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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 20, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on February 20, 2026 for the patent application 17/960,951 filed on October 6, 2022. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 14-15, 20, 23, and 26-29 are amended. Claims 6, 10-13, 17-18, 21-22, 24-25 and 30 are cancelled. Claim 31 is new. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 14-16, 19-20, 23, 26-29 and 31 are pending. The first office action of January 23, 2024; the second office action of May 31, 2024; the third office action of November 25, 2024; the fourth office action of March 31, 2025; the fifth office action of August 8, 2025; and the sixth office action of November 21, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this Non-Final Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 14-16, 19-20, 23, 26-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a motion analysis system” (i.e. a machine), claim 15 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), and claim 20 is directed to “a motion analysis system” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “providing a food preparation instruction,” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations, per claim 1:
“capture motion data identifying a movement…;
quantitively and qualitatively compare the motion data to a food preparation movement comprising a predetermined model movement, wherein the predetermined model movement is defined by one of an experimental motion data or simulated motion data attributed to a preparation technique of the food preparation movement; and
initiate a motion instruction for a first step of a recipe in response to a comparison of the motion data to the food preparation movement, wherein the motion instruction comprises a rate instruction identified in response to the quantitative comparison and a technique instruction identified in response to the qualitative comparison of the food preparation movement; and
transmit at least one control signal… to adjust an operational parameter …in response to the comparison of the motion data to the food preparation movement.”
Likewise, per claim 15:
“accessing a recipe in a food preparation application;
capturing motion data… in response to a first step of the recipe;
quantitively and qualitatively comparing the motion data to a food preparation movement defined by a first motion profile for the first step of the recipe, wherein the first motion profile comprises a predetermined model movement, wherein the predetermined model movement is defined by one of an experimental motion data or a simulated motion data attributed to a preparation technique of the food preparation movement; and
outputting a motion instruction…for the first step in response to a comparison of the motion data to the food preparation movement, wherein the motion instruction comprises a rate instruction identified in response to the quantitative comparison and a technique instruction identified in response to the qualitative comparison of the food preparation movement; and
transmit at least one control signal …to adjust an operational parameter …in response to the comparison of the motion data to the food preparation movement.”
Also, per claim 20:
“capture motion data…; and
access a recipe from a food preparation application for a food product;
access a motion profile defining a food preparation movement based on a step of the recipe;
receive an operational setting…;
activate…to the operational setting;
quantitively and qualitatively compare the motion data based on movement of the handheld appliance to the food preparation movement, wherein the food preparation movement defined by a first motion profile that comprises a predetermined model movement, wherein the predetermined model movement is defined by one of an experimental motion data or a simulated motion data attributed to a preparation technique of the food preparation movement; and
initiate a motion instruction for the step of the recipe in response to the comparison of the motion data to the food preparation movement; and
transmit at least one control signal …to adjust an operational parameter …in response to the comparison of the motion data to the food preparation movement.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “at least one motion detection device,” “wherein the motion detection device comprises at least one of a linear acceleration sensor and an angular rate sensor,” “a controller,” “at least one motion detection device comprising one or more inertial measurement devices,” “a kinematic sensor,” and “a food preparation appliance comprising a heating element,” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “providing a food preparation instruction,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “at least one motion detection device,” “wherein the motion detection device comprises at least one of a linear acceleration sensor and an angular rate sensor,” “a controller,” “at least one motion detection device comprising one or more inertial measurement devices,” “a kinematic sensor,” and “a food preparation appliance comprising a heating element,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Moreover, the elements of “at least one motion detection device” (reasonably interpreted as “monitoring device 12”), “a controller,” and “one or more inertial measurement devices” (reasonably interpreted as “IMU 22a”), are described in para. [0040], as follows:
“[0040] Referring to FIG. 2, exemplary control structures for the monitoring system 10 are discussed in further detail. As discussed in various examples, a controller 50 of the system 10 may be implemented in one or more devices associated with the monitoring system 10. For example, the controller 50 may be included in the monitoring device 12, which may correspond to a dedicated accessory comprising the IMU 22a and a communication circuit in some cases or may correspond to a wearable smart device, which may include a display, speaker, microphone, and user interface, in addition to the IMU 22a. Additionally, multiple IMUs 22a may be incorporated in the handheld implement 15 (e.g., cooking implement, handheld appliance, etc.) and communicate sensor/motion data to the controller 50 from multiple sources. The controller 50 may additionally or alternatively be incorporated in the display device (e.g., tablet, computer, smartphone, smart home hub, mobile device, etc.) in communication with the monitoring device 12.” These elements are reasonably interpreted as part of a generic computer having generic computer components which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Likewise, “a kinematic sensor,” is reasonably understood to be an “inertial measurement device IMU” and is disclosed in para. [0022] as follows:
“[0022] As depicted in FIG. 1, the monitoring device 12 is shown in connection with the wearable accessory 14 of the user 18. The monitoring capability of the device 12 may be provided by a plurality of sensors 22. The sensors 22 are generally demonstrated in the figures as reference numeral 22 and are demonstrated in further detail in FIG. 8. In many instances, the sensors 22 may include an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 22a. The IMU 22a may capture motion data indicative of movements of the user 18. The motion or kinematic sensor data may correspond to inertial and/or directional data. The IMU 22a may include an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and/or a magnetometer as well as other suitable devices for measuring the motion and orientation of the monitoring device 12.”
Here, the Applicant is merely claiming the use of an existing smart device, which is reasonably understood as ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computers having are generic, well-known, and conventional elements and does not provide anything significantly more.
Also, “at least one of a linear acceleration sensor and an angular rate sensor,” are also reasonably understood to be an “inertial measurement device IMU” and is only briefly mentioned with no details in para. [0073] as follows:
“[0073] In some implementations, the disclosure provides for a motion analysis apparatus for food preparation comprising at least one motion detection device configured to capture motion data, wherein the motion detection device comprises at least one of a linear acceleration sensor and an angular rate sensor; and a controller in communication with the motion detection device, wherein the controller is configured to: compare the motion data to a food preparation movement; and initiate a motion instruction for a first step of a recipe in response to a comparison of the motion data to the food preparation movement.”
Here, the Applicant is again merely claiming the use of an existing smart device having motion detection devices previously discussed above with regard to the IMU in para [0022].
Finally, the element of “a food preparation appliance comprising a heating element,” is not described with any detail in the written description of the specification as originally filed. Regardless, “a food preparation appliance,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional device that is commonly and commercially available today.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 14, 16, 19, 23, 26-29 and 31 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 14, 16, 19, 23, 26-29 and 31 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 15 or 20. Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-9, 14-16, 19-20, 23, 26-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 14-16, 19-20, 23, 26-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 15, 20 and 31 recite the following limitation: “heating element.” This limitation is not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. As such, the limitations are reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter. Therefore, claims 1, 7, 15, 20 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-5, 7-9, 14, 16, 19, 23, 26-29 and 31 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), based on their respective dependencies to claims 1, 15 or 20.
Claims 1, 15 and 20 recite the following limitation: “wherein the predetermined model movement is defined by one of an experimental motion data or simulated motion data attributed to a preparation technique of the food preparation movement.” This limitation is not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. As such, the limitations are reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter. Therefore, claims 1, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-5, 7-9, 14, 16, 19, 23, 26-29 and 31 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), based on their respective dependencies to claims 1, 15 or 20.
Claim 23 recites the following limitation: “wherein the motion analysis apparatus is selectively coupled operably to a plurality of food preparation devices via an appliance interface.” This limitation is not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. As such, the limitations are reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s remarks filed on February 20, 2026 related to claims 1-5, 7-9, 14-16, 19-20, 23, 26-29 and 31 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Rejections Under 35 USC § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “As amended, the claims are not merely directed to data gathering and manipulation as characterized in the rejection. Rather, the claims recite a specific technological system that effects a physical change in the real world by controlling a food preparation appliance with a heating element based on motion data analysis. This represents a concrete, tangible result that goes far beyond the abstract concept of "providing a food preparation instruction."
The rejection's reliance on Electric Power Group is misplaced. In Electric Power Group, the claims were directed to monitoring and displaying information about a power grid without any control of physical equipment. The Federal Circuit found those claims abstract because they involved "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis." Id. at 1353. In contrast, claims 1, 15, and 20 as amended require actual control of physical appliance hardware-specifically, transmitting a control signal to adjust an operational parameter of a heating element. This is not merely displaying results of data analysis; it is effecting a physical change in cooking equipment based on the motion data comparison.
The specification provides explicit support for this appliance control functionality. Paragraph [0039] of the as-filed specification discloses that "the controller 50 of the system 10 may communicate with the cooktop to adjust a heat setting of a hob or burner. In some cases, the controller 50 may be configured to control the heat setting in response to the sensor data detected by the monitoring device 12." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0039]. Similarly, paragraph [0038] describes that "the system 10 may similarly be applied to control one or more appliance(s) 30 to complete various preheating, temperature adjustment, or more generally, setting adjustments required to complete one or more of the steps of the recipe." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0038]”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Applicant’s broadly claimed “food preparation appliance” is not “a specific technological system.”
Second, the reliance on “Electric Power Group” is not misplaced, since the teachings of which have been applied to a variety of cases decided at the CAFC (i.e. “ BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; AI VISUALIZE, INC. 14 v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC and SAP AMERICA, 8 INC. v. INVESTPIC, LLC; just to name a few).
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed step of “transmitting a control signal to adjust an operational parameter of a heating element” is specifically not found in the written description of the specification as originally filed. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The amended claims satisfy Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo framework because they integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims implement the motion analysis with a particular machine-a food preparation appliance comprising a heating element-that is integral to the claim. The control of the heating element based on motion data comparison represents a specific technological improvement: automated appliance control responsive to detected motion. This is analogous to the claims found patent-eligible in Thales Visionix Inc. V. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where the Federal Circuit found claims patent-eligible because they were directed to a specific technological system using sensors to solve a real-world problem, rather than merely implementing an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims effect a physical transformation by adjusting the operational parameters of physical cooking equipment. When the controller transmits a control signal to adjust the heating element, this causes a real-world physical change in the food preparation appliance-the heating element's operational parameter is modified. This is not merely "generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment" as alleged in the rejection but rather represents meaningful integration of the motion analysis into a practical application that controls physical equipment. As stated in previous responses, the continued generalization of all the claimed subject matter as being ineligible simply because a physics-based sensor is implemented is a gross oversimplification of the analysis under § 101 against which the recent precedent has provided further warnings. As cautioned in Ex Parte Desjardins, "Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality" and the claimed features pending in this application are much more clearly directed to a physical apparatus than in Desjardins. Maintaining the rejection under Section 101 is an ongoing miscarriage of the rules and guidance to which this examination is bound under MPEP 2106. Accordingly, allowance of the pending claims is requested without further delay “
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is misguided as to the proper analysis of a “Practical Application” as required under Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, the Applicant’s interpretation of Thales is incorrect. Thales used a particular configuration of specific sensors (i.e. inertia sensors) to overcome a real-world problem “recognizing that conventional solutions for tracking inertial motion of an object on a moving platform were flawed because both object- and platform-based inertial sensors measured motion relative to earth, and the error-correcting sensors on the tracked object measured position relative to the moving platform. Id. at 1:23–42. Attempting to fuse this data produced inconsistent position information when the moving platform accelerated or turned. Id.” Thales demonstrated a technical solution to this problem: “The inertial sensors disclosed in the ’159 patent do not use the conventional approach of measuring inertial changes with respect to the earth. Id. at 7:12–23. Instead, the platform (e.g., vehicle) inertial sensors directly measure the gravitational field in the platform frame. Id. at 7:12–49, fig. 3D.” In the Applicant’s case, generic sensors which are described as part of a smart device and appliance are claimed. The claimed devices and appliances are ubiquitous in modern day use.
Finally, the Applicant has presented a PTAB case (i.e. Ex parte Desjardins). However, decisions originating from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board are classified as non-precedential and are not fully considered as binding precedent on the USPTO. Only Supreme Court decisions and Federal Circuit decisions are considered precedential and are fully considered as binding precedent on the USPTO. As such, decisions originating from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board contain non-binding precedent and do not super cede the Examiner’s subject-matter eligibility analysis using precedential Supreme Court decisions and Federal Circuit decisions. Further, the Applicant has failed to articulate why this case is relevant in view of the current claim set. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the Examiner respectfully declines responding to any arguments regarding Ex parte Desjardins. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, 14-16, 19-20, 23, 26-29 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. §101 is not withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Applicant respectfully argues “Regarding the "rate instruction" and "technique instruction" limitation, the specification provides clear support for motion instructions comprising both rate instructions from quantitative comparison and technique instructions from qualitative comparison. Paragraph [0030] of the as-filed specification describes that "each of the food preparation movements may be defined both quantitatively and qualitatively, and the system 10 may monitor the motion data separately to identify the conformance of the movement." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0030]. Paragraph [0031] describes the quantitative assessment as "a comparison of the linear acceleration to a target acceleration rate to determine whether the movement of the user 18 conforms to the motion profile." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0031]. Paragraph [0032] then describes outputting instructions based on this quantitative comparison: "the controller 50 may control the system 10 to output an instruction to increase or decrease the intensity of the motion." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0032]. This is a rate instruction identified in response to the quantitative comparison. Paragraph [0033] describes the qualitative assessment of "motion data to qualitatively assess the motion data relative to the motion profile" based on "variations of the linear or rotation motion." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0033]. Paragraph [0034] describes outputting technique instructions based on this qualitative comparison, such as "Adjust motion to a linear path." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0034]. This is a technique instruction identified in response to the qualitative comparison. Furthermore, paragraph [0075] explicitly lists "a rate of motion instruction, a directional instruction, and a technique instruction" as types of corrective motion instructions. As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0075].
Regarding the "experimental motion data or simulated motion data" limitation, paragraph [0029] of the as-filed specification explicitly discloses that motion profiles "may be defined based on experimental results captured with the monitoring device 12 or similar motion detection devices" and may be "simulated with a kinematic model of the user 18 having an ideal or model movement." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0029]. This directly supports both "experimental motion data" and "simulated motion data" as the basis for defining the predetermined model movement.
Regarding claim 23's "appliance interface" limitation, paragraph [0047] of the as-filed specification describes "an appliance communication interface 40 or appliance interface 62" and states that the tracking accessory "may engage the wearable accessory 14 and/or the handheld implement via a snap-fit, magnetic, or other various mechanical connections." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0047]. This provides clear support for the appliance interface comprising snap-fit or magnetic connectors as recited in claim 23.
Accordingly, the specification as originally filed provides clear and abundantly adequate written description support for all challenged limitations, and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. §112(a) new matter arguments have been asked and answered in past office actions. Furthermore, the Applicant’s amending of the claims has warranted new grounds for rejection with regard to a “heating element.” As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, 14-16, 19-20, 23, 26-29 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. §112 (a) is not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715