DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing filed on April 24, 2024. Claims 1-15 have been examined and are currently pending.
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 filed on April 24, 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim 1 recites the limitation, “an exercise sequence generation unit configured to generate an exercise program including a plurality of exercise machines needed for a user using the smart gym and an exercise sequence including a user order of the plurality of exercise machines”. It appears the applicant made a typographical error. Replace the term, “user” with “use”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim is directed to a predictive modelling.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Methods of Organizing Human Activity
Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 recite limitations, “a determining unit configured to determine an occupancy status of the exercise machine; an exercise sequence generation unit configured to generate an exercise program including a plurality of exercise machines needed for a user using the smart gym and an exercise sequence including a user order of the plurality of exercise machines; and an Al exercise sequence providing unit configured to provide, to the user in real time, an Al exercise sequence automatically resetting the use order of the plurality of exercise machines included in the exercise sequence according to the occupancy status of the exercise machine in the smart gym.” which are directed to the abstract idea of managing personal behavior under methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the claim is directed to managing a person’s exercise routine or training regimen. The management of a person’s exercise routine or training regimen is a form of managing personal behavior.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The applicant has not shown or demonstrated any of the requirements described above under "integration into a practical application" under step 2A. Specifically, the applicant's limitations are not "integrated into a practical application" because they are adding words "apply it" with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field has not been shown or disclosed (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the applicant’s limitations are not “significantly more” because they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The applicant’s claimed limitations do not demonstrate an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, effecting a transformation or reduction of particular article to a different state or thing. The current application does not amount to 'significantly more' than the abstract idea as described above. The claim does not include additional elements or limitations individually or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the individual elements of a communicator, determining unit, exercise sequence generation unit, exercise machine(s), AI exercise sequence providing unit, and computer readable recording medium amount to no more than implementing an idea with a computerized system and they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements taken in combination add nothing more than what is present when the elements are considered individually. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the exception (i.e., abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-14 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to statutory subject matter. A system claim needs to recite the physical structures that make up the system, e.g., a processor, a memory, an input device, an output device, etc. for a computer-based system. In the instant application, independent claim 1 does not recite physical structures are included in the system claims which would enable a practitioner to make and use the system, the system claim is considered to be non-statutory.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to statutory subject matter. The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Subject Matter Eligible of Computer Readable Medium-January 26, 2010). According the applicant's originally-filed specification discloses, “The methods according to an embodiment of the present disclosure may be implemented in the form of a program command executable by various computer devices and may be recorded on a computer-readable medium. The computer-readable medium may include a program command, a data file, a data structure, etc. individually or in a combined fashion. The program command recorded on the medium may be specially designed and configured for the present disclosure or may be well known to and usable by one of ordinary skill in the art.” (page 21) The applicant’s specification cites examples of a computer readable media/medium, however, examples are not definition of a computer readable medium/media. Therefore, the computer readable medium can be interpreted as a signal. Signals are not statutory subject matter.
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 1-15 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.
The term “real time” in claims 1, 9, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “real time” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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) 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. US Publication 20220331659 A1.
Claims 9 and 15:
As per claim 9, Chen teaches a method and computer readable recording medium comprising:
determining, via a determining unit, an occupancy status of each of exercise machines in a smart gym (paragraph 0004 “The exercise recommendation system inputs the profile of the user to an exercise selection model, which is configured to rank a set of exercises for a user to perform based on the history of exercises the user has performed, the available gym equipment, and the one or more exercise goals.”);
generating, via an exercise sequence generation unit, an exercise program including a plurality of exercise machines needed for a user using the smart gym and an exercise sequence including a use order of the plurality of exercise machines (paragraph 0004 “The exercise recommendation system inputs the profile of the user to an exercise selection model, which is configured to rank a set of exercises for a user to perform based on the history of exercises the user has performed, the available gym equipment, and the one or more exercise goals.”);
and providing, via an Al exercise sequence providing unit, to the user in real time, an Al exercise sequence automatically resetting the use order of the plurality of exercise machines included in the exercise sequence according to the occupancy status of the exercise machine in the smart gym (paragraphs 0004 and 0022 “The workout plan module 200 inputs the profile of the user to the exercise selection model 210. The exercise selection model 210 is a machine learning model configured to rank a set of exercises for a user to perform based on a profile of a user, including the exercise history that the user has performed (e.g., as stored in for the user's profile), gym equipment available to the user, and one or more exercise goals. The exercise selection model 210 may also be configured to rank the exercises based on exercise metadata stored in the exercise datastore 280. The exercise metadata may include a score for each exercise indicating an efficacy of the exercise and/or whether the exercise targets primary muscle groups (e.g., quadriceps, shoulders, back, etc.) or accessory muscle groups (e.g., abductors, forearms, calves, etc.). The exercise selection model 210 may be a classifier, decision tree, regression model, neural network, random forest model, or the like. In some embodiments, the exercise selection model 210 may be a statistical model. The exercise selection model 210 is trained by the training module 250, as described below.”).
Claim 10:
As per claim 10, Chen teaches the method of claim 9 as described above and further teaches further comprising selecting, via the exercise sequence generation unit, the exercise machines from each of an aerobic exercise group, a weight exercise group, and a stretching exercise group (paragraphs 0022 and 0018).
Claim 11:
As per claim 11, Chen teaches the method of claim 9 as described above and further teaches wherein the Al exercise sequence providing unit is further configured to set the Al exercise sequence such that an exercise machine included in a different exercise group is used after all of exercise machines included a same exercise group are used (paragraph 0022).
Claim 12:
As per claim 12, Chen teaches the method of claim 9 as described above and further teaches wherein the Al exercise sequence providing unit is further configured to set the use order among an aerobic exercise group, a weight exercise group, and a stretching exercise group based on an occupancy rate of each exercise group (paragraphs 0022 and 0018).
Claim 13:
As per claim 13, Chen teaches the method of claim 11 as described above and further teaches wherein the Al exercise sequence providing unit is further configured to set the use order such that an exercise machine not occupied from among the exercise machines included in the same group is used first (paragraph 0022).
Claim 14:
As per claim 14, Chen teaches the method of claim 9 as described above and further teaches further comprising classifying, via a classifier, the exercise machines in the smart gym into exercise groups according to exercise characteristics and classifying, via the classifier, the exercise groups into a plurality of exercise small groups according to body parts, wherein the exercise sequence generation unit is further configured to generate the exercise program and the exercise sequence by selecting the exercise machines from each of the plurality of exercise small groups (paragraphs 0022 and 0018).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. US Publication 20220331659 A1 in view of Messinger US Publication 20200353314 A1.
Claim 1:
As per claim 1, Chen teaches an apparatus comprising:
a determining unit configured to determine an occupancy status of the exercise machine (paragraph 0004 “The exercise recommendation system inputs the profile of the user to an exercise selection model, which is configured to rank a set of exercises for a user to perform based on the history of exercises the user has performed, the available gym equipment, and the one or more exercise goals.”);
an exercise sequence generation unit configured to generate an exercise program including a plurality of exercise machines needed for a user using the smart gym and an exercise sequence including a user order of the plurality of exercise machines (paragraph 0004 “The exercise recommendation system inputs the profile of the user to an exercise selection model, which is configured to rank a set of exercises for a user to perform based on the history of exercises the user has performed, the available gym equipment, and the one or more exercise goals.”);
and an Al exercise sequence providing unit configured to provide, to the user in real time, an Al exercise sequence automatically resetting the use order of the plurality of exercise machines included in the exercise sequence according to the occupancy status of the exercise machine in the smart gym (paragraphs 0004 and 0022 “The workout plan module 200 inputs the profile of the user to the exercise selection model 210. The exercise selection model 210 is a machine learning model configured to rank a set of exercises for a user to perform based on a profile of a user, including the exercise history that the user has performed (e.g., as stored in for the user's profile), gym equipment available to the user, and one or more exercise goals. The exercise selection model 210 may also be configured to rank the exercises based on exercise metadata stored in the exercise datastore 280. The exercise metadata may include a score for each exercise indicating an efficacy of the exercise and/or whether the exercise targets primary muscle groups (e.g., quadriceps, shoulders, back, etc.) or accessory muscle groups (e.g., abductors, forearms, calves, etc.). The exercise selection model 210 may be a classifier, decision tree, regression model, neural network, random forest model, or the like. In some embodiments, the exercise selection model 210 may be a statistical model. The exercise selection model 210 is trained by the training module 250, as described below.”).
Chen does not teach a communicator configured to communicate with each of exercise machines in a smart gym. However, Messinger teaches a System of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Powered Wireless Gym and further teaches, “This is achieved by providing a system that connects all the machines and equipment of exerciser facility with the central processing station which has an AI engine via the exercise facility network.” (paragraph 0010) and “The Artificial Intelligence engine is a central monitoring and control unit or a central remote server wirelessly coupled with the networks of all the advance exercising facilities that receives real time data of all the registered exerciser and machines within all the exercising facilities…” (paragraph 0039). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Chen to include a communicator configured to communicate with each of exercise machines in a smart gym as taught by Messinger in order to facilitate communication between or among a plurality of devices.
Claim 2:
As per claim 2, Chen and Messinger teach the apparatus of claim 1 as described above and Chen further teaches further comprising a classifier configured to classify the exercise machines in the smart gym into an aerobic exercise group, a weight exercise group, and a stretching exercise group according to exercise characteristics, wherein the exercise sequence generation unit is further configured to select the exercise machines from each of the aerobic exercise group, the weight exercise group, and the stretching exercise group (paragraphs 0022 and 0018).
Claim 3:
As per claim 3, Chen and Messinger teach the apparatus of claim 2 as described above and Chen further teaches wherein the Al exercise sequence providing unit is further configured to set the Al exercise sequence such that an exercise machine included in a different exercise group is used after all of exercise machines included a same exercise group are used (paragraph 0022).
Claim 4:
As per claim 4, Chen and Messinger teach the apparatus of claim 2 as described above and Chen further teaches wherein the Al exercise sequence providing unit is further configured to set the use order among the aerobic exercise group, the weight exercise group, and the stretching exercise group based on an occupancy rate of each exercise group (paragraphs 0022 and 0018).
Claim 5:
As per claim 5, Chen and Messinger teach the apparatus of claim 3 as described above and Chen further teaches wherein the Al exercise sequence providing unit is further configured to set the use order such that an exercise machine not occupied from among the exercise machines included in the same group is used first (paragraph 0022).
Claim 6:
As per claim 6, Chen and Messinger teach the apparatus of claim 1 as described above and Chen further teaches further comprising a classifier configured to classify the exercise machines in the smart gym into exercise groups according to exercise characteristics, wherein the classifier is further configured to classify the exercise groups into exercise small groups according to body parts (paragraphs 0022 and 0018).
Claim 7:
As per claim 7, Chen and Messinger teach the apparatus of claim 6 as described above and Chen further teaches wherein the Al exercise sequence providing unit is further configured to, when a plurality of users use a same smart gym, determine an exercise group to be assigned to each of the plurality of users and set the Al exercise sequence such that different exercise small groups are assigned to users to which a same exercise group is assigned (paragraphs 0022 and 0018).
Claim 8:
As per claim 8, Chen and Messinger teach the apparatus of claim 1 as described above and Chen further teaches further comprising an exercise plan unit configured to set a training day and a rest day per user, wherein the exercise sequence generation unit is further configured to generate the exercise sequence by referring to the rest day and an exercise record performed before the rest day per user (paragraphs 0022 and 0034).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ebrahimi Afrouzi US Patent 12324963 B1 Smart Gym Equipment
Ebrahimi Afrouzi discloses provided is a device, comprising: a smart gym equipment, comprising: one or more sensors; one or more actuators; one or more electric magnets; a processor; and a tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing instructions that when executed by the processor effectuates operations comprising: adjusting resistance in continuous amounts during a weight-lifting training in relation to a pulled distance of a weight value, wherein a change of the weight value is proportional to the pull distance; and the weight value is adjusted by an adjustment in an electrical current flowing through a wire in the smart gym equipment thereby adjusting a strength of a magnetic field; wherein: the processor determines a value for the electrical current; the adjustment in the electrical current based on at least one sensed data; and the device receives and transmits data to an application of a communication device paired with the device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30-5:30 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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571)272-4530. 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.
/MATTHEW L HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681