Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) 1, 20-24 and 26-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 16, 22-24 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1).
Claim(s) 4-6, 8-15, 17-21 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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, 20-22, 24-25 and 27-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-6, 11-12, 20, and 27-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,862. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are broader in scope and are therefore anticipated by the patented claims.
Claims 1, and 27-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 37 and 40 of co-pending Application No. 18/774,723 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader in scope and are therefore anticipated by the co-pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 22, 24 and 26-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 30, 33, and 35-37 of co-pending Application No. 18/821,845 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader in scope and are therefore anticipated by the co-pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 21-24 and 26-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-8, 21, 23 and 31-32 of co-pending Application No. 18/762,415 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader in scope and are therefore anticipated by the co-pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, and 22-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 20, 22, and 25 of co-pending Application No. 18/892,075 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader in scope and are therefore anticipated by the co-pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 22-24 and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 18, and 23-24 of co-pending Application No. 18/930,095 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader in scope and are therefore anticipated by the co-pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 22 and 27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 25 and 29 of co-pending Application No. 19/020,938 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader in scope and are therefore anticipated by the co-pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 19/187,630 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader in scope and are therefore anticipated by the co-pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 16, 22-24 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US Patent 4,193,690 to Levenson et al.
In regards to claims 1-3, 7, 16, 22-24 and 27-28, Levenson discloses and shows in Figures 3-4, a system and method comprising:
a first light source (10) configured to produce a first beam of light at a first frequency (col. 2, ll. 5-37; col. 3, ll. 25-59);
a second light source (16) configured to produce a second beam of light at a second frequency, wherein the first and second frequencies are offset by a frequency offset Ω (col. 2, ll. 5-37; col. 3, ll. 25-59);
one or more optical elements configured to:
direct the first and second beams of light to a sample (col. 2, ll. 5-37; col. 3, ll. 25-59); and
collect a Raman signal produced by the sample in response to the first and second beams of light (col. 2, ll. 5-37; col. 3, ll. 25-59);
an optical receiver configured to detect the Raman signal, the optical receiver comprising:
a third light source (60) configured to produce a third beam of light at a third frequency (col. 6, ll. 4-11); and
one or more optical detectors (24), wherein each detector is configured to coherently mix a portion of the Raman signal with at least a portion of the third beam of light to produce an electronic signal (col. 3, ll. 25-59; col. 4, ll. 37-42); and
a processor (28) configured to determine a characteristic of the electronic signal (col. 3, ll. 25-59; col. 4, ll. 37-42);
[claim 2] wherein the processor is further configured to determine a phase difference between the Raman signal and the third beam of light (col. 5, ll. 51 to col. 6, ll. 11);
[claim 3] wherein the processor is further configured to determine an in-phase portion and a quadrature portion associated with the Raman signal (col. 5, ll. 51 to col. 6, ll. 11; wherein the signals include phases which are “coincident or offset by 90 degrees”);
[claim 7] wherein the processor is further configured to determine a polarization of the Raman signal (col. 2, ll. 5-37; col. 3, ll. 25-59; col. 5, ll. 33-50; wherein predetermined polarizations and polarization modulation may be utilized);
[claim 16] wherein the optical receiver further comprises an optical combiner (56) configured to combine the Raman signal and the third beam of light to produce one or more combined beams that are each directed to one of the optical detectors (col. 5, ll. 51 to col. 6, ll. 11);
[claim 22] wherein: the frequency offset Ω is approximately equal to a vibrational frequency of a particular material; and the processor is further configured to determine, based on the characteristic of the electronic signal, (i) whether the particular material is present in the sample or (ii) an amount or a concentration of the particular material in the sample (col. 1, ll. 13-68; col. 2, ll. 4-37; col. 6, ll. 12-15);
[claim 23] wherein: the electronic signal comprises a photocurrent signal produced by the detector (col. 3, ll. 25-59); and the optical receiver further comprises: an electronic amplifier configured to amplify the photocurrent signal to produce a voltage signal corresponding to the photocurrent signal (col. 3, ll. 25-59); and a digitizer configured to produce a digital representation of the voltage signal (col. 3, ll. 25-59; wherein the detector provides a signal to be integrated and amplified, and then displayed on a monitor, such as an oscilloscope);
[claim 24] wherein the processor is configured to determine the characteristic of the electronic signal based on the digital representation of the voltage signal, wherein the characteristic of the electronic signal comprises one or more of: a peak amplitude, an average amplitude, an amplitude at a particular frequency, an amplitude at a particular time, an amplitude at a frequency center, an amplitude at a temporal center, an area, a frequency, a phase, and a polarization (col. 3, ll. 25-59; wherein oscilloscopes are understood to provide wave representations of obtained signals, which include an amplitude, frequency, and phase).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 8-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levenson, in view of US Publication 2017/0052015 to Swanson et al.
In regards to claims 4-6 and 8-12, Levenson differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system,
[claim 4] wherein the optical receiver further comprises a 90-degree optical hybrid configured to:
combine the Raman signal with the third beam of light to produce four combined beams, the four combined beams comprising two in-phase combined beams and two quadrature combined beams, wherein each combined beam comprises a portion of the Raman signal and a portion of the third beam of light; and
direct each of the combined beams to one of four detectors of the optical receiver;
[claim 5] wherein: prior to combining the Raman signal with the third beam of light, the 90-degree optical hybrid is configured to split the Raman signal or the third beam of light into a first part and a second part; and the 90-degree optical hybrid comprises a phase shifter configured to impart a 90-degree phase change to the first part with respect to the second part;
[claim 6] wherein: the four detectors are each configured to coherently mix the portion of the Raman signal and the portion of the third beam of light to produce one of four electronic signals; and the processor is further configured to determine a phase difference between the Raman signal and the third beam of light based on the four electronic signals.
However, Swanson teaches and shows in Figures 2-8, an optical imaging system (par. 2, 58) which includes a plurality of “90 degree hybrid processors”, integrated onto one or more photonic integrated circuits (par. 6, 64, 90), wherein the processors include a variety of well-known optical components, such as optical couplers, circulators, beam splitters, detectors, polarization modulators and phase modulators (par. 70, 72-79, 85, 88). Each processor may be a “dual polarization, dual balanced, I/Q receiver with integrated photodetectors and electro-optical integration” which provides “increased sensitivity and improvements in signal processing” (par. 64, 74, 76, 90). The system may further include a plurality of polarization splitters or couplers, and polarization controllers, which may act on the sample and/or reference beam, (par. 78).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Levenson to include the plurality of “90 degree hybrid processors” discussed above for the advantage of increasing sensitivity and improving signal processing, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claims 8-10, Levenson differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system,
[claim 8] wherein the optical receiver further comprises: a Raman-signal polarization beamsplitter configured to split the Raman signal into a horizontal-polarization Raman signal and a vertical-polarization Raman signal; a third-beam polarization beamsplitter configured to split the third beam into a horizontal-polarization third beam and a vertical-polarization third beam; a horizontal-polarization optical receiver comprising one or more of the optical detectors, wherein each detector is configured to coherently mix at least a portion of the horizontal-polarization Raman signal and at least a portion of the horizontal-polarization third beam to produce a horizontal-polarization electronic signal; and a vertical-polarization optical receiver comprising another one or more of the optical detectors, wherein each detector is configured to coherently mix at least a portion of the vertical-polarization Raman signal and at least a portion of the vertical-polarization third beam to produce a vertical-polarization electronic signal;
[claim 9] wherein determining the characteristic of the electronic signal comprises determining one or more characteristics of the horizontal-polarization and vertical-polarization electronic signals;
[claim 10] wherein the processor is further configured to determine a polarization of the Raman signal based on the characteristics of the horizontal-polarization and vertical-polarization electronic signals.
However, Swanson teaches and shows in Figures 2-8, an optical imaging system (par. 2, 58) which includes a plurality of “90 degree hybrid processors”, integrated onto one or more photonic integrated circuits (par. 6, 64, 90). The system may further include a plurality of polarization splitters or couplers, and polarization controllers, which may act on the sample and/or reference beam, (par. 78). Each hybrid processor includes four detectors, capable of detecting in-phase and quadrature signals in a plurality of polarizations (par. 73-74, 78).
Each processor may be a “dual polarization, dual balanced, I/Q receiver with integrated photodetectors and electro-optical integration” which provides “increased sensitivity and improvements in signal processing” (par. 64, 74, 76, 90).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Levenson to include the plurality of “90 degree hybrid processors” discussed above for the advantage of increasing sensitivity and improving signal processing, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claims 11-12, Levenson differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system,
[claim 11] wherein: the horizontal-polarization optical receiver comprises: four optical detectors; and a first 90-degree optical hybrid configured to: combine the horizontal-polarization Raman signal with the horizontal-polarization third beam to produce four combined horizontal-polarization beams, each combined horizontal-polarization beam comprising a portion of the horizontal-polarization Raman signal and a portion of the horizontal-polarization third beam; and direct each of the combined horizontal-polarization beams to one of the four detectors; and the vertical-polarization optical receiver comprises: another four optical detectors; and a second 90-degree optical hybrid configured to: combine the vertical-polarization Raman signal with the vertical-polarization third beam to produce four combined vertical-polarization beams, each combined vertical-polarization beam comprising a portion of the vertical-polarization Raman signal and a portion of the vertical-polarization third beam; and direct each of the combined vertical-polarization beams to one of the another four optical detectors;
[claim 12] wherein: the four detectors of the horizontal-polarization optical receiver are each configured to coherently mix the portion of the horizontal-polarization Raman signal and the portion of the horizontal-polarization third beam to produce one of four horizontal-polarization electronic signals; the four detectors of the vertical-polarization optical receiver are each configured to coherently mix the portion of the vertical-polarization Raman signal and the portion of the vertical-polarization third beam to produce one of four vertical-polarization electronic signals; and based on the four horizontal-polarization electronic signals and the four vertical-polarization electronic signals, the processor is further configured to determine (i) a polarization of the Raman signal and (ii) a phase difference between the Raman signal and the third beam of light.
However, Swanson teaches and shows in Figures 2-8, an optical imaging system (par. 2, 58) which includes a plurality of “90 degree hybrid processors”, integrated onto one or more photonic integrated circuits (par. 6, 64, 90). The system may further include a plurality of polarization splitters or couplers, and polarization controllers, which may act on the sample and/or reference beam, (par. 78). Each hybrid processor includes four detectors, capable of detecting in-phase and quadrature signals in a plurality of polarizations (par. 73-74, 78). Further, each hybrid processor coherently mixes sample and reference beams to obtain phase and polarization sensitive measurements (par. 74, 76).
Each processor may be a “dual polarization, dual balanced, I/Q receiver with integrated photodetectors and electro-optical integration” which provides “increased sensitivity and improvements in signal processing” (par. 64, 74, 76, 90).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Levenson to include the plurality of “90 degree hybrid processors” discussed above for the advantage of increasing sensitivity and improving signal processing, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claims 13-15, Levenson differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system and method further comprising:
[claim 13] wherein the optical elements comprise an optical combiner configured to combine the first and second beams of light to produce a combined beam that is directed to the sample;
[claim 14] wherein the optical combiner is part of a photonic integrated circuit (PIC), wherein the first and second beams of light are combined into an optical waveguide of the PIC;
[claim 15] wherein the optical combiner is a fiber-optic combiner, wherein the first and second beams of light are combined into an optical fiber.
However, Swanson teaches and shows in Figures 2-8, an optical imaging system (par. 2, 58) which includes a plurality of “90 degree hybrid processors”, integrated onto one or more photonic integrated circuits (PIC) (par. 6, 64, 90), wherein the processors include a variety of well-known optical components, such as optical fibers, optical couplers, circulators, beam splitters, detectors, polarization modulators and phase modulators (par. 70-79, 85, 88).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Levenson to include the plurality of “90 degree hybrid processors” discussed above for the advantage of utilizing well-known optical components to obtain a desired system configuration, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claims 17-19, Levenson differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system,
[claim 17] wherein the optical combiner is part of a photonic integrated circuit (PIC), wherein the portion of the Raman signal and the portion of the third beam of light are combined into an optical waveguide of the PIC;
[claim 18] wherein the optical combiner is a fiber-optic combiner, wherein the portion of the Raman signal and the portion of the third beam of light are combined into an optical fiber;
[claim 19] wherein the optical elements comprise a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) comprising one or more optical waveguides, wherein: one or more optical waveguides are configured to direct the first and second beams of light to the sample; and one or more other optical waveguides are configured to direct the Raman signal and the third beam of light to the one or more of the detectors.
However, Swanson teaches and shows in Figures 2-8, an optical imaging system (par. 2, 58) which includes a plurality of “90 degree hybrid processors”, integrated onto one or more photonic integrated circuits (PIC) (par. 6, 64, 90), wherein the processors include a variety of well-known optical components, such as optical fibers, optical couplers, circulators, beam splitters, detectors, polarization modulators and phase modulators (par. 70-79, 85, 88).
Further, each hybrid processor coherently mixes sample and reference beams to obtain phase and polarization sensitive measurements (par. 74, 76).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Levenson to include the plurality of “90 degree hybrid processors” discussed above for the advantage of utilizing well-known optical components to obtain a desired system configuration, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 20, Levenson discloses a heterodyne Raman spectroscopy system that may utilize a tunable laser source (col. 5, ll. 39-42).
Levenson differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system and method further comprising:
[claim 20] wherein the first, second, or third frequency is adjustable over a frequency range corresponding to a wavelength range having a width between approximately 10 nanometers (nm) and approximately 100 nm.
However, Swanson teaches and shows in Figures 2-8, an optical imaging system (par. 2, 58) which may utilize a tunable laser source that may have a scan range of 100 nm.
Further, it has been held that finding the optimal or working ranges of a variable involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Levenson to include the tunable laser source discussed above for the advantage of utilizing well-known optical components to obtain a desired system configuration, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levenson, in view of “Terahertz Coherent Raman Spectrscopy of Dimethyl Sulfoxide and Water Mixtures Using Frequency Chirped Pulses” by Nakae et al.
In regards to claim 21, Levenson differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system,
[claim 21] wherein the frequency offset Ω is between approximately 5 terahertz (THz) and approximately 100 THz.
However, Nakae teaches and shows in Figure 1, a Raman spectroscopy system and method which utilizes light in the Terahertz frequency region below 25 THz (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Levenson to include the Terahertz radiation discussed above for the advantage of imaging desired molecular interactions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levenson, in view of US Publication 2022/0042916 to Notingher et al.
In regards to claims 25-26, Levenson differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system,
[claim 25] wherein each detector has an electronic bandwidth of approximately Δf, and the electronic signal produced by each detector comprises one or more electronic frequency components, each electronic frequency component having a frequency less than or equal to Δf;
[claim 26] wherein the one or more detectors comprise a PN photodiode, PIN photodiode, avalanche photodiode (APD), single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD), silicon photomultiplier (SiPM), or photomultiplier tube (PMT).
However, Notingher teaches and shows a Raman spectroscopy system and method, wherein a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) is utilized to obtain “a better signal to noise ratio” (par. 20, 38), wherein each detector produces electrical signals in response to the incident radiation (par. 57). Further, each detector will inherently have a bandwidth for detecting desired signals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Levenson to include the well-known detectors discussed above for the advantage of utilizing well-known optical elements to obtain a desired system configuration, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
JONATHAN M. HANSEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/JONATHAN M HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877