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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 8/11/2025.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending.
Claim 20 has been canceled.
Claim 21 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument(s) a filed on 8/11/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-19 and 21 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In the communication field, applicant argues in substance that:
a. Regarding claim(s) 1, 8 and 15, Applicant argues (Remark page(s) 9-10)
“Becker is Non-Analogous Art
Becker fails both steps.
(1) Becker is not from the same field of endeavor.
The field of endeavor of the instant application is Fibre Channel (FC) fabric management, specifically the automatic cleanup of logical zoning configurations to maintain network efficiency and resource availability.
Conversely, the field of endeavor for Becker is general database management and data analytics, specifically using a “global scan index” for SAS® software (Becker, Abstract). It deals with data quality, categorizing uncategorized text strings, and improving search efficiency within a data store. This is not the same as managing the logical topology of a Fibre Channel network.
It is clear that Becker fails step (1) of the non-analogous art test as the claimed invention is directed to toll payments, while Parikh is directed to prioritizes trailers for cargo (un)loading.
(2) Becker is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor.
The problem to be solved by the instant invention is the accumulation of stale and inactive zoning entries in an FC fabric, which leads to management difficulties, scaling limitations (e.g., TCAM exhaustion), and unnecessary network load (e.g., RSCN storms) see instant application at [0003].
The problem Becker solves is one of data quality and search efficiency in a large, general-purpose data store. The teaching cited by the Examiner about periodically removing “stale entries” refers to cleaning up a “false positive table” to improve the quality of subsequent data searches. Becker, col. 7, lines 1-17. The instant application’s problem is managing network configuration state. The “stale entry” is a network rule (a zoning entry) that is no longer valid or necessary. This is different from a “stale entry” in a data quality table.
It is clear that Becker fails step (2) of the non-analogous art test as a person of ordinary skill in the art working to automate the cleanup of FC zoning configurations would not be motivated to look to a system for improving data quality in a SAS analytics database. The context and the nature of the “stale entries” are entirely different.”
In response to argument [a], Examiners respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that Becker is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Becker is the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent because Becker is the same field of commuter networking and database, Becker is reasonably pertinent because removing stale or outdated data is a well-known and critical practice in data management primarily because retaining it leads to poor decision-making, operational inefficiencies, increased security risks, and potential legal non-compliance. Beecker, P.1, lines 25-35; there is a need to improve existing techniques for performing data management operations in a computationally efficient manner, for example, to comply with internal or external policies. P.5, lines 1-20; internal policies, such as enterprise-wide policies requesting that stale data or outdated data be deleted, may define guidelines and steps for how enterprises should monitor and update their data stores (e.g., databases).
Applicant's argument(s) b filed on 8/11/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-19 and 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
b. Regarding claim(s) 1, 8 and 15, Applicant argues (Remark page(s) 13-14)
“Claim 1 recites: “in response to determining that a periodic time interval for evaluating stale zoning entries has elapsed.” The art of record does not teach or suggest at least this limitation.
Claim 1 also recites in part: “in response to the expiration period has elapsed
This limitation represents a specific, multi-part conditional trigger for the automatic cleanup. The rejection requires a person of ordinary skill in the art to:
1. Start with Gottumukkula's event-driven system that reacts to disconnections.
2. Fundamentally change its trigger mechanism from event-driven to periodic, based on a teaching from Becker for general database hygiene.
3. Insert a physical security check from Perkins's transport trolley system into the logical network management workflow.
4. Combine all these elements into the precise logical sequence defined by the claim: (periodic check) AND (expiration elapsed) AND (not scheduled) -> remove entry.
This chain of modifications is not suggested by the prior art itself. It is a roadmap provided only by the Applicant's claim. The Examiner has picked individual elements from disparate systems addressing different technical problems and assembled them post-facto. This is a classic example of an improper obviousness rejection based on impermissible hindsight.
In response to argument [b], Examiners respectfully disagrees.
Becker teaches the limitation at “Becker, col.7, lines 1-17; implementations of the present disclosure include maintaining records of which entries in the false positive table are not used to exclude any similar findings in tables of the data store, so that stale entries can be periodically removed.[examiner notes: removing stale or outdated data is a well-known and critical practice in data management primarily because retaining it leads to poor decision-making, operational inefficiencies, increased security risks, and potential legal non-compliance.]”
Applicant’s argument(s) c and d filed on 2/6/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-19 and 21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
c. Regarding claim(s) 1, 8 and 15, Applicant argues (Remark page(s) 12-13)
“Perkins is Non-Analogous Art
Perkins fails both steps.
(1) Perkins is not from the same field of endeavor.
The field of endeavor of the instant application is Fibre Channel (FC) fabric management, specifically the automatic cleanup of logical zoning configurations to maintain network efficiency and resource availability.
The field of endeavor for Perkins is physical asset management and security within a data center. The patent is titled “Hardware Transportation Trolley.” Its entire focus is on a physical cart used to securely transport data storage devices. This is fundamentally different from the logical configuration and management of a network fabric.
It is clear that Perkins fails step (1) of the non-analogous art test as the claimed invention is directed to toll payments, while Parikh is directed to prioritizes trailers for cargo (un)loading.
(2) Perkins is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor.
The problem to be solved by the instant invention is the accumulation of stale and inactive zoning entries in an FC fabric, which leads to management difficulties, scaling limitations (e.g., TCAM exhaustion), and unnecessary network load (e.g., RSCN storms) see instant application at [0003].
The problem Perkins solves is preventing the theft or unauthorized physical removal of data storage devices. The patent states its purpose is to reduce the risk of a “malefactor, such as a rogue employee or intruder, physically removing or accessing storage devices” Perkins, col. I, lines 30-40. The check for a “scheduled task” is a physical security measure to verify the legitimacy of a physical action.
The instant application’s problem is managing logical network state. It is not concerned with the physical security of the device, but rather with the logical “zoning entry” that represents its connection permission within the network.
It is clear that Perkins fails step (2) of the non-analogous art test as a person of ordinary skill in the art trying to solve a problem of TCAM exhaustion or RSCN storms in an FC fabric would not logically look to a patent for a secure hardware cart to find a solution. The problems are unrelated.
For the above-mentioned reasons, Perkins is non-analogous art.”
d. Regarding claim(s) 1, 8 and 15, Applicant argues (Remark page(s) 14-15)
“Claim 1 also recites in part: “determining that the disconnection of the device is not the result of a scheduled event.” The art of record does not teach or suggest at least this limitation.
Perkins addresses the physical security of data storage devices in a data center to prevent theft or unauthorized access by a “malefactor.” see Perkins, col. 1, lines 30-40. The check against a schedule is to verify the legitimacy of a physical device removal. In contrast, Gottumukkula addresses the /ogical configuration of a network fabric. A person of ordinary skill in the art working to improve the logical zoning of Gottumukkula would have no motivation to incorporate a physical security check from Perkins's transport trolley system. The technical problems are entirely unrelated.
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 8/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
1. Claim(s) 1,3-6, 8, 10-13, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottumukkula (US 20100040053 A1) in view of Becker (US 11941004 B1) in view of Chen (US 20130170336 A1).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1, a computer-implemented method comprising:
Gottumukkula teaches detecting disconnection of a device from a Fibre Channel (FC) fabric, wherein the FC fabric is associated with a zoning configuration, and wherein the zoning configuration includes indications of devices configured to communicate within a zone; (Gottumukkula, [0049]- [0050, Figs. 2 illustrates an embodiment of a Fibre Channel network, generally designated as 200. The network 200 includes a networking device, referred to hereinafter as a switch 210, with six ports 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, and 216, and a management module 218. The network 200 also includes six networked devices, referred to hereinafter as devices 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, and 226. Each device 221 through 226 is coupled to one of the six ports 211 through 216. As such, device 221 is coupled to port 211, device 222 is coupled to port 212, device 223 is coupled to port 213, device 224 is coupled to port 214, device 225 is coupled to port 215, and device 226 is coupled to port 216. Fig.3 shows the management information includes a device table 302, a defined zone table 304, and a zone configuration table 306. The device table 302 includes information regarding the network topography. [examiner notes: a Fibre Channel (FC) zone is a logical grouping of ports that are allowed to communicate with each other. Zoning is a connection isolation technique that's used when connecting hosts to a storage system over Fibre Channel SAN.)
generating an update to the zoning configuration, (Gottumukkula, [0067], automatically updating and changing management information to reflect changes in network topography when devices are removed from the network. In this way, a network operator can spend less time maintaining accurate management information in the network.) wherein the update includes a timestamp corresponding to a time at which the disconnection of the device was detected; (Gottumukkula, [0007], FIG. 3 illustrates management information stored on a management module, including a device table, a zone table, and a configuration table; [0025], a non-limiting example of management information includes a router set-up command, data packet header information (e.g., addresses), an Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) message (e.g., echo request, router discovery, timestamp, etc.), other suitable management information, or any combination thereof. [0055], the management module 218 automatically detects the uncoupling and removal of the device 222 from the port 212 and modifies the management information 300 to reflect the change to the network 200, as described below. [0070], detecting that the first networked device has become uncoupled from the network includes detecting that the first networked device has not been logged onto the network for a particular amount of time. [examiner notes: timestamp is inherent including in management information.])
determining, based on the timestamp, that an expiration period corresponding to the disconnection has elapsed, wherein the expiration period is defined according to the time at which the disconnection of the device was detected; (Gottumukkula, [0054], when a particular networked device is removed from the network for a longer period of time, the associated fabric subsets may be changed to reduce security gaps. [0070], detecting that the first networked device has become uncoupled from the network includes detecting that the first networked device has not been logged onto the network for a particular amount of time.)
and in response to the expiration period has elapsed (Gottumukkula, [0054], when a particular networked device is removed from the network for a longer period of time, the associated fabric subsets may be changed to reduce security gaps. [0070], detecting that the first networked device has become uncoupled from the network includes detecting that the first networked device has not been logged onto the network for a particular amount of time.)
Gottumukkula does not teach in response to determining that a periodic time interval for evaluating stale zoning entries has elapsed; determining that the disconnection of the device is not the result of a scheduled event; and the disconnection is not the result of the scheduled event, automatically determining an entry corresponding to the device from the zoning configuration is a stale entry and removing the entry.
Becker however in the same field of computer networking teaches in response to determining that a periodic time interval for evaluating stale zoning entries has elapsed: (Becker, col.7, lines 1-17; implementations of the present disclosure include maintaining records of which entries in the false positive table are not used to exclude any similar findings in tables of the data store, so that stale entries can be periodically removed.)
automatically determining an entry corresponding to the device from the zoning configuration is a stale entry and removing the entry. (Becker, col.7, lines 1-17; implementations of the present disclosure include maintaining records of which entries in the false positive table are not used to exclude any similar findings in tables of the data store, so that stale entries can be periodically removed.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method/system of Gottumukkula to specify in response to determining that a periodic time interval for evaluating stale zoning entries has elapsed: automatically determining an entry corresponding to the device from the zoning configuration is a stale entry and removing the entry as taught by Subramani. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to improve compliance with internal and external policies, and enhance computational efficiency (Becker, col.2).
Gottumukkula does not teach determining that the disconnection of the device is not the result of a scheduled event; and the disconnection is not the result of the scheduled event,
Chen however in the same field of computer networking teaches determining that the disconnection of the device is not the result of a scheduled event; (Chen, [0005], the disclosure provides a master device is revealed, for use in a master-slave tree network, comprising a transceiver and a controller. The transceiver is configured to receive an identifier request message comprising a first identifier, wherein the first identifier identifies a first slave device, which is abnormally disconnected from the master-slave tree network. [0027], If the left node is a neighboring node to the slave device 3, the slave device 3 may update the neighboring node list 3020 by removing the left node from the neighboring node list 3020 (S4040). [examiner notes: abnormally disconnected from the master-slave tree network is not the result of the scheduled event. Tt would be obvious that disconnection of the device is not the result of a scheduled event which is one of abnormal disconnections.])
and the disconnection is not the result of the scheduled event, (Chen, [0005], the disclosure provides a master device is revealed, for use in a master-slave tree network, comprising a transceiver and a controller. The transceiver is configured to receive an identifier request message comprising a first identifier, wherein the first identifier identifies a first slave device, which is abnormally disconnected from the master-slave tree network. [0027], If the left node is a neighboring node to the slave device 3, the slave device 3 may update the neighboring node list 3020 by removing the left node from the neighboring node list 3020 (S4040). [examiner notes: abnormally disconnected from the master-slave tree network is not the result of the scheduled event. It would be obvious that disconnection of the device is not the result of a scheduled event which is one of abnormal disconnections.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method/system of Gottumukkula to specify determining that the disconnection of the device is not the result of a scheduled event; and the disconnection is not the result of the scheduled event as taught by Chen. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to quickly recovers from a broken node (Chen, [0016]).
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are substantially similar to claim 1, and is thus rejected under substantially
the same rationale.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 3, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Gottumukkula-Becker-Chen teach wherein: the zone includes the device and a second device within the FC fabric, wherein the device and the second device form a host-target pair associated with the zone; (Gottumukkula, [0036], a Fibre Channel fabric network can include fabric subsets called zones. The networked devices in a zone are referred to as elements. The elements in a zone can be mapped to the zone by the physical port to which the element is coupled or by a unique identification number.)
and the computer-implemented method further comprises automatically removing the zone from the zoning configuration. (Gottumukkula, [0051], [0067], [0071], Figs.2-3, the defined zone table 304 illustrates the defined zones A, B, C, D, and E. Zone D includes the elements: the device coupled to Port 212 (device 222), and WWN:x0003 (device 223). Wherein the management module is operable to automatically update the plurality of zones such that the particular device deleted or not included. Figs.8-13 showing each zone associate with single device, and automatically deleted zone D and associate configuration from tables.)
Regarding claim(s) 4, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Gottumukkula-Becker-Chen teach wherein: the device is a target device associated with a host device from a plurality of host devices within the zone; and (Gottumukkula, [0050], Fig.3 shows a zone including multiple servers.)
the computer-implemented method further comprises automatically removing an entry corresponding to the host device from the zone. (Gottumukkula, [0056], when a networked device is removed from a network, the management module detects that the networked device has been removed, and modifies the fabric subsets to account for the fact that a networked device was removed from the network. [0067], automatically updating and changing management information to reflect changes in network topography when devices are removed from the network. In this way, a network operator can spend less time maintaining accurate management information in the network.)
Regarding claim(s) 5, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Gottumukkula-Becker-Chen teach further comprising: determining that removing the entry from the zoning configuration results in the zone having a single target device within the zone; (Gottumukkula, [0060]- [0067], Figs. 7 through 9 illustrate embodiments where the management module 218 deletes removed devices from the zones that include the devices and further deletes zones with only one device. While a modified zone D′ would include only the element x0003, such a zone is not be permitted in this particular example, and hence, the zone D is deleted.)
and automatically removing the zone from the zoning configuration. (Gottumukkula, [0060]- [0067], Figs. 7 through 9 illustrate embodiments where the management module 218 automatically deletes removed devices from the zones that include the devices and further deletes zones with only one device. While a modified zone D′ would include only the element x0003, such a zone is not be permitted in this particular example, and hence, the zone D is deleted.)
Regarding claim(s) 6, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Gottumukkula-Becker-Chen teach further comprising: determining that all host devices associated with the zone are removable from the zone; (Gottumukkula, [0060]- [0067], FIG. 11 illustrates an embodiment where the management module 218 deletes the replaced zones (e.g., zones A and D) from the zone table 1104, and deletes the replaced configurations (e.g., configurations I, II, and III) from the configuration table 1106.)
and automatically removing the zone from the zoning configuration. (Gottumukkula, [0060]- [0067], FIG. 11 illustrates an embodiment where the management module 218 deletes the replaced zones (e.g., zones A and D) from the zone table 1104, and deletes the replaced configurations (e.g., configurations I, II, and III) from the configuration table 1106.)
Claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are substantially similar to claim 3, and is thus rejected under substantially
the same rationale.
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are substantially similar to claim 4, and is thus rejected under substantially
the same rationale.
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are substantially similar to claim 5, and is thus rejected under substantially
the same rationale.
Claim(s) 13 is/are substantially similar to claim 6, and is thus rejected under substantially
the same rationale.
2. Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottumukkula in view of Becker in view of Chen further in view of Dutt (US 20090019142 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 2, the system of claim 1, computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Gottumukkula-Becker-Chen teach wherein the update further indicates a fabric port corresponding to the device, (Gottumukkula, [0057], Fig. 4 illustrates the network 200 with the device 222 (the NT application server) uncoupled from the port 212 and removed from the network 200)
Gottumukkula-Becker-Chen do not teach and wherein the update is used to remove an FC identifier (FCID) entry corresponding to the device from the FC fabric.
Dutt however in the same field of computer networking teaches and wherein the update is used to remove an FC identifier (FCID) entry corresponding to the device from the FC fabric. (Dutt, [0030], the login state associated with the target may be updated to indicate that Host 2 304 is no longer logged in to the target at 342 (e.g., by removing the FCID associated with Host 2 304 from the login state or associated data structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method/system of Gottumukkula to specify wherein the update is used to remove an FC identifier (FCID) entry corresponding to the device from the FC fabric as taught by Subramani. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to increasing the number of initiators that can login to a target (Dutt, [0002]).
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are substantially similar to claim 2, and is thus rejected under substantially
the same rationale.
3. Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottumukkula in view of Becker in view of Chen further in view of Kaneriya (US 20160087845 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 7, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Gottumukkula-Becker-Chen teach wherein: the device is a host device associated with a set of target devices within the zone; and (Gottumukkula, [0050], Fig.3 shows a zone including multiple servers and devices.)
Kaneriya however in the same field of computer networking teaches the computer-implemented method further comprises removing the device from the zone as a result of a set of flows corresponding to the host device and the set of target devices being identified for removal. (Kaneriya, [0083], when the end node stops sending KeepAlive messages for more than a predetermined amount of time, e.g., 30 missed cycles, 60 missed cycles, 90 missed cycles, 120 missed cycles, etc., which may equate to 75 seconds, 150 seconds, 225 seconds, 300 seconds, or more, the FCF 404 is configured to send a CVL to clear the FCoE session. Meantime, the SDN controller 402 is configured to inform a SDN-capable switch 418 to remove the flow corresponding to both the VN-port on the FCF 404, and the FCF 404 on the SDN-capable switch 418 connected to the end node in the flow path.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method/system of Gottumukkula to specify removing the device from the zone as a result of a set of flows corresponding to the host device and the set of target devices being identified for removal as taught by Subramani. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to ensure that the SDN operates efficiently and as desired by the administrator (Kaneriya, [0002]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are substantially similar to claim 7, and is thus rejected under substantially
the same rationale.
4. Claim(s) 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottumukkula in view of Becker in view of Chen further in view of Sandler (US 20210336960 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 21, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Gottumukkula-Becker-Chen teach further comprising: monitoring flow statistics associated with host-target pair flows within the zoning configuration to identify one or more inactive flows between devices that remain connected to the FC fabric; and automatically determining an entry corresponding to the device from the zoning configuration is associated with an inactive flow and removing the entry.
Sandler however in the same field of computer networking teaches further comprising: monitoring flow statistics associated with host-target pair flows within the zoning configuration to identify one or more inactive flows between devices that remain connected to the FC fabric; and automatically determining an entry corresponding to the device from the zoning configuration is associated with an inactive flow and removing the entry. (Sandler, [0031] Last but not least, flow monitoring functionality further includes aging functionality, whereby traffic flows are removed from the flow cache table upon becoming inactive flows. Usually the criterion for a flow to become an inactive flow, can be a predefined period of time that has lapsed since time at which the last packet associated with that flow was received, or when a packet associated with a certain flow was received with an “end-of-flow” indicator (e.g. TCP FIN flag).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method/system of Gottumukkula to specify monitoring flow statistics associated with host-target pair flows within the zoning configuration to identify one or more inactive flows between devices that remain connected to the FC fabric; and automatically determining an entry corresponding to the device from the zoning configuration is associated with an inactive flow and removing the entry as taught by Sandler. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to provide a solution to monitoring all traffic flows (Sandler, [0032]- [0032]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WUJI CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0365. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK SRIVASTAVA can be reached on (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WUJI CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449