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 2025-01-21 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the view numbers (e.g., “FIG. 1”, “FIG. 2”, etc.) are not larger than the numbers/text used for reference characters (e.g., “Terminal”, “11”, “t0” etc.). The view numbers must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters. Please see 37 CFR 1.84(u).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. The language should be clear and concise and should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “This application provides”, etc. Please see MPEP § 608.01(b). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that claim 19 should depend on claim 18, rather than claim 17 as the current claim language recites. Specifically, claim 19 is directed to “the non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 17,” whereas claim 17 is drawn to “the terminal according to claim 16” rather than a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and claim 18 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Furthermore, claim 19 recites similar limitations to those recited in claims 4 and 16, which depend from independent claims 1 and 14, respectively. For these reasons, claim 19 will be interpreted as depending from claim 18 for the purposes of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11, 13-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0187956 to Hwang (embodiment 1) in view of Hwang (embodiment 2).
As to claim 14 (and similarly applied to claims 1 and 18), Hwang (embodiment 1) discloses a terminal (Hwang, Fig. 1, UE 1-35, ¶0047; Fig. 12, ¶0214; and Fig. 5, ¶0135), comprising a processor (Hwang, Fig. 12, processor 1210, ¶0215; additionally, Fig. 5 and ¶¶0135-0140) and a memory storing instructions (Hwang, memory 1230, ¶0215; additionally, Fig. 5 and ¶0139), wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: during execution of Conditional Primary Secondary Cell Group Cell Addition/Change (CPAC), performing a first operation, wherein the first operation comprises at least one of the following: continuing to evaluate or stopping evaluating an execution condition associated with a candidate cell comprised in first conditional configuration information; wherein the first conditional configuration information comprises CPAC configuration information or subsequent CPAC configuration information (Hwang, ¶0154, "When executing CPAC, the UE may stop evaluation of CPAC execution conditions"; the UE stops evaluation of CPAC execution conditions (i.e., the UE stops evaluating an execution condition associated with a candidate cell comprised in CPAC configuration information) during the execution of CPAC).
Hwang (embodiment 1) does not disclose: continuing to evaluate or stopping evaluating an execution condition associated with a candidate cell comprised in second conditional configuration information, wherein … the second conditional configuration information comprises Conditional Handover (CHO) configuration information or CHO configuration information with CPAC configuration information.
While not required by the claim language (please see MPEP § 2143.03), Hwang (embodiment 2) discloses: continuing to evaluate or stopping evaluating an execution condition associated with a candidate cell comprised in second conditional configuration information, wherein … the second conditional configuration information comprises Conditional Handover (CHO) configuration information or CHO configuration information with CPAC configuration information (Hwang, ¶0162, "When executing CPAC, the UE may stop evaluation of CHO and CPAC execution conditions"; the UE stops evaluation of CHO and CPAC execution conditions (i.e., the UE stops evaluating an execution condition associated with a candidate cell comprised in CHO configuration information or CHO configuration information with CPAC configuration information) during the execution of CPAC).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine these complementary embodiments, because they both accomplish the same goal of stopping evaluation of execution conditions, just within different contexts. Hwang presents the possible scenarios in two separate embodiments: the first embodiment deals with stopping evaluation of CPAC execution conditions during execution of CPAC, and the second embodiment deals with stopping evaluation of CHO and CPAC execution conditions during execution of CPAC. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these embodiments into a single method and/or apparatus to accomplish Hwang's stated goal of "defin[ing] an operation of a user equipment (UE) such that, because when configurations for conditional mobility operations are respectively given for a master cell group (hereinafter referred to as an “MCG”) and a secondary cell group (hereinafter referred to as an “SCG”), conditions for the conditional mobility operations configured for the MCG and the SCG may be satisfied independently, one conditional mobility operation for which the condition is first satisfied, is executed first, and then the other conditional mobility operation is stopped or is executed subsequently. That is, this is to address confusion due to the possibility of simultaneous application of different radio resource control (RRC) reconfigurations (RRCReconfiguration) when conditional mobility conditions are respectively configured for the MCG and SCG" (Hwang, ¶0005; please also refer to Hwang, ¶¶0006-0007). In other words, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hwang's two embodiments into one method and/or apparatus to fully address what actions a UE takes when a CHO and CPAC are simultaneously configured for the UE. Finally, combining the separate embodiments would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Please see MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to claim 15 (and similarly applied to claims 2 and 19), Hwang (embodiments 1 and 2) discloses the terminal according to claim 14, wherein the performing the first operation comprises: performing the first operation based on a configuration of a network side device, a terminal capability, or a protocol predefinition (Hwang, Fig. 10 and ¶¶0190-0199; Fig. 11 and ¶¶200-0213; the network side device configures the UE with the CHO and/or CPAC configuration information; please also see at least ¶0007 and ¶¶0028-0035. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to also be considered to be a protocol definition and that this operation would necessarily be dependent on the terminal's capability of performing said operation).
As to claim 3, Hwang (embodiments 1 and 2) discloses the conditional configuration information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising: during execution of CHO or CHO with CPAC, stopping, by the terminal, evaluating the execution condition associated with the candidate cell comprised in the first conditional configuration information (Hwang, ¶0153, "When executing a CHO, the UE may stop evaluation of CHO and CPAC execution conditions"; the UE stops evaluation of CHO and CPAC execution conditions (i.e., the UE stops evaluating an execution condition associated with a candidate cell comprised in CPAC configuration information) during the execution of CHO), and releasing the first conditional configuration information (Hwang, ¶0166, "If both CHO and CPAC are configured for the UE and one conditional mobility among the CHO and CPAC is successfully executed, the UE may autonomously release configuration information for specific conditional mobility" and ¶0168, "If a CHO is executed, the UE may release configuration information of CPAC and CHO candidates (i.e., if CHO happens, CPAC & CHO candidates will be cleared)").
As to claim 16 (and similarly applied to claim 4), Hwang (embodiments 1 and 2) discloses the terminal according to claim 14, wherein the continuing to evaluate or stopping evaluating the execution condition associated with the candidate cell comprised in the first conditional configuration information comprises: continuing to evaluate or stopping evaluating the execution condition associated with the candidate cell comprised in the first conditional configuration information within a first time period, wherein a start moment of the first time period is a first moment, and the first moment is a start moment at which the terminal executes CPAC, wherein an end moment of the first time period is a second moment, the second moment is a target moment at which the terminal successfully completes a CPAC execution procedure (Hwang, ¶0154, "When executing CPAC, the UE may stop evaluation of CPAC execution conditions"; the UE stops evaluation of CPAC execution conditions during the execution of CPAC. Examiner notes that "when executing CPAC" is understood to be "during execution of CPAC", i.e. after the start moment at which the terminal beings executing CPAC and before the completion of executing CPAC).
As to claim 9, Hwang (embodiments 1 and 2) discloses the conditional configuration information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the continuing to evaluate or stopping evaluating the execution condition associated with the candidate cell comprised in the second conditional configuration information comprises at least one of the following: continuing to evaluate or stopping evaluating, by the terminal, an execution condition associated with a candidate primary cell comprised in the second conditional configuration information within a first time period; or continuing to evaluate or stopping evaluating, by the terminal, an execution condition associated with a candidate primary secondary cell group cell comprised in the second conditional configuration information within a first time period, wherein a start moment of the first time period is a first moment, and the first moment is a start moment at which the terminal executes CPAC, wherein an end moment of the first time period is a second moment, and the second moment is a target moment at which the terminal successfully completes a CPAC execution procedure (Hwang, ¶0154, "When executing CPAC, the UE may stop evaluation of CHO and CPAC execution conditions"; the UE stops evaluation of CHO and CPAC execution conditions during the execution of CPAC. Examiner notes that "when executing CPAC" is understood to be "during execution of CPAC", i.e. after the start moment at which the terminal beings executing CPAC and before the completion of executing CPAC).
As to claim 11, Hwang (embodiments 1 and 2) discloses the conditional configuration information processing method according to claim 9, further comprising: when at least one candidate cell in the second conditional configuration information meets the execution condition, executing, by the terminal, a terminal behavior associated with the second conditional configuration information (Hwang, ¶0159, "If a CHO is triggered while a PSCell change is being performed, the UE may fall back to a configuration applied before CPAC application and execute the triggered CHO". Additionally and/or alternatively, please see ¶0168, "If a CHO is executed, the UE may release configuration information of CPAC and CHO candidates (i.e., if CHO happens, CPAC & CHO candidates will be cleared)").
As to claim 13, Hwang (embodiments 1 and 2) discloses the conditional configuration information processing method according to claim 11, further comprising: when the terminal executes the terminal behavior associated with the second conditional configuration information, in response to the terminal being performing a CPAC operation, stopping performing the CPAC operation (Hwang, ¶0159, "If a CHO is triggered while a PSCell change is being performed, the UE may fall back to a configuration applied before CPAC application and execute the triggered CHO").
Claims 5-8, 10, 12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0187956 to Hwang (embodiments 1 and 2) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0105681 to Paladugu et al. (“Paladugu”).
As to claim 17 (and similarly applied to claims 5 and 20), Hwang (embodiments 1 and 2) discloses the terminal according to claim 16.
Hwang does not disclose: wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to further perform operations comprising at least one of the following: re-evaluating the execution condition associated with the candidate cell comprised in the first conditional configuration information or updated first conditional configuration information at a third moment; or continuing to evaluate the execution condition associated with the candidate cell comprised in the first conditional configuration information at a third moment, wherein the third moment is the target moment, or the third moment is a moment after the target moment.
However, Paladugu discloses: wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to further perform operations comprising at least one of the following: re-evaluating the execution condition associated with the candidate cell comprised in the first conditional configuration information or updated first conditional configuration information at a third moment; or continuing to evaluate the execution condition associated with the candidate cell comprised in the first conditional configuration information at a third moment, wherein the third moment is the target moment, or the third moment is a moment after the target moment (Paladugu, ¶¶0133-0134, "the UE 120 may suspend monitoring the execution criteria for other PSCells during the execution of PSCell addition/change … After the conditional PSCell addition/change is successful, the UE 120 may continue monitoring any other candidate PSCells").
Hwang and Paladugu are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communications; dual connectivity; and hand-off or reselection arrangements, including conditional handover and/or conditional primary secondary cell group addition or change procedures. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hwang to incorporate the teachings of Paladugu to include: wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to further perform operations comprising at least one of the following: re-evaluating the execution condition associated with the candidate cell comprised in the first conditional configuration information or updated first conditional configuration information at a third moment; or continuing to evaluate the execution condition associated with the candidate cell comprised in the first conditional configuration information at a third moment, wherein the third moment is the target moment, or the third moment is a moment after the target moment. Doing so would improve reliability, reduce interruption time, and "improve HOs and SCG change reliability and robustness" (Paladugu, ¶0111; please also see ¶¶0005-0007). Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these disclosures into a single method and/or apparatus to accomplish Hwang's stated goal of "defin[ing] an operation of a user equipment (UE) such that, because when configurations for conditional mobility operations are respectively given for a master cell group (hereinafter referred to as an “MCG”) and a secondary cell group (hereinafter referred to as an “SCG”), conditions for the conditional mobility operations configured for the MCG and the SCG may be satisfied independently, one conditional mobility operation for which the condition is first satisfied, is executed first, and then the other conditional mobility operation is stopped or is executed subsequently. That is, this is to address confusion due to the possibility of simultaneous application of different radio resource control (RRC) reconfigurations (RRCReconfiguration) when conditional mobility conditions are respectively configured for the MCG and SCG" (Hwang, ¶0005; please also refer to Hwang, ¶¶0006-0007). Additionally, combining Paladugu's continuation of evaluation of execution conditions for candidate cells after completion of CPAC with Hwang's CPAC procedure would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
According to MPEP § 2143.03, "Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art."
Claim 5, upon which claims 6-8 depend, requires a selection of either "re-evaluating, by the terminal at a third moment, the execution condition associated with the candidate cell comprised in the first configuration information or updated first conditional configuration information" or "continuing to evaluate, by the terminal at a third moment, the execution condition associated with the candidate cell comprised in the first conditional configuration information"; thus, only one of these alternative limitations is required to be considered.
As previously cited for claim 5, Paladugu discloses "continuing to evaluate the execution condition associated with the candidate cell comprised in the first conditional configuration information at a third moment, wherein the third moment is the target moment, or the third moment is a moment after the target moment" (Paladugu, ¶¶0133-0134).
Since the limitations of claims 6-8 further narrow the scope of the alternative limitation (i.e., "the re-evaluating, by the terminal at the third moment, the execution condition associated with the candidate cell comprised in the first conditional configuration information or updated first conditional configuration information"), the limitations of claims 6 and 7 provide no patentable weight over the limitations as already taught by the prior art applied to claim 5 (i.e., "the prior art [Paladugu] teaches the element[s] [because] one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art"). Thus, claims 6-8 are similarly rejected.
As to claim 10, Hwang (embodiments 1 and 2) discloses the conditional configuration information processing method according to claim 9.
Hwang does not disclose: further comprising at least one of the following: re-evaluating or continuing to evaluate, by the terminal at a third moment, the execution condition associated with the candidate cell comprised in the second conditional configuration information; or re-evaluating, by the terminal at a fourth moment, an execution condition associated with a candidate cell comprised in updated second conditional configuration information, wherein the third moment is the target moment, or the third moment is a moment after the target moment, the target moment is a moment at which the terminal successfully completes a CPAC execution procedure, wherein the fourth moment is a moment at which the terminal receives an RRC reconfiguration message comprising the updated second conditional configuration information or indication information comprising the updated second conditional configuration information.
However, Paladugu discloses: further comprising at least one of the following: re-evaluating or continuing to evaluate, by the terminal at a third moment, the execution condition associated with the candidate cell comprised in the second conditional configuration information; or re-evaluating, by the terminal at a fourth moment, an execution condition associated with a candidate cell comprised in updated second conditional configuration information, wherein the third moment is the target moment, or the third moment is a moment after the target moment, the target moment is a moment at which the terminal successfully completes a CPAC execution procedure, wherein the fourth moment is a moment at which the terminal receives an RRC reconfiguration message comprising the updated second conditional configuration information or indication information comprising the updated second conditional configuration information (Paladugu, ¶¶0133-0134, "the UE 120 may suspend monitoring the execution criteria for other PSCells during the execution of PSCell addition/change … After the conditional PSCell addition/change is successful, the UE 120 may continue monitoring any other candidate PSCells").
Hwang and Paladugu are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communications; dual connectivity; and hand-off or reselection arrangements, including conditional handover and/or conditional primary secondary cell group addition or change procedures. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hwang to incorporate the teachings of Paladugu to include: further comprising at least one of the following: re-evaluating or continuing to evaluate, by the terminal at a third moment, the execution condition associated with the candidate cell comprised in the second conditional configuration information; or re-evaluating, by the terminal at a fourth moment, an execution condition associated with a candidate cell comprised in updated second conditional configuration information, wherein the third moment is the target moment, or the third moment is a moment after the target moment, the target moment is a moment at which the terminal successfully completes a CPAC execution procedure, wherein the fourth moment is a moment at which the terminal receives an RRC reconfiguration message comprising the updated second conditional configuration information or indication information comprising the updated second conditional configuration information. Doing so would improve reliability, reduce interruption time, and "improve HOs and SCG change reliability and robustness" (Paladugu, ¶0111; please also see ¶¶0005-0007). Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these disclosures into a single method and/or apparatus to accomplish Hwang's stated goal of "defin[ing] an operation of a user equipment (UE) such that, because when configurations for conditional mobility operations are respectively given for a master cell group (hereinafter referred to as an “MCG”) and a secondary cell group (hereinafter referred to as an “SCG”), conditions for the conditional mobility operations configured for the MCG and the SCG may be satisfied independently, one conditional mobility operation for which the condition is first satisfied, is executed first, and then the other conditional mobility operation is stopped or is executed subsequently. That is, this is to address confusion due to the possibility of simultaneous application of different radio resource control (RRC) reconfigurations (RRCReconfiguration) when conditional mobility conditions are respectively configured for the MCG and SCG" (Hwang, ¶0005; please also refer to Hwang, ¶¶0006-0007). Additionally, combining Paladugu's continuation of evaluation of execution conditions for candidate cells after completion of CPAC with Hwang's CPAC procedure would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 12, Hwang in view of Paladugu discloses the conditional configuration information processing method according to claim 10, further comprising: when at least one candidate cell in the second conditional configuration information meets the execution condition, executing, by the terminal, a terminal behavior associated with the second conditional configuration information (Hwang, ¶0159, "If a CHO is triggered while a PSCell change is being performed, the UE may fall back to a configuration applied before CPAC application and execute the triggered CHO". Additionally and/or alternatively, please see ¶0168, "If a CHO is executed, the UE may release configuration information of CPAC and CHO candidates (i.e., if CHO happens, CPAC & CHO candidates will be cleared)").
References Cited
Hwang (2024). Operation method for coexistence of conditional mobility in next-generation mobile communication system (US 2024/0187956 A1). Filed 2022-03-08.
Paladugu et al. (2021). Conditional procedures for adding and/or changing a secondary node (sn) (US 2021/0105681 A1). Filed 2020-10-02.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Chen et al. (2021). Method and apparatus for conditional pscell change (US 20210099926 A1). Filed 2020-09-25.
Taehun et al. (2021). Connection recovery based on cell configuration (WO 2021092563 A1). Filed 2020-11-09.
Kumar, Rajeev et al. (2022). Conditional primary secondary cell addition or change recovery procedure (US 20220361065 A1). Filed 2022-05-06.
Liu, XUANBING et al. (2022). Secondary cell group information configuration, acquisiton method, and communication device (WO 2022089565 A1). Filed 2021-10-29.
Xuanbing et al. (2024). Conditional handover method, terminal, and network-side device (US 20240365203 A1). Filed 2024-07-05.
Purkayastha, Punyaslok et al. (2023). Conditional handover with multiple radio access technology dual connectivity (US 20230128210 A1). Filed 2022-10-20.
Selvaganapathy et al. (2024). Enhanced signalling procedure for scg mobility in deactivated state using conditional configuration (US 20240414602 A1). Filed 2022-10-14.
Teyeb et al. (2024). Methods and apparatus for conditional pscell addition/change and conditional handover interworking and rlf handling (US 20240397404 A1). Filed 2022-09-27.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights