CTFR 18/355,454 CTFR 94551 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This is a final rejection. Claims 1-18 are pending. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Applicant’s amendment date 04/15/2026, amending claim 1, 7, and 13. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 07/20/2023, and 06/06/2024 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner. Response to Amendment The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101 , will be maintained. With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103- No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below. Also, See applicant remarks 04/15/2026 pages 11-14. Response to Arguments Applicant’s amendments date 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101: Applicant argues (Pages 8-9 of the remarks): These features are neither conventional nor capable of being performed mentally. The AI ethic check list can be prioritized and the efficiency for finding measures to deal with risks can be enhanced by preferentially analyzing an item having a higher priority in the checklist, and when a risk analysis is to be executed again on an AI system that has undergone ethical risk analysis and also undergone change and detailing, the efficiency of the re-analysis can be largely enhanced. This improves helping AI system developers and providers to appropriately recognize and deal with ethical risks that may arise from operation of the AI system. Thus, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to specific improvements in computer-implemented data processing and data acquisition systems. The combined use of (i) an interaction group extracted from a system diagram, (ii) a difference extracting rule that further includes detecting subsequent node(s), and (iii) a priority of each detected node or edge and propagating the priority to subsequent nodes and edges linked thereto is not routine, well-understood, or conventional. The Office Action has not identified - and cannot identify - any prior art showing these combined features as conventional. Therefore, the claims recite an "inventive concept" that transforms any alleged abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees: In prong two of step 2A , an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claims recite the additional limitation a graph structure, a non-transitory, a machine learning, computer, artificial intelligence, a system, an apparatus, displayed unit, a memory, and a processor are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f). This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). All of these additional elements are not significantly more because these, again, are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer; October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “ machine learning models ” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea. (“[M]erely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea”); 2019 Revised Guidance at 55. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. “[M]erely adding computer functionality to i ncrease the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea”); 2019 Revised Guidance at 55. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution to a technical problem. The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO). The Alice framework, step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of: Independent claims do not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. The claims include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include a graph structure, a non-transitory, a machine learning, computer, artificial intelligence, a system, an apparatus, displayed unit, a memory, and a processor . . Examiner asserts that a graph structure, a non-transitory, a machine learning, computer, artificial intelligence, a system, an apparatus, displayed unit, a memory, and a processor are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Further, with regard to mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.05(d)) Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices. Claim Rejections 35 USC §101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05. Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c). Regarding Step 1 Claims 1-6 are directed toward a non-transitory (machine). Claims 7-12 are directed toward a method (process) Claims 13-18 are directed toward an apparatus (machine) Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1. Regarding Step 2A [prong 1] Claims 1-18 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 7, and 13 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reasons as claim 1. Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention: Claim 1. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a machine learning program executable by one or more computers, the machine learning program : receiving an interaction group extracted from a system diagram of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system , the interaction group including a first plurality of relationship information pieces and a second plurality of relationship information pieces, each relationship information piece representing an interaction between a configuration of the AI system and a stakeholder and including a plurality of attributes; comparing a graph structure the first plurality of relationship information pieces with a graph structure of the second plurality of relationship information pieces, the graph structures representing configurations of a first (AI) system and a second AI system respectively ; detecting, as a difference from the second graph structure, a node present in the first graph structure but absent in the second graph structure, or an edge present in the first graph structure but absent in the second graph structure, or a node or an edge having a change in an input number or an output number, the detecting being performed according to a difference extracting rule that further includes detecting subsequent node(s) and edge(s) linked to a node that underwent the change; determining priorities of the first plurality of relationship information pieces by heightening a priority of each detected node or edge and propagating the priority to subsequent nodes and edges linked thereto, a higher priority is set to a node or an edge having a smaller hop number from a node that underwent the change, and a priority of a node or an edge having a hop number of two or more is set to be low; and outputting, as a checklist of the first AI system , one or more check items, to a displayed unit, the one or more check items being selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes, by narrowing the checklist for a re-analysis after a configuration change. The Applicant's Specification titled "COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM HAVING STORED THEREIN MACHINE LEARNING PROGRAM, MACHINE LEARNING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for outputting, as a checklist, one or more check items selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes" (Spec. [0002-0003]). Thus, data analytics to the Specification is a business concept being addressed by the claimed invention. As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are directed to the abstract idea of outputting, as a checklist, one or more check items selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions and (ii) fundamental economic principles or practices. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II). Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of outputting, as a checklist, one or more check items selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) because the independent claims 1, 7, and 13 recite the abstract idea of outputting, as a checklist, one or more check items selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes. Also, pertain to "hedging, insurance, mitigating risk" expressly categorized under fundamental economic principles or practices. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II). Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as claim 2 (Similarly Claims 8 and 14) wherein the comparing includes comparing a first graph structure of the first plurality of relationship information pieces with a second graph structure of the second plurality of relationship information pieces, and the determining includes heightening a priority of a relationship information piece detected to have a difference from the second plurality of relationship information piece among the first plurality of relationship information. claim 3 (Similarly Claims 9 and 15) wherein the determining includes detecting, in the first graph structure of the first plurality of relationship information pieces, a node being included in the first AI system and not being included in the second AI system , and an edge being included in the first AI system and not being included in the second AI system and heightening priorities of the node and the edge. claim 4 (Similarly Claims 10 and 16) wherein the determining further includes detecting, as a difference from the second plurality of relationship information pieces, a node that undergoes a change of an output number or an input number and an edge linked to the node in the first graph structure of the first plurality of relationship information pieces, and heightening priorities of the node and the edge. claim 5 (Similarly Claims 11 and 17) wherein the determining further includes detecting, as the difference from the second plurality of relationship information pieces, a subsequent node and a subsequent edge linked to the node that undergoes the change, and heightening priorities of the node and the edge. claim 6 (Similarly Claims 12 and 18) wherein the determining includes heightening priorities of the node and the edge by setting higher priorities to a node and an edge each having a less hop number from the node that undergoes the change among subsequent nodes and subsequent edges linked to an edge linked to the node that undergoes the change. which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 7, and 13. Regarding Step 2A [prong 2] Claims 1-18 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 include the following bolded additional elements which do not amount to a practical application: Claim 1 . A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a machine learning program executable by one or more computers, the machine learning program: a graph structure, a first Artificial Intelligence (AI) system a second AI system; displayed unit Claim 7 . a machine learning, a graph structure, a first Artificial Intelligence (AI) system a second AI system; displayed unit Claim 13 . An information processing apparatus comprising: a graph structure, a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor a first Artificial Intelligence (AI) system a second AI system; displayed unit The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, 7, and 13 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a non-transitory, a graph structure, a machine learning, computer, artificial intelligence, a system, an apparatus, displayed unit, a memory, and a processor . which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, the computing platform includes generic processors, memories, and communication interfaces. [figure 8] of the specification. Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 7, and 18 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e). The additional elements of a “ machine learning and artificial intelligence ”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “ machine learning and artificial intelligence ” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for outputting, as a checklist, one or more check items selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e). Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention directed to outputting, as a checklist, one or more check items selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes . When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 respectively, for example, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 7, and 13, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. Regarding Step 2B Claims 1-18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of Claims 1, 7, and 13 . a non-transitory, a graph structure, a machine learning, computer, artificial intelligence, a system, an apparatus, a memory, displayed unit, and a processor . The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to outputting, as a checklist, one or more check items selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes. Claims 1-18 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more. Allowable Subject Matter Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection , No art rejections has been put forth in the rejection. Closest prior art to the invention include Dey et al. US 2011/0173046: Social network marketing plan comparison method and system, Laskawiec et al. US 2021/0311917: Multi-value primary keys for plurality of unique identifiers of entities, Jungho Park KR 10-2248705: Ethics estimation method for trustworthy AI and an server device supporting the same, Nishikata et al. US 2014/0376359: Data communication apparatus, data communication system, and data communication method, and Hsu CC, Lai YA, Chen WH, Feng MH, Lin SD. Unsupervised ranking using graph structures and node attributes. InProceedings of the tenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining 2017 Feb 2 (pp. 771-779). None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims, receiving an interaction group extracted from a system diagram of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system , the interaction group including a first plurality of relationship information pieces and a second plurality of relationship information pieces, each relationship information piece representing an interaction between a configuration of the AI system and a stakeholder and including a plurality of attributes; …. the detecting being performed according to a difference extracting rule that further includes detecting subsequent node(s) and edge(s) linked to a node that underwent the change; … a higher priority is set to a node or an edge having a smaller hop number from a node that underwent the change, and a priority of a node or an edge having a hop number of two or more is set to be low; and … the one or more check items being selected in accordance with the determined priorities from among a plurality of check items associated with the plurality of attributes, by narrowing the checklist for a re-analysis after a configuration change”. The reason for not applying a rejection under 35 USC 102/103 of claims 1-18 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gupta et al. US 2020/0371787: Flow convergence during hardware-software design for heterogeneous and programmable devices. ¶[0239]. Hsu CC, Lai YA, Chen WH, Feng MH, Lin SD. Unsupervised ranking using graph structures and node attributes. InProceedings of the tenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining 2017 Feb 2 (pp. 771-779). Ucer S, Ozyer T, Alhajj R. Explainable artificial intelligence through graph theory by generalized social network analysis-based classifier. Scientific Reports. 2022 Sep 8;12(1):15210. Mannengal et al. US 2023/0370452: Networked device security posture management. Krishnamurti et al. US 2020/0051697: Structured Medical Data Classification System For Monitoring And Remediating Treatment Risks Jezewski US 2023/0044564: Other Solution Automation & Interface Analysis Implementations Levy et al. US 2015/0363795: System And Method For Gathering, Identifying And Analyzing Learning Patterns Majumdar, Arun CA 3053531: Method and apparatus of machine learning using a network with software agents at the network nodes and then ranking network nodes. Kondo et al. US 2014/0369235: Ad hoc network system and route selection method. 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 HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached on (571) 270-5396. 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. /HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 2 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 3 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 4 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 5 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 6 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 7 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 8 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 9 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 10 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 11 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 12 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 13 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 14 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 15 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 16 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 17 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 18 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 19 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 20 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 21 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 22 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 23 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/355,454 Page 24 Art Unit: 3624
Prosecution Insights