DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The amended specification was received on October 16, 2025. The amended specification is acceptable and entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed October 16, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed October 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
5. Applicant argues that Rodrigues et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0319134 A1), hereinafter referred to as Rodrigues, fails to teach the same animated spatial effect presented with two different emitted locations, depending on whether first or second criteria are met.
Examiner replies that Rodrigues Paragraph 49 teaches that the default delivery is not just a notification but can be opened by the recipient and will by default attach to any open surface. Thus, the delivery animation can still be present when opened. Furthermore, the message itself can be the animated spatial effect as taught in Rodrigues Paragraph 111 where it teaches that the content items or messages can be any multi-media or video. The multi-media or video message can be considered an animated spatial effect under broadest reasonable interpretation since it is animated or moving and presented in space.
Furthermore, the claim language also states that the visual attributes are different depending on the different criteria. Thus, even if the message presents as just a notification, which still appears in the augmented reality space, this can be interpreted that the animated spatial effect displaying differently when a second criteria is fulfilled.
6. Conclusion: The rejections set in the previous Office Action are shown to have been proper, and the claims are rejected below. Therefore, the present Office Action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
8. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
9. Claim(s) 1, 5, 11, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Rodrigues et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0319134 A1), hereinafter referred to as Rodrigues.
10. Regarding claim 1, Rodrigues teaches a method comprising: at a first electronic device in communication with a display: presenting, using the display, a three-dimensional environment (Paragraph 5 teaches an AR system that can display effects, thus creating a computer-generated environment that is also three-dimensional as it is overlaid on the real world; Paragraph 102 and Figure 16 teach a device with a display 1630 that can display XR effects);
receiving, from a second electronic device, a communication associated with presenting a first animated spatial effect (Paragraphs 4-5 teach a message is received from a sending user and is tied to an XR effect and can have a delivery animation. Thus, the XR effect is an animated spatial effect);
and in response to receiving the communication: in accordance with a determination that one or more first criteria are satisfied, presenting the first animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional environment with one or more first visual attributes (Paragraph 37 and Figure 5 teach a user receives a message, or animated spatial effect, from another user when a certain condition or first criteria is satisfied), the one or more first visual attributes including a first emitting location of the first animated spatial effect (Paragraph 36 and Figure 4 teach the XR effect of displaying the message only when the first criteria of the couple being together at home is satisfied. Marker 408 displays the animated spatial effect which is the message with confetti. It also teaches a first emitting location by displaying the message in front of the couple, which is also the first visual attribute; Paragraph 44 teaches the message or XR effect has visual attributes like the location and animation of the image);
and in accordance with a determination that one or more second criteria are satisfied, presenting the first animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional with one or more second visual attributes, different from the one or more first visual attributes, the one or more second visual attributes including a second emitting location of the first animated spatial effect, different from the first emitting location (Paragraph 47-49 teach if the first criteria is not satisfied, it will display the XR message or effect by default after a specified time limit. This can be considered the second criteria. The message is displayed by default on any open surface which is a second emitting location, different from the first emitting location which is a location set by the sending user).
11. Regarding claim 5, Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 1. Rodrigues further teaches the method wherein the one or more first visual attributes comprise a first size of the first animated spatial effect (Paragraphs 31 and 44 teach the sender can specify a size for the message when a certain condition is met. The size set by the sender can be considered the first size when the first criteria is fulfilled), and the one or more second visual attributes comprise a second size of the first animated spatial effect different than the first size (Paragraph 49 teaches that if the message is sent by default, the size is set by default when attaching the message to any surface or specified object. This can be considered the second size when the second criteria is fulfilled).
12. Regarding claim 11, Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 1. Rodrigues further teaches the method wherein: presenting the three-dimensional environment comprises displaying a user interface for displaying content for viewing in the three-dimensional environment by a user of the first electronic device (Paragraph 5 teaches an artificial reality system, or computer generated environment, which displays content for viewing like messages which can be considered a user interface. The content is overlaid on the real world which means the environment and content is three-dimensional);
and the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when an attention of the user of the first electronic device is directed to the user interface for displaying the content for viewing within the three-dimensional environment (Paragraph 51 teaches generating an XR effect when the user’s attention to the message thread or specific location is detected. Looking through the artificial reality system to the location for the XR effect or message thread can be considered directing the attention to the user interface of the message thread; Paragraph 52 and Figure 6 show a user interface 600 of a notification and requires the user to look at the location of that user interface for the XR effect),
the method further comprising: in accordance with the determination that the one or more first criteria are satisfied, selecting the first emitting location based on a location of the user interface for displaying the content for viewing in the three-dimensional environment (Paragraph 52 teaches when the user is looking at the user interface or notification 600, the emitting location is selected by the system or sender to be at 602.).
13. Regarding claim 16, Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 1. Rodrigues further teaches the method further comprising: receiving, from a third electronic device, a communication associated with presenting a second animated spatial effect; and in response to receiving the communication associated with presenting the second animated spatial effect; in accordance with a determination that one or more fourth criteria are satisfied, presenting the second animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional environment with one or more third visual attributes, and in accordance with a determination that one or more fifth criteria are satisfied, presenting the second animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional environment with one or more fourth visual attributes, different from the one or more third visual attributes (Paragraph 34 and Figure 2 teaches a user going to the grocery store and having a message 208 displayed which can be considered the second animated spatial effect. The user going to the grocery store can be considered a user receiving the message or animated spatial effect on a third electronic device. The fourth criteria is satisfied when the user gets to the grocery store and has a visual attribute of appearing in front of the grocery store; Paragraph 47-49 teaches if the criteria is not satisfied, it will display the XR message, or effect, by default on any open surface. The default delivery condition can be considered the fifth criteria. The applicant does not limit the fifth criteria from being the same as the second criteria. Displaying the message on any open surface is a fourth visual attribute different from the third visual attribute which is a location set by the sending user.).
14. Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is the electronic device claim (Paragraph 102 and Figure 16 teach an electronic device with CPU, or controller, and a display 1630 that can display XR effects) of method claim 1 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 1.
15. Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is the non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim (Paragraph 102, 105, and Figure 16 teach an electronic device with a processor and a display 1630 that can display XR effects. It also teaches the processor has access to a memory that can be a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and stores programs) of method claim 1 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
17. Claim(s) 2-4, 6-10, 12, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0319134 A1), hereinafter referred to as Rodrigues, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morris et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0086203 A1), hereinafter referred to as Morris.
18. Regarding claim 2, Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Rodrigues fails to teach the method the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a representation of a user of the second electronic device is displayed in the three-dimensional environment, and the first emitting location is based on a location of the representation of the user of the second electronic device in the three-dimensional environment.
Morris teaches the method the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a representation of a user of the second electronic device is displayed in the three-dimensional environment, and the first emitting location is based on a location of the representation of the user of the second electronic device in the three-dimensional environment (Paragraph 49 and Figure 1E teaches an avatar, which is the representation of a user, which is displayed in the virtual or computer-generated environment and a special effect 120 that has a first emitting location around the user’s avatar. The virtual environment is also three-dimensional. This is based on the location of the representation of the user; Paragraph 2 teaches each user is on their own computing device which indicates the avatar seen in Figure 1E is a user on a second electronic device).
Rodrigues and Morris are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying visual effects in a three-dimensional environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of presenting spatial effects taught by Rodrigues with the displaying of an effect based on a location of another user taught by Morris in order to improve communication between users on remote devices (Morris Paragraph 36-37).
19. Regarding claim 3, Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 2. However, Rodrigues fails to teach the method wherein the first emitting location is within a threshold distance of the representation of the user of the second electronic device.
Morris teaches the method wherein the first emitting location is within a threshold distance of the representation of the user of the second electronic device (Paragraph 49 and Figure 1E teach an avatar, which is the representation of a user, and a special effect 120 that has a first emitting location around the user’s avatar. The emitting location of the effect is based on the location of the representation of the user and the requirement to be around the user’s avatar inherently includes a threshold distance that the effect needs to be from the user of the second electronic device in order to be considered “around” the user).
Rodrigues and Morris are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying visual effects in a computer generated environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of presenting spatial effects taught by Rodrigues with the displaying of an effect within a threshold taught by Morris in order to improve communication between users on remote devices (Morris Paragraph 36-37).
20. Regarding claim 4, Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Rodrigues fails to teach the method wherein: the one or more second criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a representation of a user of the second electronic device is not displayed in the three-dimensional environment; and the second emitting location corresponds to a notifications region in the computer- generated environment.
Morris teaches wherein: the one or more second criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a representation of a user of the second electronic device is not displayed in the three-dimensional environment; and the second emitting location corresponds to a notifications region in the computer- generated environment (Paragraph 55 and Figure 1L show the visual effect 132 is displayed in a second emitting location when a user of the second device is approaching but not displayed in the computer generated or three-dimensional environment. The second user is not displayed in the three-dimensional environment 10 but only the visual effect is. The visual effect 132 at the side of the user’s view can be considered a notification region which notifies a user when another user is near).
Rodrigues and Morris are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying visual effects in a computer generated environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of presenting spatial effects taught by Rodrigues with the displaying of an effect in a notification region taught by Morris in order to improve communication between users on remote devices (Morris Paragraph 36-37).
21. Regarding claim 6, Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 5. However, Rodrigues fails to teach the method further comprising: selecting the first size of the first animated spatial effect based on the first emitting location.
Morris teaches the method further comprising: selecting the first size of the first animated spatial effect based on the first emitting location (Paragraph 49 and Figure 1E teaches an avatar, which is the representation of a user, and a special effect 120 that has a first emitting location around the user’s avatar. The special effect is around the representation of the avatar which means the size of the special effect is based on the avatar size. Thus, the special effect size is based on the location of the special effect which is the avatar).
Rodrigues and Morris are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying visual effects in a computer generated environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of presenting spatial effects taught by Rodrigues with the displaying of an effect based on a location taught by Morris in order to improve communication between users on remote devices (Morris Paragraph 36-37).
22. Regarding claim 7, Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Rodrigues fails to teach the method wherein the one or more first visual attributes comprise a first color attribute of the first animated spatial effect, and the one or more second visual attributes comprise a second color attribute of the first animated spatial effect different from the first color attribute.
Morris teaches the method wherein the one or more first visual attributes comprise a first color attribute of the first animated spatial effect, and the one or more second visual attributes comprise a second color attribute of the first animated spatial effect different from the first color attribute (Paragraph 49 teaches the color assigned to the visual indicator, or animated special effect, on the user depends on a first or second criteria. One criteria given is when a user is in a game and a second criteria is when the user is idle. Depending on the criteria met, the color will be different.).
Rodrigues and Morris are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying visual effects in a computer generated environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of presenting spatial effects taught by Rodrigues with the displaying of an effect with different colors taught by Morris in order to improve communication between users on remote devices (Morris Paragraph 36-37).
23. Regarding claim 8, Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Rodrigues fails to teach the method wherein: the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a user immersion level is greater than a first immersion level; and the one or more second criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the user immersion level is not greater than the first immersion level.
Morris teaches the method wherein: the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a user immersion level is greater than a first immersion level; and the one or more second criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the user immersion level is not greater than the first immersion level (Paragraph 53 teaches a focus mode which can be considered the user immersion level. When the focus mode is engaged, this can be considered to be greater than a first immersion level. When focus mode is not engaged, this can be considered to be lower than a first immersion level).
Rodrigues and Morris are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying visual effects in a computer generated environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of presenting spatial effects taught by Rodrigues with immersion levels taught by Morris in order to improve communication between users on remote devices (Morris Paragraph 36-37).
24. Regarding claim 9, Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Rodrigues fails to teach the method further comprising: in accordance with the determination that the one or more first criteria are satisfied, presenting the first animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional environment with one or more first audio attributes, and in accordance with the determination that the one or more second criteria are satisfied, presenting the first animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional environment with one or more second audio attributes, different from the one or more first audio attributes.
Morris teaches the method further comprising: in accordance with the determination that the one or more first criteria are satisfied, presenting the first animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional environment with one or more first audio attributes, and in accordance with the determination that the one or more second criteria are satisfied, presenting the first animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional environment with one or more second audio attributes, different from the one or more first audio attributes (Paragraph 58 teaches an audio effect that can be in addition to a visual effect which indicates when a second user is near. The visual effect is the first animated spatial effect. It teaches the audio has a specific sound and when the distance is small between the user and a second user, which can be considered the first criteria, the audio can be loud or faded in. The audio being loud can be considered a first audio attribute. Or when the distance is large between the user and the second user, which can be considered a second criteria, the audio can be small or faded out. The audio being small can be considered a second audio attribute).
Rodrigues and Morris are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying visual effects in a computer generated environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of presenting spatial effects taught by Rodrigues with audio attributes taught by Morris in order to improve communication between users on remote devices (Morris Paragraph 36-37).
25. Regarding claim 10, Rodrigues in view of Morris teaches the limitations of claim 9. However, Rodrigues fails to teach the method wherein: the one or more first audio attributes comprise a first audio emitting location and the one or more second audio audible attributes comprise a second audio emitting location different than the first audio emitting location.
Morris teaches the method wherein: the one or more first audio attributes comprise a first audio emitting location and the one or more second audio audible attributes comprise a second audio emitting location different than the first audio emitting location (Paragraph 58 teaches that the audio can be directional. Thus, when the second user is to the left, it will emit from the left which can be the first emitting location. If the second user is to the right, the audio can emit from the right which can be the second audio emitting location).
Rodrigues and Morris are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying visual effects in a computer generated environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of presenting spatial effects taught by Rodrigues with audio emitting locations taught by Morris in order to improve communication between users on remote devices (Morris Paragraph 36-37).
26. Regarding claim 12, Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 11. However, Rodrigues fails to teach the method wherein: presenting the three-dimensional environment comprises displaying a representation of a user of the second electronic device; and the one or more second criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when an attention of the user of the first electronic device is directed to the representation of the user of the second electronic device, the method further comprising: in accordance with the determination that the one or more second criteria are satisfied, selecting the second emitting location based on a location of the representation of the user of the second electronic device.
Morris teaches the method wherein: presenting the three-dimensional environment comprises displaying a representation of a user of the second electronic device (Paragraph 40 teaches users can look an avatar of another user which is a representation of a user on a second electronic device);
and the one or more second criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when an attention of the user of the first electronic device is directed to the representation of the user of the second electronic device, the method further comprising: in accordance with the determination that the one or more second criteria are satisfied, selecting the second emitting location based on a location of the representation of the user of the second electronic device (Paragraph 49 and Figure 1E teaches an avatar, which is the representation of a user, and a special effect 120 that has a first emitting location around the user’s avatar. This is based on the location of the representation of the user. It also teaches other users focusing their visual attention on the second user which can be considered the second criteria. The system also only presents the spatial animated effect to a user when the avatar is displayed in the user’s field of view which can be considered to have the user focusing their attention on another user, satisfying the second criteria; Paragraph 2 teaches each user is on their own computing device which indicates the avatar seen in Figure 1E is a user on a second electronic device; Paragraph 67 teaches users have a field of view which only displays some users).
Rodrigues and Morris are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying visual effects in a computer generated environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of presenting spatial effects taught by Rodrigues with detecting a user’s attention taught by Morris in order to improve communication between users on remote devices (Morris Paragraph 36-37).
27. Regarding claim 19, Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 17. Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 2. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 2 applies herein.
28. Regarding claim 20, Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 18. Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 2. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 2 applies herein.
29. Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0319134 A1), hereinafter referred to as Rodrigues, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheung et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,406,896 B1), hereinafter referred to as Cheung.
30. Regarding claim 13, Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Rodrigues fails to teach the method further comprising: in accordance with a determination that one or more third criteria are satisfied, suppressing presentation of the first animated spatial effect.
Cheung teaches the method further comprising: in accordance with a determination that one or more third criteria are satisfied, suppressing presentation of the first animated spatial effect (Column 11, Lines 16-33 teach turning off visual effects which will suppress the presentation of animated spatial effects. Activating the trigger to turn off the visual effects can be considered the third criteria).
Rodrigues and Cheung are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying visual effects in a computer generated environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of presenting spatial effects taught by Rodrigues with the suppression of animated spatial effects taught by Cheung in order to enhance communication like story telling in remote devices (Cheung Column 2 line 62 – Column 3 line 3).
31. Regarding claim 15, Rodrigues in view of Cheung teaches the limitations of claim 13. However, Rodrigues fails to teach the method wherein the one or more third criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a first type of application is active.
Cheung teaches the method wherein the one or more third criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a first type of application is active (Column 11, Lines 16-33 teach turning off visual effects which will suppress the presentation of animated spatial effects. This is done when the storyteller interface, which is a first type of application, is active.).
Rodrigues and Cheung are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying visual effects in a computer generated environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of presenting spatial effects taught by Rodrigues with the suppression of animated spatial effects taught by Cheung in order to enhance communication like story telling in remote devices (Cheung Column 2 line 62 – Column 3 line 3).
32. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0319134 A1), hereinafter referred to as Rodrigues, in view of Cheung et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,406,896 B1), hereinafter referred to as Cheung, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lemay et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0286502 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lemay.
Regarding claim 14, Rodrigues in view of Cheung teaches the limitations of claim 13. However, Rodrigues and Cheung fail to teach the method wherein the one or more third criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the first electronic device is operating in notification-suppression mode.
Lemay teaches the method wherein the one or more third criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the first electronic device is operating in notification-suppression mode (Paragraph 140 teaches a do not disturb (DND) mode which stops and pauses presentation of notifications and alerts).
Rodrigues, Cheung, and Lemay are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying visual effects in a computer generated environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of presenting spatial effects taught by Rodrigues in view of Cheung with the notification-suppression mode taught by Lemay in order to focus on a specific content or application (Lemay Paragraph 140).
Conclusion
33. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
34. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE Y AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-0672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571)272-2330. 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.
/CHRISTINE YERA AHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615