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 .
This office action is in response to claims filed 07/03/2024. Claims 1-27 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claims for priority from applications nos. 63435634 filed 12/28/2022, 63458306 filed 04/10/2023, and 18392554 filed 12/21/2023, are acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bequet et al. (US 20210141623 A1) in view of Wu et al. (US 20040181543 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bequet and Wu, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Bequet discloses A system to provide dynamic digital construction of unified event descriptions of process flows ([0513] As will be explained in greater detail, advantage may be taken of this interchangeability between job flow definitions 2220 and such DAGs 2270 to enable new job flow definitions 2220 that describe entirely new job flows to be generated graphically by personnel who entirely lack programming skills. More specifically, a new job flow definition 2220 may be created by personnel though use of a graphical editor in which such personnel graphically create a DAG 2270 that may also serve as the new job flow definition 2220 or from which the new job flow definition 2220 may be automatically generated. In some of such embodiments, it may be that such a graphical editor is used to combine at least portions of multiple preexisting job flows to form a new job flow (e.g., the previously discussed “superset” job flow) as a DAG 2270 from which a corresponding job flow definition 2220 may be automatically generated. Please note that enabling new job flow definitions 2220 that describe entirely new job flows to be generated with parts of the job flow definition being generated automatically corresponds to Applicant’s system for providing dynamic digital construction of unified event descriptions of process flows.), comprising:
a processor communicatively coupled to a storage device, wherein the processor executes application code instructions that are stored in the storage device to cause the system ([0011] An apparatus includes at least one processor and a storage to store instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operation. Please note that the apparatus with a processor and a storage storing instructions to cause the processor to perform operation corresponds to Applicant’s processor communicatively coupled to a storage device, wherein the processor executes application code instructions that are stored in the storage device to cause the system.) to:
receive an entry of an activity description required to perform a process ([0011] receive, at the at least one processor and from a requesting device via a network, a request to perform a job flow, wherein: the job flow is defined in a job flow definition that specifies a set of tasks to be performed via execution of a corresponding set of task routines during a performance of the job flow. Please note that receiving a request to perform a job flow defined in a job flow definition corresponds to Applicant’s receiving an entry of an activity description required to perform a process.);
determine whether the entered activity description corresponds to description data established within the system ([0205] An attempt may be made to match the identifiers of the tasks specified in the request to an existing job flow definition in which the same set of tasks are performed. Please note that matching the identifiers of the tasks specified in the request to an existing job flow definition in which the same set of tasks are performed corresponds to Applicant’s determining whether the entered activity description corresponds to description data established within the system.);
display one or more catalog elements based on the determined correspondence of the activity description to the description data established within the system for selection by a user ([0150] In various embodiments, a job flow definition may be augmented with graphical user interface (GUI) instructions that are to be executed during a performance of the job flow that it defines to provide a GUI that provides a user an opportunity to specify one or more aspects of the performance of the job flow at runtime. By way of example, such a GUI may provide a user with an opportunity to select one or more data objects to be used as inputs to that performance, to select which one of multiple versions of a task routine is to be used to perform a task, and/or select a federated area into which to store a result report to be output by that performance. In so doing, the GUI may include instructions to display lists of objects, characteristics of objects, DAGs of objects, etc. in response to specific inputs received from a user. Please note that the GUI that augments the job flow definition that provides the user an opportunity to specify aspects of the performance of the job flow and to display characteristics of objects corresponds to Applicant’s displaying catalog elements based on the determined correspondence of the activity description to the description data established within the system for selection by a user, i.e., displaying characteristics of the listed objects established in the system that lets the user select task routines and inputs.);
Bequet does not explicitly disclose hierarchical process flows;
generate a suggested rewritten activity description based on the description data established within the system based on the selection by the user;
and display the suggested rewritten activity description in a graphical user interface for selection by the user
However, Wu discloses hierarchical process flows ([0248] The method for selecting the most appropriate presentations operates in three phases, as depicted in the flowchart of FIG. 31B. The first, analysis phase 3160, examines the structure of the hierarchical data, from the data itself or from schema definitions of the data if such are available, or from both. Please note that the hierarchical data that is present in the data and its scheme definitions corresponds to Applicant’s hierarchical nature that may be applied to process flows.);
generate a suggested rewritten activity description based on the description data established within the system based on the selection by the user ([0600] The data component recommendations are highlighted in the schema view created in step 1440. The user can then select data components for the unspecified data component slots from this schema view, the selection action being detected by the process 1490 in step 1445. in step 1445, the data of the data view is updated to include the selected data component. the query associated with the data view is also updated. If the user has specified all the required data components in decision step 1465, the process 1490 ends. If further data components are required in step 1465, the recommendation list is updated according to the user's selection in step 1445. This may occur if one selection results in a different ranking order or one or more of the previously selected recommendations becomes irrelevant. For example, if the user selected a data component for the x-axis, then the list of recommendations would be updated to include data components that could act as a data series for the selected x-axis data component. The data component selection and the modification of the recommending list is an iterative process which continues until all data components that the user wants to include in the data view are specified or the recommending process is terminated by the user. Please note that the recommendation list being updated according to the user’ selection in step 1445, modifying the recommending list in an iterative process corresponds to Applicant’s generating a suggested rewritten activity description based on the description data established within the system based on the selection by the user.).;
and display the suggested rewritten activity description in a graphical user interface for selection by the user ([0595] recommending data components to the user for use within a data view. This method of recommending uses a central recommending services that stores information about generated data views and data sources. The described recommendation method uses the semantics of a selected display type and keywords to deliver sensible recommendations to the user.; [0600] The data component recommendations are highlighted in the schema view created in step 1440. The user can then select data components for the unspecified data component slots from this schema view, the selection action being detected by the process 1490 in step 1445. Please note that recommending data components to the user for use within a data view, where the user can select data components corresponds to Applicant’s display the suggested rewritten activity description in a graphical user interface for selection by the user, incorporating the activity description as previously described by Bequet as the recommended data component for use.).
Bequet and Wu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of providing user views in computer systems for the management of computer data and processes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bequet to incorporate the teachings of Wu to modify the system for dynamic digital construction of unified event descriptions of process flows that receives an entry of an activity description required to perform a process, determines whether the entered activity description corresponds to description data established within the system, and displays catalog elements based on the determined correspondence of the activity description to the description data established within the system for selection by a user to have hierarchical process flows, generate a suggested rewritten activity description based on the description data established within the system based on the selection by the user, and display the suggested rewritten activity description in a GUI for selection by the user, allowing for improved preparation and presentation of data with recommendations to the user across different data types, resulting in a greater ease of use, as described in Wu.
Regarding Claim 10, Bequet discloses A computer program product, comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage device having computer-executable program instructions embodied thereon that when executed by a computer cause the computer ([0012] A computer-program product tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium includes instructions operable to cause at least one processor to perform operations. Please note that the computer-program product tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium including instructions operable to cause at least one processor to perform operations corresponds to Applicant’s computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage device having computer-executable program instructions embodied thereon that when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform operations.) to
provide logic-based parameters for dynamic digital construction of process flows, the computer-executable program instructions comprising ([0513] As will be explained in greater detail, advantage may be taken of this interchangeability between job flow definitions 2220 and such DAGs 2270 to enable new job flow definitions 2220 that describe entirely new job flows to be generated graphically by personnel who entirely lack programming skills. More specifically, a new job flow definition 2220 may be created by personnel though use of a graphical editor in which such personnel graphically create a DAG 2270 that may also serve as the new job flow definition 2220 or from which the new job flow definition 2220 may be automatically generated. In some of such embodiments, it may be that such a graphical editor is used to combine at least portions of multiple preexisting job flows to form a new job flow (e.g., the previously discussed “superset” job flow) as a DAG 2270 from which a corresponding job flow definition 2220 may be automatically generated. Please note that enabling new job flow definitions 2220 that describe entirely new job flows to be generated with parts of the job flow definition being generated automatically corresponds to Applicant’s providing dynamic digital construction of unified event descriptions of process flows.):
Wu discloses hierarchical process flows ([0248] The method for selecting the most appropriate presentations operates in three phases, as depicted in the flowchart of FIG. 31B. The first, analysis phase 3160, examines the structure of the hierarchical data, from the data itself or from schema definitions of the data if such are available, or from both. Please note that the hierarchical data that is present in the data and its scheme definitions corresponds to Applicant’s hierarchical nature that may be applied to process flows.);
Therefore, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 1. Thus, Claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19, Bequet discloses A method to provide logic-based parameters for dynamic digital construction of process flows ([0513] As will be explained in greater detail, advantage may be taken of this interchangeability between job flow definitions 2220 and such DAGs 2270 to enable new job flow definitions 2220 that describe entirely new job flows to be generated graphically by personnel who entirely lack programming skills. More specifically, a new job flow definition 2220 may be created by personnel though use of a graphical editor in which such personnel graphically create a DAG 2270 that may also serve as the new job flow definition 2220 or from which the new job flow definition 2220 may be automatically generated. In some of such embodiments, it may be that such a graphical editor is used to combine at least portions of multiple preexisting job flows to form a new job flow (e.g., the previously discussed “superset” job flow) as a DAG 2270 from which a corresponding job flow definition 2220 may be automatically generated. Please note that enabling new job flow definitions 2220 that describe entirely new job flows to be generated with parts of the job flow definition being generated automatically corresponds to Applicant’s method for providing logic-based parameters for dynamic digital construction of process flows.), comprising: by one or more computing devices ([0011] An apparatus includes at least one processor and a storage to store instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operation. Please note that the apparatus with a processor and a storage storing instructions to cause the processor to perform operation corresponds to Applicant’s carrying out the method by one or more computing devices.):
Wu discloses hierarchical process flows ([0248] The method for selecting the most appropriate presentations operates in three phases, as depicted in the flowchart of FIG. 31B. The first, analysis phase 3160, examines the structure of the hierarchical data, from the data itself or from schema definitions of the data if such are available, or from both. Please note that the hierarchical data that is present in the data and its scheme definitions corresponds to Applicant’s hierarchical nature that may be applied to process flows.);
Therefore, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 1. Thus, Claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Bequet-Wu as described in Claim 1, Wu further discloses displaying an updated activity description based on user input to accept, overwrite, or regenerate the rewritten activity description ([0600] The data component recommendations are highlighted in the schema view created in step 1440. The user can then select data components for the unspecified data component slots from this schema view, the selection action being detected by the process 1490 in step 1445. in step 1445, the data of the data view is updated to include the selected data component. the query associated with the data view is also updated. If the user has specified all the required data components in decision step 1465, the process 1490 ends. If further data components are required in step 1465, the recommendation list is updated according to the user's selection in step 1445. This may occur if one selection results in a different ranking order or one or more of the previously selected recommendations becomes irrelevant. For example, if the user selected a data component for the x-axis, then the list of recommendations would be updated to include data components that could act as a data series for the selected x-axis data component. The data component selection and the modification of the recommending list is an iterative process which continues until all data components that the user wants to include in the data view are specified or the recommending process is terminated by the user. Please note that the recommendation list being updated according to the user’ selection in step 1445, modifying the recommending list in an iterative process corresponds to Applicant’s displaying an updated activity description based on user input to regenerate the rewritten activity description. As the limitation states accept, overwrite, “or” regenerate, this is interpreted by the Examiner as meeting the requirements of the Claim.).
Regarding Claim 11, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 2. Thus, Claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 20, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 2. Thus, Claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Bequet-Wu as described in Claim 1, Bequet further discloses wherein the one or more catalog elements are displayed based on an association with the activity ([0150] In various embodiments, a job flow definition may be augmented with graphical user interface (GUI) instructions that are to be executed during a performance of the job flow that it defines to provide a GUI that provides a user an opportunity to specify one or more aspects of the performance of the job flow at runtime. By way of example, such a GUI may provide a user with an opportunity to select one or more data objects to be used as inputs to that performance, to select which one of multiple versions of a task routine is to be used to perform a task, and/or select a federated area into which to store a result report to be output by that performance. In so doing, the GUI may include instructions to display lists of objects, characteristics of objects, DAGs of objects, etc. in response to specific inputs received from a user. Please note that the GUI providing a user with an opportunity to select which task routine is to be used to perform a task and the GUI displaying characteristics of objects corresponds to Applicant’s catalog elements being displayed based on an association with the activity.).
Regarding Claim 12, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 3. Thus, Claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 21, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 3. Thus, Claim 21 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, Bequet-Wu as described in Claim 1, Bequet further discloses wherein the one or more catalog elements are displayed based on a determination that the one or more catalog elements were previously associated with a similar activity ([0147] Additionally, reuse may extend to the job flow definitions, themselves, as the availability of job flow definitions in a federated area may obviate the need to develop of a new analysis routine where there is a job flow definition already available that defines the tasks to be performed in an analysis that may be deemed suitable. Thus, among the objects that may be stored in a federated area may be numerous selectable and reusable task routines and job flow definitions. Please note that having selectable job flow definitions that are reusable corresponds to Applicant’s catalog elements being displayed based on a determination that the one or more catalog elements were previously associated with a similar activity, i.e., can be reused and have the job flow definition be already available similarly defining the tasks to be performed.).
Regarding Claim 13, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 4. Thus, Claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 22, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 4. Thus, Claim 22 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, Bequet-Wu as described in Claim 1, Bequet further discloses wherein the one or more catalog elements are displayed based on a determination that the one or more catalog elements are a frequent catalog element for the user ([0147] Additionally, reuse may extend to the job flow definitions, themselves, as the availability of job flow definitions in a federated area may obviate the need to develop of a new analysis routine where there is a job flow definition already available that defines the tasks to be performed in an analysis that may be deemed suitable. Thus, among the objects that may be stored in a federated area may be numerous selectable and reusable task routines and job flow definitions. [0214] As a result of such pooling of data sets and task routines, new analyses may be more speedily created through reuse thereof by generating new job flows that identify already stored data sets and/or task routines. Additionally, where a task routine is subsequently updated, advantage may be automatically taken of that updated version in subsequent performances of each job flow that previously used the earlier version of that task routine. Please note that generating new job flows that identify already stored data sets/task routines, allowing for reusable job flow definitions, corresponds to Applicant’s catalog elements being displayed based on a determination that the catalog elements are a frequent catalog element for the user, i.e., can reuse already identified task routines that were previously performed.).
Regarding Claim 14, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 5. Thus, Claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 23, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 5. Thus, Claim 23 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, Bequet-Wu as described in Claim 1, Wu further discloses wherein the one or more catalog elements are displayed based on an association with a parent, sibling, or child activity of an activity described in the activity description ([0138] If a definition for the element is located, then the data browsing application 120 attempts in step 306 to recursively locate, for that definition, all the possible child element definitions and attribute definitions. Preferably attribute definitions are differentiated from child element definitions by colour in the displayed schema view. Please note that locating the child element and attribute definitions for a definition and then displaying them in the schema view corresponds to Applicant’s catalog elements are displayed based on an association with a child activity of an activity described in the activity description. As the limitation states parent, sibling, “or” child activities, this is interpreted by the Examiner as meeting the requirements of the Claim.).
Regarding Claim 15, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 6. Thus, Claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 24, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 6. Thus, Claim 24 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, Bequet-Wu as described in Claim 1, Wu further discloses wherein the one or more catalog elements may be tagged to the activity at the same time that the catalog element is selected for the activity description ([0602] As in step 1445, the user can select data components from the schema view generated from the list of recommendations, this being detected by the process 1690 in step 1615, or alternately continue to specify keyword expressions for unspecified data component slots, this being detected in step 1625. In the former, the data view and its associated query is updated in step 1620 and a test 1640 is performed to determine if the user has specified all the required data components. If not, and also in the alternate operation, the recommendation list is updated in step 1630 according to the selected data components from the list or newly-specified keyword expressions. Please note that the process 1690 in step 1615 detecting that the user is selecting data components from the schema view generated from the list of recommendations in step 1445, and updating the data view and its associated query in step 1620 corresponds to Applicant’s catalog elements being tagged to the activity at the same time that the catalog element is selected for the activity description.)
Regarding Claim 16, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 7. Thus, Claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 25, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 7. Thus, Claim 25 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, Bequet-Wu as described in Claim 1, Bequet further discloses wherein generating the rewritten activity description comprises dynamically determining a sentence type of the entered activity description based on syntax and applying a format type to the determined sentence type ([0512] may lead to one or more of the job flow identifier 2221fgh, the flow definition 2225 and the interface definitions 2224 being written in a selected form of notation for the description of processes (e.g., BPMN). However, it should be noted that other embodiments are possible in which the job flow definition 2220fgh and the DAG 2270fgh are written using the same language and syntax such that the job flow definition 2220fgh and the DAG 2270fgh may be directly interchangeable (although the DAG 2270fgh may be generated to include a subset of the contents of the job flow definition 2220fgh, such that it may not include such items as the GUI instructions 2229fgh). Please note that there being a selected form of notation for the description of processes for the job flow identifier/flow definition and writing the job flow definition using a particular syntax in order to be interchangeable corresponds to Applicant’s generating the rewritten activity description comprising dynamically determining a sentence type of the entered activity description based on syntax and applying a format type to the determined sentence type, as the selected form of notation for the description and having a consistent language and syntax corresponds to Applicant’s dynamically determining a sentence type of the entered activity description based on syntax, and implementing the form of notation with the same syntax to be interchangeable corresponds to applying the format type to the determined sentence type.).
Regarding Claim 17, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 8. Thus, Claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 26, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 8. Thus, Claim 26 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, Bequet-Wu as described in Claim 8, Wu further discloses wherein the rewritten activity description comprises one or more of subject clauses, logic clauses, action clauses, prepositional action clauses, prepositional context clauses, verb context clauses, adjective clauses, and conjunction clauses ([0348] In the preferred arrangement, each data view is associated with an XQuery expression. XQuery (see http://www.w3.org/XML/Query), or XML Query, is a query language which can be used to express queries across various forms of data, […] Any expression that is syntactically valid and executes successfully in both XPath 2.0 and XQuery 1.0 will return the same result in both languages. […] XQuery is the preferred query language because of its ability to address relational and hierarchical data sources.; [0349] The basic building block of XQuery is the expression. […]. The name flwor, stands for the keywords for, let, where, order by and return, the five clauses found in a flwor expression. Other expressions, which represent sequences and logical combinations of these basic expressions, are also permitted.; [0523] The value of the constraint is represented either as a String (ie. XQuery data type of CHARSTRING), Number (ie. XQuery data type of NUMBER) or another data component (ie. XPath expression). In other arrangements, other filter operations and conjunctions may be used. For example, it may not be necessary to limit the combination of individual filter specifications to the conjunction "AND".; [0524] Filtering operations typically map to the where clause(s) of XQuery flwor expression(s). Please note that the XQuery flwor expressions that are associated with each data view, with particular syntax, that has clauses that allow for conjunctions such as “AND” corresponds to Applicant’s rewritten activity description comprising conjunction clauses. This is because, as stated in Applicant’s Specification, “[236] Conjunction Clause Format (By Parts of Speech and Catalog Elements);[237] Conjunction clauses will be generally constructed with the following syntax.;[238] Conjunction;[239] Three examples using this format are presented below. Note that the examples are clauses and not complete sentences.; [240] Example 1: and”. Therefore, “AND” is an instance of a conjunction clause as defined by the Applicant. As the limitations state “one or more of” the clauses, this is interpreted by the Examiner as fulfilling the requirements of the Claim. ).
Regarding Claim 18, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 9. Thus, Claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 27, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 9. Thus, Claim 27 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gibbons (US 20070092783 A1) discloses a hierarchical process flow, generating it, and child and parent process flows (see [0011-0015, 0030]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAZ T AKBARI whose telephone number is (571)272-4166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30am-7:30pm ET.
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, April Blair can be reached at (571)270-1014. 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.
/FARAZ T AKBARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights