DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/465,653 filed on 09/12/2023.
Claims 1-2 and 4-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 08/18/2026.
This action is made NON-FINAL in response to the RCE filed by the Applicant on 08/18/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, lines 2-3, “based at least in part an expected time” should read “based at least in part on an expected time”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11-12, 18-22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0016331 A1) in view of Münning (DE 102021203484 B3).
Regarding Claim 1:
Carlson teaches:
A method comprising: stopping, by one or more processors, an autonomous vehicle at a parking location;, (See (Carlson: Field – 1st paragraph and Detailed Description – 21st and 100th-105th paragraphs))
determining, by the one or more processors, a lateral distance between the autonomous vehicle and a road edge at the parking location;, (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 30th-31st, 36th, 42nd-45th, and 70th paragraphs))
sampling, by the one or more processors, a plurality of points, each of the plurality of points corresponding to a respective candidate parking location at a different distance from the road edge; determining, by the one or more processors, for each of the plurality of points, a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle to reach the respective candidate parking location; selecting, by the one or more processors, one of the determined trajectories; and maneuvering, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle closer to the road edge using the selected one of the determined trajectories., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 23rd-32nd, 37th-46th, 51st-57th, 60th-66th, and 71st-77th paragraphs))
Carlson does not teach but Münning teaches:
based on determining that the lateral distance exceeds a threshold lateral distance from the road edge,, (“The invention relates to a method for creating a guidance trajectory for a first motor vehicle. […] it can be at least essentially avoided that the first motor vehicle runs over the edge of the road in the route section.” (Münning: Description) Münning further mentions “Furthermore, the invention relates to a method for operating a motor vehicle […] This ensures that only those movement trajectories are made available by the motor vehicle for the electronic computing device which can be further used by the electronic computing device to determine the guidance trajectory for the other motor vehicle.” (Münning: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carlson with these above aforementioned teachings from Münning in order to create an effective system for managing parking maneuvers for autonomous vehicles. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Carlson’s system for programming complex parking maneuvers for driverless vehicles with Münning’s method for creating a guidance trajectory for a first motor vehicle, controlling a motor vehicle, and operating a motor vehicle in order to determine driving trajectories for an autonomous vehicle based on a comparison of a distance to a threshold maximum distance. Combining Carlson and Münning would thus provide “a solution which enables a motor vehicle to be safely controlled in a lane when only a single lane boundary is detected, without the motor vehicle driving over the lane boundary detected.” (Münning: Description)
Regarding Claim 2:
Carlson in view of Münning, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the lateral distance includes determining a lateral distance between the road edge and a tire of the autonomous vehicle that is (i) farthest from the road edge and (ii) on a side of the autonomous vehicle that is oriented towards the road edge., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 30th-31st, 36th, 42nd-45th, and 67th-71st paragraphs, FIG. 1 and 6))
Regarding Claim 4:
Carlson in view of Münning, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of points is sampled from a minimum distance from the road edge, (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 23rd-30th, 37th-42nd, 51st-57th, 60th-66th, and 69th-71st paragraphs))
Carlson does not teach but Münning teaches:
[…] to the threshold lateral distance from the road edge., (“The invention relates to a method for creating a guidance trajectory for a first motor vehicle. […] it can be at least essentially avoided that the first motor vehicle runs over the edge of the road in the route section.” (Münning: Description) Münning further mentions “Furthermore, the invention relates to a method for operating a motor vehicle […] This ensures that only those movement trajectories are made available by the motor vehicle for the electronic computing device which can be further used by the electronic computing device to determine the guidance trajectory for the other motor vehicle.” (Münning: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carlson with these above aforementioned teachings from Münning in order to create an effective system for managing parking maneuvers for autonomous vehicles. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Carlson’s system for programming complex parking maneuvers for driverless vehicles with Münning’s method for creating a guidance trajectory for a first motor vehicle, controlling a motor vehicle, and operating a motor vehicle in order to determine driving trajectories for an autonomous vehicle based on a comparison of a distance to a threshold maximum distance. Combining Carlson and Münning would thus provide “a solution which enables a motor vehicle to be safely controlled in a lane when only a single lane boundary is detected, without the motor vehicle driving over the lane boundary detected.” (Münning: Description)
Regarding Claim 5:
Carlson in view of Münning, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising enabling, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to engage a set of planning behaviors, and wherein the sampling is in response to engaging the set of planning behaviors., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 21st-32nd, 37th-48th, and 60th-71st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 6:
Carlson in view of Münning, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein engaging the set of planning behaviors includes switching from a forward planning system of the autonomous vehicle to a maneuver planning system of the autonomous vehicle in order to determine the determined trajectories., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 21st-32nd, 37th-48th, and 60th-71st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 7:
Carlson in view of Münning, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein engaging the set of planning behaviors includes enabling a forward planning system of the autonomous vehicle to plan trajectories that allow for maneuvers in reverse., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 21st-32nd, 37th-48th, and 60th-71st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 9:
Carlson in view of Münning, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the set of planning behaviors include constraints for reducing distance maneuvered in an adjacent driving lane., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 30th-31st, 36th, 42nd-45th, and 70th paragraphs, FIG. 5A-8))
Regarding Claim 11:
Carlson in view of Münning, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the set of planning behaviors include constraints for reducing distance maneuvered in reverse., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 21st-32nd, 37th-48th, and 60th-71st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 12:
Carlson in view of Münning, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Carlson does not teach but Münning teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the selecting the one of the determined trajectories is based on a shortest distance between the road edge and a point of the plurality of points for the determined trajectory., (“The invention relates to a method for creating a guidance trajectory for a first motor vehicle. […] it can be at least essentially avoided that the first motor vehicle runs over the edge of the road in the route section.” (Münning: Description) Münning further mentions “Furthermore, the invention relates to a method for operating a motor vehicle […] This ensures that only those movement trajectories are made available by the motor vehicle for the electronic computing device which can be further used by the electronic computing device to determine the guidance trajectory for the other motor vehicle.” (Münning: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carlson with these above aforementioned teachings from Münning in order to create an effective system for managing parking maneuvers for autonomous vehicles. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Carlson’s system for programming complex parking maneuvers for driverless vehicles with Münning’s method for creating a guidance trajectory for a first motor vehicle, controlling a motor vehicle, and operating a motor vehicle in order to determine driving trajectories for an autonomous vehicle based on a comparison of a distance to a threshold maximum distance. Combining Carlson and Münning would thus provide “a solution which enables a motor vehicle to be safely controlled in a lane when only a single lane boundary is detected, without the motor vehicle driving over the lane boundary detected.” (Münning: Description)
Regarding Claim 18:
Carlson in view of Münning, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Carlson does not teach but Münning teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising, discarding a second of the determined trajectories from the determined trajectories based on whether the second of the determined trajectories extends more than a threshold distance into an adjacent driving lane., (“The invention relates to a method for creating a guidance trajectory for a first motor vehicle. […] it can be at least essentially avoided that the first motor vehicle runs over the edge of the road in the route section.” (Münning: Description) Münning further mentions “Furthermore, the invention relates to a method for operating a motor vehicle […] This ensures that only those movement trajectories are made available by the motor vehicle for the electronic computing device which can be further used by the electronic computing device to determine the guidance trajectory for the other motor vehicle.” (Münning: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carlson with these above aforementioned teachings from Münning in order to create an effective system for managing parking maneuvers for autonomous vehicles. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Carlson’s system for programming complex parking maneuvers for driverless vehicles with Münning’s method for creating a guidance trajectory for a first motor vehicle, controlling a motor vehicle, and operating a motor vehicle in order to determine driving trajectories for an autonomous vehicle based on a comparison of a distance to a threshold maximum distance. Combining Carlson and Münning would thus provide “a solution which enables a motor vehicle to be safely controlled in a lane when only a single lane boundary is detected, without the motor vehicle driving over the lane boundary detected.” (Münning: Description)
Regarding Claim 19:
Carlson teaches:
A system comprising: one or more processors configured to: stop an autonomous vehicle at a parking location;, (See (Carlson: Field – 1st paragraph and Detailed Description – 21st and 100th-105th paragraphs))
determine a lateral distance between the autonomous vehicle and a road edge at the parking location;, (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 30th-31st, 36th, 42nd-45th, and 70th paragraphs))
sample a plurality of points corresponding to parking locations at various distances from the road edge; determine for each of the plurality of points, a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle; select one of the determined trajectories; and maneuver the autonomous vehicle closer to the road edge using the selected one of the determined trajectories., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 23rd-32nd, 37th-46th, 51st-57th, 60th-66th, and 71st-77th paragraphs))
Carlson does not teach but Münning teaches:
based on determining that the lateral distance exceeds a threshold lateral distance from the road edge,, (“The invention relates to a method for creating a guidance trajectory for a first motor vehicle. […] it can be at least essentially avoided that the first motor vehicle runs over the edge of the road in the route section.” (Münning: Description) Münning further mentions “Furthermore, the invention relates to a method for operating a motor vehicle […] This ensures that only those movement trajectories are made available by the motor vehicle for the electronic computing device which can be further used by the electronic computing device to determine the guidance trajectory for the other motor vehicle.” (Münning: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carlson with these above aforementioned teachings from Münning in order to create an effective system for managing parking maneuvers for autonomous vehicles. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Carlson’s system for programming complex parking maneuvers for driverless vehicles with Münning’s method for creating a guidance trajectory for a first motor vehicle, controlling a motor vehicle, and operating a motor vehicle in order to determine driving trajectories for an autonomous vehicle based on a comparison of a distance to a threshold maximum distance. Combining Carlson and Münning would thus provide “a solution which enables a motor vehicle to be safely controlled in a lane when only a single lane boundary is detected, without the motor vehicle driving over the lane boundary detected.” (Münning: Description)
Regarding Claim 20:
Carlson in view of Münning, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 19. Carlson further teaches:
The system of claim 19, further comprising the vehicle., (See (Carlson: Field – 1st paragraph and Detailed Description – 21st paragraph))
Regarding Claim 21:
Carlson in view of Münning, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: filtering the plurality of points to remove any points that would cause the autonomous vehicle to collide with another object., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 40th, 46th-48th, and 75th paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 22:
Carlson in view of Münning, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the threshold lateral distance from the road edge comprises, (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 30th-31st, 36th, 42nd-45th, and 70th paragraphs))
Carlson does not teach but Münning teaches:
[…] a maximum permitted lateral distance between the autonomous vehicle and the road edge., (“The invention relates to a method for creating a guidance trajectory for a first motor vehicle. […] it can be at least essentially avoided that the first motor vehicle runs over the edge of the road in the route section.” (Münning: Description) Münning further mentions “Furthermore, the invention relates to a method for operating a motor vehicle […] This ensures that only those movement trajectories are made available by the motor vehicle for the electronic computing device which can be further used by the electronic computing device to determine the guidance trajectory for the other motor vehicle.” (Münning: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carlson with these above aforementioned teachings from Münning in order to create an effective system for managing parking maneuvers for autonomous vehicles. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Carlson’s system for programming complex parking maneuvers for driverless vehicles with Münning’s method for creating a guidance trajectory for a first motor vehicle, controlling a motor vehicle, and operating a motor vehicle in order to determine driving trajectories for an autonomous vehicle based on a comparison of a distance to a threshold maximum distance. Combining Carlson and Münning would thus provide “a solution which enables a motor vehicle to be safely controlled in a lane when only a single lane boundary is detected, without the motor vehicle driving over the lane boundary detected.” (Münning: Description)
Regarding Claim 24:
Carlson in view of Münning, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of points are sampled along the road edge at various distances between the road edge and a reference point on the autonomous vehicle., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 23rd-32nd, 37th-46th, and 51st-57th paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 25:
Carlson in view of Münning, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 24. Carlson further teaches:
The method of claim 24, wherein determining, by the one or more processors, for each of the plurality of points, a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle comprises setting each sampled point as a destination to plan a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle to reach each sampled point., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 23rd-32nd, 37th-46th, 51st-57th, and 93rd paragraphs))
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0016331 A1) in view of Münning (DE 102021203484 B3) in further view of Li (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0122005 A1).
Regarding Claim 8:
Carlson in view of Münning, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Carlson further teaches:
[…] spent in an adjacent driving lane., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 30th-31st, 36th, 42nd-45th, and 70th paragraphs, FIG. 5A-8))
Carlson in view of Münning does not teach but Li teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the set of planning behaviors include constraints for reducing time, (See (Li: Detailed Description – 74th-75th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carlson in view of Münning with these above aforementioned teachings from Li in order to create an efficient system for managing parking maneuvers for autonomous vehicles. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Carlson’s system for programming complex parking maneuvers for driverless vehicles with Li’s autonomous driving under user instructions and hailing methods in order to enable an autonomous vehicle to engage a set of planning behaviors including constraints for reducing time. Combining Carlson and Li would thus enable “a user to navigate an autonomous vehicle easily and intuitively.” (Li: Background – 5th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 10:
Carlson in view of Münning, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Carlson further teaches:
[…] maneuvering in reverse., (See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 21st-32nd, 37th-48th, and 60th-71st paragraphs))
Carlson in view of Münning does not teach but Li teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the set of planning behaviors include constraints for reducing time spent, (See (Li: Detailed Description – 74th-75th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Carlson in view of Münning with these above aforementioned teachings from Li in order to create an efficient system for managing parking maneuvers for autonomous vehicles. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Carlson’s system for programming complex parking maneuvers for driverless vehicles with Li’s autonomous driving under user instructions and hailing methods in order to enable an autonomous vehicle to engage a set of planning behaviors including constraints for reducing time. Combining Carlson and Li would thus enable “a user to navigate an autonomous vehicle easily and intuitively.” (Li: Background – 5th paragraph)
Comment on the Closest Prior Art References
Claims 13-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 23 has been allowed over the closest prior art.
The allowable subject matter in claim 13 includes determining for a determined trajectory a cost based at least in part on an expected time spent in an adjacent driving lane.
The allowable subject matter in claim 14 includes determining for a determined trajectory a cost based at least in part an expected time spent maneuvering in reverse.
The allowable subject matter in claim 15 includes determining for a determined trajectory a cost based at least in part on an expected distance driven in an adjacent driving lane.
The allowable subject matter in claim 16 includes determining for a determined trajectory a cost based at least in part on an expected distance driven in reverse.
The allowable subject matter in claim 17 includes determining for a determined trajectory a cost based at least in part on whether that determined trajectory extends more than a threshold distance into an adjacent driving lane.
The allowable subject matter in claim 23 includes determining for a determined trajectory a cost based at least in part on a shortest distance between the road edge and a point of the plurality of points for the determined trajectory.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on August 18th, 2026 with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the limitations are taught in the combination of Carlson and Münning as has been set forth above, contrary to the Applicant’s assertions. Therefore, the Applicant’s amendments and arguments are insufficient to overcome these prior art rejections.
Considering independent claim 1, See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 23rd-32nd, 37th-46th, 51st-57th, 60th-66th, and 71st-77th paragraphs) In doing so, Carlson addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “sampling, by the one or more processors, a plurality of points, each of the plurality of points corresponding to a respective candidate parking location at a different distance from the road edge; determining, by the one or more processors, for each of the plurality of points, a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle to reach the respective candidate parking location; selecting, by the one or more processors, one of the determined trajectories; and maneuvering, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle closer to the road edge using the selected one of the determined trajectories” as set forth by the Applicant in claim 1.
Considering independent claim 19, See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 30th-31st, 36th, 42nd-45th, and 70th paragraphs) In doing so, Carlson addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “determine a lateral distance between the autonomous vehicle and a road edge at the parking location” as set forth in claim 19. Furthermore, Münning mentions “The invention relates to a method for creating a guidance trajectory for a first motor vehicle. […] it can be at least essentially avoided that the first motor vehicle runs over the edge of the road in the route section.” (Münning: Description) Münning further mentions “Furthermore, the invention relates to a method for operating a motor vehicle […] This ensures that only those movement trajectories are made available by the motor vehicle for the electronic computing device which can be further used by the electronic computing device to determine the guidance trajectory for the other motor vehicle.” (Münning: Description) In doing so, Münning addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “based on determining that the lateral distance exceeds a threshold lateral distance from the road edge” as set forth in claim 19. Finally, See (Carlson: Detailed Description – 23rd-32nd, 37th-46th, 51st-57th, 60th-66th, and 71st-77th paragraphs). In doing so, Carlson addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “sample a plurality of points corresponding to parking locations at various distances from the road edge; determine for each of the plurality of points, a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle; select one of the determined trajectories; and maneuver the autonomous vehicle closer to the road edge using the selected one of the determined trajectories” as set forth in claim 19. As a result, the combination of Carlson and Münning addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “determine a lateral distance between the autonomous vehicle and a road edge at the parking location; based on determining that the lateral distance exceeds a threshold lateral distance from the road edge, sample a plurality of points corresponding to parking locations at various distances from the road edge; determine for each of the plurality of points, a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle; select one of the determined trajectories; and maneuver the autonomous vehicle closer to the road edge using the selected one of the determined trajectories” as set forth by the Applicant in claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights