Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 10/21/2024
Claims 1-9,12-14,16-18,24,28,38,41 and 43 are pending in this action. Claims 1, 13, 24, 38, 41, and 44 are independent claims.
This application claims the benefit of priority from People’s Republic of China Patent Application CN202210485347.4 filed on 05/06/2022
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the 10/21/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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 5 recites the limitation " the third network apparatus ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " a second network apparatus ". Claim 7 depends on claim 6 which depends on claim 1. Parent claim 6 recites “the second network apparatus”, as such it is unclear whether “a second network apparatus” recited in claim 7 refers to “the second network apparatus” recited in parent claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, 17-18, 24, 28, 38, 41 and 43 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As for claims 1, 41, and 43,
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 1, yes, it is a process.
For claims 41, and 43, yes, they are machines
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “acquiring characterization information of a second network apparatus, wherein the characterization information comprises parameter information capable of characterizing the second network apparatus” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, collecting information). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “a first network apparatus, processor, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing computer-executable instructions” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “a first network apparatus, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable by the processor, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing computer-executable instructions” is an additional element that is well‐understood, routine, and conventional as expressly stated by Applicant (“As well known to those of ordinary skill in the art, the term computer-readable storage medium” paragraph [0273]; “network communication, such as mobile phones, tablet computers, computers, notebook computers, wearable devices, other terminal devices such as intelligent agents; or can also be applied to base stations, core networks, edge nodes, etc., which is not limited in the embodiments of the present disclosure.”, [0035]). See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
As for claim 2,
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 2, yes, it is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “sending characterization information request… receiving… response” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, collecting information). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “the second network apparatus” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “the characterization information request response comprises the characterization information” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “the second network apparatus” is an additional element that is well‐understood, routine, and conventional as expressly stated by Applicant (“As well known to those of ordinary skill in the art, the term computer-readable storage medium” paragraph [0273]; “network communication, such as mobile phones, tablet computers, computers, notebook computers, wearable devices, other terminal devices such as intelligent agents; or can also be applied to base stations, core networks, edge nodes, etc., which is not limited in the embodiments of the present disclosure.”, [0035]). See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
No, the limitation “the characterization information request response comprises the characterization information” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
As for claim 3,
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 3, yes, it is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “sending characterization information request… receiving… request response” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, collecting information). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “third network apparatus… the second network apparatus.” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “a characterization information” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “third network apparatus…the second network apparatus” are additional elements that is well‐understood, routine, and conventional as expressly stated by Applicant (“As well known to those of ordinary skill in the art, the term computer-readable storage medium” paragraph [0273]; “network communication, such as mobile phones, tablet computers, computers, notebook computers, wearable devices, other terminal devices such as intelligent agents; or can also be applied to base stations, core networks, edge nodes, etc., which is not limited in the embodiments of the present disclosure.”, Zhao [0035]). See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
No, the limitation “a characterization information” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
As for claim 5,
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 5, yes, it is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “acquiring characterization information… obtaining characterization update information” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, collecting information). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “information proactively sent by the second network apparatus, wherein the characterization information of the second network apparatus is from the second network apparatus or the third network apparatus; update information of the second network apparatus, wherein the characterization update information of the second network apparatus is from the second network apparatus or the third network apparatus” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “information proactively sent by the second network apparatus, wherein the characterization information of the second network apparatus is from the second network apparatus or the third network apparatus; and the second network apparatus, wherein the characterization update information of the second network apparatus is from the second network apparatus or the third network apparatus” is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As for claim 6,
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 6, yes, it is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “evaluating a capability of the second network apparatus according to the characterization information, to obtain a capability evaluation result” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, collecting information). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As for claim 7,
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 7, yes, it is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “sending the capability evaluation result of the second network apparatus” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, collecting information). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “to at least one of: a second network apparatus; a third network apparatus; or a fourth network apparatus.” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “to at least one of: a second network apparatus; a third network apparatus; or a fourth network apparatus.” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)) is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As for claim 8,
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 8, yes, it is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “determining, according to the characterization information, a service policy corresponding to a second network apparatus.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, collecting information). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As for claim 9,
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 9, yes, it is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the service policy corresponding to the second network apparatus comprises at least one of: configuring a service type corresponding to the second network apparatus; activating a service corresponding to the second network apparatus; deactivating the service corresponding to the second network apparatus; configuring quality of service (QoS) corresponding to the second network apparatus; configuring a service capability corresponding to the second network apparatus; performing resource allocation to the second network apparatus; configuring a carrier resource specific to the second network apparatus; processing a software function corresponding to the second network apparatus; processing a hardware function corresponding to the second network apparatus; performing risk avoidance processing on the second network apparatus; or configuring a computing power sharing and scheduling policy of the second network apparatus.” is a continuation of the “determining, according to the characterization information, a service policy corresponding to a second network apparatus” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As for claim 12,
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 12, yes, it is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the characterization information comprises at least one of” is a continuation of the “acquiring characterization information of a second network apparatus, wherein the characterization information comprises parameter information capable of characterizing the second network apparatus” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the software information comprises at least one of: a software version number, a software version name, a software version identifier, version information of an operating system of a terminal device, or version information of an application of the terminal device; the hardware information comprises at least one of: a chip model, chip manufacturer information, chip capability information, single board information, radio frequency (RF) component information, baseband component information, device components information, communication chip information, brand information, modem information, or communication module information; and the service information comprises at least one of: user information, service information, device information, traffic information, or service level information” is a continuation of the “acquiring characterization information of a second network apparatus, wherein the characterization information comprises parameter information capable of characterizing the second network apparatus” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the software information comprises at least one of: a software version number, a software version name, a software version identifier, version information of an operating system of a terminal device, or version information of an application of the terminal device; the hardware information comprises at least one of: a chip model, chip manufacturer information, chip capability information, single board information, radio frequency (RF) component information, baseband component information, device components information, communication chip information, brand information, modem information, or communication module information; and the service information comprises at least one of: user information, service information, device information, traffic information, or service level information” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
As for claim 13
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 13, yes, it is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “sending characterization information, wherein the characterization information comprises parameter information capable of characterizing the second network apparatus” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “a second network apparatus, first network apparatus” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “a second network apparatus, first network apparatus” is an additional element that is well‐understood, routine, and conventional as expressly stated by Applicant (“As well known to those of ordinary skill in the art, the term computer-readable storage medium” paragraph [0273]; “network communication, such as mobile phones, tablet computers, computers, notebook computers, wearable devices, other terminal devices such as intelligent agents; or can also be applied to base stations, core networks, edge nodes, etc., which is not limited in the embodiments of the present disclosure.”, [0035]). See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
As for claim 14,
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 14, yes, it is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein sending the characterization information to the first network apparatus comprises one of: receiving a characterization information request sent by the first network apparatus, and sending the characterization information to the first network apparatus according to the characterization information request; receiving the characterization information request sent by a third network apparatus, and sending the characterization information to the third network apparatus, wherein the characterization information is forwarded to the first network apparatus by the third network apparatus; proactively sending the characterization information to the first network apparatus; proactively sending the characterization information to the third network apparatus, wherein the characterization information is forwarded to the first network apparatus by the third network apparatus; sending the characterization information to the first network apparatus in case of an initial network access of the second network apparatus; or sending the characterization information to the first network apparatus in case of an update of the characterization information of the second network apparatus.” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein sending the characterization information to the first network apparatus comprises one of: receiving a characterization information request sent by the first network apparatus, and sending the characterization information to the first network apparatus according to the characterization information request; receiving the characterization information request sent by a third network apparatus, and sending the characterization information to the third network apparatus, wherein the characterization information is forwarded to the first network apparatus by the third network apparatus; proactively sending the characterization information to the first network apparatus; proactively sending the characterization information to the third network apparatus, wherein the characterization information is forwarded to the first network apparatus by the third network apparatus; sending the characterization information to the first network apparatus in case of an initial network access of the second network apparatus; or sending the characterization information to the first network apparatus in case of an update of the characterization information of the second network apparatus.” is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As for claim 17,
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 17, yes, it is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “receiving characterization feedback information” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, collecting information). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “sent by the first network apparatus” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “sent by the first network apparatus” is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As for claim 18,
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 18, yes, it is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “receiving a capability evaluation result of the second network apparatus sent by the first network apparatus, wherein the capability evaluation result of the second network apparatus is obtained through processing by the first network apparatus, or is obtained through processing by the third network apparatus and then forwarded to the first network apparatus; or receiving a service policy of the second network apparatus sent by the first network apparatus, wherein the service policy of the second network apparatus is obtained through processing by the first network apparatus, or is obtained through processing by the third network apparatus and then forwarded to the first network apparatus.” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “receiving a capability evaluation result of the second network apparatus sent by the first network apparatus, wherein the capability evaluation result of the second network apparatus is obtained through processing by the first network apparatus, or is obtained through processing by the third network apparatus and then forwarded to the first network apparatus; or receiving a service policy of the second network apparatus sent by the first network apparatus, wherein the service policy of the second network apparatus is obtained through processing by the first network apparatus, or is obtained through processing by the third network apparatus and then forwarded to the first network apparatus.” is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As for claim 24
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 24, yes, it is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “receiving characterization information of a second network apparatus, sending the characterization information of the second network apparatus, wherein the characterization information comprises parameter information capable of characterizing the second network apparatus” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “applied to a third network apparatus, sent by the second network apparatus, to a first network apparatus” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “applied to a third network apparatus, sent by the second network apparatus, to a first network apparatus” is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As for claim 28
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 28, yes, it is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “performing a further evaluation, by the third network apparatus, on the capability evaluation result of the second network apparatus to obtain an updated capability evaluation result of the second network apparatus, performing a further evaluation, by the third network apparatus, on the service policy of the second network apparatus to obtain an updated service policy of the second network apparatus” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “receiving a capability evaluation result of the second network apparatus sent by the first network apparatus, receiving a service policy of the second network apparatus sent by the first network apparatus, wherein the service policy is obtained according to the characterization information of the second network apparatus” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “receiving a capability evaluation result of the second network apparatus sent by the first network apparatus, receiving a service policy of the second network apparatus sent by the first network apparatus, wherein the service policy is obtained according to the characterization information of the second network apparatus” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
As for claim 38,
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 38, yes, it is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “manage characterization information and a service policy… wherein the characterization information is obtained by means of the method for acquiring the characterization information as claimed in claim 1” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, collecting information). See analysis of claim 1
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “A unit for managing characterization information management, configured to manage characterization information and a service policy” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “A unit for managing characterization information management, configured to manage characterization information and a service policy,” is an additional element that is well‐understood, routine, and conventional as expressly stated by Applicant (“As well known to those of ordinary skill in the art, the term computer-readable storage medium” paragraph [0273]; “network communication, such as mobile phones, tablet computers, computers, notebook computers, wearable devices, other terminal devices such as intelligent agents; or can also be applied to base stations, core networks, edge nodes, etc., which is not limited in the embodiments of the present disclosure.”, [0035]). See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 12-14, 16, 24, 28, 41 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jacquin et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170230245, published on 2017-08-10 (hereinafter Jacquin).
As for independent claim 1, Jacquin discloses a system and method comprising acquiring characterization information of a second network apparatus, wherein the characterization information comprises parameter information capable of characterizing the second network apparatus.
(Jacquin paragraphs [0026] and [0028] disclose a client device receiving configuration information (which is characterization information) from a computing device, “The computing device 110 provides the client device 150 with data 162 verifying that the back-end network meets the back-end configuration requirements (142). Using the example configuration requirement regarding Software A, the computing device 110 may send the client device 150 data indicating that each of the back-end network elements 170 has at least version 2.0 of Software A”, [0026]; “the client device 150 may also request and receive attestation from the computing device 110 to attest to the computing device 110 itself. Attestation of the computing device 110 to the client device 150 may be direct”, [0028])
As for claim 2, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Jacquin discloses a system and method comprising sending a characterization information request to the second network apparatus and receiving a characterization information request response sent by the second network apparatus, wherein the characterization information request response comprises the characterization information.
(Jacquin paragraph [0028] disclose the client device sending information request to the computing device and receiving the requested data, “the computing device 110 receives, from client device 150, a request 152 for attestation of a back-end network (132). The request includes back-end configuration requirements”, [0021]; “the client device 150 may also request and receive attestation from the computing device”, [0028])
As for claim 3, the limitations of the parent claim have been discussed. Jacquin discloses a system and method comprising sending a characterization information request to a third network apparatus receiving a characterization information request response sent by the third network apparatus wherein the characterization information request response comprises one of: the characterization information of the second network apparatus sent by the second network apparatus to the third network apparatus; or the characterization information obtained by the third network apparatus by processing the characterization information sent by the second network apparatus.
(Jacquin paragraphs [0031], [0033], [0034], [0036] and figure 2 disclose a client device sending information request to a trust engine (a third network apparatus) and the trust engine obtaining information about back end network elements (second network apparatus) and the client device receiving the response from the front end server, “The client device 210 sends an attestation request 212 to the trust engine 230. … The trust engine 230 provides each network element included in the back-end network 250 with a request 214 for attestation of a network element configuration of the network element. For example, network elements A 251, B 252, C 253, D 254, and E 255 are each provided with an attestation request 214 that may include a request for a network configuration, e.g., the port forwarding rules, of the respective network element… After receiving response data 216, the trust engine 230 verifies that the response data 216 meets the back-end network configuration requirements included in the request for attestation of the back-end network 250.…. The trust engine 230 provides the client device 210 with data 218 verifying that the back-end network 250 meets the back-end network configuration requirements. For example, the verification data 218 specifies that the client's network traffic is isolated from Company ABC, e.g., a competitor for which attestation of isolation was requested.”)
As for claim 4, the limitations of the parent claim 3 have been discussed. Jacquin discloses a system and method wherein the characterization information obtained by the third network apparatus by processing the characterization information sent by the second network apparatus comprises at least one of: the characterization information obtained by the third network apparatus by performing security processing on the characterization information sent by the second network apparatus; the characterization information obtained by the third network apparatus by performing compression processing on the characterization information sent by the second network apparatus; or the characterization information obtained by the third network apparatus by performing filling processing on the characterization information sent by the second network apparatus.
(Jacquin paragraph [0030] discloses the trust engine doing security processing by verifying software security, “In some implementations, the trust engine 230 verifies software requirements, such as software version numbers, software compatibility, and software security.”)
As for claim 5, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Jacquin discloses a system and method wherein acquiring the characterization information of the second network apparatus comprises at least one of: acquiring the characterization information proactively sent by the second network apparatus, wherein the characterization information of the second network apparatus is from the second network apparatus or the third network apparatus; and obtaining characterization update information of the second network apparatus, wherein the characterization update information of the second network apparatus is from the second network apparatus or the third network apparatus.
(Jacquin paragraph [0043] discloses the trust engine providing the client device with updated verification data, “When changes are detected, the trust engine 230 may verify the changed portion, or re-verify the entire back-end network 250, and provide the client device 210 with updated verification data. In some implementations, the SDN controller 240 may be configured to notify the trust engine 230 when making changes to the back-end network 250, or to other network elements 260 of the cloud network 220.”)
As for claim 6, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Jacquin discloses a system and method comprising evaluating a capability of the second network apparatus according to the characterization information, to obtain a capability evaluation result.
(Jacquin paragraphs [0035] and [0036] disclose the trust engine evaluating the capability of the second network apparatus (back end networks) based on the verification data (software version number) and obtaining an evaluation result (verifying it meeting the configuration requirement), “In some implementations, the trust engine 230 verifies software requirements, such as software version numbers, software compatibility, and software security…. The trust engine 230 provides the client device 210 with data 218 verifying that the back-end network 250 meets the back-end network configuration requirements.”)
As for claim 12, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Jacquin discloses a system and method wherein the characterization information comprises at least one of: software information; hardware information; or service information, wherein the software information comprises at least one of: a software version number, a software version name, a software version identifier, version information of an operating system of a terminal device, or version information of an application of the terminal device; the hardware information comprises at least one of: a chip model, chip manufacturer information, chip capability information, single board information, radio frequency (RF) component information, baseband component information, device components information, communication chip information, brand information, modem information, or communication module information; and the service information comprises at least one of: user information, service information, device information, traffic information, or service level information.
(Jacquin paragraph [0030] discloses the characterization information comprising software version number, which given the format of the claim is sufficient to anticipate the entirety of the claim, “In some implementations, the trust engine 230 verifies software requirements, such as software version numbers, software compatibility, and software security.”)
As for claim independent claim 13, Jacquin discloses a system and method for sending characterization information, applied to a second network apparatus comprising sending characterization information to a first network apparatus, wherein the characterization information comprises parameter information capable of characterizing the second network apparatus.
(Jacquin paragraph [0035] discloses a trust engine (first network apparatus) receiving response data (characterization information) from back-end network (second network apparatus), “The trust engine 230 receives, from each network element included in the back-end network 250, response data 216 that specifies the network element configuration of the network element. The network element configuration includes data specifying links between the corresponding network element and other network elements. The response data 216 may include, for example, the port forwarding rules of each respective network element and/or software measurements specifying information about the software of each respective network element.”)
As for claim 14, the limitations of the parent claim 13 have been discussed. Jacquin discloses a system and method where in sending the characterization information to the first network apparatus comprising one of: receiving a characterization information request sent by the first network apparatus, and sending the characterization information to the first network apparatus according to the characterization information request; receiving the characterization information request sent by a third network apparatus, and sending the characterization information to the third network apparatus, wherein the characterization information is forwarded to the first network apparatus by the third network apparatus; proactively sending the characterization information to the first network apparatus; proactively sending the characterization information to the third network apparatus, wherein the characterization information is forwarded to the first network apparatus by the third network apparatus; sending the characterization information to the first network apparatus in case of an initial network access of the second network apparatus; or sending the characterization information to the first network apparatus in case of an update of the characterization information of the second network apparatus.
(Jacquin paragraphs [0034] and [0035] disclose a trust engine (a first network apparatus) sending an information request and the back-end network (second network apparatus) sending the information in response, which given the wording of the claim, is sufficient to anticipate the entirety of the claim, “The trust engine 230 provides each network element included in the back-end network 250 with a request 214 for attestation of a network element configuration of the network element… After receiving response data 216, the trust engine 230 verifies that the response data 216 meets the back-end network configuration requirements included in the request for attestation of the back-end network 250.”)
As for claim 16, the limitations of the parent claim 13 have been discussed. Jacquin discloses a system and method wherein the characterization information comprises secure characterization information obtained by performing security processing on the characterization information.
(Jacquin paragraph [0030] discloses the trust engine doing security processing by verifying software security, “In some implementations, the trust engine 230 verifies software requirements, such as software version numbers, software compatibility, and software security.”)
As for independent claim 24, Jacquin discloses a system and method for acquiring characterization information, applied to a third network apparatus comprising receiving characterization information of a second network apparatus sent by the second network apparatus; and sending the characterization information of the second network apparatus to a first network apparatus, wherein the characterization information comprises parameter information capable of characterizing the second network apparatus.
(Jacquin paragraphs [0031], [0033], [0034], [0036] and figure 2 disclose a client device sending information request to a trust engine (a third network apparatus) and the trust engine obtaining information about back end network elements (second network apparatus) and the client device receiving the response from the front end server, “The client device 210 sends an attestation request 212 to the trust engine 230. … The trust engine 230 provides each network element included in the back-end network 250 with a request 214 for attestation of a network element configuration of the network element. For example, network elements A 251, B 252, C 253, D 254, and E 255 are each provided with an attestation request 214 that may include a request for a network configuration, e.g., the port forwarding rules, of the respective network element… After receiving response data 216, the trust engine 230 verifies that the response data 216 meets the back-end network configuration requirements included in the request for attestation of the back-end network 250.…. The trust engine 230 provides the client device 210 with data 218 verifying that the back-end network 250 meets the back-end network configuration requirements. For example, the verification data 218 specifies that the client's network traffic is isolated from Company ABC, e.g., a competitor for which attestation of isolation was requested.”)
As for claim 28, the limitations of the parent claim 24 have been discussed. Jacquin discloses a system and method comprising at least one of: receiving a capability evaluation result of the second network apparatus sent by the first network apparatus; performing a further evaluation, by the third network apparatus, on the capability evaluation result of the second network apparatus to obtain an updated capability evaluation result of the second network apparatus; receiving a service policy of the second network apparatus sent by the first network apparatus, wherein the service policy is obtained according to the characterization information of the second network apparatus; or performing a further evaluation, by the third network apparatus, on the service policy of the second network apparatus to obtain an updated service policy of the second network apparatus.
(Jacquin paragraphs [0035] and [0043] disclose the trust engine performing a further evaluation (re-verify) to provide update evaluation capability (verification data), “In some implementations, the trust engine 230 verifies software requirements, such as software version numbers, software compatibility, and software security … When changes are detected, the trust engine 230 may verify the changed portion, or re-verify the entire back-end network 250, and provide the client device 210 with updated verification data. In some implementations, the SDN controller 240 may be configured to notify the trust engine 230 when making changes to the back-end network 250, or to other network elements 260 of the cloud network 220.”)
As for independent claim 41, claim 41 is directed to a system for implementing the method of claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for independent claim 43, claim 43 is directed to a system for implementing the method of claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
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.
Claims 7, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacquin in view of Jacquin.
As for claim 7, the limitations of the parent claim 6 have been discussed. In another embodiment Jacquin discloses a system and method sending the capability evaluation result of the second network apparatus to at least one of: a second network apparatus; a third network apparatus; or a fourth network apparatus.
(Jacquin paragraph [0036] disclose the trust engine (the first network apparatus in this embodiment) sending the verification of the back end network (the second network apparatus in this embodiment) to the client device (a third network apparatus in this embodiment), “The trust engine 230 provides the client device 210 with data 218 verifying that the back-end network 250 meets the back-end network configuration requirements.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine network manager method of Jacquin in another embodiment changing which network apparatus does a certain method step to the network manager method of Jacquin in order to make the system more efficient and the rearranged mode of operation would be obvious to try.
As for claim 17, the limitations of the parent claim 13 have been discussed. In another embodiment Jacquin discloses a system and method comprising receiving characterization feedback information sent by the first network apparatus.
(Jacquin paragraph [0036] discloses the trust engine (the first network apparatus in this embodiment) sending verification data to the client device (the second network apparatus in this embodiment), which according to [0217] of the application specification is equivalent to feedback information since it evaluates the capabilities of the back end network, “The trust engine 230 provides the client device 210 with data 218 verifying that the back-end network 250 meets the back-end network configuration requirements.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine network manager method of Jacquin in another embodiment changing which network apparatus does a certain method step to the network manager method of Jacquin in order to make the system more efficient and the rearranged mode of operation would be obvious to try.
As for claim 18, the limitations of the parent claim 17 have been discussed. Jacquin discloses a system and method wherein receiving the characterization feedback information sent by the first network apparatus comprises at least one of: receiving a capability evaluation result of the second network apparatus sent by the first network apparatus, wherein the capability evaluation result of the second network apparatus is obtained through processing by the first network apparatus, or is obtained through processing by the third network apparatus and then forwarded to the first network apparatus; or receiving a service policy of the second network apparatus sent by the first network apparatus, wherein the service policy of the second network apparatus is obtained through processing by the first network apparatus, or is obtained through processing by the third network apparatus and then forwarded to the first network apparatus.
(Jacquin paragraph [0036] discloses the trust engine (first network apparatus in this embodiment) sending verification data to the client device (the second apparatus in this embodiment), which the trust engine evaluates the capabilities of the back end network (hence the result is processed by the first network apparatus), which given the wording of the claim is sufficient to anticipate the entirety of the claim, “The trust engine 230 provides the client device 210 with data 218 verifying that the back-end network 250 meets the back-end network configuration requirements.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine network manager method of Jacquin in another embodiment changing which network apparatus does a certain method step to the network manager method of Jacquin in order to make the system more efficient and the rearranged mode of operation would be obvious to try.
Claims 8-9, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacquin in view of Hu et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130254370, published on 2013-09-26 (hereinafter Hu).
As for claim 8, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Hu discloses a system and method comprising determining, according to the characterization information, a service policy corresponding to a second network apparatus.
(Hu paragraph [0026] discloses a server (network apparatus) formulating a charging policy (charging is a service so it is equivalent to service policy) based on the type of the terminal (characterization information of the device), “The policy server formulates a charging policy and/or a QoS (Quality of Service, quality of service) policy according to the type of the terminal.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine network manager method of Hu adding policy formulation step to the network manager method of Jacquin in order to make the system more efficient when responding to different types of devices.
As for claim 9, the limitations of the parent claim 8 have been discussed. Hu discloses a system and method comprising at least one of: configuring a service type corresponding to the second network apparatus; activating a service corresponding to the second network apparatus; deactivating the service corresponding to the second network apparatus; configuring quality of service (QoS) corresponding to the second network apparatus; configuring a service capability corresponding to the second network apparatus; performing resource allocation to the second network apparatus; configuring a carrier resource specific to the second network apparatus; processing a software function corresponding to the second network apparatus; processing a hardware function corresponding to the second network apparatus; performing risk avoidance processing on the second network apparatus; or configuring a computing power sharing and scheduling policy of the second network apparatus.
(Hu paragraph [0026] discloses a server (network apparatus) formulating a QoS based on the type of the terminal (characterization information of the device), which given the wording of the claim is sufficient to anticipate the entirety of the claim, “The policy server formulates a charging policy and/or a QoS (Quality of Service, quality of service) policy according to the type of the terminal.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine network manager method of Hu adding policy formulation step to the network manager method of Jacquin in order to make the system more efficient when responding to different types of devices.
As for independent claim 38, Jacquin discloses a system wherein the characterization information is obtained by means of the method for acquiring the characterization information as claimed in claim 1
(See rejection of claim 1)
Jacquin does not appear to disclose a unit for managing characterization information management, configured to manage characterization information and a service policy.
However, Hu discloses a unit for managing characterization information management, configured to manage characterization information and a service policy.
(Hu paragraph [0009] discloses a unit to manage information related to type of terminal (as such it is characterization data) and formulate (or manage) service policy, “Correspondingly, an embodiment of the present invention provides a policy server, including a receiving unit, configured to receive User-Agent user agent information sent by a gateway, where the User-Agent information carries type information of a terminal or type information of a browser used by a terminal, a determining unit, configured to determine a type of the terminal according to the User-Agent information, and a formulating unit, configured to formulate a charging policy and/or a QoS quality of service policy according to the type of the terminal.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine network manager method of Hu adding policy formulation unit to the network manager method of Jacquin in order to make the system more efficient when responding to different types of devices.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Luft et al U. S. Patent Publication No. 9326173 discloses sending and receiving device characterization information over a network in Col 5, lines 22-46
Jee et al U.S. Patent Publication No. 7535872 discloses sending and receiving device registration and characterization over a network in Col 4, lines 31-56
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-9833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/JOHN CALEB LAWRENCE/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights