DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the claims
1-2, 4-6, 12-13,16, 19-22 are amended.
Claim 23 is new.
Claims 1-10 and 12-23 are examined herein.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 and 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the claims are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process and machine, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-10 and 12-23 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Mental Processes” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that recite concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite the abstract idea of determining a value of a metric characterizing a consistency between a classification code and a keyword in order to determine compliance. This idea is described by the following claim steps:
receiving request data, the request data comprising application data characterizing a product and compliance data characterizing an activity, and the compliance data comprising a classification code and textual content;
generating one or more keywords associated with the activity based on a portion of the textual content;
based on the classification code and the at least one of the keywords, determine a value of a metric characterizing a consistency between the classification code and the at least one of the keywords;
and when the metric value is inconsistent with at least one compliance criterion, obtain additional data associated with the activity and determine, a compliance of the activity with a restriction associated with the product based on the additional data, and
based on the determined compliance, performing operations, that provision the product in accordance with at least a portion of the application data.
This idea falls within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas because it is directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The concepts performed in the human mind, perhaps with the aid of pen and paper, are directed to approving an application and issuing a financial product to a prospective customer (See [003].). Wherein the data is observed or received and evaluated in order to generate results of the evaluation. This is done by (i) analyzing application data characterizing a product and compliance data characterizing an activity further comprising a classification and textual code (ii) determining a value of a metric characterizing a consistency between the classification code and at least one keyword and (iii) determining a compliance of the activity with a restriction associated with the product based on additional data.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the Mental Processes abstract idea groupings of the MPEP 2106, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the Mental Processes abstract idea groupings described in the MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below. Claims 12 and 20 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore determined to recite the same abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are:
a memory storing instructions;
a memory storing instructions;
a communications interface;
at least one processor coupled to the memory and the communications interface;
a trained natural-language processing operation;
a trained machine- learning or artificial-intelligence process comprising a trained artificial neural network including an input layer having a plurality of input nodes that ingest corresponding ones of the elements of the unput dataset, an output layer having an output node and one or more intermediate computational layers disposed between the input and output layer;
a programmatic channel of communications with a programmatic interface of a computing system;
at least one processor;
a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions;
a device.
However, using a computer environment such as processor, natural language processing, machine learning or artificial-intelligence and the other recited computer elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Performing an approval process for an application and issuing financial products to prospective customer can reasonably be performed by pencil and paper until limited to a computerized environment by requiring applying a machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process. For example, specifying that the abstract idea of approving an application and issuing financial products to relates to a process that is executed in a computer environment through the recited computing elements merely limits the claims to the computer field.
These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and alternatively serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
Regarding limitations directed to the use of “natural-language processing operation” and “machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process” the examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim does not recite how the system improves computer functioning. There is no specific machine learning or artificial intelligence architecture or algorithm and no improvement to ML performance, memory management, or processing speed recited in the claim.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method, computer system, and computer program product that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 12 and 20 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a commercial or legal interaction or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 13-19 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above.
Dependent claims 2, 4 and 13 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitations the textual content comprises one or more elements of natural language that characterize the activity; and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: apply the trained natural-language processing operation to the elements of natural language; and based on the application of the trained natural-language processing operation to the elements of natural language, generate the one or more keywords associated with the activity and obtain composition data associated with the trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process, the composition data identifying input feature values of the input dataset and specifying an order of the input feature values with the input dataset, and the input feature values comprising the classification code and at least one of the keywords; and based on the composition data, package each of the input feature values into the input dataset at a corresponding position with the specified order. The examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore, the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 3 and 14 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use by introducing the limitation wherein the elements of natural language comprise a plurality of discrete linguistic elements, and the discrete linguistic elements include at least one of the keywords. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 5 and 16 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation store the request data within a corresponding portion of the memory, the request data further comprising a request identifier; determine that the metric value is inconsistent with the at least one compliance criterion; and based on the determination that the metric value is inconsistent with the at least one compliance criterion, generate a data flag indicative of the inconsistency between the metric value and the at least one compliance criterion, and store the data flag within the corresponding portion of the memory. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information in a generic computing environment, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation based on the determination that the metric value is inconsistent with the at least one compliance criterion, request and receive, across the programmatic communications channel via the programmatic interface, one or more elements of the additional data from the computing system; and store the one or more elements of the additional data within the corresponding portion of the memory. Further, embellishing that the invention is capable of processing and storing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation transmit, via the communications interface, an audit request that includes the request identifier and the data flag to an additional device, the additional device being configured to access the additional data based on at least the request identifier and to present a portion of the additional data within a digital interface; receive an audit response from the additional device via the communications interface; and determine the compliance of the activity with the restriction based on at least the audit response. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 8 and 17 further limit the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation transmit, via the communications interface, a notification indicative of the provisioned product to the device, the device being configured to present at least a portion of the notification within a digital interface. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing and transmitting information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 9 and 18 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation wherein: the at least one compliance criterion comprises a threshold value; and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine that the metric value exceeds the threshold value; and determine that the metric value is inconsistent with the at least one compliance criterion based on the determination that the metric value exceeds the threshold value. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing simple mathematical concepts and transmitting information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 10 and 19 further limit the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation determine that the metric value is consistent with the at least one compliance criterion; and based on the determination that the metric value is consistent with the at least one compliance criterion, determine that the activity complies with the restriction. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing and transmitting information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 21 further limits the abstract idea by linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation obtain process data and composition data associated with the trained artificial neural network, the process data comprising a value of one or more parameters of the artificial neural network, the composition data identifying input feature values of the input dataset and specifying an order of the input feature values within the input dataset, and the input feature values comprising the classification code and at least one of the keywords; establish the plurality of input nodes of the trained artificial neural network in accordance with the one or more parameter values; based on the composition data, generate the input feature values and package each of the input feature values into the input data at a corresponding position consistent with the specified order; provision a corresponding input feature value of the input dataset to each of the established input nodes; and provision an output of the established input nodes to a corresponding one of the one or more intermediate computational layers. The examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore, the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 22 further limits the abstract idea by linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation wherein the textual content comprises a plurality of discrete linguistic elements; the input dataset further comprises the classification code and a plurality of the keywords, the keywords comprising at least one of the discrete linguistic elements; and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine a plurality of metric values based on the application of the trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process to the input dataset, each of the metric values characterizing a consistency between the classification code and a corresponding one of the plurality of the keywords. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing and transmitting information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 21 further limits the abstract idea by linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation wherein: the textual content comprises one or more discrete linguistic elements; and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: establish a context or a semantic meaning of the one or more discrete linguistic elements based on the application of the trained natural-language processing operation to the portion of the textual content; and generate the one or more keywords based on the established context or semantic meaning of the one or more discrete linguistic elements. The examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore, the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide high level of generality computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information see MPEP 2106.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the previously presented 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues:
“a. The Office's analysis fails to establish that the Applicant's claims "recite" a patent-ineligible abstract idea under Prong One of Revised Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test” Examiner disagrees. Please refer to the detailed analysis as presented above wherein the examiner evaluated wherein the claim recites a judicial exception. The Examiner identified the abstract idea under “Mental Processes” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that recite concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). That is because claims 1, 12 and 20 recite the abstract idea of determining a value of a metric characterizing a consistency between a classification code and a keyword in order to determine compliance. The Examiner further identified the claimed limitations that are describing the abstract idea.
Applicant is reminded that under the Step 2A analysis Prong One, the Examiner identifies the abstract idea and for Prong Two the Examiner determines of the claim recites additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant argues the Office generalized the actual elements recited by Applicant’s claims and failed to provide Applicant’s claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Applicant’s Specification citing MPEP 2111. Applicant’s argument regarding MPEP 2111 is not persuasive because the rejection does not depend upon improper construction or interpretation of the claim. MPEP 2111 concerns the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim language during examination, consistent with the specification. In contrast, the present 35 USC 101 rejection concerns whether the limitations of the claims, as reasonably understood, satisfy the patent eligibility requirements of 35 USC 101 under the framework set forth in MPEP 2106. As stated, under step 2A, Prong One, the Examiner identified the specific limitations that recite the abstract idea and determined whether those limitations fall within one of the groupings. In the instant case, the Examiner identified the limitations directed to determining a value of a metric characterizing consistency between a classification code and a keyword in order to determine compliance as reciting a mental process such as an evaluation of the data. This characterization does not improperly rewrite, ignore or broaden the claim limitations, rather it identifies the underlying concept recited by the claimed limitations as required by the 35 USC 101 analysis. Under Step 2A, Prong Two the claim is then considered as a whole to determine whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, Applicant’s reliance on MPEP 2111 does not demonstrate error in the 101 analysis.
“Moreover, Applicant submits that a manual or mental interpretation of Applicant's claims, as alleged by the Office, is based on nothing more than an impermissible generation of Applicant's claims that ignores the specific elements recited by these claims. See Google Inc. V. SimpleAir, Inc., CBM 2014-00170, Paper No. 13 at 16 (P.T.A.B. January 22, 2015) (holding that "every method can be generalized to the point of abstraction if the claim language is ignored[,] [and] generalized arguments, not directed to the specific language of the challenged claims, are insufficient to show that the claims more likely than not are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea."). Despite conclusory, unsupported assertions, the Office's analysis does not- and cannot- identify any portion of Applicant's Specification that would support its conclusion that a user could perform, via pen and paper or in the mind, any of the actual elements recited by Applicant's independent claims. See M.P.E.P. § 2111.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner is not required to identify a portion of the Specification stating that the claimed steps may be performed mentally or using pen and paper. Under the Step 2A Prong One analysis, the determination of whether a claim recites a mental process is based on the limitations actually recited in the claim. In this case, the claimed steps involve evaluation of data that can practically be performed in the human mind. The fact that the Specification describes these operations as being performed using a computer does not, by itself, change the nature of the underlying steps. Accordingly, the Examiner need does not need to identify an express disclosure in the Specification describing manual or mental performance of these steps in order to determine that the claim recites a mental process under MPEP 2106.
“b. The Office fails to establish that Applicant's independent claims are "directed to" an abstract idea under Prong Two of Revised Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test” Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Prong Two analysis above, the Examiner pointed out the additional elements being considered as “a memory storing instructions; a memory storing instructions; a communications interface; at least one processor coupled to the memory and the communications interface; a trained natural-language processing operation; a trained machine- learning or artificial-intelligence process comprising a trained artificial neural network including an input layer having a plurality of input nodes that ingest corresponding ones of the elements of the unput dataset, an output layer having an output node and one or more intermediate computational layers disposed between the input and output layer; a programmatic channel of communications with a programmatic interface of a computing system; at least one processor; a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions; a device” However, using a computer environment such as processor, natural language processing; machine learning or artificial-intelligence and the other recited computer elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Performing an approval process for an application and issuing financial products to prospective customer can reasonably be performed by pencil and paper until limited to a computerized environment by requiring applying a machine- learning or artificial-intelligence process. For example, specifying that the abstract idea of approving an application and issuing financial products to relates to a process that is executed in a computer environment through the recited computing elements merely limits the claims to the computer field. The claims at hand, are directed to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). It is noted that the claims do not provide disclosure of a specific improvement to computer technology or computer functionality that could be considered as an integration to the practical application.
Additionally, it appears that Applicant is arguing a business solution by arguing that the claims provide an improvement in “in the operation of existing, computer-implemented compliance workflow processes that rely on numerical classification codes in the assessment and assignment of risk to relationships with prospective customers of an organization.” Accounting for gradations in the risk across prospective customer associated with a common numerical classification code is a business solution rather than an improvement in technology, which does not require any technology to improve such a process. Identification of prospective customers is a process that does not require any technology and improving such identification, such that it properly identifies the prospective customers, would result in less resources since the process is improved. However, it does not represent an improvement on the technology itself, but rather a better or shorter process that results in less resources being used, wherein the process improved is a business solution not a technological improvement.
“C. Applicant's independent claims amount to "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the detailed rejection above, where the Examiner properly made all the required analysis independently and analyzed the claims as a whole in order to determine that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and concluded that the claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. Please see the 35 USC 101 rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Segal, US 11775974, Systems And Methods For Detection Of Fraud Attacks Using Merchants To Test Payment Accounts. This disclosure relates generally to fraud detection in a computer network and, more particularly, to computer-based systems and methods for detecting fraud attacks on merchants that include test payments using compromised payment accounts prior to those payment accounts being used to carry out further fraudulent transactions.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 filed 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights