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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “transmitting a sensing signal” which is suggested to be amended to “transmitting [[a]]the sensing signal”.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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 18 recites “a sensing signal” which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear if the feature refers to the same or different sensing signal which is recited in claim 12 which claim 18 depends on. Additionally, claim 18 recites “identifying the received sensing signal based on the first reference waveform” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which of the identification of the sensing signal would be constructed, as claim 12 contains contingent claim limitation pertaining to the identification of the sensing signal.
Claim 19 recites “the method according to claim 13” which renders the claim indefinite because claim 13 has been canceled. For purpose of examination, the Examiner would interpret claim 19 to depend on the method of claim 18.
Claim 20 recites “reconstructing the received frame based on the identification of the sensing signal comprised in the received frame” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which of the identification of the sensing signal would be constructed, as claim 12 contains contingent claim limitation pertaining to the identification of the sensing signal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(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) 1-3, 12, 22-23, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gunturu et al. (US 2022/0286325 A1 “GUNTURU”).
Regarding claim 1, GUNTURU discloses a method for transmitting a sensing signal, comprising: obtaining an estimation of a mobility of a wireless communication device; and if a condition based on the estimation is fulfilled, transmitting a first frame comprising a sensing signal having a first waveform to said wireless communication device; or if the condition based on the estimation is not fulfilled, transmitting a second frame comprising a sensing signal having a second waveform different from the first waveform to said wireless communication device (the number of parameters may include at least one of channel information, speed of the UE, a mobility of the UE, a CSI feedback, a delay spread of a channel, a doppler spread/shift in the channel, and at least one other parameter derived from the channel information. The BS 204 may be configured to calculate at least one of the first custom CP length and the first SCS based on the number of parameters from the first list of CP lengths and the second list of SCS [0084]); (preventing the ISI may include a configuration exchange between the BS 204 and the UE 202 a number of methods for indicating a waveform change based on a mobility and channel conditions related to the UE 202 [0093]); (once the BS 204 identifies a UE mobility as “not low mobility” as defined in Rel-16, the BS may be configured to indicate the UE 202 with a OTFS waveform. Otherwise, the transmission may continue with the OFDM waveform. In an embodiment, where the UE 202 is identified as a “low mobility,” the BS 204 may indicate the UE 202 with one of an OFDM and a DFT-S-OFDM waveform based on an DL and an UL transmission respectively [0128]). Examiner’s note: Claim 1 recites a method. Limitation “if a condition based on the estimation is fulfilled, transmitting a first frame comprising a sensing signal having a first waveform to said wireless communication device; or if the condition based on the estimation is not fulfilled, transmitting a second frame comprising a sensing signal having a second waveform different from the first waveform to said wireless communication device” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “transmitting a first frame comprising a sensing signal having a first waveform to said wireless communication device”) if a first condition (i.e. “if a condition based on the estimation is fulfilled”) happens; and step B (i.e. “transmitting a second frame comprising a sensing signal having a second waveform different from the first waveform to said wireless communication device”) if a second condition (i.e. “if the condition based on the estimation is not fulfilled”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Regarding claim 2, GUNTURU discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the condition is based on a velocity of the wireless communication device (the performance of existing OFDM is observed to deteriorate in the case of high Doppler frequencies shifts caused due to high carrier frequency of operation and high mobility [0004]).
Regarding claim 3, GUNTURU discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first waveform of the sensing signal includes comprises one or more non-linear chirps (once the BS 204 identifies a UE mobility as “not low mobility” as defined in Rel-16, the BS may be configured to indicate the UE 202 with a OTFS waveform [0128], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, GUNTURU discloses a method for receiving a sensing signal by a wireless communication device, the method comprising: obtaining an estimation of a mobility of the wireless communication device; receiving a frame comprising a sensing signal; identifying the sensing signal based on a first reference waveform, if the estimation fulfills a condition; identifying the sensing signal based on a second reference waveform, if the estimation does not fulfill the condition (the number of parameters may include at least one of channel information, speed of the UE, a mobility of the UE, a CSI feedback, a delay spread of a channel, a doppler spread/shift in the channel, and at least one other parameter derived from the channel information. The BS 204 may be configured to calculate at least one of the first custom CP length and the first SCS based on the number of parameters from the first list of CP lengths and the second list of SCS [0084]); (preventing the ISI may include a configuration exchange between the BS 204 and the UE 202 a number of methods for indicating a waveform change based on a mobility and channel conditions related to the UE 202 [0093]); (once the BS 204 identifies a UE mobility as “not low mobility” as defined in Rel-16, the BS may be configured to indicate the UE 202 with a OTFS waveform. Otherwise, the transmission may continue with the OFDM waveform. In an embodiment, where the UE 202 is identified as a “low mobility,” the BS 204 may indicate the UE 202 with one of an OFDM and a DFT-S-OFDM waveform based on an DL and an UL transmission respectively [0128]); and performing a synchronization and/or channel estimation using the identified sensing signal (at block 1204, the method includes, determining, by the UE, that a channel estimation parameter associated with the UE is below a pre-determined threshold value when using at least one of the first custom CP length and the first SCS [0208]). Examiner’s note: Claim 12 recites a method. Limitation “identifying the sensing signal based on a first reference waveform, if the estimation fulfills a condition; identifying the sensing signal based on a second reference waveform, if the estimation does not fulfill the condition” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “identifying the sensing signal based on a first reference waveform”) if a first condition (i.e. “if the estimation fulfills a condition”) happens; and step B (i.e. “identifying the sensing signal based on a second reference waveform”) if a second condition (i.e. “if the estimation does not fulfill the condition”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Regarding claim 22, GUNTURU discloses at least one non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the method of claim 1 (at least one processor [0016]).
Regarding claim 23, GUNTURU discloses a wireless communication device for transmitting a sensing signal, comprising: processing circuitry (at least one processor [0016]) configured to obtain an estimation of a mobility of a second wireless communication device; and if a condition based on the estimation is fulfilled, transmit a first frame comprising a sensing signal having a first waveform to said second wireless communication device; or if the condition based on the estimation is not fulfilled, transmit a second frame comprising a sensing signal having a second waveform different from the first waveform to said second wireless communication device (the number of parameters may include at least one of channel information, speed of the UE, a mobility of the UE, a CSI feedback, a delay spread of a channel, a doppler spread/shift in the channel, and at least one other parameter derived from the channel information. The BS 204 may be configured to calculate at least one of the first custom CP length and the first SCS based on the number of parameters from the first list of CP lengths and the second list of SCS [0084]); (preventing the ISI may include a configuration exchange between the BS 204 and the UE 202 a number of methods for indicating a waveform change based on a mobility and channel conditions related to the UE 202 [0093]); (once the BS 204 identifies a UE mobility as “not low mobility” as defined in Rel-16, the BS may be configured to indicate the UE 202 with a OTFS waveform. Otherwise, the transmission may continue with the OFDM waveform. In an embodiment, where the UE 202 is identified as a “low mobility,” the BS 204 may indicate the UE 202 with one of an OFDM and a DFT-S-OFDM waveform based on an DL and an UL transmission respectively [0128]).
Regarding claim 34, GUNTURU discloses a wireless communication device for receiving a sensing signal, comprising: processing circuitry (at least one processor [0016]) configured to obtain an estimation of a mobility of the wireless communication device; receive a frame comprising a sensing signal; identify the sensing signal based on a first reference waveform, if the estimation fulfills a condition; or identify the sensing signal based on a second reference waveform, if the estimation does not fulfill the condition (the number of parameters may include at least one of channel information, speed of the UE, a mobility of the UE, a CSI feedback, a delay spread of a channel, a doppler spread/shift in the channel, and at least one other parameter derived from the channel information. The BS 204 may be configured to calculate at least one of the first custom CP length and the first SCS based on the number of parameters from the first list of CP lengths and the second list of SCS [0084]); (preventing the ISI may include a configuration exchange between the BS 204 and the UE 202 a number of methods for indicating a waveform change based on a mobility and channel conditions related to the UE 202 [0093]); (once the BS 204 identifies a UE mobility as “not low mobility” as defined in Rel-16, the BS may be configured to indicate the UE 202 with a OTFS waveform. Otherwise, the transmission may continue with the OFDM waveform. In an embodiment, where the UE 202 is identified as a “low mobility,” the BS 204 may indicate the UE 202 with one of an OFDM and a DFT-S-OFDM waveform based on an DL and an UL transmission respectively [0128]); and perform a synchronization and/or channel estimation using the identified sensing signal (at block 1204, the method includes, determining, by the UE, that a channel estimation parameter associated with the UE is below a pre-determined threshold value when using at least one of the first custom CP length and the first SCS [0208]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUNTURU, in view of Solodky et al. (US 2021/0033691 A1 “SOLODKY”).
Regarding claim 4, GUNTURU discloses (Examiner’s note: What GUNTURU does not disclose is ) the method according to claim 3,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SOLODKY teaches that the transmit circuits 102 a-102 m are generally operational to generate respective components of the main transmit signal Tx using unique mixtures of the linear frequency modulated signal XLFM and the hyperbolic frequency modulated signal XHFM [0038].
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 system of GUNTURU to include the teachings of SOLODKY, because doing so would reduce signal compression/ distortion.
Regarding claim 6, GUNTURU discloses the method according to any claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SOLODKY teaches that the transmit circuits 102 a-102 m are generally operational to generate respective components of the main transmit signal Tx using unique mixtures of the linear frequency modulated signal XLFM and the hyperbolic frequency modulated signal XHFM [0038].
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 system of GUNTURU to include the teachings of SOLODKY, because doing so would reduce signal compression/ distortion.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUNTURU, in view of Meissner et al. (US 2020/0379081 A1 “MEISSNER”).
Regarding claim 5, GUNTURU discloses the method according to claim 3,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, MEISSNER teaches that the transmitted RF signal sRF(t) is made up of a set of “chirps”, e.g. the signal sRF(t) comprises a sequence of sinusoidal waveforms with rising frequency (up-chirp) or falling frequency (down-chirp). The change of frequency also does not necessarily have to be linear (linear chirp). Depending on the implementation, transmission signals with exponential or hyperbolic frequency variation (exponential or hyperbolic chirps) can also be used [0021].
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 system of GUNTURU to include the teachings of MEISSNER, because doing so would improve separation of range and motion.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUNTURU, in view of Bayesteh et al. (US 2021/0286045 A1 “BAYESTEH”).
Regarding claim 7, GUNTURU discloses the method according to claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, BAYESTEH teaches that signal frame and waveform design for the sensing and communication signals. The waveform design may include design features related to single-carrier, multi-carrier, ultra-wide band (UWB) pulse, or Frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) waveforms, or the like [0062].
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 system of GUNTURU to include the teachings of BAYESTEH, because doing so would improve robustness and enable dynamic tradeoffs for desired outcomes.
Regarding claim 8, GUNTURU discloses the method according to claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, BAYESTEH teaches that signal frame and waveform design for the sensing and communication signals. The waveform design may include design features related to single-carrier, multi-carrier, ultra-wide band (UWB) pulse, or Frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) waveforms, or the like [0062].
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 system of GUNTURU to include the teachings of BAYESTEH, because doing so would enable resource allocations and dynamic tradeoffs for desired outcomes.
Claim(s) 9-11, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUNTURU, in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0066014 A1 “PARK”).
Regarding claim 9, GUNTURU discloses the method according to claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, PARK teaches to control TX and RX beam characteristics, such as angle of departure (AoD), angle of arrival (AoA), and beam width, some examples are provided below for utilizing such beam coordination techniques for implementing efficient RF sensing operations [0127]. Additionally, PARK teaches that the RX base station 204 may report back results 1716 of the radar operation to the radar server 308 (or 310). The results may comprise raw radar data, such as range Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) data, Doppler FFT data, and/or angle-of-arrival (AoA) FFT data. Alternatively or additionally, the results may comprise further processed information such as range or location information, velocity information, and/or AoA information pertaining to detected targets. In addition, the RX base station may send additional measurement data such as a time-stamp, reference signal identification number (RS ID) used, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), reference signal received power (RSRP), quality metric associated with the time-of-arrival (TOA) or range measurement, quality metric associated with the Doppler shift estimate, etc. [0129].
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 system of GUNTURU to include the teachings of PARK, because doing so would improve signal detection and enhance system usefulness and range of implementation, as recognized by PARK.
Regarding claim 10, GUNTURU/ PARK discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein obtaining the estimation further comprises performing the estimation according to the feedback signal (the results may comprise further processed information such as range or location information, velocity information, and/or AoA information pertaining to detected targets [PARK 0129], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 9).
Regarding claim 11, GUNTURU/ PARK discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the feedback signal comprises range information and/or velocity information (the results may comprise further processed information such as range or location information, velocity information, and/or AoA information pertaining to detected targets [PARK 0129], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 9).
Regarding claim 18, GUNTURU discloses the method according to claim 12,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, PARK teaches to control TX and RX beam characteristics, such as angle of departure (AoD), angle of arrival (AoA), and beam width, some examples are provided below for utilizing such beam coordination techniques for implementing efficient RF sensing operations [0127]. Additionally, PARK teaches that the RX base station 204 may report back results 1716 of the radar operation to the radar server 308 (or 310). The results may comprise raw radar data, such as range Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) data, Doppler FFT data, and/or angle-of-arrival (AoA) FFT data. Alternatively or additionally, the results may comprise further processed information such as range or location information, velocity information, and/or AoA information pertaining to detected targets. In addition, the RX base station may send additional measurement data such as a time-stamp, reference signal identification number (RS ID) used, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), reference signal received power (RSRP), quality metric associated with the time-of-arrival (TOA) or range measurement, quality metric associated with the Doppler shift estimate, etc. [0129].
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 system of GUNTURU to include the teachings of PARK, because doing so would improve signal detection and enhance system usefulness and range of implementation, as recognized by PARK.
Regarding claim 19, GUNTURU discloses the method according to claim 13, the results may comprise further processed information such as range or location information, velocity information, and/or AoA information pertaining to detected targets [PARK 0129], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 18).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUNTURU, in view of Jeon et al. (US 2023/0308886 A1 “JEON”).
Regarding claim 20, GUNTURU discloses the method according to claim 12,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, JEON teaches that SIC may be applied to remove the interference from sensing signal for the reception of communication signal or vice versa [0251]. Additionally, JEON teaches that the UE sensing capability information may comprise: whether the UE is capable of canceling a cellular communication signal transmitted by the UE from a sensing signal received at the UE; whether the UE is capable of canceling a sensing signal transmitted by the UE from a cellular communication signal received at the UE; and whether the UE is capable of successive interference cancellation for simultaneous reception of cellular communication and sensing signals [0010].
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 system of GUNTURU to include the teachings of JEON, because doing so would reduce interference, as recognized by JEON.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUNTURU, in view of JEON, and further in view of BAYESTEH.
Regarding claim 21, GUNTURU/ JEON discloses the method according to claim 20,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, BAYESTEH teaches that signal frame and waveform design for the sensing and communication signals. The waveform design may include design features related to single-carrier, multi-carrier, ultra-wide band (UWB) pulse, or Frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) waveforms, or the like [0062]. Examiner’s note: Claim 21 recites a method. Limitation “wherein the obtained communication signal has a single-carrier structure, if the estimation fulfills the condition, and the obtained communication signal has a multi-carrier structure, if the estimation does not fulfill the condition” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “wherein the obtained communication signal has a single-carrier structure”) if a first condition (i.e. “if the estimation fulfills the condition”) happens; and step B (i.e. “the obtained communication signal has a multi-carrier structure”) if a second condition (i.e. “if the estimation does not fulfill the condition”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
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 system of GUNTURU to include the teachings of BAYESTEH, because doing so would improve system robustness, and enable resource allocations and dynamic tradeoffs for desired outcomes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 July 10, 2026
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights