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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending
claims 1,9,14,15 are amended
The rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained
Response to Applicant Remarks
Applicant’s well-articulated remarks have been considered but are unpersuasive for the reasons below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the invention cannot be performed in a human mind. (Applicant’s 7/27/26 remarks, p.8, “Applicant submits that the claims as amended do not merely recite a mental process. Performing optical character recognition on a captured receipt image is a specific, computer-implemented image-processing operation that cannot practically be performed in the human mind.”) The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully suggests that the concept of performing data recognition with a computer has been determined by the courts to an abstract idea despite the recitation of a computer. (See e.g. Content Extraction and Transmission. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014), “Applying Mayo/Alice step one, we agree with the district court that the claims of the asserted patents are drawn to the abstract idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory. The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions. And banks have, for some time, reviewed checks, recognized relevant data such as the amount, account number, and identity of account holder, and stored that information in their records.”; “CET's claims merely recite the use of this existing scanning and processing technology to recognize and store data from specific data fields such as amounts, addresses, and dates. See id. There is no "inventive concept" in CET's use of a generic scanner and computer to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry.”)
Applicant also argues that the ordered combination of data processing steps is patent eligible. (Applicant’s 7/27/26 remarks, p.9, “Here, by contrast, claims 1, 9, and 14 as amended do not merely recite a generic camera, but rather include a specific ordered combination of data-processing steps: (1) capturing a receipt image via a camera and determining a device location at an offline business that has no online presence, (2) extracting business data from the receipt image by performing optical character recognition, (3) removing personal identifying information and duplicative data from the payment context data, (4) updating a business directory of offline businesses with the extracted business data, and (5) receiving a request for and transmitting a recommendation based on the business directory.”) The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The enumerated steps appear to be part of the abstract idea implemented by generic computing elements. As opined above, OCR is a data gathering process that is well known and is not considered to be more than the abstract idea of data collection done in a particular technological environment. Similarly, determination of a device location to perform a process is not considered to be inventive. (See e.g., Sanderling Management Ltd. v. Snap Inc., 65 F.4th 698 (Fed. Cir. 2023), The Federal Circuit found that a patent claim related to distributing programming to mobile devices based on the device's GPS location was directed to the abstract idea of distributing information.; BETEIRO, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 104 F. 4th 1350 (Fed Cir. 2024), The patents in question pertain to methods and systems for facilitating remote gaming and gambling activities using communication devices equipped with GPS technology. The Federal Circuit concluded that Beteiro's patents were directed to the abstract idea of exchanging information about a bet and determining its permissibility based on the user's location.) The examiner respectfully suggests that the remaining concepts (1) capturing a receipt image … and determining a … location at an offline business that has no online presence, (2) extracting business data from the receipt image…, (3) removing personal identifying information and duplicative data from the payment context data, (4) updating a business directory of offline businesses with the extracted business data, and (5) receiving a request for and transmitting a recommendation based on the business directory” are steps that a human could perform. That is, a person could aggregate receipt/location information, anonymize it, clean it, store it and share recommendations based on it.
Applicant’s amendments are addressed by the newly cited art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Regarding independent claims 1, 9, 14 the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites the abstract idea collecting business data which is a mental process. Other than reciting a processor, POS, OCR or device nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally. But for the processor, POS, OCR or device the limitations on receive receipt image and location, extract business data from context data, remove personal information, remove duplicative data, update business directory, receive recommendation request and send recommendation is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed by mentally but for the recitation of generic computer elements. If claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further the above limitations related to collecting business data stripped of the identified additional and insignificant elements could also be considered a “Method of Organizing Human Activity” relating to the managing human behavior and interactions. (fundamental economic practice). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process or method of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims do not include additional elements 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 of a processor, POS or device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Collecting, analyzing and displaying information, and receiving and transmitting over a network are conventional in the computing arts. (MPEP 2106.05h; See also MPEP 2106.05, Alice v. CLS, “. Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”).] The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the business data collection steps. The subject matter of claims 2/10 (location determined by mobile device), 3 (payment context data types). 4/12 (extract data from a receipt), 5 (obtain and provide additional business data), 6 (obtain business data based on received filter), 7 (obtain business data based on received search term), 8 (obtain business data based on received transaction history entry), 11 (capture receipt data), 13 (transmit receipt data), 15 (display offline business based on current location), 16 (display offline business based on item search), 17 (request business is based on current location and a specific item), 18 (display nearby offline business that sells the item), 19 (enable a nearby function. 20 (request nearby offline business in response to enabling nearby function) appear to add additional steps to the abstract idea, implemented by generic computers. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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 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.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-12,14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Zamer 20150206219 in view of
Anorga 20180336415 in view of
Howe US20160140544A1 in view of
Faro US20140258246A1
Regarding Claim 1,
at least one processor coupled with a memory; and
a business recommendation manager configured to cause the system to:
receive payment context data associated with a transaction between a
mobile device and an offline business that has no online presence, the payment context data … and a determined location of the mobile device at the offline business;
extract, from the payment context data, business data that identifies the offline business…,
update a business directory of offline businesses with the business data that identifies the offline business;
Zamer is directed to a system for collecting information regarding offline businesses. (Zamer, abstract, “A system or a method is provided to collect pricing information from offline merchants at various geographical locations. The pricing information may include prices of various items offered at different offline merchants. The pricing information may be stored and analyzed to determine pricing trends at different time or locations. The pricing information may be presented to a user to provide pricing analysis to the user.”) Zamer discloses collecting user purchase information for updating a merchant database. (Zamer, para 0040-42, “[0040] At step 216, payment provider server 170 may collect user purchase history. For example, when user 105 uses user device 140 to make a purchase, payment provider server 170 may collect information related to the purchase, including the identity and type of items purchased, price of the item purchased, location and time of purchase, merchant from whom the purchase was made, or other information related to the purchase. [0041] At step 218, payment provider server 170 may analyze and store pricing information obtained from user device 140. For example, prices of items collected from various users may be aggregated into a pricing database. Thus, a database of pricing information may be generated by crowd sourcing. Further, payment provider server 170 may analyze prices of various items from various merchants to determine pricing trends over time. Pricing comparison among different merchants also may be conducted to find best prices. Further, price changes over time may be monitored to determine a pricing trend to identify a best time (during the day, during the week, during the month, during the year, etc.) to make a purchase. [0042] By using the above process 210, pricing information may be collected from a user. Further, a pricing information database may be created by crowd sourcing price information from various users”)
receive a request for a recommendation of the offline businesses; and
transmit the recommendation based on the business directory of the offline businesses.
(Zamer, para 0060-62, “[0060] Kamal is a tourist visiting Mumbai for the first time and wants to do some shopping around 5:00 PM. It is currently 4:00 PM. The concierge at the hotel recommends that Kamal visits Fashion Street. Kamal performs a search on his phone to locate Fashion Street. The PayPal app installed on his phone may recognize the "Fashion Street, Mumbai" search and present relevant pricing information around Fashion Street based on his searches and based on time. The PayPal service may access historical pricing information and determine if there are sales occurring or about to occur. In particular, the PayPal app may display merchants in the Fashion Street pricing zone, along with their probability of a sale. For example, the PayPal app may display to Kamal: "Nikhil's Thrills--20% probability of a sale after 5:00 PM--Fashion Street. Red dress shirts currently $50." [0061] Kamal selects to subscribe to pricing updates for Fashion Street area merchants, including Nikhil's Thrills. Kamal then goes to get some coffee in the hotel. When 5:00 PM approaches, Nikhil's Thrills still hasn't met the sales quota of 20 for the day. As a result, a 50% off sale is triggered at Nikhil's Thrills. Users who subscribe to "Fashion Street updates" or "Nikhil's Thrills Updates" are alerted on their PayPal app about the discount at Nikhil's Thrills. Kamal, who is still drinking coffee at 5:00 PM, receives this alert on his PayPal app about a significant discount at Nikhil's Trills on Fashion Street. "Red dress shirts are now $25, down from $50. Good from 5:00 PM till close" [0062] Kamal goes to visit Nikhil's Thrills and purchases some dress shirts. Thus, Kamal is able to receive discounts based on PayPal's price updates.”)
Zamer does not explicitly disclose
including a receipt image captured by a camera of the mobile device
Anorga is directed to a system for performing image analysis. (Anogra, abstract). Anorga discloses that a system may collect merchant information via data extraction from a receipt image taken by a mobile device. (Anorga, para 0093, “[0093] In another example, if the image includes a receipt, and if the client device is configured with an expense tracking application, the suggested action may be to extracted information, e.g., merchant name, a location, a price (e.g., amount spent), a timestamp (e.g., date and time of the receipt, etc.), one or more item names of purchased items, etc. in the expense tracking application. In yet another example, if the image includes a link to an online article (e.g., a URL, a barcode, etc.), the suggested action may be to display the article using a browser application.”)
by performing optical character recognition on the receipt image…
(Anorga, para 0033, “[0033] In some implementations, one or more images are obtained by a computing device e.g., photos or videos captured using a smartphone camera application, received via a messaging application, etc. Obtained images are programmatically analyzed to determine image features and to determine one or more image categories for the image, e.g., document, receipt, business card, book cover, etc. In some implementations, programmatically analyzing the image may include applying an image classifier (e.g., a machine-learning classifier) that is configured to determine such categories. In some implementations, a confidence score is generated for the determined image categories, e.g., by the image classifier. In some implementations, optical character recognition (OCR), including machine-learning based OCR techniques (e.g., using LSTM nodes) are applied to recognize portions of the image, e.g., as text, barcode, quick response (QR) code, etc.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to combine Zamer with the image analysis of Anorga with the motivation of capturing expense information. Id.
Zamer does not explicitly disclose
wherein personal identifying information associated with a user of the mobile device is removed from the business data;
Howe is directed to a system for anonymizing consumer transaction data. (Howe, abstract; para 0012, “Embodiments generally relate to systems and methods to anonymize consumer transaction data in a manner to protect against de-anonymization to ensure the privacy and identity of individual consumers, and for providing third parties, such as marketers and/or retailers with the anonymized consumer transaction data for analysis. The types of information that the third party may be able to glean from the anonymized transaction data of groups and/or subgroups of consumers may include information about consumer lifestyles, buying habits, demographics, and the like. More particularly, embodiments relate to systems and methods that include preparing the consumer transaction data and then anonymizing the consumer transaction data using one or more anonymization methods, techniques or combinations thereof The processes described herein provide anonymized consumer transaction data that cannot be de-anonymized, for example, by a third party cross-referencing the consumer transaction data to publicly available data in order to obtain personally identifiable information of one or more consumers. Thus, the anonymized consumer transaction data obtained according to the systems and processes described herein may be provided to third parties to conduct further consumer transaction analysis without fear of de-anonymization and thus without invading consumer privacy and/or without violating consumer privacy rules, regulations and/or laws.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Zamer and Anorga with the anonymizer of Howe with the motivation of compliance with privacy laws. Id.
Zamer does not explicitly disclose
And duplicative data is removed from the payment context data
Faro is directed to a merchant location database. (Faro, abstract). Faro discloses that merchant data could be unintentionally duplicated. (Faro, para 0033, “Consider the following two entries in the merchant location master database (anonymized):
Location_ID DBA_NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE
273,572,228 SUPER 1926 LIVONIA MI
WIDGETS MIDDLEBELT
DISCOUNT
368,755,947 SUPER 1926 LIVONIA MI
WIDGETS MIDDLEBELT
DISC RDUS
This merchant's data had been coming in the data stream formatted as in the first row, which was assigned Location_ID no. 273,572,228. However, without notice, the transaction data began coming in as the second row, which was assigned Location_ID 368,755,947. The changes in DBA_NAME and ADDRESS caused the incorrect creation of a new merchant location. These entries concern the same merchant location, one doing business as “Super Widgets Discount” with a location at number 1926 on Middlebelt Road, in Livonia, Mich. However, the differences in data presentation preclude a perfect match between the entries, and therefore an additional merchant location is spuriously created. Looking to the transaction data stream, it would appear as if the merchant location in the first line has stopped doing business or stopped accepting the payment device 14, with a new merchant location in second line having opened or newly begun accepting the payment device. In reality, the new merchant location is created solely because the automated data warehouse processes cannot recognize the correspondence between the two merchant location IDs, due to the perturbation of DBA and address data presentation.”) Faro discloses the need to identify duplicate merchant transaction data to avoid unwanted duplication. (Faro, para 0034, “Alternately, the subject merchant location 202 may be chosen from a set of new merchant locations as they periodically appear in the transaction data stream, i.e., any merchant locations that do not have an existing perfect match in the master merchant location database 200. Finding a match with regard to such new merchant locations would effectively eliminate the problem of spurious duplicate merchant location IDs in the master merchant location database 200 before it occurs, i.e., a form of preventative maintenance.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Zamer, Anorga and Howe with the data deduplication of Faro with the motivation of maintaining valid data. Id.
Regarding Claim 2, Zamer, Anorga, Howe and Faro disclose the system of claim 1.
data includes the determined location of the offline business at which the transaction occurs as determined by the mobile device.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Zamer. (Zamer, para 0044, “[0044] At step 304, payment provider server 170 may determine the location of user 105. User device 110 may include a Global Positioning System (GPS) device configured to detect a location of user device 110.”)
Regarding Claim 3, Zamer, Anorga, Howe and Faro disclose the system of claim 1.
wherein the payment context data includes at least one of a category of an item purchased as part of the transaction, or
an item description of the item purchased as part of the transaction,
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Zamer.
Regarding Claim 4, Zamer, Anorga, Howe and Faro disclose the system of claim 1.
wherein the business recommendation manager is configured to extract the business data from the receipt image of the transaction that includes a purchase of an item.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Howe
Regarding Claim 5, Zamer, Anorga, Howe and Faro disclose the system of claim 1.
obtain, from the business directory, additional business data associated with at least one additional offline business; and provide the additional business data to the mobile device for presentation by the mobile device.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Zamer .
Regarding Claim 6, Zamer, Anorga, Howe and Faro disclose the system of claim 5.
receive, from the mobile device, a filter criterion to filter for the additional business data; and
obtain the additional business data based on the filter criterion.
(Zamer, para 0064-65, “Thus, Kamal uses the PayPal app on his phone to perform price comparison. On the PayPal app, Kamal looks for "Banana Boat rides" near his location. In particular, Kamal selects price analysis in the payment zone which encompasses "Bobby's Banana Boats."
[0065] PayPal's system may reference historical price information collected from prior purchases made by other consumers, including Nikhil's purchase information from a few weeks ago, to perform price analysis and comparison. Thus, PayPal's system may provide Kamal with the projected price for a Banana Boat ride from Bobby's Banana Boats. PayPal's analysis may include prices from other Banana boat merchants in the area. As such, PayPal may determine a probability of how much Kamal will pay at Bobby's Banana Boats and whether that is a good price, as compared with other merchants (also given as a probability).”)
Regarding Claim 7, Zamer, Anorga, Howe and Faro disclose the system of claim 5.
receive, from the mobile device, a search term to search for the additional business
data; and obtain the additional business data based on the search term.
See prior art rejection of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 8, Zamer, Anorga, Howe and Faro disclose the system of claim 5.
receive, from the mobile device, a transaction history entry that identifies at least one of an item or a category of items; and
obtain the additional business data based on the transaction history entry.
See prior art rejection of claim 6.
Regarding Claims 9, 10, 12
See prior art rejection of claim 1,1, 3
Regarding claim 11, Zamer, Anorga and Howe disclose the device of claim 9
wherein the transaction application is configured to cause the camera to capture the receipt image of the transaction that includes a purchase of an item,
the receipt image being provided ….
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Howe. (Howe, fig.6, showing a printed merchant receipt)
by the point-of-sale system.
(Anorga, para 0017, “With regard to a payment transaction, a consumer typically enters a retail store and makes a purchase with his or her payment card, such as a credit, debit, convenience, or ATM card, at a merchant point-of-sale (POS) terminal or device (not shown). The POS device transmits purchase transaction data that includes the consumer's payment card account information (for example, the primary account number (PAN) and other data), the stock keeping unit (SKU) identifiers of merchandise and/or other item identifiers, the transaction amount, and/or a merchant identifier to an acquirer financial institution (FI), which transmits a transaction authorization request data to the payment network 112. The payment network 112 determines which financial institution issued that consumer's payment card account, generates a purchase transaction authorization request and transmits it to the issuer FI 116 that issued the consumer's payment card. If all is in order (for example, the issuer FI determines that the consumer's payment card account includes sufficient credit to cover the cost of the purchase transaction), the payment network 112 receives a purchase authorization response which is then transmitted to the merchant acquirer FI and forwarded to the POS device so that the consumer can take possession of the purchased item(s) or merchandise.”) Although Anorga does not explicitly disclose the receipt is provided by the POS, as the receipt is a record that the consumer’s receipt was authorized, and the authorization is provided to the POS, the examiner respectfully suggests that providing a receipt by the POS would be obvious to try. The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
Regarding Claim 14,15,16,17,18,19,20
See prior art rejection of claim 1,1,7,7,7,1,1
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Zamer 20150206219 in view of
Anorga 20180336415 in view of
Howe US20160140544A1 in view of Faro in view of
Singh 20130085908
Regarding claim 13, Zamer, Anorga, Howe and Faro disclose the device of claim 11
Zamer does not explicitly disclose
wherein the payment context data includes the receipt image, and the transaction application is configured to cause the mobile device to transmit the receipt image to the business recommendation service that extracts at least one of an item description, an item category, a purchase price, or a location of the offline business.
Singh is directed to an expense entry system using a mobile device. (Singh, abstract). Singh discloses that device may capture a receipt image and transmit the image to a server for extracting data. (Singh, para 0063, “[0063] At 806, a service call is made to send the expense entry to the server. The service call performs the necessary communications functions to transmit the expense entry data across the network to the server. In some cases, there may be one or more attachments that need to be transmitted along with the expense entry. For example, the user may have taken a picture of a receipt, and associated the image file for the picture with the expense entry. If this is the case, then the image file of the receipt is also attached to the expense entry for transmission to the server.”; para 0047, “[0047] Processing applications 460 may be located on the server 408. These processing applications 460 may be implemented to assist the operations of the mobile expense application on the mobile device or the expense application 424 on the server 408 to enter or edit expense entries. For example, an OCR (optical character recognition) application 462 may be operationally accessed to perform OCR functions on image data that is received from the mobile device. Similarly, voice recognition application 464 may be operationally accessed to perform voice recognition functions on voice data that is received from the mobile device. Processing applications 460 do not necessarily need to be loaded onto the server 408. Instead, some embodiments include these types of application on the mobile device.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Zamer, Anorga, Howe and Faro with the image transmission of Singh with the motivation of collecting expense data. Id.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights