DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
[2] This communication is in response to the amendment filed 15 July 2026. It is noted that this application benefits from Provisional Patent Application Serial Nos. 63/514,040 and 63/515,286 filed 17 July 2023 and 24 July 2023. Claim 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1-5, 9, 16, and 18-20 have been amended. Claims 1-22 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[3] Applicant's remarks filed 15 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks will be addressed below in the order in which they appear in the noted response.
[i] In response to rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 (now claims 1-22 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 9 April 2026, Applicant provides the following remarks:
"…As described in paragraph [0005] of the specification, the claimed techniques provide a computer-implemented system in which ‘[t]he sets of tasks are dynamically updated depending on real-time data’ The specification further describes using ‘one or more machine-learning (ML) models trained and reinforced on a large dynamic data set including a diversity of data sources and data types’ where ‘[t]he data set is updated in real-time to maintain a dynamic predictive outcome for the set of tasks’ The specification also describes, in paragraph [0007], a ‘dynamic predictive feedback loop’ that uses ‘multiple data sources and multiple data formats’ to train the ML model to evaluate ‘individual and group task risk and failure mechanisms’ determine ‘which tasks are likely to fail together’ and ‘which tasks are likely to fail independently’ and ‘update the dynamic set by adding or removing projects.… "
Applicant further remarks:
“…amended claim 1 recites ‘generating a greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation credit," "receiving, from a second entity, a request for a GHG credit acquisition for the GHG mitigation credit," "executing the request for the GHG credit acquisition and providing the GHG mitigation credit to the second entity," and "providing, to at least one of the set of first entities, instructions generated based on the selected set of tasks to cause the at least one of the set of first entities to execute a respective task of the set of tasks’…These additional claim features further integrate the model-based simulation and selection process into a practical application…the claim uses the model-generated probability distribution and failure correlations to select a set of tasks that satisfies the claimed failure threshold, generates a GHG mitigation credit based on that selected set of tasks, executes a GHG credit acquisition request from a second entity, and provides task-execution instructions to first entities that perform the selected tasks. Thus, amended claim 1 does not merely recite assessing GHG mitigation at a high level…amended claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and recites significantly more than the alleged abstract idea…”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to considerations under Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)):
As presented by amendment, additional technical elements of claim 1 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject are limited to: “model” and “simulation”. Claims 18 and 20, directed to a system and CRM introduce a “one or more computers” and processor-executable “instructions” as engaged in a general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “one or more computers” and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “model” is identified as a model from which the inventive method receives “…input data from a plurality of data sources for a plurality of candidate tasks, the input data comprising data indicative of offset potentials and failure mechanisms for the plurality of candidate tasks…”. The model is further identified as “…simulating possible sequences of events corresponding to the failure mechanisms for candidate sets of tasks to generate sampled simulated mitigation outcomes…”
(3) The “simulation” is identified as serving as a basis for generating, based on the sampled simulated mitigation outcomes, a probability distribution that a candidate set of tasks will mitigate a target amount of GHG; and selecting the set of tasks based on the probability distribution and failure correlations between failure mechanisms of selected tasks, wherein an overall risk score of the set of tasks satisfies a failure threshold corresponding to a likelihood that the set of tasks achieves the target amount of GHG mitigation…”
With respect to the claimed model, while Applicant notes supportive disclosure pertaining to the model as machine-learning model, the claim merely presents the model as a generic, undefined model. Accordingly, any consideration of the cited disclosure related to the model as a machine-model engaged in a dynamic feedback and training process would constitute importing or reading unclaimed limitations into the claims from the supportive disclosure. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As presented, the amended limitations are reasonably understood to be limited to addition mental processes and mathematical processes of sampling simulated outcomes, calculating probabilities, and selecting tasks based on observed probabilities for improvement in the desired reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Respectfully, the additional technical elements including the clarifying recitations and elements presented by amendment are limited to further illustration of ineligible mathematical processes and/or processes performed by the human mind (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Examiner maintains that the present construction of the claims merely requires use of generic computing functions to perform repetitive calculations responsive to and replace implemented tasks using human mental observation, determinations, and conclusions based on available calculated probabilities. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully maintains that claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of assessing greenhouse gas mitigation processes including evaluating the probability of success given a set of mitigation tasks using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment, e.g., generic devices capable of storing and retrieving information from computer memory, transmitting and receiving information over a computer network, and performing known calculations otherwise performable by human mental processing and/or using pen and paper. The claimed assessing greenhouse gas mitigation processes including evaluating the probability of success given a set of mitigation tasks benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
[ii] Applicant’s remarks directed to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 9 April 2026 have been fully considered and are convincing in light of the present amendments to the pending claims. The previous rejection of pending claims 1-20 (now claims 1-22 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 103 has/have been overcome by the amendments to the pending claims and is/are withdrawn.
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.
[4] Previous rejection(s) of claims 1-20 (now claims 1-22 as presented by amendment)1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more has/have not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The statement of rejection below is reiterated as originally presented in the previous Office Action mailed 9 April 2026. The present amendments and remarks are addressed above under “Response to Remarks/Amendment”.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05) Claim(s) 1-20 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 18, and 20 are directed to a method, a system, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 18, and 20 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of assessing greenhouse gas mitigation processes, which is reasonably considered to be method consisting of ineligible processes/functions which are performable by Human Mental Processing and/or or by a human using pen and paper (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Lastly, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 1 recites:
“…generating a greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation credit comprising identifying a set of tasks to be completed by a respective set of first entities that collectively generate a GHG mitigation having a set of GHG mitigation parameters; receiving, from a second entity, a request for a GHG credit acquisition for the GHG mitigation credit; in response to receiving the request, executing the request for the GHG credit acquisition and providing the GHG mitigation credit to the second entity; and providing, to at least one of the set of first entities, instructions to cause the at least one of the set of first entities to execute a respective task of the set of tasks…”
Respectfully, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily be relied upon to evaluate the potential impact for a set of GHG mitigations techniques using pen and paper and/or employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Claims 1, 19, and 20 recite technical elements which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claim 1 does not include/recite any additional technical elements. Claims 18 and 20, directed to a system and CRM introduce a “one or more computers” and processor-executable “instructions” as engaged in a general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “one or more computers” and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., generating a credit, generating tasks intended to mitigate greenhouse gases) as associated with a respective “computer” or “instructions”. A recitation of “by a computer” or “using instructions”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., assessing greenhouse gas mitigation processes) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of assessing greenhouse gas mitigation processes using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed assessing greenhouse gas mitigation processes benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0187]-[0197]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “one or more computers” and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtained information/data.
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of assessing greenhouse gas mitigation processes. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., assessing greenhouse gas mitigation processes, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of assessing greenhouse gas mitigation processes benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 18 and 20, directed to an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 1-17, 19, 21, and 22 when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In accordance with all relevant considerations and aligned with previous findings of the courts, the technical elements imparted on the method that would potentially provide a basis for meeting a “significantly more” threshold for establishing patent eligibility for an otherwise abstract concept by the use of computer technology fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Allowable Subject Matter
[5] Claims 1-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as maintained in this Office action.
Subject Matter Overcoming the Art of Record
[6] The most closely applicable prior art of record is referred to in the Office Action mailed 9 April 2026 as Oliver Gomilla (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0114562). Gomila provides system and method which verifies GHG emission for activities and products over a defined lifecycle. The system and method include comparatively assessing GHG emission for substitute activities and alternative purchases. Gomila fails to assess or simulate sequences of events and potential failure mechanisms for a GHG mitigation project. Accordingly, Gomila fail to teach at least “…receiving, by a model, input data from a plurality of data sources for a plurality of candidate tasks, the input data comprising data indicative of offset potentials and failure mechanisms for the plurality of candidate tasks; simulating, by the model, possible sequences of events corresponding to the failure mechanisms for candidate sets of tasks to generate sampled simulated mitigation outcomes; generating, based on the sampled simulated mitigation outcomes, a probability distribution that a candidate set of tasks will mitigate a target amount of GHG; and selecting the set of tasks based on the probability distribution and failure correlations between failure mechanisms of selected tasks, wherein an overall risk score of the set of tasks satisfies a failure threshold corresponding to a likelihood that the set of tasks achieves the target amount of GHG mitigation…”, As required by claims 1, 18, and 20.
Conclusion
[7] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cited PATENT Literature:
Pomerantz et al., SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION QUANTIFICATION AND REDUCTION, United States Patent Application Publication No. 20240403892, paragraphs [0032]-[0035]: Relevant Teachings: Pomerantz discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions for greenhouse gas quantification and reduction including implementing and monitoring results from greenhouse gas reduction workflows.
COONER, SYSTEM, BUSINESS AND TECHNICAL METHODS, AND ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE FOR UTILIZING INTERNET OF THINGS TECHNOLOGY IN ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS DESIGNED TO AUTOMATE THE PROCESS OF GENERATING AND/OR MONETIZING CARBON CREDITS, United States Patent Application Publication No. 20200027096, paragraphs [0400]-[0416]: Relevant Teachings: COONER discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions validating results of greenhouse gas emission reduction programs.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights