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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2025 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Claim 1:
A method of sensing operation performed by an ultra-wideband (UWB) device, the method comprising:
determining a first matrix based on one or more estimated channel impulse responses;
determining a first set of eigenvectors and a first set of eigenvalues based on the first matrix;
determining a second set of eigenvectors by identifying which of the first set of eigenvectors corresponds to a number of the largest of the first set of eigenvalues, wherein the number is equal to an estimated number of targets; and
determining a propagation delay value for each of the estimated number of targets based on the second set of eigenvectors.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method and therefore, is eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of:
“ determining a first matrix based on one or more estimated channel impulse responses;
determining a first set of eigenvectors and a first set of eigenvalues based on the first matrix;
determining a second set of eigenvectors by identifying which of the first set of eigenvectors corresponds to a number of the largest of the first set of eigenvalues, wherein the number is equal to an estimated number of targets; and
determining a propagation delay value for each of the estimated number of targets based on the second set of eigenvectors.”
These limitations, as drafted, are observations or evaluations that are simply mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, mathematical functions, optimization, spatial relationships, geometry, etc.). MPEP § 2106.4(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations”. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A), “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.”
When given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, these limitations are simply mathematical manipulation of data.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the mathematical concept itself.
Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of the claim(s) and does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, independent claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claim(s) 12 and 19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 due to same analysis and rationale as independent claim 1 above where claims 12 and 19 are both apparatus claims.
Dependent claim(s) 2-11, 13-18 and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims are directed to the mathematical concept (see analysis above). The additional limitation(s) in claims 2-11, 13-18 and 20 merely is/are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitation(s) is/are recited at a high level of generality, and is/are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6,9-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SLOBODYANYUK et al. (US 20210373127 A1) in view of Annavajjala et al. (US 20130176174 A1).
Regarding claim 1, SLOBODYANYUK discloses [Note: what SLOBODYANYUK fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
A method of sensing operation performed (see Abstract, “Methods, systems, computer-readable media, and apparatuses for determining one or more attributes of at least one target based on eigenspace analysis of radar signals are presented.”)
determining a first matrix based on one or more estimated channel impulse responses (see Fig. 10, generate covariance matrix 1002; Note: this matrix is generated using channel impulse responses as the received signals reflected radar signals);
determining a first set of eigenvectors and a first set of eigenvalues based on the first matrix (see paragraph 0063, “At 1004, an initial eigenvector v.sub.p(0) is guessed by choosing the elements (each value) of the initial eigenvector randomly. The initial eigenvector is a candidate eigenvector that will be iteratively refined until the eigenvector estimate converges to a particular eigenvector that will be stored as part of a set of final eigenvector estimates corresponding to p number of principal components.”, further see Fig 12, step 1210);
determining a second set of eigenvectors by identifying which of the first set of eigenvectors corresponds to a number of the largest of the first set of eigenvalues (see paragraph 0078, “At 1216, the final estimate of the number of targets (e.g., the estimate that was generated in 1214 taking into consideration the estimate from 1206) is input to an eigenspace analysis. For example, the total number of targets indicated in the final estimate could be used to select the corresponding number of largest eigenvectors (one eigenvector per target) for use in constructing the signal subspace, or to select the remaining, smaller eigenvectors for use in constructing the noise subspace. Once the signal subspace or noise subspace has been constructed, a pseudo spectrum can be generated by projection onto the subspace, as described earlier. In this manner, the estimate generated in 1206 can be applied to improve the accuracy of the resulting pseudo spectrum. The attributes of the targets (e.g., range, azimuth, elevation, or any combination thereof) can then be estimated using the pseudo spectrum.”), wherein the number is equal to an estimated number of targets (see paragraph 0078, “At 1216, the final estimate of the number of targets (e.g., the estimate that was generated in 1214 taking into consideration the estimate from 1206) is input to an eigenspace analysis. For example, the total number of targets indicated in the final estimate could be used to select the corresponding number of largest eigenvectors (one eigenvector per target) for use in constructing the signal subspace, or to select the remaining, smaller eigenvectors for use in constructing the noise subspace.”); and
determining a propagation delay value for each of the estimated number of targets based on the second set of eigenvectors (see Fig. 16, further see paragraph 0110, “At 1604, a reflected radar signal is received by a plurality of antennas (e.g., a receive antenna array). The reflected radar signal may correspond to the radar signal in 1602 arriving at the plurality of antennas after reflecting off one or more targets in the environment. Each of the antennas in the plurality of antennas may be configured to generate a respective received signal in response to the reflected radar signal. Each received signal depends on the direction of a target relative to the antenna, the distance of the target, the speed of the target, and/or other attributes of the target. If there are multiple targets in the environment (e.g., two or more targets that are within the field of view), each target may contribute to a received signal such that the received signal includes information about the multiple targets.”, where determining attributes of the target is indeed determining “a propagation delay value” for each target as radar uses propagation delay values to determine attributes of range and angle, see further paragraph 0140, step 1924 where direction of arrival for each target is determined).
Annavajjala discloses,
A method of sensing operation performed by an ultra-wideband (UWB) device (see paragraph 0001, “This invention relates to wireless radio-frequency (RF) localization, and more particularly to estimating the time-of-arrival (ToA) of ultra-wideband (UWB) signals (pulses) received via multipath channels.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Annavajjala into the invention of SLOBODYANYUK. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose eigenvector analysis on a plurality of received signals for target attribute determination. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the method and systems of SLOBODYANYUK into a UWB signal system for precise target position monitoring.
Regarding claim 2, SLOBODYANYUK further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
determining a second matrix based on the one or more channel impulse responses (see claim 25, “calculate a second covariance matrix using the second signal array; determine eigenvectors of the second covariance matrix along with eigenvalues corresponding to the eigenvectors of the second covariance matrix; form a second subspace using a subset of the eigenvectors of the second covariance matrix; generate a second set of projections by projecting vectors from the steering array onto the second subspace; generate a second pseudo spectrum based on the second set of projections; and determine a direction of arrival of a second target based on the second pseudo spectrum.”); and
determining an angle for each of the estimated number of targets based on the second matrix (see claim 25, “calculate a second covariance matrix using the second signal array; determine eigenvectors of the second covariance matrix along with eigenvalues corresponding to the eigenvectors of the second covariance matrix; form a second subspace using a subset of the eigenvectors of the second covariance matrix; generate a second set of projections by projecting vectors from the steering array onto the second subspace; generate a second pseudo spectrum based on the second set of projections; and determine a direction of arrival of a second target based on the second pseudo spectrum.”).
Regarding claim 3, SLOBODYANYUK further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the first set of eigenvectors and the first set of eigenvalue based on the first matrix further comprises determining the first set of eigenvectors and the first set of eigenvalues based on an eigenvalue decomposition of the first matrix (see paragraph 0076, “At 1212, eigenvalues and their corresponding eigenvectors are extracted from the covariance array generated in 1210. In certain embodiments, the eigenvectors and eigenvalues are extracted through conventional eigen decomposition”).
Regarding claim 4, SLOBODYANYUK further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the propagation delay value for each of the estimated number of targets comprises, for each of the estimated number of targets, determining an argument of the maximum of the magnitude of the elements of the eigenvector corresponding to the target (see paragraph 0077, “At 1214 an estimate of the total number of targets generated at 1206 is refined based on one or more heuristics such as an Akaike information criterion (AIC). For example, a heuristic algorithm can be applied to the distribution of the eigenvalues extracted in 1212 to identify the number of targets based on a threshold value and/or based on the shape of the distribution.”, further see paragraph 0082, “At 1306, areas of interest are identified from the results of the DFT performed in 1304. In particular, the bins which are of sufficiently high value (e.g., above a certain threshold) can be identified as being areas of interest, i.e., areas where there are potential targets. The areas of interest can be expressed as distance ranges and angular ranges.”).
Regarding claim 5, SLOBODYANYUK discloses [Note: what SLOBODYANYUK fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a second set of eigenvalues by identifying which of the first set of eigenvalues exceeds a threshold value, wherein the estimated number of targets corresponds to a number of the second set of eigenvalues (see paragraphs 0092-0093, “At 1406, an individual range bin is identified as being associated with one or more targets. The range bin can be identified as being a bin whose value is highest among all the bins. In certain embodiments, the range bin can be identified as being a bin whose value exceeds a threshold…At 1408, a signal array is generated using the raw data obtained in 1402, but only for the range bin identified in 1406. Thus, the signal array generated in 1408 represents a portion of a complete signal array, the portion comprising signal vectors corresponding to the identified range bin. This limits the size of the signal array for purposes of extracting eigenvalues and eigenvectors in 1410, reducing the amount of calculations needed for extraction.”),
Annavajjala discloses,
wherein the threshold value is based on an estimation of noise (see paragraph 0032 and 0034, “Selecting the threshold is important for accurate ToA estimation. For different channel models and at different signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) values, an optimal threshold can be selected to minimize the average estimation error. The evaluation of the average error is can be done by numerical simulations or experiments.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Annavajjala into the invention of SLOBODYANYUK. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose eigenvector analysis on a plurality of received signals for target attribute determination. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more efficiently extract target signal data while minimizing the effects of noise.
Regarding claim 6, SLOBODYANYUK further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the UWB device comprises a plurality of receive antennas, and wherein the one or more estimated channel impulse responses comprises at least one estimated channel impulse response for each receive antenna (see paragraph 0074, “At 1208, the raw data obtained in 1202 is conditioned to prepare the raw data for eigenspace processing. Step 1208 can be performed in parallel with the processing in step 1204. The conditioning of the raw data includes converting the raw data into a set of signal vectors representing the received radar signals, e.g., a separate signal vector for the signals received by each individual antenna element.”, further see paragraph 0110, “At 1604, a reflected radar signal is received by a plurality of antennas (e.g., a receive antenna array). The reflected radar signal may correspond to the radar signal in 1602 arriving at the plurality of antennas after reflecting off one or more targets in the environment. Each of the antennas in the plurality of antennas may be configured to generate a respective received signal in response to the reflected radar signal. Each received signal depends on the direction of a target relative to the antenna, the distance of the target, the speed of the target, and/or other attributes of the target. If there are multiple targets in the environment (e.g., two or more targets that are within the field of view), each target may contribute to a received signal such that the received signal includes information about the multiple targets”).
Regarding claim 9, SLOBODYANYUK further discloses
The method of claim 2, further comprising determining a distance to each of the estimated number of targets based on the corresponding propagation delay value (see Fig. 16, further see paragraph 0110, “At 1604, a reflected radar signal is received by a plurality of antennas (e.g., a receive antenna array). The reflected radar signal may correspond to the radar signal in 1602 arriving at the plurality of antennas after reflecting off one or more targets in the environment. Each of the antennas in the plurality of antennas may be configured to generate a respective received signal in response to the reflected radar signal. Each received signal depends on the direction of a target relative to the antenna, the distance of the target, the speed of the target, and/or other attributes of the target. If there are multiple targets in the environment (e.g., two or more targets that are within the field of view), each target may contribute to a received signal such that the received signal includes information about the multiple targets.”, where determining attributes of the target is indeed determining “a propagation delay value” for each target as radar uses propagation delay values to determine attributes of range and angle.
Regarding claim 10, SLOBODYANYUK discloses [Note: what SLOBODYANYUK fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
Annavajjala discloses,
determining the one or more estimated channel impulse responses based on one or more received UWB signals (see paragraphs 0015-0016, “Embodiments of the invention provide a method for estimating the time-of-arrival (ToA) of ultra-wideband (UWB) signal (pulse) received via multipath channels…We consider a multipath wireless channel H, so that the impulse response of the channel h over time t is…”)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Annavajjala into the invention of SLOBODYANYUK. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose eigenvector analysis on a plurality of received signals for target attribute determination. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the method and systems of SLOBODYANYUK into a UWB signal system for precise target position monitoring.
Regarding claim 11, SLOBODYANYUK discloses [Note: what SLOBODYANYUK fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 10,
Annavajjala discloses,
transmitting a UWB signal, wherein the one or more received UWB signals represents one or more reflections of the transmitted UWB signal (see paragraph 0015, “Embodiments of the invention provide a method for estimating the time-of-arrival (ToA) of ultra-wideband (UWB) signal (pulse) received via multipath channels.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Annavajjala into the invention of SLOBODYANYUK. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose eigenvector analysis on a plurality of received signals for target attribute determination. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the method and systems of SLOBODYANYUK into a UWB signal system for precise target position monitoring.
Regarding claim 12, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 13, the same cited section and rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 14, the same cited section and rationale as claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, the same cited section and rationale as claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 19, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 20, the same cited section and rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SLOBODYANYUK et al. (US 20210373127 A1) in view of Annavajjala et al. (US 20130176174 A1) further in view of Schwarzwalder (US 9559417 B1).
Regarding claim 7, SLOBODYANYUK discloses [Note: what SLOBODYANYUK and Annavajjala fails to disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more estimated channel impulse responses comprises a plurality of estimated channel impulse responses, each of which is computed at a different time (see paragraph 0110, “At 1604, a reflected radar signal is received by a plurality of antennas (e.g., a receive antenna array). The reflected radar signal may correspond to the radar signal in 1602 arriving at the plurality of antennas after reflecting off one or more targets in the environment. Each of the antennas in the plurality of antennas may be configured to generate a respective received signal in response to the reflected radar signal. Each received signal depends on the direction of a target relative to the antenna, the distance of the target, the speed of the target, and/or other attributes of the target. If there are multiple targets in the environment (e.g., two or more targets that are within the field of view), each target may contribute to a received signal such that the received signal includes information about the multiple targets”),
Schwarzwalder,
wherein the first matrix is based on computing an average using the plurality of channel impulse responses (see Col. 55, lines 2-9, “Redundancy averaging may be used to address a correlated signal and interference problem. Redundancy averaging takes advantage of the multiple available estimates of the space-time correlation at a given spatial lag by averaging them, and then generates a covariance matrix using the averaged values. For the uniform line array, this amounts to replacing diagonals in the sample covariance matrix with the average diagonal values”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Schwarzwalder into the invention of SLOBODYANYUK in view of Annavajjala. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order perform redundancy averaging to address correlated signals and interference.
Regarding claim 17, the same cited section and rationale as claim 7 is applied.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SLOBODYANYUK et al. (US 20210373127 A1) in view of Annavajjala et al. (US 20130176174 A1) further in view of Keerthi (US 20100054356 A1).
Regarding claim 8, SLOBODYANYUK discloses [Note: what SLOBODYANYUK and Annavajjala fails to disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 6,
Keerthi discloses,
wherein the first matrix is computed as an average of auto- covariance matrices over the plurality of antennas (see paragraph 0066, “FIG. 5 shows the pseudo-code for Thread-II, according to one embodiment. Thread-II periodically updates an estimate of the receive covariance matrix, and to supply this matrix to Thread-I upon demand. As such, the receive covariance matrix is simply a time average of the outer product of the vector of signals received at an array. The averaging can be done in any number of ways, for example using a fixed-length window (i.e., FIR-filter averaging), or in an auto-regressive manner (i.e., IIR-filter averaging) or some combination of both. In FIG. 5, where an example Thread-II calculation is described, the receive covariance matrix is estimated in an auto-regressive manner. In this figure, .alpha. represents a forgetting factor, and the vector x.sub.A represents the vector of signals received by the antenna array at Station A.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Keerthi into the invention of SLOBODYANYUK in view of Annavajjala. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order perform redundancy averaging to address correlated signals and interference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhang et al. (US 20260039530 A1) - The core idea is to derive a signal subspace matrix from OFDM reception data, then construct one or more reference matrices that isolate a desired parameter through row selection and matrix processing [0006], [00179]-[00183]. The desired parameter is then recovered from an eigenvalue of the reference matrix, rather than by brute-force resolution expansion [00119]-[00123]. For additional parameters, a second reference matrix is formed and combined with the first eigenmatrix to extract the other value [0007], [00130]-[00134]. This reduces dependence on larger bandwidth or more antennas while preserving estimation accuracy [0039], [0070].
Wang et al. (US 20210364616 A1) – The invention uses a staggered-PRF TDM pulse scheme across transmit antennas, alternating two PRFs from sub-frame to sub-frame, so velocity can be resolved over a wider range [0041]-[0048]. It then applies range compression, Doppler processing, and RD-map integration to detect targets and estimate speed. The Doppler stage uses smoothing and eigenspace processing on space-time data to obtain a super-resolution velocity estimate [0056]-[0068]. After detection, the system estimates DOA and forms a point cloud from range and angle [0076]-[0085].
Tsai et al. (US 20150097717 A1) - The invention adds a verification stage after angle estimation. It evaluates the received signal in two ways: by analyzing eigenvalues from an autocorrelation matrix, and by calculating candidate angles from antenna-pair phase differences. The verification unit compares these indicators against thresholds to decide whether the data likely comes from a single target or multiple targets [0011]-[0018], [0039]-[0051]. If the indicators align with a single target, the estimated angle is accepted; otherwise it is flagged as unreliable and may be recalculated.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights