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 .
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 4-6, 10-11, 34-36, 40-41, and 62-65 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 34 recite the limitation "EDT and Tprop” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear whether claims 4 and 34 should be dependent on claims 2 and 32, respectively.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 31, 33, and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2008112779A2 by Plamondon in view of US20180131614A1 by Song.
Regarding claim 1, Plamondon teaches a device (appliance 200) for coordinating (schedules) data communications across a plurality of wide area network connections (appliance 200 is designed, configured or adapted to optimize Wide Area Network (WAN) network traffic . . . optimize the WAN related network traffic; QoS engine 236 prioritizes, schedules and transmits network packets according to one or more classes or levels of services; WAN links (e.g., 802.11, Tl, T3, 56kb, X.25), broadband connections),
the device comprising: a processor coupled with computer memory (the processor 101 communicates with main memory 122) and non-transitory computer readable storage media (storage device 128),
the processor configured to: monitor, for each wide area network connection of the plurality of wide area network connections (WAN connection), at least one of latency, packet loss, and throughput properties (a type or speed of the network traffic) for packets transmitted on the wide area network connection (LAN/WAN detector 238 monitors network traffic on the network ports 267 of the appliance 200 . . . identifies a type or speed of the network traffic [Fig. 5B shows clients are part of a WAN network]; configured or adapted to optimize Wide Area Network (WAN) network traffic; clients 102 may be located at a branch office of a corporate enterprise communicating via a WAN connection over the network);
Group (sort), using the per-packet ATL (connection latency) and the plurality of wide area network connection properties (additional factors e.g. bandwidth) to establish a plurality of tiered (priority) groupings (transmission queues) such that each wide area network connection of the plurality of wide area network connections is grouped into a corresponding tiered grouping of the plurality of tiered groupings ([Fig. 5B Flow Controller 220 and QoS Engine 236 place packets into transmission queues. Packets from 515a and 5515b are in a high priority queue and packets from 5515n are in a low priority queue]; system for prioritizing, based on transaction size, packets awaiting transmission from an intermediary device is shown . . . receives packet streams from a number of clients 102 via a number of connections 515 . . . flow controller 220 and QoS engine 236 sort the received packets into a number of transmission queues of high or low priority where they await transmission out via network 104. The appliance may prioritize packets corresponding to smaller transaction sizes higher than packets corresponding to larger transaction sizes.; may prioritize based on transaction sizes in queuing decisions, giving precedence to smaller transactions which may represent . . . latency-sensitive traffic; determine the number of additional retransmissions in response to one or more factors in addition to the loss rate. These additional factors may include, without limitation connection bandwidth, connection latency, a transaction size associated with the connection, a protocol associated with the connection, and/or a priority or QoS associated with the connection);
and communicate (transmit) the packet using one or more selected (assign) wide area network connections selected from the plurality of wide area network connections, selected at least using the plurality of tiered groupings (transmit the first and second packet in any manner, wherein the transmission order is determined according to an assigned transmission priority . . . place the first and second packet into prioritized transmission queues as depicted in FIG. 5B . . . packets sent via connections 515a and 515b are placed in a high priority queue as they correspond to smaller transaction sizes. The packets corresponding to connection 515n are placed in a low priority queue as they correspond to a single, longer transaction; assign . . . a transmission priority [Fig. 5B shows the packets in the transmission queues are transmitted to a network 104]).
Plamondon does not explicitly teach Identify an adjusted target latency (ATL) based at least on a per-packet deadline for communication of the packet to a target endpoint.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Song teaches identifying an adjusted target latency (ATL) based at least on a per-packet deadline for communication of the packet to a target endpoint. Song teaches Identify (labeling), for each packet having a latency/jitter preference in a plurality of packets being routed (causing routers in the path from the source to the destination to schedule packets), an adjusted target latency (ATL) (target latencies) based at least on a per-packet deadline (transmission deadlines) for communication of the packet to a target endpoint ([0041] the distributed algorithm may provide network-wide earliest-deadline-first (EDF) scheduling, lowest latency budget first scheduling, and/or target latency scheduling by labeling packets with their transmission deadlines, latency budgets, and/or target latencies and causing routers in the path from the source to the destination to schedule packets using the labels.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transmission queues of Plamondon per the labeling of packets with their transmission deadlines of Song to allow the modified invention to improve user the satisfaction of streaming services.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the wide area network connections belonging to each tiered grouping of the plurality of tiered groupings is considered functionally equivalent (functionally similar) for selection (assignment) of the one or more selected wide area network connection (In the drawings, like reference numbers generally indicate identical, functionally similar, and/or structurally similar elements. [Elements 515a, 515b, and 515n are functionally similar]; transmission order is determined according to an assigned transmission priority).
Regarding claim 31, Plamondon teaches a method (methods) for coordinating (schedules) data communications across a plurality of wide area network connections (appliance 200 is designed, configured or adapted to optimize Wide Area Network (WAN) network traffic . . . optimize the WAN related network traffic; QoS engine 236 prioritizes, schedules and transmits network packets according to one or more classes or levels of services; WAN links (e.g., 802.11, Tl, T3, 56kb, X.25), broadband connections),
the method comprising: monitoring, for each wide area network connection of the plurality of wide area network connections (WAN connection), latency and packet loss properties (a type or speed of the network traffic) for packets transmitted on the wide area network connection (LAN/WAN detector 238 monitors network traffic on the network ports 267 of the appliance 200 . . . identifies a type or speed of the network traffic [Fig. 5B shows clients are part of a WAN network]; configured or adapted to optimize Wide Area Network (WAN) network traffic; clients 102 may be located at a branch office of a corporate enterprise communicating via a WAN connection over the network);
grouping (sort), using the per-packet ATL (connection latency) and the plurality of wide area network connection properties (additional factors e.g. bandwidth) to establish a plurality of tiered (priority) groupings (transmission queues) such that each wide area network connection of the plurality of wide area network connections is grouped into a corresponding tiered grouping of the plurality of tiered groupings ([Fig. 5B Flow Controller 220 and QoS Engine 236 place packets into transmission queues. Packets from 515a and 5515b are in a high priority queue and packets from 5515n are in a low priority queue]; system for prioritizing, based on transaction size, packets awaiting transmission from an intermediary device is shown . . . receives packet streams from a number of clients 102 via a number of connections 515 . . . flow controller 220 and QoS engine 236 sort the received packets into a number of transmission queues of high or low priority where they await transmission out via network 104. The appliance may prioritize packets corresponding to smaller transaction sizes higher than packets corresponding to larger transaction sizes.; may prioritize based on transaction sizes in queuing decisions, giving precedence to smaller transactions which may represent . . . latency-sensitive traffic; determine the number of additional retransmissions in response to one or more factors in addition to the loss rate. These additional factors may include, without limitation connection bandwidth, connection latency, a transaction size associated with the connection, a protocol associated with the connection, and/or a priority or QoS associated with the connection);
and communicating the packet using one or more selected wide area network connections selected from the plurality of wide area network connections, selected at least using the plurality of tiered groupings (transmit the first and second packet in any manner, wherein the transmission order is determined according to an assigned transmission priority . . . place the first and second packet into prioritized transmission queues as depicted in FIG. 5B . . . packets sent via connections 515a and 515b are placed in a high priority queue as they correspond to smaller transaction sizes. The packets corresponding to connection 515n are placed in a low priority queue as they correspond to a single, longer transaction [Fig. 5B shows the packets in the transmission queues are transmitted to a network 104]).
Plamondon does not explicitly teach Identify an adjusted target latency (ATL) based at least on a per-packet deadline for communication of the packet to a target endpoint.
However, Song teaches identifying (labeling), for each packet having a latency/jitter preference in a plurality of packets being routed (causing routers in the path from the source to the destination to schedule packets), an adjusted target latency (ATL) (target latencies) based at least on a per-packet deadline (transmission deadlines) for communication of the packet to a target endpoint ([0041] the distributed algorithm may provide network-wide earliest-deadline-first (EDF) scheduling, lowest latency budget first scheduling, and/or target latency scheduling by labeling packets with their transmission deadlines, latency budgets, and/or target latencies and causing routers in the path from the source to the destination to schedule packets using the labels.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transmission queues of Plamondon per the labeling of packets with their transmission deadlines of Song to allow the modified invention to improve user the satisfaction of streaming services.
Regarding claim 61, Plamondon teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing machine interpretable instruction sets, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method comprising (central processing unit 101 is any logic circuitry that responds to and processes instructions fetched from the main memory unit 122):
monitoring, for each wide area network connection of the plurality of wide area network connections (WAN connection), latency and packet loss properties (a type or speed of the network traffic) for packets transmitted on the wide area network connection (LAN/WAN detector 238 monitors network traffic on the network ports 267 of the appliance 200 . . . identifies a type or speed of the network traffic [Fig. 5B shows clients are part of a WAN network]; configured or adapted to optimize Wide Area Network (WAN) network traffic; clients 102 may be located at a branch office of a corporate enterprise communicating via a WAN connection over the network);
grouping (sort), using the per-packet ATL (connection latency) and the plurality of wide area network connection properties (additional factors e.g. bandwidth) to establish a plurality of tiered (priority) groupings (transmission queues) such that each wide area network connection of the plurality of wide area network connections is grouped into a corresponding tiered grouping of the plurality of tiered groupings ([Fig. 5B Flow Controller 220 and QoS Engine 236 place packets into transmission queues. Packets from 515a and 5515b are in a high priority queue and packets from 5515n are in a low priority queue]; system for prioritizing, based on transaction size, packets awaiting transmission from an intermediary device is shown . . . receives packet streams from a number of clients 102 via a number of connections 515 . . . flow controller 220 and QoS engine 236 sort the received packets into a number of transmission queues of high or low priority where they await transmission out via network 104. The appliance may prioritize packets corresponding to smaller transaction sizes higher than packets corresponding to larger transaction sizes.; may prioritize based on transaction sizes in queuing decisions, giving precedence to smaller transactions which may represent . . . latency-sensitive traffic; determine the number of additional retransmissions in response to one or more factors in addition to the loss rate. These additional factors may include, without limitation connection bandwidth, connection latency, a transaction size associated with the connection, a protocol associated with the connection, and/or a priority or QoS associated with the connection);
and communicating the packet using one or more selected wide area network connections selected from the plurality of wide area network connections, selected at least using the plurality of tiered groupings (transmit the first and second packet in any manner, wherein the transmission order is determined according to an assigned transmission priority . . . place the first and second packet into prioritized transmission queues as depicted in FIG. 5B . . . packets sent via connections 515a and 515b are placed in a high priority queue as they correspond to smaller transaction sizes. The packets corresponding to connection 515n are placed in a low priority queue as they correspond to a single, longer transaction [Fig. 5B shows the packets in the transmission queues are transmitted to a network 104]).
Plamondon does not explicitly teach Identify an adjusted target latency (ATL) based at least on a per-packet deadline for communication of the packet to a target endpoint.
However, Song teaches identifying (labeling), for each packet having a latency/jitter preference in a plurality of packets being routed (causing routers in the path from the source to the destination to schedule packets), an adjusted target latency (ATL) (target latencies) based at least on aper-packet deadline (transmission deadlines) for communication of the packet to a target endpoint ([0041] the distributed algorithm may provide network-wide earliest-deadline-first (EDF) scheduling, lowest latency budget first scheduling, and/or target latency scheduling by labeling packets with their transmission deadlines, latency budgets, and/or target latencies and causing routers in the path from the source to the destination to schedule packets using the labels.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transmission queues of Plamondon per the labeling of packets with their transmission deadlines of Song to allow the modified invention to improve user the satisfaction of streaming services.
Regarding claim 33, the limitations of claim 33 are rejected in the analysis of claim 3 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 14 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2008112779A2 by Plamondon in view of US20180131614A1 by Song and in view of US11115385B1 by Patel and further in view of WO2019227062A1 by Rogynskyy.
Regarding claim 14, the combined system of Plamondon and Song teaches the limitations of claim 1. The combined system of Plamondon and Song does not explicitly teach classifying data flows, real-time packets identified as having a latency preference, and composite property pairs based one or more measured properties.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Patel teaches classifying data flows, real-time packets identified as having a latency preference, and composite property pairs based one or more measured properties. Patel teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: classify (classifier function) data flows into (i) throughput preference flows and (ii) real-time flows ([0010] throughput packet flow . . . real-time financial trading application, or a trusted flow . . . classifier function 125);
and only packets from real- time flows are identified as packets having a latency/jitter preference, and wherein for packets from the throughput preference flows ([0010] flow that requires low latency, such as a packet flow for a real-time financial trading application, or a trusted flow that does not require deep packet inspection, such as a trusted back-up flow),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transmission queues of the combined system of Plamondon and Song per the classifier function of Patel to allow the modified invention to process packets from different flows efficiently.
In the same field of endeavor, Rogynskyy teaches grouped Tiers (group of node profiles) are established based on identical (identical) composite ([made up of distinct parts or elements]) property pairs (field-value pairs) based at least on one or more measured properties (measure of uniqueness of the field of the value) of the plurality of wide area network connections. Rogynskyy teaches grouped Tiers are established based on identical composite property pairs based at least on one or more measured properties of the plurality of wide area network connections ([1220] identify the node profiles N7-N12 to be the second group of node profiles by determining that each of the node profiles N7-N12 includes at least one node field-value pair similar or identical to one or more node field-value pairs of the node profile of N1 . . . role field- value pair, a title field-value pair, an opportunity role field-value pair, a department field-value pair, a practice group field- value pair, etc. [0758] measure of uniqueness of the field of the value used to calculate the match score [0862] various user-owned or user-operated devices via a wide-area network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transmission queues of the combined system of Plamondon, Song, and Patel per the groups of node profiles of Rogynskyy to allow the modified invention to prioritize the transmission of traffic based on the types of traffic being transmitted.
Regarding claim 44, the limitations of claim 44 are rejected in the analysis of claim 14 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 16 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2008112779A2 by Plamondon in view of US20180131614A1 by Song and further in view WO02084960A2 by Ha.
Regarding claim 16, the combined system of Plamondon and Song teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combined system of Plamondon and Song does not explicitly teach tracking a packet that has not been acknowledged; executing retransmission using a congestion window and backlog value.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ha teaches tracking a packet that has not been acknowledged; executing retransmission using a congestion window and backlog value. Ha teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: track per-packet deadlines (expiration of the short timer) of a packet sent on a first wide area network connection that is nearing a deadline but has not been acknowledged (acknowledgements) (short timer may be set when a packet is transmitted or retransmitted; Packets may need to be retransmitted . . . if they were previously declared lost by the system, as determined by receipt a predetermined number of duplicate acknowledgements, expiration of the short timer);
execute an early re-transmit of the packet that is nearing the deadline (expiration of the short timer) but has not been acknowledged (acknowledgements) using a second wide area network connection having available congestion window (CWND) (congestion window) along with a Tprop (propagation delay) and backlog value (size of the congestion window) short enough to communicate the packet that is nearing the deadline but has not been acknowledged to the corresponding target endpoint (receiver) (Connection # 1 is permitted to use network resources that may have become available, or if another connection with a higher weight should receive priority . . . permits individual connections with higher weights to change their congestion windows more frequently because their thresholds are smaller . . . priority access to the communication channel to connections with higher weights.; transmits new packets in response to each received acknowledgement (and the size of the congestion window) . . . congestion loss may cause the server 102 to substantially reduce the size of the congestion window; indication of the actual propagation delay . . . The congestion window estimates the delay-bandwidth product of the connection to the receiver . . . based on a timer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transmission queues of the combined system of Plamondon and Song per the use of the congestion window in Ha to allow the modified invention to improve transmission conditions.
Regarding claim 46, the limitations of claim 46 are rejected in the analysis of claim 16 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 17 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2008112779A2 by Plamondon in view of US20180131614A1 by Song and in view of WO02084960A2 by Ha and further in view of EP3474616A1 by Xu.
Regarding claim 17, the combined system of Plamondon and Song teaches the limitations of claim 1. The combined system of Plamondon and Song does not explicitly teach re-transmit using one or more stale connections.
However, Ha teaches re-transmit using one or more stale connections. Ha teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: track per-packet deadlines of a packet sent on a first wide area network connection that is nearing a deadline (expiration of the short timer) but has not been acknowledged (acknowledgements) (short timer may be set when a packet is transmitted or retransmitted; Packets may need to be retransmitted . . . if they were previously declared lost by the system, as determined by receipt a predetermined number of duplicate acknowledgements, expiration of the short timer);
determine that there is not an available non-stale ([reliable]) second wide area network connection having available congestion window (CWND) (congestion window) along with a Tprop (propagation delay) and backlog value (size of the congestion window) short enough to communicate the packet ([applicant specification 00521 states “unreliable and/or stale connections.” Stale is interpreted to mean unreliable.] determine connection-specific congestion window threshold variables for each individual connection in a manner that helps achieve a fair queuing mechanism providing weight-based transmission rate allocation for the individual connections.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transmission queues of the combined system of Plamondon and Song per the use of the congestion window in Ha to allow the modified invention to improve transmission conditions.
Xu teaches and responsive to the determination, execute an early re-transmit of the packet that is nearing the deadline but has not been acknowledged using one or more stale wide area network connections (sets up RRC connection again) (TIMER T1 is detected and an "ACK" is not successfully received . . . retransmit the data packet . . . sets up an RRC connection again).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transmission queues of the combined system of Plamondon, Song and Ha per the RRC connection of Xu to allow the modified invention to improve transmission conditions.
Regarding claim 47, the limitations of claim 47 are rejected in the analysis of claim 17 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-6, 10-11, 32, 34-36, 40-41, and 62-65 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Additional Prior Art Considered
CN1698337B by Jha teaches track per-packet deadlines of a packet sent on a first wide area network connection that is nearing a deadline but has not been acknowledged; and re-transmitting the packet using the congestion window and a backlog value. Jha does not teach the formula defining EDT (estimated delivery time) in relation to Tprop (one-way propagation delay) in base claims 2 and 32.
The formula defining EDT in relation to Tprop renders the allowable subject matter non-obvious because its use in combination with the congestion window is not taught by Jha. Base claims 2 and 32 define EDT using a specific formula not taught by Jha rendering the feature non-obvious.
KR102261403B1 by Samsung teaches connection priority rules are ignored if the scheduling of the packet on multiple connections on higher Tiers is unable to achieve the cumulative score greater than or equal to a pre-defined target score. Samsung does not teach the formula defining EDT (estimated delivery time) in relation to Tprop (one-way propagation delay) in base claims 2 and 32.
The formula defining EDT in relation to Tprop renders the allowable subject matter non-obvious because its use in combination with the cumulative score and pre-defined target score is not taught by Samsung. Base claims 2 and 32 define EDT using a specific formula not taught by Samsung rendering the feature non-obvious.
CN109600857A by Li teaches tiered groupings (queues) defined based on a relationship between the per-packet ATL and the plurality of wide area network connection properties. Li does not teach the formula defining EDT (estimated delivery time) in relation to Tprop (one-way propagation delay) in base claims 2 and 32 and the inequalities defining the relationships between Tprop and ATL (adjusted target latency) in claims 4 and 34.
The formula defining EDT in relation to Tprop and the inequalities defining the relationships between Tprop and ATL render the allowable subject matter non-obvious because when used in combination with the tiered groupings are not taught by Li. Base claims 2 and 32 define EDT using a specific formula not taught by Li rendering the feature non-obvious. Claims 4 and 34 define how the tiers are prioritized using specific inequalities and logical operators not taught by Li.
US20200320455A1 by Chin teaches sub-tiers (subsets of tiers). Chin does not teach the formula defining EDT (estimated delivery time) in relation to Tprop (one-way propagation delay) in base claims 2 and 32 and the inequalities defining the relationships between Tprop and ATL (adjusted target latency) in claims 4 and 34.
The formula defining EDT in relation to Tprop and the inequalities defining the relationships between Tprop and ATL render the allowable subject matter non-obvious because when used in combination with the sub-tiers are not taught by Chin. Base claims 2 and 32 define EDT using a specific formula not taught by Chin rendering the feature non-obvious. Claims 4 and 34 define how the tiers are prioritized using specific inequalities and logical operators not taught by Chin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah Beamon whose telephone number is (571) 272-5443. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/NOAH BEAMON/Examiner, Art Unit 2454
/GLENTON B BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights