DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/17/2025 has been entered.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simitci et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20120060072 A1) hereinafter Simitci, Haupt et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20130263116 A1) hereinafter Haupt, and further in view of Whyte (U.S. Publication No.: US 20080010238 A1) hereinafter Whyte.
As to claim 1:
Simitci discloses:
A method implemented by one or more processors of a storage engine, the method comprising: independently reducing an amount of memory space used for storing each of index fragments of chunk segment index metadata of a chunk segment in a memory associated with the storage engine, wherein the chunk segment index metadata of the chunk segment is divided into the index fragments [Paragraph 0071 teaches consumption of memory may be reduced for the fragment indexes. For example, it is contemplated that a memory footprint may be reduced for fragment indexes by loading the index blocks serving the actual data of the fragment in to memory, while maintaining the remained in storage.], each index fragment of the index fragments represents a subset of a key range associated with the chunk segment, at least some of the index fragments stored in the memory have different formats [Paragraph 0059 teaches multiple formats of erasure coding may be implemented and they may be implemented simultaneously. For example, in an exemplary embodiment, a "6+3" (i.e., six data fragments+three coding fragments) configuration of Reed-Solomon erasure coding algorithm may be implemented. It is contemplated that any combination of data fragments to coding fragments may be implemented. For example, the number of data fragments may be any number 1-N where N is a positive integer. Paragraph 0063 teaches the extra fragment information may include information as to which erasure coding algorithm is used, the fragment identifier, and a logical and physical offset range in the original extent data file for the fragment. Paragraph 0071 teaches consumption of memory may be reduced for the fragment indexes. For example, it is contemplated that a memory footprint may be reduced for fragment indexes by loading the index blocks serving the actual data of the fragment in to memory, while maintaining the remained in storage. Paragraph 0108 teaches it is contemplated herein that instead of merely creating additional hot fragment replications, caching of hot ranges of fragments in a distributed cache may be implemented. This process may be utilized for very "hot" fragments or ranges of fragments. Note: Each index block fragment having a subset identifier (key) range associated with the block (chunk) fragment, wherein the fragments are implemented using multiple formats of erasure coding and therefore formatted differently reads on the claims.],
Simitci discloses some of the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not appear to expressly disclose the reducing comprising: detecting a triggering event for examining at least an index fragment that includes respective index entries of a plurality of records that are stored in a storage device, determining one or more record properties of the plurality of records, converting the index fragment from an original format of multiple predefined formats to a new format of the multiple predefined formats based at least in part on the one or more determined record properties of the plurality of records the index fragment with the new format having a less memory usage as compared to the index fragment with the original format, wherein at least one format of the multiple predefined formats is configured to be converted into a plurality of different formats of the multiple predefined formats based on different combinations of values and/or types of record properties.
Haupt discloses:
the reducing comprising: detecting a triggering event for examining at least an index fragment that includes respective index entries of a plurality of records that are stored in a storage device [Paragraph 0039 teaches the memory manager (100) includes functionality to determine that the resource storage (120) has exceeded a resource availability threshold…a trigger or requirement from a garbage collection algorithm to move one or more managed resources (e.g., upon allocation/de-allocation of a region of the resource storage (120), after a sweep operation, etc.). Paragraph 0051 teaches entries in the object table may further identify a type of the managed resource and the memory manager (100) may be configured to interpret a payload of each entry as a reference to the managed resource in a correct storage location based on the type. Note: A triggering a garbage collection that includes a sweep of index data that includes entries of managed resources for a storage location reads on the claims.]; determining one or more record properties of the plurality of records [Paragraph 0006 teaches read, in the resource map, a bit value referencing an address of a first binary value in the thread stack; determine, based on the bit value, that the first binary value corresponds to a managed resource. Paragraph 0051 teaches entries in the object table may further identify a type of the managed resource and the memory manager (100) may be configured to interpret a payload of each entry as a reference to the managed resource in a correct storage location based on the type. Note: Determining binary value addresses (record properties) for managed resources (plurality of records) reads on the claims.]; and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Simitci, by incorporating triggering a garbage collection that includes a sweep of index data that includes entries of managed resources for a storage location and determining binary value addresses (record properties) for managed resources (plurality of records), as taught by Haupt (see Paragraph 0006, 0039, and 0051), because both applications are directed to data analysis; incorporating triggering a garbage collection that includes a sweep of index data that includes entries of managed resources for a storage location and determining binary value addresses (record properties) for managed resources (plurality of records) provides the advantage of performing compaction and/or various maintenance operations on one or more resource storages while providing access to the managed resources to any number of threads and/or clients (see Haupt Paragraph 0081).
Simitci and Haupt discloses some of the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not appear to expressly disclose converting the index fragment from an original format of multiple predefined formats to a new format of the multiple predefined formats based at least in part on the one or more determined record properties of the plurality of records the index fragment with the new format having a less memory usage as compared to the index fragment with the original format, wherein at least one format of the multiple predefined formats is configured to be converted into a plurality of different formats of the multiple predefined formats based on different combinations of values and/or types of record properties.
Whyte discloses:
converting the index fragment from an original format of multiple predefined formats to a new format of the multiple predefined formats based at least in part on the one or more determined record properties of the plurality of records [Paragraph 0020 teaches what constitutes a format that is optimized for lookup performance may depend upon the type of bulk storage that stores files 120. For example, reading from a DVD is different than reading from a hard disk. Paragraph 0022 teaches the ease with which its indexing information is converted into the format of the indexing information in files 120. Paragraph 0033 teaches ISR 140 provides a level of abstraction to make the format of index 110 transparent to any modules that make use of its functionality. ISR 140 therefore includes various components to implement access to an index (or portion thereof) in various formats, including, for example, a hash table implementation 142 and a compressed alphabetically-arranged index implementation 144. Note: Converting indexing format (original format) from various formats (format of multiple predefined formats) to an index in various formats of a plurality of formats based on where and how files are stored (record properties of the plurality of records) reads on the claims.], the index fragment with the new format having a less memory usage as compared to the index fragment with the original format [Paragraph 0020 teaches the lookup performance may be enhanced if the amount of space occupied by the index is reduced. Paragraph 0022 teaches the format may be designed for one or a combination of lookup performance, the ease with which it is updated, the ease with which its indexing information is converted into the format of the indexing information in files 120, and reducing the amount of memory required to store data structures 130.] wherein at least one format of the multiple predefined formats is configured to be converted into a plurality of different formats of the multiple predefined formats based on different combinations of values and/or types of record properties [Paragraph 0020 teaches what constitutes a format that is optimized for lookup performance may depend upon the type of bulk storage that stores files 120. For example, reading from a DVD is different than reading from a hard disk. Paragraph 0022 teaches the ease with which its indexing information is converted into the format of the indexing information in files 120. Paragraph 0033 teaches ISR 140 provides a level of abstraction to make the format of index 110 transparent to any modules that make use of its functionality. ISR 140 therefore includes various components to implement access to an index (or portion thereof) in various formats, including, for example, a hash table implementation 142 and a compressed alphabetically-arranged index implementation 144. Note: Converting indexing format (original format) from various formats (format of multiple predefined formats) to an index in various formats of a plurality of formats based on where and how files are stored (record properties of the plurality of records) reads on the claims.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Simitci and Haupt, by incorporating converting indexing format from various formats to an index in various formats of a plurality of formats based on where and how files are stored, as taught by Whyte (see Paragraph 0020, 0022 and 0033), because the three applications are directed to data analysis; incorporating converting indexing format from various formats to an index in various formats of a plurality of formats based on where and how files are stored (see Whyte Paragraph 0062).
Claims 9 and 17 recites similar limitations as in claim 1. Therefore claims 9 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. See claim 1 for analysis.
As to claim 2:
Simitci, Haupt, and Whyte discloses all of the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Haupt also discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the triggering event comprises an occurrence of an operation of garbage collection to be performed on the storage device [Paragraph 0039 teaches the memory manager (100) includes functionality to determine that the resource storage (120) has exceeded a resource availability threshold…a trigger or requirement from a garbage collection algorithm to move one or more managed resources (e.g., upon allocation/de-allocation of a region of the resource storage (120), after a sweep operation, etc.).], an occurrence of a regular maintenance operation for index fragments stored in a memory of the storage engine, or a receipt of an instruction from a user of the storage engine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Simitci, by incorporating triggering a garbage collection that includes a sweep of index data that includes entries of managed resources for a storage location and determining binary value addresses (record properties) for managed resources (plurality of records), as taught by Haupt (see Paragraph 0006, 0039, and 0051), because both applications are directed to data analysis; incorporating triggering a garbage collection that includes a sweep of index data that includes entries of managed resources for a storage location and determining binary value addresses (record properties) for managed resources (plurality of records) provides the advantage of performing compaction and/or various maintenance operations on one or more resource storages while providing access to the managed resources to any number of threads and/or clients (see Haupt Paragraph 0081).
Claim 10 recites similar limitations as in claim 2. Therefore claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. See claim 2 for analysis.
As to claim 3:
Simitci, Haupt, and Whyte discloses all of the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Haupt also discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more record properties of the plurality of records comprise at least one of: or a sector span of the plurality of records [Paragraph 0006 teaches read, in the resource map, a bit value referencing an address of a first binary value in the thread stack; determine, based on the bit value, that the first binary value corresponds to a managed resource. Paragraph 0051 teaches entries in the object table may further identify a type of the managed resource and the memory manager (100) may be configured to interpret a payload of each entry as a reference to the managed resource in a correct storage location based on the type. Note: Determining binary value addresses (record properties) for managed resources (plurality of records) reads on the claims.] logical sizes of the plurality of records, whether logical sizes of the plurality of records are identical to each other,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Simitci, by incorporating triggering a garbage collection that includes a sweep of index data that includes entries of managed resources for a storage location and determining binary value addresses (record properties) for managed resources (plurality of records), as taught by Haupt (see Paragraph 0006, 0039, and 0051), because both applications are directed to data analysis; incorporating triggering a garbage collection that includes a sweep of index data that includes entries of managed resources for a storage location and determining binary value addresses (record properties) for managed resources (plurality of records) provides the advantage of performing compaction and/or various maintenance operations on one or more resource storages while providing access to the managed resources to any number of threads and/or clients (see Haupt Paragraph 0081).
Claims 11 and 18 recites similar limitations as in claim 3. Therefore claims 11 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. See claim 3 for analysis.
As to claim 6:
Simitci, Haupt, and Whyte discloses all of the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Haupt also discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein a respective index entry of a record of the plurality of records comprises at least a part of information of mapping a key associated with the record to a physical location of the record in the storage device [Paragraph 0006 teaches read, in the resource map, a bit value referencing an address of a first binary value in the thread stack; determine, based on the bit value, that the first binary value corresponds to a managed resource. Paragraph 0051 teaches entries in the object table may further identify a type of the managed resource and the memory manager (100) may be configured to interpret a payload of each entry as a reference to the managed resource in a correct storage location based on the type.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Simitci, by incorporating triggering a garbage collection that includes a sweep of index data that includes entries of managed resources for a storage location and determining binary value addresses (record properties) for managed resources (plurality of records), as taught by Haupt (see Paragraph 0006, 0039, and 0051), because both applications are directed to data analysis; incorporating triggering a garbage collection that includes a sweep of index data that includes entries of managed resources for a storage location and determining binary value addresses (record properties) for managed resources (plurality of records) provides the advantage of performing compaction and/or various maintenance operations on one or more resource storages while providing access to the managed resources to any number of threads and/or clients (see Haupt Paragraph 0081).
Claim 14 recites similar limitations as in claim 6. Therefore claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. See claim 6 for analysis.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simitci et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20120060072 A1) hereinafter Simitci, Haupt et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20130263116 A1) hereinafter Haupt, in view of Whyte (U.S. Publication No.: US 20080010238 A1) hereinafter Whyte, and further in view of Park et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20140223083 A1) hereinafter Park.
As to claim 4:
Simitci, Haupt, and Whyte discloses some of the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not appear to expressly disclose converting the index fragment from the original format to the new format is based further on whether keys of the plurality of records in the index fragment are continuous.
Park discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein converting the index fragment from the original format to the new format is based further on whether keys of the plurality of records in the index fragment are continuous [Paragraph 0025 teaches selectively defragmenting, by the host, a fragmented file stored in a physical address space of the non-volatile storage medium based on whether fragments of the fragmented file are associated with a same logical address zone in a logical address space corresponding to the physical address space, the logical address space including a plurality of logical address zones, and each of the plurality of logical address zones including a plurality of continuous logical addresses.] or discrete
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Simitci, Haupt, and Whyte, by incorporating continuous logical address for converting fragmented data, as taught by Park (see Paragraph 0025), because the four applications are directed to data analysis; incorporating continuous logical address for converting fragmented data is advantageous for garbage collection to be performed later (see Paragraph 0088).
Claim 12 recites similar limitations as in claim 4. Therefore claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. See claim 4 for analysis.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simitci et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20120060072 A1) hereinafter Simitci, Haupt et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20130263116 A1) hereinafter Haupt, in view of Whyte (U.S. Publication No.: US 20080010238 A1) hereinafter Whyte, and further in view of Fujita (U.S. Publication No.: US 20200378788 A1) hereinafter Fujita.
As to claim 5:
Simitci, Haupt, and Whyte discloses all of the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not appear to expressly disclose converting the index fragment from the original format to the new format is based further on whether keys of the plurality of records in the index fragment are continuous.
Fujita discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising selecting the new format from a plurality of predefined formats, each of the plurality of predefined formats having a different index entry format [Paragraph 0021 teaches acquire the content in different formats from a plurality of map databases A, B, C, . . . having different formats of content when the vehicle executes the autonomous driving or the like (this execution mode will be referred to as an “online mode,” hereinafter); convert the formats of the acquired content to a predetermined format compatible with programs for the autonomous driving or the like of the vehicle.] a different index fragment header format and/or
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Simitci, Haupt, and Whyte, by incorporating the use of converting data to a new format based on data properties, as taught by Fujita (see Paragraph 0021), because the four applications are directed to data analysis; incorporating the use of converting data to a new format based on data properties reduces processing and memory usage (see Paragraph 0022).
Claim 13 recites similar limitations as in claim 5. Therefore claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. See claim 5 for analysis.
Claim(s) 7, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simitci et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20120060072 A1) hereinafter Simitci, Haupt et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20130263116 A1) hereinafter Haupt, in view of Whyte (U.S. Publication No.: US 20080010238 A1) hereinafter Whyte, and further in view of An et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20150310051 A1) hereinafter An.
As to claim 7:
Simitci, Haupt, and Whyte discloses some of the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not appear to expressly disclose receiving a new record to be stored in the storage device from a client device; storing the new record into the storage device and creating a new index entry for the new record and adding the new index entry to the index fragment with the new format in response to a key associated with the new record is within a sub-key range of the index fragment with the new format.
An discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a new record to be stored in the storage device from a client device; storing the new record into the storage device [Paragraph 0046 teaches partition assignment mod 370 uses the primary key column of table 404a as a range partitioning key to partition new entries in table 404a into one of two ranges: entries with primary key values from 0 to 4999 and entries with primary key values from 5000 to 9999. Note: Receiving new entries for storage reads on the claims.]; and creating a new index entry for the new record [Paragraph 0046 teaches partition assignment mod 370 uses the primary key column of table 404a as a range partitioning key to partition new entries in table 404a into one of two ranges: entries with primary key values from 0 to 4999 and entries with primary key values from 5000 to 9999. Note: Using the primary key for the new entries reads on the claims.], and adding the new index entry to the index fragment with the new format in response to a key associated with the new record is within a sub-key range of the index fragment with the new format [Paragraph 0046 teaches partition assignment mod 370 uses the primary key column of table 404a as a range partitioning key to partition new entries in table 404a into one of two ranges: entries with primary key values from 0 to 4999 and entries with primary key values from 5000 to 9999. Paragraph 0056 teaches enforce generation in a particular format of the primary key for each correlated record in multiple database tables. Paragraph 0059 a primary key generator component that accepts a format parameter, permitting primary keys to be generated in a flexible format of the user's choice. Note: Adding to new entries in storage with assigned primary keys that fall within the one of two ranges (a sub-key range) of the table 404a (index fragment) that is formatted with a flexible user specified format (new format) reads on the claims.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Simitci, Haupt, and Whyte, by incorporating adding new entries in a range of keys, as taught by Park (see Paragraph 0046), because the four applications are directed to data analysis; incorporating adding new entries in a range of keys improve performance (see Paragraph 0006).
Claim 15 and 19 recites similar limitations as in claim 7. Therefore claim 15 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. See claim 7 for analysis.
Claim(s) 8, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simitci et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20120060072 A1) hereinafter Simitci, Haupt et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20130263116 A1) hereinafter Haupt, in view of Whyte (U.S. Publication No.: US 20080010238 A1) hereinafter Whyte, and further in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20190129844 A1) hereinafter Zhang.
As to claim 8:
Simitci, Haupt, and Whyte discloses some of the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not appear to expressly disclose receiving an instruction for deleting a record from the storage device, the record having an index entry covered by the index fragment with the new format and based on the new format of the index fragment, deleting the index entry of the record from the index fragment, before an operation of garbage collection is performed or setting at least a special value in the index entry of the record in the index fragment to indicate that the record is deleted
Zhang discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving an instruction for deleting a record from the storage device, the record having an index entry covered by the index fragment with the new format [Paragraph 0009 teaches determining the predicted lifespan of a respective data object may also include receiving features of the respective data object and classifying the respective data object by executing a classifier on a machine learning model trained on a dataset of previously received data objects using the received features as inputs for the classification. Paragraph 0034 teaches require that a majority of the data objects 200 of the stored shard file 250 be deleted before the compaction routine 450 executes, while a threshold percentage of 100-percent (100%) would require that all of the data objects 200 be deleted. Note: Requiring (instructing) data records to be deleted that are data objects reads on the claims.]; and based on the new format of the index fragment, deleting the index entry of the record from the index fragment, before an operation of garbage collection is performed [Paragraph 0009 teaches determining the predicted lifespan of a respective data object may also include receiving features of the respective data object and classifying the respective data object by executing a classifier on a machine learning model trained on a dataset of previously received data objects using the received features as inputs for the classification. Paragraph 0034 teaches require that a majority of the data objects 200 of the stored shard file 250 be deleted before the compaction routine 450 executes, while a threshold percentage of 100-percent (100%) would require that all of the data objects 200 be deleted. Note: Deleting data objects before a garbage collection that are classified and tag (formatted) to represent differing classifications, wherein deletion is based on the data objects classification reads on the claims.] or setting at least a special value in the index entry of the record in the index fragment to indicate that the record is deleted
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Simitci, Haupt, and Whyte, by incorporating deleting data based on classification before garbage collection, as taught by Park (see Paragraph 0009 and 0034), because the four applications are directed to data analysis; incorporating deleting data based on classification before garbage collection improves garbage collection performance (see Paragraph 0034).
Claim 16 and 20 recites similar limitations as in claim 8. Therefore claim 16 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. See claim 8 for analysis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EARL LEVI ELIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-9762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (IFP).
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/EARL LEVI ELIAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2169
/SHERIEF BADAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights