DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2024 and 04/11/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3, 6-7, 13 and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18930719 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of followings.
Pending Application
Copending Application No. 18930719
Claim 1. A method comprising: receiving, by a user equipment (UE), configuration information comprising: beam-quality-assessment data, for the UE to determine a quality of a current beam and/or a quality of a new beam; and
triggering-event data, for the UE to determine that a condition is satisfied for performing a UE-initiated (UEI) beam-management (BM) procedure; and based on determining, by the UE, that the condition is satisfied, sending a beam report.
Claim 1. A method comprising: receiving, by a user equipment (UE), configuration information comprising: reporting data, for the UE to report information about a quality of a current beam and/or a quality of a new beam; and
triggering-event data, for the UE to determine that a condition is satisfied for performing a UE-initiated (UEI) beam-management (BM) procedure; and based on determining, by the UE, that the condition is satisfied, sending a beam report comprising information regarding the quality of the current beam and/or the quality of the new beam.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the UE, that a first beam is the current beam; and/or determining, by the UE, that a second beam is the new beam.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the UE, that a first beam is the current beam; and/or determining, by the UE, that a second beam is the new beam.
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the condition is satisfied comprises comparing a characteristic of the current beam with a characteristic of the new beam.
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the condition is satisfied comprises comparing a characteristic of the current beam with a characteristic of the new beam.
Claim 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the condition comprises the quality of the new beam being a threshold value better than the current beam, the threshold value being based on a reference signal received power (RSRP).
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the beam report comprises: an absolute reference signal received power (RSRP) for a best beam among a plurality of beams comprising the current beam and the new beam, the best beam having a largest measured RSRP among reported RSRP measurements associated with the plurality of beams; and one or more differential RSRP measurements for remaining beams of the plurality of beams, the remaining beams including the current beam, the one or more differential RSRP measurements being calculated based on a difference with the absolute RSRP for the best beam.
Claim 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the UE determines that the condition is satisfied by determining that a difference between a first RSRP of the current beam and a second RSRP of the new beam is less than the threshold value.
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the beam report comprises: an absolute reference signal received power (RSRP) for a best beam among a plurality of beams comprising the current beam and the new beam, the best beam having a largest measured RSRP among reported RSRP measurements associated with the plurality of beams; and one or more differential RSRP measurements for remaining beams of the plurality of beams, the remaining beams including the current beam, the one or more differential RSRP measurements being calculated based on a difference with the absolute RSRP for the best beam.
Claim 6. The method of claim 4, wherein the threshold value is configured via a higher-layer signal, the higher-layer signal complying with a radio resource control (RRC) protocol.
Claim 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the beam report comprises measurements of a number of reported beams from among a plurality of beams, the plurality of beams comprising the current beam and the new beam, the number of reported beams being configured by a radio resource control (RRC) protocol.
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the condition comprises the quality of the current beam being worse than a threshold value, the threshold value being determined based on a signal strength of the current beam.
Claim 1. … sending a beam report comprising information regarding the quality of the current beam and/or the quality of the new beam.
Claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the condition comprises the quality of the new beam being a threshold value better than a reference signal (RS) derived from an activated transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the UE, that a first beam is the current beam; and/or determining, by the UE, that a second beam is the new beam.
Claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the UE determines that a first beam is the current beam implicitly, based on an indicated transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state or based on an activated TCI state.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the UE, that a first beam is the current beam; and/or determining, by the UE, that a second beam is the new beam.
Claim 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the current beam is explicitly configured via a radio resource control (RRC) protocol.
Claim 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the beam report comprises measurements of a number of reported beams from among a plurality of beams, the plurality of beams comprising the current beam and the new beam, the number of reported beams being configured by a radio resource control (RRC) protocol.
Claim 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the UE determines that a second beam is the new beam implicitly, based on an activated transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the UE, that a first beam is the current beam; and/or determining, by the UE, that a second beam is the new beam.
Claim 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the new beam is explicitly configured via a radio resource control (RRC) protocol.
Claim 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the beam report comprises measurements of a number of reported beams from among a plurality of beams, the plurality of beams comprising the current beam and the new beam, the number of reported beams being configured by a radio resource control (RRC) protocol.
Claim 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the condition comprises a threshold number of deterioration instances.
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting, by the UE, a first UL channel as a schedule request (SR) to request an uplink (UL) grant for a second UL channel as a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) to carry the beam report, based on a deterioration in the quality of the current beam.
Claim 14. The method of claim 13, wherein the threshold number of deterioration instances is based on the deterioration instances occurring consecutively.
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting, by the UE, a first UL channel as a schedule request (SR) to request an uplink (UL) grant for a second UL channel as a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) to carry the beam report, based on a deterioration in the quality of the current beam.
Claim 15. The method of claim 13, wherein the threshold number of deterioration instances is configured via a radio resource control (RRC) protocol.
Claim 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the beam report comprises measurements of a number of reported beams from among a plurality of beams, the plurality of beams comprising the current beam and the new beam, the number of reported beams being configured by a radio resource control (RRC) protocol.
Claim 16. The method of claim 13, wherein the threshold number of deterioration instances is based on the deterioration instances occurring within a time window, the time window being configured via a radio resource control (RRC) protocol.
Claim 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the beam report comprises measurements of a number of reported beams from among a plurality of beams, the plurality of beams comprising the current beam and the new beam, the number of reported beams being configured by a radio resource control (RRC) protocol.
Claim 17. The method of claim 16, wherein the time window: starts based on an occurrence of a first deterioration instance; and terminates based on an expiration of a timer or based on the threshold number of deterioration instances occurring.
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting, by the UE, a first UL channel as a schedule request (SR) to request an uplink (UL) grant for a second UL channel as a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) to carry the beam report, based on a deterioration in the quality of the current beam.
Claim 18. The method of claim 13, wherein the threshold number of deterioration instances is based on a beam failure recovery (BFR) procedure.
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting, by the UE, a first UL channel as a schedule request (SR) to request an uplink (UL) grant for a second UL channel as a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) to carry the beam report, based on a deterioration in the quality of the current beam.
Claim 19. The method of claim 1, further comprising sending by the UE as part of a UE capability signaling procedure, information indicating that the UE is capable of supporting the UEI BM procedure.
Claim 19. The method of claim 1, further comprising indicating by the UE as part of a capability signaling process, a reporting quantity to be reported for UEI BM procedure.
Claim 20. A user equipment (UE) comprising a processing circuit, the processing circuit being configured to perform: receiving configuration information comprising: beam-quality-assessment data, for the UE to determine a quality of a current beam and/or a quality of a new beam; and
triggering-event data, for the UE to determine that a condition is satisfied for performing a UE-initiated (UEI) beam-management (BM) procedure; and based on determining that the condition is satisfied, sending a beam report.
Claim 20. A user equipment (UE) comprising a processing circuit, the processing circuit being configured to perform: receiving, by a user equipment (UE), configuration information comprising: reporting data, for the UE to report information about a quality of a current beam and/or a quality of a new beam; and
triggering-event data, for the UE to determine that a condition is satisfied for performing a UE-initiated (UEI) beam-management (BM) procedure; and based on determining, by the UE, that the condition is satisfied, sending a beam report comprising information regarding the quality of the current beam and/or the quality of the new beam.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Rationales:
The subject matter claimed in the pending application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter. There are differences between the claims depicted in the bolded words and the underlined words. Pertaining the difference depicted in the bolded words, it appears to be using different wording but meaning is the same. It is therefore deemed obvious to those skilled in the art of claim drafting to draft claim in a later-filed patent application using different wording but same meaning from reading claims in an early-filed patent application issued into a patent. A reason for doing so is to seek a well-rounded protection for a disclose invention. Moreover and pertaining the difference depicted in the underlined words, it appears to be broadening claim by omitting limitations. Nevertheless, it has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 186 USPQ 184(CCPA). Also note Ex Parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); omission of a reference whose function is not needed would be an obvious variation.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onggosanusi et al. (US 20210022026, Onggosanusi hereinafter).
As to claim 1: Onggosanusi discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE), configuration information (see at least paragraph [0138] and Fig. 7, UE-k is configured by the NW/gNB) comprising:
beam-quality-assessment data, for the UE to determine a quality of a current beam and/or a quality of a new beam (see at least paragraphs [0138]-[0139] and Fig. 7, the measurement RSs are utilized to measure beam quality such as CSI and/or beam metric.); and
triggering-event data, for the UE to determine that a condition is satisfied for performing a UE-initiated (UEI) beam-management (BM) procedure (see at least paragraph [00139], event-based criteria, for example, if the beam quality metric is less than or equal to a threshold Y, UE-k will initiate AP beam/CSI reporting.); and
based on determining, by the UE, that the condition is satisfied, sending a beam report (see at least paragraph [0140], if the event is declared positive (interpreted as condition is satisfied), the UE transmits the AP beam/CSI reporting.).
As to claim 2: Onggosanusi discloses the method of claim 1. Onggosanusi further discloses further comprising: determining, by the UE, that a first beam is the current beam; and/or determining, by the UE, that a second beam is the new beam (see at least paragraphs [0138]-[0139], beam.).
As to claim 7: Onggosanusi discloses the method of claim 1. Onggosanusi further discloses wherein the condition comprises the quality of the current beam being worse than a threshold value, the threshold value being determined based on a signal strength of the current beam (see at least paragraph [00139], event-based criteria, for example, if the beam quality metric is less than or equal to a threshold Y, UE-k will initiate AP beam/CSI reporting.).
As to claim 8: Onggosanusi discloses the method of claim 1. Onggosanusi further discloses wherein the condition comprises the quality of the new beam being a threshold value better than a reference signal (RS) derived from an activated transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state (see at least paragraph [0110], beam indication is done via the transmission configuration indicator (TCI) field).
As to claim 9: Onggosanusi discloses the method of claim 1. Onggosanusi further discloses wherein the UE determines that a first beam is the current beam implicitly, based on an indicated transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state or based on an activated TCI state (see at least paragraph [0110], beam indication is done via the transmission configuration indicator (TCI) field).
As to claim 10: Onggosanusi discloses the method of claim 1. Onggosanusi further discloses wherein the current beam is explicitly configured via a radio resource control (RRC) protocol (see at least paragraph [0144], configuration can be performed via higher-layer (RRC) signaling.).
As to claim 11: Onggosanusi discloses the method of claim 1. Onggosanusi further discloses wherein the UE determines that a second beam is the new beam implicitly, based on an activated transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state (see at least paragraph [0110], beam indication is done via the transmission configuration indicator (TCI) field).
As to claim 12: Onggosanusi discloses the method of claim 1. Onggosanusi further discloses wherein the new beam is explicitly configured via a radio resource control (RRC) protocol (see at least paragraph [0144], configuration can be performed via higher-layer (RRC) signaling.).
As to claim 13: Onggosanusi discloses the method of claim 1. Onggosanusi further discloses wherein the condition comprises a threshold number of deterioration instances (see at least paragraph [0161], TX beam candidate can correspond to the associated beam metric falling below a given threshold).
As to claim 14: Onggosanusi discloses the method of claim 13. Onggosanusi further discloses wherein the threshold number of deterioration instances is based on the deterioration instances occurring consecutively (see at least paragraph [0161], TX beam candidate can correspond to the associated beam metric falling below a given threshold).
As to claim 15: Onggosanusi discloses the method of claim 13. Onggosanusi further discloses wherein the threshold number of deterioration instances is configured via a radio resource control (RRC) protocol (see at least paragraph [0146], threshold Y can be fixed, pre-determined, configured via higher-layer (RRC) signaling).
As to claim 16: Onggosanusi discloses the method of claim 13. Onggosanusi further discloses wherein the threshold number of deterioration instances is based on the deterioration instances occurring within a time window, the time window being configured via a radio resource control (RRC) protocol (see at least paragraph [0146], threshold Y can be fixed, pre-determined, configured via higher-layer (RRC) signaling).
As to claim 17: Onggosanusi discloses the method of claim 16. Onggosanusi further discloses wherein the time window: starts based on an occurrence of a first deterioration instance; and terminates based on an expiration of a timer or based on the threshold number of deterioration instances occurring (see at least paragraph [0146], threshold Y can be fixed, pre-determined, configured via higher-layer (RRC) signaling).
As to claim 18: Onggosanusi discloses the method of claim 13. Onggosanusi further discloses wherein the threshold number of deterioration instances is based on a beam failure recovery (BFR) procedure (see at least paragraph [0139], The associated beam quality can correspond to beam metric such as L1-RSRP or L1-SINR or CQI or hypothetical BLER, measured on RS resources associated with data and/or control transmissions. It can also be associated with failure events such as beam failure detection).
As to claim 19: Onggosanusi discloses the method of claim 1. Onggosanusi further discloses further comprising sending, by the UE as part of a UE capability signaling procedure, information indicating that the UE is capable of supporting the UEI BM procedure (see at least paragraph [0134], UE can initiate/trigger beam/CSI reporting.).
As to claim 20: Onggosanusi discloses a user equipment (UE) comprising
a processing circuit (see at least paragraph [0088], processing circuitry),
the processing circuit being configured to perform: receiving configuration information (see at least paragraph [0138] and Fig. 7, UE-k is configured by the NW/gNB) comprising:
beam-quality-assessment data, for the UE to determine a quality of a current beam and/or a quality of a new beam (see at least paragraphs [0138]-[0139] and Fig. 7, the measurement RSs are utilized to measure beam quality such as CSI and/or beam metric.); and
triggering-event data, for the UE to determine that a condition is satisfied for performing a UE-initiated (UEI) beam-management (BM) procedure (see at least paragraph [00139], event-based criteria, for example, if the beam quality metric is less than or equal to a threshold Y, UE-k will initiate AP beam/CSI reporting.); and
based on determining that the condition is satisfied, sending a beam report (see at least paragraph [0140], if the event is declared positive (interpreted as condition is satisfied), the UE transmits the AP beam/CSI reporting.).
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 of this title, 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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onggosanusi et al. (US 20210022026, Onggosanusi hereinafter) in view of Venugopal et al. (US 20200229257, Venugopal hereinafter).
As to claim 3: Onggosanusi discloses the method of claim 1. Onggosanusi does not explicitly disclose wherein the determining that the condition is satisfied comprises comparing a characteristic of the current beam with a characteristic of the new beam.
However Venugopal discloses wherein the determining that the condition is satisfied comprises comparing a characteristic of the current beam with a characteristic of the new beam (see at least paragraph [00059], the UE may select one of the candidate beams based on a measured parameter (e.g., a preferred beam such as a candidate beam having a higher reference signal received power (RSRP) (or other parameter) compared to the current beam that is degrading), and include the selected beam in the report to the base station.).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement comparing current beam and candidate beam to select the better beam ,as taught by Venugopal, into the invention of Onggosanusi in order to reduce latency and improve reliability in wireless communications system (see Venugopal, paragraph [0101]).
As to claim 4: Onggosanusi discloses the method of claim 1. Onggosanusi does not explicitly disclose wherein the condition comprises the quality of the new beam being a threshold value better than the current beam, the threshold value being based on a reference signal received power (RSRP).
However Venugopal discloses wherein the condition comprises the quality of the new beam being a threshold value better than the current beam, the threshold value being based on a reference signal received power (RSRP) (see at least paragraph [00059], the UE may select one of the candidate beams based on a measured parameter (e.g., a preferred beam such as a candidate beam having a higher reference signal received power (RSRP) (or other parameter) compared to the current beam that is degrading), and include the selected beam in the report to the base station.).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement comparing current beam and candidate beam to select the better beam ,as taught by Venugopal, into the invention of Onggosanusi in order to reduce latency and improve reliability in wireless communications system (see Venugopal, paragraph [0101]).
As to claim 5: Onggosanusi and Venugopal disclose the method of claim 4. Onggosanusi does not explicitly disclose wherein the UE determines that the condition is satisfied by determining that a difference between a first RSRP of the current beam and a second RSRP of the new beam is less than the threshold value.
However Venugopal discloses wherein the UE determines that the condition is satisfied by determining that a difference between a first RSRP of the current beam and a second RSRP of the new beam is less than the threshold value (see at least paragraph [00059], the UE may select one of the candidate beams based on a measured parameter (e.g., a preferred beam such as a candidate beam having a higher reference signal received power (RSRP) (or other parameter) compared to the current beam that is degrading), and include the selected beam in the report to the base station.).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement comparing current beam and candidate beam to select the better beam ,as taught by Venugopal, into the invention of Onggosanusi in order to reduce latency and improve reliability in wireless communications system (see Venugopal, paragraph [0101]).
As to claim 6: Onggosanusi and Venugopal disclose the method of claim 4. Onggosanusi further discloses wherein the threshold value is configured via a higher-layer signal, the higher-layer signal complying with a radio resource control (RRC) protocol (see at least paragraph [0144], configuration can be performed via higher-layer (RRC) signaling.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rahman et al. (US 20220022180) discloses Method and Apparatus for Beam Management and Training.
Zhou et al. (US 20200245176) discloses Beam Reporting in A Beam Failure Recovery Request or A Beam Failure Recovery Procedure.
Ma et al. (US 20220038168) discloses Beam Measurement Reporting.
Gonuguntla et al. (US 20220263557) discloses a Method of Reporting Channel State Information, a Communication System, and a Method of Scheduling TCI.
Zhang et al. (US 20260040110) discloses Aperiodic Configuration for Cross-Link Interference.
Koskela et al. (US 20190058518) discloses Beam Based Communication Device and Access Point.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KABIR U JAHANGIR whose telephone number is (571)272-0796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am to 6:30pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at (571)272-3139. 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.
/K. J./
Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights