FINAL ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is FINAL.
This office action is in responsive to communication(s):
Amendment filed on 3/9/2026.
Application filed on 8/18/2023 with effective filing date of 8/18/2023.
The status of the claims is summarized as below:
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent claims.
In the amendment, claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18 have been amended.
The rejections to claims 1-18 based on 35 USC § 101 are respectfully maintained.
The rejections to claims 1-18 based on 35 USC § 112(b) are respectfully maintained.
The claim objections to claims 3-4, 6, 9-10, 12, 15-16, 18 are respectfully withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the amendment made to claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 18 in the amendment filed on 3/9/2026.
The claim objections to claims 3-4, 6, 9-10, 12, 15-16, 18 are respectfully withdrawn in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. § 112
The rejections to claims 1-18 based on 35 USC § 112(b) are respectfully maintained.
Although the applicant stated in the remarks dated 3/9/2026 that the indefinite terms “relevance” in the limitation “determining one or more modifications to the planned script to increase the relevance of the planned script with respect to at least one of the set of predicted external interactions” is intended to be replaced with “based on”, the amended claims filed on 3/9/2026 did not reflect the intended removal of the term “relevance”, only the addition of the terms “based on”, which may have been an oversight. Given that the indefinite terms “relevance” are still present in all the independent claims, the rejections to claims 1-18 based on 35 USC § 112(b) are maintained.
35 U.S.C. § 101
The rejections to claims 1-18 based on 35 USC § 101 are respectfully maintained.
The applicant argues on pages 9-11 for the rejections to claims 1-18 under 35 USC § 101. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the applicant argued that the claims recite an integration of an idea into a practical application, because specific steps of identifying reference external interactions, then using those reference to prompt a language model to predict interactions for the current presentation, and determining modifications to the planned script based on the predicted interaction, represent a specific, non-conventional process to improve presentation preparation technology. The examiner notes the integration of an idea into a practical application is determined in step 2A and 2B of the 101 rejections outlined below. The claims needs to recites additional elements that are improving existing technology that is significant more than judicial exception. The currently claim language as analyzed in step 2A and 2B below does not recites elements that are significantly more than a judicial exception.
Second, the applicant argued that claims are not merely routine or conventional. Specifically the specific method for predicting audience interactions by including reference interaction from historical presentations directly in a prompt to a language model, is not well-understood routine or conventional. The examiner notes the plain method of using historical information from past presentation to be applied to current presentation can and have been performed in human minds for all who have done presentations. The claims merely recites language model and prompt as input to the language model in a high level of generality. These additional elements do not transform the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements amounts to merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Third, the applicant argues the claims are directed to a technological improvement. The applicant specifically argues that the claims are directed to a specific technical solution for improving presentation preparation by using language models with context-specific prompts informed by historical interaction data. The examiner notes the claims as they currently stand, merely recites language model and prompt at a high level of generality, as a tool to be applied generically to a mental process that has traditionally been performed in the human mind. They do not include any details on how existing technology are improved.
Accordingly, the rejections to claims 1-18 based on 35 USC § 101 are maintained.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are directed to newly amended language which is now rejected with a new ground of rejection in light of newly cited art Harrison.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The Office applies a two-step test when examining claims for subject-matter eligibility under § 101. First, the claimed invention must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1) explicitly listed in § 101 (Step 1). MPEP § 2106.03. Then, the claimed invention is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to one of § 101’s judicial exceptions (Step 2A Prong One) without reciting a practical application of the judicial exception (Step 2A Prong Two), and without reciting significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). MPEP § 2106.04-2106.05.
With this framework in mind, the claims will now be analyzed for subject matter eligibility under § 101.
Claim 1
Step 1. Claim 1 provides for a method comprising several steps, and is thus a “process” within the meaning of § 101. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One. The limitation(s) highlighted with italic below of claim 1 recites and is directed to the “abstract idea” judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a prepared set of presentation materials for an interactive presentation to an audience, the prepared set of presentation materials including a planned script;
determining a set of presentation characteristics with one or more language models;
identifying a set of reference external interactions from a set of other presentations based on the set of presentation characteristics, wherein the set of reference external interactions comprises interactions from external participants;
determining a set of predicted external interactions for the interactive presentation based on a prompt to a language model using the set of reference external interactions, wherein the prompt comprises the set of reference external interactions;
determining one or more modifications to the planned script to increase the relevance of the planned script with respect to at least one of the set of predicted external interactions; and
providing the one or more modifications to a user device for display to a user.
As a whole, the claim recites a method to improve a presentation by determine characteristics of the presentation, predicting interactions for the presentation by identifying reference interactions based on a set of existing/other presentations, determine modifications to increase relevance of the script based on the predicted interactions, and providing the modifications to the user. The entirety of this claim, save for the recitation of the method being “computer-implemented”, and certain steps being performed “with one or more language models”, “based on a prompt to a language model … wherein the prompt comprises the set of reference external interactions”, and result being output “to a user device for display”, describes a mental process (perhaps aided by pen and paper) of a user evaluating a presentation to determine modifications to increase relevance of the presentation script to predicted interactions based on past presentations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong Two. Claim 1 recites additional element of the method being “computer-implemented”, and certain steps being performed “with one or more language models”, “based on a prompt to a language model … wherein the prompt comprises the set of reference external interactions”, and result being output “to a user device for display”. These additional elements in the method do not transform the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, that amounts to merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.04(d), 2106. 5(f)-(h)).
Specifically, the “computer-implemented” method, the “with one or more language models” to determine presentation characteristics, and the “based on a prompt to a language model … wherein the prompt comprises the set of reference external interactions” to determine predicted interactions for the presentation are recited with a high level of generality that amounts to reciting a judicial exception with the words “apply it”, because the claim merely invokes computers or other machinery, such as any large language model, as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and limiting the abstract idea of improving presentations in technological environment of computers with large language model does no more than generally linking a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Similarly, the “to a user device for display” element is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output. When viewed in combination, the additional elements do nothing more than adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or in a computer environment.
Accordingly, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B. The claim does not include additional element that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the method being “computer-implemented”, determinations being performed “with one or more language models” and “based on a prompt to a language model … wherein the prompt comprises the set of reference external interactions” amount to no more than reciting the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. And the “to a user device for display” element represents mere data output that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in “presenting offers and gathering statistics”. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-5
Each one of claims 2-5 describes additional step(s) taken within the mental process per se, or merely narrow the description of the information handled by the mental process. As such, they add no additional elements to consider for integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or for adding significantly more to the judicial exception.
Claim 6
The analysis in the rejection of claim 1 at the corresponding steps is hereby incorporated by reference.
Step 2A, Prong One. Except for the element of “applying the one or more language model”, the two additional steps of determining summary of supplemental materials in the presentation material, and determining further modifications to presentation based on the summary are considered to be part of the mental process/abstract idea itself because they are processes that can be performed mentally by a user.
Step 2A, Prong Two. Claim 6 recites the same additional element of “applying the one or more language model” as recited in claim 1. The additional element does not transform the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional element is mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a generic computer and in a computer environment.
Step 2B. The claim does not include additional element that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the process of performing the additional steps by “applying the one or more language model” is tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Claims 7-12
Claims 7-12 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which the same methods as set forth in corresponding claims 1-6 are embodied as executable instructions, and are rejected according to the same findings and rationale as provided above.
The added element of “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions executable by one or more processors” in claim 7 do not transform the judicial exception into a practical application because they are tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a generic computer. The additional elements are also not sufficient to amount to significant more than the judicial exception because the action of implementing the method on a general purpose computer with media is tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a computer.
Claims 13-18
Claims 13-18 recites a computer system having instructions executable to perform the same method as set forth in corresponding clams 1-6, and are therefore rejected according to the same findings and rationale as provided above.
The additional elements of “one or more processors” and “one or more computer-readable media having instructions executable by the one or more processors” in claim 13 do not transform the judicial exception into a practical application because they are tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a generic computer. The additional elements are also not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the action of implementing the method on a general purpose computer with one or more processor and one or more computer-readable media is tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a computer.
Claim Objections
The claim objections to claims 3-4, 6, 9-10, 12, 15-16, 18 are respectfully withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6, 9-10, 12, 15-16, 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Per claim 3, claim 3 depends from claim 1, and recites a method that “… determining a predicted participant based on the set of presentation metadata …” (emphasis added), where there is no aforementioned set of presentation metadata. For the purpose of examination, the term is interpreted as “a set of presentation metadata”.
Per claim 4, claim 4 depends from claim 1, and recites “… wherein the set of presentation metadata includes a summary key points …” (emphasis added), where there is no aforementioned set of presentation metadata. For the purpose of examination, the term is interpreted as “a set of presentation metadata”.
Per claim 6, claim 6 depends from claim 1, and recites “… applying the one or more language models to determine a summary of a set of supplemental materials in the presentation materials …” (emphasis added), where in the claim 1, the bolded term is recited as “the prepared set of presentation materials”. For the purpose of examination, the bolded term in claim 6 is interpreted as the prepared set of presentation materials from claim 1. It is advised to amend the terms to be the same for consistency and antecedent purposes.
Claims 9-10 and 12 recite similar limitations as claim 3-4 and 6 above respectively, and are likewise objected.
Claims 15-16 and 18 recite similar limitations as claim 3-4 and 6 above respectively, and are likewise objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “relevance” in claim 1 from the limitation of “determining … modifications to the planned script to increase the relevance of the planned script with respect to based on … predicted external interactions” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 and 13 recite similar term and limitation, and are likewise rejected as being indefinite.
Claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-18 depend from and include the scope of their respective independent claims 1, 7, and 13, and are likewise rejected as being indefinite.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Vangala et al. (US Pub 20180122371, hereinafter Vangala), in view of Bastide et al. (US Pub 20180116599, hereinafter Bastide), and Harrison (US Pub 20220405630, hereinafter Harrison).
Per claim 1, Vangala teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising: (abstract: intelligent assistant utilizing data to suggests and improve presentation);
receiving a prepared set of presentation materials for an interactive presentation to an audience, the prepared set of presentation materials including a planned script; ([0036-0037] Fig. 3 shows at steps 310-320, presentation data is received, which includes presentation, textual content, audio and video data, where speech data is converted to text (planned script));
determining a set of presentation characteristics with one or more language models; ([0017, 0034, 0037-0039] Fig. 3 shows at step 330 and 340, the presentation text is analyzed by a machine learned model to identify metrics and entities from the text, such as amount of time per segment, word per minute rate, etc.);
…
determining one or more modifications to the planned script ([0040] Fig. 3 shows at step 350, the intelligent assistant can offer feedback for the presentation, such to the text converted from speech to avoid certain terms);
providing the one or more modifications to a user device for display to a user. ([0040-0041] Fig. 3 shows at step 360, feedback to the presentation document is return to the client device and displayed to the user as shown in Fig. 4B [0051]).
Although Vangala teach determining characteristics of a presentation, and providing feedback based on historical presentations data, Vangala does not explicitly teach “identifying a set of reference external interactions from a set of other presentations based on the set of presentation characteristics, wherein the set of reference external interactions comprises interactions from external participants; determining a set of predicted external interactions for the interactive presentation ”.
However, Bastide teaches:
identifying a set of reference external interactions from a set of other presentations based on the set of presentation characteristics, wherein the set of reference external interactions comprises interactions from external participants; ([0018, 0021-0022] Fig. 1: Fig. 1 shows various characteristics of the meeting/presentation is determined, such as type, agenda, location, etc. Fig. 1 further shows at step 202, historical pattern of engagement in the specific type of meeting is identified based on the meeting/presentation type; the historical pattern of engagement (set of reference external interaction) comprises interactions from the user (external participant));
determining a set of predicted external interactions for the interactive presentation ([0021-0022] Fig. 1: a combination of predictive and reactive algorithm can make predictions on user’s engagement level such as commenting/actively participating, based on various meeting/presentation parameters such as type, agenda participation, context of the call, and historical pattern of engagement in that specific type of meeting);
Bastide and Vangala are analogous art because Bastide also teach method of providing suggestions to modify conference/presentation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Bastide and Vangala before him/her, to modify the teachings of Vangala to include the teachings of Bastide so that it would provide predicative user level of engagement based on current and historical meetings/presentations for participants. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide additional insights for a given presentation by predicting user engagement level based on historical data, and enable additional ways of assisting presentation author to make improvements based on predicted user engagement levels.
Additionally, Vangala-Bastide do not teach “” and “determining one or more modifications to the planned script to increase the relevance of the planned script with respect to based on at least one of the set of predicted external interactions”.
However, Harrison teaches:
… [([0031-0032] Fig. 2 shows at step 206-210: conference participant information are loaded into AI, such as past interactions with participants, such as email/chats/other engagements, to provide recommendation to the presenter based on determined goals; examiner notes “prompt” is interpreted broadly to include any information being fed into an AI).
determining one or more modifications to the planned script to increase the relevance of the planned script with respect to based on at least one of the set of predicted external interactions; … ([0032-0033] Fig. 2 steps 214-218: recommendations may be provided to the presenter based on information loaded in the AI, such as historical interaction based on participant engagement, the recommendation may include what to say to the participant that might be persuasive based on predicted participant engagement);
Harrison and Vangala-Bastide are analogous art because Harrison also teach method of providing recommendations to improve conference/presentation goals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Harrison and Vangala-Bastide before him/her, to modify the teachings of Vangala-Bastide to include the teachings of Harrison so that it would provide modifications to the presentation/meeting based on the prompt information to the AI. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide recommendations to presenter to help to better achieve goals for the presentation/conference based on past history of conferences and participants using AI.
Per claim 2, Vangala-Bastide-Harrison teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
further comprising automatically modifying the planned script with the one or more modifications. (Vangala [0033, 0041, 0022, 0052] textual feedback can be automatically received and implement for the user; i.e. text inserted into notes section by the feedback aggregator which is presented karaoke style during presentation).
Per claim 3, Vangala-Bastide-Harrison teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
further comprising determining a predicted participant based on a set of presentation metadata; and wherein determining the set of predicted external interactions is further based on the predicted participant. (Bastide [0022, 0029] Fig. 1 shows 202 include prediction of a specific user’s engagement as part of the prediction engine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of claim 1 to utilize the additional teachings of Bastide so that participants of the meeting can be predicted which would be further used to predict interactions at the presentation/meeting. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would help to provide better predicted interactions in the presentation/meeting with predicted participants.
Per claim 4, Vangala-Bastide-Harrison teach all the limitations of claim 3, and further teach:
wherein the set of presentation metadata includes a summary of key points of the presentation materials and the set of reference external interactions is determined based in part on the summary of key points. (Bastide: [0022, 0029] Fig. 1 shows at 202 presentation metadata include meeting agenda which helps to predict the user engagement level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of claim 1 to utilize the additional teachings of Bastide so that summaries of the presentation materials are included as part of the presentation metadata, and used to determine interactions during the presentation. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would help to provide better predicted interactions in the presentation/meeting.
Per claim 5, Vangala-Bastide-Harrison teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
receiving a rehearsed presentation of the presentation; and (Vangala [0022] the intelligent assistant can be invoked during practice of the presentation to provide feedback and make suggested changes);
automatically determining one or more characteristics of a presentation delivery based on the rehearsed presentation. (Vangala [0022-0023, 0037-0038] Fig. 3 shows step 330-334 where practice presentation data is received and processed to determine metrics related to the practice).
Per claim 6, Vangala-Bastide-Harrison teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
applying the one or more language models to determine a summary of a set of supplemental materials in the prepared set of presentation materials; and (Vangala [0022] the intelligent assistant analyzes the data related to the presentation and communicates with reference database to supplement those data, i.e. identifying entities in the presentation and retrieve additional information via the reference database);
determining one or more further modifications to the planned script based on the summary. (Vangala [0022] the intelligent assistant analyzes the data related to the presentation and communicates with reference database to supplement those data, i.e. identifying entities in the presentation and retrieve additional information via the reference database).
Per claim 7, claim 7 is a medium claim ( Vangala Fig. 6B memory 662) that stores instructions of a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Per claim 8-11, claims 8-11 include limitations that are substantially the same as claim 2-6 respectively, and are likewise rejected.
Per claim 12, claim 12 is a system claim comprising one or more processors (Vangala Fig. 6B processor 660), and one or more computer-readable media ( Vangala Fig. 6B memory 662) that executes a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Per claim 13-18, claims 13-18 include limitations that are substantially the same as claim 2-6 respectively, and are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support by shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections, See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHOEBE X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/PHOEBE X PAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights