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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (MPEP 608.01, ¶6.31).
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 7-9 recite “wherein the correspondence information multi-layered relationship”, which likely should be “wherein the correspondence information is a multi-layered relationship” for proper grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant amended the claim language to no longer invoke 112f, and thus the invocation is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
claims 10-11 recite an “absolute storage location”. However, such terminology is not present in the disclosure. The closest recitation in the specification is the absolute positional information, but this information is combined with other reference information to specify a storage location (paragraph 0150), and thus appears to differ from a simple recitation of an absolute storage location. Furthermore, it is unclear what differences between an absolute storage location and a storage location (as previously recited) are. Additionally, there does not appear to be a reasonable term of the art related to absolute storage location. Thus, the scope of an “absolute storage location” is unclear, and indefinite.
Because clam 23 depends on claim 10 without rectifying the issue, it is also considered indefinite.
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 an abstract idea accomplishable by mental processes without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of organizing and manipulating data, which is analogous to mental work with the aid of generic computer equipment. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, The claims are directed to a machine (1-8, 10, and 15-20) and a process (claims 9 and 11-14).
Step 2A; is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, organizing and manipulating data. The independent claims recite; a vehicle computer receiving a request from a device installed outside the vehicle, organizing log information to include certain information, such as correspondence information and identification information, and transmitting collected information to the device installed outside the vehicle. This effectively recites the process of transmitting data (request and log information) and detailing the organization of data to be transmitted (first log information and second log information).
Prong One; Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, as understood in their broadest reasonable interpretation, the independent claims are directed to the collection of log information based on a request. In addition, the remaining claim limitations either work to develop the abstract idea further [such as where information is obtained, such as from first, second, or third memories], or to implement the idea onto generic computer components [a computer, a device, and first, second, and third memories]. Acquisition and transmission of data (akin to sensory input and mental analysis with the use of generic computer equipment) merely amounts to insignificant extra solution activity, and thus does not adequately integrate the idea into the application.
Prong Two; Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the elements are generically recited. In particular, elements recited include;
A computer, a device, a first memory, a second memory, and a third memory.
Using a computer or circuitry, a server [management device], merely amount to generic computer equipment, and memory [first, second, and third memories], which amounts to generic computer memory). There are no indications of specialized features or structures that would indicate that anything beyond generic, well understood computer components would accomplish.
Therefore, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For the same reasons as described above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, Claims 1-20 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Using similar reasoning to above, Claims 1-20 do not add any significant structure or elements that qualify as significantly more, and instead merely further detail/define aspects of the abstract idea, and thus do not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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) 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwabuchi (WO2017208377A1, from IDS) in view of AUTOSAR (Specification of Execution Management, 2017) and Elzein (US20160189441A1).
Regarding claim 1, Iwabuchi teaches;
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a vehicle log collection program that causes a computer serving as an in-vehicle device (taught as a log data acquisition device, element 10, paragraph 0018) to:
[[in response to a request from a device installed outside the vehicle]], the request including designation of identification information identifying first application software for use in a vehicle (taught as a content reproduction system, element 100), the vehicle having a first memory and a second memory (taught as a normal log holding unit, element 21, and a detailed log holding unit, element 22, paragraph 0020);
acquire correspondence information indicating that the first application software is associated with at least one of second application software or a service (taught as information indicating which program is related to each function of the content reproduction system [related program information] being stored in the program information memory, paragraph 0023), the second application software being for use in the vehicle and different from the first application software, the service being for use in the vehicle (taught as functions related to the content reproduction system, examples include video and audio output in the content reproduction system, paragraph 0022);
acquire first log information stored in the first memory from the first memory, the first log information being on the first application software corresponding to the identification information (taught as the log saving unit storing detailed log information of all programs related to the function as well as detailed log data of the program of the function in which the failure has occurred, paragraph 0023);
acquire second log information stored in the second memory from the second memory, the second log information being on the second application software identified via the multi-layered relationship as being linked to the service (taught as the log saving unit storing detailed log information of all programs related to the function as well as detailed log data of the program of the function in which the failure has occurred, paragraph 0023; the use of ALL programs indicates a plurality of program data logs being stored), and
transmit the first log information and the second log information (taught as outputting normal log data and detailed log data, paragraph 0033).
While Iwabuchi does not explicitly differentiate/separate the memories, the use of multiple log creation units and programs, while not explicitly defining the first log to first storage, would indicate that there at least multiple logs for multiple programs, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
However, Iwabuchi does not explicitly teach; at least one of a second application software or a service required for an operation of the first application software, wherein the correspondence information multi-layered relationship that links the first application software to the service, and further links the service to the second application software used by the service,
in response to a request from a device installed outside the vehicle, transmit the acquired first log information and the acquired second log information to a device installed outside the vehicle.
AUTOSAR teaches; at least one of a second application software or a service required for an operation of the first application software, wherein the correspondence information multi-layered relationship that links the first application software to the service, and further links the service to the second application software used by the service (taught as the AUTOSAR adaptive platform specifying dependencies to applications, pages 20-21, such as with application manifests with separate executables, page 15).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement knowledge of dependency structures as taught in AUTOSAR in the system taught by Iwabuchi in order to simplify programming. As AUTOSAR serves as a global partnership to develop open and standardized software architecture for vehicles, it would be obvious to implement the teachings to enable simple implementation and modifications with a standardized interface.
However, AUTOSAR does not explicitly teach; in response to a request from a device installed outside the vehicle transmit the first log information and the second log information to a device installed outside the vehicle
Elzein teaches; in response to a request from a device installed outside the vehicle (taught as, during a diagnostic mode or bench test mode for example, passing a message to the diagnostic monitor by a wireless or wired protocol [from a mobile device] to execute a pre-determined command or test, paragraph 0051, and shown in S413 of Fig 4 to request the vehicle to send error logs), transmit the first log information and the second log information to a device installed outside the vehicle (taught as sending information related to software states to an off-board server during certain scenarios, paragraph 0056).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send error data offsite as taught by Elzein in the system taught by Iwabuchi in order to improve timely analysis. Such a feature allows for improved analysis, diagnostics, and fixes, such as by a third party, as suggested in Elzein (paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 2, Iwabuchi as modified by Elzein teaches;
The recording medium according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Iwabuchi further teaches; wherein the vehicle has a third memory, the computer is configured to acquire first outline log information and second outline log information from the third memory (taught as normal log data which partially extracts detailed log data, paragraph 0041), the first outline log information including first reference information indicating a storage location of the first log information, the second outline log information including second reference information indicating a storage location of the second log information (taught as normal log data being partially extracting the detailed log data, which include a specific character string of the detailed log data, paragraph 0043), and
acquire the first log information from the first memory by using the first reference information, and acquire the second log information from the second memory by using the second reference information (taught as the log data acquisition device, element 10, acquires/includes normal log creation which include the specific character string, paragraph 0043 and output to the normal log holding unit, element 21, paragraph 0047). However, Iwabuchi does not explicitly teach;
periodically transmit the first outline log information and the second outline log information to the device installed outside the vehicle.
Elzein teaches; periodically transmit the first outline log information and the second outline log information to the device installed outside the vehicle (taught as the diagnostic monitor transferring the logged data to an off-board server, executed on any number of occurrences such as daily, weekly, monthly etc. or from visiting a dealership in routine service, paragraph 0035, wherein during a diagnostic monitoring, the system consistently monitors for errors while in communication with a mobile device, paragraph 0052).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send error data offsite as taught by Elzein in the system taught by Iwabuchi in order to improve timely analysis. Such a feature allows for improved analysis, diagnostics, and fixes, such as by third party as suggested in Elzein (paragraph 0056). Furthermore, the ability to manually interact with a diagnostic mode based on an off-board device allows for further interaction; as exemplified in Elzein, such abilities include debugging and implementing system state resets (paragraph 0054). To reiterate, one would add in more comprehensive diagnostic schemes with an off-board device interaction as taught by Elzein in the error logging system taught by Iwabuchi in order to improve error causation and implement solutions.
Regarding claim 3, Iwabuchi as modified by Elzein teaches;
The recording medium according to claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection). Iwabuchi further teaches; wherein the first outline log information is information created, by the first application software, by omitting or converting at least part of the first log information, and the second outline log information is information created, by the second application software, by omitting or converting at least part of the second log information (taught as normal log data being partially [as in, omitting part of the information] extracting the detailed log data, which include a specific character string of the detailed log data, paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 4, Iwabuchi as modified by Elzein teaches;
The recording medium according to claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection). Iwabuchi further teaches; the vehicle log collection program further causing the computer to:
detect an abnormality of the first application software and an abnormality of the second application software (taught as a failure detection unit, element 14, detecting failures occurring in the function of the content reproduction system, paragraph 0023), wherein the first outline log information is created in response to the abnormality of the first application software being detected, and the second outline log information is created in response to the abnormality of the second application software being detected (taught as, upon detecting a failure occurring, saving detailed log data, paragraph 0023, which is used to generate normal log data by inputting created detailed log data, paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 5, Iwabuchi as modified by Elzein teaches;
The recording medium according to claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection). Iwabuchi further teaches; wherein the first outline log information includes an error log of the first application software, and the second outline log information includes an error log of the second application software (taught as the normal log information including high degree of importance information from the detailed logs, paragraph 0044, which are in turn generated in response to detecting a failure, paragraph 0023 [these logs are functionally error logs]).
Regarding claim 6, Iwabuchi as modified by Elzein teaches;
The recording medium according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Iwabuchi further teaches; wherein the correspondence information indicates that the first application software corresponding to the identification information is associated with the second application software and the service (taught as information indicating which program is related to each function of the content reproduction system [related program information] being stored in the program information memory, paragraph 0023).
Regarding claims 7-9, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 1. Therefore, claims 7-9 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. Similarly, Claims 12-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 2-4, wherein claims 12, 15, and 18 correspond to claim 2, claims 13, 16, 19 correspond to claim 3, and claims 14, 17, and 20 correspond to claim 4.
Regarding claim 21, Iwabuchi as modified by Elzein teaches;
The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Iwabuchi further teaches; wherein the in-vehicle device further identifies, from the correspondence information, a third application software that is associated with the service, and acquires third log information from the third application software (taught as the log saving unit storing detailed log information of all programs related to the function as well as detailed log data of the program of the function in which the failure has occurred, paragraph 0023; the use of ALL programs indicates a plurality of program data logs being stored, and extending a process from 2 to 3 programs would merely be duplication of the process, which merely requires routine skill in the art).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwabuchi (WO2017208377A1, from IDS) and further in view of Calder (US20150350316A1) and Elzein (US20160189441A1).
Regarding claim 10, Iwabuchi teaches;
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a vehicle log collection program that causes a computer serving as an in-vehicle device (taught as a log data acquisition device, element 10, paragraph 0018, mounted on a vehicle, paragraph 0012) to:
[[in response to a request from a device installed outside the vehicle]], the request including a designation of identification information identifying application software for use in a vehicle, and designation of third reference information indicating a storage location of log information on the application software (taught as a detailed log holding unit, element 22, paragraph 0020; while only a singular unit is recited, duplicating a singular unit is well within routine skill in the art);
acquire fourth reference information indicating the storage location of the application software corresponding to the identification information (taught as information indicating which program is related to each function of the content reproduction system [related program information] being stored in the program information memory, paragraph 0023);
specify, based on the third reference information and the fourth reference information, the storage location of the log information on the application software (taught as the log saving unit storing detailed log information of all programs related to the function as well as detailed log data of the program of the function in which the failure has occurred, paragraph 0023),
acquire the log information from the specified storage location (taught as the log saving unit storing detailed log information, paragraph 0023, and
transmit the acquired log information (taught as outputting normal log data and detailed log data, paragraph 0033).
However, Iwabuchi does not explicitly teach; in response to a request from a device installed outside the vehicle, a storage location of log information on the application software by a relative positional relationship with respect to a storage location of the application software, by determining a path to the log information as a relative path from the absolute storage location where the application software is installed, transmit the acquired log information to the device installed outside the vehicle.
Calder teaches; a storage location of log information on the application software by a relative positional relationship with respect to a storage location of the application software (taught as identifying the relative paths to files for transfer, paragraph 0086), by determining a path to the log information as a relative path from the absolute storage location where the application software is installed (taught as identifying the relative paths to files for transfer, paragraph 0086).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a relative file path as suggested in Calder for the system taught by Iwabuchi in order to improve file path searches. In general, relative file path relationships allow for more dynamic pointers compared to absolute file paths [akin to web addresses; a change in the domain name invalidates all absolute pointers to it, while a relative path may still function]. With internal file systems like the ones in Calder and Iwabuchi , one can additionally localize files without extra knowledge of the rest of the file system, simplifying the overall pointer to the desired file.
However, Calder does not explicitly teach; in response to a request from a device installed outside the vehicle, transmit the first log information and the second log information to a device installed outside the vehicle.
Elzein teaches; in response to a request from a device installed outside the vehicle, (taught as initiating a diagnostic mode from an external device, such as a bench test, paragraph 0051), transmit the first log information and the second log information to a device installed outside the vehicle (taught as sending information related to software states to an off-board server, paragraph 0056).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send error data offsite as taught by Elzein in the system taught by Iwabuchi in order to improve timely analysis. Such a feature allows for more remote diagnosis without waiting for a manual retrieval from a user or technician.
Regarding claim 11, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 10. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10.
Regarding claim 23, Iwabuchi as modified by Calder and Elzein teaches;
The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 10 (see claim 10 rejection). Iwabuchi further teaches; wherein the application software is stored in a first directory (taught as an application being stored in a control function unit, such as media control function unit, element 1) and the log information is stored in a second directory (taught as log information being stored in a detailed log holding unit, paragraph 0020). However, Iwabuchi does not explicitly teach; and the relative positional relationship identifies the second directory based on a relative path from the first directory.
Calder teaches; the relative positional relationship identifies the second directory based on a relative path from the first directory (taught as identifying the relative paths to files for transfer, paragraph 0086).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a relative file path as suggested in Calder for the system taught by Iwabuchi in order to improve file path searches. In general, relative file path relationships allow for more dynamic pointers compared to absolute file paths [akin to web addresses; a change in the domain name invalidates all absolute pointers to it, while a relative path may still function]. With internal file systems like the ones in Calder and Iwabuchi , one can additionally localize files without extra knowledge of the rest of the file system, simplifying the overall pointer to the desired file.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwabuchi (WO2017208377A1, from IDS) as modified by AUTOSAR (Specification of Execution Management, 2017) and Elzein (US20160189441A1), and further in view of Chen (US20110047630A1).
Regarding claim 22, Iwabuchi as modified by AUTOSAR and Elzein teaches;
The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Iwabuchi does not explicitly teach; wherein the first memory and the second memory are located in different Electronic Control Units (ECUs), and the in-vehicle device acquires the first and second log information via an internal vehicle network.
Cheng teaches; wherein the first memory and the second memory are located in different Electronic Control Units (ECUs) (taught as splitting embedded software of each electronic device into at least two executable parts, paragraph 0024), and the in-vehicle device acquires the first and second log information via an internal vehicle network (taught as sending messages between ECUs in a controller area network, paragraph 0054).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to split application/software into multiple units/memories as taught by Cheng in the system taught by Iwabuchi in order to improve security and redundancy. As taught by Cheng, such a system helps promote tamper proofing (paragraph 0014).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 14-16 of the remarks that the claims are eligible under 101 as being an improvement to the state of the art and thus a practical application based on decreasing processing burdens and increasing security.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. To summarize, the claimed invention recites generic components, [generically recited with no specific features that require or indicate anything other than generic computer equipment, including a computer, circuitry, memory, server], and steps to receive/acquire data [identification information, correspondence information, log information, and a request for data], and transmit data. In other words, the claimed invention only recites insignificant extra solution activity in acquiring data and transmitting data, with further details only addressing features of the data or how it is organized. Thus, the current claimed invention merely adds in general purpose computers to an abstract idea and does not signify an improvement to computer functionality.
Additionally, the argument that there is a specific improvement to computer functionality is not convincing, as it does not appear that the claims recite any feature or structure beyond that which is accomplishable by generic, well understood computer equipment.
Applicant argues on pages 17-18 that the amended independent claims, which require the log information to be transmitted in response to a request from a device installed outside the vehicle, are no longer covered by the recited prior art; specifically, that Iwabuchi does not specify a three way relationship (first app – second app – service).
The examiner agrees that the combination of Iwabuchi and Elzein does not sufficiently cover the dependencies indicated in the amended claims 1 and 7-9, and withdraws the previous rejection. However, Such modification is considered obvious, as represented by the documentation of AUTOSAR above.
However, the examiner doe not agree that the amendments to claims 10-11 sufficiently distinguish from Calder, as Calder teaches determining the relative path for files (paragraph 0086), indicating the source and destination of files are determined, and that the relative path is determined and used thusly. The examiner does not find the argument persuasive that Calder would not accomplish the explanation provided for the relative positional relationship, especially since the scope of an absolute storage location is unclear based on the claim language and specification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheek, “Debugging Native Crashes in Android Apps”, Medium, Feb 2019, for further examples of error logs and relative path relationships.
For further diagnostic communication between a vehicle system and an external source; US7409275B2
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 GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights