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
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not). Appropriate correction is required.
Misnumbered claims have been renumbered:
[[13.]]14. The system of claim 1, further comprising an application running on a wireless device for providing communications between the customer and the green energy tracking and monetization system, wherein the customer uses a camera of the wireless device to scan a code identifying the one or more energy storage devices and the application communicates the code to the green energy tracking and monetization system in order to associate the one or more energy storage devices to the digital asset storage wallet for the customer.
[[14.]]15. The system of claim 1, wherein full renewable/sustainable energy storage devices are exchanged for empty renewable/sustainable energy storage devices.
[[15.]]16. The system of claim 1, wherein energy from full renewable/sustainable energy storage devices is extracted therefrom.
[[16.]]17. The system of claim 1, wherein the customers are paid via some subset of cash, cryptocurrency, crypto asset, or credit.
[[17.]]18. The system of claim 1, wherein the energy collection, storage and distribution facility is operated at least partially by a fleet customer.
[[18.]]19. The system of claim 1, wherein the renewable/sustainable energy storage devices are capable of receiving captured energy from a plurality of the renewable/sustainable energy capturing devices.
[[19.]]20. The system of claim 1, wherein the renewable/sustainable energy storage devices are capable of receiving captured energy from a plurality of the renewable/sustainable energy capturing devices simultaneously.
[[20.]]21. The system of claim 1, wherein energy collection, storage and distribution facility may store the energy for future use at potentially higher prices.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a green energy tracking and monetization system for entering smart contracts with customers…” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 8-13 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(s) 8-13 recite(s) the limitation of "The ecosystem of claim…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s). Claims that are dependent upon the claim(s) listed above are therefore rejected. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required. For examination purposes the claim limitation is being interpreted as “The system of claim…”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/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.
Claim(s) 1 recite(s) a system and series of steps for tracking energy collection and usage, entering contracts with customers, and providing customer payments, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to commercial or legal interactions, such as agreements in the form or contracts and/or advertising, marketing, or sales activities. These concepts are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitation(s) of, ‘…capture energy’; ‘…store the captured energy’; ‘receiving and storing the captured energy and distributing at least a portion of the stored energy for usage and monetization thereof’; ‘entering smart contracts with customers…’; ‘…tracks the energy provided’; ‘…provides payment to the customer therefore’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a plurality of renewable/sustainable energy capturing devices’, ‘a plurality of renewable/sustainable energy storage devices’, ‘an energy collection, storage and distribution facility’, ‘a green energy tracking and monetization system’, ‘digital asset wallet’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim(s) 2-21 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for tracking energy collection and usage, entering contracts with customers, and providing customer payments, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to commercial or legal interactions, such as agreements in the form or contracts and/or advertising, marketing, or sales activities. These concepts are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘solar panels’, ‘vehicles’, ‘wind turbines’, ‘water turbines’, ‘downspouts’, ‘kinetic energy devices’, ‘battery packs’, ‘a wireless device’, ‘a camera’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) (‘a wireless device’, ‘a camera’). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (‘solar panels’, ‘vehicles’, ‘wind turbines’, ‘water turbines’, ‘downspouts’, ‘kinetic energy devices’, ‘battery packs’).
As analyzed above in step 2A prong 2, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1-21 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9, 13, and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bangalore (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220140610), in view of Maini (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20120059766).
In regards to claim 1, Bangalore teaches:
A renewable/sustainable energy harvesting, storage and monetization system (Bangalore: ¶5-25), the system comprising
a plurality of renewable/sustainable energy capturing devices to capture energy (Bangalore: ¶51-54 disclose renewable source can include solar, wind, hydro and other renewable sources of energy);
a plurality of renewable/sustainable energy storage devices coupled to at least one of the plurality of the renewable/sustainable energy capturing devices to store the captured energy (Bangalore: ¶51-53 disclose the battery is the main storage resource for the renewable source and an optional secondary battery…represents a removable battery source).
Although Bangalore teaches energy collection, storage, and distribution, the reference does not explicitly state a monetization system configured to provide payment to the customer.
However, Bangalore and Maini together teach:
an energy collection, storage and distribution facility for receiving and storing the captured energy and distributing at least a portion of the stored energy for usage and monetization thereof (Bangalore: ¶18, ¶58-65; Maini: ¶15-19, ¶22-25); and
a green energy tracking and monetization system for entering smart contracts with customers, wherein the customers utilize the plurality of renewable/sustainable energy capturing devices and the plurality of renewable/sustainable energy storage devices, wherein a smart contract for a customer associates appropriate ones of the plurality of renewable/sustainable energy storage devices with an digital asset wallet for the customer and tracks the energy provided to the energy collection, storage and distribution facility and the monetization thereof and provides payment to the customer therefore (Bangalore: ¶18, ¶58-65; Maini: ¶15-19, ¶22-25).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the monetization system, as taught by Maini, into the system and method of Bangalore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “enable determining compensation to be paid for use of an energy storage system or an energy system” (Maini: ¶14).
In regards to claim 2, Bangalore and Maini teach the system of claim 1. Bangalore further teaches wherein the energy collection, storage and distribution facility utilizes the stored energy for at least some subset of crypto currency mining; selling energy to the grid; charging stations; industrial applications; and building power (Bangalore: ¶55-57, ¶194, ¶196-197).
In regards to claim 3, Bangalore and Maini teach the system of claim 2. Maini further teaches wherein the green energy tracking and monetization system utilizes the assets acquired from the utilization of the stored energy to pay the customers per the parameters of the contract (Maini: ¶15-19, ¶22-25).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the monetization system, as taught by Maini, into the system and method of Bangalore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “enable determining compensation to be paid for use of an energy storage system or an energy system” (Maini: ¶14).
In regards to claim 4, Bangalore and Maini teach the system of claim 1. Bangalore further teaches wherein the one or more renewable/sustainable energy capturing devices include solar panels (Bangalore: ¶51-54).
In regards to claim 7, Bangalore and Maini teach the system of claim 1. Bangalore further teaches wherein the one or more renewable/sustainable energy capturing devices include wind turbines (Bangalore: ¶51-54).
In regards to claim 9, Bangalore and Maini teach the system of claim 1. Bangalore further teaches wherein the one or more renewable/sustainable energy capturing devices include water turbines (Bangalore: ¶51-54).
In regards to claim 13, Bangalore and Maini teach the system of claim 1. Bangalore further teaches wherein the one or more energy storage devices includes battery packs (Bangalore: ¶51-53).
In regards to claim 15, Bangalore and Maini teach the system of claim 1. Bangalore further teaches wherein full renewable/sustainable energy storage devices are exchanged for empty renewable/sustainable energy storage devices (Bangalore: ¶16, ¶51-53, ¶169, ¶176-178, ¶192).
In regards to claim 16, Bangalore and Maini teach the system of claim 1. Bangalore further teaches wherein energy from full renewable/sustainable energy storage devices is extracted therefrom (Bangalore: ¶16, ¶51-53, ¶69-70, ¶84-85, ¶169, ¶176-178, ¶192).
In regards to claim 17, Bangalore and Maini teach the system of claim 1. Maini further teaches wherein the customers are paid via some subset of cash, cryptocurrency, crypto asset, or credit (Maini: ¶15-19, ¶22-25).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the monetization system, as taught by Maini, into the system and method of Bangalore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “enable determining compensation to be paid for use of an energy storage system or an energy system” (Maini: ¶14).
In regards to claim 18, Bangalore and Maini teach the system of claim 1. Maini further teaches wherein the energy collection, storage and distribution facility is operated at least partially by a fleet customer (Maini: ¶15-19, ¶22-25, ¶30).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the energy collection, storage, and distribution facility, as taught by Maini, into the system and method of Bangalore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “enable determining compensation to be paid for use of an energy storage system or an energy system” (Maini: ¶14).
In regards to claim 19, Bangalore and Maini teach the system of claim 1. Bangalore further teaches wherein the renewable/sustainable energy storage devices are capable of receiving captured energy from a plurality of the renewable/sustainable energy capturing devices (Bangalore: ¶51-54).
In regards to claim 20, Bangalore and Maini teach the system of claim 1. Bangalore further teaches wherein the renewable/sustainable energy storage devices are capable of receiving captured energy from a plurality of the renewable/sustainable energy capturing devices simultaneously (Bangalore: ¶51-54).
In regards to claim 21, Bangalore and Maini teach the system of claim 1. Bangalore further teaches wherein energy collection, storage and distribution facility may store the energy for future use at potentially higher price (Bangalore: ¶12, ¶17, ¶200).
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bangalore (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220140610), in view of Maini (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20120059766), in further view of Kim (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20120161713).
In regards to claim 5, Bangalore and Maini teach the system of claim 4. Although Bangalore teaches the use of solar panels, the reference does not explicitly state that the solar panels are on vehicles.
However, Kim teaches wherein the solar panels are located on vehicles (Kim: ¶21, ¶45, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vehicle solar elements, as taught by Kim, into the system and method of Bangalore and Maini. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “collect a large amount of energy wasted by a vehicle and…integrate various types of environmental energy” (Kim: ¶5).
In regards to claim 6, Bangalore, Maini, and Kim teach the system of claim 5. Kim further teaches wherein the vehicles include at least some subset of cars, vans, trucks, buses, trains, and light-rail (Kim: ¶21, ¶45, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vehicles, as taught by Kim, into the system and method of Bangalore and Maini. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “collect a large amount of energy wasted by a vehicle and…integrate various types of environmental energy” (Kim: ¶5).
In regards to claim 12, Bangalore and Maini teach the system of claim 1. Although Bangalore teaches the use of renewable/sustainable energy capturing devices, the reference does not explicitly state kinetic energy capturing devices.
However, Kim teaches wherein the one or more renewable/sustainable energy capturing devices include kinetic energy devices (Kim: ¶21, ¶45, ¶59, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the kinetic energy capturing devices, as taught by Kim, into the system and method of Bangalore and Maini. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “collect a large amount of energy wasted by a vehicle and…integrate various types of environmental energy” (Kim: ¶5).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bangalore (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220140610), in view of Maini (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20120059766), in further view of Wallander (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20230058782).
In regards to claim 8, Bangalore and Maini teach the system of claim 7. Although Bangalore teaches the use of wind energy capturing devices, the reference does not explicitly state that the wind turbines are on vehicles.
However, Wallander teaches wherein the wind turbines are located on vehicles (Wallander: ¶6, ¶10, ¶58-60, ¶63-65, ¶95, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vehicle wind turbines, as taught by Wallander, into the system and method of Bangalore and Maini. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “collect the ambient air while the vehicle is moving” (Wallander: ¶15).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bangalore (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220140610), in view of Maini (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20120059766), in further view of Mullins (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220403808).
In regards to claim 10, Bangalore and Maini teach the system of claim 9. Although Bangalore teaches the use of hydro energy capturing devices, the reference does not explicitly state that the water turbines are located where excess water flows.
However, Mullins teaches wherein the water turbines are located in locations where excess water flows at certain times (Mullins: ¶5, ¶9-11).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the water turbines, as taught by Mullins, into the system and method of Bangalore and Maini. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “convert the potential energy of rainfall on top of a building to power” (Mullins: ¶9).
In regards to claim 11, Bangalore, Maini, and Mullins teach the system of claim 10. Mullins further teaches wherein the water turbines are connected to downspouts (Mullins: ¶5, ¶9-11).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the water turbines, as taught by Mullins, into the system and method of Bangalore and Maini. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “convert the potential energy of rainfall on top of a building to power” (Mullins: ¶9).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bangalore (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220140610), in view of Maini (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20120059766), in further view of Ong (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220036330).
In regards to claim 14, Bangalore and Maini teach the system of claim 1. Although the references teach energy storage devices, the references do not explicitly teach scanning the energy storage devices to associate them with a customer.
However, Bangalore, Maini, and Ong together teach further comprising an application running on a wireless device for providing communications between the customer and the green energy tracking and monetization system, wherein the customer uses a camera of the wireless device to scan a code identifying the one or more energy storage devices and the application communicates the code to the green energy tracking and monetization system in order to associate the one or more energy storage devices to the digital asset storage wallet for the customer (Bangalore: ¶18, ¶58-65; Maini: ¶15-19, ¶22-25; Ong: ¶18-21, ¶42, ¶47, ¶79, ¶83).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the energy storage device association, as taught by Ong, into the system and method of Bangalore and Maini. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “manage renting, charging and swapping transactions” (Ong: ¶18).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE S MURRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628