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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/02/2024 and 12/31/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kulkarni et al. (US 20218/0077654 A1; cited in Applicant’s IDS filed 12/31/2024; “Kulkarni”).
Regarding claim 1, Kulkarni teaches a signal receiving method, wherein the method comprises:
obtaining a first signal strength [Kulkarni ¶ 0103: prior to blocking Cx transmission (i.e. first signal) the default OBSS_PD of −82 dBm (i.e. first signal strength) is subtracted from this least MyBSS RSSI to produce a limit of 7 dBm] and a second signal strength before a first signal is received [Kulkarni ¶ 0103. Fig. 5: prior to blocking the Cx transmission (i.e. first signal), STA-A stores the received transmit power for each station in its network and determines the minimum MyBSS RSSI from these RSSI values (i.e. second signal strength), e.g. as shown in Fig. 5, the RSSI from STA-B is −75 dBm and from STA-C is −65 dBm, accordingly the least MyBSS RSSI is −75 dBm];
in a case that the second signal strength is greater than the first signal strength and that a difference between the second signal strength and the first signal strength is greater than or equal to a first threshold, determining that the first signal is an interference signal and determining not to receive the interference signal [Kulkarni ¶ 0103, Fig. 5: when the least MyBSS RSSI is −75 dBm and OBSS RSSI Cx is -78 dm (i.e. second signal is greater than first signal by a threshold amount, e.g., a threshold greater than zero), the default OBSS_PD of −82 dBm is subtracted from this least MyBSS RSSI to produce a limit of 7 dBm, STA-A therefore its transmit power from the default value, 15 dBm, to 8 dBm and increases its OBSS_PD from the default of −82 dBm to −75 dBm to block out transmissions from Cx (which have an RSSI of −78 dBm); Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent]; and
in a case that the second signal strength is less than or equal to the first signal strength, performing first receiving and processing on the first signal [Kulkarni ¶ 0099, Fig. 3: if the least MyBSS RSSI at an STA is lower than the strength of the OBSS transmission, the STA should not engage in an SR transmission; while not explicitly disclose, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the outcome of not determining to block Cx transmissions would cause said transmissions to be received; Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent];
wherein the second signal strength is signal strength from a corresponding access point, and the first signal strength is signal strength of the first signal [Kulkarni ¶ 0103: prior to blocking Cx transmission (i.e. first signal) the default OBSS_PD of −82 dBm (i.e. first signal strength of Cx transmission) is subtracted from this least MyBSS RSSI (i.e., the lowest RSSI of STA corresponding to an access point) to produce a limit of 7 dBm].
Regarding claim 2, Kulkarni teaches the signal receiving method according to claim 1, wherein the performing first receiving and processing on the first signal comprises: when a second signal is being received, in a case that the first signal strength is greater than a third signal strength of the second signal and that a difference between the first signal strength and the third signal strength is greater than or equal to an abortion threshold, aborting receiving of the second signal and performing second receiving and processing on the first signal [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the limitations “performing first receiving and processing on the first signal” are contingent on certain limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, the terms “when” and “in a case” render the limitations of the present claim as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent].
Regarding claim 3, The signal receiving method according to claim 2, wherein in a case that a modulation scheme is complementary code keying, the abortion threshold is a second threshold [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent]; and
in a case that the modulation scheme is orthogonal frequency division multiplexing, the abortion threshold is a third threshold [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent].
Regarding claim 4, The signal receiving method according to claim 2, wherein the aborting receiving of the second signal and performing second receiving and processing on the first signal comprises: based on the signal strength of the first signal, updating an automatic gain control (AGC) value; and based on the updated AGC, performing third receiving and processing on the first signal [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the limitations “the aborting receiving of the second signal and performing second receiving and processing on the first signal” are contingent on certain limitations of claim 2, therefore, the limitations of the present claim are contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent].
Regarding claim 5, The signal receiving method according to claim 4, wherein the performing third receiving and processing on the first signal comprises:
in a case that a modulation scheme is orthogonal frequency division multiplexing, obtaining a destination address of the first signal [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent];
in a case that the destination address of the first signal is determined to be unmatched, determining that the first signal is the interference signal [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent]; and
in a case that the destination address of the first signal is determined to be matched, receiving the first signal [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent].
Regarding claim 6, Kulkarni teaches the electronic device comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or instruction stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein the program or the instruction, when executed by the processor [Kulkarni ¶ 0187, Fig. 22A: station 500 may include controller 520 which is in communicative connection with the memory 530 which stores computer readable code for instructing the controller to perform functions], causes the electronic device to perform:
obtaining a first signal strength [Kulkarni ¶ 0103: prior to blocking Cx transmission (i.e. first signal) the default OBSS_PD of −82 dBm (i.e. first signal strength) is subtracted from this least MyBSS RSSI to produce a limit of 7 dBm] and a second signal strength before a first signal is received [Kulkarni ¶ 0103. Fig. 5: prior to blocking the Cx transmission (i.e. first signal), STA-A stores the received transmit power for each station in its network and determines the minimum MyBSS RSSI from these RSSI values (i.e. second signal strength), e.g. as shown in Fig. 5, the RSSI from STA-B is −75 dBm and from STA-C is −65 dBm, accordingly the least MyBSS RSSI is −75 dBm];
in a case that the second signal strength is greater than the first signal strength and that a difference between the second signal strength and the first signal strength is greater than or equal to a first threshold, determining that the first signal is an interference signal and determining not to receive the interference signal [Kulkarni ¶ 0103, Fig. 5: when the least MyBSS RSSI is −75 dBm and OBSS RSSI Cx is -78 dm (i.e. second signal is greater than first signal by a threshold amount, e.g., a threshold greater than zero), the default OBSS_PD of −82 dBm is subtracted from this least MyBSS RSSI to produce a limit of 7 dBm, STA-A therefore its transmit power from the default value, 15 dBm, to 8 dBm and increases its OBSS_PD from the default of −82 dBm to −75 dBm to block out transmissions from Cx (which have an RSSI of −78 dBm); Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent]; and
in a case that the second signal strength is less than or equal to the first signal strength, performing first receiving and processing on the first signal [Kulkarni ¶ 0099, Fig. 3: if the least MyBSS RSSI at an STA is lower than the strength of the OBSS transmission, the STA should not engage in an SR transmission; while not explicitly disclose, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the outcome of not determining to block Cx transmissions would cause said transmissions to be received; Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent];
wherein the second signal strength is signal strength from a corresponding access point, and the first signal strength is signal strength of the first signal [Kulkarni ¶ 0103: prior to blocking Cx transmission (i.e. first signal) the default OBSS_PD of −82 dBm (i.e. first signal strength of Cx transmission) is subtracted from this least MyBSS RSSI (i.e., the lowest RSSI of STA corresponding to an access point) to produce a limit of 7 dBm].
Regarding claim 7, Kulkarni teaches the electronic device according to claim 6, wherein when performing first receiving and processing on the first signal, the program or the instruction, when executed by the processor, causes the electronic device to perform: when a second signal is being received, in a case that the first signal strength is greater than a third signal strength of the second signal and that a difference between the first signal strength and the third signal strength is greater than or equal to an abortion threshold, aborting receiving of the second signal and performing second receiving and processing on the first signal [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the limitations “performing first receiving and processing on the first signal” are contingent on certain limitations of claim 6. Furthermore, the terms “when” and “in a case” render the limitations of the present claim as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent].
Regarding claim 8, Kulkarni teaches the electronic device according to claim 7, wherein in a case that a modulation scheme is complementary code keying, the abortion threshold is a second threshold [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent]; and
in a case that the modulation scheme is orthogonal frequency division multiplexing, the abortion threshold is a third threshold [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent].
Regarding claim 9, Kulkarni teaches the electronic device according to claim 7, wherein when aborting receiving of the second signal and performing second receiving and processing on the first signal, the program or the instruction, when executed by the processor, causes the electronic device to perform: based on the signal strength of the first signal, updating an automatic gain control (AGC) value; and based on the updated AGC, performing third receiving and processing on the first signal [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the limitations “the aborting receiving of the second signal and performing second receiving and processing on the first signal” are contingent on certain limitations of claim 7, therefore, the limitations of the present claim are contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent].
Regarding claim 10, Kulkarni teaches the electronic device according to claim 9, wherein when performing third receiving and processing on the first signal, the program or the instruction, when executed by the processor, causes the electronic device to perform: in a case that a modulation scheme is orthogonal frequency division multiplexing, obtaining a destination address of the first signal [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent];
in a case that the destination address of the first signal is determined to be unmatched, determining that the first signal is the interference signal [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent]; and
in a case that the destination address of the first signal is determined to be matched, receiving the first signal [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent].
Regarding claim 11, Kulkarni teaches a non-transitory readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory readable storage medium stores a program or instruction, the program or the instruction, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to [Kulkarni ¶ 0187, Fig. 22A: station 500 may include controller 520 which is in communicative connection with the memory 530 which stores computer readable code for instructing the controller to perform functions] perform:
obtaining a first signal strength [Kulkarni ¶ 0103: prior to blocking Cx transmission (i.e. first signal) the default OBSS_PD of −82 dBm (i.e. first signal strength) is subtracted from this least MyBSS RSSI to produce a limit of 7 dBm] and a second signal strength before a first signal is received [Kulkarni ¶ 0103. Fig. 5: prior to blocking the Cx transmission (i.e. first signal), STA-A stores the received transmit power for each station in its network and determines the minimum MyBSS RSSI from these RSSI values (i.e. second signal strength), e.g. as shown in Fig. 5, the RSSI from STA-B is −75 dBm and from STA-C is −65 dBm, accordingly the least MyBSS RSSI is −75 dBm];
in a case that the second signal strength is greater than the first signal strength and that a difference between the second signal strength and the first signal strength is greater than or equal to a first threshold, determining that the first signal is an interference signal and determining not to receive the interference signal [Kulkarni ¶ 0103, Fig. 5: when the least MyBSS RSSI is −75 dBm and OBSS RSSI Cx is -78 dm (i.e. second signal is greater than first signal by a threshold amount, e.g., a threshold greater than zero), the default OBSS_PD of −82 dBm is subtracted from this least MyBSS RSSI to produce a limit of 7 dBm, STA-A therefore its transmit power from the default value, 15 dBm, to 8 dBm and increases its OBSS_PD from the default of −82 dBm to −75 dBm to block out transmissions from Cx (which have an RSSI of −78 dBm); Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent]; and
in a case that the second signal strength is less than or equal to the first signal strength, performing first receiving and processing on the first signal [Kulkarni ¶ 0099, Fig. 3: if the least MyBSS RSSI at an STA is lower than the strength of the OBSS transmission, the STA should not engage in an SR transmission; while not explicitly disclose, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the outcome of not determining to block Cx transmissions would cause said transmissions to be received; Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent];
wherein the second signal strength is signal strength from a corresponding access point, and the first signal strength is signal strength of the first signal [Kulkarni ¶ 0103: prior to blocking Cx transmission (i.e. first signal) the default OBSS_PD of −82 dBm (i.e. first signal strength of Cx transmission) is subtracted from this least MyBSS RSSI (i.e., the lowest RSSI of STA corresponding to an access point) to produce a limit of 7 dBm].
Regarding claim 12, Kulkarni teaches the non-transitory readable storage medium according to claim 11, wherein when performing first receiving and processing on the first signal, the program or the instruction, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform:
when a second signal is being received, in a case that the first signal strength is greater than a third signal strength of the second signal and that a difference between the first signal strength and the third signal strength is greater than or equal to an abortion threshold, aborting receiving of the second signal and performing second receiving and processing on the first signal [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the limitations “performing first receiving and processing on the first signal” are contingent on certain limitations of claim 11. Furthermore, the terms “when” and “in a case” render the limitations of the present claim as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent].
Regarding claim 13, Kulkarni teaches the non-transitory readable storage medium according to claim 12, wherein in a case that a modulation scheme is complementary code keying, the abortion threshold is a second threshold [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent]; and
in a case that the modulation scheme is orthogonal frequency division multiplexing, the abortion threshold is a third threshold [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent].
Regarding claim 14, Kulkarni teaches the non-transitory readable storage medium according to claim 12, wherein when aborting receiving of the second signal and performing second receiving and processing on the first signal, the program or the instruction, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform: based on the signal strength of the first signal, updating an automatic gain control (AGC) value; and based on the updated AGC, performing third receiving and processing on the first signal [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the limitations “the aborting receiving of the second signal and performing second receiving and processing on the first signal” are contingent on certain limitations of claim 12, therefore, the limitations of the present claim are contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent].
Regarding claim 15, Kulkarni teaches the non-transitory readable storage medium according to claim 14, wherein when performing third receiving and processing on the first signal, the program or the instruction, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform:
in a case that a modulation scheme is orthogonal frequency division multiplexing, obtaining a destination address of the first signal [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent];
in a case that the destination address of the first signal is determined to be unmatched, determining that the first signal is the interference signal [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent]; and
in a case that the destination address of the first signal is determined to be matched, receiving the first signal [Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP §2111.04 II.). Here, the term “in a case” render the limitations as contingent. Examiner recommends amending the claims so as not to be contingent].
Regarding claim 16, Kulkarni teaches a chip, wherein the chip comprises a processor and a communications interface, the communications interface is coupled to the processor, and the processor is configured to run a program or instruction to implement the steps of the signal receiving method according to claim 1 [Kulkarni ¶ 0187, Fig. 22A: station 500 may include controller 520 which is in communicative connection with the memory 530 which stores computer readable code for instructing the controller to perform functions].
Regarding claim 17, Kulkarni teaches a computer program product, wherein the computer program product is stored in a non-volatile storage medium, and the computer program product is executed by at least one processor so as to implement the steps of the signal receiving method according to claim 1 [Kulkarni ¶ 0187, Fig. 22A: station 500 may include controller 520 which is in communicative connection with the memory 530 which stores computer readable code for instructing the controller to perform functions].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7, and 12 contain allowable subject matter if rewritten so as to not recite the limitations in contingent form (see detailed rejection of claims 2, 7, and 12 above) and incorporated into the respective base claims. Furthermore, claims 3-5, 8-10, and 13-15 would be allowable based on their dependency on claims 2, 7, and 12, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P COX whose telephone number is (571)272-2728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/BRIAN P COX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474