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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 14 reads “major axes” which appears to be a conjugation error since an ellipse only has one major axis as shown in Figure 5. This should read “major axis” to improve clarity.
Claim 21 lines 2 and 4 read “FFT(Fast” which appears to be a typographical error and should read “FFT (Fast” to improve legibility.
Claim 21 lines 3 and 4 read “Foureir” which appears to be a typographical error and should read “Fourier” to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
“Track” is being interpreted as a footprint of a tracked object in light of Figure 6A with shown track 19 and ¶ 74 which discloses the ellipse and track share the same centroid in Figure 5.
“Although the point cloud is not detected” is being interpreted as “when the point cloud is not detected” is light of at least ¶ 81-82 which detail that a point cloud is not detected in a trajectory, but the updated occupancy map detects intrusion due to the ellipse fitting.
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.
Claims 3 and 10 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. Claims 3 and 10 require the calculation of an ellipse using the following list of variables: center position of the ellipse, major axis of the ellipse, minor axis of the ellipse, and angle between an x-axis and the major axis of the ellipse. The knowledge of these variables is required to obtain the equation of the ellipse, but how these variables are obtained is not clearly detailed within claims 3 and 10 or the claims they respectively depend upon. As currently written, the claims appear paradoxical, requiring creation of an ellipse using known variables of an already created ellipse. ¶ 57-58 appear to provide enablement for obtaining these variables during the shape estimation step by obtaining an object’s center, width, length, and direction angle; although, another person of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable mind may determine that these obtained variables are not clearly linked to the variables of the claimed equation. To overcome this rejection, examiner recommends clearly amending the claim to clearly recite how/when these variables are obtained in order to prevent the claims from being paradoxical provided no new matter is added.
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) 1-2, 8, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. US 20210354729 A1 (hereinafter Ng).
Regarding claim 1,
Ng teaches
A vehicle control device controlling a vehicle by creating a dynamic occupancy grid map (see at least Abstract), comprising:
a processor (¶ 0023 “processor”; ¶ 0023 “various functions may be carried out by a processor executing instructions stored in memory”) configured to:
calculate a measurement based on a reception signal (¶ 0035-0036 discloses using sensor data for state determination such as, for example, distance estimation) received from a radar sensor (¶ 0025 “RADAR sensor” as one of the sensors) and detect an object around a host vehicle (¶ 0026 disclose object detection using sensor data);
estimate a shape of a target vehicle when the target vehicle is detected (¶ 0058 “a size (e.g., an actual size of the actor) or representative size (e.g., a shape around and/or including the actor) of the actor may be determined”; see at least ¶ 0025 wherein actors are exemplified as vehicles);
ellipse-fit the shape of the target vehicle (¶ 0058 discloses fitting a shape around an actor, including an ellipse or circle) to a point cloud (¶ 0059-0060 discloses “points in space” that the shape occupies which examiner understands as the shape being applied to a point cloud; see also ¶ 0180 for positive, albeit brief, recitation of a point cloud) and update an occupancy probability of a grid for the target vehicle of a dynamic occupancy grid map (DOGM) based on the fitted shape (¶ 0059 discloses determining an occupied set and an occupied trajectory based on the fitted actor shape; see also ¶ 0108 wherein the location of other vehicles is output on an occupancy grid);
compensate for a position of the host vehicle over time on the dynamic occupancy grid map (¶ 0066 discloses that the vehicle has an occupied trajectory during movement wherein collision risk can be determined from); and
determine, based on the updated occupancy probability, that the target vehicle blocks a vehicle traveling path of the host vehicle (Figure 8 B410 discloses determining if there is an intersection between an ego vehicle’s planned trajectory and a projected actor occupied trajectory) by estimating the shape of the target vehicle and ellipse-fitting (¶ 0058-0059 and 0108 as discussed above), and accordingly respond by decelerating the host vehicle (Figure 8 B412 discloses proposed paths are weighted according to intersection determination such than an appropriately safe path can be selected; ¶ 0100 discloses that the intersection determination method can be leveraged for collision determination in addition to safety procedures when selecting an appropriate path; ¶ 0068 and ¶ 0190, for example, discloses a safety procedure wherein if an impeding collision is detected, a braking corrective action can be performed automatically).
Ng does not explicitly state
determining that the target vehicle blocks a vehicle traveling path of the host vehicle although the point cloud is not detected on the vehicle traveling path.
However, Ng at least suggests this limitation since Figure 8 B410 discloses that the intersection is an intersection of the generated occupancy trajectories, i.e. they are predicative. This suggests that an intersection can be determined before the point cloud indicates an agent is directly sensed to be within a vehicle’s proposed trajectory. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used the predictive nature of Ng such that a collision can be predicted before a point cloud of an agent is actively detected in the vehicle’s traveling path. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by detecting collisions before they are guaranteed to occur thus allowing improved response time from an autonomous driving system.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Ng teach all of claims 1 and 8 as detailed above.
Ng further teaches
the processor is further configured to update the occupancy probability of the grid for the target vehicle (¶ 0059 discloses determining an occupied set and an occupied trajectory based on the fitted actor shape; see also ¶ 0108 wherein the location of other vehicles is output on an occupancy grid) only when a track of the target vehicle is present in the dynamic occupancy grid map (examiner understands this limitations to be relatively broad such that any detectable vehicle, such as those having their location output on the occupancy grid map of ¶ 0108, satisfy this limitation; since all actors in at least ¶ 0058-0060 cited above are detectable (see at least ¶ 0025), the limitation is taught).
Regarding claim 25, Ng teach all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Ng further teaches that
the processor is further configured to predict movement of the target vehicle based on the updated occupancy probability of the grid, and predict the occupancy probability of the grid over time (¶ 0059 discloses determining an occupied set and an occupied trajectory based on the fitted actor shape; Figure 8 B408, for example, discloses determining an actor occupied trajectory, based on a safety procedure of the actor and the sensed state; see also Figure 1 for an additional flowchart of data).
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng as applied to claims 2 and 9 above, and further in view of “Ellipse” from Wikipedia (hereinafter Wiki).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Ng teach all of claims 2 and 9 as detailed above.
Ng further teaches that
the processor is further configured to fit the shape of the target vehicle to the point cloud (¶ 0058 discloses fitting a shape around an actor, including an ellipse or circle; (¶ 0059-0060 discloses “points in space” that the shape occupies which examiner understands as the shape being applied to a point cloud; see also ¶ 0180 for positive albeit brief recitation of a point cloud).
Ng does not teach
using Equation 1 below:
[Equation 1]
A
x
2
+
B
x
y
+
C
y
2
+
D
x
+
E
y
+
F
=
0
where
A
=
l
2
2
cos
2
θ
+
l
1
2
sin
2
θ
B
=
l
2
2
-
l
1
2
sin
(
2
θ
)
C
=
l
2
2
sin
2
θ
+
l
1
2
cos
2
θ
D
=
-
(
2
A
x
c
+
B
y
c
)
E
=
-
(
2
C
y
c
+
B
x
c
)
F
=
A
x
c
2
+
C
y
c
2
+
B
x
c
y
c
-
l
1
2
l
2
2
x
c
,
y
c
are a center position of an ellipse,
l
1
and
l
2
are major and minor axes of the fitted ellipse, and
θ
is an angle between an x-axis and major axes.
Wiki teaches
using Equation 1 below:
[Equation 1]
A
x
2
+
B
x
y
+
C
y
2
+
D
x
+
E
y
+
F
=
0
where
A
=
l
2
2
cos
2
θ
+
l
1
2
sin
2
θ
B
=
l
2
2
-
l
1
2
sin
(
2
θ
)
C
=
l
2
2
sin
2
θ
+
l
1
2
cos
2
θ
D
=
-
(
2
A
x
c
+
B
y
c
)
E
=
-
(
2
C
y
c
+
B
x
c
)
F
=
A
x
c
2
+
C
y
c
2
+
B
x
c
y
c
-
l
1
2
l
2
2
x
c
,
y
c
are a center position of an ellipse,
l
1
and
l
2
are major and minor axes of the fitted ellipse, and
θ
is an angle between an x-axis and major axes (“In Cartesian Coordinates” section, “General ellipse” subsection discloses a conventional equation for generating an ellipse with known semi major axis, semi minor axis, center coordinates, and rotation angle).
The calculation of an ellipse can be performed with a numerated number of formulae including the standard Cartesian formula (
(
x
-
x
o
)
2
a
2
+
(
y
-
y
o
)
2
b
2
=
1
) when not rotated, the implicit Cartesian equation (
A
x
2
+
B
x
y
+
C
y
2
+
D
x
+
E
y
+
F
=
0
) when rotated, the parametric form (
x
,
y
=
a
cos
t
,
b
sin
t
,
0
≤
t
≤
2
π
), the polar form (
r
θ
=
a
b
(
b
cos
θ
)
2
+
(
a
sin
θ
)
2
), and other forumlae detailed within Wiki. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to try the teachings of Wiki and incorporate it into the teachings of Ng since there is a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (i.e. formulae) to the recognized need (constructing an ellipse using known ellipse parameters) and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng as applied to claims 2 and 9 above, and further in view of Monteuuis et al. US 20230408642 A1 (hereinafter Monteuuis).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Ng teach all of claims 2 and 9 as detailed above.
Ng does not explicitly teach that
the processor is further configured to match a centroid of the track with a centroid of an ellipse.
This may be obtained from Ng if one considers the fit shape of ¶ 0058-0060 to be the track. Since the track and shape are the same embodiment in this interpretation, the centroids are inherently the same and thus “matched”. However, for improved clarity of record, Monteuuis is relied upon for this limitation.
Monteuuis teaches that
the processor is further configured to match a centroid of the track with a centroid of an ellipse (¶ 0132-0133 discloses that an ellipse is fit around a vehicle to account for positioning error such that the center of the ellipse is the center of a bounding box of the vehicle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Ng to incorporate the teachings of Monteuuis such that the ellipse fit by Ng can have a center at the center of a vehicle as taught by Monteuuis. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of the ellipse fitting method by ensuring that it is properly centered and encompassing the vehicle’s observed footprint.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Nakaue et al. JP 2001307075 A (hereinafter Nakaue; a translated copy has been provided by the examiner which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Ng teach all of claims 1 and 8 as detailed above.
Ng does not teach that
the processor is further configured to fit a center of an ellipse to be positioned within a predetermined distance from a center of the target vehicle updated at a previous time.
Nakaue teaches that
the processor is further configured to fit a center of an ellipse to be positioned within a predetermined distance from a center of the target vehicle updated at a previous time (¶ 0014 discloses a new center of gravity for an object is determined as a center of gravity that is within a predetermined distance from a center of gravity at a previous time; see also Abstract wherein the same process is discussed in context of a centroid).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Ng to incorporate the teachings of Nakaue such that the centroid of the fit shape of Ng can be a centroid of an object as determined by Nakaue wherein the current time centroid is determined by comparing a collection of centroids to a centroid at previous time wherein the centroid within a predetermined range is set as the new centroid as taught by Nakaue. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of centroid determination by ignoring erroneous detections that may represent roadside structures as taught by Nakaue (¶ 0015).
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. US 20230417895 A1 (hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Ng teach all of claims 1 and 8 as detailed above.
Ng does not teach that
the processor is further configured to estimate the shape of the target vehicle using extended object tracking (EOT).
Suzuki teaches that
the processor is further configured to estimate the shape of the target vehicle using extended object tracking (EOT) (¶ 0003 discloses performing EOT to estimate a target object’s state including shape; see also ¶ 0055 wherein EOT is implemented for recognition and tracking and ¶ 0059 wherein the target object state is schematized as an ellipse after state determination).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Ng to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki such that the actor of Ng can have its shape determined using EOT prior to ellipse fitting as taught by Suzuki. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve path planning and robustness of the applied method.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of “Numerically Stable Direct Least Squares Fitting of Ellipses” by Halir et al. (hereinafter Halir).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Ng teach all of claims 1 and 8 as detailed above.
Ng does not teach that
the processor is further configured to calculate a center of an ellipse based on a least squares method.
Halir teaches that
the processor is further configured to calculate a center of an ellipse based on a least squares method (Abstract discloses obtaining an ellipse fitting of a set of data points using least squares; Figures 3 and 4 discloses ellipse fitting in this manner results in a center of the ellipse).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Ng to incorporate the teachings of Halir such that the ellipse fitting of Ng can be performed utilizing the least squares method of Halir. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve simplicity, stability, and robustness of the fitting as disclosed in Halir (Conclusion).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Diewald US 20160200276 A1 (hereinafter Diewald).
Regarding claim 21, Ng teach all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Ng further teaches that
the processor is further configured to calculate the measurement by performing a primary FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) to convert the reception signal into an index (¶ 0147 discloses that received radar data can be processed with a FFT).
Ng does not teach that
the processor is further configured to calculate the measurement by performing a primary FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) on a frequency to convert the reception signal into an index with respect to a distance and a time, and performing a secondary FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) on a time to convert the index with respect to the distance and the time into an index with respect to a distance and a velocity.
Diewald teaches that
the processor is further configured to calculate the measurement by performing a primary FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) on a frequency to convert the reception signal into an index with respect to a distance and a time (¶ 0132 discloses a 2D FFT which firstly performs a FFT to transform measurement data from a frequency domain to a time series of range data), and performing a secondary FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) on a time to convert the index with respect to the distance and the time into an index with respect to a distance and a velocity (¶ 0133 discloses a 2D FFT which secondly performs a FFT to transform the time series data into the velocity range).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Ng to incorporate the teachings of Diewald such that the FFT of Ng can be the 2D FFT of Diewald. Ng and Diewald both contain the same base, comparable method of performing a FFT on radar data to identify an object in the data. As in Diewald, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to use a 2D FFT on Ng's radar data with the predictable result of obtaining identifications of an object from radar data as needed in Ng to yield an improvement in data filtering necessary for object identification.
Claim(s) 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sawada US 20210124052 A1 (hereinafter Sawada).
Regarding claim 22, Ng teach all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Ng does not explicitly teach that teaches that
the processor is further configured to generate a track for estimating the shape of the target vehicle using the measurement, such that the track includes adjacent measurements.
Sawada teaches that
the processor is further configured to generate a track (Claim 1 discloses that a track for a vehicle is generated from estimating a rectangular frame based on previous instance data and specifying the direction of the vehicle based on sensed contour data) for estimating the shape of the target vehicle using the measurement (Claim 1 discloses that previous data, i.e. previous track data, is used for estimating a rectangular frame of a vehicle), such that the track includes adjacent measurements (Figure 13, for example, shows that the track includes adjacent measurements).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Ng to incorporate the teachings of Sawada such that a track including an estimated shape that can be iteratively updated can be utilized as taught by Sawada for the initial object tracking before ellipse fitting of Ng. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of tracking by ensuring that all points are considered.
Regarding claim 24, Ng teach all of claim 22 as detailed above.
Ng does not teach that
the processor is further configured to detect the target vehicle by comparing a track generated in a previous scan with a track generated in a current scan.
Sawada further teaches that
the processor is further configured to detect the target vehicle by comparing a track generated in a previous scan with a track generated in a current scan (¶ 0038-0039 discloses at time Ti-1, a vehicle’s position Pi-1 is detected and a position Pi at time Ti is estimated wherein, at Ti, a detected vehicle at Pi can be compared with the previous estimate to determine if the detected vehicle at Ti is the vehicle previously detected at Ti-1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Ng to incorporate the further teachings of Sawada such that a current detection can be compared with a previous detection to determine if the currently detected vehicle is the same vehicle as the previously detected vehicle. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve continuity and prevent overloading memory that may be caused by tracking multiple of the same object.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng and Sawada as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Konishi US 20220254056 A1 (hereinafter Konishi).
Regarding claim 23, Ng teach all of claim 22 as detailed above.
Ng does not teach that
the processor is further configured to calculate a center position of the track as an average of the adjacent measurements.
Konishi teaches that
the processor is further configured to calculate a center position of the track as an average of the adjacent measurements (¶ 0058 discloses that the centroid of an object, used to indicate the object’s position, is determined by averaging the coordinates of a plurality of feature points corresponding to the object).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Ng to incorporate the teachings of Konishi such that the tracked vehicle’s centroid can be determined and used as the vehicle’s position according to the teachings of Konishi. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of localization of the vehicle within the environment.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 5/29/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the claim objections, 112(f) interpretation, 112(b) rejections, and 101 rejections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 3/11/2026. These/this objections, rejections, and interpretations have/has been withdrawn.
Specification and drawing amendments filed 5/29/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the drawing objections and specification objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 3/11/2026. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 5/29/2026, with respect to 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 3/11/2026 has been withdrawn. Particularly, since the amended claims filed 5/29/2026 recite a control step of decelerating the vehicle in response to a result of the abstract idea, the abstract idea has been incorporated into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 12-13, filed 5/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant merely asserts that the prior art of record does not teach the amended limitation added in the independent claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Figure 8, ¶ 0058-0061, ¶ 0068, ¶ 0100, and ¶ 0190 of Ng at least teach and suggest the newly amended limitations as discussed in further detail in the 103 rejection above. However, since suggestion is required, the 102 rejection of record in the Office Action dated 3/11/2026 has been withdrawn and a 103 rejection has been added in its place, detailing the teachings and suggestions within Ng and the motivations available to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
John Wilson et al. US 20250130576 A1 discloses a dynamic occupancy grid map that tracks various vehicles in an environment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights