DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant's amendment and request for
reconsideration filed on January 30, 2026.
Claims 21-38 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and §112(b).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 21-38 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection based on Applicant’s amended claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,700,168 (‘168 Patent); claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,103,934 (‘934 Patent); and claims 1-33 of U.S. Patent No. 9,247,377 (‘377 Patent). As noted in the charts below, although the claims at issue are not identical that of the above noted patents, they are not patentably distinct as the current set of claims are anticipated or would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in view of the claims of the ‘168, ‘934, and ‘377 Patents.
Current Application
‘168 Patent
21. A method, the method comprising:
presenting, by a requesting device, a current location of a target device based at least in part on a prior sharing relationship between a target user device account of the target device and a requesting user device account of the requesting device;
sending, by the requesting device, a reminder notification request to set up a notification that is triggered by the target device, wherein the reminder notification request includes:
a target account identifier that identifies a user account for the target device, and a set of conditions comprising (i) a first condition that identifies a target location that is one of the current location of the target device or a different location of the target device, and (i) a second condition that defines whether to notify the requesting device when the target device arrives at the target location or leaves the target location;
receiving an indication, from the server, a first indication that acceptance is acknowledged by the target user device account to set up a trigger to share location information of the target device with the requesting user device account in accordance with the set of conditions;
receiving a second indication that is indicative of the location information satisfying the set of conditions; and
providing the notification for presentation at the requesting device.
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a mobile device from a server, a request by another device to enable a notification that is triggered by the mobile device entering or exiting a geofence surrounding a location…;
determining, by the mobile device, that a user-selectable permission setting on the mobile device indicates that permission is granted to share a location of the mobile device in response to the notification being triggered; and
in response to the notification being triggered, enabling, by the mobile device, the trigger for the notification based on the user-selectable permission setting for the notification.
The ‘168 Patent claims do not expressly teach the use of a target account identifier that identifies a user account for the target device; and the step of “presenting, by a requesting device, a current location of a target device based at least in part on a prior sharing relationship between a target user device account of the target device and a requesting user device account of the requesting device”
Nevertheless, first, at the time of the invention, the use of user/target accounts for location based services, and therefore identifying the mobile device in the ‘168 Patent claims by a target account identifier, was well known in the art (see for example, Hughes et al. (US 2008/0032666)(“Hughes”), see abstract, ¶0032 and ¶0046, where each person is associated with an account).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to identify target mobile devices based on account information. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been for easier management and recall of user/mobile device preferences.
Secondly, in the same art of user/device tracking, Clarke, Keir. “Google Latitude” Google Maps Mania, 4 Feb. 2009 (“Google Latitude”) teaches presenting, by a requesting device, a current location of a target device (i.e., “friends’ location”) based at least in part on a prior sharing relationship between a target user device account of the target device and a requesting user device account of the requesting device (e.g., “once you have agreed to share your location with a friend…”)(see pp. 1);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify the teachings of the ‘168 Patent claims with the features of Google Latitude. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to provide users with real-time tracking of family and friends.
22. The method of claim 21, wherein the reminder notification request indicates that the notification is triggered when the target device enters or exits a geofence associated with the target location.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the request indicates that the notification is triggered when the mobile device enters or exits a geofence associated with the location.
23. The method of claim 21, wherein the reminder notification request indicates that the notification is repeated.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the request indicates that the notification is repeated.
24. The method of claim 21, wherein the reminder notification request includes data specifying how long the trigger for the notification will remain in effect on the target device before the trigger expires.
1 … the request including data specifying how long a trigger for the notification will remain in effect on the mobile device before it expires;
25. The method of claim 21, wherein providing the notification for presentation at the requesting device comprises providing the notification in response to receiving the second indication.
1… in response to the notification being triggered, enabling, by the mobile device, the trigger for the notification based on the user-selectable permission setting for the notification.
26. The method of claim 21, wherein the notification is sent to a device associated with the account associated with the requesting device.
1 … a request by another device to enable a notification that is triggered by the mobile device entering or exiting a geofence surrounding a location (where if not implicit in claim 1, at the time of the invention, it would have been a matter of common sense to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in response to the notification being triggered by the mobile device, to thereafter send the notification to the device which requested the enabling of the notification. The obvious/common sense motivation for doing so would have been to fulfill the request for the notification).
Claims 27-38 recite substantially identical subject matter as claims 21-26 and are therefore rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of the ‘168 Patent for the same reasons as noted in the chart above.
Current Application
‘934 Patent
21. A method, the method comprising:
presenting, by a requesting device, a current location of a target device based at least in part on a prior sharing relationship between a target user device account of the target device and a requesting user device account of the requesting device;
sending, by the requesting device, a reminder notification request to set up a notification that is triggered by the target device, wherein the reminder notification request includes:
a target account identifier that identifies a user account for the target device, and a set of conditions comprising (i) a first condition that identifies a target location that is one of the current location of the target device or a different location of the target device, and (i) a second condition that defines whether to notify the requesting device when the target device arrives at the target location or leaves the target location;
receiving an indication, from the server, a first indication that acceptance is acknowledged by the target user device account to set up a trigger to share location information of the target device with the requesting user device account in accordance with the set of conditions;
receiving a second indication that is indicative of the location information satisfying the set of conditions; and
providing the notification for presentation at the requesting device.
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a server, a request from a first device to set up a reminder that is triggered by a second device entering or exiting a geofence surrounding a location…; determining, by the server, that a user-selectable permission setting on the second device indicates that permission is granted to share the location of the second device upon triggering of the reminder; and
transmitting, by the server, an instruction to the second device to set up the reminder on the second device.
The ‘934 Patent claims do not expressly teach the use of a target account identifier that identifies a user account for the target device; and the step of “presenting, by a requesting device, a current location of a target device based at least in part on a prior sharing relationship between a target user device account of the target device and a requesting user device account of the requesting device”
Nevertheless, first, at the time of the invention, the use of user/target accounts for location based services, and therefore identifying the mobile device in the ‘168 Patent claims by a target account identifier, was well known in the art (see for example, Hughes, abstract, ¶0032 and ¶0046, where each person is associated with an account).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to identify target mobile devices based on account information. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been for easier management and recall of user/mobile device preferences.
Secondly, in the same art as noted above, Google Latitude teaches presenting, by a requesting device, a current location of a target device (i.e., “friends’ location”) based at least in part on a prior sharing relationship between a target user device account of the target device and a requesting user device account of the requesting device (e.g., “once you have agreed to share your location with a friend…”)(see pp. 1);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify the teachings of the ‘934 Patent claims with the features of Google Latitude. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to provide users with real-time tracking of family and friends.
22. The method of claim 21, wherein the reminder notification request indicates that the notification is triggered when the target device enters or exits a geofence associated with the target location.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the request indicates that the reminder is triggered when the second device enters or exits a geofence associated with the location.
23. The method of claim 21, wherein the reminder notification request indicates that the notification is repeated.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the request indicates that the reminder is repeated.
24. The method of claim 21, wherein the reminder notification request includes data specifying how long a trigger for the notification will remain in effect on the mobile device before it expires.
1 … the request including data specifying how long the reminder will remain in effect on the second device before it expires
25. The method of claim 21, wherein providing the notification for presentation at the requesting device comprises providing the notification in response to receiving the second indication.
2. … transmitting, by the server, second information to the first device indicating that the reminder has been triggered.
26. The method of claim 21, wherein the notification is sent to a device associated with the account associated with the requesting device.
2. … transmitting, by the server, second information to the first device indicating that the reminder has been triggered.
Claims 27-38 recite substantially identical subject matter as claims 21-26 and are therefore rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of the ‘934 Patent for the same reasons as noted in the chart above.
Current Application
‘377 Patent
21. A method, the method comprising:
presenting, by a requesting device, a current location of a target device based at least in part on a prior sharing relationship between a target user device account of the target device and a requesting user device account of the requesting device;
sending, by the requesting device, a reminder notification request to set up a notification that is triggered by the target device, wherein the reminder notification request includes:
a target account identifier that identifies a user account for the target device, and a set of conditions comprising (i) a first condition that identifies a target location that is one of the current location of the target device or a different location of the target device, and (i) a second condition that defines whether to notify the requesting device when the target device arrives at the target location or leaves the target location;
receiving an indication, from the server, a first indication that acceptance is acknowledged by the target user device account to set up a trigger to share location information of the target device with the requesting user device account in accordance with the set of conditions;
receiving a second indication that is indicative of the location information satisfying the set of conditions; and
providing the notification for presentation at the requesting device.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a server from a mobile requesting device, a request to set up a reminder that is triggered by a mobile target device, wherein the request includes: a target device identifier that identifies the mobile target device and is associated with contact information of a target device user stored on the mobile requesting device, and a user-selected distance from a location of a selected physical address associated with the contact information of the target device user stored on the mobile requesting device, wherein the reminder is associated with the location, the user-selected distance, and a condition, wherein the user-selected distance is received from a requesting device user; determining, by the server, if the target device user has previously granted permission to share their location with the requesting device user;
determining, by the server, a permission setting on the target device; if the permission was previously granted and the permission setting indicates that permission is granted, transmitting, by the server to the mobile target device, an instruction to set up the reminder on the mobile target device based on the target device identifier; receiving, by the server from the mobile target device, a message that the reminder has been triggered by the mobile target device coming within the distance of the selected location; and transmitting, by the server to the mobile requesting device, a notification that the reminder has been triggered by the mobile target device, wherein the notification includes the target device identifier and an identifier for the location.
The ‘377 Patent claims do not expressly teach the step of “presenting, by a requesting device, a current location of a target device based at least in part on a prior sharing relationship between a target user device account of the target device and a requesting user device account of the requesting device”.
Nevertheless, in the same art as noted above, Google Latitude teaches presenting, by a requesting device, a current location of a target device (i.e., “friends’ location”) based at least in part on a prior sharing relationship between a target user device account of the target device and a requesting user device account of the requesting device (e.g., “once you have agreed to share your location with a friend…”)(see pp. 1);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify the teachings of the ‘377 Patent claims with the features of Google Latitude. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to provide users with real-time tracking of family and friends.
22. The method of claim 21, wherein the reminder notification request indicates that the notification is triggered when the target device enters or exits a geofence associated with the target location.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein a geofence of a predetermined size is set around the target device to determine the position of the target device in relation to the location.
23. The method of claim 21, wherein the reminder notification request indicates that the notification is repeated.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the request includes information that indicates whether the reminder is repeated each time the condition is satisfied in relation to the location.
24. The method of claim 21, wherein the reminder notification request includes data specifying how long a trigger for the notification will remain in effect on the mobile device before it expires.
i.e., 1 … an instruction to set up the reminder on the mobile target device based on the target device identifier.
The ‘377 Patent claims however do not expressly teach the reminder notification request includes data specifying how long a trigger for the notification will remain in effect on the mobile device before it expires.
Nevertheless, in the same art as noted above, Hughes further teaches wherein the reminder notification request includes data specifying how long a trigger for the notification will remain in effect … before it expires (i.e., time constraint information, see ¶0076).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify the reminder notification request taught by the ‘377 Patent claims with the time constraint information taught by Hughes. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to allow resources on the target mobile device to be used for other tasks during times when monitoring of the condition or transmitting a notification is not needed.
25. The method of claim 21, wherein providing the notification for presentation at the requesting device comprises providing the notification in response to receiving the second indication.
1 .. . transmitting, by the server to the mobile requesting device, a notification that the reminder has been triggered by the mobile target device
26. The method of claim 21, wherein the notification is sent to a device associated with the account associated with the requesting device.
1 .. . transmitting, by the server to the mobile requesting device, a notification that the reminder has been triggered by the mobile target device
Claims 27-38 recite substantially identical subject matter as claims 21-26 and are therefore rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-33 of the ‘377 Patent for the same reasons as noted in the chart above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-23, 25-29, 31-35, 37, and 38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clarke, Keir. “Google Latitude” Google Maps Mania, 4 Feb. 2009, https://googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/2009/02/google-latitude.html (“Google Latitude”) in view of Hughes et al. (US 2008/0032666)(“Hughes”).
As per claim 21, Google Latitude teaches presenting, by a requesting device, a current location of a target device (i.e., “friends’ location”) based at least in part on a prior sharing relationship (i.e., friendship) between a target user device account of the target device and a requesting user device account of the requesting device (e.g., “once you have agreed to share your location with a friend…”)(see pp. 1);
As per claim 21, Google Latitude does not expressly teach sending, by the requesting device, a reminder notification request to set up a notification that is triggered by the target device, wherein the reminder notification request includes:
a target account identifier that identifies the target user account, for the target device, and a set of conditions comprising (i) a first condition that identifies a target location that is one of the current location of the target device or a different location of the target device, and (i) a second condition that defines whether to notify the requesting device when the target device arrives at the target location or leaves the target location;
receiving, from a server a first indication that acceptance is acknowledged by the target user device account to set up a trigger to share location information of the target device with the requesting user device account in accordance with the set of conditions;
receive a second indication that is indicative of the location information satisfying the set of conditions; and
providing the notification for presentation at the requesting device.
Nevertheless, in the same art of location tracking, Hughes teaches sending, by a requesting device (see Fig. 8), a reminder notification request to set up a notification that is triggered by the target device (e.g., “Notify me if Grandma comes within 0.5 miles of any Hospital”, see Fig. 8, and/or see ¶00068, “an alert can be defined that notifies a parent when a child arrives at home each day. Conversely, an alert can be defined that notifies a parent when a child leaves the family home” also see ¶0033, “each account can represent a separate mobile device”, i.e., target device), wherein the reminder notification request includes:
a target account identifier that identifies the target user account (e.g., “Grandma” and/or “child”, see Fig. 8 and ¶0068), for the target device, and a set of conditions (see for example, ¶0032, “an alert defines a set of conditions…”) comprising (i) a first condition that identifies a target location that is one of the current location of the target device or a different location of the target device (e.g., “.5 miles of any Hospital”, see Fig. 8, and/or “home”, see ¶0068), and (i) a second condition that defines whether to notify the requesting device when the target device arrives at the target location or leaves the target location (i.e., “comes within”, see Fig. 8, and/or “arrives at home” or “leaves the family home”, see ¶0068);
receiving, from a server, a first indication that acceptance is acknowledged by the target user device account to set up a trigger to share location information of the target device with the requesting user device account in accordance with the set of conditions (see ¶0077, and Fig. 7, i.e., validating (i.e., “receiving an indication”), from a server (i.e., alert system/HTTP server, see Fig. 2, ref. 202), to ensure that the requesting user/device/account has appropriate permissions required to define the alert, which implies checking the target user device account’s “alert permissions”, see ¶0060, to determine whether “acceptance is acknowledged by the target user device account” to define the alert or “to set up a trigger to share location information”, as claimed);
receive a second indication that is indicative of the location information satisfying the set of conditions (i.e., “Based upon the obtained information, a determination is made as to whether the alert has been actuated at reference numeral 910”, see Fig. 9 and ¶0080); and
providing the notification for presentation at the requesting device (i.e., “a notification is generated and distributed to the appropriate mobile device at reference numeral 912”, see Fig. 9, and ¶0081-0082).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to combine the teachings of Google Latitude with the teachings Hughes. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to enable notifications based on target user location information, thus enhancing usability of mobile devices (see Hughes, ¶0031).
As per claim 22, Google Latitude does not teach, however, in the same art as noted above, Hughes further teaches wherein the reminder notification request indicates that the notification is triggered when the target device enters or exits a geofence associated with the location (i.e., “comes within”, see Fig. 8, and/or “arrives at home” or “leaves the family home”, see ¶0068).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Google Latitude and Hughes in claim 21 applies equally well to claim 22.
As per claim 23, Google Latitude does not teach, however, in the same art as noted above, Hughes further teaches wherein the reminder notification request indicates that the notification is repeated (i.e., a delay between repeated notifications, see ¶0078).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Google Latitude and Hughes in claim 21 applies equally well to claim 23.
As per claim 25, Google Latitude does not teach, however, in the same art as noted above, Hughes further teaches wherein providing the notification for presentation at the requesting device comprises providing the notification responsive to receiving the second indication (see Fig. 9 and ¶0080-0081, i.e., responsive to receiving the determination/indication that the alert has been actuated).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Google Latitude and Hughes in claim 21 applies equally well to claim 25.
As per claim 26, Google Latitude does not teach, however, in the same art as noted above, Hughes further teaches wherein the notification is sent to a device associated with the account associated with the requesting device (see ¶0078, wherein the notification will be sent via SMS, email, text, etc. to a device associated with a user setting up the notification).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Google Latitude and Hughes in claim 21 applies equally well to claim 26.
Claims 27-29, 31-35, 37, and 38 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 21-23, 25 and 26 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
Claims 24, 30, and 36 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Google Latitude and Hughes, in further view of Bertagna et. al. (US 2008/0186165)(“Bertagana”).
As per claims 24, 30, and 36, Google Latitude does not teach, however, in the same art as noted above, Hughes further teaches wherein the reminder notification request includes data specifying how long a trigger for the notification will remain in effect … before it expires (i.e., time constraint information, see ¶0076).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Google Latitude and Hughes in claim 21 applies equally well to claims 24, 30 and 36.
As per claims 24, 30 and 36, Hughes however, does not expressly teach the trigger being on the target device.
Nevertheless, in the same art of device location management, Bertagna teaches a system for placing geofencing definition(s) for triggering alert on the tracking device itself (see ¶0050).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify the teachings of Google Latitude and Hughes for placing the reminder notification instructions on the target/tracking device itself. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more accurate or real-time determination of whether the alert conditions are met and/or to reduce device location messaging (see for example ¶0037 of Hughes) for the alert system to determine whether the alert condition has been met.
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 BRENDAN HIGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, James Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights