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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Application No. 18/475,289 filed on 09/27/2023 were examined. Examiner filed a non-final office action on 05/30/2025.
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 09/02/2025. Claims 1, 8, 11, 18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 101: Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, Applicant argues that amended independent claim 1 (and similarly amended claims 11 and 20) is not directed to an abstract idea because it recites a specific, practical application of receiving vehicle and steering-system sensor data, calculating a road-surface condition metric from motor torque measurements, and calculating a duty cycle for at least one vehicle component.
However, this argument is not persuasive, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to the concept of receiving vehicle signals, calculating road surface condition metrics, calculating a duty cycle, and calculating remaining component life, which involve data collection, mathematical calculations, and analysis. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “receive, calculate …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Regarding the additional limitations of “Memory, Processor” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the receive, calculate by a processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer processor.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “Memory, processor” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 1, 11 and 20.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103: Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 with respect to Breed (US 20070271014 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 20180115269 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, 11 and 20, Applicant argues that Breed fails to disclose the amended limitations of claim 1, particularly:
“receiving… at least one steering system signal, wherein the at least one steering system signal includes at least one measurement corresponding to a motor torque”
“calculating at least one road surface condition metric based on the at least one vehicle signal and the at least one steering system signal”
“calculating a duty cycle for at least one vehicle component”
However, this argument is not persuasive, Breed discloses A system for predicting component life (“a method for predicting impending failures in one or more of a plurality of components or subsystems on a vehicle”[0040] ), the system comprising:
a processor (“In one embodiment, the sensors are coupled to a processor on the vehicle” [0044])
and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor (“If a microprocessor is used, a memory device is also required to store the data from the analog-to-digital converters that digitize the data from the receiving transducers.” [0737]) cause the processor to:
receive at least one vehicle signal (“The processor thus receives data or signals from the sensors and generates an output indicative or representative of the operating conditions of the vehicle or its component.” [0178])
calculate at least one road surface condition metric based on the at least one vehicle signal (“Vehicle sensors include tire pressure, temperature and acceleration monitoring sensors; weight or load measuring sensors; switches; vehicle temperature, acceleration, angular position, angular rate, angular acceleration sensors; proximity; rollover; occupant presence; humidity; presence of fluids or gases; strain; road condition and friction, chemical sensors and other similar sensors providing information to a vehicle system, vehicle operator or external site. The sensors can provide information about the vehicle and/or its interior or exterior environment, about individual components, systems, vehicle occupants, subsystems, and/or about the roadway, ambient atmosphere, travel conditions and external objects.” [0281])
calculate a duty cycle for at least one vehicle component (“The tire monitoring systems of some of the inventions herein comprises at least three separate systems corresponding to three stages of product evolution. Generation 1 is a tire valve cap that provides information as to the pressure within the tire as described below. Generation 2 requires the replacement of the tire valve stem, or the addition of a new stem-like device, with a new valve stem that also measures temperature and pressure within the tire or it may be a device that attaches to the vehicle wheel rim. Generation 3 is a product that is attached to the inside of the tire adjacent the tread and provides a measure of the diameter of the footprint between the tire and the road, the tire pressure and temperature, indications of tire wear and, in some cases, the coefficient of friction between the tire and the road.” [0488])
and calculate a remaining component life value for the at least one vehicle component based on the duty cycle for the at least one vehicle component and the at least one road surface condition metric (“Every component of a vehicle can emit various signals during its life. These signals can take the form of electromagnetic radiation, acoustic radiation, thermal radiation, vibrations transmitted through the vehicle structure and voltage or current fluctuations, depending on the particular component. When a component is functioning normally, it may not emit a perceptible signal. In that case, the normal signal is no signal, i.e., the absence of a signal. In most cases, a component will emit signals that change over its life and it is these changes which typically contain information as to the state of the component, e.g., whether failure of the component is impending, or has actually occurred.” [0187]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to the concept of receiving vehicle signals, calculating road surface condition metrics, calculating a duty cycle, and calculating remaining component life, which involve data collection, mathematical calculations, and analysis. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The Examiner will further explain in view of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance:
Claim 11 is directed to a system of controlling a vehicle (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1, 11 and 20 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 recites: A system for predicting component life, the system comprising:
a processor;
and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receiving, from at least one vehicle sensor, at least one vehicle signal;
receiving, from at least one steering system sensor, at least one steering system signal, wherein the at least one steering system signal includes at least one measurement corresponding to a motor torque
calculate at least one road surface condition metric based on the at least one vehicle signal and the at least one steering system signal;
calculate a duty cycle for at least one vehicle component;
and calculate a remaining component life value for the at least one vehicle component based on the duty cycle for the at least one vehicle component and the at least one road surface condition metric.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “receive , calculate …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system for predicting component life, the system comprising:
a processor;
and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receiving, from at least one vehicle sensor, at least one vehicle signal;
receiving, from at least one steering system sensor, at least one steering system signal, wherein the at least one steering system signal includes at least one measurement corresponding to a motor torque
calculate at least one road surface condition metric based on the at least one vehicle signal and the at least one steering system signal;
calculate a duty cycle for at least one vehicle component;
and calculate a remaining component life value for the at least one vehicle component based on the duty cycle for the at least one vehicle component and the at least one road surface condition metric.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “Memory, Processor” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the receive, calculate by a processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer processor.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “Memory, processor” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 1, 11 and 20.
Therefore, claims 2-10 and 12-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breed (US 20070271014 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, Breed discloses A system for predicting component life (“a method for predicting impending failures in one or more of a plurality of components or subsystems on a vehicle”[0040] ), the system comprising:
a processor (“In one embodiment, the sensors are coupled to a processor on the vehicle” [0044])
and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor (“If a microprocessor is used, a memory device is also required to store the data from the analog-to-digital converters that digitize the data from the receiving transducers. “ [0737]) cause the processor to:
receive, from at least one vehicle sensor, at least one vehicle signal (“The processor thus receives data or signals from the sensors and generates an output indicative or representative of the operating conditions of the vehicle or its component.” [0178])
receive, from at least one steering system sensor, at least one steering system signal, wherein the at least one steering system signal includes at least one measurement corresponding to a motor torque (“engine knock sensor; oil turbidity sensor; throttle position sensor; steering wheel torque sensor; wheel speed sensor; tachometer; speedometer; other velocity sensors; other position or displacement sensors; oxygen or other gas sensor; yaw, pitch and roll angular sensors; clock; odometer; power steering pressure sensor” [0183]);
calculate at least one road surface condition metric based on the at least one vehicle signal and the at least one steering system signal (“Vehicle sensors include tire pressure, temperature and acceleration monitoring sensors; weight or load measuring sensors; switches; vehicle temperature, acceleration, angular position, angular rate, angular acceleration sensors; proximity; rollover; occupant presence; humidity; presence of fluids or gases; strain; road condition and friction, chemical sensors and other similar sensors providing information to a vehicle system, vehicle operator or external site. The sensors can provide information about the vehicle and/or its interior or exterior environment, about individual components, systems, vehicle occupants, subsystems, and/or about the roadway, ambient atmosphere, travel conditions and external objects.” [0281] and “Various sensors on the vehicle can be used to extract information from signals emitted by the tire such as an accelerometer, a torque sensor on the steering wheel, the pressure output of the power steering system,” [0239])
calculate a duty cycle for at least one vehicle component (“The tire monitoring systems of some of the inventions herein comprises at least three separate systems corresponding to three stages of product evolution. Generation 1 is a tire valve cap that provides information as to the pressure within the tire as described below. Generation 2 requires the replacement of the tire valve stem, or the addition of a new stem-like device, with a new valve stem that also measures temperature and pressure within the tire or it may be a device that attaches to the vehicle wheel rim. Generation 3 is a product that is attached to the inside of the tire adjacent the tread and provides a measure of the diameter of the footprint between the tire and the road, the tire pressure and temperature, indications of tire wear and, in some cases, the coefficient of friction between the tire and the road.” [0488])
and calculate a remaining component life value for the at least one vehicle component based on the duty cycle for the at least one vehicle component and the at least one road surface condition metric (“Every component of a vehicle can emit various signals during its life. These signals can take the form of electromagnetic radiation, acoustic radiation, thermal radiation, vibrations transmitted through the vehicle structure and voltage or current fluctuations, depending on the particular component. When a component is functioning normally, it may not emit a perceptible signal. In that case, the normal signal is no signal, i.e., the absence of a signal. In most cases, a component will emit signals that change over its life and it is these changes which typically contain information as to the state of the component, e.g., whether failure of the component is impending, or has actually occurred.” [0187]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Breed discloses The method of claim 2, wherein the at least one vehicle signal is associated with at least one of wheel slip value, wheel speed, vehicle acceleration, handwheel angle, engine torque, and brake torque (“Airbag crash sensor; microphone; camera; chemical sensor; vapor sensor; antenna, capacitance or other electric field sensor or other electromagnetic wave sensor; stress or strain sensor; pressure sensor; weight sensor; magnetic field sensor; coolant thermometer; oil pressure sensor; oil level sensor; air flow meter; voltmeter; ammeter; humidity sensor; engine knock sensor; oil turbidity sensor; throttle position sensor; steering wheel torque sensor; wheel speed sensor; tachometer; speedometer; other velocity sensors; other position or displacement sensors; oxygen or other gas sensor; yaw, pitch and roll angular sensors; clock; odometer; power steering pressure sensor; pollution sensor; fuel gauge; cabin thermometer; transmission fluid level sensor; gyroscopes or other angular rate sensors including yaw, pitch and roll rate sensors; accelerometers including single axis, dual axis and triaxial accelerometers; “ [0183]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Breed discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one vehicle signal is associated with a vehicle system (“The components may include any number of vehicle operating systems such as motive components, safety components, monitoring components and the like.” [0040]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Breed discloses The method of claim 4, wherein the vehicle system includes a suspension system (“FIG. 8 is a perspective view of a vehicle suspension system with SAW load sensors.” [0061]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Breed discloses The method of claim 4, wherein the vehicle system includes a steering system (“the pressure output of the power steering system,” [0239]).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Breed discloses The method of claim 6, wherein the steering system includes an electronic power steering system (“Various sensors on the vehicle can be used to extract information from signals emitted by the tire such as an accelerometer, a torque sensor on the steering wheel, the pressure output of the power steering system, a tire pressure monitor or tire temperature monitor.” [0239]).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Breed discloses The method of claim 7, wherein the at least one steering system signal further includes at least one other measurement corresponding to a motor velocity (“Other possible sensors include a temperature transducer, a pressure transducer, a liquid level sensor, a flow meter, a position sensor, a velocity sensor, a RPM sensor, a chemical sensor and an angle sensor, angular rate sensor or gyroscope.” [0272]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Breed discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one road surface condition metric corresponds to at least one of a road roughness, a road friction, and a road surface type (“in some cases, the coefficient of friction between the tire and the road.” [0488]).
Regarding claim 10, Breed discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising, based on a determination that the remaining component life value is less than a threshold, generating a warning (“Additionally or alternatively, a warning device may be coupled to the diagnostic system for relaying a warning to an occupant of the vehicle relating to the non-optimal operation, failure or expected failure of any of the components.” [0047]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed in view of Lin et al. (US 20180115269 A1), hereinafter referred to as Breed and Lin respectively.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Breed discloses The method of claim 1,
Breed does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one vehicle signal is received via a vehicle controller area network bus.
However, Lin does teach wherein the at least one vehicle signal is received via a vehicle controller area network bus (“Data signals may include signals representing inputs from sensors, signals representing actuator commands, and communications signals between controllers. In a specific example, multiple controllers communicate with one another via a serial bus (e.g., Controller Area Network (CAN)) or via discrete conductors.” [0016]). Both Breed and Lin teach methods for determining vehicle component status and life cycle. However, Lin explicitly teaches wherein the at least one vehicle signal is received via a vehicle controller area network bus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the component status monitoring method of Breed to also include wherein the at least one vehicle signal is received via a vehicle controller area network bus, as taught by Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves vehicle component state prediction (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Lin, 0002]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights