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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 09/11/2025. Claims 1-15 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 11-5 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and claims 16-20 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 8-11, filed 09/11/2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim objections, the amendments have rendered the objections moot. Therefore, the prior objections to the claims are withdrawn. However, new objections pursuant to the amended language are presented below.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The amended claim language does not overcome the rejection. It appears that the amended limitation “granting a request to switch the control function of the vehicle between the driver and the control method conditional upon satisfaction of the one or more conditions of operation depending on the driver profile” in claim 1 removes the actively claimed switch of control and changes it to a decision to grant the switch. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained and expanded to include all claims.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previously applied prior art does not appear to disclose all the limitations as amended. However, due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art and further search found that Zheng did disclose the amended claim limitations as mapped in the final office action below.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 contains the spelling error “wherien the generating and updating includes…” should be “wherein the generating and updating includes…”
Claim 15 contains the spelling error “the driver profile inscludes…” should be “the driver profile includes…”
Claim 18 refers to “a required driver state” which should be “the required driver state” to avoid an antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 17 recites the limitation "wherein the updating of the driver profile is performed…" This claim is dependent on claim 1, but the updating is introduced in claim 16. Therefore is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A computer-implemented method for switching a control function of a vehicle between a driver operation and an at least partially automated control method for controlling the vehicle, the method comprising the following steps:
recording a stored driver profile, wherein the driver profile includes a specification of one or more conditions defining a required driver state and/or a required vehicle state and/or a required control method state for granting a request for a switch between the driver operation and the control method;
recording a state of the driver and/or a state of the vehicle and/or a state of the control method; and
granting a request to switch the control function of the vehicle between the driver operation and the control method conditional upon satisfaction of the one or more conditions of the driver profile, which is determined and depending on the recorded state of the driver and/or the state of the vehicle and/or the state of the control method.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (concept performed in the human mind) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. For example, a person could be asked if it was okay to switch the operation of the vehicle, they could then assess the driver based on past ability and current awareness, as well as speed/location of the vehicle, then determine whether the conditions for allowing the switch are met, and verbally grant the request. That agreement is not the same as causing the switch between modes to occur.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated. The claim recites the additional element of “a computer”. This element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 14 and 15 cite the same limitations as that in claim 1, with the exception of adding more generic computer components, and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 9, 12-13, and 17-20 further define characteristics of the system. However, these characteristics do not add limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 5, 7, 10, 11, and 16 recite limitations that include checking, generating, updating, offering, monitoring, recording, and storing which can also be performed in the human mind and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng et al. (US 2019/0187700 A1), hereinafter Zheng.
With respect to claim 1, Zheng discloses a computer-implemented method for switching a control function of a vehicle between a driver operation and an at least partially automated control method for controlling the vehicle, (see at least [0042] “The driving mode switching unit 130 is configured to switch the mode of operation of the vehicle between the autonomous mode 150 and a human-driver mode 160, respectively.”)
the method comprising the following steps: recording a stored driver profile, wherein the driver profile includes a specification of one or more conditions defining a required driver state and/or a required vehicle state and/or a required control method state for granting a request for a switch between the driver operation and the control method; (see at least [0112] “the driver profile 1410 may comprise an alertness score of the driver that may be computed based on prior mode switching operations from autonomous to manual mode, and the corresponding times required by the driver in those switching operations to perform the set of estimated tasks.” Note: The time to switch required by the driver’s alertness is considered one of the conditions.)
recording a state of the driver and/or a state of the vehicle and/or a state of the control method; (see at least [0113] “the response time required to perform the set of estimated tasks may be determined based on physiological information of the driver… a condition of the vehicle (e.g., number of faults in the vehicle) and the like.” [0049] “real-time sensor data that is utilized to determine a current state of the driver of the vehicle”)
and granting a request to switch the control function of the vehicle between the driver and the control method conditional upon satisfaction of the one or more conditions of operation depending on the driver profile, which is determined depending on the recorded state of the driver and/or the state of the vehicle and/or the state of the control method. (see at least Fig. 13, [0101-0102] “the switch risk determiner determines a risk associated in performing the switch… performs a query to determine whether a high risk is associated in transitioning to the human driven mode... if the response to the query in step 1330 is negative… the process generates an A-H switch instruction warning… to instruct the control system of the vehicle to perform the switching operation” [0114] “If the estimated time (TE) is greater than (T)… the risk of switching to the human-driver mode is high.”)
With respect to claim 2, Zheng discloses the switch of the control function of the vehicle between the driver and the control method for controlling the vehicle takes into account a stored conflict situation stored in the user profile that prohibits or requires a switch of the control function between the driver and the control method, wherein the conflict situation corresponds to a predetermined state of the driver and/or a predetermined state of the vehicle and/or a predetermined state of the control method. (see at least [0124] “determine whether the driver is capable of performing any of the above-mentioned tasks. For instance, if it is determined that the driver if the vehicle is completely passed out, the H-A switch risk determiner 1240 may initiate an immediate takeover by the autonomous function” [0107] “Based on the risk associated with the autonomous mode of operation… the A-H switch risk determiner 1230 may determine an amount of time within which a transition to the human mode of operating the vehicle should be made for safety concerns.”)
With respect to claim 4, Zheng discloses the control method executes requests for a takeover of the control function and/or requests for a handover of the control function depending on the driver profile at different states of the vehicle. (see at least [0078] “the determination of such a risk may be based at least on a detected state of the driver, information included in the driver profile, and real-time information pertaining to the vehicle that the driver is operating.” [0107] “the A-H switch risk determiner 1230 determines an amount of time within which the vehicle should transition to the human-driven mode to avoid hazardous scenarios… Based on the risk associated with the autonomous mode of operation.” [0111] “the response time estimator 1430 estimates the amount of time required to perform the tasks based on a current passenger state, a driver profile 1410, and a generic response time profile 1420.”)
With respect to claim 5, Zheng discloses based on a request of the control method for a takeover of the control function that is being executed by the driver, or based on a request for a handover of the control function to the driver that is being executed by the control method, checking whether the required vehicle state is present, and wherein the request for the handover and/or the takeover of the control function is executed conditional upon the presence of the required vehicle state. (see at least [0107] “By one embodiment of the present disclosure, based on a degree/level of risk associated with the current mode… the vehicle should transition to the human-driven mode to avoid hazardous scenarios… a road which is covered with dense fog. In this case, the sensors of the vehicle may not be able to detect vehicles in its vicinity in an accurate manner, and thus it may not be feasible to continue operating the vehicle in the autonomous mode.” Note: It is interpreted that both requests are made automatically and not by the driver, which Zheng discloses with the A-H and H-A switch determiners.)
With respect to claim 6, Zheng discloses depending on the driver profile, at predetermined states of the driver, the control method executes a request to the driver for a takeover of the control function that is being executed by the driver and/or the control method executes a request to the driver for a handover of the control function that is being executed by the control method. (see at least [0124] “the H-A switch risk determiner 1240 observes the current state of the driver to determine whether the driver is capable of performing any of the above-mentioned tasks. For instance, if it is determined that the driver if the vehicle is completely passed out, the H-A switch risk determiner 1240 may initiate an immediate takeover by the autonomous function of the car” [0138] “the H-A switch risk determiner may determine the risk associated in switching from the human driver mode to all the levels of the autonomous mode as shown in FIG. 17B. It must be appreciated that switching to a lower level of autonomous control of the vehicle may require a lesser number of tasks to be performed by the autonomous system of vehicle as compared to switching to the fully autonomous level. However, the lower level of autonomous control may require an increased alertness level of the driver.”)
With respect to claim 7, Zheng discloses based on a request from the control method to the driver for a takeover of the control function of the vehicle that is being executed by the driver, or based on a request from the control method to the driver for a handover of the control function of the vehicle to the driver that is being executed by the control method, checking whether of the required driver state is present, and wherein the request for the handover and/or the takeover of the control function of the vehicle is executed conditional upon presence of the required driver state. (see at least [0109] “Before switching to the manual mode of operation of the vehicle, a determination may be required to verify whether the driver is capable of operating the vehicle. Such determinations may include verifying the pose of the driver, determining an alertness of the driver and the like.” Note: It is interpreted that both requests are made automatically and not by the driver, which Zheng discloses with the A-H and H-A switch determiners.)
With respect to claim 9, Zheng discloses the driver profile specifies a functional limit, wherein the control method, when the functional limit is reached, offers to the driver the handover of the control function of the vehicle that is being executed by the control method. (see at least [0107] “case of the vehicle being driven in the autonomous mode along a road which is covered with dense fog. In this case, the sensors of the vehicle may not be able to detect vehicles in its vicinity in an accurate manner, and thus it may not be feasible to continue operating the vehicle in the autonomous mode… the A-H switch risk determiner 1230 may determine an amount of time within which a transition to the human mode of operating the vehicle should be made for safety concerns.” [0069] “Additionally, there may be certain geographical areas where autonomous driving is prohibited or is deemed unsafe such as acceleration lanes, exit lanes, toll booths, known construction zones, school zones and portions of roadway near such areas.”)
With respect to claim 10, Zheng discloses generating or updating the driver profile, wherein the generating or updating includes performing the following: during operation of the vehicle, based on a request from the control method and/or based on a request from the driver for a switch of the control function, checking whether or not the switch is taking place; (see at least [0113] “the response time required to perform the set of estimated tasks may be determined based on physiological information of the driver (e.g., a current position or pose of the driver), user/driver information (e.g., time required in prior engagement in transition of manual mode of operation, a state of the driver etc.)”)
and storing a prevailing state of the driver and/or a prevailing state of the vehicle and/or a prevailing state of the control method, which was present when the request was made, in the driver profile together with the request from the control method and/or the request from the driver for the switch of the control function, information as to whether or not the switch took place. (see at least [0112] “the driver profile 1410 may comprise an alertness score of the driver that may be computed based on prior mode switching operations from autonomous to manual mode, and the corresponding times required by the driver in those switching operations to perform the set of estimated tasks.” Note: It is interpreted that the term prevailing is meaning current, as there is no support in the specification for the alternate meanings of prevailing.)
With respect to claim 11, Zheng discloses offering, by the control method to the driver, the handover of the control function when a functional limit of the control method is reached; (see at least [0107] “case of the vehicle being driven in the autonomous mode along a road which is covered with dense fog. In this case, the sensors of the vehicle may not be able to detect vehicles in its vicinity in an accurate manner, and thus it may not be feasible to continue operating the vehicle in the autonomous mode… the A-H switch risk determiner 1230 may determine an amount of time within which a transition to the human mode of operating the vehicle should be made for safety concerns.”)
monitoring whether or not the driver accepts the handover; (see at least [0102] “generates an A-H switch instruction warning, which is associated with a set of tasks to be performed by the driver of the vehicle before a successful switch to the human-driven mode of operating the vehicle can occur.”)
and storing information in the user profile based on whether or not the driver has accepted the handover of the control function. (see at least [0112-0113] “the driver profile 1410 may comprise an alertness score of the driver that may be computed based on prior mode switching operations from autonomous to manual mode, and the corresponding times required by the driver in those switching operations… user/driver information (e.g., time required in prior engagement in transition of manual mode of operation, a state of the driver etc.)”)
With respect to claim 12, Zheng discloses at least one of the following parameters is recorded as the prevailing state of the driver:
steering torque by the driver, steering angle by the driver, pressure on the brake pedal by the driver, actuation of the gas pedal by the driver, volume of the driver's voice, movement behavior of the driver including movement behavior of the driver in the case of gesture control, sitting position of the driver, direction of gaze of the driver, number and/or frequency of closing of the driver's eyes, state of health of the driver, state of wakefulness of the driver and/or state of sleep of the driver. (see at least [0049] “information associated with the state of the driver of the vehicle… detecting position, sitting posture… a health of the driver, a functional state of the driver (i.e., whether the driver is drowsy, sleeping or feeling sleepy… an alertness level of the driver”)
With respect to claim 13, Zheng discloses at least one of the following parameters is recorded as the prevailing state of the vehicle: position of the vehicle, road situation in the area of the vehicle, number of lanes of a road in the area of the vehicle, presence of road markings, presence of lane boundaries, weather situation in the area of the vehicle, speed of the vehicle, acceleration of the vehicle in a longitudinal direction and/or in a lateral direction and/or level of the automated control method of the vehicle including level 2 to level 5 of the automated control method. (see at least [0048] “information external to the vehicle such as, a type and condition of the road the vehicle is traversing (e.g., a steepness/slope of the road, speed limits permitted on the road, current vehicular and human traffic on the road, and road surface conditions such as whether the road is slippery), weather information… whether the vehicle is traversing in a restricted zone (e.g., a hospital or a school)” [0074] “It must be appreciated that in order to perform the above stated functions of bringing the vehicle to a complete halt may include processing steps such as determining a current speed of the vehicle, a current lane in which the vehicle is traversing, neighboring traffic, identifying a shoulder region on the road (e.g., a pull-over zone), and gradually bringing the vehicle to a complete halt in a safe manner.”)
With respect to claims 14 and 15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claims 14 and 15 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claims 14 and 15 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to claim 16, Zheng discloses updating the one or more conditions of the driver profile over time based on based on past switching behavior and past driver states and/or a vehicle states and/or a control method states present at respectively associated points of the past switching behavior. (see at least [0112] “the driver profile 1410 may comprise an alertness score of the driver that may be computed based on prior mode switching operations from autonomous to manual mode, and the corresponding times required by the driver in those switching operations”)
With respect to claim 17, Zheng discloses the updating of the driver profile is performed based on whether prior handover or takeover requests were executed, and based on the recorded states at the time of those requests. (see at least [0112-0113] “the driver profile 1410 may comprise an alertness score of the driver that may be computed based on prior mode switching operations from autonomous to manual mode, and the corresponding times required by the driver in those switching operations… user/driver information (e.g., time required in prior engagement in transition of manual mode of operation, a state of the driver etc.)” Note: The alertness score associated with prior switching operations suggests that the driver state is stored to correspond to the alertness level.)
With respect to claim 18, Zheng discloses the one or more conditions define a required driver state for allowing a handover of control from the control method to the driver operation. (see at least [0112] “the driver profile 1410 may comprise an alertness score of the driver… and the corresponding times required by the driver in those switching operations” [0124] “the H-A switch risk determiner 1240 observes the current state of the driver to determine whether the driver is capable of performing any of the above-mentioned tasks.” [0138] “the H-A switch risk determiner may determine the risk associated in switching from the human driver mode to all the levels of the autonomous mode… the lower level of autonomous control may require an increased alertness level of the driver.”)
With respect to claim 19, Zheng discloses the one or more conditions define a required vehicle state for allowing a takeover of control by the control method. (see at least [0107] “By one embodiment of the present disclosure, based on a degree/level of risk associated with the current mode… the vehicle should transition to the human-driven mode to avoid hazardous scenarios… a road which is covered with dense fog. In this case, the sensors of the vehicle may not be able to detect vehicles in its vicinity in an accurate manner, and thus it may not be feasible to continue operating the vehicle in the autonomous mode.”)
With respect to claim 20, Zheng discloses the satisfaction is dependent upon the driver state, and the driver state includes at least one of: steering torque, brake pressure, gaze direction, posture, or voice volume. (see at least [0124] “the H-A switch risk determiner 1240 observes the current state of the driver to determine whether the driver is capable of performing any of the above-mentioned tasks.” [0109] “Before switching to the manual mode of operation of the vehicle, a determination may be required to verify whether the driver is capable of operating the vehicle. Such determinations may include verifying the pose of the driver, determining an alertness of the driver and the like.”)
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peters et al. (US 2023/0124291 A1), hereinafter Peters.
With respect to claim 3, Zheng discloses a mode switching method that utilizes driver profiles and vehicle states, but does not explicitly disclose considering the frequency of the switching requests being associated with the profile.
However, Peters teaches the control method specifies, depending on the driver profile, a frequency of requests from the control method for a switch of the control function between the driver and the control method. (see at least [0017] “In an advantageous further development of the method a new user profile can be created or an existing user profile can be selected, wherein in the user profiles, the frequencies of the change of operating modes, which are respectively associated with the most recently active operating mode and/or the selected operating mode and the trigger that led to the change, are saved in a data field.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Zheng to include the consideration of frequency of switching disclosed in Peters, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the driver with recommendations to improve efficiency when driving, see Peters [0039].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kapuria et al. (US 2019/0339697 A1), hereinafter Kapuria.
With respect to claim 8, Zheng discloses the driver profile is determined in such a way that at least one state of the driver and/or at least one state of the vehicle are recorded when the driver takes over a handover of the control function of the vehicle that is being executed by the control method, and wherein the driver profile is specified depending on the recorded state of the driver and/or depending on the recorded state of the vehicle. (see at least [0109] “Before switching to the manual mode of operation of the vehicle, a determination may be required to verify whether the driver is capable of operating the vehicle. Such determinations may include verifying the pose of the driver, determining an alertness of the driver and the like.”)
Zheng discloses the handover control executed by the vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose the takeover control executed by the driver.
However, Kapuria teaches the driver profile is determined in such a way that at least one state of the driver and/or at least one state of the vehicle are recorded when the driver requests a takeover of the control function of the vehicle that is being executed by the control method (see at least [0076-0079] “At step 502, the handoff query is received by the HCS 106. The query may be manually raised by the driver or may be raised automatically… At step 504, surrounding environment data is captured… Also, collected are driver identification attributes… At step 506, autonomous profile for the vehicle 102 is fetched.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automatic mode switching of Zheng to include the include the driver initiated takeover control disclosed in Kapuria, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the assessment for danger when the driver manually switches the driving mode, see Zheng [0002-0003].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669