DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 .
Priority
The Applicant claims benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §120, §121, §365(c), or §386(c).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 01/17/2025 and 10/20/2025 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97 and §1.98. The Examiner has considered all references, except for any references lined through on the attached IDS form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.
(a) Regarding Claim 13, the term “the image” lacks antecedent basis.
(b) Regarding Claim 13, the term “the predetermined camera” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Specifically, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Analysis for Independent Claims 1 and 20:
Step 1: Determining if claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Independent claims 1 and 20 are directed to statutory categories. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, certain method of organizing human activity, or a mental processes (MPEP 2106.04).
Independent claims 1 and 20 recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Claim 1 is directed to receiving and using gratitude information that expresses first gratitude from a first person to a second person and second gratitude from the second person to a third person, displaying those persons as first, second, and third nodes, and moving a predetermined display from the first node to the second node and then from the second node to the third node. Claim 20 recites the same concept using first and second intention indication information expressing a predetermined intention indication among first, second, and third persons, followed by displaying those persons as nodes and moving a predetermined display between those nodes in sequence. These limitations recite the collection of interpersonal information, evaluation of the relationship reflected by that information, and presentation of the result of that evaluation.
The independent claims therefore simply gather data, analyze data, and change a display based on the gathered data. The analysis performed by each claim is the determination that a first person is linked to a second person through a first expression and that the second person is linked to a third person through a second expression, thereby establishing a sequential relationship among the persons. The display movement from the first node to the second node and then from the second node to the third node is merely a visual output based on that analyzed interpersonal information. That sequence is a mental process because the concept of receiving information about person-to-person expressions, recognizing the chain of persons involved, and determining a corresponding display sequence can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Independent claims 1 and 20 fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The only additional technology recited in each claim is a generic display device used to show persons as nodes and to move a predetermined display between those nodes. That display device is invoked solely as a tool for presenting the result of the mental process. The claims do not recite any improvement to the functioning of the display device, any new display architecture, any technical rendering technique, or any specialized processing that changes how the device operates. The display device merely outputs the result of the abstract mental evaluation.
Claim 1 fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the recited additional limitations do nothing more than place the mental process onto a generic display. Displaying the first person as a first node, the second person as a second node, and the third person as a third node does not provide a technological application of the exception. Moving the predetermined display from the first node to the second node and then from the second node to the third node also does not provide a technological application. Those steps merely present the result of the mental determination that the claimed gratitude information links the first person to the second person and the second person to the third person. The claim therefore uses the display device only as an output mechanism for the judicial exception.
Claim 20 fails for the same reason. Claim 20 merely substitutes intention indication information for gratitude information while retaining the same claimed structure of displaying first, second, and third persons as nodes and moving a predetermined display according to the sequence established by the information. The recited display operations remain presentation steps tied to the underlying mental process. Nothing in claim 20 transforms the judicial exception into a practical technological application. The claim does not control any external machine, improve any computer functionality, alter any physical process, or provide any technical solution to a technical problem. It merely displays the result of analyzing human-relational information.
Considered as a whole, the independent claims merely apply the mental process in a generic display environment.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claims 1 and 20 do not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The display device is a generic component performing its ordinary function of displaying information. Displaying persons as nodes is a routine graphical presentation. Moving a predetermined display from one node to another node is likewise a routine visual presentation function. None of these limitations adds an inventive concept because none changes how the display device itself operates or recites any unconventional technical implementation.
In claim 1, the additional elements beyond the mental process are limited to the display device, the node-based display of first, second, and third persons, and the movement of a predetermined display between those nodes. Those features merely communicate the result of the mental analysis in a visual form. They do not add any unconventional hardware, any particular machine configuration, or any technical solution. In claim 20, the same is true. The claim simply uses the same generic display arrangement and movement to present the result of analyzing intention indication information. The claims therefore append only routine display activity to the underlying mental process.
Taken in combination, the claim elements still do not amount to significantly more. The ordered combination of gathering interpersonal information, determining a sequence among persons based on that information, displaying those persons as nodes, and moving a predetermined display along the sequence remains nothing more than the mental process plus conventional display output. Combining conventional data presentation with a mental determination does not create an inventive concept.
Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 20, taken individually and as an ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
The independent claim(s) are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1 and 20 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-19:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
The dependent claims are properly directed to claim 1. As a result, the dependent claims are properly directed to statutory classes. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”).
Dependent claims 2-19 recite the same judicial exception as claim 1, namely a mental process. Each of these claims depends from claim 1 and therefore continues to recite gathering interpersonal gratitude information, analyzing the relationship reflected by that information, and changing a display based on that information. The additional limitations in claims 2-19 do not alter that character. Instead, they merely add further details regarding timing, triggering, visual presentation, storage, image-based input, or positional display of the same underlying mental evaluation.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2-19 fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The added limitations merely refine when information is displayed, how information is visually arranged, how information is gathered, or where information appears on the display. None of these additional limitations improves the functioning of the display device, storage device, camera, vehicle, or any other technology. Instead, the limitations merely use generic components as tools for implementing and presenting the mental process.
Claims 2-4 do not integrate the exception into a practical application because predetermined times, time differences, and triggers merely control when the output of the mental process is displayed. Claims 5-9 do not integrate the exception into a practical application because icons, photographs, widths, and colors merely alter the appearance of the displayed information. Claims 10-16 do not integrate the exception into a practical application because storage, image recognition, gesture detection, and a vehicle-mounted camera merely provide conventional mechanisms for obtaining or storing the information used in the mental process. Claims 17-19 do not integrate the exception into a practical application because position information, map display, and layout limitations merely provide additional context for presenting the same result on a display.
Taken together, the dependent claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful technological way. They simply append routine display and data-acquisition details to the same underlying mental process recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claims 2-19 fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2-19 do not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The added limitations are routine display controls, routine visual formatting choices, routine data storage, routine image capture, routine gesture-detection inputs, and routine positional or map-based display features. None of these limitations adds an inventive concept because none reflects a non-conventional technical solution or an improvement in computer functionality.
Claims 2-4 merely add conventional timing and triggering conditions. Claims 5-9 merely add conventional icon, photograph, width, and color presentation features. Claims 10-16 merely add conventional storage and data-gathering features, including image recognition and camera-based detection. Claims 17-19 merely add conventional position and map display features. Considered individually, these limitations are no more than routine technological tools used for presentation or data gathering. Considered in combination, they still amount only to implementing the same mental process with generic and conventional display-related features.
Accordingly, dependent claims 2-19 do not contain any limitations, either individually or in combination, that result in the claims amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims remain directed to a mental process implemented with conventional display, storage, and image-based input functionality.
Conclusion:
The dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurose et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2016/0284216A1 (hereinafter, Kurose), in view of Waga et al. JP2022118179A (hereinafter, Waga).
Regarding Claim 1, Kurose describes a display control method of gratitude information on a display device (display control method (e.g., 70) for displaying gratitude information onto a display device (e.g., 75A), Kurose, Paragraph 0089), the gratitude information including at least first gratitude information expressing first gratitude from a first person to a second person, and second gratitude information expressing second gratitude from the second person to a third person (gratitude information displayed, wherein the gratitude information can be, for example from a first person to a second person (e.g., 75A), while also showing a second gratitude, which can be a second person to a third person, Kurose, Paragraphs 0132, 0064-0065, 0074-0076, and 0121 and Figures 13 and 10), the display control method comprising:
-displaying, on the display device, the first person as a first node, the second person as a second node, and the third person as a third node (display map can show each person (e.g., 75a), thus a node, Kurose, Paragraph 0132 and Figure 13); and …
Kurose does not specifically disclose the method to include that on the display device, moving a predetermined display from the first node to the second node, and then moving the predetermined display from the second node to the third node.
Waga discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Waga describes the ability for a display unit to display, in a predetermined manner, a sequence of information, as desired (Waga, Paragraphs 0019-0022). For example, the sequence of display may be a first data (i.e., first node), followed by a second node and third node (i.e., second and third data) (Waga, Paragraphs 0019-0022).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Kurose to include that on the display device, moving a predetermined display from the first node to the second node, and then moving the predetermined display from the second node to the third node, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Waga.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying gratitude, in a manner such that people can view various gratitude from numerous individuals, can help have a positive effect on operations and performance of people (Waga, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 2, Kurose, as modified, describes the display control method according to claim 1.
Kurose does not specifically disclose the method to include that the predetermined display moves from the first node to the second node, arrives at the second node, and then starts moving from the second node to the third node within a predetermined time.
Waga discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Waga describes the ability for a display unit to display, in a predetermined manner, a sequence of information, as desired (Waga, Paragraphs 0019-0022 and 0030). For example, the sequence of display may be a first data (i.e., first node), followed by a second node and third node (i.e., second and third data), wherein the data can be changed based on a sequential period of time (Waga, Paragraphs 0019-0022 and 0030).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Kurose to include that the predetermined display moves from the first node to the second node, arrives at the second node, and then starts moving from the second node to the third node within a predetermined time, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Waga.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying gratitude, in a manner such that people can view various gratitude from numerous individuals in sequence, can help have a positive effect on operations and performance of people (Waga, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 3, Kurose, as modified, describes the display control method according to claim 1.
Kurose does not specifically disclose the method to include that the first gratitude information includes a first time at which the first gratitude occurred, the second gratitude information includes a second time at which the second gratitude occurred, the second time is later than the first time, and the first time and the second time are within a predetermined time difference.
Waga discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Waga describes the ability for a display unit to display, in a predetermined manner, a sequence of information, as desired (Waga, Paragraphs 0019-0022 and 0030). For example, the sequence of display may be a first data (i.e., first node), followed by a second node and third node (i.e., second and third data), wherein the data can include a time for each input of information, such as, the first gratitude occurring before the second gratitude (Waga, Paragraphs 0019-0022, 0030, and 0038).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Kurose to include that the first gratitude information includes a first time at which the first gratitude occurred, the second gratitude information includes a second time at which the second gratitude occurred, the second time is later than the first time, and the first time and the second time are within a predetermined time difference, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Waga.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying gratitude, in a manner such that people can view various gratitude from numerous individuals in sequence, can help have a positive effect on operations and performance of people (Waga, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 4, Kurose, as modified, describes the display control method according to claim 1, wherein movement of the predetermined display from the first node to the second node on the display device is started based on a predetermined trigger (display of information can occur on a predetermined trigger (e.g., 5 A.M.), Kurose, Paragraph 0129).
Regarding Claim 5, Kurose, as modified, describes the display control method according to claim 1, further comprising: on the display device, displaying a first icon corresponding to the first person at the first node, displaying a second icon corresponding to the second person at the second node, and displaying a third icon corresponding to the third person at the third node (display icons representing the first person, second person, and third person, Kurose, Figure 13).
Regarding Claim 6, Kurose, as modified, describes the display control method according to claim 5.
Kurose does not specifically disclose the method to include that the first icon includes a first photograph of the first person, the second icon includes a second photograph of the second person, and the third icon includes a third photograph of the third person.
Waga discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Waga describes the ability to have photographs of the individuals (e.g., first, second, third) (Waga, Paragraph 0038).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Kurose to include that the first icon includes a first photograph of the first person, the second icon includes a second photograph of the second person, and the third icon includes a third photograph of the third person, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Waga.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying gratitude, such as photos of the people, allows the ability to view various gratitude from numerous individuals, thus helping have a positive effect on operations and performance of people (Waga, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 7, Kurose, as modified, describes the display control method according to claim 1, wherein on the display device, the predetermined display has a predetermined width in a direction from the first node toward the second node (display has a predetermined width to fit the screen, thus a first node and second node would have a set width, Kurose, Figure 13).
Regarding Claim 8, Kurose, as modified, describes the display control method according to claim 7, wherein the predetermined width of the predetermined display is set to a first width, on the display device, a line having a second width in a direction from the first node toward the second node connects the first node and the second node, and the second width is narrower than the first width (set widths on screen, can be setup as desired, Kurose, Figure 13).
Regarding Claim 9, Kurose, as modified, describes the display control method according to claim 8, wherein on the display device, a color of the line and a color of the predetermined display are different (lines and colors on the screen can be set as desired, Kurose, Figure 13).
Regarding Claim 10, Kurose, as modified, describes the display control method according to claim 1, further comprising: recording in advance the first gratitude information and the second gratitude information in a predetermined storage device (gratitude information can be stored in a server, Paragraph 0078 and Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Kurose, as modified, describes the display control method according to claim 10, wherein the first gratitude information is based on an operation resulting from gratitude of the first person, and/or the second gratitude information is based on an operation resulting from gratitude of the second person (gratitude information can be, for example, from a first person to a second person (e.g., 75A), while also a second gratitude, which can be a second person another person, Kurose, Paragraphs 0132, 0064-0065, 0074-0076, and 0121 and Figures 13 and 10).
Regarding Claim 17, Kurose, as modified, describes the display control method according to claim 1, wherein the first gratitude information includes first position information, and the second gratitude information includes second position information, on the display device, a position of the first node corresponds to the first position information, and a position of the second node corresponds to the second position information (gratitude information is shown on a map, thus position information, Kurose, Paragraph 0130-0135 and Figure 13).
Regarding Claim 18, Kurose, as modified, describes the display control method according to claim 17, further comprising: displaying, on the display device, a map corresponding to the first position information and the second position information (gratitude information is shown on a map, thus position information, Kurose, Paragraph 0130-0135 and Figure 13).
Regarding Claim 19, Kurose, as modified, describes the display control method according to claim 18, wherein at least one of the first node, the second node, and the third node is disposed above a midline of the display device in a vertical direction, and at least a portion of the map is disposed below the midline of the display device (display can be a varity of images displayed as desired such as broken into lines at midpoint, see for example Figures 8, 9, and 13), Kurose, Figures 8, 9, and 13).
Regarding Claim 20, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurose et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2016/0284216A1 (hereinafter, Kurose), in view of Waga et al. JP2022118179A (hereinafter, Waga), in further view of Xiao et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0189093A1 (hereinafter, Xiao).
Regarding Claim 12, Kurose, as modified, describes the display control method according to claim 10.
Kurose does not specifically disclose the method to include that the first gratitude information and/or the second gratitude information are based on image recognition from an image captured by a predetermined camera.
Xiao discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Xiao describes detecting information from an individual, such as determining gratitude (Xiao, Paragraphs 0053-0062).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Kurose to include that the first gratitude information and/or the second gratitude information are based on image recognition from an image captured by a predetermined camera, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Xiao.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because detecting gratitude allows for actions to be taken (Xiao, Paragraphs 0060-0062).
Regarding Claim 13, Kurose, as modified, describes the display control method according to claim 10.
Kurose does not specifically disclose the method to include that the first gratitude information and/or the second gratitude information are based on a detection result of a predetermined action in the image captured by the predetermined camera.
Xiao discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Xiao describes detecting information from an individual, such as determining gratitude (Xiao, Paragraphs 0053-0062).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Kurose to include that the first gratitude information and/or the second gratitude information are based on a detection result of a predetermined action in the image captured by the predetermined camera, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Xiao.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because detecting gratitude allows for actions to be taken (Xiao, Paragraphs 0060-0062).
Regarding Claim 14, Kurose, as modified, describes the display control method according to claim 13, wherein the predetermined action is at least one of a smile in a predetermined direction (smile action, Kurose, Paragraph 0121 and Figures 10 and 13), a bow in a predetermined direction, a thumbs-up in a predetermined direction, and a hand gesture in a predetermined direction.
Regarding Claim 15, Kurose, as modified, describes the display control method according to claim 14.
Kurose does not specifically disclose the method to include that the predetermined direction is a direction toward the predetermined camera.
Xiao discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Xiao describes a predetermined direction that is toward the camera (e.g., driver faces the camera) (Xiao, Figures 12A and 12B).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Kurose to include that the predetermined direction is a direction toward the predetermined camera, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Xiao.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because detecting gratitude via a camera allows for actions to be taken (Xiao, Paragraphs 0060-0062).
Regarding Claim 16, Kurose, as modified, describes the display control method according to claim 12.
Kurose does not specifically disclose the method to include that the predetermined camera is a camera mounted on a vehicle.
Xiao discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Xiao describes a camera mounted on a vehicle (Xiao, Figures 12A and 12B).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Kurose to include that the predetermined camera is a camera mounted on a vehicle, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Xiao.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because detecting gratitude via a camera in a vehicle allows for actions to be taken (Xiao, Paragraphs 0060-0062).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights