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 Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 04/09/2026. In the instant Amendment, claim 1 is amended; claims 4-12, 14-16, 22, 24-25, 28, 30-31, 33-38, 40-49 and 51 were cancelled; claims 1 and 50 are independent claims. Claims 1-3, 13, 17-21, 23, 26-27, 29, 32, 39 and 50 are pending in this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection to claim 51 has been withdrawn as per applicant’s amendment filed 04/09/2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 50 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Threlkeld et al (“Threlkeld,” US 10,673,862) and further in view of Smith et al (“Smith,” US 20060090208).
Regarding claim 1, Threlkeld discloses a computer-implemented method for revoking at least one permission, comprising the steps:
receiving a request comprising a first permit identifier, (Threlkeld, Abstract, Col. 3, Lines 7-19 & 32-50; Col. 8, Lines 34-58, Figure 4-5 describes requests and API calls using security tokens, resource identifiers and HMACs. A principal requests access by providing the resource name and HMAC associated with the role. The system receives the request and verifies the HMAC)
wherein the first permit identifier identifies a first permit; and (Threlkeld, Col. 3, Lines 7-18; Col. 9, Lines 1-14; Figure 4, steps 406-410 describes a security token/HMAC identifies the role-based authorization credential permitting access under an assumed role. The token includes a resource identifier and HMAC for the destination role)
obtaining a first permit data based on the first permit identifier wherein the first permit data comprises data indicative of a plurality of permissions (Threlkeld, Col, 3, Lines 20-50; Col. 4, Lines 29-40; Col. 2, Lines 33-54 describes role-groups and associated HMACs in a database, with rows for user/role-group pairs. The system checks the token/HMAC and role records to determine authorization)
and wherein the plurality of permissions provides an indication of one or more actions a holder of the first permit can take and/or what the holder of the first permit is allowed to do, (Threlkeld, Col. 2, Lines 34-47 describes permissions include rights to access data resources, create/read/update/delete files, make API requests, and administrative grant/revoke rights)
wherein: the request is a request to revoke at least a subset of permissions of the first permit data (Threlkeld, Col. 4, Lines 13-28; Col. 5, Lines 6-24; FIG 11 describe credential revocation scoped to various levels, including a particular user or device, and revocation of a user’s access to a role/role-group)
and the method further comprises the step of revoking the subset of permissions (Threlkeld, Col. 4, Lines 29-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-5; Col. 19, Lines 1-30 describe revocation by replacing old HMACs, deleting/marking a user’s database entry as revoked, removing a user from the role-group, preventing the old HMAC from allowing the user to assume the role)
and the subset of permissions includes a plurality of permissions (Threlkeld, Col. 2, Lines 33-54; Col.5, Lines 5-16 describe role-groups having sets of permissions and givens examples of multiple resource permissions (i.e. a user may assume a role granting access to resources)
and the indicator as to the subset of permissions is a string (Threlkeld, Col. 3, Lines 7-18; 31-50 and Figure 4 describes HMAC/security token identifiers [string] which is a computer-readable identifier supplied in the request)
Threlkeld fails to explicitly disclose receiving a request comprising a first permit identifier, wherein: the request is a request to revoke at least a subset of permissions of the first permit data and the method further comprises the step of revoking the subset of permissions, wherein the request further comprises an indicator of the subset of permissions to be revoked; and the subset of permissions includes a plurality of permissions and the indicator as to the subset of permissions is a string.
However, in an analogous art, Smith discloses receiving a request comprising a first permit identifier, (Smith, [0035]-[0038], [0048]-[0057] describes receiving/using a user group identifier assigned to a user/role subset, including authentication server sending the UGI and generation number and the authenticator querying using the UGI, [0079], [0082])
wherein: the request is a request to revoke at least a subset of permissions of the first permit data and the method further comprises the step of revoking the subset of permissions, (Smith, [0086]-[0089] describes modifying role sets, user sets, permissions lists and matrices including removing a role from a user’s role subset and reassigning/changing/removing role permissions lists)
wherein the request further comprises an indicator of the subset of permissions to be revoked; and (Smith, [0036]-[0038]; [0048]-[0057]; claims 61-64 describe an identifier for a role subset: each role subset is assigned a UGI; UGPLs are accessible through a UGI matrix; a UGI corresponds to one or more roles/a role subset)
the subset of permissions includes a plurality of permissions (Smith, [0054]-[0056], [0062]-[0066]; FIG 5 describe role subsets with multiple roles, and merging multiple role permissions lists into a UGPL (i.e. UGI260(2) corresponds to Role 240(2), Role240(4) and Role 240(N-1)))
and the indicator as to the subset of permissions is a string, (Smith, [0092]-[0095], claims 61-63 describe the UGI as the tag [identifier]; claim 63 states the first user group identifier is a security group tag; [0096] states the UGI is a security group tag inserted into the packet)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Smith with Threlkeld to include wherein: the request is a request to revoke at least a subset of permissions of the first permit data and the method further comprises the step of revoking the subset of permissions, wherein the request further comprises an indicator of the subset of permissions to be revoked; and the subset of permissions includes a plurality of permissions and the indicator as to the subset of permissions is a string.. One would have been motivated to provide user group identifier formation (Smith, [0002]).
Regarding claim 50, claim 50 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Claim 50 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Threlkeld et al (“Threlkeld,” US 10,673,862) in view of Smith et al (“Smith,” US 20060090208). and further in view of Chin et al (“Chin,” US 20220337602).
Regarding claim 2, Threlkeld and Smith disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 1.
Threlkeld and Smith fail to explicitly disclose wherein the step of revoking the subset of permissions is a step of revoking all the permissions.
However, in an analogous art, Chin discloses wherein the step of revoking the subset of permissions is a step of revoking all the permissions, (Chin describes [0036] wherein the step of revoking the subset of permissions is a step of revoking all the permissions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chin with Threlkeld and Smith to include wherein the step of revoking the subset of permissions is a step of revoking all the permissions. One would have been motivated to detect and remove faults in blockchain-based accountable distributed computing systems (Chin, [0001]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Threlkeld et al (“Threlkeld,” US 10,673,862), Smith et al (“Smith,” US 20060090208) in view of Chin et al (“Chin,” US 20220337602) and further in view of Rutan et al (“Rutan,” US 20050192905).
Regarding claim 3, Threlkeld, Smith and Chin disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 2.
Chin further discloses wherein the step of revoking all the permissions (Chin describes [0036] wherein the step of revoking a subset of permissions is a step of revoking all the permissions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chin with Threlkeld and Smith to include wherein the step of revoking a subset of permissions is a step of revoking all the permissions. One would have been motivated to detect and remove faults in blockchain-based accountable distributed computing systems (Chin, [0001]).
Threlkeld, Smith and Chin fail to explicitly disclose wherein the step of revoking all the permissions comprises revoking the first permit.
However, in an analogous art, Rutan discloses wherein the step of revoking all the permissions comprises revoking the first permit, (Rutan, [0014] describes revoking the first permit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rutan with Threlkeld, Smith and Chin to include wherein the step of revoking all the permissions comprises revoking the first permit. One would have been motivated to distribute and license an electronic file (Rutan, [0001]).
Claims 13, 17-19, 29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Threlkeld et al (“Threlkeld,” US 10,673,862) in view of Smith et al (“Smith,” US 20060090208) and further in view of Zhang et al (“Zhang,” US 20070016532)
Regarding claim 13, Threlkeld and Smith disclose the computer-implemented according to claim 1.
Threlkeld and Smith fail to explicitly disclose wherein the method comprises determining the validity of the request and wherein determining the validity of the request comprises: verifying that a sender of the request is a process associated with a parent of the first permit or sent by the holder of the parent of the first permit
However, in an analogous art, Zhang discloses wherein the method comprises determining the validity of the request and wherein determining the validity of the request comprises: verifying that a sender of the request is a process associated with a parent of the first permit or sent by the holder of the parent of the first permit, (Zhang describes wherein the method comprises determining the validity of the request [0048] and wherein determining the validity of the request comprises: [0048] verifying that a sender of the request is a process [0038] associated with a parent of the first permit [0070], or sent by the holder of the parent of the first permit; also see [0052]-[0053], [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang with Threlkeld and Smith to include wherein the method comprises determining the validity of the request and wherein determining the validity of the request comprises: verifying that a sender of the request is a process associated with a parent of the first permit or sent by the holder of the parent of the first permit. One would have been motivated to provide a plurality of such licenses that have been aggregated to in effect form a super-set of rules and rights according to which the application operates (Zhang, [0002]).
Regarding claim 17, Threlkeld and Smith disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 13.
Threlkeld and Smith fail to explicitly disclose wherein verifying that the sender of the request is the process associated with a parent of the first permit or sent by the holder of the parent of the first permit comprises: validating a cryptographic signature of the request.
However, in an analogous art, Zhang discloses wherein verifying that the sender of the request is the process associated with a parent of the first permit or sent by the holder of the parent of the first permit comprises: (Zhang describes wherein the method comprises determining the validity of the request [0048] and wherein determining the validity of the request comprises: [0048] verifying that a sender of the request is a process [0038] associated with a parent of the first permit [0070], or sent by the holder of the parent of the first permit; also see [0052]-[0053], [0046]).
validating a cryptographic signature of the request, (Zhang, [0054] describes validating a cryptographic signature of the request, [0033], [0038]; also see [0052]-[0053], [0046])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang with Threlkeld and Smith to include wherein verifying that the sender of the request is the process associated with a parent of the first permit or sent by the holder of the parent of the first permit comprises: validating a cryptographic signature of the request. One would have been motivated to provide a plurality of such licenses that have been aggregated to in effect form a super-set of rules and rights according to which the application operates (Zhang, [0002]).
Regarding claim 18, Threlkeld and Smith disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 17.
Zhang further discloses wherein validating a cryptographic signature (Zhang, [0054] describes validating a cryptographic signature of the request, [0033], [0038]; also see [0052]-[0053], [0046])
comprises validating that the signature was signed by the holder of the parent permit, (Zhang, [0054] describes validating a cryptographic signature was signed by the child of the parent license as described in [0072], [0076]; also see [0052]-[0053], [0046])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang with Threlkeld and Smith to include wherein verifying that the sender of the request is the process associated with a parent of the first permit or sent by the holder of the parent of the first permit comprises: validating a cryptographic signature of the request. One would have been motivated to provide a plurality of such licenses that have been aggregated to in effect form a super-set of rules and rights according to which the application operates (Zhang, [0002]).
Regarding claim 19, Threlkeld and Smith disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 13.
Threlkeld and Smith fail to explicitly disclose include wherein determining the validity of the request; further comprises determining if a permit identifier comprised in the request matches a parent permit identifier stored on the first permit data.
However, in an analogous art, Zhang discloses wherein determining the validity of the request, (Zhang describes wherein the method comprises determining the validity of the request [0048] and wherein determining the validity of the request comprises: [0048] verifying that a sender of the request is a process [0038] associated with a parent of the first permit [0070], or sent by the holder of the parent of the first permit; also see [0052]-[0053], [0046]).
further comprises determining if a permit identifier comprised in the request matches a parent permit identifier stored on the first permit data, (Zhang describes [0075], [0059], [0065] determines determining if a license identifier [permit identifier] comprised in the request matches a parent license identifier [parent permit identifier] stored on the first license data [first permit data]; also see [0052]-[0053], [0046])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang with Threlkeld and Smith to include wherein determining the validity of the request; further comprises determining if a permit identifier comprised in the request matches a parent permit identifier stored on the first permit data. One would have been motivated to provide a plurality of such licenses that have been aggregated to in effect form a super-set of rules and rights according to which the application operates (Zhang, [0002]).
Regarding claim 29, Threlkeld and Smith disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 1.
Threlkeld and Smith fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first permit is part of a hierarchy of permits.
However, in an analogous art, Zhang discloses wherein the first permit is part of a hierarchy of permits, (Zhang describes [0059] wherein the first permit is part of a hierarchy of permits)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang with Threlkeld and Smith to include wherein the first permit is part of a hierarchy of permits. One would have been motivated to provide a plurality of such licenses that have been aggregated to in effect form a super-set of rules and rights according to which the application operates (Zhang, [0002]).
Regarding claim 32, Threlkeld and Smith disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 1.
Threlkeld and Smith fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first permit data comprises at least one of: an indication as to whether further permits may be generated that are children of the first permit; at least one namespace, wherein each namespace defines part of a permission a child of the first permit can have; an indication as to a maximum depth of descendants that the first permit can have; a maximum number of children permits that the first permit can have; an array to indicate a maximum number of descendent permits that the first permit can have at different depths; or a time that indicates when the permit is valid from or until.
However, in an analogous art, Zhang discloses wherein the first permit data comprises at least one of:
an indication as to whether further permits may be generated that are children of the first permit; (Zhang describes [0070] wherein the first permit data comprises at least one of: [0067], [0073], [0080] describes an indication as to whether further permits may be generated that are children of the first permit)
at least one namespace, wherein each namespace defines part of a permission a child of the first permit can have;
an indication as to a maximum depth of descendants that the first permit can have;
a maximum number of children permits that the first permit can have;
an array to indicate a maximum number of descendent permits that the first permit can have at different depths;
or a time that indicates when the permit is valid from or until.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang with Threlkeld and Smith to include wherein the first permit data comprises at least one of: an indication as to whether further permits may be generated that are children of the first permit; at least one namespace, wherein each namespace defines part of a permission a child of the first permit can have; an indication as to a maximum depth of descendants that the first permit can have; a maximum number of children permits that the first permit can have; an array to indicate a maximum number of descendent permits that the first permit can have at different depths; or a time that indicates when the permit is valid from or until. One would have been motivated to provide a plurality of such licenses that have been aggregated to in effect form a super-set of rules and rights according to which the application operates (Zhang, [0002]).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Threlkeld et al (“Threlkeld,” US 10,673,862) in view of Smith et al (“Smith,” US 20060090208) and further in view of Patel et al (“Patel,” US 20190228406).
Regarding claim 20, Threlkeld and Smith disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 1.
Threlkeld and Smith fail to explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises: revoking all descendants of the first permit.
However, in an analogous art, Patel discloses wherein the method further comprises: revoking all descendants of the first permit, (Patel describes [0008], [0026], [0085] wherein the method further comprises: revoking all child decentralized identifiers [descendants] of the first permission [permit]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Patel with Threlkeld and Smith to include wherein the method further comprises: revoking all descendants of the first permit. One would have been motivated to create and manage linked decentralized identifiers for an entity, (Patel, [0005]).
Regarding claim 21, Threlkeld, Smith and Patel disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 20.
Patel further discloses wherein the step of revoking all descendants of the first permit comprises: (Patel describes [0008], [0026], [0085] wherein the method further comprises: revoking all child decentralized identifiers [descendants] of the first permission [permit]).
obtaining a list of child permits from the first permit data; (Patel describes [0069]-[0071] obtaining a list of child permits from the first permit data)
and transmitting a revoke request to a child permit process, such that the child permit revokes all of its descendants, (Patel describes [0008], [0026], [0085] transmitting a revoke request to a child permit process, such that the child permit revokes all of its descendants)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Patel with Threlkeld and Smith to include wherein the step of revoking all descendants of the first permit comprises: obtaining a list of child permits from the first permit data; and transmitting a revoke request to a child permit process, such that the child permit revokes all of its descendants. One would have been motivated to create and manage linked decentralized identifiers for an entity, (Patel, [0005]).
Claim 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Threlkeld et al (“Threlkeld,” US 10,673,862) in view of Smith et al (“Smith,” US 20060090208) and further in view of Lin et al (“Lin,” US 20080168528).
Regarding claim 23, Threlkeld and Smith disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 1.
Threlkeld and Smith fail to explicitly disclose wherein the data indicative of the plurality of permissions is an object comprising at least one name-value pair.
However, in an analogous art, Lin discloses wherein the data indicative of the plurality of permissions is an object comprising at least one name-value pair, (Lin describes in [0012], [0033] wherein the data indicative of the plurality of permissions is an object comprising at least one name-value pair)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lin with Threlkeld and Smith to include wherein the data indicative of the plurality of permissions is an object comprising at least one name-value pair. One would have been motivated to facilitate access to shared resources in a distributed computer environment (Lin, [0003]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Threlkeld et al (“Threlkeld,” US 10,673,862), Smith et al (“Smith,” US 20060090208) in view of Lin et al (“Lin,” US 20080168528) and further in view of Sarukkai et al (“Sarukkai,” US 20080184336).
Regarding claim 26, Threlkeld, Smith and Lin disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 23.
Threlkeld, Smith and Lin fail to explicitly disclose wherein a value of the name-value pair is arbitrary and/or user generated.
However, in an analogous art, Sarukkai discloses wherein a value of the name-value pair is arbitrary and/or user generated, (Sarukkai, [0091] describes wherein a value of the name-value pair is arbitrary and/or user generated)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sarukkai with Threlkeld, Smith and Lin to include wherein a value of the name-value pair is arbitrary and/or user generated. One would have been motivated to provide policy-based management of access by application programs to networked computer resources (Sarukkai, [0002]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Threlkeld et al (“Threlkeld,” US 10,673,862) in view of Smith et al (“Smith,” US 20060090208) and further in view of Pulier et al (“Pulier,” US 20190288956).
Regarding claim 27, Threlkeld and Smith disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 1,
Threlkeld and Smith fail to explicitly disclose wherein the request is received via an API that is only provided to computing modules belonging to a secure computing environment.
However, in an analogous art, Pulier discloses wherein the request is received via an API that is only provided to computing modules belonging to a secure computing environment, (Pulier describes wherein the request is received via an API [0063] that is only provided to computing modules [0088] belonging to a secure computing environment [0013])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pulier with Threlkeld and Smith to include wherein the request is received via an API that is only provided to computing modules belonging to a secure computing environment. One would have been motivated to securing, controlling and managing cloud infrastructure (Pulier, [0002]).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Threlkeld et al (“Threlkeld,” US 10,673,862) in view of Smith et al (“Smith,” US 20060090208) and further in view of Lof et al (“Lof,” US 20140310779).
Regarding claim 39, Threlkeld and Smith disclose the computer-implemented method according claim 1.
Threlkeld and Smith fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first permit identifier obliviates the identity of the holder of the first permit or is a pseudo-randomly generated string of characters.
However, in an analogous art, Lof discloses wherein the first permit identifier oblivates the identity of the holder of the first permit or is a pseudo-randomly generated string of characters, (Lof describes wherein the first permit identifier [0022] obliviates the identity of the holder of the first permit or is a pseudo-randomly generated string of characters [0124])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lof with Threlkeld and Smith Holtzman to include wherein the first permit identifier obliviates the identity of the holder of the first permit or is a pseudo-randomly generated string of characters. One would have been motivated to provide temporary anonymous access to media content and asynchronously determining limits on media consumption (Lof, [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J WILCOX whose telephone number is (571)270-3774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 A.M. to 5 P.M..
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, Luu T. Pham can be reached on (571)270-5002. 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.
/JAMES J WILCOX/Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights