DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/14/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“obtaining, by an ingress provider edge network device (PE)” in claim 1, line 2.
“determining, by the ingress PE” in claim 1, line 4.
“forwarding, by the ingress PE” in claim 1, line 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner notes that while “device” is a non-structural term, the Specification clearly links the claimed “ingress provider edge network device (PE)” to sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions. The Specification discloses that “PE 320 may include a router…or…a gateway, a switch, a firewall, a hub, a bridge, a reverse proxy, a server (e.g., a proxy server, a cloud server, a data center server, etc.), a load balancer, and/or a similar device. PE 320 may be an ingress PE or may be an MH PE…may be a physical device implemented with a housing, such as a chassis…may be a virtual device implemented by one or more computer devices” (Specification, ¶[0040]).
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 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 16 is directed to an ingress provider edge network device comprising memory and a processor that obtains dynamic load information and determines a dynamic load-balancing scheme based on the dynamic load information, which is a mental process, or concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e., ingress PE, processor, memory) do not integrate a practical application, as they do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea other than placing the determination of a load-balancing scheme into a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are recited generically and are extra-solution, conventional activity. Claim 17 merely provides additional detail on data presumably used in the dynamic load information, which does not further integrate a practical application or add significantly more. Accordingly claim 17 is rejected as depending from claim 16 and under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 5, 17, and 19 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.
Claim 5 recites the acronym “EVPN”, the full terminology of which is not defined in the claims. The term “EVPN” therefore renders the scope of the claims indefinite.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the link identifier". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite a link identifier.
Claim 19 recites the acronym “EVPN”, the full terminology of which is not defined in the claims. The term “EVPN” therefore renders the scope of the claims indefinite.
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 1, 8-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2022/0231937), and further in view of Saad et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2025/0132972).
Regarding claim 1, Liu disclosed a method, comprising: obtaining, by an ingress provider edge network device (PE) (PE 101/first PE, i.e., ingress PE, ¶[0054], Fig. 1), dynamic load information associated with respective links of a plurality of PEs (first PE determining, i.e., obtaining, actual latencies and bandwidths, i.e., dynamic load information, of links between first PE and other PEs, ¶[0072], [0075], [0084], [0085], [0101], [0111]); determining, by the ingress PE, based on the dynamic load information, a dynamic load-balancing scheme associated with the plurality of PEs (adjusting, i.e., determining, a load balancing policy, i.e., load-balancing scheme, based on link latency and bandwidth, ¶[0056], [0079], [0112]); and forwarding, by the ingress PE, traffic using the dynamic load-balancing scheme (sending data using new/adjusted load balancing policy, ¶[0079], [0080], [0113]).
While Liu disclosed a plurality of PEs, Liu did not specifically disclose MH PEs. That is, Liu did not disclose:
obtaining, by an ingress provider edge network device (PE), dynamic load information associated with respective links of a plurality of multi-homing (MH) PEs; determining, by the ingress PE, based on the dynamic load information, a dynamic load-balancing scheme associated with the plurality of MH PEs (emphasis added).
Saad disclosed a multi-homed customer edge CE connected to PE devices, i.e., multi-homing PEs, over multiple links working in a load-balancing mode (¶[0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Liu to include MH PEs as claimed, because doing so would have provided reliability against network failures (Saad, ¶[0002]).
Regarding claim 8, Liu and Saad disclosed the method further comprising: obtaining other dynamic load information associated with the respective links of the plurality of MH PEs (determining low latency of a first link, i.e., other dynamic load information, Liu, ¶[0097]; multi-homing PEs, Saad, ¶[0002]); determining, based on the other dynamic load information, another dynamic load-balancing scheme associated with the plurality of MH PEs (starting a new load balancing policy, i.e., another dynamic load-balancing scheme, based on determining the low latency, Liu, ¶[0097]; multi-homing PEs, Saad, ¶[0002]); and forwarding other traffic using the other dynamic load-balancing scheme (sending second data, i.e., other traffic, based on new load balancing policy, Liu, ¶[0097]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Liu and Saad disclosed the method wherein the other dynamic load-balancing scheme is different than the dynamic load-balancing scheme (using first and second load balancing policies, i.e., different schemes, Liu, ¶[0079], [0097]).
Regarding claim 10, Liu disclosed a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions (computer-readable storage medium including instructions, ¶[0142]), the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an ingress provider edge network device (PE) (processor, ¶[0135]; PE 101/first PE, i.e., ingress PE, ¶[0054], Fig. 1), cause the ingress PE to: determine, based on dynamic load information associated with respective links of a plurality of PEs, a dynamic load-balancing scheme associated with the plurality of PEs (adjusting, i.e., determining, a load balancing policy, i.e., load-balancing scheme, based on link latency and bandwidth, ¶[0056], [0079], [0112]); and forward traffic using the dynamic load-balancing scheme (sending data using new/adjusted load balancing policy, ¶[0079], [0080], [0113]).
While Liu disclosed a plurality of PEs, Liu did not specifically disclose MH PEs. That is, Liu did not disclose:
determine, based on dynamic load information associated with respective links of a plurality of multi-homing (MH) PEs, a dynamic load-balancing scheme associated with the plurality of MH PEs (emphasis added).
Saad disclosed a multi-homed customer edge CE connected to PE devices, i.e., multi-homing PEs, over multiple links working in a load-balancing mode (¶[0002]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, Liu disclosed an ingress provider edge network device (PE) (PE 101/first PE, i.e., ingress PE, ¶[0054], Fig. 1), comprising: one or more memories (memory, ¶[0135]); and one or more processors (processor, ¶[0135]) to: obtain dynamic load information associated with respective links of a plurality of PEs (first PE determining, i.e., obtaining, actual latencies and bandwidths, i.e., dynamic load information, of links between first PE and other PEs, ¶[0072], [0075], [0084], [0085], [0101], [0111]); and determine, based on the dynamic load information, a dynamic load-balancing scheme associated with the plurality of PEs that is to be used by the ingress PE to forward traffic (adjusting, i.e., determining, a load balancing policy, i.e., load-balancing scheme, based on link latency and bandwidth, ¶[0056], [0079], [0112]).
While Liu disclosed a plurality of PEs, Liu did not specifically disclose MH PEs. That is, Liu did not disclose:
obtain dynamic load information associated with respective links of a plurality of multi-homing (MH) PEs; and determine, based on the dynamic load information, a dynamic load-balancing scheme associated with the plurality of MH PEs that is to be used by the ingress PE to forward traffic.
Saad disclosed a multi-homed customer edge CE connected to PE devices, i.e., multi-homing PEs, over multiple links working in a load-balancing mode (¶[0002]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claims 2-6, 11-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2022/0231937) and Saad (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2025/0132972) as applied to claims 1, 10, and 16 above, respectively, and further in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0014623), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 2, Liu and Saad disclosed the method as detailed above, including:
receiving respective advertisement messages from the plurality of MH PEs (network devices, i.e., PEs, sending routing advertisement messages to first PE, Liu, ¶[0064]-[0066]; multi-homing PEs, Saad, ¶[0002]). Liu and Saad did not disclose the method further comprising: receiving respective advertisement messages from the plurality of MH PEs, wherein each advertisement message includes a link identifier that identifies a link of an MH PE, of the plurality of MH PEs, that connects the MH PE to an endpoint device or to one or more other destinations (emphasis added).
Wang disclosed: wherein each advertisement message includes a link identifier that identifies a link of an MH PE, of the plurality of MH PEs, that connects the MH PE to an endpoint device or to one or more other destinations (first PE sending second PE an advertisement route message including an ESI, i.e., link identifier, ¶[0007]; ESI used to determine PE is connected to CE device, i.e., endpoint device, ¶[0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Liu and Saad wherein each advertisement message includes a link identifier that identifies a link of an MH PE, of the plurality of MH PEs, that connects the MH PE to an endpoint device or to one or more other destinations as claimed, because doing so would have been use of known technique (i.e., advertisement messages including link identifiers) to improve similar devices/methods/products (i.e., the advertisement messages of Liu and Saad) in the same way.
Regarding claim 3, Liu, Saad, and Wang disclosed the method wherein the link identifier is an Ethernet segment identifier associated with the link of the MH PE (advertisement route message including an ESI, i.e., Ethernet segment identifier, Wang, ¶[0007]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 4, Liu, Saad, and Wang disclosed the method wherein the link identifier is a local identifier, generated by the MH PE, associated with the link of the MH PE (first PE device, i.e., MH PE, generating advertisement message including ESI identifying an Ethernet segment, i.e., local identifier, Wang, ¶[0007]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 5, Liu, Saad, and Wang disclosed the method wherein each advertisement message is an EVPN auto-discovery per Ethernet segment (ES) route that includes an extended community that includes the link identifier (routing advertisement messages, including Ethernet virtual instance auto discovery routing message, i.e., EVPN auto-discovery, Liu, ¶[0064]-[0066]; routing message including extended community attribute, Liu, ¶[0094]; advertisement route message including an ESI, i.e., link identifier, Wang, ¶[0007]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 6, Liu, Saad, and Wang disclosed the method wherein each advertisement message is an IP route advertisement message that includes the link identifier (message including IP advertisement route and ESI, Wang, ¶[0007]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 11, Liu and Saad disclosed the non-transitory computer-readable medium as detailed above. Liu and Saad did not disclose the non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein particular dynamic load information, of the dynamic load information, associated with a link of a particular MH PE, of the plurality of MH PEs, includes a link identifier identifying the link of the particular MH PE and a dynamic load associated with the link identifier.
Wang disclosed:
wherein particular dynamic load information, of the dynamic load information, associated with a link of a particular MH PE, of the plurality of MH PEs, includes a link identifier identifying the link of the particular MH PE and a dynamic load associated with the link identifier (first PE sending second PE an advertisement route message, i.e., particular dynamic load information, including an ESI, i.e., link identifier, ¶[0007]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 12, Liu and Saad disclosed the non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein the link identifier is one of: an Ethernet segment identifier associated with the link of the particular MH PE, or a local identifier associated with the link of the particular MH PE (advertisement route message including an ESI, i.e., Ethernet segment identifier, Wang, ¶[0007]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 13, Liu and Saad disclosed the non-transitory computer-readable medium as detailed above, including:
receive, from a particular MH PE, of the plurality of MH PEs, an advertisement message (network devices, i.e., PEs, sending routing advertisement messages to first PE, Liu, ¶[0064]-[0066]; multi-homing PEs, Saad, ¶[0002]).
wherein the one or more instructions further cause the ingress PE to:
receive, from a particular MH PE, of the plurality of MH PEs, an advertisement message that includes a link identifier that identifies a link of the particular MH PE (emphasis added).
Wang disclosed: receive, from a particular MH PE, of the plurality of MH PEs, an advertisement message that includes a link identifier that identifies a link of the particular MH PE (first PE sending second PE an advertisement route message including an ESI, i.e., link identifier, ¶[0007]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 14, Liu, Saad, and Wang disclosed the non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein the advertisement message is an EVPN advertisement message (advertisement of a routing message for EVPN, Liu, ¶[0066]).
Regarding claim 17, Liu and Saad disclosed the ingress PE as detailed above. Liu and Saad did not disclose the ingress PE wherein the link identifier is one of: an Ethernet segment identifier, or a local identifier. Wang disclosed:
wherein the link identifier is one of: an Ethernet segment identifier, or a local identifier (first PE sending second PE an advertisement route message including an ESI, i.e., link identifier/Ethernet segment identifier, ¶[0007]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 18, Liu and Saad disclosed the ingress PE as detailed above, wherein the one or more processors are further to:
receive, from a particular MH PE, of the plurality of MH PEs, an advertisement message.
Liu and Saad did not disclose wherein the one or more processors are further to:
receive, from a particular MH PE, of the plurality of MH PEs, an advertisement message that includes a link identifier that identifies a link of the particular MH PE (emphasis added).
Wang disclosed:
receive, from a particular MH PE, of the plurality of MH PEs, an advertisement message that includes a link identifier that identifies a link of the particular MH PE (first PE sending second PE an advertisement route message including an ESI, i.e., link identifier, ¶[0007]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 19, Liu, Saad, and Wang disclosed the ingress PE wherein the advertisement message is an EVPN advertisement message (advertisement of a routing message for EVPN, Liu, ¶[0066]).
Regarding claim 20, Liu, Saad, and Wang disclosed the ingress PE wherein the advertisement message is an IP route advertisement message (message including IP advertisement route, Wang, ¶[0007]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2022/0231937) and Saad (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2025/0132972) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, respectively, and further in view of Ramaswamy et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2022/0006756), hereinafter Ramaswamy.
Regarding claim 7, Liu and Saad disclosed the method as detailed above. Liu and Saad did not disclose the method wherein forwarding the traffic using the dynamic load-balancing scheme comprises: determining, based on the load-balancing scheme, a first dynamic load-balancing weight for a first MH PE of the plurality of MH PEs; determining, based on the load-balancing scheme, a second dynamic load-balancing weight for a second MH PE of the plurality of MH PEs; and forwarding, using the first dynamic load-balancing weight and the second dynamic load-balancing weight, respective portions of the traffic to the first MH PE and to the second MH PE (emphasis added).
Ramaswamy disclosed dynamically adjusting, i.e., determining, load-balancing weight values, i.e., a first and second dynamic load-balancing weight, for load balancing between and edge node and plurality of hubs, and using the weight values along with load balancing policies to forward traffic to a selected hub (¶[0009], [0036], [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Liu and Saad wherein forwarding the traffic using the dynamic load-balancing scheme comprises determining, based on the load-balancing scheme, a first dynamic load-balancing weight for a first MH PE of the plurality of MH PEs, determining, based on the load-balancing scheme, a second dynamic load-balancing weight for a second MH PE of the plurality of MH PEs, and forwarding, using the first dynamic load-balancing weight and the second dynamic load-balancing weight, respective portions of the traffic to the first MH PE and to the second MH PE as claimed, because doing so would have optimized the load balancing of traffic and avoided under-utilization of resources (Ramaswamy, ¶[0001]).
Regarding claim 15, Liu and Saad disclosed the non-transitory computer-readable medium as detailed above. Liu and Saad did not disclose the non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the ingress PE to forward the traffic using the dynamic load-balancing scheme, cause the ingress PE to: forward a first portion of the traffic to a first MH PE, of the plurality of MH PEs, in accordance with a first dynamic load-balancing weight associated with the load-balancing scheme; and forward a second portion of the traffic to a second MH PE, of the plurality of MH PEs, in accordance with a second dynamic load-balancing weight associated with the load-balancing scheme (emphasis added).
Ramaswamy disclosed dynamically adjusting, i.e., determining, load-balancing weight values, i.e., a first and second dynamic load-balancing weight, for load balancing between and edge node and plurality of hubs, and using the weight values along with load balancing policies to forward traffic to a selected hub (¶[0009], [0036], [0038]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claims 7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R MANIWANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Kamal B. Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. 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.
/JOSEPH R MANIWANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441