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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of U.S. provisional patent application 63/656668 filed on 06/06/2024 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
In the instance case, claims 1-15 are directed to a method (‘process’), and claims 16-20 are directed to a subscription hub (‘machine’). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent Claim 1
Step 2A Prong One
The claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of managing subscriptions. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claims recite:
A method performed by a computer device, the method comprising:
receiving, in the computer device, user information from a user;
identifying a plurality of subscriptions and a corresponding plurality of subscribed service provider based on the user information, each one of the plurality subscriptions established between the user and the corresponding subscribed service providers;
obtaining authentication data associated with each one of the plurality of subscribed service provider;
obtaining subscription data of each one of the identified subscriptions, the subscription data including subscription cost of the identified subscription;
presenting simultaneously the subscription data of the identified subscriptions to the user through a user interface of the computer device; and
linking each one of the plurality of subscriptions and the corresponding subscribed service provider to the computer device.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites a commercial or legal interactions and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas because the claims recite a process of managing user service subscriptions including providing and recording user service subscription information, which is a commercial or legal interactions.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “a computer device”, “a user interface,” merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 16
Step 2A Prong One
The claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of managing subscriptions. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claims recite:
one or more processors; and
a computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the subscription hub to:
receive, in the subscription hub, user information;
identify a plurality of subscriptions and a corresponding plurality of subscribed service provider based on the user information, each one of the plurality subscriptions established between the user and the corresponding subscribed service providers;
obtain authentication data associated with each one of the plurality of subscribed service provider;
obtain subscription data of each one of the identified subscriptions, the subscription data including subscription cost of the identified subscription;
present simultaneously the subscription data of the identified subscriptions to the user through a user interface of the subscription hub; and
link each one of the plurality of subscribed service providers to the subscription hub.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites a commercial or legal interactions and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas because the claims recite a process of managing user service subscriptions including providing and recording user service subscription information, which is a commercial or legal interactions.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “one or more processors”, “a computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions,” “the subscription hub to”, “a user interface,” merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-15, 17-20
Claims 2 and 17 each recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
generating a subscription profile for each one of the plurality of subscribed service providers, the subscription profile containing a user identity of the user, the authentication data, and the subscription data.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of managing subscriptions. The claims do not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 3 and 18 each recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
performing a centralized authentication process using the authentication data to authenticate the user for accessing the plurality of subscriptions linked to the computer device.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of managing subscriptions. The claims do not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 4 and 19 each recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
selecting one subscription from the plurality of subscriptions linked to the computer device;
monitoring a subscription status of a selected subscription, the subscription status indicating a user activity level with the selected subscription; and
in response to a determination that the user activity level is below a predetermined threshold, notifying the user of the selected subscription.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of managing subscriptions. The claims do not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 5 and 20 each recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
providing the user with a plurality of options for the user to select to remain, suspend, or terminate the selected subscription.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of managing subscriptions. The claims do not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
in response to a determination that no selection of the provided options is made by the user after a predetermined time elapses, automatically suspend or terminate the selected subscription for the user.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of managing subscriptions. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
sending a notification to the user to confirm with the user that the selected subscription is suspended or terminated.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of managing subscriptions. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
retrieving content information from each one of the plurality of subscriptions linked to the computer device;
determining, based on the content information, that the plurality of subscriptions provide overlapped content items; and
determining a redundancy level of the overlapped content items among the plurality of subscriptions.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of managing subscriptions. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
in response to a determination that the redundancy level exceeds a predetermined level, notifying the user of the redundancy level.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of managing subscriptions. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
prioritizing the plurality of subscriptions to generate a priority list of the plurality of subscriptions, the priority list ranking the subscriptions with lower subscription cost of 1 redundant content items higher.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of managing subscriptions. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
presenting the priority list to the user through the user interface; and
providing the user with an option to suspend or terminate at least one of the plurality of subscriptions holding a low position on the generated priority list.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of managing subscriptions. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving, in the computer device, a user request for a target content item; and
in response to the user request, identify a first subscription from the plurality of subscriptions linked to the computer device, the first subscription providing access to the target content item at a first subscription cost.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of managing subscriptions. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
performing, automatically, a search to identify an unsubscribed service provider providing access to the target content item, the unsubscribed service provider being not subscribed by the user and not linked to the computer device; and
determining a second subscription cost for establishing a new subscription to the unsubscribed service provider by the user.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of managing subscriptions. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
in response to a determination that the second subscription cost is lower than the first subscription cost, notify the user of the new subscription.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of managing subscriptions. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
providing the user with an option for the user to establish the new subscription and suspend or terminate the first subscription.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of managing subscriptions. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 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)(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.
Claims 1-7, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jin et al. (US 2015/0039505A1 (“Jin”)).
Per Claims 1 and 16: Jin discloses a method performed by a computer device (Fig. 1; ¶¶13, 37), the method comprising:
receiving, in the computer device, user information from a user; (¶18)
identifying a plurality of subscriptions and a corresponding plurality of subscribed service provider based on the user information (¶¶38, 45), each one of the plurality subscriptions established between the user and the corresponding subscribed service providers; (¶¶38)
obtaining authentication data associated with each one of the plurality of subscribed service provider; (¶¶14)
obtaining subscription data of each one of the identified subscriptions (¶¶16, 38), the subscription data including subscription cost of the identified subscription; (¶¶18, 22, 45)
presenting simultaneously the subscription data of the identified subscriptions to the user through a user interface of the computer device; and (¶¶14, 16, 38, 45)
linking each one of the plurality of subscriptions and the corresponding subscribed service provider to the computer device. (¶¶17, 38, 40-41, 45-47)
Additionally, for claim 16, Jin discloses a subscription hub (Fig. 1, Fig. 3; ¶¶13, 37) comprising: one or more processors; and a computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the subscription hub to…( Fig. 2; ¶32)
Per Claims 2 and 17, Jin discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 15 and the software development is configured to:
Jin discloses:
generating a subscription profile for each one of the plurality of subscribed service providers, the subscription profile containing a user identity of the user, the authentication data, and the subscription data. (¶¶17, 40-41)
Per Claims 3 and 18, Jin discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 16.
Jin discloses:
performing a centralized authentication process using the authentication data to authenticate the user for accessing the plurality of subscriptions linked to the computer device. (¶¶14, 18)
Per Claims 4 and 19, Jin discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 16 and the software development kit is configured to:
Jin discloses:
selecting one subscription from the plurality of subscriptions linked to the computer device; (¶¶10, 38, 45)
monitoring a subscription status of a selected subscription, the subscription status indicating a user activity level with the selected subscription; and (¶¶40-41, 54, 55)
in response to a determination that the user activity level is below a predetermined threshold, notifying the user of the selected subscription. (¶¶54, 55)
Per Claims 5 and 20, Jin discloses all the limitations of claims 4 and 19.
Jin discloses:
providing the user with a plurality of options for the user to select to remain, suspend, or terminate the selected subscription. (¶¶10)
Per Claim 6, Jin discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Jin discloses:
in response to a determination that no selection of the provided options is made by the user after a predetermined time elapses, automatically suspend or terminate the selected subscription for the user. (¶¶53)
Per Claim 7, Jin discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Jin discloses:
sending a notification to the user to confirm with the user that the selected subscription is suspended or terminated. (¶¶53; claim 1)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin as applied to claim 1 further in view of CHRISTIE et al. (US 2022/0321940A1 (“CHRISTIE”)).
Per Claim 8, Jin discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Jin discloses:
retrieving content information from each one of the plurality of subscriptions linked to the computer device; (¶16)
Jin does not explicitly disclose:
determining, based on the content information, that the plurality of subscriptions provide overlapped content items; and
determining a redundancy level of the overlapped content items among the plurality of subscriptions.
CHRISTIE discloses:
determining, based on the content information, that the plurality of subscriptions provide overlapped content items; and (Fig. 16, Fig. 17; ¶¶117, 143-144, 154)
determining a redundancy level of the overlapped content items among the plurality of subscriptions. (¶¶117, 143-144, 154)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Jin to incorporate the teachings of determination of subscriptions providing overlapped content items and a redundancy level of the overlapped content items, as disclosed in CHRISTIE, to improve content subscription management and viewing experience from the explosion of content providers in the marketplace. (CHRISTIE: ¶3)
P Per Claim 9, Jin in view of CHRISTIE discloses all the limitations of claim 9.
CHRISTIE discloses:
in response to a determination that the redundancy level exceeds a predetermined level, notifying the user of the redundancy level. (¶¶117)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Jin in view of CHRISTIE to incorporate the teachings of notification of redundancy level to the user, as disclosed in CHRISTIE, to improve content subscription management and viewing experience from the explosion of content providers in the marketplace. (CHRISTIE: ¶3)
Per Claim 10, Jin in view of CHRISTIE discloses all the limitations of claim 9.
CHRISTIE discloses:
prioritizing the plurality of subscriptions to generate a priority list of the plurality of subscriptions, the priority list ranking the subscriptions with lower subscription cost of 1 redundant content items higher. (Fig. 17, item 1742; ¶¶153-154)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Jin in view of CHRISTIE to incorporate the teachings of prioritization of the plurality of subscriptions, as disclosed in CHRISTIE, to improve content subscription management and viewing experience from the explosion of content providers in the marketplace. (CHRISTIE: ¶3)
Per Claim 11, Jin in view of CHRISTIE discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
CHRISTIE discloses:
presenting the priority list to the user through the user interface; and (¶115)
providing the user with an option to suspend or terminate at least one of the plurality of subscriptions holding a low position on the generated priority list. (¶115)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Jin in view of CHRISTIE to incorporate the teachings of prioritization of the plurality of subscriptions, as disclosed in CHRISTIE, to improve content subscription management and viewing experience from the explosion of content providers in the marketplace. (CHRISTIE: ¶3)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin as applied to claim 1 further in view of Newman et al. (US 2018/0063591A1 (“Newman”)).
Per Claim 12, Jin discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Jin does not explicitly disclose:
receiving, in the computer device, a user request for a target content item; and
in response to the user request, identify a first subscription from the plurality of subscriptions linked to the computer device, the first subscription providing access to the target content item at a first subscription cost.
Newman discloses:
receiving, in the computer device, a user request for a target content item; and (Fig. 6; ¶¶32, 38, 53-55, 71)
in response to the user request, identify a first subscription from the plurality of subscriptions linked to the computer device, the first subscription providing access to the target content item at a first subscription cost. (Fig. 6; ¶¶19, 32, 53-55, 71-72)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Jin to incorporate the teachings of identification of target content item and subscription, as disclosed in Newman, to provide an improved mechanism for allowing a user to search content items from various content providers. (Newman: ¶3)
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Newman as applied to claim 12 further in view of Emmanuel et al. (US 2023/0370679A1 (“Emmanuel”)).
Per Claim 13, Jin in view of Newman discloses all the limitations of claim 12.
Newman discloses performing, automatically, a search to identify an un-subscribed service provider providing access to the target content item, he unsubscribed service provider being not subscribed by the user and not linked to the computer device; (¶¶30-33, 71-73; claim 7).
Newman does not explicitly disclose determining a second subscription cost for establishing a new subscription to the unsubscribed service provider by the user.
Emmanuel discloses determining a second subscription cost for establishing a new subscription to the unsubscribed service provider by the user. (Fig. 4; ¶¶38, 92, 115-116)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Jin in view of Newman to incorporate the teachings of determining a second subscription cost for establishing a new subscription to the unsubscribed service provider, as disclosed in Emmanuel, for improving provider and consumer control of content items, channels, accounts, subscriptions, and/or related information including metadata. (Emmanuel: ¶1)
Per Claim 14, Jin in view of Newman and Emmanuel discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
Emmanuel discloses:
in response to a determination that the second subscription cost is lower than the first subscription cost, notify the user of the new subscription. (¶¶38, 92)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Jin in view of Newman and Emmanuel to incorporate the teachings of notification of new subscription, as disclosed in Emmanuel, for improving provider and consumer control of content items, channels, accounts, subscriptions, and/or related information including metadata. (Emmanuel: ¶1)
Per Claim 15, Jin in view of Newman and Emmanuel discloses all the limitations of claim 14.
Emmanuel discloses:
providing the user with an option for the user to establish the new subscription and suspend or terminate the first subscription. (Fig. 2; ¶¶91)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Jin and Newman and Emmanuel to incorporate the teachings of providing the user with an option for subscription related options, as disclosed in Emmanuel, for improving provider and consumer control of content items, channels, accounts, subscriptions, and/or related information including metadata. (Emmanuel: ¶1)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thomas (US 2017/0094361A1) teaches a method for media content aggregation.
Bardsley (US 2008/0034045A1) teaches a method for managing electronic subscriptions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENYUH KUO whose telephone number is (571)272-5616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4 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, John W Hayes can be reached on (571)272-6708. 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.
/CHENYUH KUO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697