DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 8, 2026 has been entered. Claim 5 is cancelled, leaving claims 1-4 and 6-20 pending in this application.
The amendment to the claims have overcome the majority of rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, as presented in the prior office action mailed February 10, 2026. Remaining issues under 35 U.S.C. 112 are provided below.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 14, and 20 recite, using claim 1 for exemplary language,
“in response to a determination that the execution type associated…, copy content cached in the first cache to the second cache;
In response to a determination that the result of the speculative first execution is to be accepted…, copy additional content cached in the first cache to the second cache.”
Claim 2 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to service the memory access requests … if the execution type… is the non-speculative execution or has not changed to the speculative execution.”
Claim 3 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to copy the content … if the execution type associated with the current memory access is the non-speculative execution.”
Claim 6 recites “wherein, if the result of the speculative first execution…, the processor is further configured to discard…”.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to reconfigure… if the cache set is not impacted by the speculative execution”.
Claim 15 recites “toggling a configurable data bit if the result…”.
Claim 19 recites “continuing to copy the content… if the execution type not changing…”.
The above claims all recite functional limitations where an action is performed if a condition is met, i.e. a contingent limitation. MPEP §2111.04(II) provides that “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met …The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.”
As such, the scope of claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 13, and 20 require the structure/processor to have that capability to perform the claimed functional limitations.
Claims 14, 15, and 19 are directed to method claims, and therefore an analysis must be presented to determine the scope of the claim. Upon review of the claim language, the recited conditions are not presented as required due to the use of “if” to denote the conditions without also reciting the conditions being fulfilled. Therefore, the steps recited as contingent upon these conditions are not required as part of the scope of the claims.
Examiner suggests for claims 14, 15, and 19 to either positively recite the respective conditions as an additional limitation to explicitly make clear that the conditions are being fulfilled (for example, with respect to the example of claim 14’s copying limitation, amending the determination limitation to recite “determining that a result… is to be accepted”, which then provides the positive recitation of the condition; for claims 15 and 19, an additional limitation would be need to be provided reciting the condition as affirmatively being required in the scope of the claim) or to remove the conditional language entirely from the contingent limitation, which would require the limitation to be performed as no condition would be recited.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites “if the result of the speculative first execution type being accepted” but should recite “if the result of the speculative first execution type is accepted” for grammatical clarity,
Claim 19 recites “if the execution type not changing to the non-speculative execution type” but should recite “if the execution type is not changing to the non-speculative execution type” for grammatical clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As discussed above concerning claim interpretation, claims 15 and 19 have been determined to recite contingent limitations where the conditions are not required by the scope of the claim and therefore the contingent limitations are not required under broadest reasonable interpretation of the scope of the claims. However, these are the only limitations that are recited in claims 15 and 19, and therefore under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 15 and 19 recite no additional limitations and therefore fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 14.
Examiner suggests for claims 15 and 19 to either positively recite the respective conditions as an additional determining limitation to explicitly make clear that the conditions are being fulfilled or to remove the conditional language entirely, see the discussion on claim interpretation.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent 12,019,555 contains every element of claims 1-4 and 6-20 of the instant application, as can be shown in the following table, and as such anticipates claims 1-4 and 6-20 of the instant application. “A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Claim 1, instant application
Claim 1, US 12,019,555
A system, comprising:
a first cache;
a second cache; and
a processor communicatively linked to the first and second caches and configured to:
determine whether an execution type associated with a current memory access associated with the first cache is non-speculative execution type or speculative execution type;
in response to a determination that the execution type associated with the current memory access is the speculative execution type, copy content cached in the first cache to the second cache;
service memory access requests using the second cache;
determine whether an execution type for the current memory access request associated with the second cache has changed to the non-speculative execution type;
determine whether a result of a first execution having the speculative execution type and based on the content copied from the first cache to the second cache is to be accepted; and
in response to a determination that the result of the speculative first execution is to be accepted, copy additional content cached in the first cache to the second cache.
A system, comprising:
a first cache;
a second cache; and
a processor communicatively linked to the first and second caches and configured to:
…
determine whether an execution type associated with a current memory access associated with the first cache is associated with a non-speculative execution type or associated with a speculative execution type;
copy, if the execution type associated with the current memory access is the speculative execution type, content cached in the first cache to the second cache;
service memory access requests using the second cache;
determine whether an execution type for a current memory access request associated with the second cache has changed to the non-speculative execution type;
determine whether a result of the speculative execution type, as associated with the current memory access, is to be accepted;
copy, if the result of the speculative execution type is to be accepted, additional content cached in the first cache to the second cache …
Claim 2, instant application
Claim 2, US 12,019,555
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to service the memory access requests using the first cache if the execution type associated with the current memory access is the non-speculative execution or has not changed to the speculative execution.
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to service the memory access requests using the first cache if the execution type associated with the current memory access is the non-speculative execution type or has not changed to the speculative execution type.
Claim 3, instant application
Claim 3, US 12,019,555
The system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to copy the content cached in the first cache to the second cache if the execution type associated with the current memory access is the non-speculative execution.
The system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to copy the content cached in the first cache to the second cache if the execution type associated with the current memory access is the non-speculative execution type.
Claim 4, instant application
Claim 4, US 12,019,555
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to provide an indication of whether the result of the speculative first execution is accepted via a speculation-status signal line.
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to provide an indication of whether the result of the speculative execution type is accepted via a speculation-status signal line.
Claim 6, instant application
Claim 5, US 12,019,555
The system of claim 1, wherein, if the result of the speculative first execution is not to be accepted, the processor is further configured to discard the content copied to the second cache.
The system of claim 1, wherein, if the result of the speculative execution type is not to be accepted, the processor is further configured to discard the content copied to the second cache.
Claim 7, instant application
Claim 6, US 12,019,555
The system of claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to discard the content by setting invalid bits of cache blocks in the second cache.
The system of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to discard the content by setting invalid bits of cache blocks in the second cache.
Claim 8, instant application
Claim 7, US 12,019,555
The system of claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to maintain the first cache as the main cache and the second cache as the shadow cache after discarding the content copied to the second cache.
The system of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to maintain the first cache as the main cache and the second cache as the shadow cache after discarding the content copied to the second cache.
Claim 9, instant application
Claim 8, US 12,019,555
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to configure the first cache as the shadow cache by adjusting a configurable bit.
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to configure the first cache as the shadow cache by adjusting a configurable bit.
Claim 10, instant application
Claim 9, US 12,019,555
The system of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises a third cache configured to store a cache index so that the third cache is utilized as a spare cache for the system.
The system of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises a third cache register set associated with a third cache configured to store a cache index so that the third cache is utilized as a spare cache for the system.
Claim 11, instant application
Claim 10, US 12,019,555
The system of claim 1, wherein the speculative execution type comprises execution where the processor is configured to execute one or more instructions based on the speculation that the one or more instructions need to be executed under a condition.
The system of claim 1, wherein the speculative execution type comprises execution where the processor is configured to execute one or more instructions based on a speculation that the one or more instructions need to be executed under a condition.
Claim 12, instant application
Claim 11, US 12,019,555
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to invalidate the content in the first cache when the first cache is configured as the shadow cache.
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to invalidate the content in the first cache when the first cache is configured as the shadow cache.
Claim 13, instant application
Claim 12, US 12,019,555
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to reconfigure a cache set in the first cache to join the second cache if the cache set is not impacted by the speculative execution.
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to reconfigure a cache set in the first cache to join the second cache if the cache set is not impacted by the speculative execution type.
Claim 14, instant application
Claim 13, US 12,019,555
A method, comprising:
configuring, by utilizing a processor of a system including a first cache and a second cache, the first cache as a main cache and the second cache as a shadow cache;
determining whether an execution type associated with a current memory access associated with the first cache is non-speculative execution type or speculative execution type;
copying, in response to a determination that the execution type associated with the current memory access is the speculative execution type, content cached in the first cache to the second cache;
servicing memory access requests using the second cache;
determining whether an execution type for the current memory access request associated with the second cache has changed to the non-speculative execution type;
determining whether a result of a first execution having the speculative execution type and based on the content copied from the first cache to the second cache is to be accepted;
copying, in response to a determination that the result of the speculative first execution is to be accepted, additional content cached in the first cache to the second cache; and
configuring the first cache as the shadow cache and the second cache as the main cache.
A method, comprising:
configuring, by utilizing a processor of a system including a first cache and a second cache, the first cache as a main cache and the second cache as a shadow cache;
determining whether an execution type associated with a current memory access associated with the first cache is non-speculative execution type or speculative execution type;
copying, if the execution type associated with the current memory access is the speculative execution type, content cached in the first cache to the second cache;
servicing memory access requests using the second cache;
determining whether an execution type for a current memory access request associated with the second cache has changed to the non-speculative execution type;
determining whether a result of the speculative execution type, as associated with the current memory access, is to be accepted;
copying, if the result of the speculative execution type is to be accepted, additional content cached in the first cache to the second cache; and
configuring the first cache as the shadow cache and the second cache as the main cache.
Claim 15, instant application
Claim 14, US 12,019,555
The method of claim 14, further comprising toggling a configurable data bit if the result of the speculative first execution type being accepted
The method of claim 13, further comprising toggling a configurable data bit in response to having the result of the speculative execution type accepted.
Claim 16, instant application
Claim 15, US 12,019,555
The method of claim 14, further comprising generating a set index based on the execution type associated with the current memory access.
The method of claim 13, further comprising generating a set index based on the execution type associated with the current memory access.
Claim 17, instant application
Claim 16, US 12,019,555
The method of claim 16, further comprising facilitating addressing of cache sets in the first cache based on the set index.
The method of claim 15, further comprising facilitating addressing of cache sets in the first cache based on the set index.
Claim 18, instant application
Claim 17, US 12,019,555
The method of claim 16, further comprising incorporating a predetermined segment of bits in a memory address and a bit representing a type of execution for the current memory access.
The method of claim 15, further comprising incorporating a predetermined segment of bits in a memory address and a bit representing a type of execution for the current memory access.
Claim 19, instant application
Claim 18, US 12,019,555
The method of claim 14, further comprising continuing to copy the content from the first cache to the second cache if the execution type not changing to the non-speculative execution type.
The method of claim 13, further comprising continuing to copy content from the first cache to the second cache in response to not changing the execution type to the non-speculative execution type.
Claim 20, instant application
Claim 19, US 12,019,555
A cache system, comprising:
a processor communicatively linked to first and second caches and configured to:
determine whether an execution type associated with a current memory access associated with the first cache is non-speculative execution type or speculative execution type;
in response to a determination that the execution type associated with the current memory access is the speculative execution type, copy content cached in the first cache to the second cache;
service memory access requests using the second cache;
determine whether an execution type for the current memory access request associated with the second cache has changed to the non-speculative execution type;
determine whether a result of a first execution having the speculative execution type and based on the content copied from the first cache to the second cache is to be accepted is to be accepted; and
if the result of the speculative execution is to be accepted, copy additional content cached in the first cache to the second cache.
A cache system, comprising:
a processor communicatively linked to first and second caches and configured to:
…
determine whether an execution type associated with a current memory access associated with the first cache is associated with non-speculative execution type or associated with speculative execution type;
copy, if the execution type associated with the current memory access is the speculative execution type, content cached in the first cache to the second cache;
service memory access requests using the second cache;
determine whether an execution type for a current memory access request associated with the second cache has changed to the non-speculative execution type;
determine whether a result of the speculative execution type, as associated with the current memory access, is to be accepted; and
configure, if the result of the speculative execution is to be accepted, the first cache as the shadow cache and the second cache as the main cache.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-18, and 20 would be allowable if the double patenting issues are addressed.
Examiner notes that no substantial amendments are provided to the majority of the claims, so the following statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter is copied verbatim from the prior office action. An updated search of the art did not yield a reference to alter the determination of allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1 and 20 recite, using claim 1 for example language:
Determine whether a result of a first execution having the speculative execution type and based on the content copied from the first cache to the second cache is to be accepted; and
In response to a determination that the result of the speculative first execution is to be accepted, copy additional content cached in the first cache to the second cache.
Upon reconsideration, examiner notes that while the references previously cited as providing pertinent disclosures to the overall subject matter of claims 1 and 20, namely handling speculative executions and copying cached data in relation to a speculative request, none provide additional copying of data in response to a determination that the results are accepted. Consideration of results of speculative execution is not novel, see for example Tremblay et al. (US 7,490,229) determining whether results of speculative execution branches are resolvable, Kottapalli et al. (US 7,496,732) storing speculative related data results, Ramagopal et al. (US 5,838,943) copying cache lines into a buffer and waiting until the speculative stores are restored or retired, Kunkel et al. (US 2003/0182539) providing two data caches for branching paths and querying both caches, Gooding et al. (US 2011/0209154) determining whether or not to copy the results of a speculative execution to an underlying memory or not,. However, these do not then disclose that in response to accepting the speculative result, additional data is copied between the caches/buffers.
Examiner further notes that the prior office action relied upon Abdallah et al. (US 2014/0281242) in the double patenting rejection to provide the capability to copy data from one cache to another. However, Abdallah’s disclosure does not provide the additional copying/consideration of the acceptance of a speculative result that is required in performance of the claim, and as such fails to render the limitation obvious.
A further search of the art did not yield a reference that could render this limitation obvious, leading to a determination of allowable subject matter.
Claims 2-4, and 6-13 are indicated as reciting allowable subject matter due to their dependence on claim 1.
Examiner notes that this rationale also extends to the prior double patenting rejections with respect to US 11,403,226 and US 11,048,636. Upon reconsideration of what the patents teach in their claims and the use of Abdallah, examiner finds that Abdallah shows an insufficient nexus between copying the content between caches and the determination that a result is to be accepted as recited and cannot render the patented claims obvious. Examiner withdraws the double patenting rejections based on these two patents.
Claims 14 recites:
Configuring, by utilizing a processor of a system including a first cache and a second cache, the first cache as a main cache and the second cache as a shadow cache; and
Configuring the first cache as the shadow cache and the second cache as the main cache.
These limitations were identified during prosecution of parent application 17/836,912 as being allowable. An updated search of the art does not yield a reference that can render this feature obvious, and as such claim 14 is noted for reciting allowable subject matter for the same reason provided in the office action mailed April 5, 2023 in prosecution of 17/836,912, which is repeated here with some modification.
While there are determination limitations around these configuring limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, these configuring limitations are not explicitly recited to be performed in response to the determination limitations and no restriction is placed on the configuring limitations.
However, the claim requires that at some point in time of operation, the first cache is configured as the main cache and the second cache as a shadow cache, and at some other point in time of operation, the first cache is configured as the shadow cache and the second cache as the main cache.
The use of shadow caches for aid in the context of speculative executions is known in the art, see Abdallah, Kumar. Kumar is also noticeable for allowing a dynamic re-sizing of the cache regions, so would allow for some dynamic configurations of parts of the main cache/shadow cache. However, neither reference discloses where at some point in time, the two caches effectively swaps functionality, i.e. the shadow cache serves as the main cache and vice versa.
Other references that provide for the ability to re-size/adjust caches were found, but none provide for an effective swap between cache partitions.
Examiner also notes that while claim 14 does recite the same subject matter under consideration of claims 1 and 20, that subject matter is contingent and not currently required, see the claim interpretation analysis, so the rationale for indicating allowable subject matter in claims 1 and 20 does not currently apply to claim 14.
Claims 16-18 are considered to recite allowable subject matter due to dependence on claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 8, 2026 have been fully considered and are unpersuasive.
Examiner notes that the double patenting rejections are acknowledged and held in abeyance, so this is unpersuasive in part, as a review of the claim shows that the existing double patenting rejection is still proper.
Examiner notes that the remarks do not assert whether all the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been amended to overcome the rejections or provide an argument against the rejections. This argument is unpersuasive in part, as a review of the claims shows that while the indefiniteness rejections are successfully overcome, and the cancellation of claim 5 addresses the improper dependent claim rejection, claims 15 and 19 still merit a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Examiner has provided comments on how to properly address this rejection/the contingent interpretation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON D HO whose telephone number is (469)295-9093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00 CT.
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, Reginald Bragdon can be reached at (571)272-4204. 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.
/A.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2139
/REGINALD G BRAGDON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Prosecution Insights