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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The earlier effective filing date of 08/15/2022 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is provided from Provisional Application No. 63/371,404 as the disclosure of the prior-filed application provides adequate support and enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP § 211.05:
MPEP § 211.05 A. Claiming the Benefit of Provisional Applications
“Under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the written description and drawing(s) (if any) of the provisional application must adequately support and enable the subject matter claimed in the nonprovisional application that claims the benefit of the provisional application. In New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294, 63 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the court held that for a nonprovisional application to be afforded the benefit date of the provisional application, "the specification of the provisional must ‘contain a written description of the invention and the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms,’ 35 U.S.C. 112¶1, to enable an ordinarily skilled artisan to practice the invention claimed in the nonprovisional application."”
MPEP § 211.05 B. Claiming the Benefit of Nonprovisional Applications
“The disclosure of a continuation application must be the same as the disclosure of the prior-filed application; i.e., the continuation must not include anything which would constitute new matter if inserted in the original application. See MPEP § 201.07… A continuation-in-part application may include matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application. See MPEP § 201.08. Only the claims of the continuation-in-part application that are disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the prior-filed application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior-filed application. If there is a continuous chain of copending nonprovisional applications, each copending application must disclose the claimed invention of the later-filed application in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in order for the later-filed application to be entitled to the benefit of the earliest filing date. See Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 1358, 1360, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (affirming the PTAB's decision in an inter partes review proceeding and holding that the patentee was not entitled to rely on the earlier filing dates of two nonprovisional applications and a provisional application because the prior-filed applications did not provide sufficient written description to support the invention claimed in the challenged patent).”
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications below, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for currently pending claims 1-10 of this application:
Provisional Application No. 62/916,077 does not explicitly recite a “knowledge graph” or “conversation.”
Thus, the benefit of the earlier filing date of 10/16/2019 is not provided.
Provisional Application No. 62/985,123 does not explicitly recite a “knowledge graph” wherein the knowledge graph represents a current conversation.
Thus, the benefit of the earlier filing date of 03/04/2020 is not provided.
Provisional Application No. 63/051,305 does not explicitly recite a “knowledge graph;” while the specification recites “collecting information about a current discussion,” it does not explicitly recite “initializing a knowledge graph representing the current conversation.”
Accordingly, as the provisional does not provide written description and enablement support for every limitation in claim 1, the benefit of the earlier filing date of 07/13/2020 is not provided.
Application No. 17/000,327 does not explicitly recite a “knowledge graph” wherein the knowledge graph represents a current conversation.
Thus, the benefit of the earlier filing date of 08/23/2020 is not provided.
Application No. 17/143,152 does not explicitly recite a “knowledge graph” wherein the knowledge graph represents a current conversation.
Thus, the benefit of the earlier filing date of 01/06/2021 is not provided.
Application No. 17/374,974 does not explicitly recite a “knowledge graph” wherein the knowledge graph represents a current conversation.
Thus, the benefit of the earlier filing date of 01/06/2021 is not provided.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 07/08/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “serious burden is not presented by the claims and therefore the requirement for restriction is improper.” This is not found persuasive because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given in the requirement for restriction/election filed on 05/26/2026 and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because the inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 2-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-3, 7 and 9, “The processor-based method of claim 1 wherein” should read as “The processor-based method of claim 1, wherein”
In claims 4-6, “The processor-based method of claim 3 wherein” should read as “The processor-based method of claim 3, wherein”
In claim 8, “The processor-based method of claim 7 wherein” should read as “The processor-based method of claim 7, wherein”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In regards to claim 1,
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim(s) falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03:
The claim directs to a statutory category – process.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
initializing a knowledge graph representing the current conversation
This limitation encompasses providing an opinion (knowledge graph) based on an evaluation of a given current conversation. For example, a person of ordinary skills in the arts would be able to understand a conversation and draw a knowledge graph with the aid of pen and paper.
maintaining the knowledge graph of the current conversation with the current interaction information
This limitation encompasses observing the current interaction information and providing an opinion on how the knowledge graph should be updated/maintained.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception has found simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The following steps are mere instructions to apply:
A processor-based method to represent an interaction information as a knowledge graph
MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity has found mere data gathering to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The following steps are insignificant extra-solution activities:
Mere data gathering:
receiving a current interaction information representing a plurality of current interactions of a current conversation (merely receiving data)
storing the knowledge graph of the current conversation (merely storing data)
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is mere data gathering (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) and Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception and a generic device do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The claim recites receiving data by a generic device.
This has been determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as found in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to
gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607,
610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP
Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(sending messages over a network); buy SAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112
USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106
(Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how
interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides
the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink."
(emphasis added)).
The claim further recites storing data with a generic device.
This has been determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as found in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv): Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered
combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
In regards to claim 2,
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim(s) falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03:
The claim directs to a statutory category – process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract idea(s) in the parent claim(s).
wherein the knowledge graph representing the current conversation comprises the knowledge graph representing the current conversation connected to a prior knowledge graph
This limitation directs to a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, by a human using pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool to perform the concept and encompasses providing an opinion of the knowledge graph based on a further evaluation of a prior knowledge graph. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
In regards to claim 3,
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim(s) falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03:
The claim directs to a statutory category – process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract idea(s) in the parent claim(s).
and connecting the knowledge graph representing the current conversation with the prior knowledge graph
This limitation directs to a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, by a human using pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool to perform the concept and encompasses providing an opinion of the knowledge graph based on an evaluation of the prior knowledge graph. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
searching a context data repository of prior knowledge graphs to identify a prior knowledge graph with the current interaction information of the current conversation
This limitation directs to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity and encompasses merely retrieving data from a data repository wherein the searching is recited at the highest level of generality to obtain the prior knowledge graph. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
searching a context data repository of prior knowledge graphs to identify a prior knowledge graph with the current interaction information of the current conversation
This limitation directs to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity and encompasses merely retrieving data from a data repository wherein the searching is recited at the highest level of generality to obtain the prior knowledge graph. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
This has been determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as found in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv): Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
In regards to claim 4,
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim(s) falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03:
The claim directs to a statutory category – process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract idea(s) in the parent claim(s).
determining a context-aware data from the knowledge graph
This limitation directs to a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, by a human using pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool to perform the concept and encompasses an evaluation of the knowledge graph and providing an opinion of context-aware data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
the prior knowledge graphs comprise a context data
This limitation directs to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
the prior knowledge graphs comprise a context data
This limitation directs to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
This has been determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as found in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv): Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
In regards to claim 5,
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim(s) falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03:
The claim directs to a statutory category – process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract idea(s) in the parent claim(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
wherein the prior knowledge graph comprises an attribute selected from the group of attributes consisting of: a topic attribute; a participant attribute; a agenda attribute; a place attribute; a modality attribute; a read ahead attribute; and a location attribute
This limitation directs to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity; wherein the prior knowledge graph was obtained from the data repository. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
wherein the prior knowledge graph comprises an attribute selected from the group of attributes consisting of: a topic attribute; a participant attribute; a agenda attribute; a place attribute; a modality attribute; a read ahead attribute; and a location attribute
This limitation directs to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity; wherein the prior knowledge graph was obtained from the data repository. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
This has been determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as found in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv): Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
In regards to claim 6,
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim(s) falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03:
The claim directs to a statutory category – process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract idea(s) in the parent claim(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
wherein the prior knowledge graph comprises one of the knowledge graphs found in the context data repository of prior knowledge graphs with a node representing a prior information of the current conversation
This limitation directs to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
wherein the prior knowledge graph comprises one of the knowledge graphs found in the context data repository of prior knowledge graphs with a node representing a prior information of the current conversation
This limitation directs to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
This has been determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as found in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv): Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
In regards to claim 7,
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim(s) falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03:
The claim directs to a statutory category – process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract idea(s) in the parent claim(s).
interconnecting the knowledge graph of the current conversation with one of the prior knowledge graphs of the entity; and updating the knowledge graph with the one of the prior knowledge graphs
This limitation directs to a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, by a human using pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool to perform the concept and encompasses providing an opinion of a knowledge graph based on an evaluation of the prior knowledge graph. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
receiving a new utterance as a new current interaction information of the current conversation
This limitation directs to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
searching a context data repository for a prior knowledge graph for an entity contributing the new utterance to the current conversation
This limitation directs to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity and encompasses merely retrieving data from a data repository wherein the searching is recited at the highest level of generality to obtain the prior knowledge graph. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
searching a context data repository for a prior knowledge graph for an entity contributing the new utterance to the current conversation
This limitation directs to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity and encompasses merely retrieving data from a data repository wherein the searching is recited at the highest level of generality to obtain the prior knowledge graph. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
This has been determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as found in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv): Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
receiving a new utterance as a new current interaction information of the current conversation
This limitation directs to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
This has been determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as found in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
In regards to claim 8,
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim(s) falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03:
The claim directs to a statutory category – process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract idea(s) in the parent claim(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
wherein the new current interaction information comprises one selected from the group consisting of: a physiological data of the entity; a behavioral data of the entity; a location data of the entity; and an orientation data of the entity
This limitation directs to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
wherein the new current interaction information comprises one selected from the group consisting of: a physiological data of the entity; a behavioral data of the entity; a location data of the entity; and an orientation data of the entity
This limitation directs to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
This has been determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as found in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
In regards to claim 9,
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim(s) falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03:
The claim directs to a statutory category – process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract idea(s) in the parent claim(s).
updating the knowledge graph of the current conversation; updating the knowledge graph for previous knowledge graphs;
This limitation directs to a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, by a human using pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool to perform the concept and encompasses providing an opinion (knowledge graph) based on an evaluation of the current conversation and previous knowledge graphs. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
receiving a last utterance of the current conversation;
This limitation directs to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
saving the knowledge graph of the current conversation to the context data repository; and saving previous knowledge graphs connected the current conversation to the context data repository.
This limitation directs to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
The additional element(s) in the parent claim(s).
saving the knowledge graph of the current conversation to the context data repository; and saving previous knowledge graphs connected the current conversation to the context data repository.
This limitation directs to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
This has been determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as found in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv): Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
receiving a last utterance of the current conversation;
This limitation directs to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
This has been determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as found in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
In regards to claim 10,
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim(s) falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03:
The claim directs to a statutory category – process.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
initializing a knowledge graph representing the current conversation
This limitation encompasses providing an opinion (knowledge graph) based on an evaluation of a given current conversation. For example, a person of ordinary skills in the arts would be able to understand a conversation and draw a knowledge graph with the aid of pen and paper.
populating the knowledge graph of the current conversation with the current interaction information
This limitation encompasses observing the current interaction information and providing an opinion on how the knowledge graph should be updated.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception has found simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The following steps are mere instructions to apply:
A processor-based method to represent an interaction information as a knowledge graph
from an input sensor
MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity has found mere data gathering to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The following steps are insignificant extra-solution activities:
Mere data gathering:
receiving, …, a current interaction information representing a plurality of current interactions of a current conversation (merely receiving data)
storing the knowledge graph of the current conversation at an end of the current conversation (merely storing data)
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is mere data gathering (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) and Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception and a generic device do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The claim recites receiving data by a generic device.
This has been determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as found in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to
gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607,
610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP
Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(sending messages over a network); buy SAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112
USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106
(Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how
interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides
the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink."
(emphasis added)).
The claim further recites storing data with a generic device.
This has been determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as found in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv): Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered
combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub No. US20190034780A1 Marin et al. (“Marin”).
In regards to claim 1,
Marin teaches A processor-based method to represent an interaction information as a knowledge graph,
(Marin, “[0162] The example of the machine 800 includes at least one processor 802 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), advanced processing unit (APU), or combinations thereof), one or more memories such as a main memory 804, a static memory 806, or other types of memory, which communicate with each other via link 808.”)
Marin teaches the method comprising: receiving a current interaction information representing a plurality of current interactions of a current conversation; initializing a knowledge graph representing the current conversation; maintaining the knowledge graph of the current conversation with the current interaction information;
(Marin, “[0026] A state tracker is responsible for integrating new input into an existing representation of the conversation [receiving a current interaction information representing a plurality of current interactions of a current conversation; ie receiving input from the user within the conversation]. In some embodiments, the representation of the conversation is held in a dynamic knowledge graph that is built up from an initial state [initializing a knowledge graph representing the current conversation; building an initial dynamic knowledge graph to represent the conversation] and that is updated as new information is developed [maintaining the knowledge graph of the current conversation with the current interaction information; updating the knowledge graph as new information is entered]. When a new conversation is started, the dynamic knowledge graph comprises a semantic representation of the input query and contextual information specific to that user is used to seed the new session.”)
Marin further discloses updating the knowledge growth to develop a representation of the conversation as it evolved over time
(Marin, [066], “The dynamic knowledge graph 216 is updated over several rounds (discussed below) and on each round the state tracker 210 integrates newly developed entities into the dynamic knowledge graph 216 to update its state. Thus, the dynamic knowledge graph evolves over time as the conversation evolves and develops and represents the current state of the conversation at any given time.”)
Marin teaches and storing the knowledge graph of the current conversation.
(Marin, “[0163] The various memories (i.e., 804, 806, and/or memory of the processor(s) 802) and/or storage unit 816 may store one or more sets of instructions and data structures (e.g., software) 824 embodying or utilized by any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein [storing the knowledge graph of the current conversation; wherein the KG is stored in memory]. These instructions, when executed by processor(s) 802 cause various operations to implement the disclosed embodiments.”)
In regards to claim 2,
Marin teaches The processor-based method of claim 1
Marin teaches wherein the knowledge graph representing the current conversation comprises the knowledge graph representing the current conversation connected to a prior knowledge graph.
(Marin, “[0099] The state tracker would take the semantic input representation, the context information and combine it with a search_KG (search the static knowledge graph) recipe and search_pKG (search the user's personal knowledge graph) recipe to form the initial state of the dynamic knowledge graph (dKG) [the knowledge graph representing the current conversation ie dynamic knowledge graph (dKG) comprises the knowledge graph representing the current conversation connected to a prior knowledge graph ie search_pKG].”)
In regards to claim 3,
Marin teaches The processor-based method of claim 1
Marin teaches wherein the step of initializing a knowledge graph of the current conversation comprises: searching a context data repository of prior knowledge graphs to identify a prior knowledge graph with the current interaction information of the current conversation; and connecting the knowledge graph representing the current conversation with the prior knowledge graph.
(Marin, “[0027] A policy engine makes determinations as to what actions should be taken next with respect to the dynamic knowledge graph. In some embodiments, in its initial state, the dynamic knowledge graph comprises the semantic representation of the user query and the recipe to search the search knowledge graph. In some embodiments, initially, the policy engine can select the search knowledge graph recipe and use its action (i.e., search) to send the semantic representation of the user query to a knowledge graph search engine. The knowledge graph search process will return a subgraph of entities [searching a context data repository of prior knowledge graphs to identify a prior knowledge graph with the current interaction information of the current conversation; ie run a knowledge graph search on the static knowledge graph (see fig. 2)]. Returned entities can include recipes, knowledge entities that contain information such as facts, and/or structural relationships between entities. The results (returned entities) are sent to the state tracker. The state tracker then integrates the search results into the dynamic knowledge graph [and connecting the knowledge graph representing the current conversation with the prior knowledge graph; then integrate the results obtained from the search into the dynamic knowledge graph].”
PNG
media_image1.png
484
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
In regards to claim 4,
Marin teaches The processor-based method of claim 3
Marin teaches wherein: the prior knowledge graphs comprise a context data; and the method further comprises determining a context-aware data from the knowledge graph.
(Marin, “[0099] The state tracker would take the semantic input representation, the context information [the prior knowledge graphs comprise a context data ie context information] and combine it with a search_KG (search the static knowledge graph) recipe and search_pKG (search the user's personal knowledge graph) recipe to form the initial state of the dynamic knowledge graph (dKG) [determining a context-aware data from the knowledge graph].”)
In regards to claim 5,
Marin teaches The processor-based method of claim 3
Marin teaches wherein the prior knowledge graph comprises an attribute selected from the group of attributes consisting of: a topic attribute; a participant attribute; a agenda attribute; a place attribute; a modality attribute; a read ahead attribute; and a location attribute.
Examiner’s note: Examiner interprets the limitation in light of MPEP 2117 Markush Claims “Claim language defined by a Markush grouping requires selection from a closed group "consisting of" the alternative members. Id. at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. See also Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, 945 F.3d 1368, 1376-78, 2020 USPQ2d 3197 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (stating that there is a strong presumption that a claim element set off with "consisting of" is closed to unrecited elements.). Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is A, B, or C"). See, e.g., the Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications ("Supplementary Guidelines"), 76 Fed. Reg. 7162 (February 9, 2011).”
(Marin, [0061], “Contextual information can comprise one or more of: [wherein the prior knowledge graph comprises an attribute selected from the group of attributes consisting of]
signals from the user device 202 such as geolocation [a place attribute… and a location attribute], device type, sensor readings, and so forth;
inferred signals such as from an inference engine that infers where a user might be, what a user is doing, and so forth;
information from a user's personal knowledge graph and/or personal data platform; and/or
other environmental and/or contextual information.”)
In regards to claim 6,
Marin teaches The processor-based method of claim 3
Marin teaches wherein the prior knowledge graph comprises one of the knowledge graphs found in the context data repository of prior knowledge graphs with a node representing a prior information of the current conversation.
(Marin, [0066], “The dynamic knowledge graph 216 is updated over several rounds (discussed below) and on each round the state tracker 210 integrates newly developed entities into the dynamic knowledge graph 216 to update its state. Thus, the dynamic knowledge graph evolves over time as the conversation evolves and develops and represents the current state of the conversation at any given time…
[0095] The policy engine (218) evaluates the contents of the dynamic knowledge graph 324 and selects actions to take. In this initial round, there is only one recipe 308 that can be executed and so the policy engine activates/instantiates that recipe to execute. In the diagram, the recipe 308 searches the static knowledge graph (222) and outputs a collection of entities. In the example of FIG. 3, the output of the recipe 308 comprises one knowledge entity 312 and four recipes indicated as 310, 314, 316, and 318. The recipe 310 has no inputs that defined. The recipes 314 and 316 have one input each and the recipe 318 had two inputs defined.
[0096] This collection is passed to the state tracker (210) and the state tracker updates the dynamic knowledge graph to incorporate at least a portion of the collection [wherein the prior knowledge graph comprises one of the knowledge graphs found in the context data repository of prior knowledge graphs with a node representing a prior information of the current conversation; wherein the portion of collection (see 310, 314, 316 and 318) are knowledge graphs from the static knowledge graph (context data repository); see fig. 2 for the node representations].”
Further, Marin discloses the static knowledge graph holds the long term knowledge
(Marin, Abstract, “one or more static knowledge graphs holding long term knowledge”; ie prior information of the current conversation)
PNG
media_image2.png
500
691
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
In regards to claim 7,
Marin teaches The processor-based method of claim 1
Marin teaches wherein the step of maintaining the knowledge graph of the current conversation, the method comprising: receiving a new utterance as a new current interaction information of the current conversation;
(Marin, “[0026] A state tracker is responsible for integrating new input [receiving a new utterance as a new current interaction information of the current conversation] into an existing representation of the conversation.”)
Marin teaches searching a context data repository for a prior knowledge graph for an entity contributing the new utterance to the current conversation; interconnecting the knowledge graph of the current conversation with one of the prior knowledge graphs of the entity; and updating the knowledge graph with the one of the prior knowledge graphs.
(Marin, [0026], “In some embodiments, the initial dynamic knowledge graph comprises a recipe that searches a search knowledge graph (i.e., a search knowledge graph recipe). The search knowledge graph holds other recipes and longer-term information such as would be available in a search engine [searching a context data repository for a prior knowledge graph for an entity contributing the new utterance to the current conversation]. The dynamic knowledge graph contents thus represent the conversation state at any given point in time during the processing [interconnecting the knowledge graph of the current conversation with one of the prior knowledge graphs of the entity; and updating the knowledge graph with the one of the prior knowledge graphs].”)
In regards to claim 8,
Marin teaches The processor-based method of claim 7
Marin teaches wherein the new current interaction information comprises one selected from the group consisting of: a physiological data of the entity; a behavioral data of the entity; a location data of the entity; and an orientation data of the entity.
Examiner’s note: Examiner interprets the limitation in light of MPEP 2117 Markush Claims “Claim language defined by a Markush grouping requires selection from a closed group "consisting of" the alternative members. Id. at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. See also Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, 945 F.3d 1368, 1376-78, 2020 USPQ2d 3197 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (stating that there is a strong presumption that a claim element set off with "consisting of" is closed to unrecited elements.). Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is A, B, or C"). See, e.g., the Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications ("Supplementary Guidelines"), 76 Fed. Reg. 7162 (February 9, 2011).”
(Marin, [0061], “Contextual information can comprise one or more of: [wherein the new current interaction information comprises one selected from the group consisting of:]
signals from the user device 202 such as geolocation [a location data of the entity], device type, sensor readings, and so forth;
inferred signals such as from an inference engine that infers where a user might be, what a user is doing, and so forth;
information from a user's personal knowledge graph and/or personal data platform; and/or
other environmental and/or contextual information.”)
In regards to claim 9,
Marin teaches The processor-based method of claim 1
Marin teaches wherein the initializing a knowledge graph of the current conversation, the method comprising: receiving a last utterance of the current conversation;
(Marin, “[0026] A state tracker is responsible for integrating new input [receiving a last utterance of the current conversation] into an existing representation of the conversation.”)
Marin teaches updating the knowledge graph of the current conversation; saving the knowledge graph of the current conversation to the context data repository; updating the knowledge graph for previous knowledge graphs; and saving previous knowledge graphs connected the current conversation to the context data repository.
(Marin, [0026], “In some embodiments, the initial dynamic knowledge graph comprises a recipe that searches a search knowledge graph (i.e., a search knowledge graph recipe). The search knowledge graph holds other recipes and longer-term information such as would be available in a search engine. The dynamic knowledge graph contents thus represent the conversation state at any given point in time during the processing [updating the knowledge graph of the current conversation; updating the knowledge graph for previous knowledge graphs;].”)
(Marin, “[0084] In some embodiments, relevant information from the user's personal knowledge graph/personal data platform are included in the context and are thus also joined to the static knowledge graph 222 [saving the knowledge graph of the current conversation to the context data repository]. Thus, the inference can return relevant entities referenced by the user in previous archived dialogs that are not part of the static knowledge graph 222.”)
(Marin, [0087], “The static knowledge graph 222 grows and evolves as new knowledge is added or new recipes are added, which is a slower process.
[0088] The static knowledge graph 222 changes in two important ways. First, the static knowledge graph 222 evolves and changes as additional knowledge is added to the graph, such as by web crawlers or other mechanisms that add knowledge to the static knowledge graph 222. Second, the static knowledge graph 222 changes as new recipes are added thereto [saving previous knowledge graphs connected the current conversation to the context data repository].”)
In regards to claim 10,
Marin teaches A processor-based method to represent an interaction information as a knowledge graph, the method comprising: receiving, from an input sensor,
(Marin, “[0162] The example of the machine 800 includes at least one processor 802 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), advanced processing unit (APU), or combinations thereof), one or more memories such as a main memory 804, a static memory 806, or other types of memory, which communicate with each other via link 808. Link 808 may be a bus or other type of connection channel. The machine 800 may include further optional aspects such as a graphics display unit 810 comprising any type of display. The machine 800 may also include other optional aspects such as an alphanumeric input device 812 (e.g., a keyboard, touch screen, and so forth), a user interface (UI) [receiving, from an input sensor ie an user interface]…”)
Marin teaches a current interaction information representing a plurality of current interactions of a current conversation; initializing a knowledge graph representing the current conversation; populating the knowledge graph of the current conversation with the current interaction information;
(Marin, “[0026] A state tracker is responsible for integrating new input into an existing representation of the conversation [receiving a current interaction information representing a plurality of current interactions of a current conversation; ie receiving input from the user within the conversation]. In some embodiments, the representation of the conversation is held in a dynamic knowledge graph that is built up from an initial state [initializing a knowledge graph representing the current conversation; building an initial dynamic knowledge graph to represent the conversation] and that is updated as new information is developed [populating the knowledge graph of the current conversation with the current interaction information; updating the knowledge graph as new information is entered]. When a new conversation is started, the dynamic knowledge graph comprises a semantic representation of the input query and contextual information specific to that user is used to seed the new session.”)
Marin further discloses updating the knowledge growth to develop a representation of the conversation as it evolved over time
(Marin, [066], “The dynamic knowledge graph 216 is updated over several rounds (discussed below) and on each round the state tracker 210 integrates newly developed entities into the dynamic knowledge graph 216 to update its state. Thus, the dynamic knowledge graph evolves over time as the conversation evolves and develops and represents the current state of the conversation at any given time.”)
Marin teaches and storing the knowledge graph of the current conversation at an end of the current conversation.
(Marin, “[0163] The various memories (i.e., 804, 806, and/or memory of the processor(s) 802) and/or storage unit 816 may store one or more sets of instructions and data structures (e.g., software) 824 embodying or utilized by any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein [storing the knowledge graph of the current conversation at an end of the current conversation; wherein the KG is stored in memory and as Marin discloses the dKG represents the state of the conversation at any given time, it must include the end of the conversation as well]. These instructions, when executed by processor(s) 802 cause various operations to implement the disclosed embodiments.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub No. US20150293904A1 Roberts discloses Intelligent contextually aware digital assistants
(Roberts, [0027], “Disambiguation and query assembly 214 disambiguates sentence parameters and objects in a foreground knowledge graph 224 and a background knowledge graph 226, and generates queries for the knowledge graphs.”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASMINE THAI whose telephone number is (703)756-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/J.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2129
/SEHWAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights