DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 19 and 20 are amended.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 05/29/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6-11, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KORNFELD (No. US-9104293-B1 “Kornfeld”) in view of MILTON (No. US-20140236669-A1 “Milton”) and in further view of ORWANT (No. US-7917153-B2 “Orwant”).
Regarding claim 1, Kornfeld teaches “A system comprising:” (Systems; Col 2, Line 6);
“at least one processor; and” (a processor; Col 15, Line 14);
“at least one memory component storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:” (system that provides executable program instructions for the general administration and operation ... when executed by a processor of the server, allow the server to perform its intended functions; Col 15, Line 9-15);
(system may also include one or more storage devices. Such as disk drives, optical storage devices and solid state storage devices Such as random access memory (RAM); Col 16, Line 18-20);
“identifying a current location of a user that is initiating an interaction function of an interaction client;” (determining a location of the device (or the user of the device). A positioning element can include or comprise a GPS or similar location determining elements operable to determine relative coordinates for a position of the device; Col 10, Line 46-50);
“identifying a map corresponding to the current location of the user;” (the mapping application includes multiple pins that identify physical locations on a map; Col 3, Line 6-8);
“identifying one or more map tiles associated with the map;” (the map data can include map tiles; Col 5, Line 60-61);
“displaying the map with the plurality of polygons on a user interface.” (FIG. 5A illustrates a mapping application 500 is shown displayed on a computing device including multiple icons or pins 502 each representing the locations of multiple individual POIs; Col 5, Line 20-24);
While, Kornfeld fails to teach “receiving historical location data of the user that is associated with the current location of the user, the historical location data indicative of previously visited locations by user;”, “identifying a plurality of polygons associated with the historical location data;” and “converting the historical location data into an overall polygon such that the overall polygon encompasses the plurality of polygons associated with the historical location data based on the identified one or more map tiles;”.
However, Milton teaches “receiving historical location data of the user that is associated with the current location of the user, the historical location data indicative of previously visited locations by user;” (obtaining a user location dataset indicative of a location visited by a user; Para 0007); (location histories are stored in a location datastore 122. Location histories may include records of any number of places visited by any number of users. .... information about one or more places visited by the user; Para 0024); (the application may periodically acquire current location datasets corresponding to the current location of the mobile device 104 as the user continues to interact with the application; Para 0031);
“identifying a plurality of polygons associated with the historical location data;” (a geographic area (e.g., geographic tiles/cells of a grid with which a geographic area is segmented, or a polygon representing a physical boundaries associated with a place); Para 0024); (geographic coordinates that correspond to the geolocation of the store and/or a polygon defining an area associated with the store; Para 0039); (places of interest are identified, geographic coordinates and/or polygons may need to be identified for each of the thousands of places of interest; Para 0040);
Milton discloses receiving and storing user location history record like visited places by the user. As well as disclosing that each location can be associated with a polygon or geographical cell of that location. For each visited place by the user, it identifies corresponding polygons. When in combination with Kornfeld’s geographical map, the historical locations or locations visited may be identified based on the geographical area surrounding the current location of the user.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate historical location data for user reliability on user display.
As mention above, Kornfeld and Milton also fail to teach “converting the historical location data into an overall polygon such that the overall polygon encompasses the plurality of polygons associated with the historical location data based on the identified one or more map tiles;”.
However, Orwant teaches “converting the historical location data into an overall polygon such that the overall polygon encompasses the plurality of polygons associated with the historical location data based on the identified one or more map tiles; and” (the designated location will cover a geographic area that includes a cluster of positions as determined by the clustering technique .... The periphery of the area that includes the cluster is determined by a convex hull algorithm; Col 6, Line 63-67);
Orwant discloses a technique of applying a convex hull operation to a collection of geographical positions to create an encompassing geographic area. Applying Orwant’s disclosed technique to the historical location polygons taught by Milton would produce an overall polygon whit a perimeter encompassing the plurality of visited location polygons. In combination, Kornfeld supplies the map framework.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate overall display of mapping interface for user friendly viewing.
It would be obvious to a person skilled in the art to display the polygons identified from the historical location data as overlays on Kornfeld’s disclosed map interface. The overall convex hull polygon provides a geographic boundary with a combination of the visited location polygons of the user.
Kornfeld, Milton and Orwant are analogous art as they are related to mapping location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kornfeld by receiving historical location data of the user that is associated with the current location of the user, the historical location data indicative of previously visited locations by user and identifying a plurality of polygons associated with the historical location data as taught by Milton and by converting the historical location data into an overall polygon such that the overall polygon encompasses the plurality of polygons associated with the historical location data based on the identified one or more map tiles as taught by Orwant.
Regarding claim 2, Kornfeld further teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein identifying one or more map tiles associated with the map comprises identifying a single map tile for the current location of the user.” (graphical map tiles that show a map view of a region around an address; Col 13, Line 13-14);
(a single multi-dimensional graphical element can identify a location; Col 2, Line 14);
Regarding claim 3, Kornfeld further teaches “The system of claim 2, the operations further comprising:
identifying a plurality of sub-tiles associated with the current location of the user, the single map tile comprised of a set of sub-tiles, the plurality of sub-tiles being a subset of the set of sub-tiles, converting of the historical location data into the overall polygon is further based on the plurality of sub-tiles.” (while the mapping service 908 is contacted primarily to obtain map tiles (e.g., bitmap or vector); Col 12 Line 67 – Col 13, Line 1-2);
(a single multi-dimensional graphical element can identify a location, as well as the identities of multiple POIs associated with the location, physical address; Col 2, Line 14-16);
(number of surfaces can be determined based at least in part on a map parameter, Such as a number of POI associated with a location; Col 6, Line 49-51);
(Fig. 5, alternative graphical representation for a single POI for display by a mapping application; multiple icons or pins 502 each representing the locations of multiple individual POIs. In this example, each pin 502 represents multiple aspects or types of information for a single POI; Col 5, Line 22-25);
Kornfeld discloses map tiles e.g. bitmaps, and a single multi-dimensional graphical element which showcase the plurality of sub tiles of the map tiles. The map parameter corresponds to the overall polygon. Thus, the map parameter holds the number of POI which corresponds to the historical location data of the user. Furthermore, Figure 5A showcases pins, POI, that is related to users’ interest and place the have been in a mapping application from a user’s viewpoint. Having POI(s) in a mapping application like in Figure 5A corresponds to converting the historical location data of the user into an overall polygon in a mapping application.
Regarding claim 5, Kornfeld further teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein receiving the historical location data includes accessing records that are within a certain radius or bounding box around the current location of the user.” (a multi-dimensional graphical element can identify a location and information for various aspects of a single POI; Col 2, Line 19-21);
Regarding claim 6, Kornfeld teaches “The system of claim 5, wherein the radius or bounding box is dynamically adjusted based on a zoom level of the map on the user interface.” (a larger view of the multi-dimensional graphical element can be rendered, such as a Zoom-in or blown-up version, for enabling the user to engage and manipulate the multi-dimensional graphical element to obtain additional information associated with the POI; Col 2, Line 39-43);
(a map parameter, Such as a number of POI associated with a location, or a given POI density for a location based on a current Zoom level as displayed on the computing device and the like; Col 6, Line 50-53);
Regarding claim 7, Kornfeld further teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein receiving the historical location data includes accessing location data from user interaction of a plurality of interaction functions of the interaction client.” (the mapping service will monitor interactions of the user with the POI; Col 6, Line 61-62);
Regarding claim 8, Kornfeld further teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein receiving the historical location data includes accessing location data from user interaction on a plurality of interaction clients via the same application installed across the plurality of interaction clients.” (a user can obtain mapping information using one or more client devices, such as computing device; Col 12, Line 50-52);
(a user is able to utilize a client device 902, such as a personal computer, tablet computer, Smartphone, and the like, to access a mapping system or service 908 over at least one appropriate network 906; Col 12, Line 58-62);
Regarding claim 9, Kornfeld further teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein receiving the historical location data includes accessing one or more third party data sources that track and store geographic location information of the user.” (mapping service will monitor interactions of the user with the POI, and can provide feedback to relevant third party providers of the POI regarding whether the user visited, viewed, or otherwise showed interest in any of their POI; Col 6, Line 61-64);
(mapping system or service can include at least one Web service layer 926, or other such set of components, which can include one or more APIs 928, or other such interfaces, enabling data from third parties to be used with the mapping service; Col 13, Line 43-47);
Regarding claim 10, Kornfeld further teaches “The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising:
identifying individual historical location data points of the historical location data; and” (point of interest (POI) data points on a map for at least one location; Col 2, Line 13-14);
“adds a polygon to each of the individual historical location data points that correspond to a particular tile.” (a portion of the POI information is selected and provided with the map data for display to the user. A multi-dimensional graphical element, such as a pin, is rendered for the POI information to identify POI for a particular location(s); Col 2, Line 33-37);
Regarding claim 11, Kornfeld further teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of polygons includes a circle, wherein the overall polygon is not in a shape of a circle.” (Figure 2, map 200 that includes multiple pins; icon 304 is represented as a pin with a polygon; Col 3, Line 50);
Regarding claim 19, Kornfeld further teaches “A method comprising:” (methods; Col 2, Line 6);
Claim 19 is directed to a method and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Kornfeld further teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:” (computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of the server, allow the server to perform its intended functions; Col 15, Line 12-14);
Claim 20 is directed to non- transitory computer-readable storage medium and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KORNFELD in view of MILTON and in further view of ORWANT and in further view LEVINE (No. WO-2010023568-A2 “Levine”).
Regarding claim 4, while Kornfeld, Milton and Orwant fail to teach all of claim 4, Levine teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein the historical location data includes time-stamped records of the user’s past locations in the historical location data.” (collect and/or record time series of locations received from device 110 along with time stamps indicating the time at which each of the locations was recorded; 0010);
Kornfeld Milton, Orwant and Levine are analogous art as they are related to map visualizations.
The motivation for the above is to have more accurate and reliable record of location data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kornfeld, Milton and Orwant by the historical location data which includes time-stamped records of the user’s past locations in the historical location data as taught by Levine.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KORNFELD in view of MILTON and in further view of ORWANT and in further view SMITH (No. US-7777648-B2 “Smith”).
Regarding claim 12, while Kornfeld, Milton and Orwant fail to teach all of claim 12, Smith teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein the map tiles overlap with each other, and the plurality of polygons that are adjacent to each other overlap with one another.” (The memory that provides the data can also dump the data when it is overlaid with new data; Col 35, Line 4-5);
(Boundary component 308 can utilize that parcel polygon information and infer that there is potentially only one building (or other area of interest) inside that parcel polygon area; Col 14, Line 12-14);
Smith discloses how the data can be overlay with new data, and the map tiles or plurality of polygons can correspond with the data. The data in memory can refer to tile data used to overlay over each other. Also, the parcel polygon information corresponds to the plurality of polygons that are inside a polygon area.
Kornfeld, Milton, Orwant and Smith are analogous art as they are related to map visualizations.
The motivation for the above is to an accurate visualization of the mapping application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kornfeld, Milton and Orwant by wherein the map tiles overlap with each other, and the plurality of polygons that are adjacent to each other overlap with one another as taught by Smith.
Regarding claim 13, while Kornfeld, Milton and Orwant fail to teach all of claim 13, Smith teaches “The system of claim 1, the operations further comprise smoothing the edges of the plurality of polygons to generate the overall polygon.” (the edges or perimeters of the area of interest (e.g., structure) can be computed to ascertain a built-up area (e.g., side of a structure) that includes the area of interest. It should be understood that various algorithms, methods, and/or techniques can be employed to ascertain the object shape, size, or area; Col 14, Line 15-20);
Smith discloses how the edges of the area of interest can be ascertain by shape or size. This corresponds with the smoothing of the edges of the polygons.
The motivation for the above is to have an accurate visualization of the polygons in the overall polygon.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kornfeld, Milton and Orwant by the operations further comprise smoothing the edges of the plurality of polygons to generate the overall polygon as taught by Smith.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KORNFELD in view of MILTON and in further view of ORWANT and in further view CERVELLI (No. US-20170052655-A1 “Cervelli”).
Regarding claim 14, while Kornfeld, Milton and Orwant fail to teach all of claim 14, Cervelli teaches “The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising receiving a particular time frame from a user, and converting the historical location data into the overall polygon for locations that the user has visited during that particular time frame.” (the user may specify a time range, restricting the returned search results to objects associated with a time value that falls within the specified range; Para 0105);
(display all search results having associated location data on the map; Para 0108);
(Fig, 4A showcases a plurality of polygons of a map; user has defined a plurality of points to form a polygonal search area 402, for the purpose of performing a geospatial search; Para 0103);
Kornfeld, Milton, Orwant and Cervelli are analogous art as they are related to map visualizations.
The motivation for the above is to have an accurate visualization of the time frame a user visited an area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kornfeld, Milton and Orwant by receiving a particular time frame from a user, and converting the historical location data into the overall polygon for locations that the user has visited during that particular time frame as taught by Cervelli.
Regarding claim 15, while Kornfeld, Milton and Orwant fail to teach all of claim 15, Cervelli teaches “The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising receiving a particular geographical area from a user, and converting the historical location data into the overall polygon for locations that the user has visited within the particular geographical area.” (a geospatial search may search for any objects with geographic metadata and/or properties that indicate the object may be geographically within, for example, polygonal search area; Para 0103);
(display all search results having associated location data on the map; Para 0108);
(different ways for the user to specify the search area, such as a radial search, a search from an existing selection, and/or the like; Para 0104);
Cervelli discloses a geospatial search or other searches that identifies an object(polygon) within the area. Thus, displaying the search results of the location that the user visited. This corresponds with the receiving of a geographical area.
The motivation for the above is to have an efficient search for locations the user searches.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kornfeld, Milton and Orwant by receiving a particular geographical area from a user, and converting the historical location data into the overall polygon for locations that the user has visited within the particular geographical area as taught by Cervelli.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KORNFELD in view of MILTON and in further view of ORWANT and in further view EDECKER (No. US-10108693-B2 “Edecker”).
Regarding claim 17, while Kornfeld, Milton and Orwant fail to teach all of claim 17, Edecker teaches “The system of claim 1, the operations further comprise:
displaying a statistic indicating a relationship between the area visited by the user as compared with the total area of the displayed map; and” (the geographic area based on neighborhood and city area; Abstract);
(Current/Total area 1708 is a count indicator with the notation “X/Y.” In this embodiment, the letter Y indicates the total number of pinned objects of the current category indicated by the area 1704. In this embodiment, X indicates which of those Y objects is currently being displayed in the window content area 1701; Col 71, Line 67-Col 72, Line 4);
“in response to a zoom in or out on the displayed map, updating the statistic to reflect the changed total area of the displayed map.” (Zoom to All button 1714, when selected by the user, causes the disclosed system to move and zoom the map to an appropriate position and zoom level to cause all the pinned objects within the current category, as indicated by area 1704, to become visible in the map window; Col 72, Line 16-20);
(Fig. 17 can show the updated statistic);
Edecker discloses a count indicator that calculates the percentage of pinned objects (places visited) by the total area. Also, they disclose the zoom all that showcases the zoom level of the map which reflect the total area of the map being viewed.
Kornfeld, Milton, Orwant and Edecker are analogous art as they are related to map visualizations.
The motivation for the above is to have an accurate percentage of zoom level and comparison with area visited and total area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kornfeld, Milton and Orwant by displaying a statistic indicating a relationship between the area visited by the user as compared with the total area of the displayed map; and in response to a zoom in or out on the displayed map, updating the statistic to reflect the changed total area of the displayed map as taught by Edecker.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KORNFELD in view of MILTON and in further view of ORWANT and in further view COWBURN (No. US-20220301175-A1 “Cowburn”).
Regarding claim 16, while Kornfeld, Milton and Orwant fail to teach all of claim 16, Cowburn teaches “The system of claim 1, the operations further comprise:
displaying the map with avatars of other users; and” (the user's avatar being displayed on the map; Para 0041);
“in response to a user selection of another user's avatar, displaying the overall polygon corresponding to the other user.” (selecting a particular friend automatically centers the map view on the avatar of that friend; Para 0045);
Kornfeld, Milton, Orwant and Cowburn are analogous art as they are related to map visualizations.
The motivation for the above is to have an avatar representation of other users for a more user friendly and interactive system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kornfeld, Milton and Orwant by displaying the map with avatars of other users; and in response to a user selection of another user's avatar, displaying the overall polygon corresponding to the other user as taught by Cowburn.
Regarding claim 18, while Kornfeld, Milton and Orwant fail to teach all of claim 18, Cowburn teaches “The system of claim 1, the operations further comprise:
identifying an overall polygon for another user; and” (selecting a particular friend automatically centers the map view on the avatar of that friend; Para 0045);
“based on the overall polygon for the user and the overall polygon for the other user, provide a recommendation to the user that is associated with the other user.” (a user can select groups of other users to which his/her location will be displayed, and may in specify different display attributes for the different respective groups or for different respective individuals; Para 0043);
(allow the user to take a variety of actions with the user's friends from within the map GUI; Para 0045);
The motivation for the above is to have an accurate view and display of the map by user selection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kornfeld, Milton and Orwant by identifying an overall polygon for another user; and based on the overall polygon for the user and the overall polygon for the other user, provide a recommendation to the user that is associated with the other user as taught by Cowburn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg.9, filed 05/29/2026, with respect to Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 03/05/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant submits replacement sheets of drawings that overcome the previous drawing objections. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn with respect to filed replacement sheets.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg.9, filed 05/29/2026, with respect to Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 03/05/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant submits amended specifications that overcome the previous specifications objections. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn with respect to filed amended specification.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg.9-10, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-11 and 19-20 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of KORNFELD in view of MILTON and in further view of ORWANT.
Applicant argues that the cited art, alone or in combination, does not disclose " receiving historical location data of the user that is associated with the current location of the user, the historical location data indicative of previously visited locations by user; identifying a plurality of polygons associated with the historical location data; converting the historical location data into an overall polygon such that the overall polygon encompasses the plurality of polygons associated with the historical location data based on the identified one or more map tiles," as recited in the amended independent claims.
Examiner replies due to the scope of the claim, new art was introduced in combination to Kornfeld to teach the subject matter of claim 1. Milton discloses receiving and storing user location history record like visited places by the user. As well as disclosing that each location can be associated with a polygon or geographical cell of that location. For each visited place by the user, it identifies corresponding polygons. In addition, Orwant discloses a technique of applying a convex hull operation to a collection of geographical positions to create an encompassing geographic area. Applying Orwant’s disclosed technique to the historical location polygons taught by Milton would produce an overall polygon whit a perimeter encompassing the plurality of visited location polygons. In combination, Kornfeld supplies the map framework. When in combination with Kornfeld’s geographical map, the historical locations or locations visited may be identified based on the geographical area surrounding the current location of the user.
It would be obvious to a person skilled in the art to display the polygons identified from the historical location data as overlays on Kornfeld’s disclosed map interface. The overall convex hull polygon provides a geographic boundary with a combination of the visited location polygons of the user.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are patentable for at least similar reasons as articulated above with respect to their respective independent claims.
Examiner replies that the dependent claims rejection is maintained as least by virtue of dependency of their respective independent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 BRIGITER D PROTAZI whose telephone number is (571)272-7995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Said A Broome can be reached at 5712722931. 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.
/B.D.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights