DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 09/17/25.
Claims 6, 16 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, and 17 have been previously have been cancelled
Claims 3-6, 8-10, 13-16 and 18-21 are 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 6, 16 and 20 (see applicant’s remarks; pages 9 and 10) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In particular, the examiner has introduced DeWeese to disclose the amended limitation “based on the program ID being obtained, automatically request, through the communication interface, a server for information about a chat room corresponding to the program (ID) of the recognized program by transmitting the program (ID) of the recognized program to the server while the content is being displayed”, as shown in the rejection below.
The applicant argues the same reasons as that of claims 6, 16 and 20 for the dependent claims (see applicant’s remarks; page 11). As such, the arguments are also moot for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 10, the claims recite alternative language, i.e. using the term “at least one of”, and as such, the Examiner interprets certain features to not be required due to the claim language listing the features in the alternative. The rejection below specifies the particular limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 10, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richman (U.S. 2021/0235156 A1) in view of DeWeese et al. (U.S. 2005/0262542 A1), and further in view of Casey et al. (U.S. 2009/0063645 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 16 and 20, Richman discloses an electronic device (see Richman; paragraphs 0023 and 0024; Richman discloses an electronic device, e.g. a smart television, smartphone and set-top-box, for content streaming) comprising:
a communication interface (see Richman; paragraph 0020; Richman discloses the electronic device may be communicatively coupled, i.e. “a communication interface”, to a server via a communication network);
a memory storing one or more instructions (see Richman; paragraphs 0044 and 0046; Richman discloses the electronic device includes a memory configure to store instructions); and
a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory (see Richman; paragraph 0045; Richman discloses processing units to execute the instructions) to:
recognize a program associated with content requested by a user to be displayed, and obtain a program identity (ID) of the recognized program (see Richman; paragraph 0016; Richman discloses if a user watches movies, i.e. “content requested by a user to be displayed”, movie choices may be presented, i.e. “recognize a program…obtain a program identity (ID) of the recognized program”, as content related to what the user has recently watched, using automatic content recognition (ACR) for programming. In other words, there is an automatic recognition of a movie choice, i.e. a “program identity”, to be presented to the user based on the user watching movies they request, i.e. “content requested by a user to be displayed”); and
receive, from the server, the information about the chat room corresponding to the program ID which triggers, without input from a user, displaying a user interface together with a screen displaying the content (see Richman; paragraphs 0016, 0020, 0041, 0084 and Figure 5A; Richman discloses based on the automatic recognition of a program, i.e. “corresponding to the program ID”, e.g. a movie, and communication with the server, i.e. “receive, from the server”, displaying a callout window which includes UI elements, i.e. “displaying a user interface…”, that is displayed with the content, i.e. “together with a screen displaying the content”. The callout window is automatically displayed by the electronic device, and therefore, “triggers, without input from a user, displaying a user interface”), the user interface including selectable options through which the user controls whether to execute the chat room corresponding to the program ID of the recognized program (see Richman; paragraphs 0016 and 0041; Richman discloses the callout window may allow the user to chat while watching the movie. The user may select, i.e. “selectable options”, the recommended ongoing chat session, i.e. “user controls whether to execute the chat room”, that is related to the movie, i.e. “corresponding to the program ID of the recognized program”).
While Richman discloses “a program identity ID of the recognized program”, as discussed above, and further recommending a user to join an ongoing chat session related to a movie (see Richman; paragraphs 0016, 0020 and 0041), Richman does not explicitly disclose based on the program ID being obtained, automatically request, through the communication interface, a server for information about a chat room corresponding to the program (ID) of the recognized program by transmitting the program (ID) of the recognized program to the server while the content is being displayed.
In analogous art, DeWeese discloses based on the program ID being obtained, automatically request, through the communication interface, a server for information about a chat room corresponding to the program (ID) of the recognized program by transmitting the program (ID) of the recognized program to the server while the content is being displayed (see DeWeese; paragraphs 0092, 0123 and 0141; DeWeese discloses a chat group with real-time messages is called a chat room. The chat system may automatically determine which chat group a user should join. Information identifying available chat groups, i.e. “information about a chat room”, is provided from the server to the set-top box in response to a chat request automatically sent from the set-top box, i.e. “automatically request…a server”. The chat request provided by the set-top box to the server includes information on which channel and television program, i.e. “transmitting the program (ID) of the recognized program to the server”, the user is currently tuned to, i.e. “while the content is being displayed”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richman and DeWeese because they both disclose features of a chat system on a set-top-box, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of a chat request as taught by DeWeese into the system of Richman in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the callout window that recommends joining an ongoing chat session (see Richman; paragraph 0041) to be done automatically by the chat server based on the program being watched by the user and the number of current participants in the group (see DeWeese; paragraphs 0123 and 0141).
While Richman discloses “…information about the chat room corresponding to the program ID…” and “the user interface including selectable options through which the user controls whether to execute the chat room…”, the combination of Richman and DeWeese does not explicitly disclose based on receiving a user input to join the chat room corresponding to the program ID, transmit a request for joining the chat room to the server, and receive chat room access information for accessing the chat room from the server, and display the chat room corresponding to the program ID by connecting to a chat room server using the chatting room access information.
In analogous art, Casey based on receiving a user input to join the chat room corresponding to the program ID, transmit a request for joining the chat room to the server, and receive chat room access information for accessing the chat room from the server (see Casey; paragraphs 0045, 0046 and 0049; Casey discloses the user selecting a function to join an existing group chat session for the video program, i.e. “receiving a user input to join corresponding to the program ID”, and being received at the server, i.e. “transmit a request for joining the chat room to the server”. Further, chat action buttons are provided, i.e. “receive chat room access information for accessing the chat room from the server”. In other words, chat action buttons used to access, i.e. the ability to send messages to, the group chat session), and
display the chat room corresponding to the program ID by connecting to a chat room server using the chatting room access information (see Casey; paragraph 0047 and Figure 3d; Casey discloses displaying a group chat interface including the program name of the video program, i.e. “display the chat room corresponding to the program ID”, being viewed by the user and chat action buttons, i.e. “chat room access information” by providing the ability to send messages to the group chat session).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richman, DeWeese and Casey because they both disclose features of a chat system on a set-top-box, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of joining a chat session as taught by Casey into the combined system of Richman and DeWeese in order to provide the benefit of allowing the callout window that recommends joining an ongoing chat session (see Richman; paragraph 0041) to include a list of published group chat sessions to determine whether there is an existing group chat session for the video program (see Casey; paragraph 0045).
Further, Richman discloses the additional limitations of claim 20, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program executable by a computer, the program including one or more instructions to perform an operation (see Richman; paragraph 0093; Richman discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium and/or storage medium having stored thereon, instructions executable by a machine and/or a computer to operate an electronic device).
Regarding claim 10, Richman, DeWeese and Casey discloses all the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, and further the combination of Richman, DeWeese and Casey clearly discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions so that the program associated with the content is recognized by using at least one of automatic content recognition (ACR) (see Richman; paragraph 0016; Richman discloses automatic content recognition (ACR) being used to extract data associated with a program), context awareness, or program recognition using information included in metadata (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “automatic content recognition” alternative).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richman (U.S. 2021/0235156 A1) in view of DeWeese et al. (U.S. 2005/0262542 A1) and Casey et al. (U.S. 2009/0063645 A1), as applied in claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Cooper et al. (U.S. 6,754,904 B1).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Richman, DeWeese and Casey disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 16, as discussed above. The combination of Richman, DeWeese and Casey does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to perform, by referring to an endpoint included in a join response based on the user input to join the chat room, a communication connection to a chat room server that provides a chat room service in association with the chat room.
In analogous art, Cooper discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to perform, by referring to an endpoint included in a join response based on the user input to join the chat room, a communication connection to a chat room server that provides a chat room service in association with the chat room (see Cooper; column 6 lines 45-57; Cooper discloses a user selects a TV chat button, i.e. “…based on the user input to join the chat room”, and the server places the user in the chat room associated with that TV show. In other words, “a communication connection” would be provided “referring to an endpoint” in order for the server to place the user in the chat room).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richman, DeWeese, Casey and Cooper because they all disclose features of a TV chat system, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of joining a TV chat as taught by Cooper into the combined system of Richman, DeWeese and Casey in order to provide the benefit of automatically assigning users to a chat room (see Cooper; column 6 lines 40-42).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richman (U.S. 2021/0235156 A1) in view of DeWeese et al. (U.S. 2005/0262542 A1) and Casey et al. (U.S. 2009/0063645 A1), as applied in claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Bruck et al. (U.S. 7,143,428 B1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Richman, DeWeese and Casey disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 16, as discussed above, and further while DeWeese discloses “request…a server for information about a chat room corresponding to a program identity (ID)…”, as discussed above, the combination of Richman, DeWeese and Casey does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: transmit, to the server, a request to create the chat room corresponding to the program ID when no information about the chat room is obtained from the server in response to the request, and obtain, in response to the request, information about the created chat room from the server.
In analogous art, Brock discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: transmit, to the server, a request to create the chat room corresponding to the program ID when no information about the chat room is obtained from the server in response to the request (see Brock; column 9 lines 7-12 and column 10 lines 13-18; Brock discloses a presence of a chat room for a particular show is optional and a chat link may not be provided. In particular, the chat room may, in fact, be created upon request of a chat client to chat about a particular show. If there is no interest in chatting about a particular show, the server will not create a chat room for that show. In other words, when no interest has been shown yet for a particular show, “no information about the chat room is obtained from the server” and a client may request a chat room be created for the show), and
obtain, in response to the request, information about the created chat room from the server (see Brock; column 10 lines 4-6 and 11-14; Brock discloses the server response includes instructions to the set-top box identifying the chat server. The chat room is created upon request).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richman, DeWeese, Casey and Brock because they all disclose features of a TV chat system, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of creating a chat room as taught by Brock into the combined system of Richman, DeWeese and Casey in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by shows having chat rooms based on user interest and reducing the number of chat rooms that must be service by the chat server (see Brock; column 9 lines 16-18 and column 10 lines 14-16).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richman (U.S. 2021/0235156 A1) in view of DeWeese et al. (U.S. 2005/0262542 A1) and Casey et al. (U.S. 2009/0063645 A1), as applied in claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Stinson, III et al. (U.S. 2012/0174157 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Richman, DeWeese and Casey disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 16, as discussed above, and further while Richman discloses “user interface including selectable options through which the user controls whether to execute the chat room corresponding to the program ID of the recognized program”, as discussed above, the combination of Richman, DeWeese and Casey does not explicitly disclose wherein the chat room corresponding to the program ID is among one or more chat rooms and the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: control display of a chat room list including the one or more chat rooms, according to a user input selecting a chat room from the displayed chat room list, control entry to the selected chat room and change a current channel to a content channel corresponding to the selected chat room, and control display of the selected chat room while content provided on the content channel corresponding to the selected chat room is being displayed.
In analogous art, Stinson discloses wherein the chat room corresponding to the program ID is among one or more chat rooms and the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: control display of a chat room list including the one or more chat rooms (see Stinson; paragraph 0091; Stinson discloses a chat room user interface that displays a listing of chat rooms including a currently active room),
according to a user input selecting a chat room from the displayed chat room list, control entry to the selected chat room and change a current channel to a content channel corresponding to the selected chat room (see Stinson; paragraphs 0100-0102; Stinson discloses a user selecting to change from one chat room to another chat room, i.e. “the selected chat room”. When the chat rooms are switched, automatic tuning of the TV to the instance of media content, i.e. “content channel”, associated with the chat is done, i.e. “change a current channel to a content channel corresponding to the selected chat room”), and
control display of the selected chat room while content provided on the content channel corresponding to the selected chat room is being displayed (see Stinson; paragraph 0106 and Figure 13; Stinson discloses displaying both the media content and the chat room).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richman, DeWeese, Casey and Stinson because they all disclose features of a TV chat system, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of switching chat rooms as taught by Stinson into the combined system of Richman, DeWeese and Casey in order to provide the user with media that matches the context of the current chat room, thereby providing real-time interaction around a shared experience (see Stinson; paragraphs 0023 and 0102).
Claims 8, 9, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richman (U.S. 2021/0235156 A1) in view of DeWeese et al. (U.S. 2005/0262542 A1) and Casey et al. (U.S. 2009/0063645 A1), as applied in claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Flynn-Ripley et al. (U.S. 2010/0037277 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Richman, DeWeese and Casey disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 16, as discussed above, and further while DeWeese discloses “based on the program ID being obtained, automatically request, through the communication interface, a server for information …”, as discussed above, the combination of Richman, DeWeese and Casey does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: provide an icon that enables sharing of the chat room with another user, receive, from the server, chat room sharing information according to a user input selecting the icon, and transmit the received chat room sharing information to an electronic device of the other user.
In analogous art, Flynn-Ripley discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: provide an icon that enables sharing of the chat room with another user (see Flynn-Ripley; paragraphs 0045, 0049, 0065 and 0067; Flynn-Ripley discloses the STB allowing a user to select invitees to join a chat session, i.e. “sharing of the chat room”, associated with a particular TV program, by using a hot key. For example, when a user turns to a TV channel, a MediaFriends icon appears and the user is able to use the hot key to invite friends),
receive, from the server, chat room sharing information according to a user input selecting the icon (see Flynn-Ripley; paragraph 0045; Flynn-Ripley discloses a server then coordinates sending invitations, i.e. “chat room sharing information”, to the selected invitees to join a chat session associated with a particular program), and
transmit the received chat room sharing information to an electronic device of the other user (see Flynn-Ripley; paragraphs 0045, 0067 and 0069; Flynn-Ripley discloses an invitation, i.e. “chat room sharing information”, to all the members in the selected group is sent. For example, the TVchat invitations are sent to mobile phones or television sets).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richman, DeWeese, Casey and Flynn-Ripley because they all disclose features of a chat system on a set-top-box, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of chat invitations as taught by Flynn-Ripley into the combined system of Richman, DeWeese and Casey in order to provide the benefit of scalability by allowing other users that may not be subscribers to the system or in a user’s address book the ability to register and join a live chat session (see Flynn-Ripley; paragraph 0045), thereby not limiting who can participate in the chat.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Richman, DeWeese, Casey and Flynn-Ripley disclose all the limitations of claims 8 and 18, as discussed above, and further the combination of Richman, DeWeese, Casey and Flynn-Ripley clearly discloses wherein the chat room sharing information comprises a URL generated based on the information about the chat room (see Flynn-Ripley; paragraphs 0042, 0046, 0067 and 0079; Flynn-Ripley discloses chat and social networking sessions with communications across TVs, PCs and mobile phones. Invitations to the chat are sent, in which the invitations are pages. As such, since invitation pages are sent using the networking communication, then a “URL” would be generated in order to provide the page), and
the URL is transmitted to the electronic device of the other user via a mobile device of the user and a mobile device of the other user (see Flynn-Ripley; paragraphs 0046, 0067 and 0079; Flynn-Ripley discloses the invitation page, i.e. “URL”, is sent to subscribers across mobile phones).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claims 8 and 18.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richman (U.S. 2021/0235156 A1) in view of DeWeese et al. (U.S. 2005/0262542 A1) and Casey et al. (U.S. 2009/0063645 A1), as applied in claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Zenith (U.S. 7,036,083 B1).
Regarding claim 21, Richman, DeWeese and Casey disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 16, as discussed above, and while Richman discloses “receive, from the server, the information about the chat room corresponding to the program ID”, and DeWeese discloses “request, through the communication interface, a server for information about a chat room corresponding to the program (ID)”, as discussed above, the combination of Richman, DeWeese and Casey does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: inquire of the server as to whether there is chat room information corresponding to the program ID, when there is chat room information corresponding to the program ID, display the user interface while displaying the content, and when there is no chat room information corresponding to the program ID, display the content without the user interface.
In analogous art, Zenith discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: inquire of the server as to whether there is chat room information corresponding to the program ID (see Zenith; column 7 lines 9-18; Zenith discloses when switching channels from an original channel, a request from a device to an IRC server, i.e. “inquire of the sever…”, for a chat room corresponding to the new television channel, i.e. “…whether there is chat room information corresponding to the program ID” is initiated),
when there is chat room information corresponding to the program ID, display the user interface while displaying the content (see Zenith; column 5 lines 31-35, 53-54, column 5 line 65 – column 6 line 2, column 7 lines 9-18 and Figure 4; Zenith discloses the chat room, i.e. “chat room information”, corresponds to a particular television show, i.e. “the program ID”, and is displayed on a user interface in a lower corner of the display screen with the television show, i.e. “display the user interface while displaying the content”. Further, a user may switch channels, and when the user switches channels a request is initiated for the chat room of the new channel, e.g. new particular television show), and
when there is no chat room information corresponding to the program ID, display the content without the user interface (see Zenith; column 5 lines 63-66; Zenith discloses the display screen would show only the television show, i.e. “display the content without the user interface” in the absence of a chat, i.e. “when there is no chat room information corresponding to the program ID”. In other words, if there is no chat room corresponding to the particular television show then only the television show would be displayed).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Richman, DeWeese, Casey and Zenith because they all disclose features of a TV chat system, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of detecting when a user switches tv channels as taught by Zenith into the combined system of Richman, DeWeese and Casey in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the user to join an ongoing chat session (see Richman; paragraph 0041) for a particular channel whenever the user decides to switch from an original channel and cha (see Zenith; column 7 lines 9-14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Archibong et al. (U.S. 2014/0068692 A1) discloses selecting a program to view on TV and presented with options to join various chat rooms.
Beust (U.S. 2019/0356619 A1) discloses hosting virtual chat rooms for use with a TV show.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 01/01/26
/ALINA A BOUTAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458