UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.o. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`15/457,816
`
`0311312017
`
`Isaac Levanon
`
`AP026CON5
`
`3049
`
`7590
`137611
`Bradium Technologies LLC
`75 Montebello Road
`Suffern, NY 10901
`
`10104/2017
`
`EXAMINER
`
`LAZARO, DAVID R
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`2455
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`10/04/2017
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2052
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 1 of 43
`
`

`

`Application No.
`15/457,816
`
`Applicant(s)
`LEVANON ET AL.
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`AlA (First Inventor to File)
`Status
`No
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address -(cid:173)
`Period for Reply
`
`Examiner
`DAVID LAZARO
`
`Art Unit
`2455
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE;2 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, maya reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`1)~ Responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/13/17.
`o A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on __ .
`2a)0 This action is FINAL.
`2b)0 This action is non-final.
`3)0 An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`__ ; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)0 Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quay/e, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)~ Claim(s) 25-80 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s) __ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6)0 Claim(s) __ is/are allowed.
`7)~ Claim(s) 25-80 is/are rejected.
`8)0 Claim(s) __ is/are objected to.
`9)0 Claim(s) __ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://vvww.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pphiindex.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback(wuspto.oov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)0 The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)~ The drawing(s) filed on 3/13/17 is/are: a)~ accepted or b)O objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)0 Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`a)O All b)O Some** c)O None of the:
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`1.0
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. __ .
`2.0
`Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`3.0
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment{s)
`1) ~ Notice of References Cited (PTO·892)
`
`2) ~ Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date See Continuation Sheet.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`3) 0 Interview Summary (PTO·413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date. __ .
`4) 0 Other: __ .
`
`Part of Paper No.lMail Date 20170929A
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2052
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 2 of 43
`
`

`

`Continuation Sheet (PTOL-326)
`
`Application No. 15/457,816
`
`Continuation of Attachment(s) 2). Information Disclosure 8tatement(s) (PTO/88/08), Paper No(s)/Mail Date :5/5/17, 8/17/17, 9/19/17,
`9/19/17,9/20/17.
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2052
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 3 of 43
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/457,816
`Art Unit: 2455
`
`Page 2
`
`1.
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AlA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 25-80 are pending in this office action.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`3.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
`
`(a) IN GENERAL.-The specification shall contain a written description of the
`invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise,
`and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it
`is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode
`contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the
`manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
`enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
`connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the
`inventor of carrying out his invention.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 25-80 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), first
`
`paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The
`
`claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a
`
`way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint
`
`inventor, or for pre-AlA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had
`
`possession of the claimed invention.
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2052
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 4 of 43
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/457,816
`Art Unit: 2455
`
`Page 3
`
`5.
`
`Claim 25 and each other independent disclose in part:
`
`a.
`
`"the wireless mobile device stores the first image parcel and the second
`
`image parcel received by the wireless mobile device in a local store of the
`
`wireless mobile device"
`
`b.
`
`"the local store configured as an embedded server to provide access to at
`
`least some image parcels received by the wireless mobile device, the at least
`
`some image parcels comprising the first image parcel and the second image
`
`parcel"
`
`This subject matter is not sufficiently described in the specification. Page 8 of the
`
`specification, in relation to the description of Fig. 1, states "Alternately, a dedicated
`
`function client system 20 may be connected through a separate or plug-in local network
`
`server 22, preferably implementing a small, embedded Web server, to a fixed or
`
`removable storage local image repository 24." This description of the embedded server
`
`notably indicates it is a "local network server". This is further supported in the depiction
`
`of Fig. 1 showing item 22 as being distinct from the client system 20. There is no further
`
`description of an embedded server in the specification.
`
`Fig. 3 and Page 11 of the specification indicates the client system may have a
`
`"local parcel data store 46". The specification does not indicate this local parcel data
`
`store being configured as an embedded server. Particularly, the specification does not
`
`state at any point that this local data store of the client is configured as an embedded
`
`server to provide access to image parcels to the client. There is no suggestion that the
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2052
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 5 of 43
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/457,816
`Art Unit: 2455
`
`Page 4
`
`client system is making requests for image data to an embedded process on the client
`
`system.
`
`For these reason, this subject matter is not described in the specification in such
`
`a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a
`
`joint inventor, or for pre-AlA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had
`
`possession of the claimed invention.
`
`6.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`(b) CONCLUSION.-The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly
`pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor
`regards as the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph:
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 25-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C.112 (pre-AlA),
`
`second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
`
`distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for
`
`pre-AlA the applicant regards as the invention.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 25 and each independent claim make reference to a local data store of
`
`the wireless device with the local data store being configured as an embedded server.
`
`As indicated in the 112(a) rejection above, the specification makes a distinction between
`
`an embedded server that is a local network server and a local parcel data store that is
`
`part of the client system. It is unclear in the independent claims as to which
`
`embodiment applicant intends to claim, a local network server or a data store of the
`
`device. This applies to each dependent claim.
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2052
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 6 of 43
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/457,816
`Art Unit: 2455
`
`Page 5
`
`9.
`
`For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the claimed "local
`
`store" as being the described "local parcel data store" of the specification.
`
`10.
`
`Claim 28 recites the limitation "number of parallel requests" in line 1. There is
`
`insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 42, 56 and 70 are
`
`similarly deficient.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`11.
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AlA 35 U.S.C.
`
`102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
`
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country
`or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application
`for patent in the United States.
`
`12. Claim(s) 25-30, 32-34, 37-44, 46-48, 51-58, 60-62, 65-72, 74-76, and 79-80
`
`is/are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`"TerraVision II: Visualizing Massive Terrain Databases in VRML" by Reddy et al.
`
`(Reddy).
`
`13.
`
`Examiner's Note: This rejection based on Reddy is made with reference to the
`
`various Petitions for Inter Partes Review in the related issued Patents. Consideration of
`
`and response to this rejection should be made in light of the support and evidence
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2052
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 7 of 43
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/457,816
`Art Unit: 2455
`
`Page 6
`
`provided in each of these Petitions. Based on the broader scope of the instant claims,
`
`the Hornbacker reference was not deemed necessary for the rejection.
`
`14. With respect to claim 25, Reddy teaches a method of communicating images
`
`for display, the method comprising steps of: providing client software to a wireless
`
`mobile device (Reddy Paragraph 48 laptop);
`
`processing data of a source image to obtain a series (Ko K1-n) of related images
`
`of progressively lower detail level, wherein each related image of the series (k k1-n)
`
`comprises image data and is subdivided into a regular array of non-overlapping image
`
`parcels, each image parcel of each regular array of the image parcels forming a discrete
`
`portion of the source image, the step of processing the data of the source image being
`
`performed by one or more servers (Paragraph 52, 12-16, Fig. 1);
`
`receiving a first request at the one or more servers from the wireless mobile
`
`device over a network communication channel, the first request being for a first image
`
`parcel of the series, wherein the first image parcel is selected based on a first user-
`
`controlled viewing frustum on the wireless mobile device relative to the source image in
`
`a three dimensional space (Reddy Paragraph 2-3,13-17,21,38,42 Fig. 1b, 5);
`
`sending the first image parcel from the one or more servers to the wireless
`
`mobile device over the network communication channel, in response to the first request
`
`(Paragraph 19,21,22,26,52);
`
`receiving a second request at the one or more servers from the wireless mobile
`
`device over the network communication channel, the second request being tor a second
`
`image parcel of the series, wherein the second image parcel is selected based on the
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2052
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 8 of 43
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/457,816
`Art Unit: 2455
`
`Page 7
`
`first user-controlled viewing frustum, the step of receiving the second request being
`
`performed after the step of receiving the first request (Paragraph 3, 36-38); and
`
`sending the second image parcel from the one or more servers to the wireless
`
`mobile device over the network communication channel, in response to the second
`
`request (Paragraph 19,21,22,26,52);
`
`wherein:
`
`the wireless mobile device renders at least a portion of the first image parcel
`
`before finishing receiving the second image parcel (Fig. 1,3, paragraph 19-21,44);
`
`the wireless mobile device stores the first image parcel and the second image
`
`parcel received by the wireless mobile device in a local store of the wireless mobile
`
`device (Paragraph 14, 16);
`
`the first user-controlled viewing frustum is determined based on navigational
`
`input of the wireless mobile device (Paragraph 3, 34-38);
`
`the local store configured as an embedded server to provide access to at least
`
`some image parcels received by the wireless mobile device, the at least some image
`
`parcels comprising the first image parcel and the second image parcel (Paragraph 19-
`
`21,44 - based on the 112 rejections, the examiner interprets the local store as being
`
`the local parcel data store of the spec. the local data storage of Reddy provides access
`
`to the image data just as the local parcel data store of the spec ); and
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2052
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 9 of 43
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/457,816
`Art Unit: 2455
`
`Page 8
`
`image parcels are selectively removed from the local store to free memory for
`
`newly requested parcels (Paragraph 12-17, multiresolution terrain techniques will
`
`determine what data is kept for the current viewpoint and/or other criteria).
`
`15. With respect to claim 26, Reddy teaches the method of claim 25 wherein the
`
`wireless mobile device issues the first request and the second request according to a
`
`priority order that is determined according to priority values assigned to requests for
`
`image parcels; and priority of the second request in the priority order is not higher than
`
`priority of the first request in the priority order (Paragraph 12-17 VRML Priority based
`
`on user viewpoint)
`
`16. With respect to claim 27, Reddy teaches the method of claim 25, wherein the
`
`navigation input comprises three-dimensional positional coordinate data and rotational
`
`positional data (Paragraph 27, 34-39)
`
`17. With respect to claim 28, Reddy teaches the method of claim 25, wherein
`
`number of parallel requests by the wireless mobile device for image parcels of the
`
`series is determined based at least in part on network response latency and available
`
`system resources, thereby enabling efficient use of network bandwidth in conditions of
`
`network latency (Paragraph 44-48)
`
`18. With respect to claim 29, Reddy teaches the method of claim 25, further
`
`comprising sending overlay data by the one or more servers to the wireless mobile
`
`device over the network communication channel (Paragraph 22-26)
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2052
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 10 of 43
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/457,816
`Art Unit: 2455
`
`Page 9
`
`19. With respect to claim 30, Reddy teaches the method of claim 29, wherein the
`
`overlay data comprises text annotations relating to at least one item selected from the
`
`group consisting of; one or more street names, one or more building names, and one or
`
`more landmarks (Paragraph 22-26)
`
`20. With respect to claim 32, Reddy teaches the method of claim 30, wherein the
`
`overlay data are in a proprietary binary representation (Paragraph 22-26).
`
`21. With respect to claim 33, Reddy teaches the method of claim 25 wherein the
`
`wireless mobile device issues the first request and the second request according to a
`
`priority order based at least in part on viewable area corresponding to the first user-
`
`controlled viewing frustum. (Paragraph 13-17 VRML Priority based on user viewpoint)
`
`22. With respect to claim 34, Reddy teaches the method of claim 25 wherein the
`
`mobile device issues the first request and the second request according to a priority
`
`order based at least in part on resolutions of the first image parcel and the second
`
`image parcel (Paragraph 3, 13-17)
`
`23. With respect to claim 37, Reddy teaches wherein the wireless mobile device is
`
`configured to preferentially remove from the local store image parcels that are furthest
`
`from current viewing frustum (Paragraph 12-17).
`
`24. With respect to claim 38, Reddy teaches wherein the wireless mobile device is
`
`configured to remove from the local store child image parcels before respective parent
`
`image parcels (Paragraph 12-17).
`
`25.
`
`Claims 39-44, 46-48, 51-52, Claims 53-58,60-62,65-66, and Claims 67-72, 74-
`
`76, 79-80 are similar in scope to claims 25-30, 23-34 and 37-29 respectively.
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2052
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 11 of 43
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/457,816
`Art Unit: 2455
`
`Page 10
`
`Accordingly these claims are rejected based on the same rationale as claims 25-30, 23-
`
`34 and 37-29 as presented above.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`26.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 1 03(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, 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.
`
`27. Claims 31, 45, 59 and 73 is/are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Applicant's admitted prior art (APA).
`
`28. With respect to claim 31, Reddy does not explicitly teach wherein the overlay
`
`data are in an XML format.
`
`29.
`
`However, Applicant indicates that representing geographic information in XML
`
`based encoding is known through GML, an XML based encoding standard for
`
`geographic information developed by OpenGIS Consortium (See Page 10 of Applicant's
`
`specification) .
`
`30.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to have the overlay data of Reddy represented in an XML format as
`
`taught by APA. Using a known standard for representing geographic information for
`
`providing a predictable result of encoding geographic overlay information of Reddy
`
`would have been obvious.
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2052
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 12 of 43
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/457,816
`Art Unit: 2455
`
`Page 11
`
`31.
`
`Claims 45, 59 and 73 are similar in scope to claim 31 and rejected based on the
`
`same rationale.
`
`32.
`
`Claims 35, 36, 49, 50, 63, 64,77 and 78 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C.
`
`103(a) as being unpatentable over Reddy as applied to claim 25 above, and
`
`further in view of US 7,324,228 by Chiarabini et al. (Chiarabini).
`
`33. With respect to claim 35, Reddy teaches the method of claim 25 but does not
`
`explicitly disclose the first and second requests are sent from the wireless mobile device
`
`using different threads.
`
`34.
`
`Chiarabini teaches the use of parallel download threads where the number of
`
`parallel threads can be adjusted to download image data more efficiently (Col. 3 lines
`
`27-43 and Col. 9 line 46 to Col. 10 line 15)
`
`35.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to have the image downloads of Reddy be multi threaded as taught
`
`by Chiarabini. One would be motivated to have this as it is desirable to improve
`
`download performance.
`
`36.
`
`Claims 36, 49, 50, 63, 64, 77 and 78 are similar in scope to claim 35 and are
`
`rejected based on the same rationale. Chiarabini also uses a thread pool Col. 9 line 46
`
`to Col. 10 line 15.
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2052
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 13 of 43
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/457,816
`Art Unit: 2455
`
`Page 12
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to DAVI D LAZARO whose telephone number is (571 )272-
`
`3986. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:00 M-F.
`
`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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached on 571-272-3865. The fax phone number
`
`for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
`
`/DAVI D LAZARO/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2052
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 14 of 43
`
`

`

`*
`*
`
`Notice of References Cited
`
`Application/Control No.
`
`15/457,816
`
`Examiner
`
`DAVID LAZARO
`
`Applicant(s)/Patent Under
`Reexamination
`LEVANON ET AL.
`
`Art Unit
`
`2455
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`Document Number
`Country Code-Number-Kind Code
`
`Date
`MM-YYYY
`
`Name
`
`CPC Classification
`
`US Classification
`
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`01-2008
`
`Chiarabini; Luca
`
`G06F3/1204
`
`358/1.13
`
`A US-7,324,228 B2
`B US-
`C US-
`D US-
`E US-
`US-
`
`F
`G US-
`H US-
`US-
`
`I
`
`US-
`
`J
`K US-
`US-
`
`L
`M US-
`
`*
`
`Document Number
`Country Code-Number-Kind Code
`
`Date
`MM-YYYY
`
`Country
`
`Name
`
`CPC Classification
`
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)
`
`*
`
`N
`
`0
`
`P
`
`Q
`
`R
`
`S
`
`T
`
`U
`
`V
`
`W
`
`X
`
`*A copy of this reference IS not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
`Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001)
`
`Notice of References Cited
`
`Part of Paper No. 20170929A
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2052
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 15 of 43
`
`

`

`Receipt date: 09/19/2017
`
`15/457,816 - GAU: 2455
`
`PTOfSB/08a (03-15)
`Doc code: IDS
`Approved for use through 07/3112016. OMB 0651-0031
`Doc description: Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it contains a valid OMB control number.
`
`Application Number
`
`~5457816
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE
`STATEMENT BY APPLICANT
`( Not for submission under 37 CFR 1.99)
`
`Filing Date
`~O17-03-13
`First Named Inventor I Isaac Levanon
`Art Unit
`2455
`I David R Lazaro
`I AP026CON5
`Attorney Docket Number
`
`Examiner Name
`
`1
`
`Examiner Cite
`Initial*
`No
`
`Patent Number
`
`Kind
`Code1 Issue Date
`
`Name of Patentee or Applicant
`of cited Document
`
`Pages,Columns,Lines where
`Relevant Passages or Relevant
`Figures Appear
`
`U.S.PATENTS
`
`I Remove I
`
`1
`
`If you wish to add additional U.S. Patent citation information please click the Add button.
`
`U.S.PATENT APPLICATION PUBLICATIONS
`
`I
`I Add
`I Remove I
`
`Examiner
`Initial*
`
`Cite No
`
`Publication
`Number
`
`Kind Publication
`Code1 Date
`
`Name of Patentee or Applicant
`of cited Document
`
`Pages,Columns,Lines where
`Relevant Passages or Relevant
`Figures Appear
`
`1
`
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`I
`If you wish to add additional U.S. Published Application citation information please click the Add button.1 Add
`I Remove I
`Pages,Columns,Lines
`where Relevant
`Passages or Relevant
`Figures Appear
`
`T5
`
`T5
`
`Examiner Cite Foreign Document
`Initial*
`No Number3
`
`Country
`Code2 j
`
`Kind Publication
`Code4 Date
`
`Name of Patentee or
`Applicant of cited
`Document
`
`1
`
`If you wish to add additional Foreign Patent Document citation information please click the Add button I Add
`I
`I Remove I
`NON-PATENT LITERATURE DOCUMENTS
`Include name of the author (in CAPITAL LETTERS), title of the article (when appropriate), title of the item
`(book, magazine, journal, serial, symposium, catalog, etc), date, pages(s), volume-issue number(s),
`publisher, city and/or country where published.
`
`Examiner Cite
`Initials* No
`
`EFS Web 2.1.17
`
`ALL REFERENCES CONSIDERED EXCEPT WHERE LINED THROUGH. ID.R.L/
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2052
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 16 of 43
`
`

`

`"R~i"';::::.;nt. dati9· 09/19/2017
`
`1.5 / 4.5 7 B 1 6 - GAIl' 24.5.1:
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE
`STATEMENT BY APPLICANT
`( Not for submission under 37 CFR 1.99)
`
`Application Number
`
`15457816
`
`2017-03-13
`Filing Date
`First Named Inventor I Isaac Levanon
`2455
`Art Unit
`I David R Lazaro
`AP026CON5
`Attorney Docket Number
`
`Examiner Name
`
`1
`
`Bing Map Tile System, Bing Maps Articles, available at http://msdn.microsoftcom/en-us/library/bb259689.aspx, all
`pages.
`
`If you wish to add additional non-patent literature document citation information please click the Add button I Add
`EXAMINER SIGNATURE
`
`I
`I Date Considered 1110/01 / 2 017
`
`Examiner Signature II
`
`/DAVID R LAZAROI
`
`"EXAMINER: Initial if reference considered, whether or not citation is in conformance with MPEP 609. Draw line through a
`citation if not in conformance and not considered. Include copy of this form with next communication to applicant.
`
`1 See Kind Codes of USPTO Patent Documents at www.USPTO.GOV or MPEP 901.04. 2 Enter office that issued the document, by the two-letter code (WIPO
`Standard ST.3). 3 For Japanese patent documents, the indication of the year of the reign of the Emperor must precede the serial number of the patent document.
`4 Kind of document by the appropriate symbols as indicated on the document under WIPO Standard ST.16 if possible. 5 Applicant is to place a check mark here i
`English language translation is attached.
`
`EFS Web 2.1.17
`
`ALL REFERENCES CONSIDERED EXCEPT WHERE LINED THROUGH. ID.R.LI
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2052
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 17 of 43
`
`

`

`"R~i"';::::.;nt. dati9· 09/19/2017
`
`1.5 / 4.5 7 B 1 6 - GAIl' 24.5.1:
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE
`STATEMENT BY APPLICANT
`( Not for submission under 37 CFR 1.99)
`
`Application Number
`
`15457816
`
`2017-03-13
`Filing Date
`First Named Inventor I Isaac Levanon
`2455
`Art Unit
`I David R Lazaro
`AP026CON5
`Attorney Docket Number
`
`Examiner Name
`
`CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
`
`Please see 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 to make the appropriate selection(s):
`
`That each item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was first cited in any communication
`from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application not more than three months prior to the filing of the
`information disclosure statement. See 37 CFR 1.97(e)(1).
`
`OR
`
`That no item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was cited in a communication from a
`foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application, and, to the knowledge of the person signing the certification
`after making reasonable inquiry, no item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was known to
`D any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) more than three months prior to the filing of the information disclosure
`statement. See 37 CFR 1.97(e)(2).
`
`See attached certification statement.
`
`The fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (p) has been submitted herewith.
`X A certification statement is not submitted herewith.
`
`SIGNATURE
`A signature of the applicant or representative is required in accordance with CFR 1.33, 10.18. Please see CFR 1.4(d) for the
`form of the signature.
`
`Signature
`
`Name/Print
`
`IAnatoly S. Weiserl
`
`Anatoly S. Weiser
`
`Date (YYYY -MM-DD)
`
`Registration Number
`
`2017-09-19
`~3229
`
`This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the
`public which is to file (and by the USPTO to process) an application. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR
`1.14. This collection is estimated to take 1 hour to complete, including gathering, preparing and submitting the completed
`application form to the USPTO. Time will vary depending upon the individual case. Any comments on the amount of time you
`require to complete this form and/or suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to the Chief Information Officer, U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. DO NOT SEND
`FEES OR COMPLETED FORMS TO THIS ADDRESS. SEND TO: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria,
`VA 22313-1450.
`
`EFS Web 2.1.17
`
`ALL REFERENCES CONSIDERED EXCEPT WHERE LINED THROUGH. ID.R.LI
`
`Bradium Exhibit 2052
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 18 of 43
`
`

`

`Receipt date: 09/19/2017
`
`15/457,816 - GAU: 2455
`
`Privacy Act Statement
`
`The Privacy Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-579) requires that you be given certain information in connection with your submission of the
`attached form related to a patent application or patent. Accordingly, pursuant to the requirements of the Act, please be advised
`that: (1) the general authority for the collection of this information is 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2); (2) furnishing of the information solicited
`is voluntary; and (3) the principal purpose for which the information is use