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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of the information disclosure statements filed on May 09, 2025 and March 13, 2026. U.S. patents and patent application publications, foreign patents and patent application publications, and non-patent literature documents have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on May 09, 2025 have been considered and accepted.
Specification
The specification submitted on May 09, 20245has been considered and accepted
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.
Claims 1, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
As for claim 1:
Issue 1 — Antecedent Basis / Ambiguous Reference (“a corresponding disk”)
Claim 1 recites “acquiring first mounting information of a corresponding disk by using the disk identifier.” There is insufficient antecedent basis and clarity for this limitation.
The preceding step introduces “disk information of each disk device in a storage system.” The subsequent reference to “a corresponding disk” is ambiguous because the claim does not clearly establish to what the disk “corresponds.” It is unclear whether “a corresponding disk” refers to (a) one of the previously recited “each disk device,” (b) a disk corresponding to a particular disk identifier from among the plurality, or © a different disk device.
Furthermore, the use of the indefinite article “a” (rather than “the”) suggests the introduction of a new element, yet the context implies it should refer back to one of the previously introduced disk devices. The claim is unclear as to whether the step of acquiring first mounting information is performed for a single disk or iteratively for each disk device.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets “a corresponding disk” as “the disk device corresponding to the disk identifier.”
Issue 2 — Unclear Claim Language (“between…with”)
Claim 1 recites “establishing…a first corresponding relationship between the expander port address with the disk port address” and “establishing…a second corresponding relationship between the adapter port address with the expander port address.”
The construction “between X with Y” is grammatically unclear and does not have an established meaning in the art. Standard English usage requires “between X and Y” to denote a relationship connecting two elements. It is unclear whether “between…with” is intended to have the same meaning as “between…and” (i.e., a bidirectional mapping), or whether “with” introduces a different type of relationship (e.g., an association of the first element with respect to the second element).
For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets “between the [first address] with the [second address]” as “between the [first address] and the [second address].”
Issue 3 — Internal Logical Inconsistency (Conditional Step vs. Mandatory Generating Step)
Claim 1 recites:
“in response to the first device information comprising an adapter identifier of an adapter upstream of the expander, establishing, based on an adapter port address corresponding to the adapter identifier, a second corresponding relationship between the adapter port address with the expander port address”
followed by:
“generating, based on the first corresponding relationship and the second corresponding relationship, device information for describing a topological relationship of the disk in the storage system.”
The penultimate step establishes the “second corresponding relationship” only conditionally — i.e., only “in response to the first device information comprising an adapter identifier.” However, the final “generating” step mandatorily requires both “the first corresponding relationship and the second corresponding relationship” as its basis.
It is unclear what the scope of claim 1 encompasses when the condition is not met (i.e., when the first device information does not comprise an adapter identifier). Specifically:
(a) If the condition is not met, the second corresponding relationship is never established. The final generating step then requires a non-existent relationship, rendering the claim internally contradictory.
(b) Alternatively, if the claim is to be read as requiring the condition to always be met (i.e., the first device information always comprises an adapter identifier), then the conditional language “in response to” is superfluous and misleading regarding the scope of the claim.
© Alternatively, if the claim is to be read as describing iterative operations across multiple disk devices where the condition is met for some but not all disks, the claim does not clearly convey this iterative/aggregate interpretation.
The specification at ¶ [0044] explicitly contemplates the scenario where the adapter identifier is not found: “Otherwise, if the adapter identifier is not found in the device information, it means that there is not an upstream adapter.” This confirms that the condition may not always be met, exacerbating the ambiguity regarding how the generating step operates without the second corresponding relationship.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 1 cannot be determined, because it is unclear whether: (1) the claim requires the condition to always be met; (2) the generating step can proceed without the second corresponding relationship; or (3) the claim describes an aggregate operation across multiple disks.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets claim 1 as describing operations performed across all disk devices, where the second corresponding relationship is established for disk devices whose upstream expander has an adapter identifier, and the generating step uses all relationships that have been established (i.e., the first corresponding relationships for all disks, and the second corresponding relationships for those disks where the condition was met).
Claim 10
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Issue 1 — Antecedent Basis / Ambiguous Reference (“a corresponding disk”)
Claim 10 recites that the server is configured to “acquire first mounting information of a corresponding disk by using the disk identifier.” This limitation has the same antecedent basis and ambiguity issue identified in the rejection of claim 1 above. See Claim 1, Issue 1, which is incorporated herein.
Issue 2 — Unclear Claim Language (“between…with”)
Claim 10 recites “establish…a first corresponding relationship between the expander port address with the disk port address” and “establish…a second corresponding relationship between the adapter port address with the expander port address.” This limitation has the same grammatical ambiguity issue identified in the rejection of claim 1 above. See Claim 1, Issue 2, which is incorporated herein.
Issue 3 — Internal Logical Inconsistency (Conditional Step vs. Mandatory Generating Step)
Claim 10 recites the same conditional establishment of the second corresponding relationship followed by the mandatory generating step requiring both relationships. This limitation has the same internal logical inconsistency identified in the rejection of claim 1 above. See Claim 1, Issue 3, which is incorporated herein.
Issue 4 — Antecedent Basis Confusion (“the adapter,” “the expander,” “the disk” in Storage Cabinet Limitation)
Claim 10 recites:
“a storage cabinet, comprising the adapter, the expander, and the disk, and configured to be connected to the server through one or more adapters, wherein one or more expanders and a plurality of disks are sequentially connected downstream of each of the adapters.”
The definite articles “the adapter,” “the expander,” and “the disk” in the storage cabinet limitation refer back to elements first introduced within the server’s functional recitations — specifically, within the description of what the server is configured to acquire and establish. In those functional recitations, the adapter, expander, and disk are introduced as data subjects — things whose information the server processes. However, in the storage cabinet limitation, these same elements are recited as structural components of the storage cabinet.
This creates ambiguity:
(a) The server’s functional recitations introduce “an adapter upstream of the expander” and “an expander upstream of the disk.” The storage cabinet then refers to “the adapter” and “the expander” — but it is unclear whether these are the same physical elements (merely now structurally recited) or whether the claim requires a structural correspondence between the data processed by the server and the physical components of the cabinet.
(b) The storage cabinet limitation further introduces “one or more adapters” in “configured to be connected to the server through one or more adapters.” This creates confusion as to whether “one or more adapters” is the same as “the adapter” referenced in “comprising the adapter,” or whether additional adapters are introduced beyond the one already referenced.
© Similarly, the limitation recites “one or more expanders and a plurality of disks are sequentially connected downstream of each of the adapters.” The relationship between “one or more expanders” and the previously introduced “the expander” is unclear — are these the same expanders, or are additional expanders being introduced?
(d) The server acquires information about “each disk device in a storage system” (plural disks), yet the storage cabinet limitation refers to “the disk” (singular). It is unclear whether “the disk” refers to a single disk from among the plurality, or generically to the disk devices as a category.
Issue 5 — “a storage system” vs. “A data storage system”
Claim 10 recites in its preamble “A data storage system” and then recites that the server is configured to “acquire disk information of each disk device in a storage system.” The use of the indefinite article “a” before “storage system” (rather than “the data storage system” referring back to the preamble) creates ambiguity as to whether the storage system from which the server acquires disk information is the same data storage system recited in the preamble, or a different storage system. If different, the structural relationship between the claimed “data storage system” and the “storage system” whose topology is being determined becomes unclear.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets “a storage system” as referring to the same “data storage system” recited in the preamble.
Claim 12
Issue 1 — Antecedent Basis / Ambiguous Reference (“a corresponding disk”)
Claim 12 recites that the processor is configured to execute the program to implement operations including “acquiring first mounting information of a corresponding disk by using the disk identifier.” This limitation has the same antecedent basis and ambiguity issue identified in the rejection of claim 1 above. See Claim 1, Issue 1, which is incorporated herein.
Issue 2 — Unclear Claim Language (“between…with”)
Claim 12 recites “establishing…a first corresponding relationship between the expander port address with the disk port address” and “establishing…a second corresponding relationship between the adapter port address with the expander port address.” This limitation has the same grammatical ambiguity issue identified in the rejection of claim 1 above. See Claim 1, Issue 2, which is incorporated herein.
Issue 3 — Internal Logical Inconsistency (Conditional Step vs. Mandatory Generating Step)
Claim 12 recites the same conditional establishment of the second corresponding relationship followed by the mandatory generating step requiring both relationships. This limitation has the same internal logical inconsistency identified in the rejection of claim 1 above. See Claim 1, Issue 3, which is incorporated herein.
Issue 4 — Relationship Between “the method according to any one of claims 1-9” and the Recited Operations
As currently amended, claim 12 recites:
“the processor is coupled to the non-transitory storage, and is configured to execute the program stored in the non-transitory storage, to implement the method according to any one of claims 1-9. following operations:”
followed by what appears to be a full recitation of operations (acquiring disk information, acquiring first mounting information, establishing relationships, generating device information).
The claim appears to have been amended to reference “the method according to any one of claims 1-9” while also retaining (or striking through) a direct recitation of operations. To the extent the claim retains both (a) a reference to “the method according to any one of claims 1-9” and (b) a direct recitation of method operations, it is unclear whether the scope of claim 12 is defined by:
The method of claims 1-9 (incorporating all limitations of whichever claim is referenced), or
The operations directly recited in claim 12, or
Both (and if so, whether any inconsistency between the two controls).
If the struck-through language is removed and claim 12 references only “the method according to any one of claims 1-9,” then claim 12 inherits all §112(b) issues of claims 1-9. Further, if claim 12 depends from “any one of claims 1-9,” it is a multiple dependent claim that depends from each of claims 1-9 in the alternative, which is permissible under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d). However, the §112(b) issues of claims 1-9 are inherited.
If the amendment is intended to replace the dependency with directly recited operations (the struck-through language being the new text), then the directly recited operations contain the same §112(b) issues identified above.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets claim 12 as reciting an electronic device with a processor configured to perform the operations directly recited (acquiring, establishing, generating), subject to the same §112(b) issues identified in Issues 1-3 above.
Claims 2-9, 13-21 are rejected since they depend on claims 1 and 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10, 12 Step 2A, Prong 1: recite an abstract idea in the form of a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claims, at their core, recite the following mental steps:
“Acquiring disk information…comprising a disk identifier and a disk port address” - Reading/collecting identifying information about devices (equivalent to a technician reading labels or serial numbers).
“Acquiring first mounting information of a corresponding disk by using the disk identifier, wherein the first mounting information comprises first device information of an expander upstream of the disk” - Looking up information associated with a device identifier to determine what upstream device it connects to (equivalent to consulting a reference table or device documentation).
“Establishing a first corresponding relationship between an expander port address comprised in the first device information and the disk port address” - Correlating two pieces of information — associating one address with another (a mental comparison/correlation step that can be performed with pen and paper).
“In response to the first device information comprising an adapter identifier…establishing a second corresponding relationship between an adapter port address corresponding to the adapter identifier and the expander port address” - Observing that the previously-obtained information contains another identifier, and correlating that identifier’s address with the expander’s address (another mental comparison/correlation step).
“Generating device information for describing a topological relationship of the disk in the storage system, based on the first corresponding relationship and the second corresponding relationship” - Combining two correlations to produce a description of how devices are connected (equivalent to a technician writing down a connectivity diagram based on collected information).
The claim as a whole recites the mental process of: collecting identifying information about hardware devices, looking up associated connectivity data, correlating addresses across layers, and generating a description of the topology. These are steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, and recording — the hallmarks of a mental process. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (claims directed to collecting data, comparing data, and outputting a result constitute a mental process); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results is an abstract idea).
Alternatively, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity — specifically, managing relationships between hardware components by collecting identifiers and organizing them into a structured topology. A network technician could perform these steps by: (1) reading device labels/identifiers from disks; (2) consulting documentation or device information to determine what each disk connects through; (3) writing down which expander port connects to which disk port; (4) writing down which adapter port connects to which expander port; and (5) producing a topology diagram. This is a data organization/management activity.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
No. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea are:
“Storage system” - Mere field-of-use limitation — identifies the technological environment where the mental process occurs. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
“Disk device,” “expander,” “adapter” - Generic hardware components recited at a high level of generality. They describe the environment upon which the mental process operates, not a particular machine that performs the process.
“Mounting information” - A category of data to be retrieved. The claims do not specify any particular technical mechanism for how this information is obtained (e.g., a specific protocol command, a specific hardware register read, a specific device page query).
“Generating device information” - A category of data to be retrieved. The claims do not specify any particular technical mechanism for how this information is obtained (e.g., a specific protocol command, a specific hardware register read, a specific device page query).
“Generating device information” - Outputting data — the result of the mental process. Merely generating/outputting information does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 10 adds “a server, comprising: a processor; and a storage medium” — generic computer components that merely automate the mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is insufficient to integrate the idea into a practical application. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223.
Claim 12 adds “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program” — generic computer implementation that does not transform the abstract idea.
The claims do not:
Improve the functioning of a computer or other technology;
Apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (beyond generic computer components);
Effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing; or
Apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a technological environment.
The claims recite what information to collect and what correlations to establish, but not how the information is technically obtained from the hardware. The claims are silent on:
Any specific protocol command used to acquire mounting information (e.g., SMP DISCOVER, SCSI inquiry, SES page query);
Any specific hardware interface or register access;
Any specific data structure format of the mounting information;
Any specific mechanism by which the disk device provides upstream device data;
Any action taken based on the generated topology (e.g., configuring paths, balancing loads, diagnosing failures).
Without these technical details, the claims amount to an instruction to “collect device information and organize it into a topology” — which is the abstract idea itself, merely linked to the field of storage systems.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
No. The additional elements, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept.
Additional elements:
Generic storage system hardware (disk, expander, adapter) - Well-understood, routine, conventional hardware in the storage industry. See Lin (SAS expanders connecting disks to HBAs); Chien (expander connecting host to disks); Washiya (SAS controller → expanders → storage media).
Acquiring device information from/about disk devices - Routine data-gathering activity. Acquiring identifiers and addresses of storage devices is well-understood and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (insignificant extra-solution activity — mere data gathering).
Processor and storage medium (claims 10, 12) - Generic computer components performing generic functions (collecting data, comparing data, storing results). See Alice.
Generating/outputting device information - Insignificant post-solution activity — merely outputting data. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claims dependent from claim 1 (claims 2-9), 10, (claims 2-9), claim 12 (claims 13–21) are also rejected under § 101. The additional limitations in claims 14–21 recite further data gathering and organizational sub-steps (determining master/slave expander status, acquiring SAS addresses, searching mapping tables, querying JBOD information, querying PCI addresses, generating topological diagrams, querying serial numbers). These dependent claim limitations constitute additional aspects of the same abstract mental process — further data collection and organization steps — and do not add additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Each dependent claim merely narrows the type or source of data being gathered/correlated within the same abstract framework.
Allowable Subject Matter
While the claims are allowable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because no prior art teaches or suggests the specific bottom-up acquisition of mounting information from a disk device revealing upstream expander connectivity, this novelty does not automatically confer patent eligibility under § 101. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012) (“[T]he § 101 patent-eligibility inquiry and, say, the § 102 novelty inquiry might sometimes overlap … but that need not always be so.”). The novel aspect of the claims — the particular data being gathered and correlated — defines what abstract information is processed but does not change the nature of the process from a mental one to a technical one.
Claims 1-10, 12-21 would be allowable if overcoming 112 and 101 rejections as discussed above.
Pertinent Prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marks (US 2007/0094472)
Marks teaches a method for mapping disk drives to server connection slots in a SAS data storage system that uses expanders. The controller traverses its own phys, reads IDENTIFY address frames to determine whether an attached device is an expander or an end device (disk drive), and sends SMP DISCOVER commands to expanders to enumerate downstream drives. Device IDs are assigned in order of discovery.
Relation to claimed invention: Marks shares the same technical field (SAS storage systems with controllers, expanders, and disk drives) and addresses a related problem (determining which drives are connected where). Marks teaches IDENTIFY address frames, SMP DISCOVER commands, and mapping between controller ports, expander phys, and drives.
Why not applicable: Marks discovers topology exclusively top-down — the controller reads its own phys, finds the expander, then queries the expander for its downstream devices. The disk drives are passive participants that simply respond to IDENTIFY sequences. At no point does a disk device provide information about its upstream expander. Marks does not teach acquiring “mounting information” from a disk device using the disk identifier, nor does it teach that such mounting information contains device information of an upstream expander. The entire discovery paradigm is reversed from what the claims require.
Gong 20170199753 A1
Gong teaches a method for acquiring location information of virtual machine disks by traversing software layers in a Windows operating system. Using a disk partition letter, the method queries an OS database (via SetupDi and IOCTL APIs) to obtain a disk driver instance name, and from the driver instance name obtains a PCI bus/device/function location of the adapter.
Relation to claimed invention: Gong shares a similar layered traversal methodology — using a device identifier at one layer to retrieve information about the next upstream layer, building a multi-layer mapping (partition → driver → adapter). This structural pattern resembles the claims’ approach (disk → expander → adapter).
Why not applicable: Gong operates entirely within software abstractions of a Windows operating system. Gong’s “disk drivers” are software programs, not hardware SAS expanders. Gong queries an OS database (registry/SetupDi), not a physical disk device for mounting information. Gong’s system contains no expanders, no SAS links, no port addresses, and no physical storage topology. The information retrieved is about software layers, not hardware connectivity. Mapping Gong’s software constructs to the claims’ hardware elements would require impermissible distortion of the claim terms under their broadest reasonable interpretation.
Chien 20100131693 A1
Chien teaches a hard disk system state monitoring method in which a monitoring computer retrieves a logical-to-physical address mapping table from an expander and a physical address-to-device slot number mapping table from backplane firmware. These tables are combined to generate a logical-to-physical-to-slot mapping for monitoring disk health.
Relation to claimed invention: Chien operates in the SAS/SCSI storage field and involves expanders connecting hosts to disk drives. Chien generates mapping information that correlates logical addresses to physical locations — conceptually similar to generating “device information for describing a topological relationship.”
Why not applicable: Chien retrieves mapping tables from infrastructure components (the expander and the backplane), not from the disk devices themselves. The disks in Chien are entirely passive — they provide no information about their upstream connectivity. Information flows from the expander and backplane firmware to the monitoring computer (lateral/top-down), not from the disk upward. Chien does not teach acquiring mounting information from a disk by using the disk’s identifier, nor does it teach that disk-level data reveals upstream expander device information.
Lin (SAS Switch) 20160188515 A1
Lin teaches a SAS switch architecture comprising a master SAS expander and multiple slave SAS expanders. The master expander performs standard SAS topology discovery by sending SMP DISCOVER and SMP REPORT GENERAL commands to slave expanders and external devices, configuring routing tables for data forwarding.
Relation to claimed invention: Lin operates in the same SAS interconnect field and teaches expanders discovering other devices in a multi-layer SAS topology. Lin involves SAS addresses, expander phys, and routing table construction — concepts closely related to port addresses and topological relationships.
Why not applicable: Lin’s discovery flows exclusively top-down — the master expander queries outward and downward to discover slave expanders and end devices. End devices (disks) do not provide information about their upstream connectivity. The master expander already knows the topology because it initiated the discovery. Lin does not teach a disk device that stores or provides information about its upstream expander, nor acquiring mounting information from a disk using the disk identifier.
Washiya 20120246521 A1
Washiya teaches a storage apparatus in which SAS expanders are pre-loaded with failure detection commands. When a downstream expander detects a link failure, it immediately reports the failure location to the SAS controller without waiting for the controller to poll.
Relation to claimed invention: Washiya involves SAS controllers, SAS expanders, and storage media in a multi-layer SAS topology. Washiya addresses the question of how information about the storage topology (specifically, failure events) is communicated between layers.
Why not applicable: Washiya’s information flow is still controller-initiated — the controller pre-stages commands in expanders, and failure reports flow from expander to controller (not from disk to expander). At no point does a disk device provide information about its upstream expander. Washiya does not teach mounting information, per-disk topology queries, or bottom-up discovery of device relationships. Washiya’s focus is failure detection and reporting, not topology discovery or generation of topology descriptions.
Claims dependent from claims 1, 10, 12, (claims 2-8), claim (9), claim (claims 13–21) are also rejected under § 101. The additional limitations in claims 14–21 recite further data gathering and organizational sub-steps (determining master/slave expander status, acquiring SAS addresses, searching mapping tables, querying JBOD information, querying PCI addresses, generating topological diagrams, querying serial numbers). These dependent claim limitations constitute additional aspects of the same abstract mental process — further data collection and organization steps — and do not add additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Each dependent claim merely narrows the type or source of data being gathered/correlated within the same abstract framework.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tim Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-3642. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 5:30 AM – 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Cottingham can be reached on (571)272-1400. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2857
To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http:/www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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 ttps://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.
/TIM T VO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2138
Prosecution Insights