DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
This Action is in response to Applicant’s Response to Election/Restriction Requirement filed on March 2, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on March 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 9, 7, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 20200245209 A1) hereinafter Patil, in view of Hoewisch et al. (US 20210400535 A1), hereinafter Hoewisch.
Regarding claim 1, Patil discloses a method of dynamically managing service levels in a wireless network, the method comprising: receiving, by a Unified Data Management device (UDM), from a Unified Data Repository (UDR), existing service levels for one or more wireless devices,
([0056] “[…] UDR 240 may receive Get message 530 and, in response, may retrieve the subscription data for 5G UE 110 and provide an HTTP Response 540 to UDM 235, using the Nudr interface, with the requested subscription data. (FIG. 6: 680 AND 640), [0064] UDR 240 may receive Patch/Put message 670 and, in response, may update the SMF registration for the 5G UE 110 session and provide an acknowledgment HTTP Response 680 to UDM 235, using the Nudr interface. UDM 235 may receive Response 680 with the acknowledgment and forward to SMF+PGW-C 220 a corresponding acknowledgment HTTP Response 690, responsive to Put message 660”);
receiving, by the UDM, from the UDR, User Dependent Subscriber Profile (UDSP) rules for the one or more wireless devices, ([0068] [0070] [0061] “UDM 235 may receive Get message 620 and, in response may interact with UDR 240 to retrieve subscriber profile parameters (equivalent to “UDSP rules”). […] UDM 235 may submit an HTTP Get message 630 to UDR 240, using a Nudr interface, to retrieve subscription data. UDR 240 may receive Get message 630 and, in response, may retrieve the subscription data for 5G UE 110 and provide an HTTP Response 640 to UDM 235, using the Nudr interface, with the requested subscription data”).
However, Patil does not disclose, applying the UDSP rules to the existing service levels to yield resultant service levels for the one or more wireless devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Hoewisch discloses applying the UDSP rules to the existing service levels to yield resultant service levels for the one or more wireless devices, ([0066] “When the APF 206′ selects a rule to enforce for a given subscriber, it determines whether the subscriber is associated with a service profile 214′ or an individual subscriber PCC profile 218′ […] [0067] If there exists a subscriber PCC profile 218′ for that subscriber, the APF 206′ uses the subscriber traffic rule 219′ and QoS rule 221′ associated with the Subscriber PCC Profile 218′ […] [0068] “[…] Data elements within the traffic rule 222′ or subscriber traffic rule 219′ can represent what actions to take on packets based on attributes of the packets (e.g., destination IP address or protocol), and the QoS rule 226′ or subscriber QoS rule 221′ defines what quality of service to apply to the packets”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the UDM 235, disclosed by Patil to include the subscriber QoS rule 221’, disclosed by Hoewisch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to define the quality of service to apply to the packets, as taught by Hoewisch ([0068]).
Regarding claim 9, Patil discloses a system comprising: a Unified Data Repository (UDR); and a Unified Data Management device (UDM), including at least one processor ((FIG. 3: PROCESSOR 310), [0039]) configured to perform operations, the operations comprising: receiving, by the UDM, from the UDR, existing service levels for one or more wireless devices, ([0056] “[…] UDR 240 may receive Get message 530 and, in response, may retrieve the subscription data for 5G UE 110 and provide an HTTP Response 540 to UDM 235, using the Nudr interface, with the requested subscription data. (FIG. 6: 680 AND 640), [0064] UDR 240 may receive Patch/Put message 670 and, in response, may update the SMF registration for the 5G UE 110 session and provide an acknowledgment HTTP Response 680 to UDM 235, using the Nudr interface. UDM 235 may receive Response 680 with the acknowledgment and forward to SMF+PGW-C 220 a corresponding acknowledgment HTTP Response 690, responsive to Put message 660”);
receiving, by the UDM, from the UDR, User Dependent Subscriber Profile (UDSP) rules for the one or more wireless devices, ([0068] [0070] [0061] “UDM 235 may receive Get message 620 and, in response may interact with UDR 240 to retrieve subscriber profile parameters (equivalent to “UDSP rules”). […] UDM 235 may submit an HTTP Get message 630 to UDR 240, using a Nudr interface, to retrieve subscription data. UDR 240 may receive Get message 630 and, in response, may retrieve the subscription data for 5G UE 110 and provide an HTTP Response 640 to UDM 235, using the Nudr interface, with the requested subscription data”).
However, Patil does not disclose, applying the UDSP rules to the existing service levels to yield resultant service levels for the one or more wireless devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Hoewisch discloses applying the UDSP rules to the existing service levels to yield resultant service levels for the one or more wireless devices, ([0066] “When the APF 206′ selects a rule to enforce for a given subscriber, it determines whether the subscriber is associated with a service profile 214′ or an individual subscriber PCC profile 218′ […] [0067] If there exists a subscriber PCC profile 218′ for that subscriber, the APF 206′ uses the subscriber traffic rule 219′ and QoS rule 221′ associated with the Subscriber PCC Profile 218′ […] [0068] “[…] Data elements within the traffic rule 222′ or subscriber traffic rule 219′ can represent what actions to take on packets based on attributes of the packets (e.g., destination IP address or protocol), and the QoS rule 226′ or subscriber QoS rule 221′ defines what quality of service to apply to the packets”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the UDM 235, disclosed by Patil to include the subscriber QoS rule 221’, disclosed by Hoewisch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to define the quality of service to apply to the communication packets, as taught by Hoewisch ([0068]).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above, Hoewisch as included in the combination of references, further discloses wherein the UDSP rules are applied without updating the existing service levels at the UDR, ([0066] “When the APF 206′ selects a rule to enforce for a given subscriber, it determines whether the subscriber is associated with a service profile 214′ or an individual subscriber PCC profile 218′ […] [0067] If there exists a subscriber PCC profile 218′ for that subscriber, the APF 206′ uses the subscriber traffic rule 219′ and QoS rule 221′ associated with the Subscriber PCC Profile 218′ […] [0068] “[…] Data elements within the traffic rule 222′ or subscriber traffic rule 219′ can represent what actions to take on packets based on attributes of the packets (e.g., destination IP address or protocol), and the QoS rule 226′ or subscriber QoS rule 221′ defines what quality of service to apply to the packets”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the UDM 235, disclosed by Patil to include the subscriber QoS rule 221’, disclosed by Hoewisch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to define the quality of service to apply to the communication packets, as taught by Hoewisch ([0068]).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1 above, Hoewisch as included in the combination of references, further discloses the method further comprising: providing services to the one or more wireless devices in accordance with service levels indicated in the resultant service levels, ([0066] “When the APF 206′ selects a rule to enforce for a given subscriber, it determines whether the subscriber is associated with a service profile 214′ or an individual subscriber PCC profile 218′ […] [0067] If there exists a subscriber PCC profile 218′ for that subscriber, the APF 206′ uses the subscriber traffic rule 219′ and QoS rule 221′ associated with the Subscriber PCC Profile 218′ […] [0068] “[…] Data elements within the traffic rule 222′ or subscriber traffic rule 219′ can represent what actions to take on packets based on attributes of the packets (e.g., destination IP address or protocol), and the QoS rule 226′ or subscriber QoS rule 221′ defines what quality of service to apply to the packets”). [0068] “[…] Data elements within the traffic rule 222′ or subscriber traffic rule 219′ can represent what actions to take on packets based on attributes of the packets (e.g., destination IP address or protocol), and the QoS rule 226′ or subscriber QoS rule 221′ defines what quality of service to apply to the packets”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the UDM 235, disclosed by Patil to include the subscriber QoS rule 221’, disclosed by Hoewisch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to define the quality of service to apply to the packets, as taught by Hoewisch ([0068]).
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 9 above, Hoewisch as included in the combination of references, further discloses the operations further comprising: providing services to the one or more wireless devices in accordance with service levels indicated in the resultant service levels, ([0066] “When the APF 206′ selects a rule to enforce for a given subscriber, it determines whether the subscriber is associated with a service profile 214′ or an individual subscriber PCC profile 218′ […] [0067] If there exists a subscriber PCC profile 218′ for that subscriber, the APF 206′ uses the subscriber traffic rule 219′ and QoS rule 221′ associated with the Subscriber PCC Profile 218′ […] [0068] “[…] Data elements within the traffic rule 222′ or subscriber traffic rule 219′ can represent what actions to take on packets based on attributes of the packets (e.g., destination IP address or protocol), and the QoS rule 226′ or subscriber QoS rule 221′ defines what quality of service to apply to the packets”). [0068] “[…] Data elements within the traffic rule 222′ or subscriber traffic rule 219′ can represent what actions to take on packets based on attributes of the packets (e.g., destination IP address or protocol), and the QoS rule 226′ or subscriber QoS rule 221′ defines what quality of service to apply to the packets”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the UDM 235, disclosed by Patil to include the subscriber QoS rule 221’, disclosed by Hoewisch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to define the quality of service to apply to the packets, as taught by Hoewisch ([0068]).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 20200245209 A1) hereinafter Patil, in view of Hoewisch et al. (US 20210400535 A1), hereinafter Hoewisch, further in view of Garcia et al. (US 20200068587 A1), hereinafter Garcia.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Patil as modified by Hoewisch does not disclose wherein the UDSP rules are applied based on one or more of: a PLMN, a wireless device type, a billing ID, a network slice ID, and a subscriber location of the one or more wireless devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Garcia discloses wherein the UDSP rules are applied based on one or more of: a PLMN, a wireless device type, a billing ID, a network slice ID, and a subscriber location of the one or more wireless devices, ([0107] “[…] the TRP information-related functionality may be provided by the PCF 160A, as an extension to the PCC rules, so that it enables the network operator to build subscription-based policies that consider the subscriber profile and input from other sources (e.g., subscriber location, device type, time of day, external events, etc.). This functionality can also be provided by the UDM 160B, especially for PDU session level allocation decisions”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the UDM 235, disclosed by Patil as modified by Hoewisch to include the PCF 160A, disclosed by Garcia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to enable the network operator to build subscription-based policies that consider the subscriber location and device type, as taught by Garcia ([0107]).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 9 above, Patil as modified by Hoewisch does not disclose wherein the UDSP rules are applied based on one or more of: a PLMN, a wireless device type, a billing ID, a network slice ID, and a subscriber location of the one or more wireless devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Garcia discloses wherein the UDSP rules are applied based on one or more of: a PLMN, a wireless device type, a billing ID, a network slice ID, and a subscriber location of the one or more wireless devices, ([0107] “[…] the TRP information-related functionality may be provided by the PCF 160A, as an extension to the PCC rules, so that it enables the network operator to build subscription-based policies that consider the subscriber profile and input from other sources (e.g., subscriber location, device type, time of day, external events, etc.). This functionality can also be provided by the UDM 160B, especially for PDU session level allocation decisions”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the UDM 235, disclosed by Patil as modified by Hoewisch to include the PCF 160A, disclosed by Garcia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to enable the network operator to build subscription-based policies that consider the subscriber location and device type, as taught by Garcia ([0107]).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 20200245209 A1) hereinafter Patil, in view of Hoewisch et al. (US 20210400535 A1), hereinafter Hoewisch, further in view of Besset-Bathias et al. (JP 2004535747 A), hereinafter Besset-Bathias.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, Patil as modified by Hoewisch does not disclose wherein the UDSP rules decrease a service level of the one or more wireless devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Besset-Bathias discloses wherein the UDSP rules decrease a service level of the one or more wireless devices, ((see paragraph [0023] and [0024] of the attached translated document) “[…] other procedures allow the required quality of service to be reduced (if allowed by the application). [0024] After the procedure for updating the subscriber parameters that result in a change in quality of service (when requesting a subscriber name registration), Periodically for contexts in which quality of service has been reduced (to allow better quality of service to be subsequently provided when new resources become available)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the UDM 235, disclosed by Patil as modified by Hoewisch to include the procedures, disclosed by Besset-Bathias. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow a reduction in the required quality of service, Besset-Bathias (see paragraph [0023] and [0024] of the attached translated document).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 9 above, Patil as modified by Hoewisch does not disclose wherein the UDSP rules decrease a service level of the one or more wireless devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Besset-Bathias discloses wherein the UDSP rules decrease a service level of the one or more wireless devices, ((see paragraph [0023] and [0024] of the attached translated document) “[…] other procedures allow the required quality of service to be reduced (if allowed by the application). [0024] After the procedure for updating the subscriber parameters that result in a change in quality of service (when requesting a subscriber name registration), Periodically for contexts in which quality of service has been reduced (to allow better quality of service to be subsequently provided when new resources become available)”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the UDM 235, disclosed by Patil as modified by Hoewisch to include the procedures, disclosed by Besset-Bathias. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow a reduction in the required quality of service, Besset-Bathias (see paragraph [0023] and [0024] of the attached translated document).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 20200245209 A1) hereinafter Patil, in view of Hoewisch et al. (US 20210400535 A1), hereinafter Hoewisch, further in view of Besset-Bathias et al. (JP 2004535747 A), hereinafter Besset-Bathias, and further in view of De Foy et al. (US 20240244014 A1), hereinafter De Foy.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 3 above, Patil as modified by Hoewisch and Besset-Bathias does not disclose wherein decreasing the service level of the one or more wireless devices comprises denying the one or more wireless devices access to one or more services.
In the same field of endeavor, De Foy discloses wherein decreasing the service level of the one or more wireless devices comprises denying the one or more wireless devices access to one or more services, ([0202] “A network operator may restrict the right to deploy a network program on specific WTRUs and UPFs. As a non-limiting example of a restriction, only authorized mobile network (e.g., 5G) users/customers may be allowed to deploy a network program on a specific set of devices. The restriction may be based on parameters configured in the customer's subscriber profile (e.g., parameters such as 5G LAN VN ID, CAG, etc...). The user's/customer's subscriber profile may be set through a provisioning API.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the UDM 235, disclosed by Patil as modified by Hoewisch and Besset-Bathias to include the restriction, disclosed by De Foy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the network operator may apply restriction based on parameters in the subscriber’s profile, as taught by De Foy ([0202]).
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 11 above, Patil as modified by Hoewisch and Besset-Bathias does not disclose wherein decreasing the service level of the one or more wireless devices comprises denying the one or more wireless devices access to one or more services.
In the same field of endeavor, De Foy discloses wherein decreasing the service level of the one or more wireless devices comprises denying the one or more wireless devices access to one or more services, ([0202] “A network operator may restrict the right to deploy a network program on specific WTRUs and UPFs. As a non-limiting example of a restriction, only authorized mobile network (e.g., 5G) users/customers may be allowed to deploy a network program on a specific set of devices. The restriction may be based on parameters configured in the customer's subscriber profile (e.g., parameters such as 5G LAN VN ID, CAG, etc...). The user's/customer's subscriber profile may be set through a provisioning API.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the UDM 235, disclosed by Patil as modified by Hoewisch and Besset-Bathias to include the restriction, disclosed by De Foy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the network operator may apply restriction based on parameters in the subscriber’s profile, as taught by De Foy ([0202]).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 20200245209 A1) hereinafter Patil, in view of Hoewisch et al. (US 20210400535 A1), hereinafter Hoewisch, further in view of LIDSTROM et al. (CN 102171983 A), hereinafter LIDSTROM.
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, Patil as modified by Hoewisch does not disclose wherein the UDSP rules increase a service level of the one or more wireless devices.
In the same field of endeavor, LIDSTROM discloses wherein the UDSP rules increase a service level of the one or more wireless devices, ((see paragraph [0061] of the attached translated document) “On the other hand, if it is found in step 204 subscriber level of service, wherein a service level higher than the other one, updating the at least service level subscriber policy in step 208, to temporarily allow sending direction of the subscriber is having a higher service level. […] it also can directly update has been for low service level subscribers of a resource reservation in a session database, so as to improve the service level subscribers of a service level”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the UDM 235, disclosed by Patil as modified by Hoewisch to include the subscriber policy update, disclosed by LIDSTROM. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the service level subscribers of a service level, LIDSTROM (see paragraph [0061] of the attached translated document).
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 9 above, Patil as modified by Hoewisch does not disclose wherein the UDSP rules increase a service level of the one or more wireless devices.
In the same field of endeavor, LIDSTROM discloses wherein the UDSP rules increase a service level of the one or more wireless devices, ((see paragraph [0061] of the attached translated document) “On the other hand, if it is found in step 204 subscriber level of service, wherein a service level higher than the other one, updating the at least service level subscriber policy in step 208, to temporarily allow sending direction of the subscriber is having a higher service level. […] it also can directly update has been for low service level subscribers of a resource reservation in a session database, so as to improve the service level subscribers of a service level”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the UDM 235, disclosed by Patil as modified by Hoewisch to include the subscriber policy update, disclosed by LIDSTROM. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the service level subscribers of a service level, LIDSTROM (see paragraph [0061] of the attached translated document).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 20200245209 A1) hereinafter Patil, in view of Hoewisch et al. (US 20210400535 A1), hereinafter Hoewisch, further in view of LIDSTROM et al. (CN 102171983 A), hereinafter LIDSTROM, and further in view of CARSTEN et al. (ES 2244701 T3), hereinafter CARSTEN.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 5 above, Patil as modified by Hoewisch and LIDSTROM does not disclose wherein increasing the service level of the one or more wireless device comprises adding a new service to the one or more wireless devices.
In the same field of endeavor, CARSTEN discloses wherein increasing the service level of the one or more wireless device comprises adding a new service to the one or more wireless devices, ((see page 3, 2nd paragraph of the attached translated document) “[…] while higher data transfer rates are assigned to subscribers with a higher quality of service. A reduction is also intended Additional service data transfer rate existing through new services to be added below of the data transfer rate to be achieved primarily for service quality service requirements lower, while services with higher requirements of service quality is attributed a transfer fee of correspondingly higher data”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the UDM 235, disclosed by Patil as modified by Hoewisch and LIDSTROM to include the new services, disclosed by CARSTEN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to assign higher data transfer rates to the subscribers with a higher quality of service, CARSTEN ((see page 3, 2nd paragraph of the attached translated document).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mariyani et al (US 20220386096 A1) - disclose SERVICE MODIFICATION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION NETWORKS.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERT GRANT whose telephone number is (703)756-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 7:00 pm, Monday - Thursday.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/GILBERT M. GRANT/Examiner, Art Unit 2642
/CHARLES N APPIAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights