DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 3/26/2025.
Claims 30-54 are pending.
Claims 30-54 have been added.
Claims 1-29 have been cancelled.
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 3/26/2025, 4/2/2025, 12/19/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 46 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim limitation appeared to have a typographical error in the preamble of “a second network node” and is interpreted as “a first network node”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 54 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim limitation appeared to have a typographical error in the end of the last limitation that includes “. The second network node of claim 52.” and is interpreted as should have been deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 30-31 and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2025/0168085).
Regarding claim 30, Liu discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) the method comprising:
receiving a first message comprising a first Radio Access Network-Visible Quality of Experience (RV-QoE) configuration of a first network node (Liu teaches a UE receives an RRC reconfiguration message from the MN (first network node) that includes an MN-specific RVQOE configuration (first RVQoE configuration of the first network node; [0074] “As shown by reference numbers 620 and 625, the UE 605 may receive, from the MN 610 and/or the SN 615, respectively, one or more RVQoE configurations. In some aspects, the one or more RVQoE configurations may configure one more RVQoE measurements by the UE 605”));
receiving a second message comprising a second RV-QoE configuration of a second network node (Liu’s UE also receives a separate RRC reconfiguration message from the SN that includes an SN-specific RVQoE configuration. The SN RRC reconfiguration message is the second message. The SN-specific RVQoE configuration is the second RVQoE configuration of the second network node; [0076] “In some aspects, the UE 605 may receive one or more RVQoE configurations from only one of the MN 610 or the SN 615, while, in some other aspects, the UE 605 may receive one or more RVQoE configurations from both the MN 610 (as shown by reference number 620) and the SN 615 (as shown by reference number 625)”, [0078] “In some aspects, the MN-specific RVQoE configuration and the SN-specific RVQoE configuration may be received by the UE 605 from a single RAN node (e.g., from one of the MN 610 or the SN 615) and/or in a single message (e.g., one of the message indicated by reference number 620 or the message indicated by reference number 625)”, [0079] “in some other aspects, the SN 615 may transmit the SN-specific RVQoE configuration directly to the UE 605 via the message indicated by reference number 625, and the MN 610 may transmit the MN-specific RVQoE configuration to the UE 605 via the message indicated by reference number 620 (e.g., in some aspects, the MN-specific RVQoE configuration is received from the MN 610 and the SN-specific RVQoE configuration is received from the SN 615). For example, the SN 615 may transmit the SN-specific RVQoE configuration to the UE 605 via an SRB3, or the like”);
determining whether the first network node or the second network node is delivering data for a session (Liu’s UE determines whether the application/PDU session associated with the RVQoE metric is on the MN interface or the SN interface (which node is carrying the session data; [0081] “the UE 605 may determine whether each RVQoE configuration is associated with one of MN connectivity or SN connectivity. Put another way, the UE 605 may determine whether an application associated with each collected RVQoE metric is operating over the MN interface or the SN interface”, [0121] “at step 7, the UE APP 705 may indicate certain identifiers or the like used to determine an interface and/or connectivity (e.g., MN connectivity or SN connectivity) associated with each QoE and/or RVQoE measurement and/or metric, such as a PDU session identifier associated with each QoE and/or RVQoE measurement and/or metric, a QoS flow identifier associated with each QoE and/or RVQoE measurement and/or metric, or the like, as described. The UE AS 710 may determine interface information and/or connectivity (e.g., MN connectivity or SN connectivity) associated with each QoE and/or RVQoE measurement and/or metric”)); and
using the RV-QoE configuration of the determined network node to make RV-QoE measurements (Liu’s UE applies the MN-specific or SN-specific RVQoE configuration according to which node’s interface /connectivity the application (session) is using and collects RVQoE measurements under that configuration; [0081] “the UE 605 may collect at least one RVQoE metric based at least in part on the one or more RVQoE configurations received from the MN 610 and/or the SN 615”, [0121] “The UE AS 710 may transmit the one or more QoE and/or RVQoE configurations to the UE APP 705 (step 6), and the UE APP 705 may perform one or more measurements based at least in part on the QoE and/or RVQoE configuration”, [0125] “UE AS 710 may forward both QoE and/or RVQoE configurations to the UE APP 705, and the UE APP 705 may determine that the MN-specific QoE and/or RVQoE configuration should be used for the measurements associated with RRC ID-1”).
Regarding claim 31, Liu discloses the method of claim 30 further comprising:
initiating RV-QoE measurements according to the RV-QoE configuration of the determined network node (Liu [0081] “the UE 605 may collect at least one RVQoE metric based at least in part on the one or more RVQoE configurations received from the MN 610 and/or the SN 615…the UE 605 may determine whether each RVQoE configuration is associated with one of MN connectivity or SN connectivity. Put another way, the UE 605 may determine whether an application associated with each collected RVQoE metric is operating over the MN interface or the SN interface”).
Regarding claim(s) 48-49, do(es) not teach or further define over the limitation in claim(s) 30-31 respectively. Therefore claim(s) 48-49 is/are rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim(s) 30-31 respectively.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 32-33, 44-45, 46, 50, 52, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2025/0168085) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2025/0062973).
Regarding claim 32, Liu discloses a method performed by a first network node in a communications network, the method comprising:
sending a first message comprising an indication of a first Radio Access Network-Visible Quality of Experience (RV-QoE) configuration of the first network node, to a second network node (Liu’s nodes generate a node specific RVQoE configuration and send that configuration (or information used to generate it) to the peer over XnAP SN addition/SN modification signaling; [0077] “the one or more RVQoE configurations received by the UE 605 may include an MN-specific RVQoE configuration and an SN-specific RVQoE configuration. That is, the one or more RVQoE configurations may include a configuration of RVQoE measurements and/or metrics requested by the MN 610 (e.g., the MN-specific RVQoE configuration) as well as a configuration of RVQoE measurements and/or metrics requested by the SN 615 (e.g., the SN-specific RVQoE configuration). In such aspects, the MN 610 may provide information to the SN 615 that is used by the SN 615 to generate the SN-specific RVQoE configuration, which is sometimes referred to herein as RVQoE assistance information”, [0110] “the MN 725 may provide the RVQoE assistance information to the SN 720 as part of the SN addition request, as shown as step 2. The MN 725 may provide the RVQoE assistance information to the SN 720 using an XnAP protocol or the like”, [0111] “As shown as step 3, the SN 720 may provide an SN-specific QoE and/or RVQoE configuration to the MN 725, which may be transmitted as part of an SN addition request ACK message”).
However, the prior art does not explicitly disclose wherein the first message indicates to the second network node that the first network node has configured a User Equipment (UE) for RV- QoE measurements.
Zhang in the field of the same endeavor discloses techniques for radio access network (RAN) visible quality of experience (QoE) measurement in dual connectivity architecture. In particular, Zhang teaches the following:
wherein the first message indicates to the second network node that the first network node has configured a User Equipment (UE) for RV- QoE measurements (Zhang teaches sending the first node’s own RAN visible QoE configuration to the second node; [0042] “In step 1a (e.g., optional), the SN may generate RAN visible QoE related configuration information based on its own requirement. The SN may send the information to the MN via an Xn application protocol (XnAP) message (e.g., S-node modification required”, [0043] “In step 1, the MN may generate a RAN visible configuration based on its own requirement and/or the received RAN visible QoE related configuration information from the SN”, [0044] “In step 2a (optional), the MN may send the complete RAN visible QoE configuration to the SN via an XnAP message (e.g., S-node modification confirm)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the prior art with the teaching of Zhang. A POSITA would combine Zhang’s “send my RAN visible QoE configuration to the other node” with Liu’s node specific RVQoE exchange so that the XNAP message that carries the first node’s RVQoE configuration also informs the second node that the first node is the node that configured the UE with that configuration. One would have been motivated to prevent the peer node from independently imposing a conflicting RVQoE configuration on the same UE and let each node know which RVQoE configuration belongs to which node.
Regarding claim 33, Liu-Zhang discloses the method of claim 32, wherein the step of sending the first message is performed as part of a procedure to add the second network node as a secondary network node in a multi-radio dual connectivity (MR-DC) procedure for the UE (Liu’s first message (RVQoE assistance information from MN to SN, and/or the SN specific RVQoE configuration from the SN to MN) is carried in the SN Addition Request and the SN Addition Request ACK. Liu states that those messages are used to add the SN as secondary node for dual connectivity of the UE; [0096] “As shown as step 2 in FIG. 7, the MN 725 may transmit, to the SN 720, an SN addition request, which may be used to add the SN 720 as a secondary node for purposes of dual connectivity (if the SN 720 is not already connected to the UE 605)… Moreover, in aspects in which a QMC activation IE has been previously received for the UE 605, the QMC activation IE may be included in the SN addition request, and, if the QMC activation IE is included in the SN addition request, the SN 720 may, if supported, initiate the requested QMC function”, [0097] “as part of the SN addition request or else using additional signaling, the MN 725 may signal to the SN 720 a request for the SN 720 to initiate a QoE measurement procedure (sometimes referred to as a QMC session) for the UE 605”, [0111] “As shown as step 3, the SN 720 may provide an SN-specific QoE and/or RVQoE configuration to the MN 725, which may be transmitted as part of an SN addition request ACK message”).
Regarding claim 44, Liu-Zhang discloses the method of claim 32, wherein the first network node is a master node (MN) in a multi-radio dual connectivity (MR-DC) procedure for the UE and the second network node is a secondary node in the MR-DC procedure (Liu’s first network node that sends the RVQoE configuration indication is the MN. Liu’s second network node that receives is the SN. The exchange occurs in dual connectivity including as part of adding the SN for that UE; [0076] “the UE 605 may receive one or more RVQoE configurations from only one of the MN 610 or the SN 615, while, in some other aspects, the UE 605 may receive one or more RVQoE configurations from both the MN 610 (as shown by reference number 620) and the SN 615 (as shown by reference number 625)”).
Regarding claim 45, Liu-Zhang discloses the method of claim 32, wherein the second network node is a master node (MN) in a multi-radio dual connectivity (MR-DC) procedure for the UE and the first network node is a secondary node in the MR-DC procedure (Liu’s UE operations with an MN and an SN in dual connectivity. In the follows in which the SN generates an SN specific RVQoE configuration and sends that configuration to the MN, the SN is the first network node of claim 32 and the MN is the second network node; [0076] “the UE 605 may receive one or more RVQoE configurations from only one of the MN 610 or the SN 615, while, in some other aspects, the UE 605 may receive one or more RVQoE configurations from both the MN 610 (as shown by reference number 620) and the SN 615 (as shown by reference number 625)”).
Regarding claim(s) 46, 50, 52, and 54, do(es) not teach or further define over the limitation in claim(s) 32 respectively. Therefore claim(s) 46, 50, 52 and 54 is/are rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim(s) 32 respectively.
Claims 34-37, 40-43, 47, 51, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2025/0168085) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2025/0062973) in view of Liu et al. (2024/0031253, hereafter Liu’253).
Regarding claim 34, Liu-Zhang discloses the invention substantially, however the prior art does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 32, the method comprising:
sending a second message to the second network node to request that the second network node sends an indication of a second RV-QoE configuration of the second network node, to the first network node.
Liu’253 in the field of the same endeavor discloses a wireless communication technique for use in a master node comprises transmitting, to a wireless terminal, a message comprising quality of experience (QoE) information associated with at least one QoE report configured for at least one wireless network node. In particular, Liu teaches the following:
sending a second message to the second network node to request that the second network node sends an indication of a second RV-QoE configuration of the second network node, to the first network node (Liu’253 has the MN send a QoE activation indication to the SN to request the RAN visible QoE configuration generated by the SN and then receive that configuration back; [0133] “In step 203, the MN configure QoE activation indication, to indicate to active all configured QoE configuration or to activate RAN visible QoE configuration and/or to activate the QoE configuration container. For example, if the MN receives no QoE configuration from the CN or the OAM, the MN sets the QoE activation indication as ‘activate all configured QoE configuration’ to request both the QoE configuration container and the RAN visible QoE configuration generated by the SN. As an alternative, if the MN receives only the QoE configuration container from the CN or the OAM and the RAN visible QoE (measurement/report) is allowed, the MN sends the QoE activation indication indicating ‘activate RAN visible QoE configuration’ to request the RAN visible QoE configuration generated by the SN”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the prior art with the teaching of Liu’253. One would have been motivated because the MN in Liu already needs the SN specific RVQoE configuration to build a combined or consistent RVQoE configuration ([010-0111], [0118-0119]). Making the return of that configuration a requested result of the XnAP message, as Liu’253 teaches, is a predictable use of a known request/response on the same interface for the same DC RVQoE coordination problem.
Regarding claim 35, Liu-Zhang-Liu’253 discloses the method of claim 34, wherein, upon receiving the second RV-QoE configuration, the method further comprises:
determining whether there is a conflict between the first RV-QoE configuration and the second RV-QoE configuration (Liu teaches that after the first network node (MN) receives the second node’s (SN’s) RVQoE configuration, the MN uses that second configuration together with its own RVQoE configuration, including detecting whether configuration identifiers overlap; [0111] “As shown as step 3, the SN 720 may provide an SN-specific QoE and/or RVQoE configuration to the MN 725, which may be transmitted as part of an SN addition request ACK message”, [0112] “in aspects in which the SN 720 transmitted the SN-specific QoE and/or RVQoE configuration information to the MN 725 using an XnAP IE or the like (and thus the SN-specific QoE and/or RVQoE configuration information may be visible to the MN 725), the MN 725 may generate the one or more QoE and/or RVQoE configurations considering the SN-specific QoE and/or RVQoE configuration information”).
Regarding claim 36, Liu-Zhang-Liu’253 discloses the method of claim 35, wherein it is determined that a conflict is present if:
a first QoE configuration identifier in the first RV-QoE configuration is the same as a second QoE configuration identifier in the second RV-QoE configuration (Liu teaches that each of the first and second RVQoE configuration (MN specific RVQoE configuration and SN specific RVQoE configuration) is associated with a QoE/RVQoE configuration identifier in the form of an RRC identifier that those identifiers may be the same in both configuration and that the nodes treat that overlap as a problem to be detected and resolved; [0085] “one or more of the RAN nodes (e.g., the MN 610 or the SN 615), the RVQoE configurations, the applications operating at the UE 605, or the RVQoE measurement reports and/or metrics may be associated with an RRC identifier in order to map the RVQoE measurement reports to a corresponding connectivity or the like…the RRC identifiers associated with the MN 610 and/or the MN-specific RVQoE configuration may not overlap with the RRC identifiers associated with the SN 615 and/or the SN-specific RVQoE configuration, while, in some other aspects, one or more RRC identifiers associated with the MN 610 and/or the MN-specific RVQoE configuration may overlap with one or more RRC identifiers associated with the SN 615 and/or the SN-specific RVQoE configuration”);
a first reporting periodicity in the first RV-QoE configuration for a first service type is different to a second reporting periodicity in the second RV-QoE configuration for the first service type;
a first reporting trigger in the first RV-QoE configuration for the first service type is different to a second reporting trigger in the second RV-QoE configuration for the first service type;
a first requested reporting periodicity for a first RV-QoE metric in the first RV-QoE configuration is different to a second requested reporting periodicity for the first RV-QoE metric in the second RV-QoE configuration;
reporting is periodic in the first RV-QoE configuration and initiated by a trigger in the second RV-QoE configuration;
reporting periodicity is configured in the first RV-QoE configuration and not configured for the second RV-QoE configuration; and/or
measurements are stored according to the first RV-QoE configuration and reported periodically in the second RV-QoE configuration.
Regarding claim 37, Liu-Zhang-Liu’253 discloses the method of claim 34, wherein, in response to determining that the first RV-QoE configuration and the second RV-QoE configuration have one or more configuration parameters in common, the method further comprises:
determining an action to perform (Liu [0085] “the RRC identifiers associated with the MN 610 and/or the MN-specific RVQoE configuration may not overlap with the RRC identifiers associated with the SN 615 and/or the SN-specific RVQoE configuration, while, in some other aspects, one or more RRC identifiers associated with the MN 610 and/or the MN-specific RVQoE configuration may overlap with one or more RRC identifiers associated with the SN 615 and/or the SN-specific RVQoE configuration”).
Regarding claim 40, Liu-Zhang-Liu’253 discloses the method of claim 34, wherein, in response to determining a conflict between the first RV-QoE configuration and the second RV-QoE configuration, the method further comprises:
discarding RV-QoE reports associated with one of the first RV-QoE configuration and the second RV-QoE configuration (Liu [0088] “one or more RRC identifiers associated with the MN 610 and/or the MN-specific RVQoE configuration may overlap with one or more RRC identifiers associated with the SN 615 and/or the SN-specific RVQoE configuration. For example, the first set of one or more RRC identifiers (e.g., the set of RRC identifiers associated with the MN-specific RVQoE configuration) and the second set of one or more RRC identifiers (e.g., the set of identifiers associated with the SN-specific RVQoE configuration) may both include a first RRC identifier. In such aspects, the UE 605 may only use the RVQoE configuration from a predetermined RAN node (e.g., the MN 610), or may only use a latest received RVQoE configuration, or may determine which RVQoE configuration to use for each RVQoE metric based at least in part a connectivity of the application associated with the RVQoE metric, or the like”).
Regarding claim 41, Liu-Zhang-Liu’253 discloses the method of claim 34, further comprising:
merging the first RV-QoE configuration and the second RV-QoE configuration to obtain a merged RV-QoE configuration (Liu’s MN takes its own (MN specific) RVQoE configuration and the SN specific RVQoE configuration received from the SN and generates a configuration that includes both components; [0110] “In the example shown in FIG. 8, the MN 725 may generate one or more QoE and/or RVQoE configurations that include one or more QoE and/or RVQoE configurations associated with the SN 720. Put another way, rather than generating a common QoE and/or RVQoE configuration, as described in connection with FIG. 7, in this aspect the MN 725 may generate one or more QoE and/or RVQoE configurations that include an MN component (e.g., an MN-specific QoE and/or RVQoE configuration), and an SN component (e.g., an SN-specific QoE and/or RVQoE configuration)”); and
sending a third message comprising the merged RV-QoE configuration to the UE (Liu [0113] “As shown as step 5, the MN 725 may transmit, to the UE 605 (more particularly, to the UE AS 710), an RRC reconfiguration message. As described above in connection with FIG. 7, in some aspects, the RRC reconfiguration message may include SN 720 RRC configuration information in order for the UE 605 to connect to the SN 720, and, additionally, or alternatively, the RRC reconfiguration message may include the one or more QoE and/or RVQoE configurations generated by the MN 725 at step 4 and/or provided to the MN 725 at step 3”).
Regarding claim 42, Liu-Zhang-Liu’253 discloses the method of claim 34 further comprising:
configuring the UE with the first RV-QoE configuration of the first network node, or part thereof (Liu [0100] “As shown as step 5, the MN 725 may transmit, to the UE 605 (more particularly, to the UE AS 710), an RRC reconfiguration message… Additionally, or alternatively, the RRC reconfiguration message may include the one or more QoE and/or RVQoE configurations generated by the MN 725 at step 4”); or
configuring the UE with the second RV-QoE configuration of the second network node, or part thereof.
Regarding claim 43, Liu-Zhang-Liu’253 discloses the method of claim 34 further comprising:
sending a fourth message to the second network node, the fourth message indicating whether a conflict has been detected between the first RV-QoE configuration and the second RV-QoE configuration (Liu [0106] “In some aspects, a RAN node (e.g., the MN 725 and/or the SN 720) may initiate a pause (or, alternatively, a resumption) of QoE and/or RVQoE reporting based at least in part on the RAN node being overloaded with QoE and/or RVQoE reports…Additionally, or alternatively, the other one of the SN 720 or the MN 725 (e.g., the RAN node that received the indication) may reconfigure bearers associated with QoE and/or RVQoE configurations indicated by the pause or resumption request”); and/or
one or more actions associated with, or modifications to, the second RV-QoE configuration that the first network node has made to the second RV-QoE configuration.
Regarding claim(s) 47, 51, 53, do(es) not teach or further define over the limitation in claim(s) 34 respectively. Therefore claim(s) 47, 51, 53 is/are rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim(s) 34 respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 38-39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, claims 30-54 have been rejected and remain pending.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm PST.
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, Chris Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
JIMMY H TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2451
/JIMMY H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
