DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant field remarks and amendments on 03/30/2026 have been examined. Claims 1, 7 and 8 were amended. Claims 1-8 are presently pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 101: Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong One
Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed to a mental process because (1) acquiring a state of driver assistance is not a mental process, and (2) causing a display to display a state image representing the accelerating state or the coasting state of the driver assistance (pulse-and-glide cruise control) together with a rough indication of when each state is going to end is also not a mental process. Applicant further relies on the specification (paragraphs [0004], [0005], and [0056]) to argue that an occupant previously could not recognize both the state and the rough indication of when the state would end, and therefore the display cannot be characterized as a mental process.
These arguments are not persuasive. The claims, even as amended, recite acquiring (determining/obtaining) a state of driver assistance—specifically whether the system is in an accelerating state or a coasting state of a repeating pulse-and-glide cruise-control operation—and presenting information that conveys that state along with a rough indication of when the state will end (via a change in relative position of a vehicle image on a display). Determining or recognizing the current operational state of a known driver-assistance function and estimating or indicating when that state is likely to change are activities that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (e.g., observing vehicle behavior, speed trends, or system indicators and mentally estimating the remaining duration of the current phase).
The mere fact that the specification asserts that an occupant previously could not readily recognize both pieces of information does not remove the claimed subject matter from the mental-process grouping. Whether a human historically performed the exact combination of observations does not control the Step 2A, Prong One analysis; the inquiry is whether the claim limitations, in their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite concepts that are capable of being performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The amended language requiring a “state image” that provides a rough indication via relative position of a vehicle image remains a presentation of the result of the mental process and does not take the claim out of the abstract-idea category.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Applicant argues that the amendments integrate any abstract idea into a practical application by causing a display to display the state image and the rough indication of when each state will end, and that this reflects an improvement because the occupant previously could not recognize the information (citing paragraphs [0004], [0005], [0051], [0053], and [0056]).
This argument is not persuasive. The additional elements—acquiring the state via a driver-assist controller and causing a display to show a state image that conveys the accelerating/coasting state and a rough indication of remaining duration—do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The display is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic display device, or insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying the result of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g). The claims do not recite any particular technical improvement to the display itself, to the way the image is generated or rendered, to the driver-assist controller, or to any other technology.
The alleged improvement—enabling an occupant to more readily recognize the current pulse-and-glide state and roughly when it will end—is an improvement in the abstract idea itself (i.e., providing more useful information to a user). An improvement in the abstract idea, standing alone, is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The specification’s discussion of the problem and the benefits of the information does not transform the claim into a practical application when the claim itself does not recite a specific technical solution beyond collecting/determining the state data and presenting it on a generic display.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that the claims as a whole are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, that the occupant can now roughly recognize when the accelerating/coasting state will end from the change in relative position of the vehicle image (citing the same specification paragraphs), and that the Examiner has not explained why the problems presented and solved are insignificant.
These arguments are not persuasive. Even if the claims are analyzed under Step 2B, they do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The display of a state image (including a change in relative position of a vehicle image to convey remaining duration) is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of presenting information. The claims do not recite any inventive concept or non-conventional arrangement that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
The Examiner has considered the specification’s description of the problem and the asserted advantages. However, the claims, considered as a whole, merely implement the abstract idea of determining a driver-assistance state and presenting related information on a generic display. The “change in relative position of the vehicle image” is simply one conventional way of visually conveying the result of the abstract idea and does not supply the required inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(I).
Accordingly, claims 1-8 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102: Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 with respect to Nakamura et al . (US20180373250A1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not only rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for the matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-8 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. The claimed invention is directed to the concept of displaying vehicle trajectory and surroundings. This judicial exception is 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 and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The Examiner will further explain in view of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance:
Claims 1 is directed to a vehicle display device (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claims 1, 7 and 8 recites: A vehicle display device comprising one or more processors, the one or more processors being configured to
acquire a state of driver assistance by a driver assist controller of a vehicle, the driver assistance being a cruise control assistance that provides pulse and glide that repeats acceleration and coasting so that a vehicle speed is within a predetermined range up to a preset speed as an upper limit, and the state of the driver assistance including an accelerating state and a coasting state;
and cause a display to display a state image based on the acquired state of the driver assistance, the state image representing the accelerating state or the coasting state of the driver assistance and a rough indication of when each state is going to end.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “acquire, …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle display device comprising one or more processors, the one or more processors being configured to
acquire a state of driver assistance by a driver assist controller of a vehicle, the driver assistance being a cruise control assistance that provides pulse and glide that repeats acceleration and coasting so that a vehicle speed is within a predetermined range up to a preset speed as an upper limit, and the state of the driver assistance including an accelerating state and a coasting state;
and cause a display to display a state image based on the acquired state of the driver assistance, the state image representing the accelerating state or the coasting state of the driver assistance and a rough indication of when each state is going to end.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “Processor” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the acquire, by a processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer processor.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “ processor” amounts to nothing 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 1, 7 and 8.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne (US20180118189A1) in view of Konchan et al. (US9766629B1), hereinafter referred to as Payne and Konchan respectively.
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 8, Payne discloses A vehicle display device (“The coasting guidance system includes an electronic control unit coupled to the display.” [0006]) comprising one or more processors the one or more processors being configured to
cause a display to display a state image based on the acquired state of the driver assistance, the state image representing an accelerating state or a coasting state of the driver assistance and a rough indication of when each state is going to end “If the vehicle 102 is at or within a threshold distance of an ideal coasting location the rec indicator 404 may change colors, pulse, flash or otherwise change and/or alter into a different state to signal the driver. A pulse, for example, extends the duration of the animation on the display to signal to the driver to begin coasting.”[0053] and “In order to pulse the rec indicator 404, the coasting guidance system 100 may increase the recommended amount or percentage of total power to a first value within a first time period 512, t_b, e.g., 0.4 seconds, so that the size of the rec indicator 404 increases from a first size to a second size…”[0058] and “The decrease of the size of the rec indicator 404 and/or the recommended amount or percentage of total vehicle power may occur over a second time period 514, e.g., 1.2 seconds after the first time period 512, tb, when the size of the rec indicator 404 and/or recommended amount or percentage at or within the threshold distance of the ideal coasting location, InitPt, was less than the threshold value. ”[0066]).
Payne does not explicitly teach acquire a state of driver assistance by a driver assist controller of a vehicle, the driver assistance being a cruise control assistance that provides pulse and glide that repeats acceleration and coasting so that a vehicle speed is within a predetermined range up to a preset speed as an upper limit, and the state of the driver assistance including an accelerating state and a coasting state.
However, Konchan does teach acquire a state of driver assistance by a driver assist controller of a vehicle, the driver assistance being a cruise control assistance that provides pulse and glide that repeats acceleration and coasting so that a vehicle speed is within a predetermined range up to a preset speed as an upper limit, and the state of the driver assistance including an accelerating state and a coasting state (“Strategy control module 140 implements the first pulse and glide mode at 305 determining whether the host vehicle 100 is operating in a pulse mode or a glide mode…” [Col.4 ln 49-52] and “If the host vehicle 100 is operating in a pulse mode, i.e. accelerating…”[Col.4 ln 55-56] and “If the host vehicle 100 is in a glide mode, i.e. the host vehicle is decelerating…”[Col.6 ln 12-13] and “Once the minimum target speed is reached the strategy control module initiates a pulse at block 380 and the strategy control module returns to normal operation at block 300.” [Col.6 ln 29-34]). Both Payne and Konchan teach vehicle display methods. However, Konchan explicitly teaches acquire a state of driver assistance by a driver assist controller of a vehicle, the driver assistance being a cruise control assistance that provides pulse and glide that repeats acceleration and coasting so that a vehicle speed is within a predetermined range up to a preset speed as an upper limit, and the state of the driver assistance including an accelerating state and a coasting state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display method of Payne to also include acquire a state of driver assistance by a driver assist controller of a vehicle, the driver assistance being a cruise control assistance that provides pulse and glide that repeats acceleration and coasting so that a vehicle speed is within a predetermined range up to a preset speed as an upper limit, and the state of the driver assistance including an accelerating state and a coasting state, as taught by Konchan, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety for operating a vehicle using drive assist features (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Konchan, Col.4 and Col.6]).
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne in view of Konchan and further in view of Nakamura et al . (US20180373250A1), hereinafter referred to as Payne, Konchan and Nakamura respectively.
Regarding claim 2,
Payne in view of Konchan does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display a vehicle image representing the vehicle and line images in front of and behind the vehicle image and to cause the display to display the rough indication by changing a relative position of the vehicle image between the line images.
However, Nakamura does teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display a vehicle image representing the vehicle and line images in front of and behind the vehicle image (“In the following description, a surroundings vehicle that travels immediately before the lane change target position TAs in the adjacent lane will be referred to as a front reference vehicle mB, and a surroundings vehicle that travels immediately after the lane change target position TAs in the adjacent lane will be referred to as a rear reference vehicle mC.” [0092] see also Fig.14 and Fig. 23),
and to cause the display to display the rough indication by changing a relative position of the vehicle image between the line images(“In the following description, a surroundings vehicle that travels immediately before the lane change target position TAs in the adjacent lane will be referred to as a front reference vehicle mB, and a surroundings vehicle that travels immediately after the lane change target position TAs in the adjacent lane will be referred to as a rear reference vehicle mC.” [0092] see also Fig.14 and Fig. 23). Both Payne in view of Konchan and Nakamura teach vehicle display methods. However, Nakamura explicitly teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display a vehicle image representing the vehicle and line images in front of and behind the vehicle image and to cause the display to display the rough indication by changing a relative position of the vehicle image between the line images.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display method of Payne in view of Konchan to also include wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display a vehicle image representing the vehicle and line images in front of and behind the vehicle image and to cause the display to display the rough indication by changing a relative position of the vehicle image between the line images, as taught by Nakamura, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety for operating a vehicle using drive assist features (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Nakamura, [0092, Fig.14-24]).
Regarding claim 3,
Payne in view of Konchan does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to highlight the line image in front of the vehicle image when in the accelerating state;
and to cause the display to highlight the line image behind the vehicle image when in the coasting state.
However, Nakamura does teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to highlight the line image in front of the vehicle image when in the accelerating state (“the HMI control unit 120 displays the image indicating the road shape in front of the subject vehicle M acquired from the second map information 62, the image indicating the subject vehicle M recognized by the subject vehicle position recognition unit 322, the image indicating the surroundings vehicle m recognized by the outside space recognition unit 321,” [0161] see also FIG.21),
and to cause the display to highlight the line image behind the vehicle image when in the coasting state (“the HMI control unit 120 displays a display mode in which the inside of the outside frame of the image 604 is colored in the surroundings detection information display area 600-5. The HMI control unit 120 may display the outside frame of each of the plurality of areas divided in the image 604 by an animation so that the outside frames are sequentially highlighted along the course change direction of the subject vehicle M.” [0181]). Both Payne in view of Konchan and Nakamura teach vehicle display methods. However, Nakamura explicitly teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to highlight the line image in front of the vehicle image when in the accelerating state and to cause the display to highlight the line image behind the vehicle image when in the coasting state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display method of Payne in view of Konchan to also include wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to highlight the line image in front of the vehicle image when in the accelerating state and to cause the display to highlight the line image behind the vehicle image when in the coasting state, as taught by Nakamura, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety for operating a vehicle using drive assist features (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Nakamura, [0161, 0181, Fig.14-24]).
Regarding claim 4,
Payne in view of Konchan does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display a gauge image as the state image, the gauge image representing the accelerating state or the coasting state.
However, Nakamura does teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display a gauge image as the state image, the gauge image representing the accelerating state or the coasting state.
wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display a gauge image as the state image, the gauge image representing the accelerating state or the coasting state (See at least FIG. 14). Both Payne in view of Konchan and Nakamura teach vehicle display methods. However, Nakamura explicitly teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display a gauge image as the state image, the gauge image representing the accelerating state or the coasting state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display method of Payne in view of Konchan to also include wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display a gauge image as the state image, the gauge image representing the accelerating state or the coasting state, as taught by Nakamura, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety for operating a vehicle using drive assist features (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Nakamura, [0092, Fig.14-24]).
Regarding claim 5,
Payne in view of Konchan does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display an arrow image according to the accelerating state or the coasting state as the state image.
However, Nakamura does teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display an arrow image according to the accelerating state or the coasting state as the state image(See at least FIG. 16-17). Both Payne in view of Konchan and Nakamura teach vehicle display methods. However, Nakamura explicitly teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display an arrow image according to the accelerating state or the coasting state as the state image.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display method of Payne in view of Konchan to also include wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display an arrow image according to the accelerating state or the coasting state as the state image, as taught by Nakamura, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety for operating a vehicle using drive assist features (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Nakamura, [0092, Fig.14-24]).
Regarding claim 6,
Payne in view of Konchan does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display a vehicle image representing the vehicle, and to display an animation image as the state image on the display, the animation image being an image that moves along a side of the vehicle image according to the accelerating state or the coasting state.
However, Nakamura does teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display a vehicle image representing the vehicle, and to display an animation image as the state image on the display, the animation image being an image that moves along a side of the vehicle image according to the accelerating state or the coasting state (See at least FIG. 22-24). Both Payne in view of Konchan and Nakamura teach vehicle display methods. However, Nakamura explicitly teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display a vehicle image representing the vehicle, and to display an animation image as the state image on the display, the animation image being an image that moves along a side of the vehicle image according to the accelerating state or the coasting state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display method of Payne in view of Konchan to also include wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display a vehicle image representing the vehicle, and to display an animation image as the state image on the display, the animation image being an image that moves along a side of the vehicle image according to the accelerating state or the coasting state, as taught by Nakamura, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety for operating a vehicle using drive assist features (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Nakamura, [0092, Fig.14-24]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 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, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights