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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on October 25, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDSs have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is invited to point out any particular reference(s) in the IDS that they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this Office Action. It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9, which recite “a first scoreboard” and “a second scoreboard.” However, claim 10 recites “the scoreboard,” which lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 10 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim limitation refers to the “first scoreboard”, the “second scoreboard”, or a combination of both.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-5, 7, 11-14, 16-17, and 20-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230292238, hereinafter “Shafin”) in view of Jang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20060280194, hereinafter “Jang”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Shafin unless otherwise mentioned.
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, Shafin teaches A method, comprising:
(Fig. 7 and para [0083] : Fig. 7 illustrates … the AP MLD may be an AP MLD 101 (interpreted as “transmitting device”), and the non-AP MLD may be a non-AP MLD 111(interpreted as “receiving device”).) (The PPDUs from AP MLD 101 to non-AP MLD 111 as shown in Fig. 7 is interpreted as “the network traffic comprising one or more packets disposed in one or more sessions and to be transmitted by a transmitting device to a receiving device”) (The missing/crossed out limitations will be discussed in view of Jang.);
obtaining one or more traffic identifiers associated with the access category to assign to the one or more packets (Fig. 7: TID-to-AC mapping, para [0085]: TID1 and TID2 are mapped to AC1 (‘Access Category 1’, see para [0082]), and TID3 and TID4 are mapped to AC2.);
mapping the one or more traffic identifiers to one or more network links connecting the transmitting device and the receiving device (para [0010]: an associated first set of traffic identifiers (TIDs) is established on the first link and … an associated second set of TIDs is established on the second link,) (para [0080] : Since TID1, which has the highest priority, is negotiated for (or mapped on) restricted TWT schedule 1 over Link 1,…) (Fig. 7 and para [0084]: In FIG. 7 , AP1 and AP2 are two APs affiliated with the AP MLD. Also, STA1 and STA2 are two non-AP STAs affiliated with the non-AP MLD. Two links (interpreted as “one or more network links”) are set up between the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD—Link 1 between AP1 and STA1, and Link 2 between AP2 and STA2.) (Fig. 7 and para [0085]: Link 1 is negotiated for (‘mapped on’) TID1 and TID3 … Link 2 is negotiated for TID2 and TID4.). Fig. 7 of Shafin is reproduced herein below.
PNG
media_image1.png
736
1702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 7 of Shafin)
;
assigning a first traffic identifier of the one or more traffic identifiers to first packets of the one or more packets included a first session of the one or more sessions (Fig. 7 and para [0082]: the r-TWT scheduling AP MLD … a DL PPDU for the access category (AC) corresponding to the highest priority TID(interpreted as “first packets”, see PPDUs on Link 1 as shown in Fig. 7. The TID 1 in Fig. 7 is interpreted as “a first traffic identifier”);
transmitting the first packets to the receiving device using the one or more network links based on the mapping of the one or more traffic identifiers to the one or more network links, the first packets including the first traffic identifier (Fig. 7 and para [0082]: … sends a DL PPDU for the access category (AC) corresponding to the highest priority TID( see PPDUs on Link 1 in Fig. 7));
assigning a second traffic identifier of the one or more traffic identifiers to second packets of the one or more packets included in a second session of the one or more sessions (Fig. 7 and para [0082]: the r-TWT scheduling AP MLD … sends a DL PPDU for the AC corresponding to the second highest priority TID (interpreted as “second packets”, see PPDUs on Link 2 as shown in Fig. 7), and so on.) (The TID 2 in Fig. 7 is interpreted as “a second traffic identifier”); and
transmitting the second packets to the receiving device using the one or more network links, the second packets including the second traffic identifier (Fig. 7 and para [0082]: the r-TWT scheduling AP MLD … sends a DL PPDU for the AC corresponding to the second highest priority TID (see PPDUs on Link 2 in Fig. 7)).
While Shafin disclose the framework for multi-link mapping, Shafin does not explicitly detail the “obtaining an access category associated with network traffic,”.
Jang teaches a buffering apparatus for packet aggregation that utilizes an “Access Category (AC) bitmap” and a “Traffic Identifier (TID) bitmap” to manage the position and status of buffering data (see paragraphs [0008, 0009, and 0025] of Jang.
Jang, disclose the following feature of:
obtaining an access category associated with network traffic (Fig. 1 and para [0008] of Jang: FIG. 1 illustrates a BD structure for packet aggregation using AC s in compliance with IEEE 802.11e. Referring to FIG. 1, a memory area in which a BD list 100 is separated from a data buffer 102 is provided for each of ACs 104, 106, 108 and 110 according to the IEEE 802.11e standard. The ACs define a new mechanism for a MAC layer to support Quality of Service (QoS) in the WLAN. Since traffic with a higher priority has an advantage over traffic with a lower priority in terms of medium access, a Mobile Station (MS) classifies traffic into four types, for example, the ACs 104 to 110 (AC0 to AC3) to prioritize the traffic (interpreted as “obtaining an access category associated with network traffic”).), the network traffic comprising one or more packets disposed in one or more sessions (para [0009] of Jang: The BD list 100 organized on an AC-by-AC basis contains FDs, including the pointer addresses and control and status information of packets buffered in the data buffer 102(interpreted as “the network traffic comprising one or more packets disposed in one or more sessions”).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of instant application to implement the TID -to-link mapping and transmission method taught by Shafin using the bitmap-based packet management/indexing structure taught by Jang. The motivation for this combination is straightforward: a POSITA seeking to implement the high-throughput multi-link steering framework of Shafin would naturally look to optimize the controller’s ability to search and assign packets to appropriate links. Jang provides a proven, efficient technical solution (bitmap indexing) for managing the assignment of packets based on their AC and TID. Incorporating the bitmap-based descriptor management of Jang into the steering logic of Shafin would provide the predictable benefit of reduced computational search overhead and improved system latency when the controller determines which link to assign to a specific traffic identifier (TID) or session.
Regarding Claim 12, it is a spreading device claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except limitations “spreading device” (Fig. 7 and para [0083] : Fig. 7 illustrates … the AP MLD may be an AP MLD 101 (interpreted as “spreading device”)) and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding Claim 2, Shafin and Jang teach The method of claim 1, Shafin further teaches wherein the first packets are transmitted to the receiving device using a first network link of the one or more network links (Fig. 7 and para [0087]: sends via AP1 the DL PPDU corresponding to AC1 during TWT SP 1 over Link 1.) and the second packets are transmitted to the receiving device using a second network link of the one or more network links (Fig. 7 and para [0087]: the AP MLD sends via AP2 a DL PPDU on Link 2 to STA2.).
Regarding Claim 4, Shafin and Jang teach The method of claim 1, Shafin further teaches wherein the first traffic identifier is mapped to a first network link of the one or more network links and a second traffic identifier of the one or more traffic identifiers is mapped to a second network link of the one or more network links (Fig. 7 and para [0085]: Link 1 is negotiated for (‘mapped on’) TID1 and TID3 … Link 2 is negotiated for TID2 and TID4.).
Regarding Claim 5, Shafin and Jang teach The method of claim 4, Shafin further teaches wherein the first packets are transmitted via the first network link and second packets of the one or more packets are transmitted via the second network link based the first traffic identifier being mapped to the first network link and the second traffic identifier being mapped to the second network link, wherein the second traffic identifier is assigned to the second packets (Fig. 7 and para [0082]: … sends a DL PPDU for the access category (AC) corresponding to the highest priority TID( see PPDUs on Link 1 in Fig. 7, TID 1 or TID 3 over link 1 is interpreted as “a first traffic identifier”))) (Fig. 7 and para [0082]: the r-TWT scheduling AP MLD … sends a DL PPDU for the AC corresponding to the second highest priority TID (see PPDUs on Link 2 in Fig. 7, TID 2 or TID 4 over link 2 is interpreted as “a second traffic identifier”)).
Regarding Claim 7, Shafin and Jang teach The method of claim 1, Shafin further teaches wherein the mapping of the one or more traffic identifiers to the one or more network links is determined using an algorithm (para [0085]: Restricted TWT schedule 1 established over Link 1 is negotiated for TID1 and TID3. On the other hand, Restricted TWT schedule 2 established over Link 2 is negotiated for TID2 and TID4)
The allocation scheme taught by Shafin sequentially distributes these sessions across the available resources (Link 1 and Link 2). By assigning the first session (TID1) to Link 1, the second session (TID2) to Link 2, the third session (TID3) to Link 1, and the fourth session (TID4) to Link 2, Shafin explicitly discloses an alternating, sequential distribution pattern. Thus, the allocation scheme (TID1 and TID3 to Link 1 and TID2 and TID4 to link 2) taught by Shafin is interpreted as “algorithm.”
Regarding Claim 11, Shafin and Jang teach The method of claim 1, Shafin further teaches wherein the assignment of the first traffic identifier to the first packets and the second traffic identifier to the second packets is dynamically enabled in response to one or more changes associated with the network traffic (para [0081]: According to one embodiment, for the scenario in which a trigger-enabled restricted TWT schedule is established on a link (e.g., the first link) between an AP MLD and a non-AP MLD that forms an NSTR link pair with another link (e.g., the second link) between the same AP MLD and the non-AP MLD, and the second link also has another trigger-enabled restricted TWT schedule established such that the restricted TWT SP on the second link overlaps in time with the restricted TWT SP on the first link, then, in order to handle NSTR constraints the r-TWT scheduling AP can dynamically prioritize one TWT SP over the other based on the TIDs negotiated for the respective TWT schedules) (para [0082]: According to this embodiment, for the overlapped trigger-enabled r-TWT SP situation, the r-TWT scheduling AP MLD first triggers a UL PPDU or sends a DL PPDU for the access category (AC) corresponding to the highest priority TID, then triggers a UL PPDU or sends a DL PPDU for the AC corresponding to the second highest priority TID, and so on. The triggering or DL PPDU transmission can happen dynamically across the two TWT SPs on the two NSTR links (i.e., the AP MLD does not have to prioritize one link for the entirety of the TWT SP, but can switch back and forth between links within one TWT SP duration). In the case of triggering a STA (affiliated with a non-AP MLD) for UL PPDU transmission during a restricted TWT SP using a Trigger frame, the corresponding r-TWT scheduling AP (affiliated with the r-TWT scheduling AP MLD) can indicate the desired AC in the Preferred AC subfield of the Trigger-dependent User Info field of the Trigger frame sent to the STA.).
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 2, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 2.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 5, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 5.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 7, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 7.
Regarding Claim 17, Shafin and Jang teach The spreading device of claim 16, Shafin further teaches wherein the algorithm is a session-based round robin algorithm (para [0085]: Restricted TWT schedule 1 established over Link 1 is negotiated for TID1 and TID3. On the other hand, Restricted TWT schedule 2 established over Link 2 is negotiated for TID2 and TID4)
A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would readily understand that a Traffic identifier (TID) corresponds to a specific traffic stream or “session” (see DL PPDUs in Fig. 7 of Shafin). The allocation scheme taught by Shafin sequentially distributes these sessions across the available resources (Link 1 and Link 2). By assigning the first session (TID1) to Link 1, the second session (TID2) to Link 2, the third session (TID3) to Link 1, and the fourth session (TID4) to Link 2, Shafin explicitly discloses an alternating, sequential distribution pattern. Thus, the allocation scheme (TID1 and TID3 to Link 1 and TID2 and TID4 to link 2) taught by Shafin is interpreted as “session-based round robin algorithm.”
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 11, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 11.
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 21, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 4, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 4.
Claim(s) 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafin in view of Jang, and further in view of Jang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220312522, hereinafter “Jang`522”).
Regarding Claim 3, Shafin and Jang teach The method of claim 1, Shafin and Jang fail to explicitly teach wherein the first traffic identifier is assigned to each packet of the first packets included in the first session
Jang’522 discloses in paragraphs [0004] and [0385] that a station transmits “traffic related to the first TID only through the first link” (interpreted as “the first traffic identifier is assigned to each packet of the first packets included in the first session”). (para [0004] of Jang’522: The STA may transmit traffic related to the first TID only through the first link and traffic related to the second TID only through the second link.) (para [0385] of Jang’522: The transmitting STA may transmit traffic based on the TID-link mapping information (S3220). For example, the transmitting STA may transmit traffic related to the first TID only through the first link and may transmit traffic related to the second TID only through the second link.).
It is a fundamental and universally understood principle in packet-switched network protocols (such as IEEE 802.11 standard, see paragraphs [0003, 0050-0056, 0087] of Jang’522) that “traffic” or a “traffic stream” (i.e., a session) is composed of a plurality of individual data units or packets, which are transmitted as PPUDs (Physical Protocol Data Units) as explicitly disclosed in Jang’522 (see para [0067] of Jang’522). Therefore, implementing the multi-link mapping method of Shafin and Jang such that the first traffic identifier is assigned to each individual PPDU within the first session is merely an adoption the standard packet encapsulation procedures required to transit the “traffic related to the first TID” taught by Jang’522. This is predictable implementation and a routing design choice that yields the expected result of utilizing the TID-link mapping information.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafin in view of Jang, and further in view of Lanate et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230284290, hereinafter “Lanate”).
Regarding Claim 6, Shafin and Jang teach The method of claim 1, Shafin and Jang fails to explicitly teach wherein the access category is a best effort access category.
Lanate explicitly teaches the use of the “best effort access category” in wireless network. Lanate teaches wherein the access category is a best effort access category (para [0097] of Lanate: The ACI bitmap subfield indicates the access categories for which buffer status is reported (e.g., B0: best effort (AC_BE), B1: background (AC_BK), B2: video (AC_VI), B3: voice (AC_VO), etc.). …). Furthermore, Lanate discloses in para [0108] that “By default, MSDU transport is on a best-effort basis.”
The selection of the “best effort” access category is one of the standard Quality of Service (QoS) categories. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of instant application to implement the multi-link steering method of Shafin and Jang using the “best effort” access category (AC_BE), as Lanate teaches that this category is the default operational mode for MSDU transport in such system. Applying the best effort access category to the traffic steering method of Shafin and Jang is a matter of routine optimization and is a predictable implementation choice for any POSITA practicing within the scope of the known standards. No unexpected results are achieved by limiting the access category to “best effort,” as it is the most fundamental and commonly utilized category in the relevant art.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 6, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 6.
Claim(s) 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafin, in view of Jang, and further in view Katar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240073739, hereinafter “Katar”).
Regarding Claim 8, Shafin and Jang teach The method of claim 7, Shafin and Jang fail to explicitly teach wherein the algorithm is a session-based weighted load balancing algorithm.
Katar discloses load balancing mechanisms using BTM (basic service set (BSS) transition management) and a traffic identifier (TID)-to-Link mapping (T2LM) negotiation. Specifically, Katar discloses, in paragraphs [0075-0080] of Katar, that TIDs can be mapped to a “link set,” which is a subset of setup links, and that this mapping is dynamically adjusted based on constraints (e.g., coexistence conditions, link availability).
The implementation of “session-based weighted load balancing” is an obvious design choice for a POSITA attempting to enhance the multi-link steering framework of Shafin and Jang. Katar teaches that an AP MLD and a non-AP MLD can negotiate T2LM mapping to distribute traffic flows(represented by TIDs) across specific links based on link constraints (see paragraphs [0080-0082] of Katar). It is well-established in the art that load balancing in multi-link networks involves weighting factors (e.g., link state, congestion, channel constraints) to determine the “best” mapping. When a POSITA determines the optimal mapping of TIDs (sessions) to links as taught by Katar, selecting the specific links based on the traffic requirement (e.g., mapping to a 5 GHz link because the 2.4 GHz link has constraints (see para [0080] of Katar) constitutes the functional essence of weighted load balancing. The claimed “session-based weighted load balancing algorithm” is merely the algorithmic execution of the TID-to-link mapping process taught by Katar. No patentable weight is given to the term “algorithm” when it represents a standard computational method for optimizing link utilization.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafin, in view of Jang, and further in view Viger et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230262803, hereinafter “Viger”).
Regarding Claim 9, Shafin and Jang teach The method of claim 1, Shafin and Jang fails to explicitly teach wherein a first scoreboard is to receive and process the first packets and a second scoreboard is to receive and process the second packets.
Viger discloses, in para [0110] of Viger, teaches that a block acknowledgment (BA) is independently performed per link where a scoreboard is built (blocks 471-x and 471-y) and sent to the originator as a BA frame, upon request (BA Request) or upon receiving a number of data units, over the corresponding link. Viger further explicitly defines this as a “per-link scoreboard” that comprises a BA bitmap tracking the reception of data units (see para [0111] of Viger). Moreover, Viger teaches that the originator device maintains independent Tx scoreboards per link (e.g., maintaining a Tx scoreboard with a staring sequence number (SSN) and dedicated bits to process and clear buffers for a specific link) to process the packets transmitted over those specific links (see paragraphs [0159-0161] of Viger)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of instant application to implement the multi-link steering method of Shafin and Jang using the multi-scoreboard architecture taught by Viger. In a multi-link operation (MLO, see paragraphs [0004-0005] of Viger) environment where traffic is steered across multiple links (as in Shafin), managing the status, transmission, and acknowledgment of packets on each link independently is a known fundamental requirement. Viger provides express motivation to utilize a first scoreboard for packets processed on a first link (e.g., an “ack link”, see para [0159] of Viger) and a second scoreboard for packets processed on a second link (e.g., a “no-ack link”, see para [0159] of Viger) to independently manage buffer states, track acknowledgements, and reduce latency (see paragraphs [0134-0136], [0161-0163] of Viger). Applying the “per-links scoreboard” teaching of Viger to the mapping framework of Shafin and Jang would yield the predictable result of ensuring accurate, link-independent packet processing and buffer management.
Regarding Claim 10, Shafin, Jang, and Viger teach The method of claim 9, Viger further teaches wherein the scoreboard is sized based on a number of the one or more packets disposed in the one or more sessions (para [0102] of Viger: Negotiated policies may include an acknowledgment (ack) scheme, in particular an agreement regarding the terms and capabilities for the BA session (e.g., using an add BA (ADDBA) request and response procedure). The negotiating ML devices may exchange capability information such as BA size (size of scoreboard bitmaps), buffer size, window size (e.g., a sliding window), ...). As reproduced above, Viger explicitly discloses determining the size of the scoreboard based on the parameters of the communication session.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to size the scoreboard taught by Viger based on the number of packets in the session, as suggested by both Shafin and Jang. When implementing a bitmap-based scoreboard to track packet status in a multi-link environment, sizing the data structure (scoreboard) to correlate with the number of packets (or the negotiated sliding window size of the session) is a fundamental programming and network engineering practice.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 9, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 9.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 10, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON JUN CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1695. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 08:00 - 17:00.
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, Derrick W Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/WON JUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights