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
This office action is written in response to an amendment filed on 5/11/2026. As directed by amendment: Claims 14, 16, 21, 23, 28, and 30 were amended. Claims 1-13, 15, 22, and 29 were cancelled. No new claims were added. Thus, Claims 14, 16-21, 23-28, and 30-33 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection still stands.
Argument 1: Regarding Features (1) and (2) Chang discloses direct camera capture of video feeds, not action data capture followed by virtual picture rendering processing. In Chang, video feeds are directly captured by participant cameras (e.g., cameras 501A/501B/501C in Chang, paragraphs 0196-0203) and transmitted as real camera video to other participants. Chang's system does not perform "action data capture" on a real object followed by "virtual picture rendering processing" to generate virtual picture data. Rather, Chang transmits real-world camera feeds without any virtual rendering step. Chang's tile update rate differential does not correspond to a device-level rendering performance difference. The Office Action previously mapped the feature "a picture rendering performance of the first device end is higher than that of the second device end" to Chang's disclosure that tiles in a main region 604 are updated at a higher rate than tiles in a roster 606. (See Chang at paragraph [0218]). However, the display update rate of tiles in different regions of a user interface is not the same as the "picture rendering performance" of a device. The display update rate in Chang reflects a user interface design choice regarding how frequently video tiles are refreshed in different display regions of the same device, whereas the claimed "picture rendering performance" pertains to the capability of different devices to perform rendering computations. In the present application, the first device end has higher picture rendering performance than the second device end. Chang does not appear to disclose or suggest such a device-level rendering performance differential. Therefore, Chang does not disclose or suggest features (1) and (2) of amended claim 14.
Examiner’s Response: Chang teaches a video live streaming method, comprising:
performing action data capture and audio data collection on a first real object of the first device end (Fig. 6A, elements {600, 608, 609, 610}, par 216-225; par 333; The first device end is the device of another participant. The second device end is the device 600 of the participant. The first real object is the person in the camera feed.);
performing virtual picture rendering processing on the captured action data and the collected audio data, to obtain the first virtual picture data rendered by the first device end (Fig. 6A, elements {600, 608, 609, 610}, par 216-225; par 333; The first device end is the device of another participant. The second device end is the device 600 of the participant. The first real object is the person in the camera feed.),
wherein a picture rendering performance of the first device end is higher than that of a second device end (Fig. 6A, elements {600, 604, 606, 608, 609, 610}, par 216-225; par 333; The first device end is the device of another participant. The second device end is the device 600 of the participant. The first real object is the person in the camera feed. The display of tiles in main region 604 is updated at a higher rate than display of tiles in roster 606. The user’s feed 608 (second device end) is in region 606, and therefore has a lower rendering performance than the feed of the first device end, which is in region 604.);
obtaining a corresponding first device end video stream by encoding the first virtual picture data (Fig. 6A, elements {600, 608, 609, 610}, par 216-225; par 333; The first device end is the device of another participant. The second device end is the device 600 of the participant.);
and pushing the first device end video stream to the second device end, to cause the first device end video stream, during the second device end performing video playback, being fused and displayed with second virtual picture data rendered by the second device end (Fig. 6A, elements {600, 608, 609, 610}, par 216-225; par 333; The first device end is the device of another participant. The second device end is the device 600 of the participant.).
The action data capture is the capturing of the person’s actions in the video feed. The picture rendered of the participants are of a virtual conference, and therefore is virtual picture rendering.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a device-level rendering performance difference; a device-level rendering performance differential) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The display of tiles in main region 604 is updated at a higher rate than display of tiles in roster 606. The user’s feed 608 (second device end) is in region 606, and therefore has a lower rendering performance than the feed of the first device end, which is in region 604.
The picture rendering performance of the first device end is the performance of the picture originating from a first device, such as a feed in region 604. The picture rendering performance of the second device end is the performance of the picture originating from the second device, which is the device of the user’s feed 608.
Paragraph 218 of Chang states “In some embodiments, the display (e.g., video feed) of tiles in main region 604 is updated at a higher rate than display of tiles in roster 606 (e.g., the video feed of tiles in roster 606 is updated at a lower rate than the video feed of tiles in main region 604).”
Therefore, Chang still teaches features (1) and (2) of amended Claim 14.
Argument 2: Regarding Feature (3) Amended claim 14 requires that the first device end video stream is "fused and displayed with second virtual picture data rendered by the second device end." Chang's tile layout display does not constitute this type of fusion. Chang's video conferencing interface displays multiple participant video tiles in a layout (Fig. 6A), but this layout arrangement of real camera feeds from different participants is not the same as fusing a received video stream with locally-rendered virtual picture data. In Chang, the second device end (device 600) does not independently render "second virtual picture data;" rather, the second device end merely displays video feeds received from other participants alongside the user's own camera preview. Therefore, Chang does not disclose or suggest feature (3) of amended claim 14.
Examiner’s Response: Chang teaches pushing the first device end video stream to the second device end, to cause the first device end video stream, during the second device end performing video playback, being fused and displayed with second virtual picture data rendered by the second device end (Fig. 6A, elements {600, 608, 609, 610}, par 216-225; par 333; The first device end is the device of another participant. The second device end is the device 600 of the participant.).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the second device end (device 600) does not independently render "second virtual picture data;”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The first device end video stream and the second virtual picture data rendered by the second device end are fused together when they are viewed simultaneously as tiles on the second device end.
Therefore, Chang still teaches feature (3) of amended Claim 14.
Argument 3: With respect to the combination of Chang and Anand (for claims 16-17, 23-24, 30-31), the Office Action states that it would have been obvious to modify Chang with the VR animations of Anand "because it allows for the ability to transform the input video and audio streams from different participants in customizable ways to achieve different user experiences." (See Office Action at pp. 5-7). However, even if one were to combine Chang's video conferencing with Anand's VR rendering, the resulting combination would still not arrive at the claimed invention. Anand's VR rendering is applied to already-captured video streams at a server-side media processing node (Anand, paragraphs 0176), not at a dedicated first device end that performs action data capture followed by virtual picture rendering processing as required by amended claim 14. Amended claim 14 is a different system design that is not taught or suggested by combining Chang with Anand.
Examiner’s Response: In response to applicant's argument that even if one were to combine Chang's video conferencing with Anand's VR rendering, the resulting combination would still not arrive at the claimed invention, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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 invention of Chang with the VR animations of Anand because it allows for the ability to transform the input video and audio streams from different participants in customizable ways to achieve different user experiences (Anand; par 176), thereby making virtual meetings more interesting and engaging.
Argument 4: With respect to the combination of Chang, Privat, and Miao (for claims 18, 25, 32), these references are relied upon to teach RTMP format conversion and push-to-server/pull-by-client architecture. However, the Office Action's rationale for combining these references does not address the fundamental deficiency identified above, namely, the lack of action data capture, virtual picture rendering processing, and rendering performance differential between the first and second device ends. Even if RTMP format conversion and server-based distribution were incorporated into Chang's system, the resulting combination would still lack the core features of amended claim 14.
Examiner’s Response: In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness 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).
Chang is relied upon to teach the limitations of Claim 14, while Privat and Miao are relied upon to teach the limitations of Claim 18.
Argument 5: With respect to the combination of Chang and Ross (for claims 19, 26, 33), Ross is relied upon to teach VR workstation and terminal display device roles. However, Ross's presenter/attendee role distinction in a VR meeting context does not cure the absence of the claimed action data capture, virtual picture rendering processing, and rendering performance differential. Ross's presenter display device presents virtual content and virtual objects in a VR meeting space, but this is not the same as the claimed sequence of action data capture, virtual picture rendering processing, encoding, and pushing to a second device end for fusion with locally-rendered virtual picture data.
Examiner’s Response: In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness 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).
Chang is relied upon to teach the limitations of Claim 14, while Ross is relied upon to teach the limitations of Claim 19.
Argument 6: With respect to the combination of Chang and Rao (for claims 20, 27), Rao is relied upon to teach color design function for seamless fusion. Rao's video processing system combines video streams at a server level when device capabilities are insufficient (Rao, Col. 2 lines 62-67). This server-side stream combining is fundamentally different from the claimed architecture where the second device end locally fuses the received first device end video stream with its own rendered second virtual picture data through interface design and color design functions. The Office Action has not explained how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify Chang's system to arrive at client-side fusion with locally-rendered virtual picture data using interface design and color design functions.
Examiner’s Response: In response to applicant's argument that this server-side stream combining is fundamentally different from the claimed architecture where the second device end locally fuses the received first device end video stream with its own rendered second virtual picture data through interface design and color design functions, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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 invention of Chang with the video stream combining of Rao because it allows devices that are insufficient to enable an acceptable video conference experience to be able to perform an acceptable video conference by combining video streams into a composite video stream (Rao; Col. 2 lines 62-67; Col. 3 lines 1-53).
Argument 7: Furthermore, the Office Action's motivation analysis appears to rely on impermissible hindsight reconstruction. The combination of six different references (Chang, Anand, Privat, Miao, Ross, and Rao), each addressing different aspects of the claimed invention, suggests that the Examiner has used the present application as a roadmap to piece together the claimed features from disparate sources. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) ("It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among individual disclosures of the prior art...").
Examiner’s Response: In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 21, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Chang et al (“Chang”, US 20220374136).
Regarding Claim 14, Chang teaches a video live streaming method, comprising:
performing action data capture and audio data collection on a first real object of the first device end (Fig. 6A, elements {600, 608, 609, 610}, par 216-225; par 333; The first device end is the device of another participant. The second device end is the device 600 of the participant. The first real object is the person in the camera feed.);
performing virtual picture rendering processing on the captured action data and the collected audio data, to obtain the first virtual picture data rendered by the first device end (Fig. 6A, elements {600, 608, 609, 610}, par 216-225; par 333; The first device end is the device of another participant. The second device end is the device 600 of the participant. The first real object is the person in the camera feed.),
wherein a picture rendering performance of the first device end is higher than that of a second device end (Fig. 6A, elements {600, 604, 606, 608, 609, 610}, par 216-225; par 333; The first device end is the device of another participant. The second device end is the device 600 of the participant. The first real object is the person in the camera feed. The display of tiles in main region 604 is updated at a higher rate than display of tiles in roster 606. The user’s feed 608 (second device end) is in region 606, and therefore has a lower rendering performance than the feed of the first device end, which is in region 604.);
obtaining a corresponding first device end video stream by encoding the first virtual picture data (Fig. 6A, elements {600, 608, 609, 610}, par 216-225; par 333; The first device end is the device of another participant. The second device end is the device 600 of the participant.);
and pushing the first device end video stream to the second device end, to cause the first device end video stream, during the second device end performing video playback, being fused and displayed with second virtual picture data rendered by the second device end (Fig. 6A, elements {600, 608, 609, 610}, par 216-225; par 333; The first device end is the device of another participant. The second device end is the device 600 of the participant.).
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 21 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 28, Claim 28 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 14.
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 test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 16-17, 23-24, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Anand et al (“Anand”, US 20110279639).
Regarding Claim 16, Chang teaches the method of claim 14.
Chang does not explicitly teach wherein performing the virtual picture rendering processing on the captured action data and the collected audio data comprises: generating a first virtual object of the first real object based on the captured action data; generating first virtual animation data comprising the first virtual object based on the first virtual object and a virtual picture background to be used for the first virtual object; and performing virtual picture rendering processing on the first virtual animation data and the collected audio data.
Anand teaches wherein performing the virtual picture rendering processing on the captured action data and the collected audio data comprises: generating a first virtual object of the first real object based on the captured action data (par 172-176);
generating first virtual animation data comprising the first virtual object based on the first virtual object and a virtual picture background to be used for the first virtual object (par 172-176);
and performing virtual picture rendering processing on the first virtual animation data and the collected audio data (par 172-176).
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 invention of Chang with the VR animations of Anand because it allows for the ability to transform the input video and audio streams from different participants in customizable ways to achieve different user experiences (Anand; par 176), thereby making virtual meetings more interesting and engaging.
Regarding Claim 17, Chang teaches the method of claim 14.
Chang does not explicitly teach wherein determining the first virtual picture data rendered by the first device end comprises: collecting first virtual picture data of at least one visual angle through a virtual reality engine of the first device end; and wherein obtaining the corresponding first device end video stream by encoding the first virtual picture data comprises: obtaining a first device end video stream of the at least one visual angle by encoding the first virtual picture data of the at least one visual angle.
Anand teaches wherein determining the first virtual picture data rendered by the first device end comprises: collecting first virtual picture data of at least one visual angle through a virtual reality engine of the first device end (par 172-176; Different views (angles) from different participant cameras are composited together.);
and wherein obtaining the corresponding first device end video stream by encoding the first virtual picture data comprises (par 172-176; Different views (angles) from different participant cameras are composited together.):
obtaining a first device end video stream of the at least one visual angle by encoding the first virtual picture data of the at least one visual angle (par 172-176; Different views (angles) from different participant cameras are composited together.).
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 invention of Chang with the VR animations of Anand because it allows for the ability to transform the input video and audio streams from different participants in customizable ways to achieve different user experiences (Anand; par 176), thereby making virtual meetings more interesting and engaging.
Regarding Claim 23, Claim 23 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 24, Claim 24 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 30, Claim 30 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 31, Claim 31 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 17.
Claims 18, 25, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Privat (“Privat”, US 20140040360 ) in further view of Miao et al (“Miao”, US 20070038778).
Regarding Claim 18, Chang teaches the method of claim 14.
Chang does not explicitly teach wherein pushing the first device end video stream to the second device end comprises: converting the first device end video stream to a first device end video stream in a real-time messaging protocol format; and pushing the format-converted first device end video stream to a corresponding video stream server, to cause the second device end to pull the format-converted first device end video stream from the video stream server for playback.
Privat teaches wherein pushing the first device end video stream to the second device end comprises: converting the first device end video stream to a first device end video stream in a real-time messaging protocol format (par 24; par 35).
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 invention of Chang with the Real Time Messaging Protocol of Privat because it allows for persistent connections and low-latency communication, thereby improving performance.
Chang and Privat do not explicitly teach pushing the format-converted first device end video stream to a corresponding video stream server, to cause the second device end to pull the format-converted first device end video stream from the video stream server for playback.
Miao teaches pushing the format-converted first device end video stream to a corresponding video stream server, to cause the second device end to pull the format-converted first device end video stream from the video stream server for playback (par 5).
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 invention of Chang and Privat with the media conversion of Miao because it allows for the transferred media to be sent in a format that is supported by the server (Miao; par 5), thereby reducing errors and improving functionality.
Regarding Claim 25, Claim 25 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 32, Claim 32 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 18.
Claims 19, 26, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Ross et al (“Ross”, US 20180356885).
Regarding Claim 19, Chang teaches the method of claim 14.
Chang does not explicitly teach wherein the first device end corresponds to a workstation with a virtual reality function, the first virtual picture data comprises virtual picture data of a performer; the second device end corresponds to a terminal display device with a virtual reality function, and the second virtual picture data comprises interactive virtual picture data of a viewer.
Ross teaches wherein the first device end corresponds to a workstation with a virtual reality function, the first virtual picture data comprises virtual picture data of a performer (par 62; par 72; par 75; par 77);
the second device end corresponds to a terminal display device with a virtual reality function, and the second virtual picture data comprises interactive virtual picture data of a viewer (par 62; par 72; par 75; par 77).
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 invention of Chang with the virtual reality of Ross because it provides an immersive experience, thereby improving interest and engagement among conference participants.
Regarding Claim 26, Claim 26 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 33, Claim 33 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 19.
Claims 20 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Rao et al (“Rao”, US 11539919).
Regarding Claim 20, Chang teaches the method of claim 14.
Chang further teaches wherein during the second device end performing video playback, the first device end video stream is seamlessly fused with the second virtual picture data through an interface design function of the second device end (Fig. 6A, elements {600, 608, 609, 610}, par 216-225; par 333; The first device end is the device of another participant. The second device end is the device 600 of the participant.).
Chang does not explicitly teach the first device end video stream is seamlessly fused with the second virtual picture data through a color design function.
Rao teaches the first device end video stream is seamlessly fused with the second virtual picture data through a color design function (Col. 2 lines 62-67; Col. 3 lines 1-53; The color design function is the color profile.).
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 invention of Chang with the video stream combining of Rao because it allows devices that are insufficient to enable an acceptable video conference experience to be able to perform an acceptable video conference by combining video streams into a composite video stream (Rao; Col. 2 lines 62-67; Col. 3 lines 1-53).
Regarding Claim 27, Claim 27 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gao (US 20230405479), Abstract - Provided are a data processing method and apparatus, a device and a storage medium. The method includes: acquiring a first live streaming video stream of a first live streaming user and a second live streaming video stream of a second live streaming user; merging the first live streaming video stream and the second live streaming video stream into a game video stream; and sending the game video stream to a viewing user to live stream a target game.
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 RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights