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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner’s Response re: 101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the displaying on the map and the updating the user-specified route can not be performed mentally. While the examiner agrees that displaying of information on a map is not a mental process, this limitation was analyzed as an additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2. The (inherent) retrieval of information from a source is mere data gathering, and the displaying is recited at a high level of generality (merely displaying information that has been gathered) that is mere extra solution activity. With respect to applicant’s argument that the limitations of claim 1 “reconfigures the operational state of the navigation system by replacing the user-specified route with a new route based on a user-selected POI” and as such is not a mental process and/or integrates into practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim as currently presented does not require the “reconfiguring” of the operational state of the navigation system, but instead merely replaces an original destination with a new destination. A person can easily mentally determine a new navigation route/path to an updated/replaced destination, and in fact is something people do often while driving. As such, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained herein.
Examiner’s Response re: 103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-12, filed 26 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8,11-17 and 20 under 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Joshi, Polidi, and Bostic.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of Claim 1:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1. A method for displaying a point of interest, performed by a computing device, the method comprising:
acquiring data regarding a user-specified route and a user profile;
searching for a point of interest of a group corresponding to the user profile, wherein the point of interest is located on the user-specified route; and
displaying the point of interest on a map displayed by the computing device, wherein the displaying of the point of interest includes further displaying on map information on a source social media service for the point of interest or information on a popularity level of the point of interest;
and updating the user-specified route into a new route with the point of interest selected as a destination in response to a user input.
The limitations bolded in claim 1 above are a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and utilizing pen and paper and, therefore, an abstract idea and display on map the information. The limitations of claim 1 highlighted above merely consists of viewing a route based on a user’s profile, then search a point of interest that corresponds to the user’s profile per the route. After which, upon a user selecting a new destination, determining a new route. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1. A method for displaying a point of interest, performed by a computing device, the method comprising:
acquiring data regarding a user-specified route and a user profile;
searching for a point of interest of a group corresponding to the user profile, wherein the point of interest is located on the user-specified route; and
displaying the point of interest on a map displayed by the computing device, wherein the displaying of the point of interest includes further displaying on map information on a source social media service for the point of interest or information on a popularity level of the point of interest;
and updating the user-specified route into a new route with the point of interest selected as a destination in response to a user input.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional elements underlined above do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The displaying of the point of interest with source social media for the point of interest is recited at a high level of generality (i.e, gathering information from a source about the POI and displaying the gathered information) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. That the method is being performed in a computing device merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, is indicative of the judicial exception not having been integrated into practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Acquiring, searching, and displaying are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by the vehicle in claim 1.
Claim 20 has the corresponding limitations of Claim 1 and as such the analysis of Claim 20 also utilizes the same as Claim 1. Claim 20 recites the non-transitory computer-readable media, processors, and a set of instructions at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is also a form of insignificant extra solution activity.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Analysis of Claims 2-8
Dependent claims 2-8 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. More specifically, the limitations of claims 2-8 are, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations that can be performed in the human mind using a similar analysis as applied to claim 1 above.
As such, claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Analysis of Claim 11:
STEP 1: Does claim 11 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 11. A system for displaying a point of interest, the system comprising:
a navigation system;
a communication interface;
a memory into which a computer program is loaded; and
at least one processor on which the computer program is executed,
wherein the computer program includes instructions that perform operations of:
acquiring data regarding a user-specified route and a user profile;
searching for a point of interest of a group corresponding to the user profile, wherein the point of interest is located on the user-specified route; and
displaying the point of interest on a map displayed by the navigation system, wherein the operation of displaying the point of interest includes an operation of further displaying on map information on a source social media service for the point of interest or information on a popularity level of the point of interest; and
updating the user-specified route into a new route with the point of interest selected as a destination in response to a user input.
The limitations bolded in claim 11 above are a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and utilizing pen and paper and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitations of claim 11 highlighted above merely consists of viewing a route based on a user’s profile, then search a point of interest that corresponds to the user’s profile per the route. After which, upon a user selecting a new destination, determining a new route. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 11. A system for displaying a point of interest, the system comprising:
a navigation system;
a communication interface;
a memory into which a computer program is loaded; and
at least one processor on which the computer program is executed,
wherein the computer program includes instructions that perform operations of:
acquiring data regarding a user-specified route and a user profile;
searching for a point of interest of a group corresponding to the user profile, wherein the point of interest is located on the user-specified route; and
displaying the point of interest on a map displayed by the navigation system, wherein the operation of displaying the point of interest includes an operation of further displaying on map information on a source social media service for the point of interest or information on a popularity level of the point of interest; and
updating the user-specified route into a new route with the point of interest selected as a destination in response to a user input.
Claim 11 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional elements underlined above do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The displaying of the point of interest with source social media for the point of interest is recited at a high level of generality (i.e, gathering information from a source about the POI and displaying the gathered information) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. That the method is being performed in a computing device ( a memory and processor) merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, is indicative of the judicial exception not having been integrated into practical application. Further, the navigation system and communication interface are recited at a high level of generality and are functioning in their ordinary capacity. Such elements are, at best, the equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the claim.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Acquiring, searching, and displaying are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by the vehicle in claim 11.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 11 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Analysis of Claims 12-17
Dependent claims 12-17 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. More specifically, the limitations of claims 12-17 are, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations that can be performed in the human mind using a similar analysis as applied to claim 11 above.
As such, claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-12, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al., US 20150223201 A1 (herein, Joshi), in view of Polidi et al., US 20020138196 A1 (herein, Polidi), and in further view of Bostick et al., US 20160284125 A1 (herein, Bostick).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Joshi discloses, a system (FIG. 1, #100 – system) for displaying a point of interest (¶[0031] – “…a point of interest (e.g., a place, building, location, etc. associated with the point of interest) easier by providing visual representation of an aural points of interest information…”), the system comprising:
a navigation system (FIG. 1, UE 101 – “…the end user device or UE 101 can be an in-vehicle navigation system,…”);
a communication interface (FIG. 2 and #205 – communication interface);
a memory into which a computer program is loaded (¶[0004] – “…the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to,…”); and
at least one processor on which the computer program is executed (¶[0004] – “…an apparatus comprises at least one processor,…”),
wherein the computer program includes instructions that perform operations of (Claim 57 – “…computer program product including one or more sequences of one or more instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause an apparatus to at least perform the steps:…”):
acquiring data regarding a user-specified route and a user profile (¶[0072] – “…A point of interest information may contain latitude coordinates, longitude coordinates, shop name, address, contact information etc. Such point of data is many time augmented with special deals or coupons,… the point of interest platform 109 may process user content and/or contextual information (e.g., user preference information, user profile information…”);
searching for a point of interest of a group corresponding to the user profile, wherein the point of interest is located on the user-specified route (¶[0032] – “…the system 100 may process the content information (e.g., one or more geo-routes, one or more location anchors, etc.) associated with UE 101 to determine point of interest information associated with the at least one program item over a network broadcast, to cause a generation of a presentation of such information with the point of interest in a mapping device…”),
Joshi does not disclose, displaying the point of interest on a map displayed by the navigation system.
However, Polidi teaches, displaying the point of interest on a map displayed by the navigation system (Claim 17 – “The vehicle navigation system of claim 1 wherein the processor is configured to display the plurality of points of interest as icons on a map grid on the display.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as disclosed by Joshi to include displaying the point of interest on the map as taught by Polidi. Doing so, provides the user with a display map that illustrates the point of interest and this turn facilities the navigation of the vehicle by the user.
Modified Joshi does not disclose,
wherein the displaying of the point of interest includes further displaying on map information on a source social media service for the point of interest or information on a popularity level of the point of interest;
and updating the user-specified route into a new route with the point of interest selected as a destination in response to a user input.
However, Bostick teaches,
wherein the displaying of the point of interest includes further displaying on map information on a source social media service for the point of interest or information on a popularity level of the point of interest (FIG. 3A and ¶[0055] – “…social media data augments map data, providing specific and time-based information from others having first-hand knowledge of a particular route being traversed, and conditions affecting the particular route… the conflicting information may be indicated and presented for a judgment decision by the user.”);
and updating the user-specified route into a new route with the point of interest selected as a destination in response to a user input (¶[0056] – “…virtual overlay program 400 receives Internet-based social media content from a hiking blog,… a person having experience in hiking the same path. Virtual overlay program 400 parses the received blog content,…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as disclosed by modified Joshi to include displaying the point of interest on map information from social media service and then updating the user-specified route to a new route in response to a user input as taught by Bostick. Doing so, provides the user with enhanced information and a new updated route so as to allow the user to select a safe route.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Joshi teaches, wherein the data regarding the user profile includes a data input by a user of the user profile and a data set by the computing device (¶[0077] – “In step 607, the point of interest platform 109 causes a validation or a storage of the point of interest information based, at least in part, on a user input received prior to the expiration time….”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, modified Joshi teaches, wherein the operation of acquiring the data includes an operation of identifying a passenger riding inside a mobility device equipped with the navigation system (¶[0065] – “ In addition, the map developer can employ field personnel to travel by vehicle along roads throughout the geographic region to observe features and/or record information about them, for example.), and wherein the data regarding the user profile further includes data regarding a relationship between the passenger and a user of the user profile(¶[0067] – “…a customer of the map developer, such as a navigation device developer or other end user device developer,…”).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, modified Joshi further teaches a profile item ([¶[0045] – “…the services 115 provide representations of each user (e.g., a profile), his/her social links,…”) and data but does not teach, wherein the operation of acquiring the data includes an operation of acquiring data regarding a profile item selected by a user of the user profile among a plurality of profile items included in a social media search filter.
However, Polidi teaches, wherein the operation of acquiring the data includes an operation of acquiring data regarding a profile item selected by a user of the user profile among a plurality of profile items included in a social media search filter (FIG. 5A-C and [0027] – “…a "POI Category" GUI screen 500 is presented in user interface 502 in response to appropriate user manipulation of selected ones of keys 506-518. GUI 500 permits selection of a filtering mechanism to control the categories and names of displayed POI's. In FIG. 5A, the upper window 520 designates the category or name selected by the user in previously presented GUI screens. The selected category appears in highlighted section 521 which is scrollable in window 522.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as disclosed by modified Joshi to include a user’s plurality of profile items included in a social media search filter as taught by Polidi. Doing so, provides the user with a social media search filter (i.e. a pop-up window) that contains the user’s plurality of profile items.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, modified Joshi further teaches, wherein the searching for the point of interest includes searching for the point of interest from a social media service server (FIG. 12 , #1284 – “Internet Service Provider”) operated by an external business operator different (FIG. 12 and ¶[0099] – “…to equipment 1284 operated by an Internet Service Provider (ISP)…”) from a service provider providing a navigation service (Claim 42 – navigation application) for the computing device/navigation system (¶[0100] – “…a server host 1292 connected to the Internet hosts a process that provides a service in response to information received over the Internet. For example, server host 1292 hosts a process that provides information…”).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, modified Joshi further teaches, wherein the operation of searching for the point of interest from the social media service server includes an operation of searching for the point of interest in real time from the social media service server (FIG. 13 and ¶[0105] – “…to perform certain processing functions and tasks such as one or more digital signal processors (DSP) 1307, or one or more application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC) 1309. A DSP 1307 typically is configured to process real-world signals (e.g., sound) in real time independently of the processor 1303…”).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Joshi further teaches, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising a set of instructions stored thereon, that when executed by a processor, the set of instructions perform a method comprising (¶[0097] – “…term “computer-readable medium” as used herein refers to any medium that participates in providing information to processor 1202, including instructions for execution. Such a medium may take many forms, including, but not limited to computer-readable storage medium (e.g., non-volatile media, volatile media), and transmission media. Non-transitory media…”):
The remaining limitations are cited in the above citation of claims 1 and 11.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al., US 20150223201 A1 (herein, Joshi) in view of Polidi et al., US 20020138196 A1 (herein, Polidi), in view of Omer et al., US 20110137741 A1 (herein, Omer), and in further view of Bostick et al., US 20160284125 A1 (herein, Bostick).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, modified Joshi teaches data, user profile and passenger but does not disclose, wherein the data regarding the user profile further includes a data regarding an age range of the passenger when the passenger is a child of the user.
However, Omer teaches, wherein the data regarding the user profile further includes a data regarding an age range of the passenger when the passenger is a child of the user (Claim 16 – “…user profile data specifying a profile of a user associated with the path, the user profile data specifying a child of the user and age of the child,…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as disclosed by modified Joshi to include data pertaining to the age range of the child as taught by Omer. Doing so, provides additional information to the user of the system thereby allowing the user to point out to a child and appropriate point of interest based on the child’s age.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al., US 20150223201 A1 (herein, Joshi) in view of Polidi et al., US 20020138196 A1 (herein, Polidi), Duksta et al., US 10725139 B1 (herein, Duksta), and in further view of Bostick et al., US 20160284125 A1 (herein, Bostick).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, modified Joshi teaches point of interest, real time, user-specified route, and user profile but does not disclose, wherein the operation of searching for the point of interest in real time includes:
an operation of searching for a first point of interest, which is located on the user-specified route at a first time zone and is the point of interest of the group corresponding to the user profile; and
an operation of searching for a second point of interest, which is located on the user-specified route at a second time zone and is the point of interest of the group corresponding to the user profile, wherein the first time zone is different from the second time zone, and wherein the first point of interest is different from the second point of interest.
However, Duksta teaches, wherein the operation of searching for the point of interest in real time includes:
an operation of searching for a first point of interest, which is located on the user-specified route at a first time zone and is the point of interest of the group corresponding to the user profile (FIG. 1B and Claim 22 – “A navigation method comprising: identifying a region located between a first point of interest and a second point of interest; depositing a plurality of navigation beacons in or around at least a portion of the region; causing a first aerial vehicle to travel between the first point of interest and the second point of interest over at least the portion of the region; transmitting; by the first aerial vehicle; at least a first position signal at a first time; wherein the first position signal comprises a latitude; a longitude and an altitude of the first aerial vehicle at the first time; receiving; by at least a first navigation beacon; the first position signal; determining; by the first navigation beacon; a position of the first navigation beacon based at least in part on the first position signal; wherein the position comprises a latitude and a longitude of the first navigation beacon; causing a second aerial vehicle to travel between the first point of interest and the second point of interest over at least the portion of the region; and transmitting; by the first navigation beacon; a second position signal at a second time; wherein the second position signal comprises the latitude and the longitude of the first navigation beacon; and wherein the second time follows the first time.”); and
an operation of searching for a second point of interest, which is located on the user-specified route at a second time zone and is the point of interest of the group corresponding to the user profile, wherein the first time zone is different from the second time zone, and wherein the first point of interest is different from the second point of interest (FIG. 1B and Claim 23 – “The navigation method of claim 22; further comprising: receiving; by at least a second navigation beacon; the second position signal; determining; by the second navigation beacon; a position of the second navigation beacon based at least in part on the second position signal; wherein the position comprises a second latitude and a second longitude of the second navigation beacon; causing a third aerial vehicle to travel between the first point of interest and the second point of interest; wherein the third aerial vehicle is caused to travel over at least the portion of the region; and transmitting; by the second navigation beacon; a third position signal at a third time; wherein the third position signal comprises the latitude and the longitude of the second navigation beacon; and wherein the third time follows the second time.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as disclosed by modified Joshi to include as first and second point of interest corresponding to the first and second time zone as taught by Duksta. Doing so, provides additional information to the user of the system thereby allowing the user to point out to a child and appropriate point of interest based on the child’s age.
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 LUIS G DEL VALLE whose telephone number is (303)297-4313. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0730 - 1630 MST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/LUIS G DEL VALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights