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 .
Detail Action
On 10/26/2023, Application 18/495,341 is filed with claims 1-20.
That is Non-Final Action.
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.
Claim 1:
(Prong 2A prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 1 recites the step of:
determine existence of a second API based on the second API having a property similar to the at least one property of the first API; MPEP 2106.04(a);
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply an exception (A system), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise: a dialog generator component configured to: determine at least one property of a first application programming interface (API) code…. wherein the second API has an associated dialog configured to be presented during a virtual conversation.; MPEP 2106.05(d);
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Further, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 2:
(Prong 2A prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 2 also recites the step of:
in response to a determination that a second API exists similar to the first API,; MPEP 2106.04(a)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 2 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 2 recites the additional element of:
identifying the dialog associated with the second API; and incorporating the first API into the dialog, wherein the dialog comprises the first API and the second API.; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 2 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 3:
(Prong 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 3 also recites the step of:
in response to a determination that a second API exists similar to the first API; MPEP 2106.04(a)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 3 recites the additional element of:
identifying the dialog associated with the second API; and replacing the second API in the dialog with the first API; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 3 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 4:
(Prong 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 4 is dependent on claims 1 and 3, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 4, 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 4 recites the additional element of:
wherein the dialog generator component is further configured to: identify a dialog tree that pertains to the at least one property of the first API; and identify a node in the dialog tree at which to insert the dialog comprising the first API; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 4 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1 and 3, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 5:
(Prong 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 5 is dependent on claims 1, 3 and 4, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 5, 4, 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 5 recites the additional element of:
determine interaction with the dialog comprising the first API; and in response to a determination that the interaction requires activation of the first API, executing the API; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 5 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1, 3 and 4, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 6:
(Prong 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 6 is dependent on claims 1, 3, 4 and 5, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 6, 5, 4, 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 6 recites the additional element of:
receive feedback regarding at least one of the activation of the API, the correlation between the API and a task to be performed, correlation between the API and a theme of the dialog tree, or location of the API in the dialog tree structure; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 6 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1, 3, 4 and 5, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 7:
(Prong 2A Prong 1Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 7 is dependent on claims 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 7 recites the additional element of:
generate feedback information based on the received feedback; and transmit the feedback information to the dialog generator component; and wherein the dialog generator component is further configured to: receive the feedback information; and based on the feedback information, review a location of the dialog in the dialog tree or the suitability of the first API regarding at least one of a theme of the dialog tree or a task being conducted during the virtual conversation; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 7 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 8:
(Prong 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 8 is dependent on claims 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 8 also recites the step of:
in response to a determination that a second API having a similar property to the at least one property of the first API does not exist; MPEP 2106.04(a)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 8 recites the additional element of:
identifying a dialog template; generating a dialog based on the dialog template; and incorporating the first API into the dialog; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 8 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 9:
(Prong 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 9 is dependent on claims 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 9 also recites the step of:
in response to a determination that a second API having a similar property to the at least one property of the first API exists; MPEP 2106.04(a)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 9 recites the additional element of:
identifying the dialog associated with the second API; cloning the dialog to create a cloned version of the dialog associated with the second API, and incorporating the first API into the cloned dialog; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 8 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 10:
(Prong 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 10 is dependent on claims 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 10 recites the additional element of:
wherein the at least one property includes an entity or an intent; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 10 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 11:
(Prong 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 11 is dependent on claims 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 11 recites the additional element of:
a chatbot, wherein the virtual conversation is presented via the chatbot; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 11 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claims 12-16 are directed to the computer-implemented method comprise the steps which the at least one process platform of the system of claims 1-5 and 8 are configured to perform. Claims 12-16 recite the same limitations as claims 1-5 and 8, respectively; therefore, claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a computer-implemented method without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-5 and 8. See above.
Claims 17-20 are directed to the computer-implemented method comprise the steps which the at least one process platform of the system of claims 1-3, 10 and 11 are configured to perform. Claims 17-20 recite the same limitations as claims 1-3, 10 and 11, respectively; therefore, claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a computer-implemented method without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-3, 10 and 11. See above.
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, 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 1-3, 8, 10, 12-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giffen US 11/231,972 in view of Wilson US Publication 2023/0023981.
18/495,341
Giffen US 11/231,972 in view of Wilson US Publication 2023/0023981
Claim 1
A system, comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise:
Giffen abstract, c3:50-c4:10; Fig. 7, Giffen teach computer is coupled to I/O devices and a computer data storage unit. CPU performs computation and control functions of computer, including executing instructions included in program code for a system dialog-style API system to perform a method of defining and using a dialog-style API in a machine learning solution, where the instructions are executed by CPU via memory. CPU may include a single processing unit or processor or be distributed across one or more processing units or one or more processors in one or more locations. Giffen c9:50-70;
a dialog generator component configured to: determine at least one property of a first application programming interface (API) code; and
Giffen abstract Fig. 1-5; c3:65-c4:40;
determine existence of a second API based on the second API having a property similar to the at least one property of the first API, wherein the second API has an associated dialog configured to be presented during a virtual conversation.
Wilson teaches determine additional APIs that are associated with API. (see p0054)
Wilson p0054
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Wilson teaching with method of Giffen in order to allow user to access relevant APIs.
Claim 2
The system of claim 1, wherein the dialog generator component is further configured to: in response to a determination that a second API exists similar to the first API, identifying the dialog associated with the second API; and incorporating the first API into the dialog, wherein the dialog comprises the first API and the second API.
Giffen teaches new dialog that are associated with new service APIs provided by the domain experts; Giffen c5:15-35.
Wilson teaches determine additional APIs that are associated with API. (see p0054)
Claim 3
The system of claim 1, wherein the dialog generator component is further configured to: in response to a determination that a second API exists similar to the first API, identifying the dialog associated with the second API; and replacing the second API in the dialog with the first API.
Giffen teaches update dialog that are associated with new service APIs provided by the domain experts; Giffen c5:15-35.
Wilson teaches determine additional APIs that are associated with API. (see p0054)
Claim 8
The system of claim 1, wherein the dialog generator component is further configured to: in response to a determination that a second API having a similar property to the at least one property of the first API does not exist, identifying a dialog template; generating a dialog based on the dialog template; and incorporating the first API into the dialog.
Wilson teaches transmitting additional function and data from the new API; p0067-p0074.
Giffen teaches update dialog that are associated with new service APIs provided by the domain experts; Giffen c5:15-35.
Claim 10
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one property includes an entity or an intent.
Wilson teaches determine additional APIs that are associated with API. (see p0054)
As per claims 12 and 17, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. See rejection above.
As per claim 13, it is rejected under the same rationale as claims 2 and 3. See rejections above.
As per claim 16, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8. See rejection above.
As per claim 18, it is rejected under the same rationale as claims 2 and 3. See rejections above.
As per claim 19, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10. See rejection above.
Claims 4-7, 11, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giffen US 11/231,972 in view of Wilson US Publication 2023/0023981 and Crook US Publication 2022/0156465.
18/495,341
Giffen US 11/231,972 in view of Wilson US Publication 2023/0023981 and Crook US Publication 2022/0156465
Claim 4
The system of claim 3, wherein the dialog generator component is further configured to: identify a dialog tree that pertains to the at least one property of the first API; and identify a node in the dialog tree at which to insert the dialog comprising the first API.
Giffen c9:50-70;
Crook teaches dialog tree p0062-p0078;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Crook teaching with method of Giffen in order to allow system to guide dialogs with proper policy.
Claim 5
The system of claim 4, further comprising a human-machine-interface (HMI), wherein the HMI is configured to present, during the virtual conversation, the dialog comprising the first API; and the dialog generator component is further configured to: determine interaction with the dialog comprising the first API; and in response to a determination that the interaction requires activation of the first API, executing the API.
Crook teaches activate API based on user interaction; p0044, Fig. 4, p0084; p0116;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Crook teaching with method of Giffen in order to allow user activate additional functionality.
Claim 6
The system of claim 5, further comprising a feedback component configured to: receive feedback regarding at least one of the activation of the API, the correlation between the API and a task to be performed, correlation between the API and a theme of the dialog tree, or location of the API in the dialog tree structure.
Crook teaches dialog tree p0062-p0078;
Crook teaches activate API based on user interaction; p0044, Fig. 4, p0084; p0116;
Claim 7
The system of claim 6, wherein the feedback component is further configured to: generate feedback information based on the received feedback; and transmit the feedback information to the dialog generator component; and wherein the dialog generator component is further configured to: receive the feedback information; and based on the feedback information, review a location of the dialog in the dialog tree or the suitability of the first API regarding at least one of a theme of the dialog tree or a task being conducted during the virtual conversation.
Crook teaches dialog tree p0062-p0078;
Crook teaches activate API based on user interaction; p0044, Fig. 4, p0084; p0116;
Claim 11
The system of claim 1, further comprising a chatbot, wherein the virtual conversation is presented via the chatbot.
Crook teaches AI for dialog; p0090;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Crook teaching with method of Giffen in order to allow system to used AI bot function.
As per claims 14 and 15, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 4 and 5. See rejection above.
As per claim 20, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 11. See rejection above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giffen US 11/231,972 in view of Wilson US Publication 2023/0023981 and Arivazhangan US Patent 10/908,970.
18/495,341
Giffen US 11/231,972 in view of Wilson US Publication 2023/0023981 and Arivazhangan US Patent 10/908,970
Claim 9
The system of claim 1, wherein the dialog generator component is further configured to: in response to a determination that a second API having a similar property to the at least one property of the first API exists, identifying the dialog associated with the second API; cloning the dialog to create a cloned version of the dialog associated with the second API, and incorporating the first API into the cloned dialog.
Arivazhangan teaches cloning a template; c7:15-35;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Arivazhangan teaching with method of Giffen in order to allow system to build redundancy.
Related Prior Arts
Here are a list of references relates to Dialog API:
Detmer US Publication 2025/0126081: Dialog Control Flow For Information Retrieval Applications.
Shi US Patent 12,586,578: Natural Language Processing.
Schleifer et al. US Publication 2019/0354416: System and Method for Integrating Multiple Applications
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENG KE whose telephone number is (571)272-4062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-5:00.
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, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
PENG KE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights