DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5-10, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20170054797 A) in view of Ikeda (US 20200312151 A1).
Claim 1. Lee teaches a driving assistance device for a vehicle, the driving assistance
device configured to:
give notice to a driver when a moving object existing around the vehicle exists in a scope of a driving assistance area that is set around the vehicle
(Page 9- In addition, the control unit 66 senses a neighboring vehicle approaching from the rear of the vehicle, compares the speed of the neighboring vehicle with the speed of the vehicle, and provides an alarm if the speed of the neighboring vehicle is fast.);
restrict the scope of the driving assistance area to an area from the vehicle to a restraining object when the restraining object is located on a side of the vehicle
(Page 5- As shown in FIG. 1, the step 14 (see FIG. 1) of confirming whether the vehicle is traveling in an overtaking lane by a third vehicle control method receives the travel restriction information from at least one of a navigation device and a TPEG (44) of adjusting a distance (d2) to the range (d2) corresponding to the traffic restriction information, and determining that the vehicle is traveling in the overtaking lane if the distance (d2) ).
(a), it is assumed that a center separator (guard rail) is installed on the road on which the vehicle 2 travels. In addition, the vehicle 2 can receive information indicating that there is a bus-dedicated lane in the current traveling section from a navigation device or a TPEG device or the like. Here, the bus-only lane is only one example, and the leftmost (or right) lane may be a lane in which there is a restriction on travel, not a passing lane, depending on the road environment in each region.
Page 6- If the vehicle 2 can distinguish the center line, the bus lane, and the other lane, the vehicle 2 can sense the bus lane and measure the distance (d4) between the bus lane and the vehicle 2 have. In this case, when the distance d4 between the bus-dedicated lane and the vehicle 2 is shorter than the width of one lane, it can be determined that the vehicle is traveling on the passing lane.
(e.g. vehicle 2 is restricted based on the guard rail and distance d4 (bus-dedicated lane)));
, the restraining object restraining the moving object from entering a travel lane in which the vehicle travels
(Page 6- If the vehicle 2 can distinguish the center line, the bus lane, and the other lane, the vehicle 2 can sense the bus lane and measure the distance (d4) between the bus lane and the vehicle 2 have. In this case, when the distance d4 between the bus-dedicated lane and the vehicle 2 is shorter than the width of one lane, it can be determined that the vehicle is traveling on the passing lane.
Page 6- In this case, the vehicle 2 recognizes that a plurality of vehicles 4 of the same (or similar) type in the neighboring lane (for example, the left lane) or the vehicle 4 corresponding to the operation restriction information are running It can be determined that the neighboring lane is a lane corresponding to the traffic restriction information (e.g., bus lane).
(e.g. vehicle 2 determines the left lane (e.g. bus lane line and guardrail) is restricted only to the bus and the bus is not able to cross over) (i.e. restraining the moving object from entering a travel lane of the vehicle))
Lee further discloses the process of determining whether a detected restraining object with respective lane are dedicated or temporary
(page 3- However, a specific lane may be a permanent dedicated lane, or it may be used as a dedicated lane for a specific time period.
Page- a determination unit 62 for determining whether or not there is a specific lane)
but does not specifically disclose lift the restricting of the scope of the driving assistance area when it is determined that the restraining object does not exist ahead of the vehicle.
However, Ikeda teaches lifting the restriction of the scope of the driving assistance area when it is determined that the restraining object does not exist ahead of the vehicle
([0056] The recognizer 130 recognizes an object which is present in the periphery of the host vehicle M... a road sign, a partition line, a telephone pole, a guardrail, a fallen object, and the like.
[0090] FIG. 8 is a diagram showing another example of the road in which lanes are recognized. In the shown example, the partition line LM3 out of four partition lines is colored with a color indicating that a lane change is prohibited. In such a case, the behavior plan generator 140 determines that a lane change from the host lane LN2 to the adjacent lane LN3 cannot be performed. Receiving this, the HMI controller 174 restricts display of the adjacent lane LN3.
[0093] FIG. 11 is a diagram showing another example of the road on which lanes are recognized. In the shown example, in a section located further inward than a certain point P1, the partition line LM3 is a solid line colored with a color indicating that a lane change is prohibited, whereas in a section after the point P1, the partition line LM3 is switched to a broken line colored with a color indicating permission of a lane change (for example, white). In such a case, the HMI controller 174 causes the display device 32 to display the adjacent lane LN3 without restriction in the section after the point P1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the process of lifting the restriction of the scope of the driving assistance area when it is determined that the restraining object does not exist ahead of the vehicle as taught by Ikeda within the system of Lee for the purpose of enhancing the system to notify the driver of an additional option of an open lane for traveling when the lane is available.
Claim 4. Lee and Ikeda teach the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein when it is determined that a time period taken to reach a point where the restraining object ceases to exist is
equal to or less than a predetermined time period, or that a distance to the point is equal to or less
than a predetermined distance, the driving assistance device is configured to determine that the
restraining object does not exist ahead of the vehicle
(Ikeda[0067] The trajectory points are points at which the host vehicle M will arrive after predetermined traveling distances (for example, approximately every several [m]). The predetermined traveling distances may be calculated by, for example, a distance along a road when advancing along a route.
[0068] The trajectory points may be positions at which the host vehicle M will arrive at sampling times for respective predetermined sampling times. In this case, the target speed or the target acceleration is determined by intervals between sampling times and trajectory points. The target trajectory generator 144 outputs information indicating the generated target trajectory to the second controller 160.).
Claim 5. Lee teaches a driving assistance method for a vehicle, comprising:
giving notice to a driver when a moving object existing around the vehicle exists in a
scope of a driving assistance area that is set around the vehicle
(Page 9- In addition, the control unit 66 senses a neighboring vehicle approaching from the rear of the vehicle, compares the speed of the neighboring vehicle with the speed of the vehicle, and provides an alarm if the speed of the neighboring vehicle is fast.);
restricting the scope of the driving assistance area to an area from the vehicle to a restraining object when the restraining object is located on a side of the vehicle
(Page 5- As shown in FIG. 1, the step 14 (see FIG. 1) of confirming whether the vehicle is traveling in an overtaking lane by a third vehicle control method receives the travel restriction information from at least one of a navigation device and a TPEG (44) of adjusting a distance (d2) to the range (d2) corresponding to the traffic restriction information, and determining that the vehicle is traveling in the overtaking lane if the distance (d2) ).
(a), it is assumed that a center separator (guard rail) is installed on the road on which the vehicle 2 travels. In addition, the vehicle 2 can receive information indicating that there is a bus-dedicated lane in the current traveling section from a navigation device or a TPEG device or the like. Here, the bus-only lane is only one example, and the leftmost (or right) lane may be a lane in which there is a restriction on travel, not a passing lane, depending on the road environment in each region.
Page 6- If the vehicle 2 can distinguish the center line, the bus lane, and the other lane, the vehicle 2 can sense the bus lane and measure the distance (d4) between the bus lane and the vehicle 2 have. In this case, when the distance d4 between the bus-dedicated lane and the vehicle 2 is shorter than the width of one lane, it can be determined that the vehicle is traveling on the passing lane.
(e.g. vehicle 2 is restricted based on the guard rail and distance d4 (bus-dedicated lane))),
the restraining object restraining the moving object from entering a travel lane in which the vehicle travels
(Page 6- If the vehicle 2 can distinguish the center line, the bus lane, and the other lane, the vehicle 2 can sense the bus lane and measure the distance (d4) between the bus lane and the vehicle 2 have. In this case, when the distance d4 between the bus-dedicated lane and the vehicle 2 is shorter than the width of one lane, it can be determined that the vehicle is traveling on the passing lane.
Page 6- In this case, the vehicle 2 recognizes that a plurality of vehicles 4 of the same (or similar) type in the neighboring lane (for example, the left lane) or the vehicle 4 corresponding to the operation restriction information are running It can be determined that the neighboring lane is a lane corresponding to the traffic restriction information (e.g., bus lane).
(e.g. vehicle 2 determines the left lane (e.g. bus lane line and guardrail) is restricted only to the bus and the bus is not able to cross over) (i.e. restraining the moving object from entering a travel lane of the vehicle)).
Lee further discloses the process of determining whether a detected restraining object with respective lane are dedicated or temporary
(page 3- However, a specific lane may be a permanent dedicated lane, or it may be used as a dedicated lane for a specific time period.
Page- a determination unit 62 for determining whether or not there is a specific lane)
but does not specifically disclose lift the restricting of the scope of the driving assistance area when it is determined that the restraining object does not exist ahead of the vehicle.
However, Ikeda teaches lifting the restriction of the scope of the driving assistance area when it is determined that the restraining object does not exist ahead of the vehicle
([0056] The recognizer 130 recognizes an object which is present in the periphery of the host vehicle M... a road sign, a partition line, a telephone pole, a guardrail, a fallen object, and the like.
[0090] FIG. 8 is a diagram showing another example of the road in which lanes are recognized. In the shown example, the partition line LM3 out of four partition lines is colored with a color indicating that a lane change is prohibited. In such a case, the behavior plan generator 140 determines that a lane change from the host lane LN2 to the adjacent lane LN3 cannot be performed. Receiving this, the HMI controller 174 restricts display of the adjacent lane LN3.
[0093] FIG. 11 is a diagram showing another example of the road on which lanes are recognized. In the shown example, in a section located further inward than a certain point P1, the partition line LM3 is a solid line colored with a color indicating that a lane change is prohibited, whereas in a section after the point P1, the partition line LM3 is switched to a broken line colored with a color indicating permission of a lane change (for example, white). In such a case, the HMI controller 174 causes the display device 32 to display the adjacent lane LN3 without restriction in the section after the point P1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the process of lifting the restriction of the scope of the driving assistance area when it is determined that the restraining object does not exist ahead of the vehicle as taught by Ikeda within the system of Lee for the purpose of enhancing the system to notify the driver of an additional option of an open lane for traveling when the lane is available.
Claim 6. Lee and Ikeda teach the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the restraining object is a guard rail, a signpost, a wire rope, curbstones, or a wall
(Lee Page 5- (a), it is assumed that a center separator (guard rail) is installed on the road on which the vehicle 2 travels.
Ikeda [0056] The recognizer 130 recognizes an object which is present in the periphery of the host vehicle M... a road sign, a partition line, a telephone pole, a guardrail, a fallen object, and the like.).
Claim 7. Lee and Ikeda teach the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the driving assistance area is an area on a side of and behind the vehicle
(Lee Page 7- As shown, the step 16 (see Fig. 1) of providing an alarm to the driver in response to the peripheral condition of the vehicle in the seventh vehicle control method includes determining whether the neighboring vehicle of the vehicle is passing,).
Claim 8. Lee and Ikeda teach the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein when a lane changeable area exists ahead of the vehicle and the moving object exists over the restraining
object, the driving assistance device is configured to give notice to the driver at a point before the
lane changeable area
(Lee Page 9- n addition, the controller 66 senses the speed of the neighboring vehicle located in the traveling direction of the vehicle, compares the speed of the vehicle with the speed of the neighboring vehicle, and determines whether the vehicle is passing in accordance with the comparison result. In addition, the control unit 66 senses a neighboring vehicle approaching from the rear of the vehicle, compares the speed of the neighboring vehicle with the speed of the vehicle, and provides an alarm if the speed of the neighboring vehicle is fast.).
Claim 9. Lee and Ikeda teach the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the restraining object is a wall lower than heights of vehicles, curbstones, a guard rail, a signpost, or a wire rope, over which the moving object is able to be detected by a surroundings sensor
(Lee Page 5- (a), it is assumed that a center separator (guard rail) is installed on the road on which the vehicle 2 travels.
Ikeda [0056] The recognizer 130 recognizes an object which is present in the periphery of the host vehicle M... a road sign, a partition line, a telephone pole, a guardrail, a fallen object, and the like.).
Claim 10. Lee and Ikeda teach the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the restraining object exists up to immediately before a lane changeable area where a lane change is able to be made between the travel lane and an adjacent lane
(Lee Page 9- n addition, the controller 66 senses the speed of the neighboring vehicle located in the traveling direction of the vehicle, compares the speed of the vehicle with the speed of the neighboring vehicle, and determines whether the vehicle is passing in accordance with the comparison result. In addition, the control unit 66 senses a neighboring vehicle approaching from the rear of the vehicle, compares the speed of the neighboring vehicle with the speed of the vehicle, and provides an alarm if the speed of the neighboring vehicle is fast.).
Claim 12. Lee and Ikeda teach the driving assistance method according to claim 5, wherein the restraining object is a guard rail, a signpost, a wire rope, curbstones, or a wall
(Lee Page 5- (a), it is assumed that a center separator (guard rail) is installed on the road on which the vehicle 2 travels.
Ikeda [0056] The recognizer 130 recognizes an object which is present in the periphery of the host vehicle M... a road sign, a partition line, a telephone pole, a guardrail, a fallen object, and the like.)..
Claim 13. Lee and Ikeda teach the driving assistance method according to claim 5, wherein the driving assistance area is an area on a side of and behind the vehicle
(Lee Page 7- As shown, the step 16 (see Fig. 1) of providing an alarm to the driver in response to the peripheral condition of the vehicle in the seventh vehicle control method includes determining whether the neighboring vehicle of the vehicle is passing,).
Claim 14. Lee and Ikeda teach the driving assistance method according to claim 5, wherein when a lane changeable area exists ahead of the vehicle and the moving object exists over the restraining object, the giving notice to the driver is performed at a point before the lane changeable area
(Lee Page 9- n addition, the controller 66 senses the speed of the neighboring vehicle located in the traveling direction of the vehicle, compares the speed of the vehicle with the speed of the neighboring vehicle, and determines whether the vehicle is passing in accordance with the comparison result. In addition, the control unit 66 senses a neighboring vehicle approaching from the rear of the vehicle, compares the speed of the neighboring vehicle with the speed of the vehicle, and provides an alarm if the speed of the neighboring vehicle is fast.).
Claim 15. Lee and Ikeda teach the driving assistance method according to claim 5, wherein the restraining object is a wall lower than heights of vehicles, curbstones, a guard rail, a signpost, or a wire rope, over which the moving object is able to be detected by a surroundings sensor
(Lee Page 5- (a), it is assumed that a center separator (guard rail) is installed on the road on which the vehicle 2 travels.
Ikeda [0056] The recognizer 130 recognizes an object which is present in the periphery of the host vehicle M... a road sign, a partition line, a telephone pole, a guardrail, a fallen object, and the like.)..
Claim 16. Lee and Ikeda teach the driving assistance method according to claim 5, wherein the restraining object exists up to immediately before a lane changeable area where a lane change is able to be made between the travel lane and an adjacent lane
(Lee Page 9- n addition, the controller 66 senses the speed of the neighboring vehicle located in the traveling direction of the vehicle, compares the speed of the vehicle with the speed of the neighboring vehicle, and determines whether the vehicle is passing in accordance with the comparison result. In addition, the control unit 66 senses a neighboring vehicle approaching from the rear of the vehicle, compares the speed of the neighboring vehicle with the speed of the vehicle, and provides an alarm if the speed of the neighboring vehicle is fast.).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Ikeda and further in view of Yagyu (US 20220118983 A1).
Claim 2. Lee and Ikeda teach the driving assistance device according to claim 1, and discloses the process of changing lanes and detecting an open lane but do not specifically disclose wherein when the restraining object exists on the side of the vehicle, and when a turn signal on the side on which the restraining object exists is activated, the driving assistance device is configured to lift the
restricting of the scope of the driving assistance area even when it is determined that the
restraining object exists ahead of the vehicle.
However, Yagyu teaches wherein when the restraining object exists on the side of the vehicle, and when a turn signal on the side on which the restraining object exists is activated, the driving assistance device is configured to lift the restricting of the scope of the driving assistance area even when it is determined that the restraining object exists ahead of the vehicle.
([0065] The turn signal switch 54 is a lever-shaped operation unit provided on a steering column unit 8. [0066] When detecting the input of the on operation of the LCA function, the body ECU 53 outputs the on operation information to the driving assistance ECU 50.
(e.g. driver turns on turn signal and the ADAS is enabled)
[0063] As a result of the peripheral check, if there is another vehicle Ax that hinders the lane change of the subject vehicle, the LCA function is in the standby state. On the other hand, when there is no other vehicle Ax that hinders the lane change of the subject vehicle, the LCA function changes from the start-up state or the standby state to the execution state of starting the lane change.
[0114] In an exit scene at a branch point shown in FIG. 7, the lane change from the second lane Ln2 to the first lane Ln1 is carried out immediately after the subject vehicle A passes the guidance start point Pgs.
(e.g. restriction is activated when vehicle in other lane hinders movement) and thereafter is released when vehicle passes (i.e. execution state)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the turn signal feature as taught by Yagu within the system of Lee for the purpose of enhancing the system to check whether a vehicle exists in the turning lane upon activation of a turn signal and to alert the user before advancing a maneuver to turn.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Ikeda and further in view of Banvait (US 20170355263 A1).
Claim 3. Lee and Ikeda teach the driving assistance device according to claim 1, and discloses the use of a camera but do not specifically disclose wherein when the restraining object is a predetermined restraining object over which the moving object is unable to be detected by a camera or a ranging sensor, the driving assistance device is configured to determine whether the moving object exists in the scope of the driving assistance area, based on position information on the moving object around the vehicle that is acquired through short-range communication.
However, Banvait teaches wherein when the restraining object is a predetermined restraining object over which the moving object is unable to be detected by a camera or a ranging sensor, the driving assistance device is configured to determine whether the moving object exists in the scope of the driving assistance area, based on position information on the moving object around the vehicle that is acquired through short-range communication.
([0038] In some embodiments, blind spot detection system 104 may communicate (e.g., using vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication systems) with other vehicles (e.g., secondary vehicles) to receive information from those other vehicles regarding their blind spots. For example, as a primary vehicle is approaching a secondary vehicle in an adjacent lane, the secondary vehicle may communicate information regarding the secondary vehicle's blind spots to the primary vehicle. This information is used by the primary vehicle to make any necessary speed or steering adjustments as it approaches and passes the secondary vehicle.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use short-range communication as taught by Banvait within the system of Lee for the purpose of enhancing the system to add a safety feature to ensure there is no vehicle within the blind spot prior to lane change.
Claim(s) 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Ikeda and further in view of Sakamoto (JP 2017033403 A).
Claim 11. Lee and Ikeda teach the driving assistance device according to claim 1, and further discloses the process of detecting restraining objects but do not specifically disclose wherein the restraining object is a wall higher than a height of the vehicle.
However, Sakamoto teaches wherein the restraining object is a wall higher than a height of the vehicle
(Page 3- Other objects 35 in the blind spot area 33 cannot be detected even if the surrounding object detection device 15 provided in the host vehicle 29 is used. In particular, when the shielding wall 39 is provided on the road, the blind spot region 33 is more likely to occur.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the process of detecting a wall higher than a height of the vehicle as taught by Sakamoto within the system of Lee for the purpose of enhancing the system to detect blind spots and drivable openings along the roadway with respect to the wall.
Claim 17. Lee and Ikeda teach the driving assistance method according to claim 5, and further discloses the process of detecting restraining objects but do not specifically disclose wherein the restraining object is a wall higher than a height of the vehicle
However, Sakamoto teaches wherein the restraining object is a wall higher than a height of the vehicle
(Page 3- Other objects 35 in the blind spot area 33 cannot be detected even if the surrounding object detection device 15 provided in the host vehicle 29 is used. In particular, when the shielding wall 39 is provided on the road, the blind spot region 33 is more likely to occur.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the process of detecting a wall higher than a height of the vehicle as taught by Sakamoto within the system of Lee for the purpose of enhancing the system to detect blind spots and drivable openings along the roadway with respect to the wall.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 09 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee (KR 20170054797 A) in view of Ikeda (US 20200312151 A1).
Applicant states the prior art fails to teach the limitation "restrict the scope of the driving assistance area to an area from the vehicle to a restraining object when the restraining object is located on a side of the vehicle, the restraining object restraining the moving object from entering a travel lane in which the vehicle travels; and lift the restricting of the scope of the driving assistance area when it is determined that the restraining object does not exist ahead of the vehicle.”
However, the Examiner disagrees. In the broadest interpretation allowed, the newly found prior art of Lee teaches this amended limitation of "restricting the scope of the driving assistance area to an area from the vehicle to a restraining object when the restraining object is located on a side of the vehicle, the restraining object restraining the moving object from entering a travel lane in which the vehicle travels. Further, the prior art of Ikeda provides the obviousness improvement for “lifting the restriction of the scope of the driving assistance area when it is determined that the restraining object does not exist ahead of the vehicle.” Newly introduced claims 6-17 are also rejected by the prior art of Lee in view of Ikeda.
Thus, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Lastly, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS C POINT whose telephone number is (571)270-7510. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/RUFUS C POINT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights