DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Communication received 05/15/2024 for 18665148. Claims 1-20 are presented.
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 .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-6, 10, 12-13, 17, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claims 4, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 recite the term "and/or" which includes alternative claim language, thus the term "or" is selected to more clearly delineate the claim scope for purposes of examination.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 recite "is table reference" which lacks antecedent basis and has been interpreted as "is --a-- table reference".
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite "is number" which lacks antecedent basis and has been interpreted as "is --a-- number".
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite "the event", "the parameter category", "the first parameter", and "the value of the first parameter" which lack antecedent basis and have been interpreted as "[[the]] --an-- event", "[[the]] --a-- parameter category", "[[the]] --a-- first parameter", and "[[the]] --a-- value of the first parameter", respectively.
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 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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "storage unit configured to store" in claim 7 (note hardware processor executing programs stored in storage unit).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-20 are 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 claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites in response to creating a target formula in an online table, determining a target formula key corresponding to the target formula; and creating a formula instance based on the target formula key, wherein a target instance attribute comprised in the formula instance references a target storage object in a pre-created object reference pool, the object reference pool comprises correspondence relationships between formula keys and storage objects, the target storage object is a storage object having a correspondence with the target formula key, and the formula instance is for calculating the target formula.
The limitation of determining a target formula key corresponding to the target formula, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, "determining" in the context of this claim encompasses a user evaluation of a target formula key based on an observed target formula.
The limitation of creating a formula instance based on the target formula key, and the formula instance is for calculating the target formula, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, "creating" and "calculating" in the context of this claim encompass a user evaluation of a formula instance based on an evaluated target formula key and a user evaluation of a target formula based on the evaluated formula instance.
The limitation of a pre-created object reference pool, the object reference pool comprises correspondence relationships between formula keys and storage objects, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, "a pre-created object reference pool" in the context of this claim encompasses a group of user evaluations of correspondence relationships between observed or evaluated formula keys and storage objects.
The limitation of a correspondence with the target formula key, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, "a correspondence" in the context of this claim encompasses a user evaluation of a correspondence between an observed or evaluated storage object and target key formula.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites creating a target formula, an online table, a target instance attribute referencing a target storage object, and a storage object. The target formula, online table, target instance attribute, target storage object, and storage object are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)]. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of managing online table [MPEP 2106.05(h)].
The creating a target formula represents mere data gathering (obtaining the formula information) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, as the obtained target formula is used in the abstract mental process of determining, creating, and corresponding. The creation is recited at a high level of generality and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)]. Similarly, the target instance attribute, target storage object, and storage object limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output [MPEP 2106.05(g)]. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the mental processes that the user performs, using the computer components as a tool.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of target formula, online table, target instance attribute, target storage object, and storage object amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The creating a target formula, as discussed above, represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. The target instance attribute, target storage object, and storage object limitations, as discussed above, represent mere data output and is a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Further, both of these elements are well-understood, routine and conventional.
With respect to the a target instance attribute, a target storage object, and a storage object, the courts have found limitations directed to storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional [MPEP 2106.05(d))(II), "electronic recordkeeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"].
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims also recite limitations of a reference counter for counting a number of references to a storage object (claims 2, 8, 15); generating, based on a formula, a formula key and a formula symbol sequence attribute corresponding to the formula (claims 4, 10, 17); generating, based on a formula, a formula parameter and a formula operation type corresponding to the formula, wherein the formula parameter comprises a first parameter and/or a second parameter, a parameter category of the first parameter is table reference, a value of the first parameter is a cell identification, and the cell identification is for indicating that a numeric value corresponding to the first parameter in the formula corresponding to the storage object is a numeric value in a cell corresponding to the cell identification; a parameter category of the second parameter is number, and a value of the second parameter is a numeric value at a corresponding position in the target formula (claims 5, 11, 12, 18, 19) that are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components encompassing user observations or evaluations of a count for an observed number of references; user evaluation of a formula key and formula symbol sequence attribute corresponding to an observed or evaluated formula; and a user evaluation of a formula parameter and formula operation type corresponding to an observed or evaluated formula including an observation or evaluation of a table reference, cell identification, and numeric value and thus fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The dependent claims recite additional limitations including storing the formula symbol sequence attribute in the object reference pool (claims 4) and storing the formula parameter and the formula operation type corresponding to the formula in the object reference pool (claims 5, 11, 18) that are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computer systems [MPEP 2106.05(h)] and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of storing data are recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine, or conventional activities [MPEP 2106.05(d))(II), "electronic recordkeeping", and "storing and retrieving information in memory"] and remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration [MPEP 2106.05(g)]. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components, linking the use of an exception to a technological field of use, and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites method steps substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and recite an abstract idea. While the claim recites additional elements of an electronic device, processors, storage unit, and programs, the elements are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an electronic device, processors, storage unit, and programs amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites method steps substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and recite an abstract idea. While the claim recites additional elements of a computer program product, computer program or instructions, and processor, the elements are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer program product, computer program or instructions, and processor amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 14-20 also recite a "computer program product" comprising "a computer program or instructions" and are directed to a program per se. The specification discloses that such products may be implemented using software, hardware or a combination of software and hardware ("the procedures described with reference to the flowchart may be implemented as computer software programs", [0099]). The claimed "product" is non-structural per se, and the claims reasonably reads on the corresponding software portion of the disclosure.
Therefore, a reasonable interpretation in light of the specification leads to the conclusion that the claim as a whole is directed to entirely a software embodiment, i.e., encompasses pure software, and is not a hardware embodiment, thus, the claims do not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Applicants are advised to amend into the claims the hardware components required to make the claims statutory and overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiatt et al. (US 2018/0203838 A1).
As to claim 1, Hiatt discloses a formula processing method, comprising:
in response to creating a target formula in an online table, determining a target formula key corresponding to the target formula [para 0033, 0036-0037, 0055, determine syntax tree (read: target formula key, note broadest reasonable interpretation of key includes any type of identification) with information regarding how formula should be interpreted based on formula input into spreadsheet cell accessed via web-based client]; and
creating a formula instance based on the target formula key [para 0036-0038, 0055-0056, assign tree node (read: formula instance) including syntax tree for formula], wherein a target instance attribute comprised in the formula instance references a target storage object in a pre-created object reference pool [para 0037-0038, node includes element identifier (read: target instance attribute) identifying reference element (read: target storage object) stored in tree (read: pre-created object reference pool) maintained in memory], the object reference pool comprises correspondence relationships between formula keys and storage objects [para 0037-0038, tree includes nodes associated with respective syntax trees and reference elements], the target storage object is a storage object having a correspondence with the target formula key [para 0037-0038, reference element includes data structure (read: storage object) associated with syntax tree], and the formula instance is for calculating the target formula [para 0037-0038, tree node includes syntax tree with information regarding how formula should be interpreted].
As to claim 2, Hiatt discloses the formula processing method of Claim 1, wherein in the object reference pool, each of the storage objects corresponds to a reference counter, and the reference counter is for counting a number of references to a storage object corresponding thereto [para 0037-0038, 0069, tree includes reference element data structure with degree of criticality (read: reference counter) measuring count of cells dependent on reference element].
As to claim 4, Hiatt discloses the formula processing method of Claim 1, further comprising:
generating, based on a formula, a formula key and a formula symbol sequence attribute corresponding to the formula [para 0037-0038, 0046, 0055, create syntax tree (read: formula key) and data structure (read: formula symbol sequence attribute) for input formula]; and
storing the formula symbol sequence attribute in the object reference pool, wherein the formula symbol sequence attribute is for indicating a variable and/or a constant in the formula [para 0037-0038, 0046, tree includes reference element including data structure including locations to dependent data (read: variable) of input formula].
As to claim 5, Hiatt discloses the formula processing method of Claim 1, further comprising:
generating, based on a formula, a formula parameter and a formula operation type corresponding to the formula [para 0037-0038, 0046, 0052-0054, maintain reference element data structure (read: formula parameter) and assign formula dependency group (read: formula operation type) for formula input into cell]; and
storing the formula parameter and the formula operation type corresponding to the formula in the object reference pool [para 0046, 0056-0058, insert formula dependency data structure and formula dependency group into node stored in tree], wherein the formula parameter comprises a first parameter and/or a second parameter, a parameter category of the first parameter is table reference [para 0037, 0047, data structure includes spreadsheet locations (read: table reference) of dependency data (read: first parameter)], a value of the first parameter is a cell identification [para 0037, 0047, spreadsheet location includes cell location], and the cell identification is for indicating that a numeric value corresponding to the first parameter in the formula corresponding to the storage object is a numeric value in a cell corresponding to the cell identification [para 0037, 0045-0047, cell location includes numeric value representing cell on which formula depends, where reference element data corresponds to spreadsheet cell]; a parameter category of the second parameter is number [para 0037, 0044, 0047, data structure includes cell content (read: second parameter) of calculated formula result], and a value of the second parameter is a numeric value at a corresponding position in the target formula [[para 0037, 0044, 0047, calculated formula result is value contained in formula input into spreadsheet cell].
As to claim 6, Hiatt discloses the formula processing method of Claim 1, wherein in the event that the parameter category of the first parameter is table reference [para 0037, 0047, data structure includes spreadsheet locations (read: table reference) of dependency data (read: first parameter)], the value of the first parameter is set to a proxy reference [para 0037, 0045-0047, dependency data based on link (read: proxy reference) to another cell], the value of the first parameter is stored as a reference tag [para 0037, 0044-0047, dependency data stored in data structure includes pointer (read: reference tag) for link], and the reference tag is for pointing to a cell identification referenced by a proxy [para 0037, 0045-0047, pointer links to another cell].
As to claim 7, Hiatt discloses an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a storage unit configured to store one or more programs, the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, causing the one or more processors to implement a method [para 0034-0036, computing device includes processor and memory storing instructions executed by processor] comprising: limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claims 8 and 10-13, Hiatt discloses the electronic device of Claim 7 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 2 and 4-6, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 14, Hiatt discloses a computer program product comprising a computer program or instructions which, when executed by a processor, implement a method [para 0034-0036, device memory stores instructions executed by processor] comprising: limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claims 15 and 17-20, Hiatt discloses the computer program product of Claim 14 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 2 and 4-6, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art references of record are noted below.
Hiatt et al. (US 20180203838 A1) generally discloses counting a number of references to a storage object and deleting the storage object from the object reference pool but does not disclose an event that the number of references to the storage object is 0 and deleting both the storage object and a formula key corresponding to the storage object from an object reference pool.
Pedapati (US 11514236 B1) generally discloses removing an index counting a number of references to a storage object and deleting an index corresponding to the storage object but does not disclose deleting the storage object and the formula key corresponding to the storage object from the object reference pool.
Elias et al. (US 20190220509 A1) generally discloses creating target formulas in an online table but does not disclose creating a formula instance based on a determined target formula key comprising a target instance attribute referencing a target storage object in a pre-created object reference pool comprising correspondence relationships between formula keys and storage objects.
Smith et al. (US 20210081605 A1) generally discloses storing a casual tree structure corresponding to a document including a sequence of instructions and assigning unique identifiers to each instruction but does not disclose an event that the number of references to the storage object is 0 and deleting both the storage object and a formula key corresponding to the storage object from an object reference pool.
Applicant's claims have been considered in view of the cited art. After reviewing the art and performing a search, no combination of prior art reads on the claim as a whole. Specifically, the dependent claim limitations in combination with the independent claim limitations are as a whole novel and non-obvious over the prior art. In addition, no reference uncovered would have provided a basis of evidence for asserting a motivation, nor one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made, knowing the teaching of the prior arts of record would have combined them to arrive at the present invention as recited in the context of the independent claims as a whole.
Regarding the dependent claims, the prior art of record broadly discloses creating target formulas in online tables. Moreover, the prior art of record allows determining data structures corresponding to the target formula comprising references and correspondence relationships between target storage objects, object reference pools, formula keys, storage objects.
However, the prior art of record does not explicitly teach the more intertwined nature of the current dependent claims. The type of reference counter event is specifically being claimed and corresponding deletion step is not taught by the prior art, specifically, wherein in the event that the number of references to the storage object is 0, deleting the storage object and the formula key corresponding to the storage object from the object reference pool. Allowing such an interaction with such a specific storage object and formula key from an object reference pool in response to such a specific event regarding a reference counter is not taught by the previously cited art.
Moreover, the deletion from the object reference pool fully integrate any type of observations and evaluations into a practical application. Therefore, it is for at least these reasons that the claim language, in the specific order recited, defines patentability over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5240 and email is linda.huynh@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/LINDA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172