DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communication: The claims filed on 05/21/2024. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2024, 09/04/2024, 01/07/2025, 08/15/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
This application is a continuation application of US Patent application 17/742,249 (now U.S. Patent No. 12019837) filed on May 11, 2022 which is a continuation of PCT Patent application No. PCT/CN2021/125076 filed on October 20, 2021, which claims priority to Chinese Patent application No. 202110526827.6 filed May 14, 2021 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims listed in the table below of U.S. Patent No. 12019837 (‘837).
Instant Application 18/670,638
U.S. Patent ‘837
Claim 1. A control display method for an electronic device, the method comprising:
Claim 1. A control display method for an electronic device, the method comprising:
- displaying a graphical user interface (GUI), the GUI comprising a user-controlled virtual character and a plurality of opponent virtual characters located in a virtual environment and a control;
- displaying a graphical user interface (GUI), the GUI comprising (i) a two-dimensional picture of a user-controlled virtual character and a plurality of opponent virtual characters located in a three-dimensional virtual environment and captured by a virtual camera, and (ii) a two-dimensional control;
- updating a display position of the virtual character on the GUI as the virtual character moves in the virtual environment;
- updating a display position of at least one of the plurality of opponent virtual characters in the two-dimensional picture by converting a current location of the at least one of the plurality of opponent virtual characters in the three-dimensional virtual environment into a location in the two-dimensional picture based on a current position of the virtual camera and a movement of the at least one of the plurality of opponent virtual characters in the three-dimensional virtual environment;
- determining if the control blocks the display of the at least one of the plurality of opponent virtual characters based on the updated display position in the two-dimensional picture and display position of the two-dimensional control; and
- in accordance with a determination that the control blocks the virtual character at the display position, increasing a transparency of the control; and
- in accordance with a determination that the control does not block the virtual character at the display position, reducing the transparency of the control
in accordance with a determination that the control blocks the at least one of the plurality of opponent virtual characters at the updated display position: adjusting a transparency of the control to a predefined transparency in accordance with a determination that the control blocks the at least one of the plurality of opponent virtual characters
Claims 2-6
Claims 2-6
Claim 7
Claim 8
Claim 8
Claim 9
Independent Claim 9
Independent Claim 10
Claims 10-14
Claims 11-15
Claim 15
Claim 17
Claim 16
Claim 18
Independent Claim 17
Independent Claim 19
Claim 18
Medium claim implementing the feature of method claim 2
Claim 19
Claim 20
Claim 20
Medium claim implementing the feature of method claim 8
As can be seen from the table above, claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated by the claims (see the above tables) of patent ‘837, in that, those claims of ‘837 contain all the limitations of Claims 1-20 of the instant application. Claims 1-20 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the ‘837 claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 9, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE (US 2019/0070496 A1; hereinafter as HE) in view of Kang et al. (US 2009/0009424 A1; hereinafter Kang).
As to claims 1, 9, 17, HE discloses:
(claim 1) A control display method for an electronic device (see ¶ 0005), the method comprising:
(claim 9) An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (see Figs. 2-4 and ¶ 0008, 0014, 0033), cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
(claim 17) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, the computer program, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (see ¶ 0013, 0076-0077) comprising:
displaying a graphical user interface (GUI) (see Fig. 1, 3 and ¶ 0027, 0034; graphical user interface 210 which may include the entire part of the game scene 220, or part of the game scene 220), the GUI comprising a user-controlled virtual character (see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0033, 0036-0037; virtual character 230/ the virtual character is configured to move in the game scene according to a first touch operation in the touch area) and a plurality of opponent virtual characters located in a virtual environment (see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0051; real-time positions of enemy characters) and a control (see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0047; mini-map 260 is provided on the graphical user interface. ¶ 0051; the mini-map may be a thumbnail of the entire game scene; A touch operation is performed in the thumbnail to intuitively select at least one of object and position needing to be indicated);
updating a display position of the virtual character on the GUI as the virtual character moves in the virtual environment (see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0036-0040; the virtual character is configured to move in the game scene according to a first touch operation in the touch area).
HE does not appear to teach:
in accordance with a determination that the control blocks the virtual character at the display position, increasing a transparency of the control; and
in accordance with a determination that the control does not block the virtual character at the display position, reducing the transparency of the control.
However, these deficient limitations are disclosed by Kang. Specifically, Kang discloses a user interface comprising a plurality of movable object (i.e., object 111a illustrated in Fig. 5A and ¶ 0049) and control (i.e., window 113).
Kang further teaches: in accordance with a determination that the control blocks the virtual character at the display position, increasing a transparency of the control (see Figs. 5a-5b and ¶¶ 0049-0050; the control unit 117 monitors whether the selected object 111a moves to the location of the first screen that is overlapped by the second screen 113 during display of broadcast data in step S31. See Fig. 5D and ¶ 0034, 0037-0038; when an object moves to the location of the first screen that is overlapped by the second screen 113, the control unit 117 controls the second screen 113 according to a control option set by the setting section 119. For example, the control unit 117 can adjust the transparency of the second screen 113 according to a transparency level set by the setting section 119. See Fig. 5D and ¶ 0053; If the transparency adjust option is set at step S303, the control unit 117 adjusts the transparency of the second screen 113 as shown in FIG. 5D. The transparency of the second screen 113 can be set by the user (i.e. step S213 in FIG. 2B). Thus, the transparency of the second screen 113 of the portable terminal is adjusted while the location of the second screen 113 is maintained as shown in FIG. 5D. Accordingly, the user of the portable terminal can identify the second broadcast and the selected object 111a at the same time); and
in accordance with a determination that the control does not block the virtual character at the display position, reducing the transparency of the control (see ¶ 0038, 0057; When the object moves out of the location of the first screen that is overlapped by the second screen 113, the control unit 117 restores the second screen 113 to a previous state in terms of transparency and continues to display first broadcast data in the first screen 111 and second broadcast data in the second screen 113);
The references, each discloses a user interface for displaying and manipulating display objects. 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 teaching of HE and the teaching of Kang together to provide a game user interface that is configured to adjust the transparency of an object that is detected to overlap a game object in the game environment based on an updated position of a movable object such as an opponent character as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Kang that allows the user to properly view the obscured object of interest to the user (Kang: see ¶ 0008). This is true since the virtual characters disclosed in HE is movable objects and is configured to move around the virtual game; applying the overlapping determination method of Kang to the movable opponent virtual characters disclosed in HE would allow the user to properly view the obscured virtual characters when the character moves to an overlapping area.
Claims 2-3, 7-8, 10-11, 15-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE (US 2019/0070496 A1; hereinafter as HE) in view of Kang et al. (US 2009/0009424 A1; hereinafter Kang) further in view of Magdalena et al. (US 2017/0043251 A1; hereinafter as Magdalena).
As to claims 2, 10 and 18, the rejections of claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively are incorporated. HE and Kang further teach: wherein the increasing the transparency of the control comprises: switching the transparency of the control from a first transparency directly to a second transparency, wherein the first transparency is lower than the second transparency; or gradually increasing the transparency of the control from the first transparency to the second transparency (Kang: see Fig. 5D and ¶ 0035, 0037; adjust the transparency of the second screen 113 according to a transparency level set by the setting section 119). In addition, Magdalena is relied upon for teaching the limitations of claim 2 (Magdalena: see ¶ 0021, 0102, 0127, 0129; the modification of at least one of said transparency factor of said first object, said transparency factor of a game pointer, and said transparency factor of at least one game object provides a gradual displayed transparency transition of at least one of the first object, the game pointer and the at least one game object from an initial level to a set transparency level.
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 teaching of HE as modified by Kang and the teaching of Magdalena together to provide a game user interface that is configured to adjust the transparency of an object that is detected to overlap a game object in the game environment as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Magdalena that providing effective feedback in real time during game play, without hindering or disengaging the players (Magdalena: see ¶ 0006).
As to claims 3, 11 and 19, the rejections of claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively are incorporated. HE/Kang/Magdalena further teach: wherein an increased transparency of the control positively correlates with a blocking degree of the display position by the control, wherein the blocking degree indicates a size of a blocked area of the virtual character by the control on the GUI (Magdalena: see ¶ 0010-0012, 0045-0046, 0156-0157; the step of modifying at least one of said transparency factor of said first object, a transparency factor of a game pointer, and a transparency factor of at least one game object, occurs in dependence upon the distance between said first location and a trigger event location associated with the trigger event {~the closer the distance, the bigger size of the overlapping are}. It should be appreciated that the game area may contain a plurality of objects which act as first game objects). Thus, combining HE/Kang/Magdalena would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in the foregoing rejection of claim 2.
As to claims 7, 15 and 20, the rejections of claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively are incorporated. HE/Kang/Magdalena further teach: wherein the increasing the transparency of the control comprises: switching the transparency of the control from a first transparency directly to a second transparency, wherein the first transparency is lower than the second transparency; or gradually increasing the transparency of the control from the first transparency to the second transparency (Kang: see Fig. 5D and ¶ 0035, 0037; adjust the transparency of the second screen 113 according to a transparency level set by the setting section 119. Kang: see ¶ 0038, 0057; When the object moves out of the location of the first screen that is overlapped by the second screen 113, the control unit 117 restores the second screen 113 to a previous state in terms of transparency and continues to display first broadcast data in the first screen 111 and second broadcast data in the second screen 113. Magdalena: see ¶ 0010-0012, 0045-0046, 0156-0157; It should be appreciated that the game area may contain a plurality of objects which act as first game objects. In this case the processor 115 must monitor the distance between a trigger event location and each of the first game objects, since the one or more display characteristics of the first game object and/or the trigger game object may be modified in dependence upon any of these distances. See ¶ 0092-0097; When the first object obscures part of the gameboard, a trigger event may be detected and used to determine whether or not to alter the one or more display characteristics of the first object {~this implies when the first object does not obscure, then the transparency is not adjusted or moves back from transparency to non-transparency}. The trigger event may be associated with a trigger event location and the modification of the one or more display characteristics may occur in dependence upon the distance between this trigger event location and the location of the first object. The following section of the description will describe some different embodiments of the trigger event. ¶ 0096; the associated display characteristics comprise at least a transparency factor in addition to size, color and other attributes such as whether the first object is selectable and actions that may follow should it be so selected, and other characteristics that may be provided as relevant to the form and function of the first object. ¶ 0011, 0100-0103; increasing at least one of said transparency factor of said object). Thus, combining HE/Kang/Magdalena would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in the foregoing rejection of claim 2.
As to claims 8 and 16, the rejections of claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively are incorporated. HE/Kang/Madalena further teach: after increasing the transparency of the control: reducing the transparency of the control in response to a hover gesture above the control. (Magdalena: see ¶ 0010-0012, 0045-0046, 0156-0157; It should be appreciated that the game area may contain a plurality of objects which act as first game objects. In this case the processor 115 must monitor the distance between a trigger event location and each of the first game objects, since the one or more display characteristics of the first game object and/or the trigger game object may be modified in dependence upon any of these distances. See ¶ 0092-0097; When the first object obscures part of the gameboard, a trigger event may be detected and used to determine whether or not to alter the one or more display characteristics of the first object {~this implies when the first object does not obscure, then the transparency is not adjusted or moves back from transparency to non-transparency}. The trigger event may be associated with a trigger event location and the modification of the one or more display characteristics may occur in dependence upon the distance between this trigger event location and the location of the first object. The following section of the description will describe some different embodiments of the trigger event. ¶ 0096; the associated display characteristics comprise at least a transparency factor in addition to size, color and other attributes such as whether the first object is selectable and actions that may follow should it be so selected, and other characteristics that may be provided as relevant to the form and function of the first object. ¶ 0011, 0100-0103; increasing at least one of said transparency factor of said object). Thus, combining HE/Kang/Magdalena would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in the foregoing rejection of claim 2.
Claims 4-6, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2019/0070496 A1; hereinafter as HE) in view of Kang et al. (US 2009/0009424 A1; hereinafter Kang) further in view of Magdalena et al. (US 2017/0043251 A1; hereinafter as Magdalena) and Kawahara (US 2005/0057497 A1; hereinafter as Kawahara).
As to claims 4 and 12, the rejections of claims 2 and 10, respectively are incorporated. HE/Kang/Magdalena further teach: obtaining three-dimensional of a target point on the virtual character in the virtual environment (HE: see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0036-0040; the virtual character is configured to move in the game scene according to a first touch operation in the touch area. Kang: see Figs. 5a-5b and ¶¶ 0049-0050; the control unit 117 monitors whether the selected object 111a moves to the location of the first screen that is overlapped by the second screen 113 during display of broadcast data in step S31); determining, based on a positional relationship between the updated display position and a two-dimensional region in which the control is located, whether the control blocks the display position (Kang: see Figs. 5a-5b and ¶¶ 0049-0050; the control unit 117 monitors whether the selected object 111a moves to the location of the first screen that is overlapped by the second screen 113 during display of broadcast data in step S31. Magdalena: see ¶ 0097; when the first object obscures part of the gameboard, ¶ 0010-0012, 0100-0103; distance of the locations of the objects).
HE/Kang/Magdalena do not appear to teach mapping the three-dimensional coordinates to the display position based on a conversion matrix.
However, Kawahara is relied upon for teaching the limitations. Specifically, Kawahara teaches a feature of determining whether the cursor {~image object} overlaps a window within the 3D display model involves projecting a ray from a predefined viewpoint in the 3D display model through the cursor, which is located in a rectangle representing the 2D display in the 3D display model (see ¶ 0010) comprising obtaining three-dimensional coordinates of a target point on a virtual character in a virtual environment (see ¶ 0011; determining a 3D position where the ray intersects the window within the 3D display model); mapping the three-dimensional coordinates to the updated display position based on a conversion matrix (see ¶ 0011; transforming the 3D position into a 2D position with respect to the 2D coordinate system for the window based upon the size, position and orientation of the window within the 3D display model. ¶ 0023; It also involves transforming the 3D position in the 3D display model into a corresponding 2D position with respect to the 2D coordinate system for the window based upon the size, position and orientation of the window within the 3D display model).
The references, each discloses a user interface for displaying and manipulating 3D objects. 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 teaching of HE/Kang/Magdalena and the teaching of Kawahara together to provide a system that can determine the overlapping of the 3D objects in the virtual games as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Kawahara that enabling the user to easily navigate the through and manipulate 3D objects (Kawahara: see ¶ 0007).
As to claims 5 and 13, the rejections of claims 4 and 12, respectively are incorporated. HE/Kang/Magdalena/Kawahara further teach: obtaining three-dimensional coordinates of a first plurality of target points (HE: see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0036-0040; the virtual character is configured to move in the game scene according to a first touch operation in the touch area. Kawahara: see ¶ 0011; determining a 3D position where the ray intersects the window within the 3D display model), and wherein determining whether the control blocks the updated display position comprises: in accordance with a determination that a second plurality of target points of the first plurality of target points on the at least one of the plurality component virtual characters is located in the two-dimensional region in which the control is located (HE: see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0036-0040; the virtual character is configured to move in the game scene according to a first touch operation in the touch area. Kang: see Figs. 5a-5b and ¶¶ 0049-0050; the control unit 117 monitors whether the selected object 111a moves to the location of the first screen that is overlapped by the second screen 113 during display of broadcast data in step S31. Magdalena: see ¶ 0097; when the first object obscures part of the gameboard, ¶ 0010-0012, 0100-0103; distance of the locations of the objects. Kawahara: see ¶ 0011; determining a 3D position where the ray intersects the window within the 3D display model): determining that the control blocks the updated display position (Kawahara: see ¶ 0011; determining a 3D position where the ray intersects the window within the 3D display model), wherein the second plurality of target points is less than or equal to the first plurality of target points (Kawahara: see ¶ 0011, 0023; determining a 3D position where the ray intersects the window within the 3D display model). Thus, combining HE/Kang/Madalena/Kawahara would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in the foregoing rejection of claim 4.
As to claims 6 and 14, the rejections of claims 5 and 13, respectively are incorporated. HE/Kang/Madalena/Kawahara further teach: in accordance with the determination that the second plurality of target points is located in the two-dimensional region in which the control is located: determining that the control has a corresponding level of blocking to the updated display position; and setting a corresponding level of transparency associated with the corresponding level of blocking as the second transparency (Magdalena: see ¶ 0092-0097; When the first object obscures part of the gameboard, a trigger event may be detected and used to determine whether or not to alter the one or more display characteristics of the first object. The trigger event may be associated with a trigger event location and the modification of the one or more display characteristics may occur in dependence upon the distance between this trigger event location and the location of the first object. The following section of the description will describe some different embodiments of the trigger event. ¶ 0096; the associated display characteristics comprise at least a transparency factor in addition to size, color and other attributes such as whether the first object is selectable and actions that may follow should it be so selected, and other characteristics that may be provided as relevant to the form and function of the first object. ¶ 0011, 0100-0103; increasing at least one of said transparency factor of said object. Magdalena: see ¶ 0010-0012, 0045-0046, 0156-0157; It should be appreciated that the game area may contain a plurality of objects which act as first game objects. In this case the processor 115 must monitor the distance between a trigger event location and each of the first game objects, since the one or more display characteristics of the first game object and/or the trigger game object may be modified in dependence upon any of these distances). Thus, combining HE/Kang/Madalena/Kawahara would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in the foregoing rejection of claim 4
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYETLIEN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1033. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 8:00 PM.
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, Irete (Fred) Ehichioya can be reached on 571-272-4034. 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.
/TUYETLIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179