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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1: a colon should be inserted after “comprising”;
Claim 1, line 2: “unit, injecting” should be replaced with “unit configured to inject” or “unit configured to direct”;
Claim 1, line 4: “system, measuring” should be replaced with “system configured to measure”;
Claim 1, line 6: “system, measuring” should be replaced with “system configured to measure”;
Claim 1, line 8: the comma after “table” should be deleted;
Claim 1, line 10: the comma after “processor” should be deleted;
Claim 3, line 2: “make established” should be replaced with –establish–;
Claim 8, line 4: in “the advancing steps”, “the” should be deleted;
Claim 10, line 2: a colon should be inserted after “includes”; and
Claim 11, line 2: a colon should be inserted after “includes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Intraocular pressure detection unit in claim 1 because it uses a generic placeholder (“unit”) that is coupled with functional language (“injecting air to an eyeball and measuring intraocular pressure of the eyeball”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The limitation is being interpreted to correspond to a pneumatic tonometer, as recited in ¶ [0015] of the published application, and equivalents thereof.
High-precision positioning system in claim 1 because it uses a generic placeholder (“system”) that is coupled with functional language (“measuring a target position of the eyeball and outputting a set of high-precision coordinates”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The limitation is being interpreted to correspond to a light source and a light sensor, as recited in ¶ [0016] of the published application, and equivalents thereof.
The recitation in claim 10 is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) because the claim recites sufficient structure for performing the recited function.
Wide-area positioning system in claim 1 because it uses a generic placeholder (“system”) that is coupled with functional language (“measuring the target position of the eyeball and outputting a set of wide-area coordinates”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The limitation is being interpreted to correspond to a light source and an image sensor, as recited in ¶ [0017] of the published application, and equivalents thereof.
The recitation in claim 11 is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) because the claim recites sufficient structure for performing the recited function.
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 1-14 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 1 recite “injecting air to an eyeball” in line 2, which is unclear. Is the air injected into the eyeball? Or is it merely being directed towards the eyeball? For the purposes of examination, the recitation will be interpreted to be “configured to direct air toward an eyeball”.
Claim 1 recites “high-precision” in lines 4, 5, and 14. Claim 1 also recites “wide-area” in lines 6, 7, and 15. These terms are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degrees, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, it is unclear when something starts/stops being considered to be (A) “high-precision” or low-precision and (B) “wide-area” or narrow-area. Claims 2, 3, 6, 10-13 recite at least one of the terms, so the claims are rejected on similar grounds. For the purposes of examination, the recitations will not be given patentable weight.
Claims 2-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “a set of integrated coordinates” in line 3, “a set of high-precision coordinates in line 4, and “a set of wide-area coordinates” in line 5. Claim 1 recites the same limitations in lines 15-16, 5, and 7, respectively. It is unclear if these respective recitations are the same as, related to, or different from each other. For the purposes of examination, the recitations in claim 2 will be interpreted to be “the set of integrated coordinates” in line 3, “the set of high-precision coordinates in line 4, and “the set of wide-area coordinates” in line 5. Claims 3 and 8 recite similar limitations, so the claims are rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 2 recites “a weight” in line 6. Claim 1 recites “weights of the set of high-precision coordinates and the set of wide-area coordinates” in line 14. It is unclear whether these recitations are the same as, related to, or different from each other. The different language suggests that the are different. However, the specification does not make a distinction between the recitations, which suggests that they are the same. Clarification is required. Is the weight of claim 2 one of the weights of the set of high precision coordinates?
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0086059 A1 (Percival) in view of US 2024/0058950 A1 (Tsuneki)
With regards to claim 1, Percival teaches an intraocular pressure inspection device (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0025] depict an ophthalmic instrument including a non-contact tonometer), comprising an intraocular pressure detection unit, injecting air to an eyeball and measuring intraocular pressure of the eyeball (¶ [0025] depicts instrument 10 being a non-contact tonometer operable to discharge a fluid pulse through a fluid discharge tube 12 for measuring intraocular pressure); a high-precision positioning system, measuring a target position of the eyeball and outputting a set of high-precision coordinates (In view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), the recitations of “high-precision” are not being given patentable weight. Fig. 3 and ¶ [0029] depict a first detector 42A; ¶¶ [0031]-[0032] and Fig. 4 depict a determination of a local two-dimensional location (x1, y1) of the centroid of spot image in light detecting area 48 using a first detector 42A); a wide-area positioning system, measuring the target position and outputting a set of wide-area coordinates (In view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), the recitations of “wide-area” are not being given patentable weight. Fig. 3 and ¶ [0029] depict a second detector 42B; ¶¶ [0031]-[0032] and Fig. 4 depict a determination of a local two-dimensional location (x2, y2) of the centroid of spot image in a second detector 42B); and a processor, electrically connected with the high-precision positioning system and the wide-area positioning system (¶ [0035] discloses a microprocessor 60 connected with 42A, 42B for calculating final spot locations (x1, y1) and (x2, y2)), wherein according to a reference distance between the intraocular detection unit and a vertex of a curved surface of the eyeball (¶¶ [0030]-[0031] depicts a predetermined firing distance D away from the corneal vertex V in a Z-axis direction; ¶ [0031] discloses optimizing the system for a range of Z-axis positions centered about the predetermined firing distance D (i.e. +/-2.00 mm) such that the change in spot size for Z-axis positions throughout the range is minimized), the processor adjusts weights of the set of high-precision coordinates and the set of wide-area coordinates to work out a set of integrated coordinates (¶ [0039] discloses determination of regression coefficients which are used for determining x, y, z location of a patient’s eye; ¶¶ [0037]-[0038] discloses the x-y-z alignment is determined according to geometric relationships determined by multiple regression, wherein the regression coefficients).
Percival is silent regarding a triaxial servo table coupled to the intraocular pressure detection unit and moving the intraocular pressure detection unit; the processor is electrically connected to the triaxial servo table, and the processor controls the triaxial servo table to move the intraocular detection unit to the set of integrated coordinates
Tsuneki teaches a triaxial servo table coupled to a device and moving the device (¶ [0024] discloses a servo control device 30 and a target to be driven by a motor being a 3-axis machine, which includes a movable table); the processor is electrically connected to the triaxial servo table (¶ [0023] discloses a computer numerical control device (CNC device) 20 electrically connected to motor 50 via servo control device 30), and the processor controls the triaxial servo table to move the device to the set of integrated coordinates (¶ [0025] discloses the CNC device 20 generates a position command output to the servo control device 30 which generates a torque command based on the position command to control the motor 50). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Percival, based on the teachings of Tsuneki, to incorporate a triaxial servo table coupled to the intraocular pressure detection unit and moving the intraocular pressure detection unit; the processor is electrically connected to the triaxial servo table, and the processor controls the triaxial servo table to move the intraocular detection unit to the set of integrated coordinates. The motivation would have been to automate the movement of the intraocular pressure detection unit, thereby making the device easier to use.
With regards to claim 10, the above combination teaches or suggests the high-precision positioning system includes at least one first light source (Fig. 3 and ¶ [0029] of Percival teaches a first light source 40A for directing a first beam of light), generating a collimated light to illuminate the eyeball (Fig. 3 and ¶ [0029] of Percival discloses a collector lens 44A, wherein an analogous collector lens 46A is provided for collimating a beam); and a light sensor, receiving the collimated light reflected by the eyeball for working out the set of high-precision coordinates (Fig. 3 and ¶ [0029] of Percival depict a first detector 42A; ¶¶ [0031]-[0032] and Fig. 4 of Percival depict a determination of a local two-dimensional location (x1, y1) of the centroid of spot image in light detecting area 48 using a first detector 42A).
With regards to claim 11, the above combination teaches or suggests the wide-area positioning system includes a second light source (Fig. 3 and ¶ [0029] of Percival teaches a second light source 40B), generating a structured light and projecting the structured light onto the eyeball (Fig. 3 and ¶ [0029] of Percival discloses a collector lens 44B, wherein an analogous collector lens 46A is provided for collimating a beam); and an image sensor, capturing an image of the eyeball generated by the structured light projected onto the eyeball for calculating the set of wide-area coordinates (¶¶ [0029], [0031] of Percival depict the first and second detectors 42A, 42B for receiving an image of light; ¶¶ [0031]-[0032] and Fig. 4 of Percival depict a determination of a local two-dimensional location (x2, y2) of the centroid of spot image in a second detector 42B).
With regards to claim 11, the above combination teaches or suggests the high-precision positioning system is electrically connected with the intraocular pressure detection unit and triggers the intraocular pressure detection unit to measure intraocular pressure (¶ [0040] of Percival discloses the system is actuated to take a measurement as soon as X-Y-Z alignment is confirmed).
With regards to claim 13, the above combination teaches or suggests that the triaxial servo table moves the high-precision positioning system and the intraocular pressure detection unit simultaneously (See the above combination regarding the intraocular pressure detection unit of Percival being moved by the triaxial servo table of Tsuneki; Fig. 1 and ¶¶ [0026], [0029] of Percival depict the discharge tube 12, detectors 42A, 42B, and light source 40A, 40B being mounted in or on the nosepiece, which indicates that they are configured to be moved simultaneously).
With regards to claim 14, the above combination teaches or suggests that the target position is the vertex of the curved surface of the eyeball (¶ [0030] of Percival depicts the predetermined firing distance D is in relation to corneal vertex V).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0086059 A1 (Percival) in view of US 2024/0058950 A1 (Tsuneki), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 111768433 A (Hao) (text references are made with regards to the attached machine translation)
With regards to claim 5, the above combination is silent regarding whether, while the reference distance is smaller than a first preset value, the set of integrated coordinates equal the set of high-precision coordinates.
In a system relevant to the problem of locating coordinates of a target, Hao teaches while a reference distance is smaller than a first preset value, the data from a second camera is used (Pages 9-10 teach the comparison of a target camera reference position with a threshold range and subsequently deciding to use a second camera). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the set of integrated coordinates of Percival to incorporate, based on the teachings of Hao, to incorporate that while a reference distance is smaller than a first preset value, the set of integrated coordinates equal the set of high-precision coordinates. The motivation would have been to set the integrated coordinates according to the camera with more accurate coordinate determination.
With regards to claim 6, the above combination is silent regarding whether, while the reference distance is greater than or equal to a second preset value, the set of integrated coordinates equal the set of wide-area coordinates.
In a system relevant to the problem of locating coordinates of a target, Hao teaches while a reference distance is greater than or equal to a second preset value, the data from a second camera is used (Pages 9-10 teach the comparison of a target camera reference position with a threshold range and subsequently deciding to use a second camera). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the set of integrated coordinates of Percival to incorporate, based on the teachings of Hao, to incorporate that while a reference distance is greater than or equal to a second preset value, the set of integrated coordinates equal the set of wide-area coordinates. The motivation would have been to set the integrated coordinates according to the camera with more accurate coordinate determination.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0086059 A1 (Percival) in view of US 2024/0058950 A1 (Tsuneki), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,120,433 A (Mizuno).
With regards to claim 7, the above combination is silent regarding whether the processor uses a PID (Proportional- Integral-Derivative) controller to control a movement of the triaxial servo table.
In a system relevant to the problem of positioning medical devices, Mizuno teaches using a PID (Proportional- Integral-Derivative) controller to control a movement of a servo (Col. 9, lines 17-31 depict using a PID control algorithm to drive a servo). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor of the above combination to incorporate using a PID (Proportional- Integral-Derivative) controller to control a movement of a servo as taught by Mizuno. The motivation would have been to provide a more accurate control of the positioning of the device.
With regards to claim 8, the above combination is silent with regards to whether the processor controls a movement of the triaxial servo table with the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
70
112
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein sx, sy and sz are the advancing steps of the triaxial servo table;
x
-
,
y
-
, and
z
-
are set of integrated coordinates; M is a geometrical transformation matrix; p is a proportional control parameter of the PID controller.
In a system relevant to the problem of positioning medical devices, Mizuno teaches a processor controls a movement of a servo by means of a coordinate transform and prescribing a control algorithm (Col. 9, lines 17-31 depict using a PID control algorithm to drive a servo based on coordinate transforms). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the movement of the triaxial servo table of the above combination to incorporate that it is based on a transformed coordinate subject to PID control as taught by Mizuno to such that the processor controls a movement of the triaxial servo table with the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
70
112
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein sz, sy and sz are the advancing steps of the triaxial servo table;
x
-
,
y
-
, are a set of integrated coordinates; M is a geometrical transformation matrix; p is a proportional control parameter of the PID controller. The motivation would have been to provide a more accurate control of the positioning of the device.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0086059 A1 (Percival) in view of US 2024/0058950 A1 (Tsuneki) and 6,120,433 A (Mizuno), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 113236335 A (Wang) ((text references are made with regards to the attached machine translation).
With regards to claim 9, the above combination is silent regarding whether the proportional control parameter is defined using a fuzzy logic method.
In a system relevant to the problem of using a PID controller, Wang teaches a proportional control parameter is defined using a fuzzy logic method (Page 4, fourth paragraph indicates that a fuzzy logic regulator used to obtain the proportion parameter). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the PID controller of the above combination to incorporate that the proportional control parameter is defined using a fuzzy logic method as taught by Wang. The motivation would have been to provide a more accurate control using the PID controller.
No prior art rejections of claims 2-4
Claims 2-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 2, the prior art does not teach or suggest the intraocular pressure inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the set of integrated coordinates are obtained via the following equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
84
356
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein
x
-
,
y
-
, and
z
-
are a set of integrated coordinates; x, y and z area set of high-precision coordinates output by the high-precision positioning system; X, Y and Z are a set of wide-area coordinates output by the wide-area positioning system; r is a weight; a and b are coefficients.
There are no prior art rejections of claims 3-4 by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
The closest prior art is EP 2857939 A1 (Ebisawa) which teaches the determination of pupil locations using two cameras (¶ [0040]). However, Ebisawa does not teach or suggest the above equation.
US 2023/0135512 A1 (Xu) teaches the determination of a position data using a number of images (¶ [0083]). However, Xu does not teach or suggest the above equation.
US 2022/0262132 A1 (Takao) teaches calculating a first weight for the first individual reliability based on the distance from the position of the first sensor at the time of performing detection to the estimated position of the target object P, and calculating a second weight for the second individual reliability based on the distance from the position of the second sensor at the time of performing detection to the estimated position of the target object P (¶ [0147]). However, Takao does not teach or suggest the above equation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8637. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/S.C.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791