DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered and made of record.
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 Status
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are amended.
No new claim is/are added.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response has been fully considered. Below are applicant’s main arguments and examiner’s response to those arguments:
Applicant’s argument: (remark pages 8-10), filed on 03/09/2026, with respect to claim 1, ‘Claim 1, as amended herein, recites … Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the§ 103 rejection of claim 1’.
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bishop teaches that each of the devices, namely, the Airplane “32”, Base Station “40”, and the UE “30”, directly communicates with the satellite and there is no description of any information sharing among them for request to satellite (Bishop: [FIG.1], [Col 1]-[Col 6]). It is the satellite that has the overall information of the devices and arbitrates the independent request from each of the devices, however, the devices have no knowledge of each other.
Applicant’s arguments (remark pages 8-11), filed on 03/09/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection below which better address the claimed invention as amended.
Claim Objection
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 recites “such that” in lines 13-14. Language that suggests or makes optional or intended result (i.e., such that) but does not require step to be performed or does not limit the scope of the claim to a particular structure or does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation(s). Such clauses may render parts of the claim(s) optional (see MPEP 2106 and 2111.04).
Appropriate correction(s) is/are 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, 8-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (“US 6078577 A”), hereinafter “Bishop”, in view of Afhamisis et al. (“SALSA: A Scheduling Algorithm for LoRa to LEO Satellites”), hereinafter “Afhamisis”, in view of Zhu et al. (US 20200205105 A1), hereinafter “Zhu”, and in view of Werb et al. (US 20150351084 A1), hereinafter “Werb”.
Per claim 1, 11 and 20:
Regarding claim 11, Bishop teaches ‘An apparatus’ (Bishop: [FIG.1]; [Col 2, line 1]: “base station”); ‘comprising: one or more network interfaces’ (Bishop: Fig.1, [Col 1, line 67]-[Col 2, line 2]: “subscriber units 30 and base station 40 of telecommunication system 10 may be viewed as a network of node”); ‘a processor coupled to the one or more network interface’ (Existence of processor coupled to network interface is implied); ‘configured to execute one or more processes’ (Bishop: [FIG.3]: flow chart of method); ‘a memory configured to store a process that is executable by the processor’ (Existence of memory is implied);
‘the process when executed configured to:
identify an amount of data from a first cluster of data sources to be sent by the apparatus to a satellite, wherein the apparatus is associated with the first cluster of data sources’ (Bishop: [FIG.1]: subscriber unit such as Airplane, Base Station and UE directly communicate with Satellite, where Airplane and Base station (even UE) can be cluster headers for data of other devices; [Col 3, lines 51-60]: “When subscriber unit 32 is an airplane … involving passenger cellular phone communications”; [Col 4, lines 34-35]: “The subscriber unit … determines the number of data packets it wants to send”);
‘wherein the apparatus operates as a store-and-forward relay that aggregates data from a plurality of data sources in the first cluster’ (Bishop: [Col 3]: “When subscriber unit 32 is an airplane or aboard an airplane … two types of communications are primarily provided via the satellite link. The types of communications may be categorized as safety communications and commercial communications … The commercial communications are principally those involving passenger cellular phone communications”, aggregate a plurality of data sources). However, Bishop fails to expressly teach operate as a store-and-forward relay to aggregate data;
‘wherein the device does not have knowledge of a neighboring device associated with a second cluster of data sources’ (Bishop: [Fig.1], [Col 1]-[Col 6]: there is no link and information sharing between satellite subscript unit such as airplane “32”, Base Station “40” or the UE “30”, each of them directly communicating with satellite (has no knowledge of the other devices), and each of them can be cluster headers for data of other devices such as passengers cell phone for airplane “32”, UEs the base station “40” serving, or wearable devices connected to the UE “30”);
‘send, to the satellite, a request for a transmission window’ (Bishop: [Abstract]: “Each time slot is allocated to a user based on the user's request (303) for time slots”, may send request for time slots (transmission window));
‘that indicates the amount of data to be sent by the device to the satellite’ (Bishop: [FIG.3]; [Col 4, lines 36-39]: “The subscriber unit then transmits request message 400 in step 303 to a satellite … requests permission to transmit a number of data packets to the satellite”);
‘receive, from the satellite, an indication of an assigned transmission window during which the apparatus may transmit data to the satellite’ (Bishop: [FIG.5]: “REQUEST ALLOWED”, “TIME SLOT 1”, “TIME SLOT 2”, “TIME SLOT 3”, “TIME SLOT N”; [Col 4, lines 63-64]: “the satellite transmits request allowed message 500 shown in FIG. 5 to the subscriber unit”, subscribe unit would receive a message about time slots (transmission window) allocated to it);
‘in which the assigned transmission window of the apparatus does not overlap an assigned transmission window of a neighboring apparatus associated with a second cluster of data sources’ (Bishop: [Col 5, lines 1-14]: “request allowed message … request denied message”, when several subscribed units, which could be cluster header such as Base Station or Airplane, are visible to satellite and request time slots at the same time, satellite would schedule available time slots to some subscribe unit and deny some other subscribe unit (request from subscriber may be allowed or denied)). However, Bishop fails to expressly teach the assigned transmission window does not overlap with that of a neighboring apparatus;
‘is based at least in part on the amount of data indicated in the request’ (Bishop: [Col 4]: “Request message 400 comprises at least three fields: header field 410, identifier field 420, and number of packets field … Number of packets field 430 indicates the number of packets to be sent”; [Col 5]: “Request allowed message 500 comprises … Time slot field 530 identifies the time slots in which the data packets may be sent”);
‘sending, during the assigned transmission window of the apparatus, the data from the first cluster of data sources towards the satellite’ (Bishop: [Col 5, lines 33-34]: “the subscriber unit transmits in step 306 the number of data packets corresponding to the number of time slots indicated”).
Bishop does not expressly teach ‘includes a cluster identifier field in a media access control frame header’, ‘defines a handoff point within an overlapping region of a sky interesting area of the apparatus and a sky interesting area of the neighboring apparatus’ and ‘terminate transmission of the data at the handoff point’.
Afhamisis in the same field of endeavor teaches that satellite schedules a group of Earth Device (ED) to avoid overlap on assigned time slots (transmission window) (Afhamisis : [Figure 4], [Page 4, Col 2]: “the ED4 will not transmit as soon as it enters the satellite footprint, but after the ED3 finishes its transmission … avoids collision, not allowing conflicting parallel overlapping transmissions”, satellite may assign time slots (transmission window) to ED4 without overlapping with time slots (transmission window) of ED3);
‘defines a handoff point within an overlapping region of a sky interesting area of the apparatus and a sky interesting area of the neighboring apparatus’ (Afhamisis : [Figure 4]: “Scheduling of EDs transmissions according to the satellite movement along its orbit, and the visit time of the EDs. EDs that are visited first have first chance to transmit”; [Figure 5]: “(a) Overlapping transmission”, “(b) Collision Cancellation”; [Page 4, Col 2]: “the ED4 will not transmit as soon as it enters the satellite footprint, but after the ED3 finishes its transmission … avoids collision, not allowing conflicting parallel overlapping transmissions”; ED4 would start transmission after ED3 terminates its transmission, the point where the end of assigned transmission window of ED3 (or the start of assigned transmission window of ED4) would define a handoff point within the overlapping region of a sky interesting area of ED3 and ED4);
‘terminate transmission of the data at the handoff point’ (this is discussed in element above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Afhamisis’s teaching with that of Bishop in order to avoid conflicting parallel overlapping transmissions (see reference quotes in elements above).
Combination of Bishop and Afhamisis teaches ‘is based at least in part on the amount of data indicated in the request’ (Bishop: [Col 4]: “Request message 400 comprises at least three fields: header field 410, identifier field 420, and number of packets field … Number of packets field 430 indicates the number of packets to be sent”; [Col 5]: “Request allowed message 500 comprises … Time slot field 530 identifies the time slots in which the data packets may be sent”. Bishop: [Page 8, Col 1]: “In a dense area with hundred of EDs, several EDs that are visited last by the satellite may never get a chance to transmit. They will miss the satellite each time it is their turn to transmit, according to the FCFS policy. We propose the FAIR policy to overcome such shortcomings and ensure that all the EDs have an equal chance to transmit. … the EDi will not be granted an uplink slot. On the contrary, if it can transmit because it transmitted fewer times than its neighbours, the LNS has to dene the starting time TSi of its transmission, according to the FCFS policy”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Afhamisis’s teaching of Fair Policy with that of Bishop in order to ensure all devices have an equal chance to transmit (see reference quotes in element above).
Combination of Bishop and Afhamisis does not expressly teach, but Zhu in the same field of endeavor teaches ‘includes a cluster identifier field in a media access control frame header’ (Zhu: [claim 8]: “including an identifier of the UE cluster in the PHY or MAC header”; [Abstract]: “method for wireless communication includes grouping a plurality of user equipments (UEs) wirelessly coupled to a cellular base station (BS) into a UE cluster … one UE in the UE cluster is selected as a leader UE to contend for the TXOP on behalf of the UE cluster”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine to combine Zhu’s teaching with that of combination of Bishop and Afhamisis in order to facilitate transmission opportunity contention by grouping devices into cluster (see reference quotes in element above).
Combination of Bishop, Afhamisis and Zhu does not expressly teach operate as a store-and-forward relay to aggregate data.
Werb in the same field of endeavor teaches sensor networks to transmit and receive information via a cluster including store-and-forward surrogate and data aggregator (Werb: [Abstract]: “wireless sensor network … transmit and/or receive information and commands from a source to a destination via a mobile cluster that includes a store-and-forward (S&F) surrogate”; [0008]: “Communication between the first cluster and the second cluster may involve a proxy in the first cluster and/or in the second cluster. The proxy may include a store and forward surrogate. The proxy may include a data aggregator”; [0058]: “A store-and-forward (S&F) surrogate in a wireless routing entity may provide two-way delayed transmission of messages between the wireless field entity and the addressed entity. The S&F surrogate may support data aggregation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Werb’s teaching with that of combination of Bishop, Afhamisis and Zhu in order to support delayed transmission of messages (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the method implemented by the apparatus of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the memory and the method implemented by the apparatus of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above).
Per claim 2 and 12:
Regarding claim 12, combination of Bishop, Afhamisis, Zhu and Werb teaches the apparatus of claim 11 (discussed above).
Combination of Bishop and Afhamisis teaches ‘wherein the request includes an identifier for the first cluster of data sources and wherein a location is associated with the identifier’ (Bishop: [FIG.4]: “MESSAGE TYPE = REQUEST”, “IDENTIFIER” which encodes “SUBSCRIBER UNIT” such as airplane, UE and Base Station as in [FIG.1]. Afhamisis: [Page 7, Col 2]: “SALSA the LNS schedules the transmissions while aware of the location of the EDs and the satellite availability time for each of them”, where ED is earth device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Afhamisis’s teaching of aware of the location of the EDs and the satellite availability time for each of them with that of Bishop to associate location with identifier in order to schedule with consideration of location-based priority (Afhamisis : [Page 7, Col 2]: “FCFS policy schedules the transmissions according only to location-based priority”).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the method implemented by the apparatus of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above).
Per claim 3 and 13:
Regarding claim 13, combination of Bishop, Afhamisis, Zhu and Werb teaches the apparatus of claim 11 (discussed above).
Bishop does not expressly teach, but Afhamisis in the same field of endeavor teaches ‘wherein the assigned transmission window of the device associated with the first cluster of data sources is a subset of a potential communication window for the device associated with the first cluster of data sources’ (Afhamisis: [Page 5-7]: For SALSA with Fair policy, each Earth Device does not allow to transmission in its full available transmission window beyond its fair share and may be allocated only a subset of its available slots; [Page 5, Col 1]: “Algorithm 2 SALSA With Fair Policy”, “Do not TX”, “Give the chance to the next ED”; [Page 5, Col 2]: “After scheduling the EDs' transmissions according to the FAIR policy, there might be still several slots available”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Afhamisis’s teaching with that of Bishop in order to provide each Earth Device a fair share of available slots and prevent starvation (Afhamisis: [Page 5, Col 1]: “several EDs that are visited last by the satellite may never get a chance to transmit … according to the FCFS policy. We propose the FAIR policy to overcome such shortcomings and ensure that all the EDs have an equal chance to transmit”).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the method implemented by the apparatus of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above).
Per claim 4 and 14:
Regarding claim 14, combination of Bishop, Afhamisis, Zhu and Werb teaches the apparatus of claim 13 (discussed above).
Bishop does not expressly teach, but Afhamisis teaches ‘wherein the assigned transmission window of the neighboring device partially overlaps the potential communication window for the device associated with the first cluster of data sources’ (Afhamisis : [Figure 4], [Page 4, Col 2]: “the ED4 will not transmit as soon as it enters the satellite footprint, but after the ED3 finishes its transmission”, ED4 and ED3 have partially overlap transmission window and ED4’s neighboring device ED 3 is still assigned the transmission window which is also available to ED4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Afhamisis’s teaching with that of Bishop in order to handle overlap due to a dense area with many Earth Devices to avoid collision (Afhamisis: [Page 4, Col 2]: “there is an overlap (a dense area with many EDs concentrated together) … avoids collision, not allowing conflicting parallel overlapping transmissions”).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the method implemented by the apparatus of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above).
Per claim 8 and 18:
Regarding claim 18, combination of Bishop, Afhamisis, Zhu and Werb teaches the apparatus of claim 11 (discussed above).
Bishop implicitly teaches ‘wherein the device associated with the first cluster of data sources does not have knowledge of the neighboring device associated with the second cluster of data sources’ (Bishop: [Fig.1], [Col 1]-[Col 6]: there is no link and information sharing between satellite subscript unit such as airplane “32”, Base Station “40” or the UE “30”, each of them directly communicating with satellite (has no knowledge of the other devices), and each of them can be cluster headers for data of other devices such as passengers cell phone for airplane “32”, UEs the base station “40” serving, or wearable devices connected to the UE “30”).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the method implemented by the apparatus of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above).
Per claim 9 and 19:
Regarding claim 19, combination of Bishop, Afhamisis, Zhu and Werb teaches the apparatus of claim 11 (discussed above).
Bishop does not expressly teach, but Afhamisis teaches ‘wherein the device associated with the first cluster of data sources and the neighboring device associated with the second cluster of data sources have overlapping potential communication windows’ (Afhamisis: [Page 4, Col 2]: “there is an overlap (i.e., a dense area with many EDs concentrated together)”, where ED is Earth Device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Afhamisis’s teaching with that of Bishop in order to handle overlap due to a dense area with many Earth Devices to avoid collision (Afhamisis: [Page 4, Col 2]: “there is an overlap (a dense area with many EDs concentrated together) … avoids collision, not allowing conflicting parallel overlapping transmissions”).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the method implemented by the apparatus of claim 19 (see rejection of claim 19 above).
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Bishop, Afhamisis and Zhu as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wang et al. (“Dynamic Uplink Transmission Scheduling for Satellite Internet of Things Applications”), hereinafter “Wang”.
Per claim 5 and 15:
Regarding claim 15, combination of Bishop, Afhamisis, Zhu and Werb teaches the apparatus of claim 11 (discussed above).
Combination of Bishop, Afhamisis, Zhu and Werb does not expressly teaches ‘receiving an indication of an updated transmission window for the device associated with the first cluster of data sources, wherein the satellite computes the updated transmission window for the device associated with the first cluster of data sources in response to a request from a second neighboring device associated with a third cluster for a transmission window’.
However, Wang teaches LEO satellite schedules a group of Earth Station over a period of time T considering each Earth Station’s traffic demand and satellite visibility time window (Wang: [Page 3, Col 1]: “The uplink transmission is scheduled during each time slot, denoted as ts, Then a whole period (0,T] is divided into K = T / ts slots … During a whole period T, the uploaded traffic Fn is the integral of uploaded traffic through the allocated channel during the allocated transmission period.”; [Page 3, Col 2]: “parameter sn and en represent the start and end slot of ESn able to access the AS … traffic demand of ESn is Dn,which represents the total volume of sensed data to be forwarded”). At each scheduling point during the time period T, LEO satellite scheduling algorithm would consider both already scheduled Earth Station and unscheduled Earth Stations which newly become visible to LEO satellite and request traffic demand. The scheduling algorithm determines a new time slots assignment scheme which could change the time slots assigned to the already scheduled Earth Station, even though it does not make new traffic demand on this given scheduling point (Wang: [Page 5, Col 1]: “Decide the scheduled and un-scheduled UTs … the transmission scheduling opportunity between the scheduled ESsk and un-scheduled ESuk, forming the new scheduling scheme”). Therefore, the teaching of Wang is the same as in the claim element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang’s teaching with that of combination of Bishop, Afhamisis, Zhu and Werb in order to support dynamic uplink scheduling for Satellite Internet of Things Applications with reduce cost and fast convergence (Wang: [Title]: “Dynamic Uplink Transmission Scheduling for Satellite Internet of Things Applications”; [Abstract]: “the effectiveness of the proposed SA-MC algorithm in terms of cost value reduction and fast convergence”).
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the method implemented by the apparatus of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above).
Per claim 6 and 16:
Regarding claim 16, combination of Bishop, Afhamisis, Zhu and Werb teaches the apparatus of claim 11 (discussed above).
Combination of Bishop, Afhamisis and Zhu does not expressly teach, but Wang in the same field of endeavor teaches ‘wherein the data to be sent comprises sensor data captured by the first cluster of data sources’ (Wang: [Page 2, Col 2]: “Earth Stations : acting as sensor nodes gathering sensed data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang’s teaching with that of combination of Bishop, Afhamisis, Zhu and Werb in order to collect sensed data from sensors (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the method implemented by the apparatus of claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above).
Per claim 7 and 17:
Regarding claim 17, combination of Bishop, Afhamisis, Zhu and Werb teaches the apparatus of claim 11 (discussed above).
Combination of Bishop, Afhamisis and Zhu does not expressly teach, but Wang teaches ‘wherein the satellite computes the assigned transmission window of the device associated with the first cluster of data sources based on a proximity of the satellite to the device associated with the first cluster of data sources’ (Wang: [Page 3, Col 1]: “where dn,m,k is the uploaded data for ESn on channel m during time slot k”; [Page 5, Col 2 – Page 6, Col 1]:“eq.(11)”, “ln,m,k is the free space path loss between ESn and its AS on channel m at time slot k”, where ES is Earth Station, AS is LEO satellite and free space path loss is related to the distance between ES and AS. The shorter the distance, the less the free space loss, the more the channel power gain, and the less time slots required for the ES to transmit the same amount of traffic data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang’s teaching with that of combination of Bishop, Afhamisis, Zhu and Werb in order to schedule an Earth Station with consideration of its channel power gain (Wang: [Page 5, Col 2]: “the channel power gain … is calculated as eq.(11)”).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the method implemented by the apparatus of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20090034432 A1 see [FIG.1], [0028].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUOXING FAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
/G.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights