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 Office Action is in response to the application filed on 02/19/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 02/19/2025 has been considered (see form-1449, MPEP 609).
Priority
Applicant’s claim of foreign priority on Korea application 10-2022-0102456 filed 08/22/2023, under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 02/19/2025 are accepted.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Claim recites the language of “a shard addition determination module for determining whether a shard needs to be added;
a new-shard address derivation module for deriving a new-shard address based on the number of shards currently included in the blockchain network;
a split-shard derivation module for deriving a split-shard splits into a new-shard based on the new-shard address; and
a shard allocation module for allocating a portion of the nodes which belong to the split-shard to the old-shard and the rest to the new-shard.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “a shard addition determination module for determining whether a shard needs to be added”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determination” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually analyzing. Similarly, the limitation of a new-shard address derivation module for deriving a new-shard address based on the number of shards currently included in the blockchain network, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “address derivation” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually providing an instruction. Similarly, the limitation of a split-shard derivation module for deriving a split-shard splits into a new-shard based on the new-shard address, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “split” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually divide an instruction. Also Similarly, the limitation of a shard allocation module for allocating a portion of the nodes which belong to the split-shard to the old-shard and the rest to the new-shard, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “allocate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually interact with the information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Human activities” and “data gathering” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using one or more storage device to perform the determination, address derivation, split and allocate steps. The system and module in those steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic system performing a generic computer function of manipulate data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a module the determination, address derivation, split and allocate steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 2 recites “wherein the node is a node belonging to a split-shard having the split-shard as its working shard, and the dynamic sharding system further includes a shard splitting module that manages an account-wise transaction chain and an account directory based on the shard allocated by the shard allocation module”. The claim language provides only further split shard and dynamic sharding system which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 3 recites “wherein the node is a node belonging to a non-split-shard having the non-split-shard as its working shard, and the dynamic sharding system further includes a shard moving module that allows the node belonging to the non-split-shard to change its working shard from the non-split-shard to the split-shard”. The claim language provides only further split shard and dynamic sharding system which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 4 recites “the shard addition determination module determines whether shard addition is needed based on at least one of traffic volume, the number of nodes, and the number of accounts”. The claim language provides only further shard addition determination module which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 5 recites “the new-shard address derivation module derives the new-shard address by adding one to the highest value among the shard addresses currently included in the blockchain network”. The claim language provides only further new shard address derivation which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 6 recites the split-shard derivation module derives the split- shard from among neighboring shards having a bit distance of 1 from the new-shard address”. The claim language provides only further split shard derivation which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is dependent on independent claim 6 and includes all the limitations of claim 6 and 1. Claim 7 recites “the split-shard derivation module derives the split- shard address by replacing the highest bit set to 1 in the binary value of the new-shard address with 0”. The claim language provides only further split shard derivation which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 8 recites “the shard allocation module allocates the nodes belonging to the split-shard to the old-shard and the new-shard based on at least one of the stake amount and the number of nodes allocated to the old-shard and the new-shard after the split”. The claim language provides only further shard allocation module which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 9 recites “the node is a node allocated to an old working shard, and the shard splitting module deactivates account-wise transaction chains for the accounts managed by nodes allocated to a new working shard, and deletes an account information assigned to a new home shard from the account directory”. The claim language provides only further node allocated to an old working shard which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 10 recites “node is a node allocated to a new working shard, and the shard splitting module deactivates account-wise transaction chains for the accounts managed by nodes allocated to an old working shard, and deletes an account information assigned to an old home shard from the account directory”. The claim language provides only further node allocated to a new working shard which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 11-20: are essentially the same as claims 1-10 except that they set forth the claimed invention as a method rather than a system respectively and correspondingly, therefore are rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 1-10.
Claims 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter of software, per se. The claim(s) lack(s) the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or manufacture within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101. In this case, applicant has claimed a system in the preamble to these claims without reciting any hardware element in the bodies of these claims; this implies that Applicant is claiming a system of software, per se, lacking the hardware necessary to realize any of the underlying functionality. Therefore, claims 1-10 is/are directed to non-statutory subject matter as computer programs, per se.
Accordingly, the claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McWilliams et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0301256, hereinafter McWilliams), in view of Kramer et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0234665, hereinafter Kramer).
As per as claim 1, McWilliams discloses:
A dynamic sharding system which runs on nodes constituting a blockchain network, the dynamic sharding system comprising:
a shard addition determination module for determining whether a shard needs to be added (McWilliams, e.g., [0099-0100], “…to a general software access region in the respective less-fine-grained memory of a particular one of the nodes. In various embodiments, a first container node address space has partitions (shards) on nodes A, B, and C, and a second container node address space has partitions (shards) on nodes A, B, D, and E. In various embodiments, the less fine-grained memory of a particular one of the nodes is managed and/or allocated, such as for use in one or more containers, in units of shards….”);
a new-shard address derivation module for deriving a new-shard address based on the number of shards currently included in the blockchain network (McWilliams, e.g., [0099-0100], “…a first container node address space has partitions (shards) on nodes A, B, and C, and a second container node address space has partitions (shards) on nodes A, B, D, and E. In various embodiments, the less fine-grained memory of a particular one of the nodes is managed and/or allocated, such as for use in one or more containers, in units of shards. “, i.e., ‘deriving a new-shard address based on the number of shards’ and ‘deriving a split-shard splits into a new-shard based on the new-shard address” and [0103], “…each of the chunks having a respective node address usable in conjunction with the respective node address space to identify and/or to access the associated chunk. According to various embodiments, each of the chunks in the respective node address space is one or more of: a fixed size, a power-of-two in size: a size other than a power-of-two; a fixed size with an integer number of chunks enabled to be stored in each page and/or each block of the less-fine-grained memory (optionally, with some of the space of the page and/or of the block unused); a fixed size enabling a node address in the respective node address space to specify a chunk index via division by the fixed size (treating the node address space as an array of the chunks)…”);
a split-shard derivation module for deriving a split-shard splits into a new-shard based on the new-shard address (McWilliams, e.g., [0099-100], “…a first container node address space has partitions (shards) on nodes A, B, and C, and a second container node address space has partitions (shards) on nodes A, B, D, and E. In various embodiments, the less fine-grained memory of a particular one of the nodes is managed and/or allocated, such as for use in one or more containers, in units of shards…”); and
a shard allocation module for allocating a portion of the nodes which belong to the split-shard to the old-shard and the rest to the new-shard (McWilliams, e.g., [0109-0110], (“the shard number is sent to the home node as at least a part of the request to access the particular clement. In various embodiments, the home node look-up data structure includes a plurality of entries, each of the elements in the respective node address space corresponding to one of the entries. In some embodiments, the home node look-up data structure is stored in the respective fine-grained memory of each one of the nodes using the respective node address space. “, i.e., ‘allocating a portion of the nodes which belong to the split-shard to the old-shard and the rest to the new-shard’) and further see [0167], “the shift causes a new similarity group assignment to immediately adjacent new shard 1830B due to the different references mapping to a different portion of the corresponding shard. That is, rather than retaining an assignment to the first similarity group, new shard 1830B has a new assignment to a different similarity group, e.g., the fourth similarity group”, i.e., ‘allocating a portion of the nodes which belong to the split-shard to the old-shard and the rest to the new-shard’ where “node” can be assigned to certain groups and similar (new) groups).
Regarding to the language of “shard/partition/split in the blockchain network” (although, as stated above, McWilliams functional disclose the features of “shard in the blockchain network” (McWilliam, e.g., [0099-0100]).
However Kramer, in an analogous art, discloses “shard/partition/split in the blockchain network” (Kramer, e.g., [0022-0025], e.g., “Partitioning a blockchain network into shards enables users to choose their own level of involvement with the blockchain network. Each user can choose to be a member of one or more shards. A user who is a member of fewer than all shards requires less storage space to store all of the transactions allocated to the shards of which the user is a member. Allocating a transaction to a shard based on identifying a parent blockchain transaction, the parent transaction defined by an output which corresponds to an input of a child blockchain transaction…”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kramer and McWilliam to identifying a parent blockchain transaction, the parent transaction defined by an output which corresponds to an input of a child blockchain transaction, and allocating the parent transaction and the child transaction to the same shard (Kramer, e.g., [abstract]).
As per as claim 2, the combination of Kramer and McWilliam disclose:
The system of claim 1, wherein the node is a node belonging to a split-shard having the split-shard as its working shard, and the dynamic sharding system further includes a shard splitting module that manages an account-wise transaction chain and an account directory based on the shard allocated by the shard allocation module (Kramer, e.g., [0006], “nodes of the system persist and manage a copy of the entire blockchain, sending and receiving transactions, validating them, and adding blocks to the blockchain based on a shared decentralized consensus protocol. This approach, while secure, does have scaling flaws related to the fact that each transaction is validated and stored by every full node…” and see [0060], “…) and further see (McWilliam, e.g., [1275], [1298-1299], “…accounting information (955), an error detecting and/or error correcting code (957) protecting the per-page information, and a vertical error detecting and/or error correcting code (959) protecting contents of the particular page…”).
As per as claim 3, the combination of Kramer and McWilliam disclose:
The system of claim 1, wherein the node is a node belonging to a non-split-shard having the non-split-shard as its working shard, and
the dynamic sharding system further includes a shard moving module that allows the node belonging to the non-split-shard to change its working shard from the non-split-shard to the split-shard (McWilliams, e.g., [0177], [1198], (organized file in types/groups).
As per as claim 4, the combination of Kramer and McWilliam disclose:
The system of claim 1, wherein the shard addition determination module determines whether shard addition is needed based on at least one of traffic volume, the number of nodes, and the number of accounts (McWilliam, e.g., [1275], [1298-1299], “…accounting information (955), an error detecting and/or error correcting code (957) protecting the per-page information, and a vertical error detecting and/or error correcting code (959) protecting contents of the particular page…”).
As per as claim 5, the combination of Kramer and McWilliam disclose:
The system of claim 1, wherein the new-shard address derivation module derives the new-shard address by adding one to the highest value among the shard addresses currently included in the blockchain network (McWilliams, e.g., [0099-100], “…a first container node address space has partitions (shards) on nodes A, B, and C, and a second container node address space has partitions (shards) on nodes A, B, D, and E. In various embodiments, the less fine-grained memory of a particular one of the nodes is managed and/or allocated, such as for use in one or more containers, in units of shards…”) and (Kramer, e.g., [0022-0025], e.g., “Partitioning a blockchain network into shards enables users to choose their own level of involvement with the blockchain network. Each user can choose to be a member of one or more shards. A user who is a member of fewer than all shards requires less storage space to store all of the transactions allocated to the shards of which the user is a member. Allocating a transaction to a shard based on identifying a parent blockchain transaction, the parent transaction defined by an output which corresponds to an input of a child blockchain transaction…”).
As per as claim 6, the combination of Kramer and McWilliam disclose:
The system of claim 1, wherein the split-shard derivation module derives the split- shard from among neighboring shards having a bit distance of 1 from the new-shard address (McWilliams, e.g., [0099-0100], [0143-0145], (variable size…number of bytes)) and [0176], [0198], (bit indicating the particular chunks)) .
As per as claim 7, the combination of Kramer and McWilliam disclose:
The system of claim 6, wherein the split-shard derivation module derives the split- shard address by replacing the highest bit set to 1 in the binary value of the new-shard address with 0 (McWilliams, e.g., [0099-0100], [0143-0145], (variable size…number of bytes)) and [0176], [0198], (bit indicating the particular chunks)).
As per as claim 8, the combination of Kramer and McWilliam disclose:
The system of claim 1, wherein the shard allocation module allocates the nodes belonging to the split-shard to the old-shard and the new-shard based on at least one of the stake amount and the number of nodes allocated to the old-shard and the new-shard after the split (McWilliams, e.g., [0109-0110], (“the shard number is sent to the home node as at least a part of the request to access the particular clement. In various embodiments, the home node look-up data structure includes a plurality of entries, each of the elements in the respective node address space corresponding to one of the entries. In some embodiments, the home node look-up data structure is stored in the respective fine-grained memory of each one of the nodes using the respective node address space. “, i.e., ‘allocating a portion of the nodes which belong to the split-shard to the old-shard and the rest to the new-shard’) and further see [0167], “the shift causes a new similarity group assignment to immediately adjacent new shard 1830B due to the different references mapping to a different portion of the corresponding shard. That is, rather than retaining an assignment to the first similarity group, new shard 1830B has a new assignment to a different similarity group, e.g., the fourth similarity group”, i.e., ‘allocating a portion of the nodes which belong to the split-shard to the old-shard and the rest to the new-shard’ where “node” can be assigned to certain groups and similar (new) groups).
As per as claim 9, the combination of Kramer and McWilliam disclose:
The system of claim 2, wherein the node is a node allocated to an old working shard, and the shard splitting module deactivates account-wise transaction chains for the accounts managed by nodes allocated to a new working shard, and deletes an account information assigned to a new home shard from the account directory (Kramer, e.g., [0006], “nodes of the system persist and manage a copy of the entire blockchain, sending and receiving transactions, validating them, and adding blocks to the blockchain based on a shared decentralized consensus protocol. This approach, while secure, does have scaling flaws related to the fact that each transaction is validated and stored by every full node…” and see [0060], “…) and further see (McWilliam, e.g., [0099-0100], and [0178], [0187-0189], (nodes in the directory), further [1275], [1298-1299], “…accounting information (955), an error detecting and/or error correcting code (957) protecting the per-page information, and a vertical error detecting and/or error correcting code (959) protecting contents of the particular page…” and further see [0125], [0159], “…the particular page (and/or the particular block) is removed from the list of partially-unused pages…”)).
As per as claim 10, the combination of Kramer and McWilliam disclose:
The system of claim 2, wherein the node is a node allocated to a new working shard, and the shard splitting module deactivates account-wise transaction chains for the accounts managed by nodes allocated to an old working shard, and deletes an account information assigned to an old home shard from the account directory (McWilliams, e.g., [0109-0110], (“the shard number is sent to the home node as at least a part of the request to access the particular clement. In various embodiments, the home node look-up data structure includes a plurality of entries, each of the elements in the respective node address space corresponding to one of the entries. In some embodiments, the home node look-up data structure is stored in the respective fine-grained memory of each one of the nodes using the respective node address space. “, i.e., ‘allocating a portion of the nodes which belong to the split-shard to the old-shard and the rest to the new-shard’) and further see [0167], “the shift causes a new similarity group assignment to immediately adjacent new shard 1830B due to the different references mapping to a different portion of the corresponding shard. That is, rather than retaining an assignment to the first similarity group, new shard 1830B has a new assignment to a different similarity group, e.g., the fourth similarity group”, i.e., ‘allocating a portion of the nodes which belong to the split-shard to the old-shard and the rest to the new-shard’ where “node” can be assigned to certain groups and similar (new) groups).
Claims 11-20 are essentially the same as claims 1-10 except that they set forth the claimed invention as a method rather a system, respectively and correspondingly, therefore is rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 1-10.
Additional Art Considered
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicants’ disclosure.
The following patents and papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicants’ invention with respect to a dynamic sharding, which a shard addition determination module for determining whether a shard needs to be added; a new-shard address derivation module for deriving a new-shard address based on the number of shards currently included in the blockchain network; a split-shard derivation module for deriving a split-shard split into a new- shard based on the new-shard address; and a shard allocation module for assigning a portion of the nodes which belong to the split-shard to the old-shard and the rest to the new-shard.
a. Evan Schreter (US PGPUB 2025/0021452, hereafter Schreter); “Disaster Recovery Using Incremental Database Recovery” disclose “storage of shards of first database tables of a first tenant in a first plurality of storage nodes located in a first region, each shard associated with a first database table and a key range of the first database table, storage of shards of second database tables of a second tenant in a second plurality of storage nodes located in a second region, each shard associated with a second database table and a key range of the second database table, storage of backups of the shards of the first database tables of the first tenant in a plurality of backup locations located in a region different from the first region, and recovery of the backups of the shards of the first database tables of the first tenant from the backup layer to the second plurality of storage nodes”.
Schreter further teaches data of each tenant is logically split into shards and the shards of a given tenant are distributed across a plurality of storage nodes of the storage layer [0034].
Schreter also teaches each of database table split into multiple shards and including algorithm for splitting a table into shards and for defining the key ranges of the shards [0054].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3173. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:45 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/TUAN A PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights