DETAILED ACTION
Response received on June 22, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 9-11, and 19-20 have been amended and Claims 8 and 18 are cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Status of Claims
This Final Office action is in response to the application filed on May 01, 2025 and in response to applicant remarks filed on 6/22/2026. Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Priority
Application 19/196,650 was filed on 05/01/2025 and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application 63642522 filed 05/03/2024.
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of June 22, 2026 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant’s remarks at the end of this office action. The examiner acknowledges the amendments made to Claim 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-7, 9-10 and 20 are directed to a method (process), and Claims 11-17 and 19 are directed to a system (machine/apparatus). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes)
For step 2A, the Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claims 11 and 20. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A method for identifying and remediating errors involving discrepancies related to Customer Relationship Management (CRM) events, event-associated data and rules, and required actions in response to the events, the method comprising: accessing CRM events, via an event management system, from a payment source data system; loading event-associated data and rules via the event management system that correspond to the CRM events, wherein the event-associated data and rules designate required actions in response to the CRM events; matching the event-associated data and rules to the CRM events, via the event management system, by integrating with one of multiple Customer Relationship Management databases and transaction event data into a centralized commissioning platform; generating a score, via an (Artificial Intelligence) Al based commission matching system, for all commission item/CRM item relationships on a commission items list; evaluating, via the Al based commission matching system, all of the commission item/CRM item relationships for comparative strength with respect to a particular commission item; implementing, via the Al based commission matching system, a commission item/CRM item relationships with greater comparative strength, while dropping commission item/CRM item relationships with lower comparative strength; identifying any errors involving discrepancies that exist between the CRM events that were expected and that have occurred, the matched event-associated data and rules corresponding to the CRM events that were expected and that have occurred, and the required actions in response to the CRM events that were expected and that have occurred; and initiating remedial actions to correct the identified errors involving discrepancies that exist between the CRM events that were expected and that have occurred, the matched event-associated data and rules corresponding to the CRM events that were expected and that have occurred, and the required actions in response to the CRM events that were expected and that have occurred.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of monitoring CRM events by comparing expected actions to actual actions to identify discrepancies and initiate corrective actions. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That is, other than reciting a system implemented by an event management system the claimed invention amounts to the abstract idea stated above. For example, the claim encompasses monitoring and auditing CRM-related payment events and associated obligations, which could be performed manually by financial administrators or account managers by reviewing payment records, comparing expected payment obligations with actual payments received, identifying discrepancies such as missed or late payments using ledgers or reports, and initiating corrective actions as part of managing customer accounts. This is considered to be long-standing commercial practice performed by financial administrators when managing customer accounts and payment obligations, which constitutes managing ad enforcing business rules governing finical transactions and customer account management. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between parties, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a “an event management system”, “a payment source data system”, “a centralized commissioning platform”, “an (Artificial Intelligence) Al based commission matching system” do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, claims 1, 11, and 20 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A). In particular, Claim 1 recites additional elements of a “an event management system”, “a payment source data system”, “a centralized commissioning platform”, “an (Artificial Intelligence) Al based commission matching system”. Claim 11 recites the same additional elements of Claim 1 with the addition of “a memory” and “a processor”. Claim 20 recites the same additional elements of Claim 1. These additional elements are all considered nothing more than generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). Accordingly, these additional elements (the use of computer) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are recited at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole. Thus, Claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without an integration into a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of using computer when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 1, 11, and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 16-17, and 19, recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include after matching the event- associated data and rules to the CRM events, populating an audit interface comparing expected required actions in response to the CRM events against actual performed required actions in response to the CRM events, after identifying any errors involving discrepancies, creating a flag to initiate remedial actions to correct the identified errors, wherein a line item of the event-associated data and rules includes time frame requirements of the required action in response to the CRM event, mapping to what time period the required action in response to the event occurs, and any time remaining in the CRM event, wherein the event-associated data and rules are commission time frames and amounts on the order for a good or service, and wherein the required action in response to the event is a payment associated with the order for a good or service. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define monitoring CRM events by comparing expected actions to actual actions to identify discrepancies and initiate corrective action, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 4-5 and 14-15, recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include submitting a remedial action request to resolve the error and after matching the event-associated data and rules to the CRM events, processing the data and rules of the CRM event. In addition, the claims recite the additional element “payor system” and “event management system””, are both recited at a high-high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to the subject matter, which is present in independent claims 1, 11, and 20.
In regards to Claims 1, 12, 20 with respect to the prior art, the closest reference appears to be Starikova et al. (US 20150324904) in view of Navas (US 20100125545) further in view of Sliwka et al. (US 20220374981).
Starikova et al. teaches a method for identifying and remediating errors involving discrepancies related to Customer Relationship Management (CRM) events, event-associated data and rules, and required actions in response to the events, the method comprising: (See Abstract & FIG 1) accessing [CRM] events, via an event management system, from a payment source data system; (See [0167], [0174]) identifying any errors involving discrepancies that exist between the [CRM] events that were expected and that have occurred, and the required actions in response to the [CRM] events that were expected and that have occurred; (See [0055], [0057]) initiating remedial actions to correct the identified errors involving discrepancies that exist between the [CRM] events that were expected and that have occurred, and the required actions in response to the [CRM] events that were expected and that have occurred (See [0056], [0065], [0078], [0039]). Navas teaches a CRM event (See [0026]);loading event-associated data and rules via the event management system that correspond to the CRM events, wherein the event-associated data and rules designate required actions in response to the CRM events; (See [0026], [0050]) matching the event-associated data and rules to the CRM events; (See [0050], [0080], [0113]). Sliwka et al. teaches identifying any errors involving the matched event-associated data and rules corresponding to the [CRM] events that were expected and that have occurred (See [0177]).
However, Starikova et al. in view of Navas further in view of Sliwka et al. alone or in combination fail to disclose or render obvious matching the event-associated data and rules to the CRM events, via the event management system, by integrating with one of multiple Customer Relationship Management databases and transaction event data into a centralized commissioning platform; generating a score, via an (Artificial Intelligence) Al based commission matching system, for all commission item/CRM item relationships on a commission items list; evaluating, via the Al based commission matching system, all of the commission item/CRM item relationships for comparative strength with respect to a particular commission item; implementing, via the Al based commission matching system, a commission item/CRM item relationships with greater comparative strength, while dropping commission item/CRM item relationships with lower comparative strength when the claim is considered as a whole. Absent a suggestion or teaching in the prior art, the examiner will not engage in impermissible hindsight to supply the missing limitation(s). Therefore, independent claim 1, 12, and 20 and their dependent claims, are not rejected under prior art.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are noted. On page 7 of Applicant’s response, applicant traverses the rejection of Claims 1-20 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The applicant’s argument has been considered but are not persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea directed to evaluating and managing CRM event and commission related information by matching data, evaluating relationships, identifying discrepancies, and initiating corrective actions, which constitutes certain methods of organizing human activity. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant further argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and that in contrast, the claimed invention is directed towards multiple interacting computer systems, including (1) an event management system, (2) one of multiple Customer Relationship Management databases, (3) a centralized commissioning platform, (4) an Al based commission matching system, and (5) a payment source data system and that it is simply not possible for a manual system to handle this level of complexity and this number of concurrently interacting computing systems. Examiner respectfully disagrees because although the claims recite multiple computer systems, the mere use and interaction of generic computer components to carry out the claimed abstract process does not, by itself, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the fact that claimed process may involve a volume or complexity of information that would make manual performance impractical does not establish an improvement to computer functionality or other technology. Rather, the additional elements are used to perform the underlying data processing and business related operations more efficiently. Applicant further argues that the current system is specifically needed because the analysis of the size, numerosity, and complexity of these above-described data transactions cannot be performed manually. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the asserted liability to manually process the size, numerosity, or complexity of the underlying commission and CRM data does not establish a technological improvement, as using computers to process greater amounts of information more efficiently merely automates and expedites the underlying abstract idea. The claims do not recite a specific improvement to the operation or functionality of the computer systems themselves but rather employ the recited systems as tools for carrying out the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that as explained in the specification of this application, prior computer methods and the Internet-based methods created many problems that did not previously exist when these matters were tracked by hand, and new shortcomings arose from these prior computer methods and the currently claimed invention is configured to overcome these computer-created technology problems by providing a technological solution for such deficiencies and shortcoming of prior computer-based methods tracking of transactions and associated rules, including error identification, error correction, and error remediation. Examiner respectfully disagrees because although the Applicant characterizes the claimed invention as addressing computer created technological problems, the alleged deficiencies concern the tracking, matching, and management of transaction, commission, and CRM information and the identification and correction of discrepancies, rather than an improvement to the operation or functionality of the computer technology itself. Additionally, the recited computer systems merely provide the technological environment in which these information management processes are performed and therefore do not transform the abstract idea into a technological solution or otherwise integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant further argues that the currently claimed invention provides several technological improvements over legacy hand-based tracking such as enhanced data security, CRM integration, advanced reports and analytics, and streamlined payouts with error identification and remediation. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the asserted improvements in data security, CRM integration, reporting, analytics, and payment reconciliation merely improve the efficiency and management of commission related information and transactions, rather than the functionality of the computer or another technology itself.
Applicant further argues that as amended, independent claims 1 and 11 are directed to a specific multi-system cloud-based transaction error identification and remediation system, rather than to an abstract mental process of "event management" in isolation.' Examiner respectfully disagrees because characterizing the claims as a specific multi-system cloud-based architecture does not alter that the recited systems are used as tools to perform the abstract processes of matching and evaluating CRM and commission information, identifying discrepancies, and initiating corrective actions, without improving the functioning of the computer systems themselves. Applicant further argues that the amended independent claim 1 now recites specific structural and functional limitations that provide a practical application beyond an abstract idea and that the claim recites a secure cloud-based architecture that matches event-associated data and rules to CRM events, via the event management system, by integrating with one of multiple Customer Relationship Management databases and transaction event data into a centralized commissioning platform. Examiner respectfully disagrees because integrating CRM database and transaction event data into a centralized commissioning platform merely provides a technological environment for collecting, organizing, and matching the information used in the abstract idea and does not constitute an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant further argues that when the claimed features read in light of above mentioned excerpts are taken individually and as an ordered combination, they are not mere mental processes or pen-and-paper activities because they require a specific multi-system cloud-based transaction error identification and remediation system with Al based commission matching. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the Examiner did not characterize or categorize the claimed invention as a mental process to begin with. Rather, the claims were identified as reciting a certain method of organizing human activity and therefore Applicant’s argument does not address the basis of the rejection. Applicant further argues that the amended claims solve this technical problem through a particular secure cloud-based architecture that matches event-associated data and rules to CRM events, via the event management system, by integrating with one of multiple Customer Relationship Management databases and transaction event data into a centralized commissioning platform via an Al based commission matching system that identifies and implements commission item/CRM item relationships with the greatest comparative strength for a particular commission item and therefore the claimed feature is not an abstract mental process. Examiner respectfully disagrees because as states above the Examiner did not characterize or categorize the claimed invention as a mental process and the recited additional elements merely implement the abstract idea using computer technology without demonstrating an improvement to the functioning of the computer or another technology or technical field.
Applicant further argues that the amended claims solve this technical problem through a particular secure cloud-based architecture that matches event-associated data and rules to CRM events, via the event management system, by integrating with one of multiple Customer Relationship Management databases and transaction event data into a centralized commissioning platform via an Al based commission matching system that identifies and implements commission item/CRM item relationships with the greatest comparative strength for a particular commission item and therefore, the claimed feature is not an abstract mental process. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons set forth above. Applicant further argues that even if the Examiner were to conclude that certain information processing concepts are present, the amended claims integrate those concepts into a practical application and therefore are not "directed to" a judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the recited information processing concepts are not integrated into a practical application, as the additional elements merely provide the technological environment for performing the claimed commission and CRM data matching, evaluation, discrepancy identification, and remediation without improving the functioning of the computer or another technology. Applicant further argues that as amended, however, the current claims recite far more than applying an event management system, stated at a high level of generality and that based on above excerpts, the Applicant submits that the claimed feature requires a specific multi-system cloud-based transaction error identification and remediation system. Examiner respectfully disagrees because reciting a multi-system cloud based transaction error identification and remediation system does not itself provide a technological improvement, as the recited systems merely implement the underlying commission and CRM information management activities using generic computer technology and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant further argues that like Enfish, the claims recite a specific structure/architecture (an interconnected event management system, one of multiple Customer Relationship Management databases, a centralized commissioning platform, an Al based commission matching system, and a payment source data system) used to improve the operation of network verification at scale. Examiner respectfully disagrees because, unlike Enfish, the claimed arrangement of an event management system, CRM databases, centralized commissioning platform, AI-based matching system, and other additional elements do not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality or architecture itself but instead uses those components to perform the underlying commission matching, transaction management, error identification, and remediation activities.
Applicant further argues that like in McRO, the ordered combination of generating Al based commission scores for all commission item/CRM item relationships, evaluating comparative strengths of the Al based commission scores for the commission item/CRM item relationships, and implementing Al based commission scores for all commission item/CRM item relationships with greater comparative strengths is a specific technique for Al based commission matching. Examiner respectfully disagrees because, unlike McRO, the claimed scoring, evaluating comparative strength, and selecting commission item/CRM item relationships do not recite specific rules that improve a technological process, but instead use AI to perform the underlying commission matching activity. Applicant further argues that like DDR Holdings, here, the claimed invention employes a multi-system cloud-based transaction error identification and remediation system to solve a network-based transaction commission matching problem. Examiner respectfully disagrees because unlike DDR Holdings, the alleged problem concerns matching commission and CRM transaction information rather than a problem specifically arising in computer or network technology, and the recited multi-system cloud-based architecture merely uses computer technology to perform the underlying commission matching, error identification, and remediation activities. Applicant further argues that like BASCOM Global Internet Servs, here, the particular arrangement of matched event- associated data and rules to the CRM events with integrated Customer Relationship Management databases and transaction event data into a centralized commissioning platform is non-conventional. Examiner respectfully disagrees because, unlike BASCOM, the claimed arrangement does not recite a specific technological configuration that improves computer functionality but instead uses the recited CRM databases and centralized commissioning platform to perform the underlying matching and management of commission related information. Applicant further argues that based on above explanation, it is evident that the amended claims integrate any alleged exception into a practical application based on specific multi-system cloud-based transaction error identification and remediation system. Thus, the claimed feature of the amended claim 1 is eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the recited multi-system cloud based transaction error identification and remediation system merely provides the technological environment for performing the abstract commission management activities and does not impose a meaningful technological limitation that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the claimed features of Claim 1 recite significantly more because the ordered combination requires a specific, non-conventional operational arrangement. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claimed elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, merely use the recited computer systems to implement the underlying commission matching, evaluation, error identification, and remediation activities and do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant further argues that the Examiner in Office Action alleges that these additional limitations are well- understood, routine, and conventional and that the allegation of whether additional elements are "well-understood, routine, and conventional" is a factual issue and requires evidentiary support and states that the Office Action does not establish, with evidence, that the specific multi-system cloud-based transaction error identification and remediation system is routine and conventional. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the Examiner did not characterize the additional limitations as "well-understood, routine, and conventional" in maintaining the rejection. Therefore, Applicant’s argument regarding the lack of evidentiary support for such a finding does not even address the basis of the rejection. Applicant further argues that the amended claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter under the Alice framework, as it is not merely an abstract idea but a practical application with significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claimed computer systems merely implement the underlying commission matching, CRM information management, error identification, and remediation activities and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims do not amount to a technological improvement and fail to provide an inventive concept. The argument to the contrary is not persuasive. Thus, the rejections of Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection are noted. On page 14 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that Starikova, Navas, Sliwka, and Orseno (as well as the other cited references), either alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the claim elements of: "generating a score, via an (Artificial Intelligence) AI based commission matching system, for all commission item/CRM item relationships on a commission items list, "evaluating, via the AI based commission matching system, all of the commission item/CRM item relationships for comparative strength with respect to a particular commission item," (3) "implementing, via the AI based commission matching system, a commission item/CRM item relationships with greater comparative strength, while dropping commission item/CRM item relationships with lower comparative strength," "identifying any errors involving discrepancies that exist between the CRM events that were expected and that have occurred, the matched event-associated data and rules corresponding to the CRM events that were expected and that have occurred, and the required actions in response to the CRM events that were expected and that have occurred," and (5) "initiating remedial actions to correct the identified errors involving discrepancies that exist between the CRM events that were expected and that have occurred, the matched event-associated data and rules corresponding to the CRM events that were expected and that have occurred, and the required actions in response to the CRM events that were expected and that have occurred," as recited in independent claim 1. Independent claims 11 and 20 recite similar subject matter. Examiner finds the Applicant’s argument persuasive. In regards to Claims 1, 12, 20 with respect to the prior art, the closest reference appears to be Starikova et al. (US 20150324904) in view of Navas (US 20100125545) further in view of Sliwka et al. (US 20220374981). The prior art teaches all of the limitations of the independent claims except for the recited limitations of “matching the event-associated data and rules to the CRM events, via the event management system, by integrating with one of multiple Customer Relationship Management databases and transaction event data into a centralized commissioning platform; generating a score, via an (Artificial Intelligence) Al based commission matching system, for all commission item/CRM item relationships on a commission items list; evaluating, via the Al based commission matching system, all of the commission item/CRM item relationships for comparative strength with respect to a particular commission item; implementing, via the Al based commission matching system, a commission item/CRM item relationships with greater comparative strength, while dropping commission item/CRM item relationships with lower comparative strength” when the claim is considered as a whole. Absent a suggestion or teaching in the prior art, the examiner will not engage in impermissible hindsight to supply the missing limitation(s). Therefore, independent claim 1, 12, and 20 and their dependent claims, are not rejected under prior art. Thus, the rejection of claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension
of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the
mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this
final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory
period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
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 ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/A.W.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights