DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-11 have been amended.
This office action is in response to the amendment submitted on 14-NOV-2025.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed Application No. DE102020114575.6, filed on 05/30/2020.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC 101
On pgs. 6-10 of the Applicant/Arguments Remarks dated 11/14/2025 (hereinafter ‘Remarks’), Applicant argues the amended claims have overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees and finds Claim 2 of Example 47 from the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples relevant.
On pgs. 7-8, the applicant argues their invention “provides an unconventional and technical method” and that it provides “practical application that is an improvement in the field of quantum simulation”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant is reminded that the novelty of the invention is a separate analysis not related to the 101 subject matter eligibility. Please see MPEP 2106.05. Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter."
The examiner further disagrees with the practical application is an improvement to the field of quantum computing. A proper statement of the rule as given by Enfish: For that reason, the first step in the Alice inquiry in this case asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. (see Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The Court’s analysis of the claim hinged on the “self-referential table” limitation being an improvement over the conventional technology and not invoking the computer as a tool.
In our instant application, the claimed improvement is an improvement on the mental process, but invokes a computer as a tool to perform the mental process. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a) paragraph 6).
MPEP 2106.05(a) further states: To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
On pg. 9 the applicant argues the invention cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
The examiner disagrees. The claim limitations are written at a high level of generality that there is nothing that precludes the mind from performing them. The applicant is reminded that the physics with its sophisticated equations for the field of quantum computing, were invented before the advent of modern calculators and computers. The use of measuring equipment to measure decoherence is merely data gathering an extra solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g).
The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC 103
On pgs. 11-12 of the Applicant/Arguments Remarks dated 11/14/2025 (hereinafter ‘Remarks’), Applicant argues the amended claims overcome the rejection under 35 USC 103.
The applicant on pg. 11 argues the ‘hypothetical combination’ of Tacchino and Gu misses the inventive concept of amended claim 1. While Tacchino and Gu teach mathematically model noise, amended claim 1 uses real physical noise of the hardware.
The examiner points to MPEP 2144, and in particular section IV, RATIONALE DIFFERENT FROM APPLICANT’S IS PERMISSIBLE. Additionally, the ‘hypothetical combination’ is from two established works in the same field. They are thus analogous and reasonable to combine.
Additionally, the applicant is importing limitations from the specification into the claim. Nothing in the claim describes mapping the physical noise of the hardware and using it to mimic the noise of the real spin system.
Lastly, as per the references used, mapping the noise is used in standard quantum simulation. Whether we say, we are mapping the noise but want to minimize it or we say, we are mapping the noise but want to keep it, doesn’t take away from the fact that mapping the noise is established in the prior art.
The applicant on pg. 12 argues that Temme teaches away from the inventive concept of claim 1.
The examiner disagrees. The applicant failed to see that Temme is replied upon to show that claim 4’s limitation: decoherence superoperators which include the coupling operators of the qubits, is obvious knowledge in the field of quantum computing. When using Temme to establish a definition in the field of quantum computing, arguing that Temme teaches away from the inventive concept in the context of claim 4 is a logical fallacy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: Statutory class – process.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes
“3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).” MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The claims are directed to an abstract idea of data processing and analysis. The claim recites:
Mapping the real, spin system on an abstract quantum spin system and at least one physical parameter to be determined to the abstract quantum spin system,
Creating a simulation algorithm for the abstract quantum spin system
determining decoherence rates and corresponding coupling operators of all available qubits of the quantum computer
mapping effective decoherence rates of spins of the abstract quantum spin system and the effective decoherence rates of the spins with the spins and associated decoherence rates of the qubits in such a way that the abstract quantum spin system is then simulated on the quantum computer
the at least one physical parameter is determined.
The mapping, creating, determining and simulating limitations are mental processes of evaluation, judgement and mathematical calculations. By way of example, one can mentally create a quantum spin computing environment, map one physical parameter on the computing system, evaluate a simulation algorithm, determine the decoherence rate, and the coupling operators of available qubits and determine the value of the physical parameter following the simulation result.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The additional elements are:
using a quantum computer
The quantum computer is a type of computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is a general purpose quantum computer. They do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Further, in regards to step 2B and as cited above in step 2A, MPEP 2106.05(g) “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir.2011)” is merely data gathering. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration. This claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 recites determining effective coupling operators associated with the effective decoherence rates, which are generated by the application of discrete gate operations from the coupling operators of the qubits, which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites determining the effective decoherence rate Γdec within a time development step tsim by means of
PNG
media_image1.png
54
182
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein N is a sequence of quantum gate operations, τi g quantum gate times and Γi g decoherence rate, which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites defining decoherence superoperators are defined which include the coupling operators of the qubits, which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites using a swapping of the decoherence superoperators to determine the effective coupling operators, which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites transforming the effective coupling operators by using gate operations, which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites using rotations of the qubit basis for the transforming the effective coupling operators, which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 recites a certain state of equilibrium is to be reached, which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 recites taking into account at least one interaction, between adjacent qubits (5) and/or quantum gates in the simulation algorithm of the abstract quantum spin system, which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 recites in order to optimize the mapping of the effective decoherence rates with the decoherence of the qubits of the quantum computer, the effective decoherence rate Γdec is a function according to the mapping
PNG
media_image2.png
40
211
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11 recites , the effective decoherence rate Γdec(Mopt) is a function according to the mapping
PNG
media_image3.png
38
253
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tacchino et al. (Quantum computers as universal quantum simulators) in view of Gu et al. (When can quantum decoherence be mimicked by classical noise?).
Regarding Claim 1, Tacchino teaches A method for simulating a real spin system using a quantum computer comprising : mapping the real spin system on an abstract quantum spin system and at least one physical parameter to be determined is to the abstract quantum spin system; creating a simulation algorithm for the abstract quantum spin system (Page 1, Abstract, " The present review aims at… these near-term noisy devices as universal quantum simulators. First, we give a pedagogic overview on the basic … digital quantum simulations, with a focus on hardware-dependent mapping of spin-type Hamiltonians into the corresponding quantum circuit model as a key initial step towards simulating more complex models." and Fig 1, shows the mapping of the of the physical parameter to the abstract spin system, where the physical model is the noisy spin system(3), the abstract spin system(4) is the Pauli Hamiltonian, and the Quantum Circuit is the Quantum computer(6), "this evolution can be approximated to arbitrary precision by mapping the given model on a spin-type model").
PNG
media_image4.png
434
516
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the abstract quantum spin system is simulated on the quantum computer and the at least one physical parameter is determined (Pg. 1, Fig 1, "the sequence of unitary operations can then be programmed through a quantum circuit model to be directly run on a quantum computer, giving the approximated evolved state as an output, ψ(t).")
However, Tacchino does not appear to explicitly teach
determining decoherence rates and corresponding coupling operators of all available qubits of the quantum computer
mapping effective decoherence rates of the spins of the abstract quantum spin system and the effective decoherence rates of the spins with spins and associated decoherence rates of the qubits
Gu teaches determining decoherence rates and corresponding coupling operators of all available qubits of the quantum computer (Pg 9, "The cumulant expansion is the Taylor expansion of the logarithm of the decoherence function with respect to the system-bath coupling strength. This can readily seen by parameterizing the system-bath interaction as HSB → λHSB," where HSB includes the coupling operators).
mapping effective decoherence rates of the spins of the abstract quantum spin system and the effective decoherence rates of the spins with spins and associated decoherence rates of the qubits (Pg. 10, "With the cumulant expansion for both sides of Eq. (23), the problem of whether classical noise can mimic quantum pure-dephasing dynamics can now be mapped to the much more manageable task of whether one can find a classical noise having correlation functions equivalent to the quantum time-correlation functions." Dephasing is one of the types of decoherence. Mapping the noise from the system being modeled, the spin system, to the QC system matches/maps their decoherence).
Tacchino and Gu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in quantum computing and simulation. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine Tacchino and Gu to arrive at robust models for mapping decoherence with coupling operators. “Here we establish necessary conditions that the classical noise models need to satisfy to quantitatively model the decoherence. Specifically, for pure-dephasing processes we identify well-defined statistical properties for the noise that are determined by the quantum many-point time correlation function of the environmental operators that enter into the system-bath interaction” (Gu, Page 1, Abstract)
Regarding Claim 2, Tacchino in view of Gu teaches the method of claim 1. Tacchino further teaches determining effective coupling operators associated with the effective decoherence rates, which are generated by the application of discrete gate operations from the coupling operators of the qubits (Fig. 1 showcases the gate operations in the Quantum Circuit as a function of the coupling operators in the Hamiltonian through the gate decomposition step. Additionally, Pg. 7, C. Two-qubits gates, "In this case, we can take as the fundamental building block XX(δ) = e −iδσx⊗σx, to which all other unitary evolution terms generated by σα ⊗ σβ can be reduced with single-qubit changes of reference frame. The XX(δ) gate is realized in S2 as
PNG
media_image5.png
74
350
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Finally, let us call S3 = {Rα(θ), CΦ(δ)} the universal set of quantum gates containing all single qubit rotations and the controlled phase gate." σx are the coupling operators, instant application’s specification [0013]).
Regarding Claim 6, Tacchino in view of Gu teaches the method of claim 1. Tacchino further teaches transforming the effective coupling operators by using gate operations (Pg. 5, III Quantum Circuits, "Among the steps that must be undertaken in order to practically design and realize a digital quantum simulation, the translation of unitary operators into elementary quantum gates is the one that is most typically hardware-dependent").
Regarding Claim 7, Tacchino in view of Gu teaches the method of claim 6. Tacchino further teaches using rotations of the qubit basis for transforming the effective coupling operators (Pg. 7, C. Two-qubits gates, "In this case, we can take as the fundamental building block XX(δ) = e −iδσx⊗σx … Finally, let us call S3 = {Rα(θ), CΦ(δ)} the universal set of quantum gates containing all single qubit rotations and the controlled phase gate" where σx are the coupling operators, instant application’s specification [0013]).
Regarding Claim 8, Tacchino in view of Gu teaches the method of claims 6 and 7. Gu further teaches a certain state of equilibrium is to be reached (Pg. 12, "The environment is assumed to be initially in thermal equilibrium at inverse temperature β = 1/(kBT) with density matrix ρB = e −βHB /Z where Z = TrB[e −βHB ] is the partition function." and Pg. 16, "The conclusion of such a formal study is that the classical noise can only be made to be equivalent to a full quantum treatment at infinite temperature, i.e., as β → 0 ").
Regarding Claim 9, Tacchino in view of Gu teaches the method of claim 1. Tacchino further teaches taking into account at least one interaction, between adjacent qubits (5) and/or quantum gates in the simulation algorithm of the abstract quantum spin system (Pg. 15, A. UQS with trapper ions, "Two-qubit entangling gates between ions trapped along the same chain are realized by exploiting the transverse normal vibrational modes of the whole ion string trapped in a harmonic potential [124], which are used as a bus to transfer quantum information").
Regarding Claim 10, Tacchino in view of Gu teaches the method of claim 1. Tacchino further teaches wherein in order to optimize the mapping of the effective decoherence rates with the decoherence rates of the qubits of the quantum computer, the effective decoherence rate Γdec is a function according to the mapping
PNG
media_image6.png
49
210
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 13, IV. EXPERIMENTAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND PROSPECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, "Indeed, this requires a considerable improvement of gate fidelities, suppression of both qubit decoherence and coherent errors due to imperfect qubit manipulations, and reduction of unwanted qubit-qubit interactions (cross-talk) whose harmful effect increases with the system size" Tacchino as is taught in the field teaches the importance of minimizing decoherence. The limitation of this claim, using the lowest possible rate is therefore obvious).
Claims 4, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tacchino et al. (Quantum computers as universal quantum simulators) in view of Gu et al. (When can quantum decoherence be mimicked by classical noise?) and further in view of Temme et al. (Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits).
Regarding Claim 4, Tacchino in view of Gu teaches the method of claim 1. However, Tacchino and Gu do not appear to explicitly teach further comprising defining decoherence superoperators which include the coupling operators of the qubits
Temme teaches further comprising defining decoherence superoperators which include the coupling operators of the qubits (Pg. 7, "It is safe to assume that a Lindblad operator L acting on a finite dimensional system, such as a collection of qubits, is bounded. However, we also consider the case of a first-principle noise model that can even be non-Markvoian. In this setting the operator L(ρ) = −[V, ρ] is expected to couple to an arbitrary large bath and V may contain unbounded operators, such as bosonic operators" The Lindblad operator is a superoperator. This is as described in the instant application’s specification, [0013] “where H is a Hamilton operator, γi describes the rates at which certain relaxation processes occur, and Li are so-called coupling operators that describe details of the relaxation processes or details of the coupling of the qubits to the external degrees of freedom. The coupling operators of the qubits are also called real coupling operators. The superoperator defined by the coupling operators is also called the Lindblad superoperator”).
Tacchino, Gu, and Temme are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in quantum computing and simulation. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine Tacchino, Gu, and Temme to benefit from error mitigation strategies and decoherence modeling techniques. “Two schemes are presented that mitigate the effect of errors and decoherence in short-depth quantum circuits… The two schemes we discuss are deliberately simple and don’t require additional qubit resources, so to be as practically relevant in current experiments as possible.” (Pg. 1, Abstract)
Regarding Claim 5, Tacchino in view of Gu teaches the method of claim 1. However, Tacchino and Gu do not appear to explicitly teach further comprising using a swapping of the decoherence superoperators to determine the effective coupling operators
Temme teaches further comprising using a swapping of the decoherence superoperators to determine the effective coupling operators (Pg. 7, "In such a setting an upper bound in terms of an operator norm of L is a moot point. Yet, in this case we can transform the evolution into the Heisenberg picture L* , for the observable A(0) = AS ⊗ 1, and look at the equations for A(t) instead" Both L, Lindblad, and L* are superoperators).
Regarding Claim 11, Tacchino in view of Gu teaches the method of claim 1. However, Tacchino and Gu do not appear to explicitly teach in order to optimize the mapping of the effective decoherence rates with the decoherence rates of the qubits of the quantum computer, the effective decoherence rate Γdec(Mopt) is a function according to the mapping
PNG
media_image7.png
40
255
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Temme teaches in order to optimize the mapping of the effective decoherence rates with the decoherence rates of the qubits of the quantum computer, the effective decoherence rate Γdec(Mopt) is a function according to the mapping
PNG
media_image7.png
40
255
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 1, "It was proven that if both the decoherence and the imprecision of gates could be reduced below a finite threshold value, then quantum computation could be performed indefinitely [5, 6]" where the threshold is the target and "It is our goal to estimate the expectation value of some quantum observable A with respect to an evolved state ρλ(T) after time T that is subject to noise characterized by the parameter λ in the limit where λ → 0. To achieve this, we apply Richardson’s deferred approach to the limit to cancel increasingly higher orders of λ [15]" where the target is 0).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Tacchino et al. (Quantum computers as universal quantum simulators) in view of Gu et al. (When can quantum decoherence be mimicked by classical noise?) and further in view of Temme et al. (Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits).
Temme (Page 4, “Let Dk be the depolarizing noise on k = 1, 2 qubits that returns the maximally mixed state with probability… Define a noisy version of a kqubit unitary gate U as DkU. The noisy basis Ω is obtained by multiplying ideal gates on the left by arbitrary Pauli operators and adding the depolarizing noise. Thus Ω is a set of operations Oα = DkPU, where U ∈ Γ is a k-qubit ideal gate and P ∈ {I, X , Y, Z}⊗k is a Pauli TPCP map.” This shows the error and consequently decoherence being measured as function of gates and gate times).
However, this reference or any reference of record or combination of references, do not disclose or suggest, the whole equation as set forth in Claims 3 specifically,
Determining the effective decoherence rate Γdec within a time development step tsim by means of
PNG
media_image8.png
50
185
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein N is a sequence of quantum gate operations, τi g quantum gate times and Γi g decoherence rate.
In combination with the remaining features and elements of the claims from which they depend.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AMIR DARWISH whose telephone number is (571)272-4779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Thurs.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached on 571-272-3652. 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.
/A.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights