DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicants application filing received on March 3, 2023. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending in the instant application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicants filing of IDS references on March 3, 2023. The references have been considered at this time. A copy of the annotated IDS sheet is included in this correspondence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system or “apparatus”, method or “process”, or product or “article of manufacture” and is activity optimization using virtual reality content which is a process (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 14 and product Claim 8. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
receiving, by a computing device, at least one workflow associated with a facility;
rendering, by the computing device, a virtual environment of the facility based on the workflow;
analyzing, by the computing device, a plurality of activities of a user associated with the workflow; and
optimizing, by the computing device, the workflow within the virtual environment based on the analysis.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Receiving a workflow, rendering the workflow in a virtual environment, analyzing activities, and optimizing the workflow recites a fundamental economic practice. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The computerized system for optimizing activities in Claim 14 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The computer program product for optimizing activities in Claim 8 appears to be just software. Claims 8 and 14 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mental Processes”. Receiving a workflow, rendering the workflow in a virtual environment, analyzing activities, and optimizing the workflow recites a concept performed in the human mind. But for the “computing device”, “facility”, and “virtual environment” language, the claim encompasses receiving a workflow, modeling the workflow to analyze activities, and optimize the workflow based on the analysis using his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing device and virtual environment does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The computerized system for optimizing activities in Claim 14 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The computer program product for optimizing activities in Claim 8 appears to be just software. Claims 8 and 14 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a computing device, a facility, and a virtual environment (Claim 1) a computer program product (claim 8) and/or one or more processors, and one or more computer readable memories (Claim 14). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 8, and 14 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0029] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices [COMPUTER 101 may take the form of a desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, smart phone, smart watch or other wearable computer, computer-mediated reality device (e.g., AR/VR headsets, AR/VR goggles, AR/VR glasses, etc.), mainframe computer, quantum computer or any other form of computer or mobile device now known or to be developed in the future that is capable of running a program, accessing a network or querying a database, such as remote database 130.] and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 8, and 14 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 8 and 14 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d), (f), (g), and/or (h) which include activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 15, and 16 are similar to MPEP 2105.06(d)II. iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
Claims 4, and 17 are similar to MPEP 2105.06(f)(2) i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claims 5, 11, and 18 are a combination of MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claims 6, 12, and 19 are similar to MPEP 2106.05(d)II. iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
Claims 7, 13, and 20 are similar to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Therefore, the claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 13-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Griswold et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0235953 A1 (hereafter Griswold).
Regarding claim 1, Griswold discloses receiving, by a computing device, at least one workflow associated with a facility (see at least Abstract, simulating the layout and flow of a manufacturing facility. An initial facility layout concept and a baseline input data set are received which define placement and movement of virtual objects within a virtual facility model.);
rendering, by the computing device, a virtual environment of the facility based on the workflow (see at least Abstract, A simulated flow model for the manufacturing facility is generated.);
analyzing, by the computing device, a plurality of activities of a user associated with the workflow (see at least Abstract, An event flow analysis that outputs timing for movement of the objects from the initial positions may be performed. A geometric flow analysis that outputs interactions between the objects resulting from the movements from the initial positions may be performed. An ergonomic analysis that outputs human postures and motions resulting from interactions with objects may be performed.); and
optimizing, by the computing device, the workflow within the virtual environment based on the analysis (see at least [0017] Optimizing the flow requires significant planning and coordination. To identify a layout and flow of activities in a manufacturing facility, various stakeholders (i.e., personnel with experience with different aspects of the manufacturing process, such as ergonomics and tooling requirements, responsible for ensuring the flow in the manufacturing facility meets requirements of the various aspects) are often brought together for large-scale meetings to iteratively design the layout and flow of activities in the manufacturing site. [0026] the computer memory 112 stores various applications. For example, the computer memory 112 stores an event flow analysis application 120 that, when executed on the computer processor 104, outputs an event flow analysis 122. The event flow analysis 122 is stored in the computer memory 112. To produce the event flow analysis 122, the event flow analysis application 120 operates on the initial facility layout concept 114 and the baseline input data set 116 (and/or the modified facility layout concept 115 and/or the modified input data set 118) to determine a length of time required to perform the various motions and tasks defined in the baseline input data set 116 and/or the modified input data set 118. The event flow analysis application 120 can account for statistical likelihoods and/or ordering of movements and tasks to determine the length of time and the confidence level for the length of time. For example, the event flow analysis application 120 may determine that a particular simulated flow should be completed in three hours with a 95% confidence interval, within three and a half hours with 97% confidence interval, and within four hours with a 99% confidence interval.).
Regarding claim 2, Griswold discloses wherein the facility is an industrial floor (see at least Abstract, the layout and flow of a manufacturing facility).
Regarding claim 3, Griswold discloses wherein analyzing the plurality of activities comprises: conducting, by the computing device, a time study of the plurality of activities (see at least [0026], To produce the event flow analysis 122, the event flow analysis application 120 operates on the initial facility layout concept 114 and the baseline input data set 116 (and/or the modified facility layout concept 115 and/or the modified input data set 118) to determine a length of time required to perform the various motions and tasks defined in the baseline input data set 116 and/or the modified input data set 118. The event flow analysis application 120 can account for statistical likelihoods and/or ordering of movements and tasks to determine the length of time and the confidence level for the length of time.); and
classifying, by the computing device, an activity of the plurality of activities as a value added activity or non-value added activity based on the time study (see at least [0026] To produce the event flow analysis 122, the event flow analysis application 120 operates on the initial facility layout concept 114 and the baseline input data set 116 (and/or the modified facility layout concept 115 and/or the modified input data set 118) to determine a length of time required to perform the various motions and tasks defined in the baseline input data set 116 and/or the modified input data set 118. [0027] a geometric flow analysis application 124 that, when executed on the computer processor 104, outputs a geometric flow analysis 126. The geometric flow analysis 126 is stored in the computer memory 112. To produce the geometric flow analysis 126, the geometric flow analysis application 124 operates on the event flow analysis 122 and the three-dimensional models of the various objects in the initial facility layout concept 114 to identify proximities of various objects to each other. [0028] The ergonomic analysis application 128 operates on the initial facility layout concept 114, the baseline input data set 116 (and/or the modified facility layout concept 115 and/or the modified input data set 118), the event flow analysis 122, and the geometric flow analysis 126 to identify ergonomic issues with human objects in the virtual environment. Performing analysis of tasks and movements. Changes are not made to disrupt flow and slow the production process (non-value). Changes are made to improve the flow and production or manufacture process (value added)).
Regarding claim 4, Griswold discloses wherein optimizing the workflow comprises: optimizing, by the computing device, the value added activity or non-value added activity within the facility based on the time study (see at least [0037] a decision is made as to whether the simulated flow model 117 is satisfactory. In a least one aspect, the simulated flow model 117 is satisfactory if there are no collisions or conflicts between objects and if the human objects in the simulated flow model 117 assumes acceptable postures to perform the various tasks. In at least one aspect, the simulated flow model 117 is satisfactory if the duration of the simulated flow is below a threshold amount of time. In the event the simulated flow model 117 is satisfactory, then the method 200 ends at block 216.).
Regarding claim 7, Griswold discloses further comprising: aggregating, by the computing device, the plurality of activities based on the analysis (see at least [0035] Fig. 2, In block 206, at least one of several analyses is performed. For example, an event flow analysis may be performed that outputs timing for movement of the plurality of objects from the initial positions. For example, the event flow analysis may indicate that a first object moves immediately from an initial position at a speed of 2 mph and that a second object stays in its initial position for three minutes before moving at a speed of 5 mph. The event flow analysis may result in an expected time for a simulated flow to be completed. As another example, a geometric flow analysis may be performed that outputs interactions between the plurality of objects resulting from the movements from the initial positions. For example, the geometric flow analysis may indicate that a first object and a second object will collide if moved in accordance with the baseline input data set. As another example, the ergonomic analysis may be performed that outputs human postures and motions resulting from interactions with objects from among the plurality of objects. For example, the ergonomic analysis may indicate that a first human object must bend over to perform a particular task and that a second human object is standing to perform a particular task. The ergonomic analysis could include a score for the respective postures. For example, the bent over posture of the first human object may be scored lower than the standing posture of the second human object.); and
dynamically adapting, by the computing device, the virtual environment based on the optimization resulting in virtual mobility optimization associated with the user (par. [0037] In block 214 of the method 200, a decision is made as to whether the simulated flow model 117 is satisfactory. In a least one aspect, the simulated flow model 117 is satisfactory if there are no collisions or conflicts between objects and if the human objects in the simulated flow model 117 assumes acceptable postures to perform the various tasks. In at least one aspect, the simulated flow model 117 is satisfactory if the duration of the simulated flow is below a threshold amount of time. In the event the simulated flow model 117 is satisfactory, then the method 200 ends at block 216.).
Claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 3 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 5 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 7 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claims 1 or 8 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 2 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claims 3 or 9 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 4 or 10 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 7 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griswold et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0235953 A1 (hereafter Griswold) in view of Stump et al. U.S. Publication 2021/0096543 A1 (hereafter Stump).
Regarding claim 5, Griswold discloses wherein rendering the virtual environment of the facility comprises:
receiving, by the computing device, data feeds of equipment associated with the facility (see at least [0035] The initial facility layout concept includes three-dimensional models of a plurality of objects in a facility and initial positions of the plurality of objects in the facility. In block 204, a baseline input data set for the plurality of objects in the facility is received.);
generating, by the computing device, virtual representations of the equipment (see at least [0035] The baseline input data set describes when and how the plurality of objects move from the initial positions indicated in the initial facility layout concept. In block 206, at least one of several analyses is performed. For example, an event flow analysis may be performed that outputs timing for movement of the plurality of objects from the initial positions.); and
Griswold fails to disclose receiving sensor data from the facility and mapping the activities based on the sensor data.
Stump discloses, in the same field of invention, a virtual design environment
receiving, by the computing device, a plurality of sensor data associated with the facility (see at least [0031] Industrial devices 120 may include both input devices that provide data relating to the controlled industrial systems to the industrial controllers 118, and output devices that respond to control signals generated by the industrial controllers 118 to control aspects of the industrial systems. Example input devices can include telemetry devices (e.g., temperature sensors, flow meters, level sensors, pressure sensors, etc.), manual operator control devices (e.g., push buttons, selector switches, etc.), safety monitoring devices (e.g., safety mats, safety pull cords, light curtains, etc.), and other such devices.);
mapping, by the computing device, the plurality of activities to the equipment based on at least the plurality of sensor data (see at least [0048] Virtual rendering component 210 can be configured to render—via user interface component 204—a virtual reality (V R) presentation of an industrial facility or installation area on a user's wearable appliance, and translate user interactions with the VR presentation. The VR presentation can be generated based on a digital plant model stored on the IDE system 202. [0049] Simulation component 212 can be configured to simulate execution of multiple control devices—including but not limited to industrial controllers, motor drives, and other such control devices—using the system project data and the digital plant model. Image analysis component 214 can be configured to extract industrial system design data from images or video data submitted to the IDE system 202 and provide this extracted design data to the project generation component 206 for translation into system project data.) therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the interactive modeling system as disclosed by Griswold with the virtual design environment as taught by Stump for integrating a virtual design environment for automated project development as combining prior art elements is known to yield predictable results. (KSR A).
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 5 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 5 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griswold et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0235953 A1 (hereafter Griswold) in view of Stump et al. U.S. Publication 2021/0096543 A1 (hereafter Stump) in further view of Cella et al. U.S. Patent 12,354,072 B2 (hereafter Cella).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Griswold and Stump discloses that of claim 5 bur fails to disclose determining privileges associated with the user and updating permissions.
Cella discloses, in the same field of invention, an AI managed additive manufacturing where the enterprise configuration system
determining, by the computing device, user operation privileges of the equipment associated with the user (see at least [col. 426, lines 53-63] an authorization application may define the roles and access privileges of users of the platform such that users with different roles are provided different access privileges. For example, an “administrator” or “host” privilege may allow a user of the platform to make changes to platform configuration, add and remove programs, access any files and manage other users on the platform; an “engineer” privilege may allow a user of the platform to operate the platform; and a “service” privilege may allow a user of the platform to access a subset of administrator privileges to perform maintenance and repair activities.); and
updating, by the computing device, permissions of the equipment associated with the facility based on the mapping (see at least [col. 228, lines 37-43] In embodiments, the restrictions, permissions, and/or access rights may be set with respect to roles or the users themselves. As such, defining access rights, permissions, and/or restrictions for a user or a group of users may also include defining access rights, permissions, and/or restrictions to a role and/or business unit within the enterprise.) therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the combination disclosed by Griswold in view of Stump with the permission of use as taught by Cella for optimizing manufacturing workflows as combining prior art elements is known to yield predictable results. (KSR A).
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 6 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 6 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art generally refers to AI based workflows related to production and manufacturing as well as associated systems and methos.
U.S. Publication 2026/0120401 A1 - A virtual facility system may include a storage system storing video data collected from real facilities. A data engine may be configured to train a neural rendering model based on the data. The neural rendering model may be incorporated into virtual facilities corresponding to the real facilities. The virtual facilities may provide photorealistic three-dimensional representations of the real facilities. An integration system may provide interfaces facilitating communication with one or more control systems associated with the real facilities. A virtual facility interface system may be configured to generate a novel virtual facility using the neural rendering model based on configuration parameters specifying characteristics of the novel virtual facility. A simulator engine may generate novel views of a simulated future state of the virtual facility based on the neural rendering model.
U.S. Publication 2022/0188712 A1 - The disclosure presents processes and methods for utilizing one or more micro-services to generate a calibration of a factor of a borehole operation or to generate an optimization adjustment to the borehole operation. The micro-services selected for execution can be selected by an optimization workflow, where each type of borehole operation can have its own set of micro-services. The micro-services can be part of one or more computing systems, such as a downhole system, a surface system, a well site controller, a cloud service, a data center service, an edge computing system, other computing systems, or various combinations thereof. Also disclosed is a system for implementing micro-services on one or more computing systems to enable a light weight and fast response, e.g., real-time or near real-time response, to borehole operations.
U.S. Publication 2024/0412466 A1 - According to one embodiment, a method, computer system, and computer program product for mixed reality is provided. The present invention may include identifying one or more available spare parts in a physical location; analyzing the one or more available spare parts; analyzing one or more bill of materials to identify one or more end products that may be manufactured using one or more combinations of the one or more available spare parts; performing digital twin simulation of the one or more identified end products that may be manufactured to determine required quality of the one or more identified end products; creating one or more digital models of the one or more identified end products that may be manufactured; and displaying the one or more digital models in a mixed reality simulated environment to depict physical space needed to store the one or more identified end products that may be manufactured.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 April 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights