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
This action is in response to papers filed on 6/2/2026.
Claims 13-15 and 18-24 have been amended.
Claims 1-12 have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 13-24 are pending.
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 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims are directed to a process (method as introduced in Claim 1), and/or system (Claim 24), and/or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with executable instructions (Claim 23), thus Claims 13-24 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. The independent claims which recite the following claim limitations as an abstract idea, are underlined below.
Claims 21, 23, and 24 recite (as represented by the language of Claim 1):
receiving, from the user terminal, as input information, at least child identification information identifying a child and risk assessment information regarding a risk assessment to support a protection decision for the child, wherein the risk assessment information includes already inputted item information in which one or more input items related to risk assessment for the child have been completed;
generating, using at least one of a trained model or statistical values obtained from similar past cases, as evaluation information for the child preventive effect information for a predetermined indicator related to child abuse for a case where multiple types of intervention content or support content are implemented in combination, at least on the already inputted item information and at least one of information indicating predetermined intervention content or information indicating the support content;
automatically generating a first [display] screen that displays, side by side, evaluation information for a case where the multiple types of intervention content or support content are implemented in combination and evaluation information for a case where each of the multiple types of intervention content or support content is implemented individually, and enabling the user terminal to display the first screen; and
automatically generating, in accordance with accuracy of the preventive effect information, a second [display] screen configured to prompt[ing] a user to provide further input for non-inputted items, and enabling the user terminal to display the second screen.
The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers the performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of analyzing and reviewing data for implementing child protective services. Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people which represents the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for analyzing and comparing data to determine what child protective services to implement).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements such as:
a computer that is connected via a network to a user terminal;
an information processing system, including a server terminal that is connected via a network to a user terminal;
a user terminal for transmitting and displaying data (including enabling the display of multiple display designs);
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (and/or memory) storing an executable program;
the server terminal (including a processor) and/or computer used to execute the executable program; and/or
use of a trained model to generate outputs.
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception (see specification at [0013]). These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). for example, the model is merely ”used” to generate output and there is no detail regarding how it is used or functions to determine said outputs. Additionally, it is noted that the model is not required by the claims to generate these outputs and is merely one option.
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 14-22 recite further elements related to the analyzing and display steps of the parent claims. These activities fail to differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims and fail to provide any material to render the claimed invention to be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas, as outlined below.
Claim 14 recites “enabling the user terminal to display, as the evaluation information, respective preventive effect information for a case where two or more types of intervention or support are implemented with respect to one indicator”, which further specifies additional types of data displays, but does not lead toward eligibility. The additional types of display are part of the abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 15 recites “enabling the user terminal to display, as the evaluation information, respective preventive effect information for a case where two or more types of intervention or support are each implemented with respect to one indicator side-by-side”, which further specifies additional types of data displays, but does not lead toward eligibility. The additional types of display are part of the abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the predetermined indicator related to child abuse is at least one of a probability of severe abuse, a recurrence rate, or a number of days of response”, which further specifies specific types of data, but does not lead toward eligibility. The additional specific types of data are part of the abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the preventive effect information is at least one of information on increase or decrease in a predetermined indicator as a result of implementing intervention or support, a value of a predetermined indicator before and after implementing intervention or support, information on increase or decrease in a number of re- referrals for child maltreatment, or information on increase or decrease in necessary resources of staff”, which further specifies specific types of data, but does not lead toward eligibility. The additional specific types of data are part of the abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 18 recites “enabling the user terminal to display preventive effect information for a case where the same intervention or support is implemented with respect to two or more indicators”, which further specifies additional types of data displays, but does not lead toward eligibility. The additional types of display are part of the abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 19 recites “enabling the user terminal to display preventive effect information for a case where intervention or support is implemented for a specific type of target person with respect to one or more indicators”, which further specifies additional types of data displays, but does not lead toward eligibility. The additional types of display are part of the abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 20 recites “enabling the user terminal to display respective preventive effect information for a case where intervention or support is implemented for each of multiple types of target persons with respect to one or more indicators”, which further specifies additional types of data displays, but does not lead toward eligibility. The additional types of display are part of the abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the server is further configured to allow selection and setting of at least one of the indicators related to child abuse, an intervention content, or a support content, and enables the user terminal to display preventive effect information related to the set indicator, intervention content, or support content, and wherein the method further comprises enabling the user terminal to display preventive effect information related to the set indicator, intervention content, or support content”, which further specifies additional types of data displays, but does not lead toward eligibility. The additional types of display are part of the abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the server is further configured such that one of the indicators, intervention content, or support content is fixedly set, and the other is selectable and settable, and wherein the method further comprises enabling the user terminal to display preventive effect information related to the set indicator, intervention content, or support content”, which further specifies additional types of data displays, but does not lead toward eligibility. The additional types of display are part of the abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Additionally, merely providing the ability to select different data to display does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
The claims do not provide any new additional limitations or meaningful limits beyond abstract idea that are not addressed above in the independent claims therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 14-22 are ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 13-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaoka et al. (JP 2020184185 A)1 in view of Singh (US 2016/0117466 A1).
1 Includes translated drawings, provided in the attached PDF, Results for Foreign Patents request.
In regards to Claims 13, 23, and 24, Takaoka discloses:
A service support method/system for supporting child welfare services, provided by a server that is connected via a network to a user terminal associated with a user of a child welfare center, comprising:
receiving, from the user terminal, as input information, at least child identification information identifying a child and risk assessment information regarding a risk assessment to support a protection decision for the child, wherein the risk assessment information includes already inputted item information in which one or more input items related to risk assessment for the child have been completed; (page 3, lines 1-5, “…for each child (that is, for each child ID), data on a plurality of items related to information on the child related to the notification of abuse and risk assessment information of the child…”, shows the data in the database is associated with a child ID, the data in the database including already inputted information, such as notification of abuse information, see at least page 7, lines 10-17 & 31-38, information is inputted for the notification of abuse and stored (already inputted data associated with the child/case (see also page 11, lines 7-12); page 12, lines 4-8, shows an identifier used to provide risk assessment information to a user terminal; page 19, lines 13-25; etc., displays assessment data to support a protection decision, includes data regarding multiple types of responses (protection decisions), simulation results represent completed assessments that can be used to support decision making for protective responses)
generating, using at least one of a trained model or statistical values obtained from similar past cases, as evaluation information for the child, preventive effect information for a predetermined indicator related to child abuse for a case where multiple types of intervention content or support content [are identified], based at least on the already inputted item information and at least one of information indicating predetermined intervention content or information indicating the support service (page 21, lines 14-20, “…uses the data of the already entered items and the second index value among the third plurality of items regarding (E) information about the child related to the notification of abuse and the risk assessment information of the child in the past. Including a step of entering into a second probabilistic model based on the abuse case of the child to identify a third indicator value indicating the likelihood that the notification to the child will recur for at least one of the above types of child response.”, shows the preventive effect information (likelihood that the notification to the child will recur) for a predetermined indicator related to child abuse for multiple types of intervention/support responses when implemented (based on past data that demonstrates response types and results, see also, page 5, lines 14-35; Etc.), based on at least one of information indicating the predetermined intervention service or information indicating the support service and the already inputted item information (see also page 10, lines 3-10; page 19, lines 13-25; etc., displays assessment data to support a protection decision, includes data regarding multiple types of responses (protection decisions), simulation results represent completed assessments that can be used to support decision making for protective responses); page 3, lines 25-30; page 11, lines 26-31, uses past case pattern data to train models, the models generate evaluations that represent statistical values obtained from similar past cases (past case data is used to obtain probabilities (numerical values))
model using statistical values obtained from similar past cases, as evaluation information for the child)
automatically generating a first screen that displays, side by side, evaluation information for a case where the [combined information] of intervention content or support content are [provided] and evaluation information for a case where each of the multiple types of intervention content or support content is implemented individually, and enabling the user terminal to display the first screen; ([Figure 6]; 64; 65, the display provides side-by-side data including overall risk and individual response type data (see also page 10, lines 3-10), the “radar” chart can be reduced to show data for each individual response type)
Examiner’s Note: See Singh, below. Although Takaoka does not explicitly disclose data regarding responses implemented in combination simultaneously, it does disclose data for individual responses and “comprehensive data”. Therefore, in combination with Singh, Takaoka discloses all of the necessary material and skill to provide the above-described display arrangement.
automatically generating, in accordance with accuracy of the preventive effect information, a second screen configured to prompt a user to provide further input for non-inputted items, and enabling the user terminal to display the second screen (page 7, line 23-page 8, lines12; [Figure 5], a screen for adding additional information in an ongoing manner (in addition to the previous already input data))
Takaoka discloses the above system/method for displaying predictions related to predetermined indicators of child abuse, including for multiple types of intervention or support service and corresponding effect information. Takaoka does not explicitly disclose displaying data for combined intervention or support content (that the response types are implemented simultaneously), however, Singh teaches analyzing multiple intervention/support services that can be implemented in combination simultaneously ([0158], shows that user can be subject to multiple intervention techniques (“one or more of”); [0161], outcomes of intervention techniques can be monitored/recorded; [0163]; [0180], reports can include recommendations for interventions based on previous evaluations and data and multiple recommendations (for multiple interventions, comparable to predictions in Takaoka), can be provided)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Takaoka so as to have included the intervention/support services that can be combined and implemented, as taught by Singh in order to improve decision-making and provide more effective support to those in need (Takaoka, Abstract; page 15, lines 16-20; Singh, [0050])).
In regards to Claim 14, Takaoka discloses:
enabling the user terminal to display, as the evaluation information, respective preventive effect information for a case where two or more types of intervention or support are implemented with respect to one indicator ([Figure 6]; including, but not limited to 61-63; page 9, lines 17-20, server provides data for display to the user terminal, the display (provided by the server) allows selecting and setting of intervention/support service, for example selecting 63 sets the display (items 64-67 related to “temporarily protected”))
In regards to Claim 15, Takaoka discloses:
enabling the user terminal to display, as the evaluation information, respective preventive effect information for a case where two or more types of intervention or support are each implemented with respect to one indicator side-by-side ([Figure 7], 71-73)
In regards to Claim 16, Takaoka discloses:
wherein the predetermined indicator related to child abuse is at least one of a probability of severe abuse, a recurrence rate, or a number of days of response (at least page 9, lines 32-35)
In regards to Claim 17, Takaoka discloses the above system/method for displaying predictions related to predetermined indicators of child abuse. Takaoka does not explicitly disclose wherein the preventive effect information is at least one of information on increase or decrease in a predetermined indicator as a result of implementing intervention or support, a value of a predetermined indicator before and after implementing intervention or support, information on increase or decrease in a number of re-referrals for child maltreatment, or information on increase or decrease in necessary resources of staff, however, Singh teaches wherein the preventive effect information is at least one of information on increase or decrease in a predetermined indicator as a result of implementing intervention or support, a value of a predetermined indicator before and after implementing intervention or support, information on increase or decrease in a number of re-referrals for child maltreatment, or information on increase or decrease in necessary resources of staff (Fig. 31B; [0169], shows the change in the risk (increases and decreases), the risk representing an indicator used to determine recommended interventions)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Takaoka so as to have included wherein the preventive effect information is at least one of information on increase or decrease in a predetermined indicator as a result of implementing intervention or support, a value of a predetermined indicator before and after implementing intervention or support, information on increase or decrease in a number of re-referrals for child maltreatment, or information on increase or decrease in necessary resources of staff, as taught by Singh in order to provide additional data to improve decision-making and provide more effective support to those in need (Takaoka, Abstract; page 15, lines 16-20; Singh, [0050])).
In regards to Claim 18, Takaoka discloses:
enabling the user terminal to display preventive effect information for a case where the same intervention or support is implemented with respect to two or more indicators ([Figure 6]; including, but not limited to 65, shows preventive effect information for multiple indicators for the same intervention or support type)
In regards to Claim 19, Takaoka discloses:
enabling the user terminal to display preventive effect information for a case where intervention or support is implemented for a specific type of target person with respect to one or more indicators ([Figure 6]; including, but not limited to 66, data can be further limited to target type (“…girls aged 1-5 years…”))
In regards to Claim 20, Takaoka discloses:
enabling the user terminal to display respective preventive effect information for a case where intervention or support is implemented for each of multiple types of target persons with respect to one or more indicators ([Figure 6]; including, but not limited to 66, data can be further limited to target type (“…girls aged 1-5 years…”); page 4, line 33-page 5, line 5, shows the predictors target types (such as age groups), see also page 7, lines 15-17, includes data that can be used to analyses specific types of persons)
In regards to Claim 21, Takaoka discloses:
wherein the server is further configured to allow selection and setting of at least one of the indicators related to child abuse, an intervention content, or a support content, and enables the user terminal to display preventive effect information related to the set indicator, intervention content, or support content, and
wherein the method further comprises enabling the user terminal to display preventive effect information related to the set indicator, intervention service, or support service ([Figure 6]; including, but not limited to 61-63; page 9, lines 17-20, server provides data for display to the user terminal, the display (provided by the server) allows selecting and setting of intervention/support service, for example selecting 63 sets the display (items 64-67 related to “temporarily protected”))
In regards to Claim 22, Takaoka discloses:
wherein the server is further configured such that one of the indicators, intervention content, or support content is fixedly set, and the other is selectable and settable, and
wherein the method further comprises enabling the user terminal to display preventive effect information related to the set indicator, intervention content, or support content ([Figure 6]; including, but not limited to 61-63; page 9, lines 17-20, server provides data for display to the user terminal, the display (provided by the server) allows selecting and setting of intervention/support service, for example selecting 63 sets the display (items 64-67 related to “temporarily protected”))
Additional Prior Art Identified, but not Relied Upon
AiCAN Corporation (FY2020 Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Research and Study Project for the Promotion of Child and Child Rearing Support Survey use of AI in responding to child abuse Project Report). Discloses the collection of child welfare and identification data, including past cases and trends to make evaluations regarding responses and services (see at least 7.5.3.3-7.5.3.13; 8.1.1; 8.1.4; 8.2.2-8.2.5). This reference was previously cited in the Information Disclosure Statement filed 6/26/25.
シュワルツ， デイヴィッド, et al. (JP 2004538572 A). Discloses the use of models to analyze child welfare data, including past cases and trends to make evaluations regarding risk assessments (see at least [0061]; [0062]; Table 1; [0070])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §101:
Applicant argues that “integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing specific technical improvements to the functioning of the system. In particular, the system automatically identifies which non-inputted items are most important for accuracy of the preventive effect information and prompts the user accordingly, rather than simply requesting all missing data or using default values.”, however, this is not representative of the claims. The claims are much broader than this interpretation and there is no indication of determining importance of data, determining what data to request (less than all missing data), and/or how this would be achieving a practical application or improvement beyond the abstract ideas. in a manner that is significantly. Regarding Applicant citation to the specification, this material merely asserts that there is a benefit provided, but fails to provide any substantial evidence (background or technical information that can demonstrate an improvement to the devices, improvement to the art, achieve a practical application, etc.).
See MPEP 2106.05(a), Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field (“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”).
Regarding the display, they merely describe an arrangement of data (a preferred display design, etc.), but these arrangements/displays are not tied to any technical limitations. They merely display the analyzed and/or generate data in a specified visual. Which does not provide a “specific technical arrangement” or “specific technical display”.
Example 37 was eligible based on the process used to determine the arrangement, whereas Applicant’s claims do not tie the specific arrangement to any technical steps or features. It merely generates the data and then describes how it can II. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §103:
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is also noted, for future reference, that Applicant’s remarks include references to material that is not in the claims (data importance, priority, etc., see page 10)
Conclusion
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN D SENSENIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6872. 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.
/S.D.S/July 25, 2026
/LYNDA JASMIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights