacement sensor a first spacing; according to the control instruction; compute a clean distance between the second virtual displacement sensor and the object under detection based on the first distance and the first spacing; make the second virtual displacement sensor send a second distance-measuring signal to the object under detection to compute a second distance; make a determination that an obstacle exists between the object under detection and the second virtual displacement sensor when the second distance is less than the clean distance; and send a notification message to an electronic device according to the determination that the obstacle exists between the object under detection and the second virtual displacement sensor.
Fukuman teaches an input-output module, configured to receive a control instruction ([0029] “the ECU 10 instructs the first center sensor (active sensor) 21 to transmit the probe wave 25. When the second center sensor (passive sensor) 22 receives the indirect wave 27 that is a reflection of the probe wave 25 from the object 50, the ECU 10 calculates a distance L2 between the second sensor 22 and the object 50 based on the indirect wave 27 that is a reflection of the probe wave 25 from the object 50, “: the ECU instructs the first sensor to transmit the probe wave, the instructed sensor thus receiving the instruction over its connection with the ECU, i.e., an “input-output module” receiving a “control instruction” as claimed);
a processor, connected with the input-output module and configured to: ([0029]: the ECU connected with the instructed sensors, i.e., the “processor” as claimed, performs the calculations recited below);
generate a virtual environment comprising a first virtual displacement sensor and a second virtual displacement sensor, wherein the first virtual displacement sensor is spaced apart from the second virtual displacement sensor a first spacing ([0030] “A distance between an origin O of the coordinate system at which the X-axis and the Y-axis intersect and the first sensor 21 is equal to a distance between the origin O and the second sensor 22, which distances are denoted by d and stored beforehand in the ECU 10. … The second time t2 multiplied by the speed of sound is a sum of the distance L1 between the first sensor 21 and the object 50 and a distance L2 between the second sensor 22 and the object 50. The ECU 10 performs a triangulation calculation using the distance 2d between the first center sensor 21 and the second center sensor 22 and the first time t1 and the second time t2 to calculate the coordinates (x, y) of the object 50.”: a first and a second ranging sensor disposed spaced apart at a known spacing stored beforehand, i.e., the “first spacing” as claimed; in the proposed combination the pair of ranging sensors is modeled as two virtual sensor models generated in Stefan's virtual environment as mapped above);
according to the control instruction ([0029]: the first sensor's transmission of the probe wave is performed as instructed, i.e., “according to the control instruction” as claimed);
compute a clean distance between the second virtual displacement sensor and the object under detection based on the first distance and the first spacing ([0030] “A distance between an origin O of the coordinate system at which the X-axis and the Y-axis intersect and the first sensor 21 is equal to a distance between the origin O and the second sensor 22, which distances are denoted by d and stored beforehand in the ECU 10. … The second time t2 multiplied by the speed of sound is a sum of the distance L1 between the first sensor 21 and the object 50 and a distance L2 between the second sensor 22 and the object 50. The ECU 10 performs a triangulation calculation using the distance 2d between the first center sensor 21 and the second center sensor 22 and the first time t1 and the second time t2 to calculate the coordinates (x, y) of the object 50.”: the second time relation gives the sum of the first distance L1 and the second-sensor-to-object distance L2, so L2 is obtained from the first distance, and the ECU locates the object by the triangulation that uses the stored sensor spacing 2d together with the measured times, i.e., the second sensor's distance to the object is determined based on the first distance and the first spacing, the “clean distance” as claimed); and
make the second virtual displacement sensor send a second distance-measuring signal to the object under detection to compute a second distance ([0031] “Practically, coordinates of an object 50 can be calculated using any combination of adjacent sensors 21-24 in a similar manner based on the principle of triangulation.”; [0029] “The ECU 10 calculates an estimated (relative) position of the object 50 specified by X- and Y-coordinates x, y of the object 50 in a coordinate system defined by an X-axis being a straight line passing through the first and second sensors 21, 22 and a Y-axis being a straight line passing through a median between the first and second sensors 21, 22 and perpendicular to the X-axis.”: each ranging sensor may serve as the transmitting sensor of a pair, so the second sensor likewise sends its own probe wave toward the object and its distance to the object is computed from the received reflection). In particular, Fukuman teaches an electronic control unit that instructs a first ranging sensor to transmit a probe wave, computes the first sensor's distance to the object from the received reflection, computes the second, spaced sensor's distance to the same object from the received indirect reflection and the first distance, and locates the object by triangulation using the sensor spacing stored beforehand, any adjacent pair of the sensors being usable in the same manner.
Stefan and Fukuman are analogous art because they are both related to detection and distance measurement of objects using wave-based ranging sensors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Fukuman into Stefan's invention for the purpose of modeling a motor vehicle sensor in a virtual test environment to provide an object detection apparatus capable of preventing erroneous detection of an object using ranging sensors (Fukuman: [0008]).
However, Stefan as modified by Fukuman fails to teach explicitly make a determination that an obstacle exists between the object under detection and the second virtual displacement sensor when the second distance is less than the clean distance; and send a notification message to an electronic device according to the determination that the obstacle exists between the object under detection and the second virtual displacement sensor.
On the other hand, Frucht teaches make a determination that an obstacle exists between the object under detection and the second virtual displacement sensor when the second distance is less than the clean distance (Col. 10 lines 33-42 “actual scans may be compared to the initial scan, or if desired, to a selected previous scan. Differences in distance measurements to a point p in the area 25 may indicate an intrusion.”: each actual measured distance is compared against the reference distance previously established for the same point, and a difference in the measured distance indicates an intruding object between the range finder and that point; Examiner's Note - an obstacle interposed between the second virtual displacement sensor and the monitored point necessarily returns a measured distance less than the reference distance to that point, so the claimed “when the second distance is less than the clean distance” corresponds to Frucht's detection of a difference of the measured distance from the per-point reference); and
send a notification message to an electronic device according to the determination that the obstacle exists between the object under detection and the second virtual displacement sensor (Col. 10 lines 39-42 “Should such differences be detected between the initial scan or the selected previous scan, then alarm may be provided, via one or both of the input/output device and the communication transceiver.”: upon the intrusion determination an alarm is delivered through the communication transceiver, i.e., a notification message sent to an electronic device according to the determination). In particular, Frucht teaches monitoring an area with a scanning laser range finder by comparing each actual distance measurement against a reference distance recorded for the same point and, upon detecting a difference, declaring an intrusion and delivering an alarm through an input/output device or a communication transceiver.
Stefan, Fukuman, and Frucht are analogous art because they are all related to detection and distance measurement of objects using wave-based ranging sensors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Frucht into Stefan as modified by Fukuman's invention for the purpose of modeling a motor vehicle sensor in a virtual test environment to provide a system which overcome the difficulty of detecting the intruder into a protected area under surveillance (Frucht: Col. 1 lines 65-67, Col. 2 lines 31-35).
As per Claim 2 and 8, Stefan teaches wherein the processor is configured to make the first virtual displacement sensor send the first distance-measuring signal to the object under detection to make a reflection signal be reflected at a light point on the object under detection ([0036] “Raycasts offer a possibility of finding all objects B that are located on a trajectory thereof, which in particular enables coordinates of contact points E between the raycasts and these objects to be found.”; [0053] “The propagation speed 4 can be used for modeling a nature of waves emitted by the sensor (sound, light, electromagnetic, etc.)”: the raycast's contact point on the struck object is the simulated reflection point and, the modeled wave being light, that contact point is a “light point” as claimed) and make the first virtual displacement sensor compute the first distance according to the reflection signal ([0052]: the echo value returned from the contact point is the reflection signal from which the distance is computed).
As per Claim 3 and 9, Stefan fails to teach explicitly wherein the clean distance is a distance between the second virtual displacement sensor and the light point.
Fukuman teaches wherein the clean distance is a distance between the second virtual displacement sensor and the light point ([0029]: the distance L2 runs from the second sensor to the location on the object at which the probe wave is reflected, i.e., to the reflection point, the “light point” as claimed).
As per Claim 8, Stefan teaches wherein step of computing the first distance between the first virtual displacement sensor and the object under detection comprises: sending the first distance-measuring signal by the first virtual displacement sensor to the object under detection to make a reflection signal be reflected at a light point on the object under detection ([0036]; [0053]: the raycast's contact point on the struck object is the reflection point of the modeled light wave); and computing the first distance according to the reflection signal ([0052]: the echo value returned from the contact point computes the distance).
4. Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan (US 2019/0039625 A1) in view of Fukuman (US 2016/0116583 A1), further in view of Frucht (US 8842261 B2) as applied to claims 1-3 and 7-9 above, and further in view of Bridges (US 8472029 B2).
Stefan as modified by Fukuman and Frucht teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1-3 and 7-9 above.
As per Claim 4 and 10, Stefan as modified by Fukuman and Frucht fails to teach explicitly adjust an emission angle of the second virtual displacement sensor based on an intersection angle between a straight line formed by the first virtual displacement sensor and the second virtual displacement sensor and another straight line formed by the second virtual displacement sensor and the light point; and make the second virtual displacement sensor send the second distance-measuring signal to the light point on the object under detection according to the emission angle.
Bridges teaches adjust an emission angle of the second virtual displacement sensor based on an intersection angle between a straight line formed by the first virtual displacement sensor and the second virtual displacement sensor and another straight line formed by the second virtual displacement sensor and the light point (Col. 17 lines 34-46 “Once the information from the locator camera has been used to determine the approximate direction to retroreflector 107, motors 80 and 81 are activated to turn rigid structure 190 until laser beam 153 points in the approximate direction of retroreflector 107.”: the emission direction of the distance-measuring laser beam is adjusted to a computed direction toward the specific target point; Examiner's Note – in the combination the second virtual displacement sensor's position relative to the first is fixed by the first spacing and the light point's position is fixed by the first virtual displacement sensor's measurement, so the computed direction from the second virtual displacement sensor to the light point, taken relative to the straight line through the two sensors, is fixed by the angle between that line and the line to the light point; Bridges supplies adjusting the emission angle of the measuring beam to the computed direction, i.e., adjusting “based on an intersection angle” as claimed); and
make the second virtual displacement sensor send the second distance-measuring signal to the light point on the object under detection according to the emission angle (Col. 17 lines 43-46 “The signals from position detector 341 provide enough information to enable motors 80 and 81 to point rigid structure 190 directly to the center of retroreflector 107.”: the distance-measuring beam, so aimed, is directed to the specific target point per the adjusted emission direction). In particular, Bridges teaches a laser measuring instrument that computes the direction to a specific target point, turns its beam-steering structure until the distance-measuring laser beam points in that direction, and then directs the beam directly to the center of the target for measurement.
Stefan, Fukuman, Frucht, and Bridges are analogous art because they are all related to detection and distance measurement of objects using wave-based ranging sensors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Bridges into Stefan as modified by Fukuman and Frucht's invention for the purpose of modeling a motor vehicle sensor in a virtual test environment to provide an object detection apparatus capable of preventing erroneous detection of an object using ranging sensors (Fukuman: [0008]), to provide a system which overcome the difficulty of detecting the intruder into a protected area under surveillance (Frucht: Col. 1 lines 65-67, Col. 2 lines 31-35), and to provide more accurate pointing of the measuring beam directly to the center of the intended target (Bridges: Col. 16 lines 39-51, Col. 17 lines 44-46).
5. Claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan (US 2019/0039625 A1) in view of Fukuman (US 2016/0116583 A1), further in view of Frucht (US 8842261 B2) as applied to claims 1-3 and 7-9 above, and further in view of Zhang (“Online adaptive measurement and adjustment for flexible part during high precision drilling process”).
Stefan as modified by Fukuman and Frucht teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1-3 and 7-9 above.
As per Claim 5 and 11, Stefan as modified by Fukuman and Frucht fails to teach explicitly generate a third virtual displacement sensor and a fourth virtual displacement sensor in the virtual environment, wherein a second spacing between the third virtual displacement sensor and the fourth virtual displacement sensor is less than a physically adjacent-limit distance between two physical displacement sensors in the real environment.
Zhang teaches generate a third virtual displacement sensor and a fourth virtual displacement sensor in the virtual environment, wherein a second spacing between the third virtual displacement sensor and the fourth virtual displacement sensor is less than a physically adjacent-limit distance between two physical displacement sensors in the real environment (Section 2.1, pg. 3581, left column “The laser curtain of the 2D laser displacement sensor is considered as a virtual rectangle area (denoted by EFIJ in Fig. 1), which is constituted by more than a thousand of virtual laser beams. Each laser beam measures the distance Di from virtual light-emitting point to workpiece surface.”; Section 2.1, pg. 3581, right column “Because of the spacing between two adjacent virtual laser beams is less than 0.008 mm which depends on the resolving precision of the 2D laser displacement sensor”: distance-measuring virtual laser beams are generated from virtual light-emitting points, and the spacing between two adjacent virtual beams is below 0.008 mm, a spacing smaller than the physical housings of two separately mounted displacement sensors permit, so a pair of the virtual beams constitutes the claimed third and fourth virtual displacement sensors at the claimed second spacing; Examiner's Note -“virtual light-emitting point” corresponds to the “virtual displacement sensor” as claimed, each virtual light-emitting point emitting a virtual laser beam that measures a distance). In particular, Zhang teaches decomposing a 2D laser displacement sensor's measurement into more than a thousand virtual laser beams emitted from virtual light-emitting points spaced less than 0.008 mm apart, each beam measuring a distance to the workpiece surface, and computing the surface normal at a drilling point from the distance samples with the deviation tested against an angular tolerance.
Stefan, Fukuman, Frucht, and Zhang are analogous art because they are all related to detection and distance measurement of objects using wave-based ranging sensors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Zhang into Stefan as modified by Fukuman and Frucht's invention for the purpose of modeling a motor vehicle sensor in a virtual test environment to provide an object detection apparatus capable of preventing erroneous detection of an object using ranging sensors (Fukuman: [0008]), to provide a system which overcome the difficulty of detecting the intruder into a protected area under surveillance (Frucht: Col. 1 lines 65-67, Col. 2 lines 31-35), and to provide online surface normal measurement with high precision to improve precision and efficiency (Zhang: Introduction, pg. 3579).
As per Claim 6, Stefan as modified by Fukuman and Frucht teaches make the input-output module send the notification message to the electronic device (Frucht: Col. 10 lines 39-42: the alarm is provided via one or both of the input/output device and the communication transceiver upon the determination, as applied to claim 1 above, the combination's input-output module thus delivering the notification).
However, Stefan as modified by Fukuman and Frucht fails to teach explicitly make the third virtual displacement sensor send a third distance-measuring signal toward the object under detection and compute a third distance; make the fourth virtual displacement sensor send a fourth distance-measuring signal toward the object under detection and compute a fourth distance, wherein a direction that the fourth distance-measuring signal is emitted is parallel to another direction that the third distance-measuring signal is emitted; compute an inclined angle of the object under detection based on a difference between the third distance and the fourth distance; and when the inclined angle is greater than a tolerance value.
Zhang teaches make the third virtual displacement sensor send a third distance-measuring signal toward the object under detection and compute a third distance (Section 2.1, pg. 3581, left column: each virtual laser beam is emitted from its virtual light-emitting point toward the workpiece and measures the distance Di to the surface);
make the fourth virtual displacement sensor send a fourth distance-measuring signal toward the object under detection and compute a fourth distance, wherein a direction that the fourth distance-measuring signal is emitted is parallel to another direction that the third distance-measuring signal is emitted (Section 2.1, pg. 3581, left column; Section 2.1, Eq. 1, pg. 3581: an adjacent virtual laser beam likewise measures its distance, and the virtual beams of the curtain extend from the emitting line at the common installation angle, i.e., in mutually parallel emission directions);
compute an inclined angle of the object under detection based on a difference between the third distance and the fourth distance (Section 2.2, pg. 3583 “After the coordinates of the two sets of intersection points are calculated, cubic polynomial curve fitting is applied to establish the equations of the two spatial curves.”: the two spatial curves are fitted to the intersection-point coordinates fixed by the sampled beam distances, and the slope of a fitted curve is unchanged by any uniform offset of those distances and is therefore fixed by the differences among them, so the surface normal computed from the tangent vectors' cross product is determined by the differences between adjacent sampled distances (i.e., the “inclined angle” computed “based on a difference between the third distance and the fourth distance” as claimed)); and
when the inclined angle is greater than a tolerance value (Section 3.3.1, pg. 3587 “Once the angle deviation between the drill bit axis and the surface normal cannot meet the requirements of the aviation standards, e.g., 0.5° in Airbus or COMAC standards and 2° in Boeing standards, the relative position and orientation of the drill bit and the workpiece needs to be adjusted.”: the computed angle is tested against an express angular tolerance whose exceedance triggers action).
As per Claim 12, Stefan as modified by Fukuman and Frucht teaches sending the notification message by the computing device (Frucht: Col. 10 lines 39-42: the alarm is provided via one or both of the input/output device and the communication transceiver, as applied to claim 7 above, the combination's input-output module of the computing device thus sending the notification).
However, Stefan as modified by Fukuman and Frucht fails to teach explicitly sending a third distance-measuring signal by the third virtual displacement sensor toward the object under detection to compute a third distance; sending a fourth distance-measuring signal by the fourth virtual displacement sensor toward the object under detection to compute a fourth distance, wherein a direction that the fourth distance-measuring signal is emitted is parallel to another direction that the third distance-measuring signal is emitted; computing an inclined angle of the object under detection based on a difference between the third distance and the fourth distance; and when the inclined angle is greater than a tolerance value.
Zhang teaches sending a third distance-measuring signal by the third virtual displacement sensor toward the object under detection to compute a third distance (Section 2.1, pg. 3581, left column);
sending a fourth distance-measuring signal by the fourth virtual displacement sensor toward the object under detection to compute a fourth distance, wherein a direction that the fourth distance-measuring signal is emitted is parallel to another direction that the third distance-measuring signal is emitted (Section 2.1, pg. 3581, left column; Section 2.1, Eq. 1, pg. 3581);
computing an inclined angle of the object under detection based on a difference between the third distance and the fourth distance (Section 2.2, pg. 3583: the fitted-curve slope is fixed by the differences among the sampled distances (i.e., the “inclined angle” computed “based on a difference” as claimed)); and
when the inclined angle is greater than a tolerance value (Section 3.3.1, pg. 3587).
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gao (“The Method of Aiming towards the Normal Direction for Robotic Drilling”) teaches computing an inclined angle of a surface from differences of distance measurements taken at spaced points.
Miyauchi (US 4868720) teaches computing a tipping angle from a difference of two distances measured by two spaced sensors.
Bai (US 8830230 B2) teaches camera-based coverage and occlusion mapping of a monitored environment.
Alaniz (US 2016/0210775 A1) teaches virtual objects and occlusion in a virtual vehicle test environment.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights