Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on December 09, 2025. Claims 1-36 were pending in the Application. Claims 16, 26, and 36 are amended. No new claims have been added. No new claims have been canceled with claims 1-15 remaining canceled. Claims 16, 26, and 36 are independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claims 16 and 26. Thus, claims 16-36 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully submits that the claims “as currently recited are directed toward statutory subject matter; are not directed toward an abstract idea, as clarified by the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,” (herein referred to as 2019 Revised Guidance); under Prong One: Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception … Applicants claim various operations performed by servers, which cannot be performed as human activity nor are mental processes performed by the human mind, nor are they abstract ideas; under Prong Two: If the Claim Recites A Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether The Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application … Assuming arguendo, that the claims are directed to one of the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated, which Applicants do not concede, Applicants respectfully assert that the recited concepts of the claims are integrated into a practical application such that they are not directed toward an abstract idea; recite elements that improve technical fields related to computer systems; like the conclusion in the 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples of Claim 1 of Example 42, Applicants’ claim, recite a practical application by providing a specific improvement of an allegedly abstract idea which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved systematic determination in a manner similar to claim 1 in Example 42; like claim 1 of Example 42, the claims are not directed to a recited judicial exception as Applicants’ claim at least recite a process that is integrated into a practical application; are eligible because they are integrated into a practical application according to the 2019 Revised Guidance; and are not directed toward an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Guidance.”
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the 2019 PEG subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an ' "inventive concept" ' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20190188790 A1, para 4), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘790 A1, para 4), discloses that the invention relates to determining trades among a base currency and one or more complementary currencies so as to maximize a user’s return on savings and purchasing power, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.)..
Claim 16 provides additional evidence, and recites the method limitations of “receiving, by one or more servers, via a communication network from a point-of-sale computing device including a card reader of a merchant, an electronic pre-authorization request for a transaction being processed by the merchant in association with a user; responsive to receiving the electronic pre-authorization request via the communication network based on the card reader receiving card information for the transaction, evaluating, by the one or more servers, a combined value of a currency pool comprising a fiat currency account of the user and one or more liquidateable assets of the user by at least: analyzing, by the one or more servers, via electronic communication via the communication network of the one or more servers with the one or more computing devices of the one or more exchanges that manage the one or more liquidateable assets, meta-data of each of the one or more liquidateable assets, and determining, based on the analysis of the meta-data, a market value in a base currency of each of the one or more liquidateable assets including: receiving, at a first server of the one or more servers from the point-of-sale computing device, a pre-authorization request; and in response to the pre-authorization request, passing, by the first server, the pre-authorization request to a second server of the one or more servers, the second server performing an analysis of the meta-data and, based on the analysis, pre-authorize the transaction and perform operations including: computing, by the one or more servers, one or more scores of the one or more liquidateable assets based on a regression of data points for the one or more liquidateable assets; determining, by the one or more servers, a currency path defining a sequence of multiple operations for the one or more liquidateable assets based on the one or more scores; and selecting, by the one or more servers, the exchange from among the one or more exchanges based on the currency path; determining, by the one or more servers, based on a balance of the fiat currency account and the market value in the base currency of each of the one or more liquidateable assets, that the currency pool contains sufficient funds to cover the transaction; transmitting, by the one or more servers, via the communication network, an authorization request to the point-of-sale computing device of the merchant authorizing the electronic pre-authorization request for the transaction; based on the card reader receiving card information and during a transaction settlement period, communicating, by the one or more servers, with a computing device of the exchange to exchange at least one of the one or more liquidateable assets associated with the exchange into an exchanged amount of the base currency; electronically settling, by the one or more servers, the transaction with the merchant utilizing the exchanged amount of the base currency and the balance of the fiat currency account; and providing, by the one or more servers, a report for display describing the transaction”, where the italicized claim language represents the abstract idea of “settling a transaction from a currency pool”, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “communication from among one or more computing devices of one or more exchanges”, “one or more servers, via a communication network from a point-of-sale computing device including a card reader of a merchant”, “electronic pre-authorization request”, “electronic pre-authorization request via the communication network based on the card reader”, “by the one or more servers, via electronic communication via the communication network of the one or more servers with the one or more computing devices of the one or more exchanges”, “a first server of the one or more servers from the point-of-sale computing device”, “a second server of the one or more servers, the second server performing”, “communicating, by the one or more servers, with a computing device of the exchange”, “electronically settling, by the one or more servers”, and “providing, by the one or more servers, a report for display describing the transaction”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “settling a transaction from a currency pool”.
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea of “settling a transaction from a currency pool”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “settling a transaction from a currency pool.” The claims are not directed to improving computer functionality nor improving another technology or technical field, but improving the method for “settling a transaction from a currency pool”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea “settling a transaction from a currency pool”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a settling a transaction from a currency pool concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 26 also recites the abstract idea of “settling a transaction from a currency pool”, as well as the additional elements of “a system”, “one or more computer processors”, “a network interface that sends and receives data via a communication network”, “a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations comprising …”, “the communication network from a point-of-sale computing device”, “a card reader of a merchant”, “electronic pre-authorization request via the communication network based on the card reader”, “electronic communication via the communication network of the one or more computer processors with one or more computing devices”, “a first server of the one or more servers from the point-of-sale computing device”, “a second server, the second server of the one or more servers performing”, “transmitting via the communication network, an authorization request to the point-of-sale computing device of the merchant”, “communicating with a computing device of the exchange”, and “electronically settling the transaction”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “settling a transaction from a currency pool”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 II.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “settling a transaction from a currency pool” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more computer processors” and “a non-transitory memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 26 is non-statutory.
Claim 36 also recites the abstract idea of “settling a transaction from a currency pool”, as well as the additional elements of “a system”, “one or more processors of one or more servers”, “a non-transitory computer memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising …”, “a communication network from a client device including a card reader of a merchant”, “electronic pre-authorization request via the communication network based on the card reader”, “electronic communication via the communication network of the one or more servers with one or more computing devices of one or more exchanges”, “a first server of the one or more servers from the client device of the merchant”, “a second server, the second server performing of the one or more servers”, “the first server including a first processor of the one or more processors and the second server including a second processor of the one or more processors, the operations including …”, “transmitting via the communication network, an authorization request to the client device of the merchant”, “communicating with a computing device of the exchange”, and “electronically settling the transaction”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “settling a transaction from a currency pool”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 II.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “settling a transaction from a currency pool” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more processors of one or more servers” and “a non-transitory computer memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 36 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner reiterates the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the 2019 PEG subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “perform operations to be performed”, the “to be performed” is redundant and the language was canceled in claim 36, so perhaps it was intended to be canceled here as well. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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-AIA ), 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.
Claims 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second server performing analysis … and perform operations including computing, by the one or more servers" in lines 8-12 on page 4 (of 25) of the amendments. The antecedent basis of this “the one or mor servers” is unclear. It is unclear how the second sever is performing this “operation” yet the “computing” by the “one or more servers”. This problem repeats itself in the “determining” and “selecting” steps. For the purpose of compact prosecution, these steps are being interpreted as being performed by the second server.
Dependent claims 17-24 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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 16-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 16-25 are directed to a “method;” claims 26-35 are directed to “a system;” and claim 36 is directed to “a system.” Therefore, claims 16-36 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 16 recites “settling a transaction from a currency pool” which is a form of commercial or legal interactions (i.e., organizing human activity), and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “receiving, by one or more servers, via a communication network from a point-of-sale computing device including a card reader of a merchant, an electronic pre-authorization request for a transaction being processed by the merchant in association with a user; responsive to receiving the electronic pre-authorization request via the communication network based on the card reader receiving card information for the transaction, evaluating, by the one or more servers, a combined value of a currency pool comprising a fiat currency account of the user and one or more liquidateable assets of the user by at least: analyzing, by the one or more servers, via electronic communication via the communication network of the one or more servers with the one or more computing devices of the one or more exchanges that manage the one or more liquidateable assets, meta-data of each of the one or more liquidateable assets, and determining, based on the analysis of the meta-data, a market value in a base currency of each of the one or more liquidateable assets including: receiving, at a first server of the one or more servers from the point-of-sale computing device, a pre-authorization request; and in response to the pre-authorization request, passing, by the first server, the pre-authorization request to a second server of the one or more servers, the second server performing an analysis of the meta-data and, based on the analysis, pre-authorize the transaction and perform operations including: computing, by the one or more servers, one or more scores of the one or more liquidateable assets based on a regression of data points for the one or more liquidateable assets; determining, by the one or more servers, a currency path defining a sequence of multiple operations for the one or more liquidateable assets based on the one or more scores; and selecting, by the one or more servers, the exchange from among the one or more exchanges based on the currency path; determining, by the one or more servers, based on a balance of the fiat currency account and the market value in the base currency of each of the one or more liquidateable assets, that the currency pool contains sufficient funds to cover the transaction; transmitting, by the one or more servers, via the communication network, an authorization request to the point-of-sale computing device of the merchant authorizing the electronic pre-authorization request for the transaction; based on the card reader receiving card information and during a transaction settlement period, communicating, by the one or more servers, with a computing device of the exchange to exchange at least one of the one or more liquidateable assets associated with the exchange into an exchanged amount of the base currency; electronically settling, by the one or more servers, the transaction with the merchant utilizing the exchanged amount of the base currency and the balance of the fiat currency account; and providing, by the one or more servers, a report for display describing the transaction”. The abstract idea, “settling a transaction from a currency pool”, is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP § 2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “communication from among one or more computing devices of one or more exchanges”, “one or more servers, via a communication network from a point-of-sale computing device including a card reader of a merchant”, “electronic pre-authorization request”, “electronic pre-authorization request via the communication network based on the card reader”, “by the one or more servers, via electronic communication via the communication network of the one or more servers with the one or more computing devices of the one or more exchanges”, “a first server of the one or more servers from the point-of-sale computing device”, “a second server of the one or more servers, the second server performing”, “communicating, by the one or more servers, with a computing device of the exchange”, “electronically settling, by the one or more servers”, and “providing, by the one or more servers, a report for display describing the transaction”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “settling a transaction from a currency pool”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 II.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “settling a transaction from a currency pool” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more computer processors” and “a non-transitory memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 16 is non-statutory.
Claim 26 also recites the abstract idea of “settling a transaction from a currency pool”, as well as the additional elements of “a system”, “one or more computer processors”, “a network interface that sends and receives data via a communication network”, “a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations comprising …”, “the communication network from a point-of-sale computing device”, “a card reader of a merchant”, “electronic pre-authorization request via the communication network based on the card reader”, “electronic communication via the communication network of the one or more computer processors with one or more computing devices”, “a first server of the one or more servers from the point-of-sale computing device”, “a second server, the second server of the one or more servers performing”, “transmitting via the communication network, an authorization request to the point-of-sale computing device of the merchant”, “communicating with a computing device of the exchange”, and “electronically settling the transaction”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “settling a transaction from a currency pool”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 II.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “settling a transaction from a currency pool” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more computer processors” and “a non-transitory memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 26 is non-statutory.
Claim 36 also recites the abstract idea of “settling a transaction from a currency pool”, as well as the additional elements of “a system”, “one or more processors of one or more servers”, “a non-transitory computer memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising …”, “a communication network from a client device including a card reader of a merchant”, “electronic pre-authorization request via the communication network based on the card reader”, “electronic communication via the communication network of the one or more servers with one or more computing devices of one or more exchanges”, “a first server of the one or more servers from the client device of the merchant”, “a second server, the second server performing of the one or more servers”, “the first server including a first processor of the one or more processors and the second server including a second processor of the one or more processors, the operations including …”, “transmitting via the communication network, an authorization request to the client device of the merchant”, “communicating with a computing device of the exchange”, and “electronically settling the transaction”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “settling a transaction from a currency pool”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 II.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “settling a transaction from a currency pool” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more processors of one or more servers” and “a non-transitory computer memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 36 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 17-25 and 27-35 further describe the abstract idea of “settling a transaction from a currency pool”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 16, 26, and 36.
Dependent claims 18, 20-23, 28,and 30-33, do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “settling a transaction from a currency pool”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Dependent claims 17 and 27 recite new additional elements of “a cryptocurrency exchange”, “a precious metal exchange”, “a stock exchange”, and “a foreign currency”, which do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claims 19 and 29 recite a new additional element of “an electronic deposit”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claims 24 and 34 recite a new additional element of “an electronic debit card or credit card”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claims 25 and 35 recite new additional elements of “a first-party exchange”, and “a third-party exchange”, which do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Therefore, claims 16-36 are non-statutory, and not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kring (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20130311357 A1) – Methods For Facilitating Online Transactions Involving A Plurality Of Unique Currencies
Kring recites methods for allowing a user to optimize online purchases of goods or services by providing real-time exchange data between a plurality of relevant currencies. Users may opt to put off a purchase or payment of a purchase based on currency exchange trajectories as presented at the time of "check out" from an Internet purchase.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, EST.
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, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (571) 270-3602. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/STEVEN R CHISM/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692