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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts as follows:.
Contrary to the assertion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, they do not fall under this judicial exception because they cannot be practically applied in the human mind. The claimed limitations do not fall within the "mental process," which is one of the groups of abstract ideas. The 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance notes that the judicial exception does not apply when the claims recite actions that cannot be practically applied in the mind. For example, claim 1, as amended, recites at least "a transmission control unit which performs control to transmit risk area information including the four points that define the risk area" and "the retention control unit performs control to update the positional information of the two points that has already been retained with the positional information of the new two points of the new risk area when the determination unit determines that the first area matches the second area." Applicant respectfully submits that the subject matter recited in claim 1 is not an abstract idea and cannot practically be done in the human mind as a mental process. Thus, the claim 1 is eligible at Step 2A, Prong One, because it does not recite a judicial exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The above recited claim amendments, directing to “a transmission control unit which performs control to transmit risk area information including the four points that define the risk area" and "the retention control unit performs control to update the positional information of the two points that has already been retained with the positional information of the new two points of the new risk area when the determination unit determines that the first area matches the second area” appear to be asserted by the Applicant to encompass more than the abstract idea, as these limitations are asserted to not be able to be practically performable in the human mind. Examiner respectfully asserts, however, that the recited limitations appear to encompass insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not render the claim(s) patent-eligible. Specifically, “a transmission control unit which performs control to transmit risk area information including the four points that define the risk area" encompasses a computing device [Apply it, MPEP 2106.05(f)] which merely is configured to output the risk area information which is used in the steps of the mental process, which comprises the mere collection of data, which is also a form of insignificant extra-solution activity [pre-solution activity (data gathering), MPEP 2106.05(g)].
Further, the limitation(s) “the retention control unit performs control to update the positional information of the two points that has already been retained with the positional information of the new two points of the new risk area when the determination unit determines that the first area matches the second area" recites another generic computing component [“the retention control unit…,” Apply it, MPEP 2106.05(f)] which merely updates data based on newly received data, which is a mental process that may be performed in the human mind [with or without basic aid such as pen and paper], replacing previous data with new data based on a simple judgement, which is a mental process under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Thus, Examiner respectfully asserts that the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea/mental process under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Even assuming, in arguendo, that the claimed subject matter does not pass the test of Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant respectfully submits that it passes the test of Step 2A, Prong Two because the claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical application.
As noted in MPEP 2106.04, "[a] claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field."
It is asserted in the Office Action that "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" and "independent claim 1 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" (Office Action Page 8). However, Applicant respectfully disagrees. The claims are applied in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims, when considered as a whole, transform the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, demonstrably improving in reducing the amount of data to be processed for providing driver assistance.
In particular, claim 1, as amended, recites "a retention control unit which selects, from the four points included in the risk area information that is received, two points that satisfy a predetermined condition and performs control to retain positional information of only the two points that are selected as positional information of the risk area," "a determination unit which selects, upon receiving new risk area information including new four points that define a new risk area identified by the risk area identification unit, new two points that satisfy the predetermined condition from the new four points included in the new risk area information that is received and determines whether a first area identified from the positional information of the two points that has already been retained through the control by the retention control unit matches a second area identified from positional information of the new two points of the new risk area," and "the retention control unit performs control to update the positional information of the two points that has already been retained with the positional information of the new two points of the new risk area when the determination unit determines that the first area matches the second area" (emphasis added). With these features, in combination with the other recited features, it may be possible to reduce the amount of data to be retained and update the positional information with less computational amount, compared to using all four points that define the risk area, as applied in the prior art (for example, Wang cited in the U.S.C. 103 rejections, as explained below). Because the driver assistance may require a huge amount of data processing, reducing the amount of data to be retained and processed would be beneficial to the system. It may lead to providing drive assistance smoothly. As a result, as disclosed in paragraph [0099] of the present specification, it is possible to suppress the decrease in the smoothness of the traffic while improving the safety of the traffic.
Therefore, even assuming, in arguendo, that the claimed subject matter is considered to be directed to a judicial exception, Applicant respectfully submits that it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, and thus imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provides sufficient practical advantages.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to primarily assert, above, that the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application through the reduction of data retained during the risk area identification. Examiner respectfully asserts that the process, however, given its broadest reasonable interpretation does not appear to improve a specific technology or field in such a way as to amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the claim appears to merely apply the abstract idea in the field of risk area comparison. As noted by MPEP 2106.05(a)(1), "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality," which appears, in the view of the Examiner, to parallel the asserted improvement of the present claimed invention, where the asserted improvement comes entirely from an alteration of the amount of data stored [i.e. the information stored by a database being noted as the improvement/application], and not an inherent improvement in the technical functionality of the database or risk area identification system itself as would constitute substantially more than the abstract idea. Thus, Applicant arguments set forth above are not persuasive.
Claims 2 and 20 recite the features corresponding to the features of claim 1 discussed above. Claims 3-14 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Consequently, the claims are subject matter eligible at least because they integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 15-19 have been canceled, as explained above, mooting the rejections thereto.
Accordingly, withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-20 is respectfully requested.
For at least the reasons set forth above, as well as those set forth below with respect to the specific rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 as applicable, Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection(s) of Claims 1 – 14 & 20 – 22 under 35 USC 101.
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 – 14 & 20 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1 & 2 are directed to a risk identification system [i.e. a machine]. Therefore, claims 1 & 2 are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Similarly, Claim 20 is directed to a risk identification method [i.e. a process] and is also within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection, alongside the differing limitation found in Independent Claim 2. Claim 1 recites:
A system comprising:
a risk area identification unit which identifies a risk area that is defined by four points and external to a movable object; [mental process/step]
a transmission control unit which performs control to transmit risk area information including the four points that define the risk area;
a retention control unit which selects, from the four points included in the risk area information that is received, two points that satisfy a predetermined condition and [mental process/step]
performs control to retain positional information of only the two points that are selected as positional information of the risk area; and [mental process/step]
a determination unit which selects, upon receiving new risk area information including new four points that define a new risk area identified by the risk area identification unit, new two points that satisfy the predetermined condition from the new four points included in the new risk area information that is received and [mental process/step]
determines whether a first area identified from the positional information of the two points that has already been retained through the control by the retention control unit matches a second area identified from positional information of the new two points of the new risk area; [mental process/step]
wherein the retention control unit performs control to update the positional information of the two points that has already been retained with the positional information of the new two points of the new risk area when the determination unit determines that the first area matches the second area. [mental process/step]
Further, Independent Claim 2 recites the limitation:
wherein the retention control unit performs control to newly retain the positional information of the new two points of the new risk area when the determination unit determines that the first area does not match the second area. [mental process/step]
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, “identifies…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement as to the presence of risk area(s), with the limitations “selects…” and “selects, upon receiving new risk area information…” in their respective claim contexts similarly reciting the comparison of the points to a criteria to select two points, which is a simple judgement under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Further, the limitation “performs control to retain positional information…” encompasses a person remembering (retaining) positional information collected, which is a mental process under its broadest reasonable interpretation. The limitation “newly retain the positional information…” as found in Independent claim 2 recites a similar limitation of a person remembering (retaining) positional information collected, which is a mental process under its broadest reasonable interpretation. The limitation “determines…” in the context of the claim encompasses comparing two risk areas, and determining if the areas match, which is a mental process of making a simple judgement based on data collected under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Finally, “update…” in the context of the claim encompasses adjusting data based on new data collected, which is a mental process of forming a simple judgment as to how the data should be modified under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A system comprising: [Apply it, 2106.05(f)]
a risk area identification unit which [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)] identifies a risk area that is defined by four points and external to a movable object; [mental process/step]
a transmission control unit which [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)] performs control to transmit risk area information including the four points that define the risk area; [pre-solution activity (data gathering), MPEP 2106.05(g)]
a retention control unit which [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)] selects, from the four points included in the risk area information that is received, two points that satisfy a predetermined condition and [mental process/step]
performs control to retain positional information of only the two points that are selected as positional information of the risk area; and [mental process/step]
a determination unit which [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)] selects, upon receiving new risk area information including new four points that define a new risk area identified by the risk area identification unit, new two points that satisfy the predetermined condition from the new four points included in the new risk area information that is received and [mental process/step]
determines whether a first area identified from the positional information of the two points that has already been retained through the control by the retention control unit matches a second area identified from positional information of the new two points of the new risk area; [mental process/step]
wherein the retention control unit performs control to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)] update the positional information of the two points that has already been retained with the positional information of the new two points of the new risk area when the determination unit determines that the first area matches the second area. [mental process/step]
Further, Independent Claim 2, while substantially similar, recites the limitation:
wherein the retention control unit performs control to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)] newly retain the positional information of the new two points of the new risk area when the determination unit determines that the first area does not match the second area. [mental process/step]
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 “a risk area identification unit…,” “a transmission control unit…” “performs control to transmit risk area information…,” “a retention control unit…,” “a determination unit…” and “wherein the retention control unit…,” (in each of claims 1 and 2) the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. Each of the “units” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that each instance of a “unit” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, while the steps of “updating/retaining” positional information are construed, as set forth above, as mental processes of adjusting or remembering information, the claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, could further be read to encompass wherein such updating/retaining is the output of the results of the mental process, which is insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)]. Finally, the limitation “performs control to transmit risk area information…,” in the context of the claim encompasses the pre-solution collection of data for evaluation in the above-described mental process, and is therefore classified as insignificant extra-solution activity under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
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. see 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 1 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 using a computer to perform the steps of the process 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. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “a risk area identification unit…,” “a retention control unit…,” “a determination unit…” and “wherein the retention control unit…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Dependent claim(s) 3 – 14, 21, & 22 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 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically:
Claim 3 recites wherein new position information is retained when the areas do not match, which is a mental process of making a judgement and recording data under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 4 recites wherein the determination of matching is performed based on determining if the area defined by the points overlap, which is a mental process of forming a simple judgement based on data under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 5 recites wherein the determination of matching is performed based on determining if the area defined by the points overlap, which is a mental process of forming a simple judgement based on data under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 6 recites wherein the determination of matching is performed based on an area ratio of the first and second area overlap, which is a mental process of forming a simple judgement based on data under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 7 recites wherein the determination of area matching is performed based on an amount of misalignment between area centers of gravity, which is a mental process of forming a simple judgement based on data under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 8 recites wherein the determination of area matching is performed based on an amount of misalignment between a plurality of points defining the areas, which is a mental process of forming a simple judgement based on data under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 9 recites wherein the determination of area matching is performed based on an amount of misalignment between a plurality of points defining the areas, the misalignment being defined as one of a plurality of mathematical features, which is a mental process of forming a simple judgement based on data under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 10 recites wherein positional information of retained points is transmitted to another movable object, which is the insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting the results of the mental process under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 11 recites wherein the system is implemented using a server defined by a plurality of computing units, which merely recites generic instructions to apply the exception with generic computing components well known in the art, which is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 12 recites wherein the system is implemented using a server defined by a plurality of computing units, which merely recites generic instructions to apply the exception with generic computing components well known in the art, which is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 13 recites wherein the server is a mobile edge computing (MEC) server, which merely recites generic instructions to apply the exception with generic computing components well known in the art, which is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 14 recites wherein the movable object is a vehicle, which merely recites generic instructions to apply the exception with generic components well known in the art, which is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 21 recites wherein response information indicating that another movable object exists in the new risk area, or transmit warning formation to the another movable object, which is mere insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 22 recites wherein response information indicating that another movable object exists in the new risk area, or transmit warning formation to the another movable object, which is mere insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Therefore, dependent claims 3 – 14, 21, & 22 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claims 1, 2, & 20.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 – 14 & 20 – 22 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Giurgiu (US 2017/0277716 A1): Giurgiu recites a road object detection system, including an identification of road object type and position associated with the road object. Based on the determined information, a remote database may be updated with the detected object. Further, a confidence level may be associated with each detected object, such that successive observations of the object increase the confidence, and the confidence is lowered as the object is no longer detected.
Wang (CN 116386314 A): Wang recites a risk area determination system, including the comparison of coordinate values corresponding to the detected risk areas. A first and second risk area may have their coordinate values compared to one another, to determine if the two areas are related to one another. This relationship may be established through a plurality of calculative means, including the comparison of centers of gravity of each of the risk areas.
Kurehashi (US 2021/0281968 A1): Kurehashi recites an information processing apparatus including the identification of risk areas around a plurality of moving objects. When a moving object is in the regional vicinity of an information collecting apparatus, risk area communication acquired is transmitted to the information colleting apparatus.
Cho (US 2023/0199448 A1): Cho recites a system for evaluating dangerous areas, including the comparison of first and second dangerous areas based on an overlap between the two areas. A threat may be determined based on if two respective risk areas overlap with one another to a threshold degree.
Jian (US 2018/0239359 A1): Jian recites a vehicle system, including the recognition of potentially dangerous driving conditions based on sensor data, and the prediction of vehicle traveling route safety based on such. A remote server may be utilized to aggregate data from a plurality of vehicles regarding risk areas.
Camp (US 10,907,980 B2): Camp recites a system for identifying and recording slippery road reports at specified locations, and classifying the report(s) received as accurate or false based on subsequent detections (or lack thereof). A database or similar platform may be utilized to record and share recorded information with other vehicles operating on the roadway.
Bailly (US 11,593,344 B2): Bailly recites a method for updating environmental maps of an area based on their age, including discretizing a map into a plurality of tiles and monitoring the age of data reported for each tile. Update request messages may be transmitted to vehicles traversing map segments to generate updated data for the server to integrate into the map.
Stenneth (US 11,320,819 B2): Stenneth recites a method for generating a local hazard warning polygon within a mapped region, the warning indicating conditions such as local weather hazards and the like. The polygon may be defined by a plurality of vertices, and the area(s) may be stored and distributed via a hosting server.
Raut (US 10,657,683 B2): Raut recites an apparatus for generating warning polygons for weather events in a geographic region, including the clustering of map tiles based on the detected location of the event. The weather polygons detected may be defined by vertices, such that
Horiuchi (US 12,525,026 B2): Horiuchi does not qualify as prior art, however is considered by the Examiner to be particularly relevant to the present claimed invention, reciting similar subject matter of the identification of a risk area of three or more points, and the transmission of two points of the three or more points, closely paralleling the identification of two points of the four received as recited by the present claimed invention.
Jaeger (NPL: Novel Techniques to Handle Rectangular Areas in Car-to-X Communication Applications): Jaeger recites a vehicle system for transmitting rectangular areas from a vehicle to other vehicles or infrastructure. Transformations of location data points into vector space may take place, and vertices of a rectangle may be defined based on the maximum and minimum bounds of the space intended to be bounded. Overlap between two rectangles as defined may be determined by the identification of intersection points, and the computation of polygonal areas associated with the overlap may take place.
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 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 CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661 /RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights