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 arguments/remarks filed on June 9, 2026.
Claims 3 and 17 have been canceled.
Claims 21-22 have been added.
Claims 1-2, 4-16, and 18-22 are pending in the application and have been examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 11, and 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rao et al. (US 20220120886 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rao teaches an apparatus, comprising circuitry configured to:
obtain a random delay for an emission of a frame of multiple radar pulses (Rao, [0040] “ In a first frame N, the chirp signals 430A-M are transmitted at fixed intervals based on the chirp period Tc, and the period TF of the frame N is dithered with a frame dither ΔF(N), such that the length of time from the start of frame N to the start of frame N+1 is TF+ΔF(N) … but the period TF of the frame N+1 is dithered with a second frame dither ΔF(N+1)”): and
control a radar sensor to start the emission of the frame at a point in time delayed by the random delay ( Rao [0042] “ In the subsequent frame N+1 with the same period TF, the slope-dithered chirps 460A-N are transmitted at fixed intervals based on the chirp period Tc and have a slope S plus a second slope dither Ψ(N+1)”.),
wherein each radar pulse of the frame is shifted by the random delay relative to a respective nominal emission time such that a relative timing among the radar pulses within the frame is maintained (Rao [0040] “In a second frame N+1, the chirp signals 435A-M are transmitted at the same fixed intervals based on the chirp period Tc as in the first frame N”).
Regarding claim 2, Rao teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Rao further teaches:
wherein a length of the random delay (Rao [0051] “20 interfering radar systems were used to compare the cumulative distribution function 520 for an inter-frame dithering technique with a dither of plus or minus one microsecond and the cumulative distribution function 510 for an intra-frame dithering technique with a dither of plus or minus 3.75 microseconds.”) is less than a duration of a pulse repetition interval of a radar pulse of the multiple radar pulses (Rao [0051] “In this example, a frame of 256 chirps were transmitted in a frame period TF of approximately 6.4 milliseconds with a chirp period Tc of approximately 25 microseconds.”).
Regarding claim 4 Rao teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Rao further teaches:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
obtain a second, different random delay for an emission of a second frame of multiple radar pulses (Rao [0040] “but the period TF of the frame N+1 is dithered with a second frame dither ΔF(N+1)”): and
control the radar sensor to start the emission of the second frame at a point in time delayed by the second, different random delay (Rao [0040] “such that the length of time from the start of frame N+1 to the start of frame N+2 is TF+ΔF(N+1)”),
wherein each radar pulse of the second frame is shifted by the second, different random delay relative to a respective second nominal emission time such that a relative timing among the radar pulses within the second frame is maintained (Rao Fig. 4B, elements 435A-435M, which are all evenly spaced in time by Tc.).
Regarding claim 5 Rao teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Rao further teaches:
wherein the circuitry is configured to control the radar sensor to start an emission of a second frame of multiple radar pulses at a point in time delayed by a second random delay (Rao [0040] “In a second frame N+1, the chirp signals 435A-M are transmitted at the same fixed intervals based on the chirp period Tc as in the first frame N, but the period TF of the frame N+1 is dithered with a second frame dither ΔF(N+1)”).
Regarding claim 6, Rao teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Rao further teaches:
wherein the circuitry is configured to:
for each of a plurality of frames of the multiple radar pulses, obtain a respective random delay for an emission of said each frame (Rao [0040] “In a first frame N, the chirp signals 430A-M are transmitted at fixed intervals based on the chirp period Tc, and the period TF of the frame N is dithered with a frame dither ΔF(N), such that the length of time from the start of frame N to the start of frame N+1 is TF+ΔF(N). In a second frame N+1, the chirp signals 435A-M are transmitted at the same fixed intervals based on the chirp period Tc as in the first frame N, but the period TF of the frame N+1 is dithered with a second frame dither ΔF(N+1), such that the length of time from the start of frame N+1 to the start of frame N+2 is TF+ΔF(N+1).” Examiner notes that “N”, “N+1”, etc, imply any number of frames in total.); and
control the radar sensor to emit each of the plurality of frames based on the respective random delay (Rao [0028] “During normal operation, linear frequency chirps are transmitted, and reflected signals are received.”, further, Rao Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 7, Rao teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Rao further teaches:
a processor (Rao [0025] “In this example, radar system 100 includes a radar sensor circuit 160, a central processor unit (CPU) 110”); and
a memory coupled to the processor with instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor (Rao [0052] “The process 600 is performed by a processing unit executing instructions stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium such as a static random access memory (SRAM).”), enable the apparatus to:
obtain radar data indicating an echo of the emitted frame: and (Rao [0025] “A baseband processor 190 amplifies and filters the received signals that are reflected from objects in the path of the transmitted chirp signals.”)
detect a presence or a motion of a target based on the radar data (Rao [0026] “Received reflections are then mixed with the transmitted chirp signal to produce a received beat signal, which will give the distance, velocity, and angle of arrival for the target object after signal processing.”).
Regarding claim 11, Rao teaches a radar system, comprising the apparatus of claim 1. Rao further teaches:
the radar sensor, wherein the radar sensor comprises at least one antenna configured to emit the frame radar pulse at the delayed point in time (Rao [0025] “Radar sensor circuit 160 includes a transmitter 170 that drives an antenna array 175 of one or more transmitter (TX) antennas.”).
Regarding claim 14, Rao teaches the apparatus of claim 11. Rao further teaches:
The radar system of claim 11, wherein the radar sensor is a pulsed Doppler radar sensor (Rao [0028] “A Doppler FFT is then performed for each range bin across all the chirps in a frame to estimate the velocities of reflected targets.”).
Regarding claim 15, Rao teaches a method, comprising:
obtaining a random delay for an emission of a frame of multiple radar pulses (Rao [0040] “In a first frame N, the chirp signals 430A-M are transmitted at fixed intervals based on the chirp period Tc, and the period TF of the frame N is dithered with a frame dither ΔF(N), such that the length of time from the start of frame N to the start of frame N+1 is TF+ΔF(N). In a second frame N+1, the chirp signals 435A-M are transmitted at the same fixed intervals based on the chirp period Tc as in the first frame N, but the period TF of the frame N+1 is dithered with a second frame dither ΔF(N+1), such that the length of time from the start of frame N+1 to the start of frame N+2 is TF+ΔF(N+1).”); and
controlling a radar sensor to start the emission of the frame at a point in time delayed by the random delay, wherein each radar pulse of the frame is shifted by the random delay relative to a respective nominal emission time such that a relative timing among the radar pulses within the frame is maintained (Rao Fig. 4B, elements 435A-435M, which are all evenly spaced in time by Tc.).
Regarding claim 16, Rao teaches the method of claim 15. Rao further teaches:
wherein a length of the random delay (Rao [0051] “20 interfering radar systems were used to compare the cumulative distribution function 520 for an inter-frame dithering technique with a dither of plus or minus one microsecond and the cumulative distribution function 510 for an intra-frame dithering technique with a dither of plus or minus 3.75 microseconds.”) is less than a duration of a pulse repetition interval of a radar pulse of the multiple radar pulses (Rao [0051] “In this example, a frame of 256 chirps were transmitted in a frame period TF of approximately 6.4 milliseconds with a chirp period Tc of approximately 25 microseconds.”).
Regarding claim 18, Rao teaches the method of claim 15. Rao further teaches:
obtaining a second, different random delay for an emission of a second frame of multiple radar pulses (Rao [0040] “but the period TF of the frame N+1 is dithered with a second frame dither ΔF(N+1)”); and
controlling the radar sensor to start the emission of the second frame at a point in time delayed by the second, different random delay, (Rao [0040] “such that the length of time from the start of frame N+1 to the start of frame N+2 is TF+ΔF(N+1)”)
wherein each radar pulse of the second frame is shifted by the second, different random delay relative to a respective second nominal emission time such that a relative timing among the radar pulses within the second frame is maintained (Rao Fig. 4B, elements 435A-435M, which are all evenly spaced in time by Tc.).
Regarding claim 19, Rao teaches the method of claim 15. Rao further teaches:
wherein controlling the radar sensor comprises controlling the radar sensor to start an emission of a second frame of multiple radar pulses at a point in time delayed by the second random delay (Rao [0040] “In a second frame N+1, the chirp signals 435A-M are transmitted at the same fixed intervals based on the chirp period Tc as in the first frame N, but the period TF of the frame N+1 is dithered with a second frame dither ΔF(N+1)”).
Regarding claim 20, Rao teaches an apparatus comprising:
a processor (Rao [0025] “In this example, radar system 100 includes a radar sensor circuit 160, a central processor unit (CPU) 110”); and
a memory coupled to the processor with instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, enable the apparatus to (Rao [0052] “The process 600 is performed by a processing unit executing instructions stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium such as a static random access memory (SRAM).”):
obtain a random delay for an emission of a frame of multiple radar pulses (Rao [0040] “In a first frame N, the chirp signals 430A-M are transmitted at fixed intervals based on the chirp period Tc, and the period TF of the frame N is dithered with a frame dither ΔF(N), such that the length of time from the start of frame N to the start of frame N+1 is TF+ΔF(N). In a second frame N+1, the chirp signals 435A-M are transmitted at the same fixed intervals based on the chirp period Tc as in the first frame N, but the period TF of the frame N+1 is dithered with a second frame dither ΔF(N+1), such that the length of time from the start of frame N+1 to the start of frame N+2 is TF+ΔF(N+1).”); and
control a radar sensor to start an emission of the frame at a point in time delayed by the random delay, wherein each radar pulse of the frame is shifted by the random delay relative to a respective nominal emission time such that a relative timing among the radar pulses within the frame is maintained (Rao Fig. 4B, elements 435A-435M, which are all evenly spaced in time by Tc.).
Regarding claim 21, Rao teaches the apparatus of claim 20. Rao further teaches:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further enable the apparatus to:
obtain a second, different random delay for an emission of a second frame of multiple radar pulses (Rao [0040] “but the period TF of the frame N+1 is dithered with a second frame dither ΔF(N+1)”); and
control the radar sensor to start the emission of the second frame at a point in time delayed by the second, different random delay (Rao [0040] “such that the length of time from the start of frame N+1 to the start of frame N+2 is TF+ΔF(N+1)”),
wherein each radar pulse of the second frame is shifted by the second, different random delay relative to a respective second nominal emission time such that a relative timing among the radar pulses within the second frame is maintained (Rao Fig. 4B, elements 435A-435M, which are all evenly spaced in time by Tc.).
Regarding claim 22, Rao teaches the apparatus of claim 20. Rao further teaches:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further enable the apparatus to:
for each of a plurality of frames of multiple radar pulses, obtain a respective random delay for an emission of said frame; and (Rao [0040] “In a first frame N, the chirp signals 430A-M are transmitted at fixed intervals based on the chirp period Tc, and the period TF of the frame N is dithered with a frame dither ΔF(N), such that the length of time from the start of frame N to the start of frame N+1 is TF+ΔF(N). In a second frame N+1, the chirp signals 435A-M are transmitted at the same fixed intervals based on the chirp period Tc as in the first frame N, but the period TF of the frame N+1 is dithered with a second frame dither ΔF(N+1), such that the length of time from the start of frame N+1 to the start of frame N+2 is TF+ΔF(N+1).” Examiner notes that “N”, “N+1”, etc, imply any number of frames in total.)
control the radar sensor to emit each of the plurality of frames based on the respective random delay (Rao [0028] “During normal operation, linear frequency chirps are transmitted, and reflected signals are received.”, further, Rao Fig. 4B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Rao et al. (US 20220120886 A1), hereinafter Rao, in view of Wang et al. (US 20210263145 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 8, Rao discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through:
The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further enable the apparatus to detect the presence or the motion of the target (Rao [0026] “Received reflections are then mixed with the transmitted chirp signal to produce a received beat signal, which will give the distance, velocity, and angle of arrival for the target object after signal processing.”)
Rao fails to disclose the limitations below. Wang discloses:
if a predefined number of consecutive frames of the radar data indicate the presence or the motion of the target (Wang [0003] "The radar system determines that at least one object is present within one of the lateral bins responsive to a quantity of consecutive frames having detections within the lateral bin being equal to a threshold.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Wang into the invention of Rao. Both Rao and Wang are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose FMCW radar methods involving the processing of frames of pulses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Rao to as taught by Wang. This would involve application of the processing method involving consecutive object detections to Rao, as Rao does not disclose specific methods of object detection from the processed data. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the apparatus in order to improve radar resistance to false detections, or to change radar sensitivity to smaller objects (See Wang [0003-0004], [0082-0084]).
Regarding claim 9, Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 7. Rao further teaches [Note: what is not clearly taught is strike-through]:
The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further enable the apparatus to detect the presence or the motion of the target (Rao [0026] “Received reflections are then mixed with the transmitted chirp signal to produce a received beat signal, which will give the distance, velocity, and angle of arrival for the target object after signal processing.”)
Rao does not disclose the limitation below. Wang teaches:
if at least a predefined number of frames from a further predefined number of consecutive frames indicate the presence or the motion of the target (Wang [0004] " Responsive to the quantity of consecutive frames with detections being greater than or equal to a threshold, the method includes determining that at least one object is present within the at least one lateral bin.", further Wang [0003] “The threshold can also be dynamically adjusted based on a speed of the moving platform and/or a speed of the object.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Wang into the invention of Rao. Both Rao and Wang are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose FMCW radar methods involving the processing of frames of pulses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Rao to as taught by Wang. This would involve application of the processing method involving consecutive object detections to Rao, as Rao does not disclose specific methods of object detection from the processed data. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the apparatus in order to improve radar resistance to false detections, and to change the number of consecutive frames required in order to detect objects of varying velocities and sizes (See Wang [0020-0021], [0082-0084]).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Rao et al. (US 20220120886 A1), hereinafter Rao, in view of Yoshimura et al. (US 2009/0066561 A1), hereinafter Yoshimura.
Regarding claim 10, Rao discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Rao further discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to determine the random delay (Rao [0056] “At step 635, the chirp controller 120 determines a random frame dither ΔF(N) between negative ΔF(max) and positive ΔF(max).”) (Yoshimura [0040] “The dither section 12 generates the dither clock in such a manner that the dither clock jitter forms a predetermined probability distribution (including the case of being probabilistically equal) within the specified period.”).
Rao fails to disclose the limitations below. Yoshimura discloses:
using a random value generator with a uniform probability distribution (Yoshimura [0040] “The dither section 12 generates the dither clock in such a manner that the dither clock jitter forms a predetermined probability distribution (including the case of being probabilistically equal) within the specified period.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Yoshimura into the invention of Rao. Both Rao and Yoshimura are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose dithering methods for radars. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Rao to use a uniform probability distribution to select a frame delay value as taught by Yoshimura. Rao suggests this, as it defines a delay between two values, and a uniform distribution between said two values is merely a design choice. Alternatives would include any other statistical distribution such as a Gaussian or Lorentzian. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the apparatus in order to use a normal distribution in order to prevent any particular dithering value from having a higher value than any other, as identical timings increase the probability of interference (See Yoshimura [0040], [0042], [0031-0032]).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Rao et al. (US 20220120886 A1), hereinafter Rao, in view of McMahon et al. (US 2018/0081030 A1), hereinafter McMahon.
Regarding claim 12, Rao teaches the radar system of claim 11. Rao fails to teach the limitations below. McMahon teaches:
the radar sensor comprises a crystal oscillator configured to output a clock signal; and a pulse repetition interval of the multiple radar pulses is based on the clock signal (McMahon [0129] "Either in addition to the above timing synchronization solutions, or as a stand-alone solution, the oscillator may be implemented with a quartz crystal. Accordingly, less frequent synchronization signals will be necessary as the quartz crystal has a high frequency tolerance and low frequency drift rate. Additionally, only a single synchronization signal is necessary (e.g., clock), as a quartz crystal may be implemented without dithering."); and a pulse repetition interval of the radar pulse is based on the clock signal (McMahon [0021] " Synchronization between the radio frequency motion sensors may involve transmission of a clock signal. ").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by McMahon into the invention of Rao. Both Rao and McMahon are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose timing methods for pulsed radar systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Rao to use a crystal oscillator to output a clock signal, where the pulse repetition interval is based on the clock signal as taught by McMahon. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the apparatus in order to utilize a common form of a local oscillator with high frequency stability and low drift rate, as required for precisely timed radar operations (See Rao [0025], McMahon [0075], McMahon [0129]).
Regarding claim 13, Rao in view of McMahon teaches the radar system of claim 11. Rao further teaches [Note : what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The radar system of claim 12, wherein the radar sensor (Rao [0056] “At step 635, the chirp controller 120 determines a random frame dither ΔF(N) between negative ΔF(max) and positive ΔF(max).”).
Rao fails to teach the limitations below. McMahon teaches:
(McMahon [0021] "the synchronization between the radio frequency motion sensors may involve transmission of a dither synchronous signal.", further [0022] " The transmitter may be further configured for time dithering. ", further [0122] “Additionally, the master sensor circuit 1301 may include a 4 MHz oscillator input U1 CLK pin 10 buffered by a gate driver/buffer (and supplied as a clock output to the slave. Further, the master sensor circuit may include a 1 kHz dither output U1 Q12 pin 1 buffered by gate driver/buffer which is supplied as a reset output to slave. Finally, the master circuit may be connected to ground (0V) and supplied as output to the slave sensor.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by McMahon into the invention of Rao. Both Rao and McMahon are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose timing methods for pulsed radar systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Rao to use a crystal oscillator to output a clock signal, which comprises the delay circuitry of the pulsed radar as taught by McMahon. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the apparatus in order to precisely time the outputted radar pulses, enabling FMCW radar operations (McMahon [0017], [0021], [0075], [0129]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed June 9, 2026, with respect to the corrections to drawings have been considered and are fully persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks” filed June 9, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been considered and are fully persuasive. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 15, 20, and dependent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JAMES HALLORAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8643. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/T.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights