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 1-11 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s September 23, 2024 filing with USPTO. Claims 1 and 3-11 are amended. No claims are canceled, withdrawn, or newly added.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 software per se rejection of the previous Office action.
Applicant’s amendments are not sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 Alice rejection of the previous Office action.
Applicant’s amendments are not sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 non-transitory medium rejection of the previous Office action. It is note that this reject was not address in Applicant’s remarks filed 09/23/2025.
Applicant’s amendments are not sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 102 rejection of the previous Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of the previous Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Amended claim 1 is integrated into a practical application . . . because it improves other technology or field (e.g. improves the accuracy in estimating the ordered quantities of parts by suppressing amplified fluctuations in demand for parts of a product). Remarks p. 9.
Respectfully the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. MPEP 2106.05(e) provides “claim should add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. The phrase "meaningful limitations" has been used by the courts even before Alice and Mayo in various contexts to describe additional elements that provide an inventive concept to the claim as a whole.” When the claimed invention is viewed as a whole it is found to be a system, method, and program for the allocation of materials and planning of production operations.
The claims are made to a high level of generality – thus there are no meaningful limitations that would amount to a practical application thereby transforming the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.. The elements of the claims for which Applicant relies on in support of his argument for a practical application are not additional features, but features found to be a part of the abstract idea of a mental process. For these reasons the rejection of the previous Office action are maintained.
The claims as amended provide a completely new and unconventional system for generating a plan for production. Remarks p. 9
Respectfully the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. Applicant’s specification provides, “control circuitry 11 is a circuitry member which assumes total control over each component of the planning system 1. The control circuitry 11 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), etc.” (Spec. [36]). The MPEP provides “a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions)” MPEP 2106.05(b).
Applicant’s claimed computer program does not create a completely new and unconventional system within the analysis of 35 USC 101. For these reasons the rejection of the previous Office action are maintained.
The claims integrate features into a practical application (e.g. system for generating a plan for product production) that dramatically improves the accuracy in estimating the ordered quantities of parts. Remarks p. 11.
Respectfully this argument is addressed above at 7.a. please see above. For these reasons the rejection of the previous Office action are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 35 USC 102 rejection of the previous Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1-9 are to a system (machine) Claims 10 is to a method (process).
No, claim 11 do NOT fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject, see rejection above at 9 below respectively.
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of mental processes. Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. A planning system comprising
an one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform an allocation process of allocating, for each of production operations of producing products planned to be conducted on multiple planned production dates, at least one of multiple allocation materials which comprise one or more parts and one or more work-in-progress items,
wherein, the allocation process, comprises calculating, for each of the production operations of producing the products for which the one or more parts are allocated, an expected consumption date representing a schedule to consume the allocated one or more parts during the production operation of producing the products; and
plan the production operations of producing the products for the multiple planned production dates.
The claims are direct to the allocation of inventory for a production based on a consumption date and planning production operations. The claims are made to a very high level of generality. The allocation and plan as claimed can be reasonable carried out in the mind of a human using his ability to observe, reason, and evaluate information. For these reasons the claims are found to fall within abstract category realm of a mental process.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above.
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination.
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are to a program without a tangible form (hardware components). Where MPEP 2106.03 provides examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories including – “products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations”. It is suggested that applicant add non-transitory medium to the claim. Support for this suggestion can be found in specification [44].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denton et al (US 2008/0071603 A1) in view of Binotto et al (US 2021/0264451 A1).
Claim 1
Binotto teaches a planning system (Denton abstract “a system and method of improved supply chain planning”) comprising one or more processors, where in the one or more processors are configured to (Denton [5] “executed by the processor implement a method”):
perform an allocation process of allocating, for each of production operations of producing products planned to be conducted on multiple planned production dates, at least one of multiple allocation materials which comprise one or more parts and one or more work-in-progress items (Denton [59] “models such as that described above are used in most high tech manufacturing industries to determine optimal resource allocation to supply customer demand requests.” and [62] “the method is been described with reference to a single purchaser and single supplier, those skilled in the art will recognize that the invention may include multiple purchasers and/or suppliers.”),
and
plan the production operations of producing the products for the multiple planned production dates (Denton abstract “ an advanced planning system for optimizing established planning objectives (e.g. customer service, short lead times, low inventory, and prioritized allocation of supply and capacity)”).
Denton does not expressly teach the claimed limitation of wherein, the allocation process, comprises calculating, for each of the production operations of producing the products for which the one or more parts are allocated, an expected consumption date representing a schedule to consume the allocated one or more parts during the production operation of producing the products;
Binotto teaches, in the analogous art of data evaluation and optimized resource allocation, the claimed limitation of wherein, the allocation process, comprises calculating, for each of the production operations of producing the products for which the one or more parts are allocated, an expected consumption date representing a schedule to consume the allocated one or more parts during the production operation of producing the products; (Binotto [20] “Usage Data 110 generally represents possession and/or consumption data for the environment. This can include indicating when and in what quantity particular items enter the environment (e.g., by being placed in the fridge) and exit the environment (e.g., by being removed from the fridge and/or by being thrown away) . . . the Usage Data 110 can first be anonymized and/or aggregated prior to evaluation. For example, the usage Data 110 may indicate the general region where it was collected (e.g., a neighborhood or other geographic area), without specifying particular Sensor Devices 105 and/or users.” [28] “collecting and evaluating usage data, as well as visualizing past data and predicted values” and [42] “predicts future consumption of the item based at least in part on evaluating the usage data using one or more cognitive models. Additionally, at block 520, the cognitive system generates a recommended reconfiguration of one or more aspects of production for the item, based on the predicted future consumption.” Also see [50])
Denton and Binotto are both concerned with allocation of resources, see respective abstracts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Denton the allocation process, comprises calculating, for each of the production operations of producing the products for which the one or more parts are allocated, an expected consumption date representing a schedule to consume the allocated one or more parts during the production operation of producing the products; as taught by Binotto since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 2
Denton in view of Binotto teach all the limitations of the planning system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more parts are in one of arrival states comprising a state in which the one or more parts are in inventory (Denton [21]), a state in which the one or more parts are expected to arrive (Denton [40]), and a state in which an order for the one or more parts are to be made (Denton [46]).
Claim 3
Denton in view of Binotto teach all the limitations of the planning system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: calculate, based on a result of the allocation process, multiple for-reply planned dates on which the production operations of producing the products planned for the multiple planned production dates are conducted (Denton [69] and [72]),
allocate in the allocation process, multiple reply-possible production dates representing dates on which the production operations of producing the products respectively with the allocated allocation materials are assumed to be possible (Denton [72] and [76-77]), and
determine the multiple for-reply planned dates based on the multiple planned production dates and the multiple reply-possible production dates (Denton [78]).
Claim 4
Denton in view of Binotto teach all the limitations of the planning system according to claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are configured to plan the production operations of producing the products for the multiple planned production dates based on production plan guide information comprising a target value of a produced quantity of the products for each term (Denton [60-61]).
Claim 5
Denton in view of Binotto teach all the limitations of the planning system according to claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate summary information comprising a sold quantity and a stocked quantity for the each term based on the multiple planned production dates and the multiple for-reply planned dates (Denton [73]),
wherein the summary information is fed back to new production plan guide information (Denton [68]).
Claim 6
Denton in view of Binotto teach all the limitations of the planning system according to claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are configured to plan, based on the new production plan guide information, production operations of producing the products for multiple new planned production dates (Denton [68]).
Claim 7
Denton in view of Binotto teach all the limitations of the planning system according to claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are configured to calculate the multiple for-reply planned dates based on demand information on a received order for the products and an expected order for the products, in addition to based on the result of the allocation process (Denton [77]).
Claim 8
Denton in view of Binotto teach all the limitations of the planning system according to claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are configured to calculate the product delivery time using the multiple for-reply planned dates and the demand information (Denton [68]).
Claim 9
Denton in view of Binotto teach all the limitations of the planning system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to extract information on the one or more parts allocated for production operations of producing the products (Denton [6]).
Claim 10
Denton teaches planning method (Denton abstract “a system and method of improved supply chain planning”) comprising:
allocating, by one or more processors for each of production operations of producing products planned to be conducted on multiple planned production dates, at least one of multiple allocation materials which comprise one or more parts and one or more work-in-progress items (Denton [5] “executed by the processor implement a method”, [59] “models such as that described above are used in most high tech manufacturing industries to determine optimal resource allocation to supply customer demand requests.” and [62] “the method is been described with reference to a single purchaser and single supplier, those skilled in the art will recognize that the invention may include multiple purchasers and/or suppliers.”); and
planning, by one or more processors, the production operations of producing the products for the multiple planned production dates (Denton abstract “ an advanced planning system for optimizing established planning objectives (e.g. customer service, short lead times, low inventory, and prioritized allocation of supply and capacity)”).
Denton does not expressly teach the claimed limitation of calculating, by one or more processors for each of the production operations of producing the products for which the one or more parts are allocated, an expected consumption date representing a schedule to consume the allocated one or more parts during the production operation of producing the products and;
Binotto teaches, in the analogous art of data evaluation and optimized resource allocation, the claimed limitation of calculating, by one or more processors for each of the production operations of producing the products for which the one or more parts are allocated, an expected consumption date representing a schedule to consume the allocated one or more parts during the production operation of producing the products and; (Binotto [20] “Usage Data 110 generally represents possession and/or consumption data for the environment. This can include indicating when and in what quantity particular items enter the environment (e.g., by being placed in the fridge) and exit the environment (e.g., by being removed from the fridge and/or by being thrown away) . . . the Usage Data 110 can first be anonymized and/or aggregated prior to evaluation. For example, the usage Data 110 may indicate the general region where it was collected (e.g., a neighborhood or other geographic area), without specifying particular Sensor Devices 105 and/or users.” [28] “collecting and evaluating usage data, as well as visualizing past data and predicted values” and [42] “predicts future consumption of the item based at least in part on evaluating the usage data using one or more cognitive models. Additionally, at block 520, the cognitive system generates a recommended reconfiguration of one or more aspects of production for the item, based on the predicted future consumption.” Also see [50])
Denton and Binotto are both concerned with allocation of resources, see respective abstracts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Denton the calculating, by one or more processors for each of the production operations of producing the products for which the one or more parts are allocated, an expected consumption date representing a schedule to consume the allocated one or more parts during the production operation of producing the products and; as taught by Binotto since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 11
Denton teaches planning program for causing a computer to (Denton [4] “a program storage device readable by machine, tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by the machine to perform a method”):
allocate, for each of production operations of producing products planned to be conducted on multiple planned production dates, at least one of multiple allocation materials which comprise one or more parts and one or more work-in-progress items (Denton [59] “models such as that described above are used in most high tech manufacturing industries to determine optimal resource allocation to supply customer demand requests.” and [62] “the method is been described with reference to a single purchaser and single supplier, those skilled in the art will recognize that the invention may include multiple purchasers and/or suppliers.”);
and;
plan the production operations of producing the products for the multiple planned production dates (Denton abstract “ an advanced planning system for optimizing established planning objectives (e.g. customer service, short lead times, low inventory, and prioritized allocation of supply and capacity)”).
Denton does not expressly teach the claimed limitation of wherein, calculate, for each of the production operations of producing the products for which the one or more parts are allocated, an expected consumption date representing a schedule to consume the allocated one or more parts during the production operation of producing the products
Binotto teaches, in the analogous art of data evaluation and optimized resource allocation, the claimed limitation of calculate, for each of the production operations of producing the products for which the one or more parts are allocated, an expected consumption date representing a schedule to consume the allocated one or more parts during the production operation of producing the products (Binotto [20] “Usage Data 110 generally represents possession and/or consumption data for the environment. This can include indicating when and in what quantity particular items enter the environment (e.g., by being placed in the fridge) and exit the environment (e.g., by being removed from the fridge and/or by being thrown away) . . . the Usage Data 110 can first be anonymized and/or aggregated prior to evaluation. For example, the usage Data 110 may indicate the general region where it was collected (e.g., a neighborhood or other geographic area), without specifying particular Sensor Devices 105 and/or users.” [28] “collecting and evaluating usage data, as well as visualizing past data and predicted values” and [42] “predicts future consumption of the item based at least in part on evaluating the usage data using one or more cognitive models. Additionally, at block 520, the cognitive system generates a recommended reconfiguration of one or more aspects of production for the item, based on the predicted future consumption.” Also see [50])
Denton and Binotto are both concerned with allocation of resources, see respective abstracts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Denton the calculate, for each of the production operations of producing the products for which the one or more parts are allocated, an expected consumption date representing a schedule to consume the allocated one or more parts during the production operation of producing the products as taught by Binotto since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oya et al (US 2011/0208555 A1) teaches the allocation part 117 determines that R.ltoreq.0 is false, that is, it is not possible to produce the entire unallocated amount in the production line, and in the step 165, the allocation part 117 registers as the allocated amount in the allocated amount field 135i of the allocation result table 135 (FIG. 6), the amount corresponding to the remaining production capacity of the production line, that is, a value (350=350/1) obtained by dividing the remaining production capacity r of the production line (=350) by the production capacity consumption factor c (=1).
Zoelfl et al (US 2015/0332190 A1) teaches a method of determining the resource efficiency of a plant for the production of drinks containers, wherein the plant has at least one resource-consuming part, wherein the part of the plant is operated at least for a time in a first operative state (B1) in which a product is produced and the part of the plant has a first resource consumption (V1) in this operative state (B1), and wherein the part of the plant is operated at least for a time in a second operative state (B2) and has a second resource consumption (V1) in this second operative state (B2), wherein at least one first resource consumption (V1) capable of being allocated to the first operative state (B 1) and at least one second resource consumption (V2) capable of being allocated to the second operative state (B2) determined and the resource consumption (V1, V2) is allocated to the operative states (B1, B2). According to the invention a value characteristic of the resource efficiency of the part of the plant is determined while taking into consideration the first resource consumption (V1) and the second resource consumption (V2).
Heintel et al (US 2020/0028360 A1) teaches allocating the at least one electrical producer of the part of the electrical producers to the electrical consumer in a first allocating step such that the determined consumption prediction of the electrical consumer matches to the determined production prediction of the at least one electrical producer may comprise allocating one or more electrical producer(s) of the part of the electrical producers to the consumer such that the power expected to be generated by the one or more electrical producer(s) during a specific future time period is essentially equal to the power expected to be consumed by the electrical consumer during the specific future time period.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623