DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is responsive to the communication filed on 05/14/2026 & 05/05/2026.
The claims filed during the supplementary amendment dated 05/14/2026 are under examination. Accordingly, the claims 1-2, 4, & 6-16 are pending, of which the claims 1, 8, 9, & 16 is/are in independent form.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification/Claim Interpretation
1) The received amendment to the specification is acceptable.
2) In light of the received amendments to the claims (to remove the language caused to interpret accordance to 112(f)), the outstanding claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101
The outstanding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 of claims 1, & 10-13 are rendered moot in light of the latest amendments made to these claims. Therefore, claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 – 9 & 16 allowed. The claims 8- 9 were previously indicated as allowable. The newly added claim 16 recites similar allowable subject matter.
As to claim 16, the limitation of “wherein the plurality of monitoring targets comprises a transport path along which at least one of a workpiece as a product or a pallet is conveyed, wherein the sensor node is conveyed along the transport path from a beginning to an end of manufacturing the at least one of a workpiece as a product or a pallet and obtains the sensor data at different positions along the plurality of monitoring targets” when viewed together with remaining limitations of the claim is novel and non-obvious over prior arts of the record.
Response to Arguments
I) Not-Persuasive Arguments
As to claim 1,
Note: Examiner recommends to remove “at least one of (i) a plurality of facilities or” from the claim limitation of “wherein the plurality of monitoring targets comprises at least one of (i) a plurality of facilities or (ii) a transport path along which at least one of a workpiece as a product or a pallet is conveyed” to overcome the rejection as discussed during the interview.
As to claim 1, applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Cobb and Matsuzoe fail to teach “wherein the plurality of monitoring targets comprises at least one of (i) a plurality of facilities or (ii) a transport path along which at least one of a workpiece as a product or a pallet is conveyed,
wherein the sensor node is conveyed along the transport path and obtains the sensor data at different positions along the plurality of monitoring targets, and wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to specify, based on the sensor data, a location at which the abnormality occurrence or the symptom is detected” as required by claim 1.
Applicant contends that Matsuzoe does not disclose or suggest that its rail (6) is a production transport path used to convey a physical workpiece or pallet or a plurality of facilities, as required in independent claim….Neither Cobb nor Matsuzoe, taken alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the limitations of amended claim 1. Matsuzoe fails to teach or suggest a system that conveys a sensor node along a transport path along with a workpiece or a pallet to monitor a sensor data to detect the occurrence of an abnormality along with the location of the abnormality in the facility, as defined in amended claim 1.
See Remarks, pages 14- 15.
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments against the claim 1. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Office relied on Cobb to teach a production facility having multiple machines 120 having a sensor (like camera 120) and can read on claimed “facilities” under BRI. These machines 120 or subsections of the machines 120s are analogous to Matusuzoe’ areas underneath sensor 8 while traveling along the rail 6 as shown in fig. 9A.
Matsuzoe teaches as shown in fig. 3 & 9s, a movable sensor 8 (“sensor unit 8 is attached to the traveling path 48 so as to be movable in the Y direction.”) for capturing data at pluralities of the monitoring targets (sections). The claim 1 covers every possible types of the monitoring targets including machines and sections of the machines (like area underneath of the rail 6 where the sensor 8 moves). When one of the sensor/camera of the Cobb is made movable as in Matsuzoe (to save cost in Cobb’s system), its movable camera sensor can capture data from multiple sections of a single machine or multiple machines 120 that are located under the movable rail 6. Cobb clearly teaches “the anomaly detection server generates a “heat map” showing in which location (or station) the anomaly was detected” in para. 039.
Secondly, Matsuzoe clearly shows its sensor 8 can be conveyed along the rail 6. The rail 6 can be also utilized to covey another moving elements depending on users’ need and the weight handling capacity of the rail 6 and the weight of the camera 8. Furthermore, since the claim covers every possible types of the “workpiece as a product” can be conveyed along the transport path, even the outside cover of the sensor 8 of Matsuzoe reads on claimed “workpiece as a product” and meets the requirement of the claim 1.
Finally, please note that “manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior arts”, MPEP 2114 (II). Thus, the “transport path” also being used to convey “at least one of a workpiece as a product or a pallet” does not make Matsuzoe’s transport path different than claimed “transport path” used to convey the sensor node 8.
Accordingly, the combination of Cobb and Matsuzoe clearly teaches the disputed limitations under BRI. Applicant’s arguments against claim 1 deemed not persuasive.
I) Persuasive Arguments:
Claims 8- 9: As to claims 8- 9, examiner agrees with applicant’s arguments set forth in page 17 under Allowable Subject Matter.
Claim 16: As to claim 16, examiner agrees with applicant’s arguments set forth in page 10 of the Remarks filed on 05/14/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, & 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb et al. (US 20220321585 A1, filing date: 2021-03-31) in view of Matsuzoe ( JP 2017035025 A). Cobb and Matsuzoe are references of record.
Regarding claim 1, Cobb teaches a facility state monitoring system [“example environment 100 for anomaly detection”] comprising:
[a] a sensor node [one or more of “Sensors 121, 122, 123, and 124 are configured to capture machine condition data” or a camera] including a sensor [one or more of the sensor s121-125 installed in the machine 120 of fig. 1] configured to output, as sensor data, data indicating a state of at least one of a plurality of monitoring targets [“multiple machines may be used in a specific order”] of a production facility [“within an assembly line”] to be monitored, a communication unit [network interface that allows to transmit data of the sensor to the detection server 110] configured to transmit the sensor data,
the sensor node being commonly [“machine condition data is captured at least partially using one or more cameras that monitor the condition of machines and thereby capture the physical state of the machines.” Thus, using one camera, state of multiple machines is being detected as part of the “machine condition data”] used for the plurality of the monitoring targets ([024]);
a receiver [network interface such as “network components 350” of the server 110 when the computer 310 is used to implement the server 110] configured to receive the sensor data transmitted from the communication unit (Fig. 1, [056]); and
one or more processors and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (Fig. 1 shows the server 110 having a processor and memory)
receive the sensor data [“detection server 110 also causes processor 111 to receive 430 a plurality of monitoring analysis vectors associated with the monitored machine “] received by the receiver ([057),
learn, as learning data, normal states of the monitoring targets based on normal sensor data corresponding to normal operations of the monitoring targets ([031, 057]), and
in response to the receiver receiving the sensor data transmitted from the sensor node after learning, compare states of the monitoring targets indicated by the sensor data with the learning data, thereby to detect an abnormality [“identify at least one discrepancy indicating an anomalous state in the monitored machine”] occurrence or symptom in the monitoring targets ([024, 057-058]);
…
wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to specify, based on the sensor data, a location [“the anomaly detection server generates a “heat map” showing in which location”] at which the abnormality occurrence or the symptom is detected ([039, 047]).
Cobb teaches a sensor node (like a camera 125) receiving sensor data and transmitting the sensor data to the detection server 110 using communication network. Cobb further teaches using a sensor to capture condition of multiple machines [“machine condition data is captured at least partially using one or more cameras that monitor the condition of machines and thereby capture the physical state of the machines”] ([024]). However, Cobb fails to teach how its single camera is able to perform its functions of “monitor the condition of machines and thereby capture the physical state of the machines.” Thus, Cobb may not teach:
(1) a power supply unit configured to supply power to the sensor;
(2) wherein the plurality of monitoring targets comprises at least one of (i) a plurality of facilities or (ii) a transport path along which at least one of a workpiece as a product or a pallet is conveyed, wherein the sensor node is conveyed along the transport path and obtains the sensor data at different positions along the plurality of monitoring targets.
Matsuzoe relates to a collecting sensor data from the pluralities of the monitoring targets “with a small number of sensors” 8 of a production facility [“environmental control system”, e.g., “in the plant factory 1… planter 2”, analogous to Cobb’s “in manufacturing and production environments.” of para. 019], and to transmit the collected information to a server with processor [“The control apparatus 10 controls”, fig. 8] for processing (Abstract, Figs. 1, 7-9, [006, 023, 044]). More specifically, Matsuzoe teaches a facility state monitoring system comprising:
a sensor node [“a movable sensor unit 8 is disposed on the rail 6”, analogous to camera 125 of Cobb’s fig. 1] including a sensor [“sensor unit 8 includes a sensor unit 37”] configured to output, as sensor data, data indicating a state of at least one of a plurality of monitoring targets [“a plurality of sections in the direction of the traveling path”] of a production facility to be monitored, a communication unit configured to transmit [“communication unit 41 has a function of transmitting sensor information to the outside”] the sensor data, and a power supply unit [“the sensor unit 8 includes a sensor unit 37, a drive control unit 38, a control unit 39, a power supply unit 40, a communication unit 41,”] configured to supply power to the sensor and the communication unit, the sensor node being commonly used for the plurality of the monitoring targets ([008, 032-039, 042], Fig. 3/9A),
wherein the plurality of monitoring targets comprises at least one of (i) a plurality of facilities [“the planter 2 is divided into a plurality of sections A to F in the longitudinal direction (Y direction),” in figs. 9s of the planter 2 being monitored by the movable sensor 8] or (ii) a transport path along which at least one of a workpiece as a product or a pallet is conveyed, wherein the sensor node is conveyed [“the sensor unit 8 is movably supported on the traveling path provided along the planter 2,”] along the transport path and obtains the sensor data at different positions along the plurality of monitoring targets [“the planter 2 is divided into a plurality of sections A to F in the longitudinal direction”, “it is possible to control the environment of the planter 2 for each of a plurality of sections in the direction of the running path”. Please note that the claim covers every possible product or workpiece. Claim does not require monitoring across transport path. Even the outside cover/skin of the sensor 8 can be called a workpiece as a product under BRI. Also how the claimed apparatus used does not change the apparatus itself to provide patentable weight—MPEP 2114 (II) ] ([042, 056, 071-072, 075]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Matsuzoe and Cobb because they both related to a single sensor/camera data to capture data from multiple targets and (2) modify the sensor node (e.g., camera 125) of Cobb to include a power supply unit thereon and also make the sensor node movable along the monitoring targets (sections of the monitored machines of Cobb) using a moving rail as in Matsuzoe. Doing so would allow to operate the camera/sensor of the Cobb without having to receive operating power from the machines 120. Furthermore, doing so would allow to use fewer sensors/cameras to monitor the “entire process spanning multiple machines” thereby saving cost on how many sensors need to be used in Cobb’s assembly line (Cobb, [041] & Matsuzoe [042]). Additionally, Matsuzoe teaches missing details for Cobb about how (using movable camera and embedded power supply) its single camera/sensor can be used to monitor data of multiple machines/targets (see, para. 024 of Cobb). Accordingly, Cobb in view of Matsuzoe combines to teach each limitation and renders invention of this claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 2, Cobb in view of Matsuzoe further teaches the facility state monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor node conveyed along the transport path either (i) as a conveyed object [the movable sensor/camera 125 of Matsuzoe along the rail 6 can substitute some workpiece that also can be travelled along that path] substituting for the at least one of the workpiece or the pallet, or (ii) attached to the at least one of the workpiece or the pallet conveyed along the transport path (Matsuzoe, [071-072], Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Cobb in view of Matsuzoe teaches/suggests the facility state monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to detect the abnormality occurrence or symptom in the plurality of facilities [In combination of Cobb and Matsuzoe, sections of the area underneath the sensor 8 can be moved along the rail 6 can be called facilities (machines 20) under BRI since claimed facilities cover every possible types of the facilities] provided from the beginning to the end of manufacturing of the product in the production facility as the monitoring targets (Cobb, fig .1, Matsuzoe [072, 082]).
Regarding claim 13, Cobb in view of Matsuzoe further teaches the facility state monitoring system according to claim 1, comprising: a storage unit [“memory 112,”] configured to be communicable with the sensor node, wherein the storage unit is configured to receive the sensor data and store the sensor data in association with information corresponding to the reception time of the sensor data (Cobb [048] & Matsuzoe [056]).
Regarding claim 14, Cobb in view of Matsuzoe further teaches the facility state monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor node includes a composite sensor provided with a plurality of the sensors; and wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform a composite [checking multiple parameters such as humidity, temperature, force etc.] processing by using the sensor data output from the sensors and to detect the abnormality occurrence or symptom in the monitoring targets (Cobb Fig. 3 & Matsuzoe, [035]).
Regarding claim 15, Cobb in view of Matsuzoe further teaches the facility state monitoring system according to claim 14, wherein the sensor node includes: a plurality of wireless sensor substrates including at least one of a plurality of the sensors; the communication unit disposed on at least one of the wireless sensor substrates [the housing where “temperature sensor 44, a humidity sensor 45, and a CO 2 sensor 46” are attached on the sensor unit 37]; and the power supply unit having a polyhedral shape (interpreted as having a 3D shape like a cub per dictionary meaning) [“power supply unit 40 has a function of supplying electric power” means it is a solid 3D structure], wherein the sensor node has a polyhedral shape in which the wireless sensor substrates are disposed on one or more of faces of the polyhedral shape of the power supply unit (Cobb Fig. 1; Matsuzoe Fig. 6, 9 [034- 035, 038]).
Claim(s) 10- 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb in view of Matsuzoe, and further in view of Sasaki et al (US 20210096532 A1, reference of record). The combination of Cobb, Matsuzoe, and Sasaki is referred as CMS hereinafter.
Regarding claim 10, Cobb in view of Matsuzoe further teaches/suggests the facility state monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: (server 12, fig. 1);
learn [“processor is also configured to apply the training analysis vectors to a machine learning model to create a trained machine learning model”], as learning data, at least one of a characteristic part and chronological data included in the sensor data for each component in each of the monitoring targets based on the sensor data corresponding to the normal operation of the monitoring target ([0008, 057]);
store [storage used to store “deemed to be sufficiently trained” model]a model of the learning data ([037]).
While Cobb in view of Matsuzoe teaches its server 110 to calculate the abnormality by comparing the received sensor data with the learned data to output a detection result (Cobb, para. 041), it still does not teach determining of a quantized degree of deviation from the learning data as claimed. Thus, Cobb in view of Matsuzoe fails to teach the detection unit to include:
calculate, in response to the receiver receiving the sensor data transmitted from the sensor node after the learning, an abnormality degree as a quantized degree of deviation from the learning data in at least one of the characteristic part and chronological data represented by the sensor data; and compare the abnormality degree with a predetermined threshold value to thereby detect the abnormality occurrence or symptom in the monitoring targets, and to output a detection result but this deficiency is cured by Sasaki.
Sasaki relates to using a monitoring device (computer 2 of fig. 1) for detecting a sign of malfunction in the monitored mechanical equipment 1 based on the data captured by one or more sensors 10 (Fig. 1, [001]) Specifically, Sasaki teaches a facility state monitoring system [“malfunction prediction apparatus 2 includes a controller 20”, analogous to Cobb’s anomaly detection server 110] comprising a processor to receive the sensor data, wherein the processor to (Fig. 1, [046]);
learn, as learning data [“the learning data 303 is a data set of the feature value data 302 generated from collection data”], at least one of a characteristic part and chronological data included in the sensor data [“collection portion 201 collects sensor data from the sensor group 10”] for each component in each of the monitoring targets based on the sensor data corresponding to the normal operation of the monitoring target [“mechanical equipment 1”] ([056-058]);
calculate [“A calculation portion 205 calculates a deviation degree 306 from the normal state of the mechanical equipment 1”], in response to the receiver receiving the sensor data transmitted from the sensor node after the learning, an abnormality degree [“deviation degree”] as a quantized degree of deviation from the learning data in at least one of the characteristic part and chronological data represented by the sensor data; and compare [“In the case where all of calculated deviation degrees are equal to or greater than a determination threshold, determines that there is a sign of malfunction”] the abnormality degree with a predetermined threshold value to thereby detect [“there is a sign of malfunction”] the abnormality occurrence or symptom in the monitoring targets, and to output a detection result ([062-065, 088-089]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Sasaki and Cobb in view of Matsuzoe because they both related to state detection server learning the sensor data of the monitored target to identify abnormalities and (2) modified the Cobb in view of Matsuzoe’s server to include missing limitations as in Sasaki. The motivation for doing so would be to increase precision of abnormality determination in the system of Cobb in view of Matsuzoe (Sasaki, [0110]). Furthermore, doing so would allow to evaluate by how much the condition of the monitored machines of the Cobb have changed from the start of the use or from the previous maintenance operation(s) (Sasaki [090]).
Regarding claim 11, CMS further teaches the facility state monitoring system according to claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: calculate, as the abnormality degree, a subsequently assumed abnormality degree in addition to a current abnormality degree at which the sensor data is received; and detect the abnormality occurrence based on the current abnormality degree and to detect the abnormality symptom based on the subsequently assumed abnormality degree (Cobb [047], Sasaki [088-089]).
Regarding claim 12, CMS further teaches the facility state monitoring system according to claim 10, comprising: a display device configured to display a detection result that is detected based on execution of the instructions by the one or more processors (Cobb [047] & Sasaki [069]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb in view of Matsuzoe, and further in view of Sakuma (JP 2001317687 A, Publication Date: 2001-11-16, reference of record). The combination of Cobb, Matsuzoe, and Sakuma is referred as CMS2 hereinafter.
Regarding claim 6, Cobb in view of Matsuzoe teaches the facility state monitoring system according to claim 2, wherein the sensor node includes a camera to capture sensor data (Cobb [024]). Cobb in view of Matsuzoe’s camera is exposed to the wind but fails to discuss how it can solve the problem of camera/sensor shaking/vibration due to wind exposing on the moving sensor (modified camera of Cobb).
Thus, Cobb in view of Matsuzoe fails to teach wherein the sensor node is configured to have a center of gravity at a position lower than a physical center of the sensor node in a vertical direction as a vibration suppression structure to suppress vibrations different from vibrations of the monitoring targets.
Sakuma relates to a sensor node (camera 22) being attached with a structure (“tripod holder”) that prevents shaking of the sensor node while using the sensor node (Abstract, fig. 1). Specifically, Sakuma teaches a system comprising a sensor node including a sensor [“camera 22”] configured to output, as sensor data, data indicating a state of a facility as a monitoring target to be monitored (Fig. 1), wherein the sensor node is configured to have a center of gravity at a position lower [“the center of gravity of the camera tripod 1 is positioned downwards”] than a physical center of the sensor node in a vertical direction as a vibration suppression structure to suppress vibrations different from vibrations of the monitoring targets (page 5, claim 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Sakuma and Cobb in view of Matsuzoe because they both related to using a movable sensor node to capture sensor data and (2) modified the sensor node of Cobb in view of Matsuzoe to have a center of gravity at a position lower than a physical center of the sensor node in a vertical direction as a vibration suppression structure to suppress vibrations different from vibrations of the monitoring targets as in Sakuma. Doing so would prevent problem of vibration due to wind or the like causing camera/sensor shake (Sakuma, page 5). Accordingly, the combination of Cobbe, Matsuzoe, and Sakuma (CMS2) teach each element of the claim and renders invention thereof obvious to PHOSITA.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Cobb in view of Matsuzoe, and further in view of Tsun et al. (US 20020078986 A1, reference of record).
Regarding claim 7, Cobb in view of Matsuzoe teaches the facility state monitoring system includes the sensor node susceptible to vibration since it is movable type as discussed above.
However, Cobb in view of Matsuzoe fails to teach wherein the sensor node includes a vibration suppression structure to suppress vibrations different from vibration of the monitoring targets, and wherein the vibration suppression structure includes a through-hole penetrating the sensor node in a direction corresponding to a direction of a wind flowing against the sensor node.
Tsun relates to a umbrella cover for wind-stable umbrella. Specifically, Tsun teaches a sensor node includes a vibration suppression structure to suppress vibrations
different from vibration of the monitoring targets, and wherein the vibration suppression structure includes a through-hole [“allowing the wind to blow through the wind passage 54”] penetrating the sensor node in a direction corresponding to a direction of a wind flowing against the sensor node ([022-024]).
Both Tsun and CMS2 are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving area, namely minimizing the shaking with blowing air to a moving body. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor node of the Cobb in view of Matsuzoe by incorporating a through-hole penetrating the sensor node in a direction corresponding to a direction of a wind flowing against the sensor node as in Tsun and to obtain the invention as specified in the claim. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow the strong wind impacting on the moving sensor node of the Cobb in view of Matsuzoe to quickly move out from impacting the movable sensor node thereby minimizing unitability that can be caused by the blowing air (Tsun [024]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Mattingly (US 20180114415 A1) teaches arrays of sensors are movable relative to a pallet 104 and/or products positioned on the pallet ([019]).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights