Detailed Action
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 05/14/2026 for application 18/325,041, in which:
Claim 1 is the independent claim.
Claims 5 and 8 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6 are currently amended.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202310110092.8, filed on 02/02/2023.
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 .
Regarding the Specification:
Applicant's amendments to the Abstract overcome the previous objections. The previous objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the Claim Objections:
Applicant's cancellation of Claim 8 renders the previous Claim Objection as moot. The previous objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC § 112 Rejections:
Applicant's amendments to Claims 3 and 4 overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections due to indefiniteness. The previous rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC § 103 Rejections:
Applicant's amendments to the Independent Claim overcomes the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections. More information below within the Examiner Comments section.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC § 101 Rejections:
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered, but are unpersuasive.
Applicant responds to the previous rejections (Page 6), by noting the amendment of claim 1 to add a feature such as "the participating nodes are terminal devices having a function of processing images". Applicant further supports the new feature by noting that the participating nodes are physical terminal devices, which have the function of processing images. It is apparent that this feature integrates the mathematical concepts of multi-task learning in claim 1 into a practical application of image processing.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The previous and current rejections for the amended claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2). The limitation recites … wherein, the participating nodes are terminal devices having a function of processing images … which is currently being treated under MPEP 2106.05(f) as to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer. Eligibility must be assessed based on the claim as a whole. When viewed as an integrated whole, the claims limitation is further restricting the participating nodes to be devices for processing images; which is merely a description of the nodes to be a computing system for processing images. The additional elements recited within the independent claim only recites performance of an abstract idea within a computer, data gathering, or restricting the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; thus, as the additional elements fall within MPEP 2106.05 they are unable to integrate the judicial exception as they are unable to provide significantly more. The additional elements noted within Step 2A Prong 2 are unable to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (when evaluated individually and holistically). The claims are not a technical solution to a technical problem as the independent claim is merely performing abstract ideas with specific restrictions within a computer. Thus, the additional elements are not able to integrate the abstract ideas in a practical application. The claims are directed towards the improvement of an abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant further support their assertions (Page 6), by noting that the amended claim 1 clarifies that the "multi-task learning method based on federated learning" claimed performs the multi-task learning based on image data. Therefore, the method claimed aggregates image data with similar data distributions into a same cluster by means of clustering, and the participating nodes within the same cluster conduct a joint training. This may avoid interferences of participating nodes with different data distributions, and may therefore alleviate problems caused by device heterogeneity and data heterogeneity of image data from different sources when processing diverse image data.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim does clarify the performing of the multi-task learning based on image data; however, the claims are directed towards the improvement of an abstract idea. Improvements to an abstract idea are still considered to an abstract idea. The extensiveness of numerical computations or amount of computations do not dictate judicial exception from being a mental process as merely invoking computers or machinery as a tool to perform abstract idea are mere instructions to apply it. The multi-task learning method merely recites determining specific nodes, clustering and determining clusters of the clustered nodes, determining models/feature-sets and analyzing models; which are then performed via a computing system, merely restricting the abstract idea to a specific technological environment, or data gathering. The independent claim fails to recite the steps that achieve the improvement. The pending Claims are directed to a judicial exception due to reciting limitations which fall within the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas; where the judicial exception is unable to be directed to significantly more than the judicial exception due to the pending Claims not including additional elements that contribute to an “inventive concept”. The amended claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. Although the Claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the Claims.
MPEP 2106.05(a) recites:
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology … the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification
…
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below.
Applicant fails to show how any alleged technical improvement would be provided by anything more than the judicial exception on its own. Additionally, applicant fails to show how the claim includes components or steps that would provide the alleged improvement described in the specification or by the cited case law. By MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), "the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished". Moreover, the examiner maintains that the Claim does not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exceptions. As noted in the rejection, due to the additional elements falling under MPEP 2106.05, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further support their assertions (Page 6), by noting the method claimed recites additional elements that integrate the mathematical concepts in claim 1 into a practical application of image processing and the method cannot be performed merely in human's mind. The entire claim recites, and also amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been overcome and the amended claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9-10 should no longer be interpreted as an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections are respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the remarks from above. The office action establishes a proper and well- supported prima facie case as the claims are explained to be not patentable via the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility steps within MPEP 2106; thus, the additional elements noted within Step 2A Prong 2 are unable to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (when evaluated individually and holistically). The limitations are unable to provide the alleged improvement as they are currently being evaluated as either abstract idea(s) or additional elements that fall within MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, for the reasons given above and in the updated rejections below, the rejection to all Claims (including Claim 1 and all dependent Claims) are maintained and updated as necessitated by Claim amendments. Applicant’s arguments regarding the other independent and dependent claims rely upon the same assertions as with respect to Claim 1, and are thus likewise unpersuasive. More specific details are discussed below within the 35 USC § 101 Rejections.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites:
determining a cluster key feature set of any one of the clusters according to the cluster model and by means of calculation with a SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) framework;
…
determining a cluster key feature set of any one of the clusters according to the cluster model and by means of calculation with the SHAP framework comprises
The second repeated limitation causes confusion for which cluster key feature set is being determined and if there is one or two cluster key feature sets. For the purposes of examination, the second similar statement is being interpreted as determining the cluster key feature set of any one of the clusters according to the cluster model and by means of calculation with the SHAP framework comprises … Thus, all dependent Claims are objected to.
Claim 6 note:
wherein determining a node key feature set according to the data feature value comprises …
The preamble should also be reviewed after updating Claim 1 to make sure no confusion arises about which cluster key feature set.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 1 recites a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 1 further recites the method comprising:
determining participating nodes (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine specific nodes)
performing clustering to the participating nodes and determining several clusters (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to cluster specific nodes and determine multiple clusters)
determining a cluster model according to the several clusters and by means of calculation … (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
determining a cluster key feature set of any one of the clusters according to the cluster model and by means of calculation … (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
determining a global model according to the cluster key feature set (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine a specific type of model according to a specific feature set)
determining the cluster model of the any one of the clusters … (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine the cluster model for a specific cluster)
analyzing the cluster model … (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to analyze the cluster model)
… determining a data feature and a data feature value of any one of the participating nodes in the clusters (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine data features/values of a specific node within the clusters)
determining a node key feature set according to the data feature value (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine a specific feature set based on a specific feature value)
… determining the cluster key feature set (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine a specific feature set)
Claim 1 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mathematical concepts” and “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited consists of:
A multi-task learning method for processing images based on federated learning, comprising (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
wherein, the participating nodes are terminal devices having a function of processing images (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
… with the federated learning (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
… with a SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) framework (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
training the global model according to the any one of the clusters (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
… wherein a plurality of the clusters are used for achieving multi-task learning (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
… by the SHAP framework (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
obtaining a union set for a plurality of the node key feature sets … (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recited, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional element a is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Additional elements b-g are merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Additional element h falls within MPEP 2106.05(d) as well-understood, routine and conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 2:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 2 recites the method of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 2 further recites the method comprising of:
… determining a node training model … (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine a specific training model)
determining a training time and a model weight in response to determining that a preset number of times of training is reached (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine specific time and specific weights in response to a determination that a specific times of training has been reached)
Claim 2 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited consists of:
… training the participating nodes by the node training model (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
… according to the training time and the model weight … (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recited, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional element a is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Additional element b is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 3:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 3 recites the method of Claim 2. Claim 2 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 3 further recites the method comprising of … by a K-Means algorithm (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations). Claim 3 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements. The judicial exception alone does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 4:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 4 recites the method of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 4 further recites the method comprising of:
determining … a cluster center according to the clusters (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine … based on the clusters)
determining the cluster model according to the clusters in response to determining that a number of times of training reaches a preset threshold (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine a specific model based on clusters in response to a determination that a specific amount of training reaches a predefined threshold)
Claim 4 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the new sole additional element recited consists of training the clusters according to the cluster center and by the federated learning (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element falls is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 6:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 6 recites the method of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 6 further recites the method comprising of:
… determining the data feature corresponding to the data feature value as a key feature in response to determining that the data feature value is higher than a preset threshold (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine the data feature corresponding to a specific value as a specific feature in response to a determination that a feature is higher than a predefined threshold)
determining the node key feature set according to the key feature (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine a specific feature set based on a specific feature value)
Claim 6 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no new additional elements recited.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no new additional elements recited. The judicial exception alone does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 7:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 7 recites the method of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 7 further recites the method comprising of:
wherein determining a global model according to the cluster key feature set comprises: … determining a global key feature set (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine a specific feature set)
performing feature masking for data of the participating nodes according to the global key feature set, and determining the global model (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to mask feature data for specific nodes according to a specific feature set and determine the global model)
Claim 7 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional elements recited consists of obtaining an intersection set for a plurality of the cluster key feature sets … (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element falls within MPEP 2106.05(d) as well-understood, routine and conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 9:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 9 recites the method of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 9 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 1. Claim 9 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the new sole additional element recited consists of An electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program which is stored on the memory and can be executed by the processor, wherein the method according to claim 1 is implemented when the processor is executing the computer program (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 10:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 10 recites the method of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 10 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 1. Claim 10 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the new sole additional element recited consists of A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer instruction, wherein the computer instruction is used to make a computer execute the method according to claim 1 (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Examiner Comments
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10 are currently rejected under 35 USC § 101 only. A complete and thorough search was performed for these claims; however no prior art was uncovered that teach or fairly suggest the features recited claims. Specifically, none of the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fairly discloses the limitations of the independent Claim. In particular, the limitations in:
Independent Claim 1:
…
determining a cluster key feature set of any one of the clusters according to the cluster model and by means of calculation with the SHAP framework comprises:
… obtaining a union set for a plurality of the node key feature sets, and determining the cluster key feature set.
The closest prior art of record is Ghosh et al., “An Efficient Framework for Clustered Federated Learning”, in view of Zeng et al., “CS Sparse K-means: An Algorithm for Cluster-Specific Feature Selection in High-Dimensional Clustering”, in view of Pathirannehelage et al., “Analysis of Centralized to Federated Learning-based Anomaly Detection in Networks with Explainable AI (XAI)”., in view of Chai et al., “TiFL: A Tier-based Federated Learning System” where the methodology of Ghosh/Zeng/Pathirannehelage/Chai teaches a multi-task learning method within federated learning to determine cluster models and analyze local/global models within a SHAPley framework; however, Ghosh/Zeng/Pathirannehelage/Chai do not explicitly disclose obtaining union/intersection sets of node key features to determine cluster key feature sets for a cluster model utilizing the SHAP framework. Thus, the combination of these three prior arts do not disclose the expressions defined in Claim 1 and it’s dependent claims.
Conclusion
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 IBRAHIM RAHMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1646. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/I.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights