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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 26th 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims 1, 16, and 20 have overcome the rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 26th 2026. A second search has been performed to address the material amended in the aforementioned claims. Newly found reference Wang (CN 114882193 A) was used for the newly amended claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 20140253548 A1) in view of Wang (CN 114882193 A).
Regarding claim 1:
Schmidt teaches:
A computer-implemented method for mapping a texture on one or more points in a 3D scene, the one or more points in the 3D scene being obtained from a user-input with an input device, the method comprising:
determining, from the user-input (Schmidt: In practice, the stroke may be generated based on input received from the end-user [0029]) performed with the input device (Schmidt: computing device 100 [0025]), the one or more points in the 3D scene to be textured (Schmidt: collecting points associated with the 3D model that fall within the geodesic circle, Abstract);
computing a 3D stroke model (Schmidt: stroke model [0048]) comprising the determined one or more points to be textured (Schmidt: The stroke model includes one or more copies of points within 3D model 110 that fall within stroke 502 [0048]);
computing a texture based on the determined one or more points (Schmidt: The stroke parameterization engine then projects the texture map onto the surface of the 3D model, Abstract; see Note 1A); and
rendering the computed texture on a 3D model (Schmidt: FIG. 2A is a conceptual diagram that illustrates texture map 112 projected onto a geodesic trace 204 on the surface of 3D model 110 [0030]; see Note 1B).
Note 1A: The projection of the texture in Schmidt is analogous to the computing of the texture in the instant application because in Fig. 2A and 2B of Schmidt, it is shown that a texture 112 is applied to the geodesic based on the points of the geodesic trace.
Note 1B: The stroke model is based on the geodesic trace: “As shown [in Fig. 5B], stroke model 520 includes stroke 522 and geodesic trace 524.” [0050]. Schmidt teaches in [0030] that the texture may be applied to the geodesic trace, which is then applied to the surface of the 3D model.
Schmidt fails to teach:
computing, based on the determined points, a 3D support comprising including the determined one or more points to be textured, the computed 3D support including a tessellation of a single surface including the one or more points to be textured;
rendering the computed texture on the computed 3D support.
Wang teaches:
A computer-implemented method for mapping a texture on one or more points in a 3D scene, the one or more points in the 3D scene being obtained from a user-input with an input device, the method comprising:
determining, from the user-input performed with the input device (Wang: An ink stroke three-dimensional calculation method for improving water-ink painting simulation technology, mainly comprising: step 1: creating a polygonal grid object, using graphic software to create by interaction, […] through the input device, or image manufacturing software to make stroke initial image, Pg. 3, par. 2-5), the one or more points in the 3D scene to be textured (Wang: FIG. 2 shows the characteristic line definition of the grid model, Pg. 5, par. 2; see Note 1C);
computing, based on the determined points, a 3D support comprising including the determined one or more points to be textured (Wang: creating a polygonal grid object, Pg. 3, par. 2-3; see Note 1C), the computed 3D support including a tessellation of a single surface including the one or more points to be textured (see Note 1D); computing a texture based on the determined one or more points (Wang: extracting the characteristic line of the grid object as the track of the ink stroke. The characteristic line is the structure characteristic of the three-dimensional model. after extracting the characteristic line, the colouring of the stroke appearance uses the initial image of the stroke as the texture mapping attached on the three-dimensional surface, Abstract; see Note 1E); and
rendering the computed texture on the computed 3D support (Wang: the colouring of the stroke appearance uses the initial image of the stroke as the texture mapping attached on the three-dimensional surface, Abstract).
Note 1C: Wang teaches: “creating a polygonal grid object, using graphic software to create by interaction” (Pg. 3, par. 2-5) as cited above, and that “FIG. 2 shows the characteristic line definition of the grid model.” (Pg. 5, par. 2). In Figure 2, Wang showcases that the grid model includes one or more points to be textured. The Examiner submits that the generation of the grid model inherently requires determining one or more points or vertices in the 3D scene to be textured. Furthermore, because Wang teaches “using graphic software to create [the grid object] by interaction”, the Examiner submits that the points are determined based on a user-input.
Note 1D: The Examiner submits that the grid object defined by Wang is tessellated because it is separated into triangle primitives. The specification of the present application supports this reading, as it recites: “For example, the 3D modeled object may be tessellated with quadrilaterals or triangles.” (Pg. 17, ln. 20-21).
Note 1E: The Examiner read Wang’s teachings to be as follows: Wang extracts a stroke line based on the grid model generated (for instance, the model shown in Fig. 2 on Pg. 15). Then, using the stroke line, Wang generates a texture to map onto the grid model for display to the user. Therefore, the texture is generated based on the points of the 3D grid model.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Schmidt with Igarashi. Generating a 3D support and applying a texture map, as in Wang, would benefit the Schmidt teachings by enabling accurate simulation of stroke painting through software without modifying an existing model’s textures: “The invention simplifies the manufacturing steps of the ink animation by using the simulation technology of the ink painting and the digital technology of the three-dimensional rendering, enriches the expression form of the video language, and realizes the industrial production.” (Wang, Pg. 1, par. 4)
Regarding claim 2:
Schmidt in view of Wang teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (as shown above), the method further comprising: parametrizing the one or more points to be textured, wherein the computing the texture further comprises computing the texture based on the parametrized one or more points (Schmidt: The stroke parameterization engine then parameterizes points associated with the polyline and the geodesic trace using UV coordinates associated with a texture map, Abstract; Wang: each vertex of the extracted feature line will store all attribute data defining the final appearance of the stroke, including the position of the texture, alpha, pressure, curvature and UV direction and so on, Pg. 2, par. 4).
Regarding claim 3:
Schmidt in view of Wang teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the 3D scene includes a 3D modeled object, the computing of the 3D support further comprising:
placing each of the one or more points on the 3D modeled object (Schmidt: The points included within stroke 202 and geodesic trace 204 generally are associated with surface (XYZ) coordinates that define a 3D position on the surface of 3D model 110 [0034]); and
determining a part of the 3D modeled object (Schmidt: identifying portions of 3D model 110 [0031]; see Note 3B) serving as the 3D support (Schmidt: The stroke model includes one or more copies of points within 3D model 110 that fall within stroke 502 or geodesic trace 504 [0048]; see Note 3A).
Note 3A: When combined with the teachings of Wang, the Examiner submits that it would be obvious to generate a new 3D grid model (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above) based on a part of the 3D modeled object, because Schmidt identifies and utilizes points from the 3D modelled object as part of their stroke model.
Note 3B: Because the 3D modeled object is described in past tense when it is introduced (“modeled”), the Examiner interpreted the 3D modeled object to have existed prior to the generation of a stroke (e.g., a surface that the user is painting on). The specification of the present application supports this reading, as it recites: “The 3D modeled object may be the 3D modeled object on which the points are placed. The computed 3D support may thus be a copy of a portion of the 3D modeled object” (Pg. 13, ln. 10-12).
Regarding claim 4:
Schmidt in view of Wang teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 3 (as shown above), wherein the placing of each of the one or more points on the 3D modeled object includes projecting each of the one or more points on a surface of the 3D modeled object (Schmidt: In doing so, stroke parameterization engine 114 is configured to project point 410 into the plane defined by axes 406 and 408 along path 412 to a position 41 [0038]; see Note 4A).
Note 4A: Schmidt teaches that: “R1 Axis 406 and R2 axis 408 define a plane that resides tangent to point 402 on the surface of 3D model 110.” [0037]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Schmidt is projecting onto the surface of the 3D model.
Regarding claim 5:
Schmidt in view of Wang teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 3 (as shown above), wherein the determined part of the 3D modeled object is a single surface that includes each of the one or more points placed on the 3D modeled object (Schmidt: generating a polyline that includes a first plurality of points that resides along a stroke path defined across a surface region of the 3D model [0007]).
Regarding claim 9:
Schmidt in view of Wang teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the one or more points are coplanar (see Note 9B) and the computing of the 3D support further comprises determining a rectangular surface including each of the one or more points, the determined rectangular surface consisting of two triangles (Wang; Pg. 15, Fig. 2; see Note 9A).
Note 9A: In Figure 2, Wang showcases that the 3D grid model comprises multiple rectangular surfaces that are made up of two triangles each.
Note 9B: Wang teaches: “at last, the three-dimensional stroke of the plane is three-dimensional, based on the effect algorithm of the rotating idea, the three dimensional surface of the stroke appearance uniformly towards the viewpoint” (Wang, Pg. 2, par. 11). As best understood by the Examiner, Wang teaches that the stroke model faces uniformly towards the viewer or viewpoint, so that, although the stroke is three-dimensional, the stroke appears to be two-dimensional, or on the same plane, with respect to the user (strategy colloquially known in the art as “billboarding”). Therefore, the Examiner submits that Wang teaches or at least suggests that the points may be coplanar.
Regarding claim 10:
Schmidt in view of Wang teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (as shown above), the method further comprising: displaying the rendered texture on the 3D support (Schmidt: FIG. 5B is a conceptual diagram that illustrates a stroke model 520 parameterized with UV coordinates, according to one embodiment of the invention. [0050]; see Note 10A).
Note 10A: Schmidt in Fig. 5B showcases that the stroke model is textured with the texture 112 (the texture originally shown in Figure 2A).
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is substantially similar to Claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 13 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 13 claims a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as opposed to a method. Schmidt teaches such a medium: “The program(s) of the program product define functions of the embodiments (including the methods described herein) and can be contained on a variety of computer-readable storage media.” [0079].
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is substantially similar to Claim 2, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 14 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 14 claims a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as opposed to a method. Claim 14 is based on claim 13. Above it was shown that Schmidt teaches a computer-readable storage medium.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is substantially similar to Claim 3, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 15 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 15 claims a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as opposed to a method. Claim 15 is based on claim 13. Above it was shown that Schmidt teaches a computer-readable storage medium.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claim 4, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 16 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 16 claims a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as opposed to a method. Claim 16 is based on claim 15 which is in turn based on claim 13. Above it was shown that Schmidt teaches a computer-readable storage medium.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 17 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 17 claims a system as opposed to a method. Schmidt teaches a system: “One embodiment of the invention may be implemented as a program product for use with a computer system.” [0079].
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is substantially similar to Claim 2, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 18 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 18 claims a system as opposed to a method. Claim 18 is based on claim 17. Above it was shown that Schmidt teaches a computer-readable storage medium.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is substantially similar to Claim 3, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 19 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 19 claims a system as opposed to a method. Claim 19 is based on claim 17. Above it was shown that Schmidt teaches a computer-readable storage medium.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is substantially similar to Claim 4, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 20 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 20 claims a system as opposed to a method. Claim 20 is based on claim 19 which is in turn based on claim 17. Above it was shown that Schmidt teaches a computer-readable storage medium.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt: (US 20140253548 A1) in view of Wang (CN 114882193 A) and Igarashi (NPL: Adaptive Unwrapping for Interactive Texture Painting; from Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 6:
Schmidt in view of Wang teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 5 (as shown above), wherein the 3D modeled object is tessellated with polygons (Schmidt: The 3D model of the object […] may include a polygonal mesh [0004]), and wherein the determining of the part of the 3D modeled object serving as the 3D support further comprises:
computing a copy of the single surface, the copy of the single surface serving as the 3D support (Schmidt: The stroke model includes one or more copies of points within 3D model 110 [0048]).
Schmidt in view of Wang fails to explicitly teach:
identifying the polygons of the 3D modeled object that comprise the placed points;
aggregating the identified polygons thereby obtaining the single surface; and
Igarashi teaches:
identifying the polygons of the 3D modeled object that comprise the placed points (Igarashi: The system identifies the painted polygons each time the user paints strokes, and assigns new UV-coordinates and a new texture bitmap to them, Pg. 5, col. 1, par. 1);
aggregating the identified polygons thereby obtaining the single surface (Igarashi: Finally, the system updates the UV-coordinates of the painted polygons and associates them with the new texture (Figure 9d), Pg. 5, col. 2, par. 1; see Note 6A); and
Note 6A: Schmidt teaches that the 3D model may include a polygonal mesh. Igarashi teaches that “painted polygons” may be identified. In Figure 9 on Pg. 5 of Igarashi, it is shown in (d) that the polygons of painted surface are aggregated and organized to form a surface representing the painted portion.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Schmidt in view of Wang with Igarashi. Identifying the polygons of the 3D modeled object that comprise the placed points; and aggregating the identified polygons thereby obtaining the single surface, as in Igarashi, would benefit the Schmidt in view of Wang teachings by enabling detection of which polygons are to be painted onto.
Regarding claim 7:
Schmidt in view of Wang teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 5 (as shown above),
Schmidt in view of Wang fails to explicitly teach:
further comprising: computing a new tessellation of the single surface.
Igarashi teaches:
further comprising: computing a new tessellation of the single surface (Igarashi: Another important future direction is to re-mesh the underlying geometry as the user paints, Pg. 9, col. 1, par. 3; see Note 7A).
Note 7A: Igarashi teaches that the mesh may be “re-meshed” during painting. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that re-meshing is analogous to computing a new tessellation, because both methods effectively recompute the geometry of the mesh.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Schmidt in view of Wang with Igarashi. Computing a new tessellation of the single surface, as in Igarashi, would benefit the Schmidt in view of Wang teachings because “re-meshing could also make multiresolution painting work better in an extremely zoomed-in view.” (Igarashi, Pg. 9, col. 1, par. 3).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt: (US 20140253548 A1) in view of Wang (CN 114882193 A), Igarashi (NPL: Adaptive Unwrapping for Interactive Texture Painting; from Applicant’s IDS) and Mirela (NPL: Remeshing).
Regarding claim 8:
Schmidt in view of Wang and Igarashi teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 7 (as shown above),
Schmidt in view of Wang and Igarashi fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the computing of the new tessellation further comprises computing the new tessellation of the single surface with a density of tessellation that is substantially the same as a density of tessellation of the 3D modeled object or a density of tessellation of the part of the 3D modeled object.
Mirela teaches:
wherein the computing of the new tessellation further comprises computing the new tessellation of the single surface with a density of tessellation that is substantially the same as a density of tessellation of the 3D modeled object or a density of tessellation of the part of the 3D modeled object (Mirela, Pg. 11; see Note 8A).
Note 8A: On slide 11, Mirela teaches a uniformly sampled remesh of a single surface model. The uniform remesh has substantially the same density as the input model. In the context of Mirela, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Igarashi to teach a new tessellation that has a density substantially the same as the density of the 3D modeled object.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Schmidt in view of Wang, Igarashi with Mirela. Computing the new tessellation of the single surface with a density of tessellation that is substantially the same as a density of tessellation of the 3D modeled object or a density of tessellation of the part of the 3D modeled object, as in Mirela, would benefit the Schmidt in view of Wang and Igarashi teachings by preserving the model resolution while improving the topology.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt: (US 20140253548 A1) in view of Wang (CN 114882193 A) and Rosales (NPL: SurfaceBrush: From Virtual Reality Drawings to Manifold Surfaces).
Regarding claim 11:
Schmidt in view of Wang teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (as shown above), the method further comprising:
Schmidt in view of Wang fails to teach:
detecting that the user-input is extended
determining one or more new points from the extended user-input;
recomputing the 3D support so that the recomputed 3D support comprises the one or more new points;
recomputing the texture so that the recomputed texture comprises the textured one or more new points; and
updating the rendering of the recomputed texture on the recomputed 3D support.
Rosales teaches:
detecting that the user-input is extended (Rosales: We first apply our matching algorithm (Section 5.1) to sections of the input strokes that lie on the boundaries of the current partial meshes, Pg. 10, Section 5.5: Partial Mesh Extension);
Schmidt in view of Wang and Rosales teaches (see Note 11A):
determining one or more new points (Schmidt: collecting points associated with the 3D model that fall within the geodesic circle, Abstract) from the extended user-input (Schmidt: In practice, the stroke may be generated based on input received from the end-user [0029]);
recomputing the 3D support (Wang: creating a polygonal grid object, Pg. 3, par. 2-3; see Note 1C) so that the recomputed 3D support comprises the one or more new points (Schmidt: The stroke model includes one or more copies of points within 3D model 110 that fall within stroke 502 [0048]);
recomputing the texture so that the recomputed texture comprises the textured one or more new points (Schmidt: The stroke parameterization engine then projects the texture map onto the surface of the 3D model, Abstract; see Note 1A); and
updating the rendering of the recomputed texture on the recomputed 3D support (Schmidt: FIG. 2A is a conceptual diagram that illustrates texture map 112 projected onto a geodesic trace 204 on the surface of 3D model 110 [0030]; see Note 1B).
Note 11A: Rosales teaches: “We connect such left-out stroke sections with mesh strips using a similar process to the one above.” (Pg. 10, Section 5.5: Partial Mesh Extension). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that they should repeat the previous steps performed while taking the new stroke into account. In other words, the steps of the previously mapped claim 1 would be performed again on the extended input.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Schmidt with Rosales. Detecting that the user-input is extended and recomputing the stroke model, as in Rosales, would benefit the Schmidt in view of Wang teachings by enabling the system to correctly handle haphazardly drawn strokes from the user: “In particular, artist drawings (see e.g. Figure 2) have inconsistent stroke normal orientations and partially overlapping strokes; they frequently contain intersecting stroke groups and may exhibit isolated outlier strokes,” (Rosales: Pg. 2, Section 1: Introduction).
Regarding claim 12:
Schmidt in view of Wang and Rosales teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 11 (As shown above), the method further comprising: displaying the recomputed texture on the 3D support (Schmidt: FIG. 5B is a conceptual diagram that illustrates a stroke model 520 parameterized with UV coordinates, according to one embodiment of the invention. [0050]; see Note 10A and Note 11A).
Conclusion
The Examiner identified potential limitation(s) in the specification that would overcome the prior art rejections under 103 if amended into the claims. Note that in such a situation, further search and consideration would be required:
“The projecting may comprise applying a scale factor for taking into account of the difference of scale between the 3D scene and the environment (the real world) in which the gesture is performed (e.g., depending on the scale with which the 3D scene is displayed). In examples, the trajectory may have been performed along a plane (e.g., the table or the surface of the touch device) and may be a 2D trajectory” as in Pg. 14, ln. 24-29 of the present specification.
“Alternatively, the captured trajectory may be in 3D (e.g., in the case of the VR system) and the trajectory in the 3D scene may therefore correspond to the captured one. For example, the trajectory in the 3D scene may be equal to the captured one after multiplying by a scale factor to account for a difference in scale. Alternatively or additionally, it may also be offset from the captured one, for example to simulate the effect of a brush. In these examples, the conversion may also comprise a projection but from near to near (i.e., the conversion may comprise a projection of each point onto the nearest point on the surface)” as in Pg. 15, ln. 2-10 of the present specification.
“For example, the computing may comprise determining the density of tessellation of the 3D modeled object (or of the part of the 3D modeled object), and computing the new tessellation by applying a density criterion aiming at a density approximately equal to the one determined (the determining of a tessellation by applying a density criterion being known in the art),” as in Pg. 18, ln-28-30 and Pg. 19, ln. 1-2 of the present specification.
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 VINCENT ALEXANDER PROVIDENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571)270-0728. 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.
/VINCENT ALEXANDER PROVIDENCE/Examiner, Art Unit 2617 /KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights