DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
2. The following office action is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 04/01/2026.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, 18 and 20-24 are already canceled; and therefore, claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 16 and 19 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
35 U.S.C.101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
● Claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong One:
Considering each of claims 1, 8 and 16 as representative claims, the current claims recite a judicial exception—namely, an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering claim 1, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
determine a resiliency score for an individual based on the performance of the individual on an assessment, the resiliency score indicative of the overall mental and physical status of the individual and based on a plurality of sub-values each respectively assigned to one of a plurality of categories of physical and mental health tested in the assessment;
a plurality of exercises, each exercise of the plurality of exercises associated with one or more of the categories of physical and mental health;
generate a customized physical and psychological profile for the individual based on the resiliency score, and
create a personalized stress management program for the individual based on the customized physical and psychological profile that includes a subset of the plurality of exercises, the stress management program including exercises directed to both physical and mental health, wherein an execution order of the subset of the plurality of exercises is based on the customized physical and psychological profile;
[engage] support community via meetings with other individuals executing stress management programs;
simultaneously [present]: the resiliency score, the plurality of sub-values upon which the resiliency score is based, and information from the profile indicating strengths and weaknesses contributing to each of the plurality of sub-values;
monitor continually a subsequent performance of the individual in following the created stress management program, including the performance of at least one of the subset of the plurality of exercises by the individual, as reflected in data received from the individual and,
adjust the profile, the resiliency score, the plurality of sub-values and the information from the profile indicating strengths and weakness contributing to each the plurality of sub-values as the result of monitoring the performance of the individual in following the exercises in the created stress management program as reflected in the received data, and
adjust the subset of exercises in the stress management program based upon results of the individual in performing the exercises in the subset of the plurality of exercises as indicated in the received data,
simultaneously [show] the adjusted resiliency score, the adjusted plurality of sub-values and the adjusted information from the profile indicating strengths and weakness contributing to each of the adjusted plurality of sub-values, and wherein the performance by the individual of at least one of the adjusted subset of exercises is monitored.
— Considering claim 8, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
determine a resiliency score for an individual undergoing an assessment of a physical and mental status of the individual, the resiliency score indicative of the overall mental and physical status of the individual and based on sub-values each respectively assigned to one of a plurality of categories of physical and mental health tested in the assessment;
generate a customized physical and psychological profile for the individual based on the resiliency score;
create a personalized stress management program for the individual based on the customized physical and psychological profile that includes a subset of a plurality of exercises, the subset of the plurality of exercises in the stress management program including exercises directed to both physical and mental health, an execution order of the subset of the plurality of exercises based on the customized physical and psychological profile;
[engage] support community via meetings with other individuals executing stress management programs;
simultaneously [present]: the resiliency score, the plurality of sub-values upon which the resiliency score is based, and information from the profile indicating strengths and weaknesses contributing to each of the plurality of sub-values;
monitor continually for data from the individual, the data relating to a subsequent performance of the individual in following the created stress management program, including the performance of at least one of the subset of the plurality of exercises by the individual as indicated in the data; and
adjust, the profile, the resiliency score, the plurality of sub-values upon which the resiliency score is based, and the information from the profile indicating strengths and weakness contributing to each of the plurality of sub-values as a result of monitoring of the performance of the individual in following the exercises in the created stress management program as indicated in the data, and adjust the subset of exercises in the stress management program based upon results of the individual in performing the exercises in the subset of the plurality of exercises as indicated in the data,
wherein the adjusted resiliency score, adjusted sub-values and the adjusted information from the profile indicating strengths and weakness contributing to each of the adjusted sub-values are simultaneously displayed, wherein the performance by the individual of at least one of the adjusted subset of exercises is monitored.
— Considering claim 16, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
determine a resiliency score for an individual undergoing an assessment of a physical and mental status of the individual, the resiliency score indicative of the overall mental and physical status of the individual and based on sub-values each respectively assigned to one of a plurality of categories of physical and mental health tested in the assessment;
generate a customized physical and psychological profile for the individual based on the resiliency score;
create a personalized stress management program for the individual based on the customized physical and psychological profile that includes a subset of a plurality of exercises, the subset of the plurality of exercises in the stress management program including exercises directed to both physical and mental health, an execution order of the plurality of exercises based on the customized physical and psychological profile;
[engage] support community via meetings with other individuals executing stress management programs;
simultaneously [present]: the resiliency score, the plurality of sub-values upon which the resiliency score is based, and information from the profile indicating strengths and weaknesses contributing to each of the plurality of sub-values;
monitor continually for data from the individual, the data relating to a subsequent performance of the individual in following the created stress management program, including the performance of at least one of the subset of the plurality of exercises by the individual as indicated in the data; and
adjust, the profile, the resiliency score, the plurality of sub-values upon which the resiliency score is based, and the information from the profile indicating strengths and weakness contributing to each of the plurality of sub-values as a result of the monitoring of the performance of the individual in following the exercises in the created stress management program as indicated in the data, and
adjust the subset of exercises in the stress management program based upon results of the individual in performing the exercises in the subset of the plurality of exercises as indicated in the data,
wherein the adjusted resiliency score, adjusted plurality of sub-values and the adjusted information from the profile indicating strengths and weakness contributing to each of the adjusted plurality of sub-values are simultaneously displayed, and wherein the performance by the individual of at least one of the adjusted subset of exercises is monitored.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
The current claims correspond to managing personal behavior, or an evaluation, wherein an individual is provided with an assessment, so that the mental and physical status of the individual is estimated—in the form of one or more scores—based on the response(s) that the individua is providing; and wherein one or more recommendations (e.g. personalized stress management program that includes exercise recommendations) are presented to the individual in order to improve the individual’s mental and/or physical conditions, including providing the individual with access to support community; and wherein the individual’s progress is continually monitored—such as, determining, based on data being collected regarding the individual, whether the individual is
performing one or more of the recommended exercises, etc.; and furthermore, updated information (e.g., updated scores, etc.) is presented to the individual based on the monitoring, etc.
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong Two
The claims recite additional elements, wherein a computing device(s) with one or more processors, an interface, a database, a network, and also a non-transitory computer-readable medium, etc., are utilized to facilitate the recited steps/functions regarding: enabling an individual to connect to a network in order to access an online assessment; determining a resiliency score for the individual based on the performance of the individual on the online assessment; storing a plurality of exercises; generating a profile, including customized physical and psychological profile for the individual; creating—based on the customized physical and psychological profile—a personalized lifestyle stress management program for the individual; presenting a continuously available visual dashboard; enabling access to an online support community via online meetings; displaying information (e.g. simultaneously displaying the resiliency score, the plurality of sub-values, strengths and weaknesses contributing to each of the plurality of sub-values); continually monitoring a subsequent performance of the individual in following the created lifestyle stress management program; adjusting data (e.g. adjusting the profile, the resiliency score, etc.); adjusting the subset of exercises in the stress management program; displaying simultaneously adjusted data elements, wherein the performance by the individual of at least one of the adjusted subset of exercises is monitored, etc.
However, the claimed additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The above observation confirms that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions.
Accordingly, when each of the current claims is considered as a whole (e.g., see the discussion under Prong Two above regarding such consideration of the claim as a whole), none of the claims recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is also worth noting, per the original disclosure, that the claimed invention is directed to a conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. For instance, the disclosure describes one or more commercially available conventional computing devices (e.g., a laptop, a desktop PC, a tablet, etc.); and the conventional computing device(s) is arranged to communicate with a server over a conventional communication network (e.g., the Internet); and thereby the computing device(s) allows a user(s) to participate in online activities; such as a lifestyle management program, and/or stress management program, etc. (e.g., see [0042] to [0049] of the specification).
In addition, the utilization of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate interactions between a user(s) and a service provider(s), including the process of providing a question(s) to the user regarding one or more health conditions and generating—based on the evaluation of a response(s) received from the user—one or more results (e.g. a health score; a recommended exercise and/or diet, etc.), is directed to a conventional, routine and well-known activity in the art (e.g. see US 2004/0267565; US 2004/0181432; US 2007/0185391, etc.).
The observations above confirm that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 3, 11 and 19). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each of the dependent claims is directed to a further abstract idea. Accordingly, none of the current claims is implementing a claim element—or a combination of claim elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims involves an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement, etc.).
► Applicant’s arguments directed to section §101 have been fully considered (the argument filed on 06/18/2025). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, while referring to the MPEP—namely, MPEP 2106.04(d)(2), Applicant is asserting that “[t]he additional elements in Applicant's clams apply or use the asserted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a medical condition (stress) . . . the treatment for stress management is the physical and mental
exercises being prescribed and performed, monitored and adjusted. This treatment is delivered over a network via the additional (computing) elements acknowledged in the OA which serve to integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application” (emphasis added).
However, neither the process of prescribing the mental and/or physical exercises, nor the process of performing/monitoring and/or adjusting the exercises, alone or in combination with the rest of the claimed/disclosed features, corresponds to a patent-eligible treatment. This is because a patent-eligible treatment or prophylaxis limitation is required to be “particular”, as opposed to a generic one that encompasses all applications of the judicial exception. In fact, the MPEP provides some examples related to such patent-eligible treatments; see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) (emphasis added),
Examples of "treatment" and prophylaxis" limitations encompass limitations that treat or prevent a disease or medical condition, including, e.g., acupuncture, administration of medication, dialysis, organ transplants, phototherapy, physiotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery, and the like. For example, an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases is considered to be a particular prophylaxis limitation that practically applies the abstract idea. See, e.g., Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066–68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500-01 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
In contrast, regarding Applicant’s current case, there is nothing particular about the claimed—and the disclosed—mental stress management process, much less a “particular” mental stress treatment that implements a specific treatment procedure. In fact, even the exercises, which the claimed—and the disclosed—system/method is supposedly prescribing, are very generic that they encompass almost all possible types of exercises, which an individual may perform regardless of the individual’s mental and/or physical condition. Thus, given the significant deficiency above, none of the claimed features, including (i) the process of monitoring the individual’s performance and/or (ii) the process of adjusting the exercises based on the monitoring above, etc., alone or in combination is sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. Consequently, Applicant’s conclusory assertion—namely, the alleged integration of the judicial exception into a patent-eligible practical application, is not persuasive.
Moreover, unlike Applicant’s incorrect assumption, the office action nowhere acknowledges that the claimed computer elements “serve to integrate” the abstract idea into a “practical application”; rather, the Office is confirming the failure of the claimed computer elements to integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application (also see the first paragraph on page 8 of the office action dated 10/01/2025). Consequently, Applicant appears to make a misleading assertion regarding the Office’s findings.
In addition, while relying on non-analogous cases, Applicant appears to be attempting to support the same assertion regarding the alleged integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant asserts, “[the] physical and mental exercise treatments are very much akin to the application of the drug in Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm . . . the listing of physiotherapy in MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) as a treatment that is an example of limitations encompassing treating or preventing a disease or medical condition. In the instant case, a portion of the treatment for stress is prescribed and functionally delivered over the network as a set of exercises as Applicant's claims also recite limitations that only occur (e.g. the monitoring and subsequent adjustment of the program) based on the exercises actually being performed. For example, independent and representative claim 1 recites in part ‘monitor continually a subsequent performance of the individual in following the created stress management program including the performance of at least one of the subset of the plurality of exercises by the individual as reflected in data received from the individual that is transmitted at any time via a client computing device’ and ‘wherein the performance by the individual of at least one of the adjusted subset of exercises is monitored.’ Independent claims 8 and 16 recite corresponding features)” (emphasis added).
However, none of the current claims is even remotely related to any of the patent-eligible examples presented in the MPEP. Although Applicant is attempting to correlate the current claims with Vanda and physiotherapy, Applicant appears to fail to appreciate the significant gap between the current claims and the two cases above. For instance, each of the above cases typically involves a healthcare professional who not only performs a physical evaluation and diagnosis regarding the patient’s specific condition, but also positively administers a particular treatment to the patient. In fact, regarding Vanda, even the specific dose of the medication—i.e. iloperidone—is determined based on conducting an actual laboratory analysis.
In contrast, none of Applicant’s claims necessarily implements any procedure(s) that signifies an actual treatment, much less a patent-eligible “particular” treatment. Instead, the entire mental stress management process, as currently claimed and originally disclosed, is referring merely to the exchange of information. In particular, while relying on the existing computer/network technology as a tool, various pieces of information are exchanged between the user and the stress management platform at one or more time intervals (e.g., see current claim 1, or any of the current claims). Neither the current claims nor the original disclosure as a whole goes beyond that. Thus, unlike Applicant’s assertion, none of the current claims—considered as a whole—integrates the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application.
Moreover, it is immaterial whether Applicant asserts that some of the limitations, namely (i) the one that relates to the process of monitoring the individual’s performance, and (ii) the one that relates to the process of adjusting the program based on the monitoring, etc., only occur based on the exercises being actually performed. This is because the above steps, alone or in combination, have nothing to do with signifying the alleged integration of the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. Instead, they are merely denoting some common steps/tasks that users and/or existing automated systems normally perform (e.g., monitoring the progress of a student in a given course, and subsequently modifying one or more of the lesson materials based on the monitoring, etc.). Accordingly, Applicant appears to fail to appreciate factors that must be considered to determine whether a given claim is integrating a judicial exception into a patent-eligible practical application.
In addition, unlike Applicant’s assertion, the two steps above (i.e., the process of monitoring the individual, and the process of adjusting the program) are not necessarily based on the exercises being actually performed. Instead, the claimed (and disclosed) system/method is relying merely on information or feedback that the user is providing manually; such as, the so-called “frequent reassessment” and/or “self-reported metrics” (e.g., see [0034] of the specification). The fact above confirms that the claimed (and the disclosed) monitoring and adjustment steps have nothing to do with the individual actually performing any of the exercises (even if one expects the individual to make the report after performing the exercises). Instead, the steps above are merely representing part of the information exchange, which the user is conducting with the platform. In particular, the user provides (e.g., via a keyboard, etc.) information to the system (e.g., information related to the exercises performed); and responsive to the user’s input, the platform provides updated information to the user (information representing adjusted exercises, etc.). Of course, besides the fact above, it is once again worth noting that none of the claims necessarily correlates a particular exercise with a particular mental stress condition, etc. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Secondly, Applicant also appears to misconstrue the Office’s analysis presented in the previous office action (i.e., pages 14-16 of the office action dated 10/01/2025). For instance, Applicant asserts, “the Office Action appear to be drawing a distinction based on the initial results of the exercises being reported back to the platform by the user, after the exercises have been performed, as a means to distinguish Vanda in which the genotyping assay is performed in a lab. Applicant respectfully submits that no such distinction is supportable. The claim require the exercises, which in the case of stress management is the treatment, to be actually performed. The Office Action refers to the results of the exercises being performed as ‘subjective inputs’ and appears to be making some sort of trustworthiness judgment regarding the performance because of the mechanism of collecting the data regarding the performance. This distinction because of the manner of identifying results does not appear to be supported by caselaw or the Office's guidance. Applicant's claim affirmatively recites an actual performance of the treatment and should not therefore be read as an intended use” (emphasis added).
However, unlike Applicant’s misinterpretation above, the previous analysis (i.e., pages 14-16 of the office action) has nothing to do with distinguishing the current claims from Vanda based on the “initial results of the exercises being reported back to the platform by the user”; instead, while referring to the features of the patent-eligible Vanda, the previous analysis is pointing out the fundamental differences between the current claims and Vanda. In particular, the current claims (also the disclosure) are directed merely to the exchange of information between the user and the platform, regardless of whether the user is reporting the initial results after performing the exercises. In contrast, Vanda requires not only a particular laboratory procedure (i.e., genotyping assay) to evaluate the user’s condition based on a sample taken from the user, but also an actual administration of a specific medication (iloperidone), wherein the particular dosage of the above medication is determined based on the laboratory result above. Thus, even basic common sense dictates that the current claims are not even remotely comparable to Vanda.
In addition, regardless of Applicant’s speculation about “some sort of trustworthiness judgment”, the Office’s analysis is based on the description that the claims and the disclosure are presenting. For instance, per the current claims, the platform provides an online assessment to the individual; and the above online assessment is evaluated to determine a resiliency score, which indicates the overall mental and physical status of the individual. Thus, the individual is indeed providing subjective inputs when responding to the online assessment; and subsequently, the platform is relying on the individual’s subjective inputs to determine the overall mental and physical status of the individual. Note that the same is true regarding the process of monitoring the individual’s performance of the exercises. In fact, the specification expressly indicates that the monitoring process relies on the individual’s interaction with the platform (see [0034], emphasis added),
“. . . The interaction of the individual with the dashboard enables the monitoring module of the stress management program (or a separate portion of the lifestyle management portion) to monitor the individual’s progress in developing resilience and coping skills both through frequent reassessment and through self-reported metrics. Metric tracking may be enhanced with tools available via the web and handheld devices such as smartphones . . .”
The excerpt above from the specification confirms that the claimed monitoring process is relying on subjective inputs that the user is providing. Accordingly, regardless of Applicant’s theory about the alleged “trustworthiness judgment”, the claimed (and the disclosed) platform is relying on the user’s input to accomplish the claimed (and the disclosed) lifestyle management process.
The observations above demonstrate that neither the current claims nor the original disclosure implements an element—or a combination of elements—that integrates the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. Instead, the current claims, including the original disclosure as a whole, are relying on the existing computer/network technology to facilitate the exchange of information between the user and the claimed/disclosed platform. So far, except for making some speculations about the Office’s previous analysis, Applicant’s fails to demonstrate whether any of the current claims, or even the original disclosure as a whole, is implementing a particular element (if any)—or a combination of elements (if any)—that integrates the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further asserts, “[the] claims require more than the presentment of information as they also require an actual performance of at least one of the exercises which triggers an adjustment of the exercises (i.e. further treatment). In the field of stress management, the performance of the exercise is very much akin to the drug administration in Vanda. Further, the recited monitoring and subsequent adjustment of the exercises based on the initial results represent meaningful limitations on practicing the alleged abstract idea” (emphasis added).
However, regardless of whether the claims (and/or the disclosure) require the actual performance of the exercise in order to adjust the exercises, this does not change the fact pointed out above. In particular, while relying merely on the existing computer/network technology, the claimed (and disclosed) system/method is merely facilitating the exchange of information between the user and the platform (see the discussion above). Thus, regardless of whether the user is reporting to the platform after performing the exercises, or before performing the exercises, the underlying fact above does not change. Consequently, unlike Applicant’s conclusory assertion, none of the current claims is even remotely relevant to Vanda (see again the discussion above that relates to Vanda).
In addition, Applicant is mistaking part of the abstract idea for a meaningful limitation(s) that supposedly integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. For instance, unlike Applicant’s conclusory assertion, the limitations that correspond to the “monitoring and subsequent adjustment of the exercises based on the initial results” are part of the abstract idea. This is again because the limitations above are merely signifying the information being exchanged between the user and the platform. In particular, the user is providing (e.g., via a keyboard, etc.) information to the platform (e.g., information related to the exercises performed); and responsive to the user’s input, the platform provides updated information to the user (information representing adjusted exercises, etc.). Accordingly, the claimed (and the disclosed) system/method is utilizing existing computer/network technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate the exchange of information (abstract idea). Consequently, unlike Applicant’s conclusion, the limitations above—when considered alone or in combination with the rest of the limitations—do not impose any meaningful limit to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. Thus, Applicant’s subsequent conclusory assertion, “the additional elements apply or use the recited judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition”, are also not persuasive.
The discussions above demonstrate that none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, implements an element—or a combination of elements—that amounts to an inventive concept.
Prior Art
4. Considering each of claims 1, 8 and 16 as a whole (including their respective dependent claims), the prior art does not teach or suggest the invention as currently claimed (regarding the state of the prior art, see the office action dated 11/25/2019).
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filled within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached from 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights