DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is the Non-Final Office Action in response to the Application No. 18/947,834 filed on November 14, 2024, title: “Powering An Information Delivery Network”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-28 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Priority
This Application was filed on 11/14/2024 and is a CON of US Application No. 18/160,087 filed on 01/26/2023 (Patented No. 12,176,713) which is a CON of US Application No. 14/836,377 filed on 08/26/2015 (Patented No. 11,594,886) and claims no priority of any foreign application. For the purpose of examination, the date 08/26/2015 is considered to be the effective filing date.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/14/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner. A copy of the PTO-1449 form with the examiner’s initials is enclosed to this Office Action.
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 1-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-40 of U.S. Patent No. 12,176,713 and claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,594,886. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined claims are broader than the reference claims in the patents and are anticipated by the reference claims. The examined claims recite substantially the same limitations as the reference claims in the patents with minor variations that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The application and the patents are directed to the same invention of powering an information delivery network. Also, the application and patents have the same inventors and are commonly owned. Therefore, this rejection is deemed necessary.
Application No. 18/947,834
Patent. No. 12,176,713
Claim 1, A method comprising:
Claim 31, A method comprising:
receiving, via a power input port of a computing device, a first electric power;
causing a component, of an information delivery network and remote from a premises, to receive first electric power via a first port of the component;
comparing a first metric, associated with the first electric power, with a second metric, associated with second electric power available via a coaxial port, wherein the coaxial port is associated with the premises;
receiving, via a communication port of the computing device and via an information delivery network, a request for power; and
causing, based on the comparing, the component to switch from receiving the first electric power via the first port to receiving the second electric power via the coaxial port; and
sending, via the communication port based on the request, a second electric power based on the first electric power.
causing, based on the component receiving the second electric power via the coaxial port, sending of content to the premises via the coaxial port.
Application No. 18/947,834
Patent No. 11,594,886
Claim 1, A method comprising:
Claim 1, A method comprising:
receiving, via a power input port of a computing device, a first electric power;
receiving, by an electronic device associated with an information delivery network and via an upstream port, first electric power, wherein the electronic device is remote from a premises;
comparing, by the electronic device, a first metric, associated with the first electric power, with a second metric, associated with second electric power available via a downstream coaxial port, wherein the downstream coaxial port is associated with the premises;
receiving, via a communication port of the computing device and via an information delivery network, a request for power; and
switching, by the electronic device and based on the comparing the first metric, associated with the first electric power, with the second metric, associated with the second electric power, from receiving the first electric power via the upstream port to receiving the second electric power via the downstream coaxial port; and
sending, via the communication port based on the request, a second electric power based on the first electric power.
causing, based on receiving the second electric power via the downstream coaxial port, sending of content to the premises via the downstream coaxial port.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-28 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.
Step 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-28 recite a method, a non-transitory computer-readable media, an apparatus, and a system for switching a first electric power with a second electric power. Therefore, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1, A method comprising:
receiving, via a power input port of a computing device, a first electric power;
receiving, via a communication port of the computing device and via an information delivery network, a request for power; and
sending, via the communication port based on the request, a second electric power based on the first electric power.
The above limitations (underlined), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., a system comprising a computing device, processors, and memories storing instructions). More specifically, the claim recites commercial or legal interactions including a method of switching from a first electric power to a second electric power which is an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C.2).
The claim recites a process, such as receiving data (a first electric power), receiving more data (a request for power), and sending data (a second electric power), narrow the abstract idea to a particular type of relationships, but they do not change the analysis because it is merely a process (a series of steps) to govern how the switching power is performed. The claim describes the concept that is directed to a commercial interaction (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) which is a Method of Organizing Human Activity.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice or commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim describes a concept relates to processes of collecting and comparing electric information is “an idea of itself” (i.e. concepts related to processes of comparing and organizing information) and similar to the concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as “Obtaining and comparing intangible data in CyberSource, and “Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” in Electric Power Group. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites a computer program, claim 15 recites an apparatus, and claim 22 recites a computer system with comparable elements and limitations as discussed in claim 1. Therefore, these claims also recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not include any additional element(s), such as computers or processors, that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements include an electronic device, communication port, and an information delivery network are the general purpose computer components as described in Applicant’s Specification (US Pub. No. 2025/0149889), paragraphs 15 (the network 100 may be any type of information distribution network, such as satellite, telephone, cellular, wireless, etc.), 17 (These networks 109 may include, for example, Internet Protocol (IP) networks Internet devices, telephone networks, cellular telephone networks, fiber optic networks, local wireless networks (e.g., WiMAX), satellite networks, and any other desired network,), 19 (any desired service), 20 (any other desired modem device, any other desired computing device, any other desired computers, sensors, and/or other devices), 21 (general hardware elements of an example computing device 200 that can be used to implement any of the elements discussed herein and/or illustrated in the figures … to perform any of the features described herein … stored in any type of computer-readable medium or memory … any other desired electronic storage medium … any other desired network), 22 (… and the same component … may be used to implement any of the other computing devices and components described herein), 23 (or other devices to perform any of the functions described herein), 32 (power received from any port), 33 (sharing the loading and reducing a power requirement at any one of the ports), 45 (cost of power available via any of the ports may be made known using various techniques).
The Specification does not describe how they are different from the general computer components. Thus, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than receiving a first electric power (receiving information), receiving a request for power (receiving more information), and sending a second a second electric power (transmitting information). Accordingly, the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide 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)).
The independent claims (1, 8, 15, and 22) do not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not include an additional computer element to perform the receiving, receiving, and determining functions. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-21, and 23-28 depend on claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 respectively and thus include all of the limitations and features of their independent claims. Therefore, the depend claims also are directed to the same abstract idea as in claims 1, 8, 15, and 22.
Claims 2, 9, 16, and 23 recite additional elements “further comprising receiving, via the communication port of the computing device and via the information delivery network, content for output.” (Additional detailed instructions about the receiving content for output. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claims 3, 10, 17, and 24 recite additional elements “further comprising sending, to a component of the information delivery network, at least one of an offer price or a usage limit, wherein the request is based on the at least one of the offer price or the usage limit.” (Additional detailed instructions about sending an offer price or a usage limit. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claims 4, 11, 18, and 25 recite additional elements “wherein the computing device comprises at least one of: an interface device, at a premises, configured to receive information via the information delivery network; a gateway device; or a set top box.” (Additional detailed instructions about the interface device at a premises configured to receive information via the information delivery network. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claims 5, 12, 19, and 26 recite additional elements “wherein the sending, via the communication port, the second electric power comprises sending, via a coaxial cable and to power an active component of the information delivery network upstream relative to the computing device, the second electric power.” (Additional detailed instructions about sending the second electric power to power an active component of the information delivery network. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claims 6, 13, 20, and 27 recite additional elements “further comprising converting the first electric power to the second electric power, wherein the second electric power is based on the request.” (Additional detailed instructions about converting the first electric power to the second electric power. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claims 7, 14, 21, and 28 recite additional elements “wherein the first electric power is characterized by a first voltage and a first frequency and the second electric power is characterized by a second voltage and a second frequency, wherein at least one of: the first voltage is different from the second voltage; or the first frequency is different from the second frequency.” (Additional detailed instructions about the characters of the first electric power and the second electric power. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
The dependent claims do no more than providing additional instructions and administrative requirements for the functional steps already recited in the independent claims. These additional recited limitations further narrow the scope of the abstract idea and are merely insignificant solution activities which only refine the abstract idea further and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Each and every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions have been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. The dependent claims further describe the business relations of the certain method of organizing human activity (abstract idea) and do not include additional elements other than those of claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 to provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims is on a method of switching from a first electric power to a second electric power. The claims are not directed to a new processor, network, system memory, or user interface, nor do they provide a method of processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. The claims do not add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US Pub. No. 2009/0094173) (hereinafter “Smith”) and in view of Teeter (US Pub. No. 2015/0227182) (hereinafter “Teeter”).
As per claim 1, Smith teaches a method comprising:
receiving, via a power input port of a computing device, a first electric power (see Smith, para. 31-37 “utility power”, 75-76; Figures 3 and 14. See Teeter, Abstract, para. 6 “ports”);
receiving, via a communication port of the computing device and via an information delivery network, a request for power (see Smith, para. 76 “the power produced by solar energy panels 1402 is assigned a cost of zero cents/KW-H. This is done so that intelligent power controller 302 will prioritize using power produced by solar energy panels 1402 before using power supplied by a utility”; Figure 14); and
sending, via the communication port based on the request, a second electric power based on the first electric power (see Smith, Figures 3 and 14 “battery and solar”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the intelligent power unit as taught by Smith to include the features “port” as taught by Teeter to utilize the plurality of communication ports features to select the port to receive power. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as multiple ports provides a more convenient way to switch power supply.
As per claim 2, Smith in view of Teeter teaches the method of claim 1. Smith in view of Teeter further teaches comprising receiving, via the communication port of the computing device and via the information delivery network, content for output (see Smith, Figures 14 “solar” and 15 “wind”, the power is received from the user premises. see Teeter, Abstract, para. 6 “ports”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the intelligent power unit as taught by Smith to include the features “port” as taught by Teeter to utilize the plurality of communication ports features to select the port to receive power. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as multiple ports provides a more convenient way to switch power supply.
As per claim 3, Smith in view of Teeter teaches the method of claim 1. Smith further teaches comprising sending, to a component of the information delivery network, at least one of an offer price or a usage limit, wherein the request is based on the at least one of the offer price or the usage limit (see Smith, para. 41, 55, 76, 78 “cost of power is compared and is implicitly disclosed”; Figures 10, 14, 15 “solar power”).
As per claim 4, Smith in view of Teeter teaches the method of claim 1. Smith further teaches wherein the computing device comprises at least one of:
an interface device, at a premises, configured to receive information via the information delivery network (see Smith, Figures 14 “solar” and 15 “wind”, the power is received at the user premises);
a gateway device; or a set top box (see Smith, para. 44 “keypad unit 310 is a user interface coupled to intelligent power controller 302”).
As per claim 5, Smith in view of Teeter teaches the method of claim 1. Smith further teaches wherein the sending, via the communication port, the second electric power comprises sending, via a coaxial cable and to power an active component of the information delivery network upstream relative to the computing device, the second electric power (see Smith, Figures 14 “solar” and 15 “wind”, the power is received at the user premises).
As per claim 6, Smith in view of Teeter teaches the method of claim 1. Smith further teaches comprising converting the first electric power to the second electric power, wherein the second electric power is based on the request (see Smith, Figures 14 “solar” and 15 “wind”, the power is received at the user premises).
As per claim 7, Smith in view of Teeter teaches the method of claim 1. Smith further teaches wherein the first electric power is characterized by a first voltage and a first frequency and the second electric power is characterized by a second voltage and a second frequency, wherein at least one of:
the first voltage is different from the second voltage (see Smith, para. 74-78, Figures 14 “solar” and 15 “wind”, the solar power and wind power each has different voltage and frequency); or
the first frequency is different from the second frequency (see Smith, para. 74-78, Figures 14 “solar” and 15 “wind”, the solar power and wind power each has different voltage and frequency).
As per claim 8, this claim written in computer program form corresponds to claim 1 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 1.
As per claim 9, this claim written in computer program form corresponds to claim 2 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 2.
As per claim 10, this claim written in computer program form corresponds to claim 3 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 3.
As per claim 11, this claim written in computer program form corresponds to claim 4 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 4.
As per claim 12, this claim written in computer program form corresponds to claim 5 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 5.
As per claim 13, this claim written in computer program form corresponds to claim 6 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 6.
As per claim 14, this claim written in computer program form corresponds to claim 7 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 7.
As per claim 15, this claim written in apparatus form corresponds to claim 1 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 1.
As per claim 16, this claim written in apparatus form corresponds to claim 2 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 2.
As per claim 17, this claim written in apparatus form corresponds to claim 3 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 3.
As per claim 18, this claim written in apparatus form corresponds to claim 4 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 4.
As per claim 19, this claim written in apparatus form corresponds to claim 5 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 5.
As per claim 20, this claim written in apparatus form corresponds to claim 6 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 6.
As per claim 21, this claim written in apparatus form corresponds to claim 7 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 7.
As per claim 22, this claim written in system form corresponds to claim 1 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 1.
As per claim 23, this claim written in system form corresponds to claim 2 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 2.
As per claim 24, this claim written in system form corresponds to claim 3 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 3.
As per claim 25, this claim written in system form corresponds to claim 4 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 4.
As per claim 26, this claim written in system form corresponds to claim 5 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 5.
As per claim 27, this claim written in system form corresponds to claim 6 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 6.
As per claim 28, this claim written in system form corresponds to claim 7 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 7.
Conclusion
Claims 1-28 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695