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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 8, 12 & 13 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claims 1 and 13. The phrase "the one or more vibration/acoustic sensor are configured" should read "the one or more vibration/acoustic sensors are configured." The phrase "relate to a N different reference events" should read "relate to N different reference events." The phrase "associated with a different one or more reference vibration/acoustic signals" should be revised to "associated with a different set of one or more reference vibration/acoustic signals."
Claim 1. The phrase "information on the event comprising utilization of information of the specific reference event stored in the database" should read "information on the event using information of the specific reference event stored in the database."
Claim 2. Each occurrence of "the N different reference events comprises" should read "the N different reference events comprise."
Claim 3. The phrase "the database is comprised within the processing unit" should read "the database is included in the processing unit" or "the database is located within the processing unit."
Claim 4. The phrase "the database is separate to the processing unit" should read "the database is separate from the processing unit."
Claim 8. The phrase "information relating the event" should read "information relating to the event." The phrase "signals relating to the event that is stored" should read "signals relating to the event that are stored." The phrase "information on the event that classified the event" should read "information on the event that classifies the event."
Claim 12. The phrase "extends over a different time period to at least one other segment" should read "extends over a different time period than at least one other segment" or "extends over a time period different from that of at least one other segment."
Claim 13. The final step should be revised from "outputting, by an output unit, information on the event comprising utilizing information" to "outputting, by an output unit, information on the event using information."
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 11 & 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 depends from claim 5. Claim 5 requires classification as an unknown event when the matches for the reference signals are less than the first threshold, whereas claim 6 further requires classification as an unknown event when those matches are greater than a second threshold. The claim does not state the relationship between the first and second thresholds. It is therefore unclear whether claim 6 requires an intermediate interval in which every match is greater than a lower second threshold and less than a higher first threshold, or whether the claim permits a different relationship between the thresholds. The metes and bounds of the claimed threshold condition are not reasonably certain. Claim 6 may be clarified by reciting that the second threshold is lower than the first threshold and that the relevant matches are greater than the second threshold and less than the first threshold.
Claim Interpretation for Examination. For purposes of examination and application of the prior art, the Examiner interprets claim 6 as requiring the second threshold to be lower than the first threshold and as classifying the event as an unknown event when the relevant matches are greater than the second threshold but less than the first threshold. This interpretation is adopted solely to permit examination of the claim under the prior art and does not withdraw or otherwise cure the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 11 recites "the second threshold," but claim 11 depends from claim 10, which depends from claim 9, and neither claim 9 nor claim 10 introduces a second threshold. The term therefore lacks antecedent basis in the dependency chain. Claim 11 also presents the same unclear relationship between the first and second thresholds discussed for claim 6. Claim 11 may be clarified by introducing "a second threshold lower than the first threshold" and by expressly requiring the relevant matches to be greater than the second threshold and less than the first threshold.
Claim Interpretation for Examination. For purposes of examination and application of the prior art, the Examiner treats “the second threshold” as introducing “a second threshold” that is lower than the first threshold and interprets claim 11 as classifying the event as an unknown event when the relevant matches derived from the two or more segments are greater than the second threshold but less than the first threshold. This interpretation is adopted solely to permit examination of the claim under the prior art and does not withdraw or otherwise cure the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 13 recites "classifying, by the processing unit is configured to classify the event." This language combines a method step, "classifying," with apparatus language, "is configured to classify," and does not form a definite method limitation. It is unclear whether the claim requires performance of the classifying step or only configuration of the processing unit. The limitation may be clarified by reciting "classifying, by the processing unit, the event as a specific reference event ... ."
Claim Interpretation for Examination. For purposes of examination and application of the prior art, the Examiner interprets the disputed language as requiring performance of the method step of “classifying, by the processing unit, the event as a specific reference event of the N different reference events when a match of the comparison between the at least a portion of the one or more vibration/acoustic signals relating to the event and the one or more reference vibration/acoustic signals of the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals associated with the specific reference event exceeds a first threshold.” This interpretation is adopted solely to permit examination of the claim under the prior art and does not withdraw or otherwise cure the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyaci et al. (U.S. 2023/0033088 A1) in view of Dutta et al. (U.S. 2015/0346066 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Boyaci et al. discloses a switchgear event detection system as seen in Fig. 1, comprising: one or more vibration/acoustic sensors (see [0021 & 0035]); a processing unit (see [0021]); and an output unit (see paragraphs [0021 & 0035], disclosing a circuit-breaker monitoring system comprising a vibration sensor, processing unit, and output unit); wherein the one or more vibration/acoustic sensors are configured to be mounted in and/or on a switchgear (see paragraph [0021], disclosing that the vibration sensor is mounted to the monitored circuit breaker, which is a switchgear component); wherein the one or more vibration/acoustic sensors are configured to acquire one or more vibration/acoustic signals relating to an event inside the switchgear and/or outside the switchgear and in the vicinity of the switchgear (see [0053]), and wherein the one or more vibration/acoustic signals extend over a time window (see paragraph [0021], disclosing acquisition of a temporal vibration signal over a temporal portion of a circuit-breaker closing operation); and wherein the one or more vibration/acoustic sensor are configured to provide the one or more vibration/acoustic signals to the processing unit (see paragraph [0047], expressly providing the temporal vibration signal to the processing unit).
Boyaci et al. does not disclose wherein the processing unit is configured to compare at least a portion of the one or more vibration/acoustic signals with a plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals stored within a database, wherein the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals relate to a N different reference events and wherein information of the N different reference events is stored in the database, and wherein each reference event of the N different reference events is associated with a different one or more reference vibration/acoustic signals of the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals; wherein the processing unit is configured to classify the event as a specific reference event of the N different reference events when a match of the comparison between the at least a portion of the one or more vibration/acoustic signals relating to the event and the one or more reference vibration/acoustic signals of the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals associated with the specific reference event exceeds a first threshold; and wherein the output unit is configured to output information on the event comprising utilization of information of the specific reference event stored in the database.
Dutta et al. discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to compare at least a portion of the one or more vibration/acoustic signals with a plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals stored within a database (see paragraph [0010], disclosing a diagnosis tool having a data store containing operational-parameter data for known faults and one or more processors that compare received sensor signals with the stored data); wherein the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals relate to a N different reference events and wherein information of the N different reference events is stored in the database (see paragraph [0055], disclosing up to N individual classifiers corresponding to different known faults); wherein each reference event of the N different reference events is associated with a different one or more reference vibration/acoustic signals of the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals (see paragraph [0057], disclosing known reference features associated with respective known faults); wherein the processing unit is configured to classify the event as a specific reference event of the N different reference events when a match of the comparison between the at least a portion of the one or more vibration/acoustic signals relating to the event and the one or more reference vibration/acoustic signals of the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals associated with the specific reference event exceeds a first threshold (see paragraph [0059], disclosing comparison with stored known-fault feature requirements and determination of a known-fault match when a required certainty level is satisfied); and wherein the output unit is configured to output information on the event comprising utilization of information of the specific reference event stored in the database (see paragraph [0060], disclosing an output identifying the diagnosed fault and displaying a corresponding message or alert).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boyaci et al. by incorporating Dutta et al.’s stored N-class known-fault reference model and certainty-based matching into Boyaci et al.’s circuit-breaker vibration-monitoring system, as doing so would permit Boyaci et al.’s vibration-signal fingerprints to be classified as particular known switchgear conditions rather than merely compared with a general healthy state. Dutta et al. explains in paragraph [0070] that decisions based on multiple detectors analyzing different features improve fault-detection accuracy and system robustness, thereby providing more reliable identification of particular switchgear events. One skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both Boyaci et al. and Dutta et al. process time-dependent machine-sensor signals, extract signal features, compare those features with stored or predefined reference information, and use processors and thresholds to determine machine operating conditions.
As to claim 2, Boyaci et al. and Dutta et al. disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein Boyaci et al. further discloses wherein the N different reference events comprises reference events inside at least one reference switchgear and/or outside the at least one reference switchgear (see [0053 & 0066]); and/or the N different reference events comprises reference events inside the switchgear and/or outside the switchgear, also see paragraph [0033], disclosing comparison with baseline features obtained from one or more calibration circuit breakers, which constitutes the claimed alternative of reference events occurring inside at least one reference switchgear).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
1519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3; Boyaci et al. does not disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein the database is comprised within the processing unit.
Dutta et al. discloses wherein the database is comprised within the processing unit (see paragraph [0010], disclosing an integrated diagnosis tool comprising both a data store and one or more processors that compare received sensor signals with the data in the data store).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the reference database of the combined Boyaci-Dutta system in memory associated with Boyaci et al.’s processing unit, as taught by Dutta et al., so that reference-event classification may be performed locally at the monitored switchgear. Dutta et al. explains in paragraph [0083] that machine-health-monitoring functions may be performed by a controller on or associated with the individual machine, thereby reducing reliance on continuous remote processing and permitting local condition evaluation. One skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because storing classification data in memory accessible to a processor was a conventional implementation of Dutta et al.’s diagnostic tool and would not require changing the sensing or signal-processing operation of Boyaci et al..
As to claim 4; Boyaci et al. does not disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein the database is separate to the processing unit.
Dutta et al. discloses wherein the database is separate to the processing unit (see paragraph [0084], disclosing a central monitoring facility that maintains a master database of known and unknown faults for diagnostic processing associated with multiple field machines).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to store the reference-event information for Boyaci et al.’s monitoring system in Dutta et al.’s separate central master database so that multiple switchgear-monitoring processors could access and benefit from a common reference set. Dutta et al. explains in paragraph [0084] that the central master database permits correlations to be drawn between faults detected by multiple field machines to improve and update the anomaly detectors and classifiers, thereby providing consistent and progressively improved classification across multiple monitored switchgear units. One skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Dutta et al. expressly contemplates distributing processing between local machine controllers and a remote monitoring facility, and Boyaci et al.’s processor already operates on stored baseline information.
As to claim 5; Boyaci et al. does not disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to classify the event as an unknown event when matches of comparisons between the at least a portion of the one or more vibration/acoustic signals relating to the event and each of the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals are less than the first threshold.
Dutta et al. discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to classify the event as an unknown event when matches of comparisons between the at least a portion of the one or more vibration/acoustic signals relating to the event and each of the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals are less than the first threshold (see paragraph [0061], disclosing that, when each known-fault classifier fails to establish the required match to a known fault, the sentencing module positively determines that an unknown or new fault has been identified).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply Dutta et al.’s unknown-fault classification rule to Boyaci et al.’s vibration-fingerprint comparison so that an event failing to satisfy the required match level for every stored event class is classified as unknown. Dutta et al. explains in paragraph [0008] that not all faults can be identified before design of the diagnostic system and that assuming all faults are known creates a risk of misclassifying unknown faults, thereby establishing the benefit of preserving an unknown-event classification for nonmatching switchgear events. One skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Dutta et al.’s rule operates on the same type of feature-comparison output already generated by Boyaci et al.’s processor and requires only an additional classification outcome when no stored class satisfies the match criterion.
As to claim 6; Boyaci et al. does not disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to classify the event as an unknown event when matches of comparisons between the at least a portion of the one or more vibration/acoustic signals relating to the event and each of the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals are greater than a second threshold.
Dutta et al. discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to classify the event as an unknown event when matches of comparisons between the at least a portion of the one or more vibration/acoustic signals relating to the event and each of the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals are greater than a second threshold (see paragraph [0043], explaining that the normal-operation model includes one or more thresholds or boundaries and that crossing a threshold indicates an abnormal event; under the interpretation adopted for examination, Dutta et al.’s abnormality threshold corresponds to the lower second threshold, while the known-event match threshold recited in claim 5 corresponds to the higher first threshold. Thus, a signal exceeding the lower abnormality threshold, but failing to satisfy the higher known-event match threshold for every stored reference event, is classified as an unknown event).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boyaci et al.’s threshold-based vibration monitoring by applying Dutta et al.’s lower abnormality threshold before applying the higher known-event match threshold, as doing so would distinguish an actual abnormal event from normal background vibration while preserving an unknown-event classification when the detected event does not satisfy the match threshold for any known reference event. Dutta et al. explains in paragraph [0044] that the first-stage anomaly detector flags abnormal operation before the signal is provided to the fault classifier, thereby allowing computationally efficient detection of an abnormal event before attempting full known-fault classification. One skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Boyaci et al. already applies multiple thresholds to vibration-signal features, and Dutta et al.’s preliminary abnormality threshold performs the compatible and predictable function of determining whether the signal represents an event warranting classification..
Regarding claim 7, Boyaci et al. does not disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to control the output unit to output an alarm when the event has been classified as an unknown event.
Dutta et al. discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to control the output unit to output an alarm when the event has been classified as an unknown event (see paragraph [0062], explaining that an unknown fault is positively logged with a unique identifier and communicated to a user or an associated system; wherein communicating the classified unknown fault to a user constitutes outputting an alarm because the communication affirmatively notifies the user of an unidentified abnormal event requiring attention.)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boyaci et al.’s output unit to output an alarm when Dutta et al.’s classifier identifies an unknown event, as doing so would promptly notify an operator that an abnormal switchgear event has occurred but could not be matched to a stored known-event class. Dutta et al. explains in paragraph [0060] that a diagnostic output may be displayed as a corresponding message or alert to a user, thereby providing timely notice of a detected machine condition. One skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Boyaci et al. already includes an output unit that reports a determined circuit-breaker condition, and generating Dutta et al.’s alert from an unknown-event classification would constitute a predictable use of that existing output unit.
Regarding claim 13; Boyaci et al. discloses in Figs. 1-2 a switchgear event detection method (see Fig. 1), comprising: acquiring, by one or more vibration/acoustic sensors mounted in and/or on a switchgear (see [0021 & 0035]), one or more vibration/acoustic signals relating to an event inside the switchgear and/or outside the switchgear and in the vicinity of the switchgear (see [0040 & 0053]), and wherein the one or more vibration/acoustic signals extend over a time window (see paragraph [0047], disclosing mounting a vibration sensor to a circuit breaker and acquiring a temporal vibration signal during a circuit-breaker operation); and providing, by the one or more vibration/acoustic sensor, the one or more vibration/acoustic signals to a processing unit (see paragraph [0047], disclosing providing the temporal vibration signal to a processing unit).
Boyaci et al. does not disclose comparing, by the processing unit, at least a portion of the one or more vibration/acoustic signals with a plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals stored within a database, wherein the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals relate to a N different reference events and wherein information of the N different reference events is stored in the database, and wherein each reference event of the N different reference events is associated with a different one or more reference vibration/acoustic signals of the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals; classifying, by the processing unit is configured to classify the event as a specific reference event of the N different reference events when a match of the comparison between the at least a portion of the one or more vibration/acoustic signals relating to the event and the one or more reference vibration/acoustic signals of the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals associated with the specific reference event exceeds a first threshold; and outputting, by an output unit, information on the event comprising utilizing information of the specific reference event stored in the database.
Dutta et al. discloses comparing, by the processing unit, at least a portion of the one or more vibration/acoustic signals with a plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals stored within a database (see paragraph [0010], disclosing one or more processors that compare received sensor signals with stored operational-parameter data indicative of known machine faults); wherein the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals relate to a N different reference events (see paragraph [0055], disclosing up to N individual classifiers corresponding to different known faults); wherein information of the N different reference events is stored in the database (see paragraph [0010], disclosing a data store containing operational-parameter data indicative of one or more known machine faults); wherein each reference event of the N different reference events is associated with a different one or more reference vibration/acoustic signals of the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals (see paragraph [0057], disclosing known reference features associated with respective known faults); classifying, by the processing unit is configured to classify the event as a specific reference event of the N different reference events when a match of the comparison between the at least a portion of the one or more vibration/acoustic signals relating to the event and the one or more reference vibration/acoustic signals of the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals associated with the specific reference event exceeds a first threshold (see paragraph [0059], disclosing comparison of extracted signal features with stored feature requirements and identification of a particular known fault when the comparison satisfies a required certainty level); and outputting, by an output unit, information on the event comprising utilizing information of the specific reference event stored in the database (see paragraph [0060], disclosing output of information identifying the matched fault as a corresponding message or alert).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the circuit-breaker vibration-monitoring method of Boyaci et al. by incorporating Dutta et al.’s stored N-class reference model and certainty-based known-fault classification, as doing so would permit Boyaci et al.’s acquired vibration signal to be classified as a particular stored switchgear-event class rather than merely evaluated relative to a general healthy operating condition. Dutta et al. explains in paragraph [0070] that using multiple detectors that analyze different signal features improves fault-detection accuracy and system robustness, thereby providing more reliable identification of particular switchgear events. One skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both Boyaci et al. and Dutta et al. acquire time-dependent machine-sensor signals, process features extracted from those signals, compare the processed features with reference information, and output information identifying the resulting machine condition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In terms of claim 8, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, “wherein the processing unit is configured to control the output unit to output information relating the event when the event has been classified as an unknown event, wherein the system comprises an input unit, and wherein the input unit is configured to enable information on the event to be input by an operator, wherein the information on the event classifies the event, and wherein the processing unit is configured to update the database with the one or more vibration/acoustic signals relating to the event that is stored as new one or more reference vibration/acoustic signals along with the information on the event that classified the event,” in combination with all of the other limitations of claims 1 & 5 from which claim 8 depends.
In terms of claim 9, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, “the processing unit is configured to compare each segment of the one or more vibration/acoustic signals with the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals stored within the database, and wherein the processing unit is configured to classify the event as the specific reference event of the N different reference events when matches of comparisons between two or more segments of the plurality of segments of the one or more vibration/acoustic signals relating to the event and the one or more reference vibration/acoustic signals of the plurality of reference vibration/acoustic signals associated with the specific reference event exceed the first threshold,” in combination with all of the other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 10-12 variously depending from claim 9 are allowable for the same above reasons.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 2022/0102088 A1 to Brand et al. disclose a switch that includes a sensor device capable of transmitting data related to a sensor signal of at least one sensor of the sensor device to an external unit through wireless communication.
U.S. 2005/0229380 A1 to Deconde et al. disclose a method of making an integrated texture sensor for sensing a texture is described. In one embodiment, the method is directed to a sensor that that is protected from external contaminating particulates and will self-equalize using air from outside the sensor. Further combinations of such protection among various membrane switches, in combination with various types of membranes, is described. In another embodiment, a method of making a skin-texture sensor for sensing a skin texture having a plurality of ridges and a plurality of valleys is described, such that when completed, applying a ridge of the texture to a membrane switch will cause flexure of the membrane resulting in a contact between the lower electrode and the upper electrode, the contact establishing an electrical communication between said one of the row lines and said one of the column lines, whereas disposing a valley of the texture over said each membrane switch will not result in the contact between the lower electrode and the upper electrode.
U.S. 2011/0246402 A1 to Burman discloses an acoustic event classifier uses particle swarm optimization (PSO) to perform a flexible time correlation of a sensed acoustic signature to reference acoustic signatures in a multi-dimensional parameter space. The classifier may fuse the acoustic signatures from multiple acoustic sensors to form the sensed acoustic signature. The approach is generally applicable to classify all types of acoustic events but is particularly well-suited to classify explosive events such as gun shots, mortar blasts, improvised explosive device blasts etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUNG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1966. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon- Friday 8AM - 4:00PM Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on 571-272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Examiner: /Trung Q. Nguyen/- Art 2858
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights