DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Non-Final filed on 3/5/3035, and Claim Amendments filed 10/10/2025.
Claims 22-43 have been added.
Claims 1-21 have been canceled.
Claims 22-43 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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 22-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Claim 41 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 22, 23, and 43 recite a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. Claim 22 recites receiving a particular electronic order that is designated as a conditional order; processing the particular electronic order using that algorithmically matches incoming electronic orders to other electronic orders and generates matched trades, including: rules for algorithmically matching electronic orders that are not designated as conditional orders, rules for algorithmically matching electronic orders that are designated as conditional orders, the rules that are associated with electronic orders that are designated as conditional orders being different than the rules that are associated with electronic orders that are not designated as conditional orders, the rules for algorithmically matching electronic orders that are designated as conditional orders including (i) rules for algorithmically matching electronic orders after determining that a submitter associated with a conditional order has responded to an invitation to firm up the conditional order, and (ii) rules for algorithmically matching electronic orders after determining that logged data associated with a submitter associated with the conditional order reflects a history of the submitter completing conditional orders, wherein processing the rules for algorithmically matching electronic orders after determining that logged data associated with a submitter associated with the conditional order reflects a history of the submitter completing conditional orders uses fewer computing resources than processing the rules for algorithmically matching electronic orders after determining that a submitter associated with a conditional order has responded to an invitation to firm up the conditional order, and the processing comprising: monitoring, based on the rules for algorithmically matching electronic orders that are designated as conditional orders, other incoming electronic orders until a potential match is identified for the particular electronic order, determining that logged data associated with a submitter of the particular electronic order reflects a history of completing conditional orders, converting the particular electronic order to a firm order without transmitting an invitation, generating a matched trade that includes the firm order, and updating the logged data associated with the submitter of the particular electronic order to indicate that the submitter completed an exchange of an additional conditional order; and initiating clearance of the matched trade. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice. More specifically, under fundamental economic practice, the claims involve mitigating risk. The claims are also commercial interactions (business relations) and managing interactions between people. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an electronic exchange system and a continuous trade matching system. The additional elements of an electronic exchange system and a continuous trade matching system, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (an electronic exchange system and a continuous trade matching system) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 23 recites receiving, order data for trading financial instruments, the order data including both (i) firm orders that are to be filled upon receipt, and (ii) conditional orders that represent firm orders that are to be filled in the future when specified market conditions occur, each firm order represented by a conditional order being filled (i) after the specified market conditions for the conditional order occur, and (ii) after determining that either:(I) a market participant associated with the conditional order has responded to an invitation to firm up the conditional order, or (II) the market participant satisfies one or more criteria associated with automatically firming up the conditional order without transmitting an invitation, wherein (i) determining that the market participant satisfies the one or more criteria associated with automatically firming up the conditional order without transmitting the invitation, and (ii) filling a firm order upon receipt both use fewer computing resources than transmitting an invitation to firm up the conditional order and processing a response to the invitation to firm up the conditional order; generating, matched trades based at least on the order data, comprising: filling one or more firm orders upon receipt, filling one or more firm orders that are represented by one or more respective conditional orders when respective market conditions occur, and after determining that one or more respective market participants associated with the one or more conditional orders have responded to one or more respective invitations to firm up the one or more conditional orders, and filling one or more firm orders that are represented by one or more respective conditional orders when respective market conditions occur, and after determining that the one or more market participants associated with the one or more conditional orders satisfy the one or more criteria associated with automatically firming up the one or more conditional orders without transmitting one or more invitations; and processing, the matched trades. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice. More specifically, under fundamental economic practice, the claims involve mitigating risk. The claims are also commercial interactions (business relations) and managing interactions between people. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer, financial exchange system, and multiple devices. The additional elements of a computer, financial exchange system, and multiple devices, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (a computer, financial exchange system, and multiple devices) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 24 recites The method of claim 23, wherein the financial exchange system is a distributed computer system comprising: an order entry port; an order routing system; an order matching system; and a conditional order engine. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and the additional elements of the financial exchange system, distributed computer system, order entry port, order routing system, order matching system, and conditional order engine, are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 23 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 25 recites wherein the order entry port is configured to receive the order data; wherein the order routing system is configured to route the conditional orders included in the order data according to destinations associated with the conditional orders; and wherein generating matched trades based at least on the order data comprises: determining, by the conditional order engine, that a first conditional order and a second conditional order potentially match based on one or more matching rules; and matching, by the order matching system, a first firm order represented by the first conditional order and a second firm order represented by the second conditional order. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and the additional elements of the order entry port, order routing system, conditional order engine, and order matching system, are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 23 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 26 recites wherein the order entry port is configured to receive the order data from one or more user devices connected to the financial exchange system. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and the additional elements of the financial exchange system, order entry port, and user devices, are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 23 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 27 recites wherein, in response to generating matched trades based at least on the order data, fill information indicating the matched trades is transmitted to the one or more user devices from the financial exchange system. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and the additional elements of the financial exchange system, and user devices, are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 23 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 28 recites wherein the financial exchange system comprises a database that maintains market participant information indicative of whether market participants satisfy the one or more criteria associated with automatically firming up the one or more conditional orders. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and the additional elements of the financial exchange system, and database are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 23 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 29 recites wherein determining that the one or more market participants. associated with the one or more conditional orders satisfy the one or more criteria associated with automatically firming up the one or more conditional orders without transmitting one or more invitations comprises accessing the market participant information maintained in the database. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and the additional elements of the database, are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 23 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 30 recites comprising: executing a trade based on the first firm order and the second firm order. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 31 recites comprising: sending a first report to the first user device and a second report to the second user device, wherein the first report and the second report each include data indicative of a quantity of a financial instrument traded. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and the additional elements of the first user device, and second user device, are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 23 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 32 recites wherein the first conditional order includes a first quantity of a financial instrument, wherein the second conditional order includes a second quantity of the financial instrument, and wherein the quantity of the financial instrument traded is equal to the second quantity. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 33 recites further comprising determining that the first quantity is available to trade. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 34 recites wherein the trade based on the first firm order and the second firm order is executed responsive to determining that the first quantity is available to trade. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 35 recites further comprising determining that the second quantity is available to trade. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 36 recites further comprising generating, based on the executing of the trade, a score indicative of a trading performance of a user of one of the user devices. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and the additional elements of the user devices, are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 23 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 37 recites comprising generating, by the financial exchange system, potential matched trades based at least on the order data, comprising: determining, by the conditional order engine, that a first conditional order and a second conditional order potentially match based on one or more matching rules, wherein the first conditional order includes a first quantity of a financial instrument and wherein the second conditional order includes a second quantity of the financial instrument; matching, by the order matching system, a first firm order represented by the first conditional order and a second firm order represented by the second conditional order; and determining that the first quantity is not available to trade. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and the additional elements of the financial exchange system, conditional order engine, order matching system, are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 23 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 38 recites further comprising canceling the first firm order and the second firm order. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 39 recites further comprising sending a report to a first user device connected to the financial exchange system including data indicative of the cancelation of the first firm order and a report to a second user device connected to the financial exchange system including data indicative of the cancelation of the second firm order. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and the first user device, financial exchange system, and second user device, are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 23 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 40 recites further comprising generating, based on the determining that the first quantity is not available to trade, a score indicative of a trading performance of a user of the first user device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and the additional elements of the first user device, are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 23 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 41 recites receiving, order data for trading financial instruments, the order data including both (i) firm orders that are to be filled upon receipt, and (ii) conditional orders that represent firm orders that are to be filled in the future when specified market conditions occur, each firm order represented by a conditional order being filled (i) after the specified market conditions for the conditional order occur, and (ii) after determining that either:(I) a market participant associated with the conditional order has responded to an invitation to firm up the conditional order, or (II) the market participant satisfies one or more criteria associated with automatically firming up the conditional order without transmitting an invitation, wherein (i) determining that the market participant satisfies the one or more criteria associated with automatically firming up the conditional order without transmitting the invitation, and (ii) filling a firm order upon receipt both use fewer computing resources than transmitting an invitation to firm up the conditional order and processing a response to the invitation to firm up the conditional order; generating matched trades based at least on the order data, comprising: filling one or more firm orders upon receipt, filling one or more firm orders that are represented by one or more respective conditional orders when respective market conditions occur, and after determining that one or more respective market participants associated with the one or more conditional orders have responded to one or more respective invitations to firm up the one or more conditional orders, and filling one or more firm orders that are represented by one or more respective conditional orders when respective market conditions occur, and after determining that the one or more market participants associated with the one or more conditional orders satisfy the one or more criteria associated with automatically firming up the one or more conditional orders without transmitting one or more invitations; and processing the matched trades. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice. More specifically, under fundamental economic practice, the claims involve mitigating risk. The claims are also commercial interactions (business relations) and managing interactions between people. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer, computer processors, financial exchange system, non-transitory computer readable medium, and multiple devices. The additional elements of a computer, computer processors, financial exchange system, non-transitory computer readable medium, and multiple devices, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (a computer, computer processors, financial exchange system, non-transitory computer readable medium, and multiple devices) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 42 recites receiving a particular electronic order that is designated as a conditional order; processing the particular electronic order that algorithmically matches incoming electronic orders to other electronic orders and generates matched trades, including: rules for algorithmically matching electronic orders that are not designated as conditional orders, rules for algorithmically matching electronic orders that are designated as conditional orders, the rules that are associated with electronic orders that are designated as conditional orders being different than the rules that are associated with electronic orders that are not designated as conditional orders, the rules for algorithmically matching electronic orders that are designated as conditional orders including (i) rules for algorithmically matching electronic orders after determining that a submitter associated with a conditional order has responded to an invitation to firm up the conditional order, and (ii) rules for algorithmically matching electronic orders after determining that logged data associated with a submitter associated with the conditional order reflects a history of the submitter completing conditional orders, wherein processing the rules for algorithmically matching electronic orders after determining that logged data associated with a submitter associated with the conditional order reflects a history of the submitter completing conditional orders uses fewer computing resources than processing the rules for algorithmically matching electronic orders after determining that a submitter associated with a conditional order has responded to an invitation to firm up the conditional order, and the processing comprising: monitoring, based on the rules for algorithmically matching electronic orders that are designated as conditional orders, other incoming electronic orders until a potential match is identified for the particular electronic order, determining an invitation pending time period that is specific to the submitter, determining that the submitter has indicated that the particular electronic order is to be converted to a firm order within the invitation pending time period, converting the particular electronic order to a firm order, generating a matched trade that includes the firm order, and updating the logged data associated with the submitter of the particular electronic order to indicate that the submitter completed an exchange of an additional conditional order; and initiating clearance of the matched trade. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice. More specifically, under fundamental economic practice, the claims involve mitigating risk. The claims are also commercial interactions (business relations) and managing interactions between people. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an electronic exchange system, and continuous trade matching system. The additional elements of an electronic exchange system, and continuous trade matching system, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (an electronic exchange system, and continuous trade matching system) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 43 recites comprising: waiting until the invitation pending time period that is specific to the submitter has elapsed before converting the particular electronic to a firm order. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 42, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 42, supra.
Response to Arguments
It is noted that no arguments are presented to respond to. In response to Applicants remarks, filed 8/5/2025 and 10/10/2025, Examiner would like to remind Applicant that each rejection should be responded to.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693 /BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693