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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27, 28, 29, and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Reasons for allowance will be provided in the event the application becomes in condition for allowance.
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, 4-8, 11, 13, 15, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wajs et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2020/0293803).
Regarding claim 1, Wajs et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2020/0293803) discloses:
A method comprising:
(a) obtaining a first image from a first camera (para. [0033], "The data pipeline includes image capture as a source of data"); and
(b) processing the first image in a first vision pipeline, wherein the first vision pipeline comprises a first group of connected processing nodes (para. [0033]-[0034]), and at least one of the nodes relies on an asset to perform a processing task based on the first image (para. [0042], "The application 170 transmits 530 control data to the nodes 110 selected to form the data pipeline. [. . .] The control data specifies the functionality for each node and also specifies the interconnections between nodes. It may also specify the image data and metadata to be produced by the data pipeline."),
wherein the asset comprises a packaged file, the packaged file comprises an asset descriptor, and the asset descriptor comprises an asset identifier, an asset type identifier, and a payload (para. [0042], "The application 170 transmits 530 control data to the nodes 110 selected to form the data pipeline. [. . .] The control data specifies the functionality for each node and also specifies the interconnections between nodes. It may also specify the image data and metadata to be produced by the data pipeline.").
Regarding claim 4, Wajs et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the payload comprises a neural network definition and associated weights (para. [0042], "The control data specifies the functionality for each node ... " and para. [0032], "More complex forms of image understanding may be based on machine learning, deep learning and/or artificial intelligence techniques ... " together imply that the functionality specified may be a neural network definition and associated weights)
Regarding claim 5, Wajs et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the payload comprises configuration parameters for the at least one of the nodes. (para. [0042], "the control data is transmitted 530 to the management layers 160 (i.e., indirectly to the nodes), which then carry out the requested configuration.").
Regarding claim 6, Wajs et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the configuration parameters comprise at least one other asset identifier identifying at least one other asset (para. [0042], "The control data specifies the functionality for each node," emphasis added).
Regarding claim 7, Wajs et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the at least one other asset comprises additional configuration parameters for the at least one of the nodes (para. [0042], "the control data is transmitted 530 to the management layers 160 (i.e., indirectly to the nodes), which then carry out the requested configuration.").
Regarding claim 8, Wajs et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the configuration parameters of the payload further comprise non-asset identifier parameters (para. [0042], "[the control data] may also specify the image data and metadata to be produced by the data pipeline.").
Regarding claim 11, Wajs et al. additionally discloses:
further comprising processing the image in at least one additional vision pipeline, wherein each of the at least one additional vision pipeline comprises an additional group of connected processing nodes, wherein at least one of the nodes of each of the at least one additional vision pipeline performs a processing task based on the first image, and wherein the first vision pipeline and the at least one additional vision pipeline are connected in series. (para. [0046]). In the case of a linear data pipeline, it would be understood by a person skilled in the art that such a pipeline may be schematically viewed as two or more pipelines in series, with the output of the first being the input of the second
Regarding claim 13, Wajs et al. additionally discloses:
further comprising processing the image in a second vision pipeline, wherein the second vision pipeline comprises a second group of connected processing nodes, wherein at least one of the nodes of the second group performs a processing task based on the first image or on a second image, and wherein the second vision pipeline performs processing on the first image or on the second image in parallel with the first vision pipeline (para. [0043], "The example data pipeline in FIG. 5 is not linear. It has branches."))
Regarding claim 15, Wajs et al. additionally discloses:
further comprising processing the image in at least one additional vision pipeline, wherein each of the at least one additional vision pipeline comprises an additional group of connected processing nodes (para. [0033]-[0034]), wherein at least one of the nodes of each of the at least one additional vision pipeline performs a processing task based on the first image or on an image different from the first image, and wherein the first vision pipeline and the at least one additional vision pipeline are connected in parallel (para. [0043], "The example data pipeline in FIG. 5 is not linear. It has branches.")
Regarding claim 39, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The computer readable medium is explicitly taught as evidenced by paragraphs [0010] and [0096] of Wajs et al.
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) 2 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wajs et al. in view of Russel et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0029178).
Regarding claim 2, Wajs et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 1).
Wajs et al. does not explicitly disclose:
moving a first robot in response to the processing performed by the first vision pipeline.
Russel et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0029178) discloses:
moving a first robot in response to the processing performed by the first vision pipeline (Figure 11, paragraphs [0142]-[0146], the vision processing leads to an actuation of the attachment/detachment)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Russel et al. with the system of Wajs et al. such that the system would have been configured to move a first robot in response to the processing performed by the first vision pipeline as described in Russel. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “automat[ing]…the harvesting task [to] result in a significant labour saving and…provide gentler handling of the fruit” (paragraph [0002] of the Russel reference).
Regarding claim 36, Wajs et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 1).
Wajs et al. does not explicitly disclose:
receiving from a robot controller a call to perform the process
(b) receiving from the robot controller a first identifier of one of the nodes
(c) returning to the robot controller an output of the node identified by the first identifier that results from the processing
Russel et al. discloses:
(a) receiving from a robot controller a call to perform the processing (paragraph [0136], Robot Operating System (ROS) invokes subsystems to perform the pipeline processing shown in Figure 11);
(b) receiving from the robot controller a first identifier of one of the nodes (paragraphs [0136]-[0138], [0142]-[0146], the ROS uses nodes for particular independent processes with the state machine as the central node; the particular processes are invoked as the system moves through the vision processing pipeline, starting at the capsicum detection node); and
(c) returning to the robot controller an output of the node identified by the first identifier that results from the processing (Figure 11, paragraphs [0139]-[0140], for example, from the capsicum detection process, the system outputs detected capsicum, which leads into the scanning state)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Russel et al. with the system of Wajs et al. such that the system would have been configured to receive from a robot controller a call to perform the processing, receive from the robot controller a first identifier of one of the nodes, and return to the robot controller an output of the node identified by the first identifier that results from the processing as described. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “automat[ing]…the harvesting task [to] result in a significant labour saving and…provide gentler handling of the fruit” (paragraph [0002] of the Russel reference).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Wajs et al. and Russel et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 36).
Wajs et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the node identified by the first identifier is upstream of a final node of the vision pipeline
(a) receiving from the robot controller a second identifier identifying the final node
(b) returning to the robot controller an output of the final node that results from the processing
Russel discloses:
wherein the node identified by the first identifier is upstream of a final node of the vision pipeline (see Figure 11 – Initial capsicum detection occurs before pose detection), and further comprising:
(a) receiving from the robot controller a second identifier identifying the final node (paragraphs [0136]-[0138], [0142]-[0146], the ROS uses nodes for particular independent processes with the state machine as the central node; the particular processes are invoked as the system moves through the vision processing pipeline, ending with the determination of pose); and
(b) returning to the robot controller an output of the final node that results from the processing (Figure 11, paragraphs [0144]-[0146], a determined pose is output)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Russel et al. with the system of Wajs et al. such that the system would have been configured to receive from the robot controller a second identifier identifying the final node, receive from the robot controller a second identifier identifying the final node, and return to the robot controller an output of the final node that results from the processing as described in Russel. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “automat[ing]…the harvesting task [to] result in a significant labour saving and…provide gentler handling of the fruit” (paragraph [0002] of the Russel reference).
Regarding claim 38, Wajs et al. discloses:
A system comprising:
(a) a first camera (see, for example, paragraphs [0027], [0030], [0033]);
(b) a vision processor communicatively coupled to the first camera and to obtain a first image therefrom (para. [0033], "The data pipeline includes image capture as a source of data");
wherein the controller is configured to cause the vision processor to perform a method comprising:
(i) obtaining the first image from the first camera (see, for example, paragraphs [0027], [0030], [0033]); and
(ii) processing the first image in a first vision pipeline, wherein the first vision pipeline comprises a first group of connected processing nodes (para. [0033]-[0034]), and at least one of the nodes relies on an asset to perform a processing task based on the first image (para. [0042], "The application 170 transmits 530 control data to the nodes 110 selected to form the data pipeline. [. . .] The control data specifies the functionality for each node and also specifies the interconnections between nodes. It may also specify the image data and metadata to be produced by the data pipeline."),
wherein the asset comprises a packaged file, the packaged file comprises an asset descriptor, and the asset descriptor comprises an asset identifier, an asset type identifier, and a payload (para. [0042], "The application 170 transmits 530 control data to the nodes 110 selected to form the data pipeline. [. . .] The control data specifies the functionality for each node and also specifies the interconnections between nodes. It may also specify the image data and metadata to be produced by the data pipeline.").
Wajs et al. does not explicitly disclose:
(c) a robot and (d) a robot controller communicatively coupled to the robot and to the vision processor
Russel discloses:
(c) a robot and (d) a robot controller communicatively coupled to the robot and to the vision processor (Figure 11, paragraphs [0142]-[0146], the vision processing leads to an actuation of the attachment/detachment)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Russel et al. with the system of Wajs et al. such that the system would have been configured to move a first robot in response to the processing performed by the first vision pipeline as described in Russel. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “automat[ing]…the harvesting task [to] result in a significant labour saving and…provide gentler handling of the fruit” (paragraph [0002] of the Russel reference).
Claim(s) 17, 18, 21, 23, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wajs et al. in view of Iacoletti et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,783,123).
Regarding claim 17, Wajs et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 1).
Wajs et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the processing is performed using a first vision processor (paragraph [0024], a node may be an individual physical device)
a second vision processor (paragraph [0024], a node can be connected to a node in a separate individual physical device)
Wajs et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the asset is retrieved from an asset repository accessible by a first processor and at least one other processor.
Iacoletti et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,783,123) discloses:
wherein the asset is retrieved from an asset repository accessible by a first processor and at least one other processor (Figures 1 and 2, column 2, lines 57-67, column 3, lines 17-35, column 4, lines 5-12, the server is accessible by multiple computing systems)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Iacoletti with the system of Wajs such that the asset is retrieved from an asset repository accessible by a first processor and at least one other processor as described in Iacoletti. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of, for versions of software tracked in a repository, “easily track[ing] changes made and [providing] a way to roll back to earlier versions should the need arise” across their networked computing systems (column 2, lines 45-48 of the Iacoletti reference).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Wajs et al. and Iacoletti et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 17).
Wajs et al. additionally discloses:
at least one other vision processor (paragraph [0024], a node can be connected to a node in a separate individual physical device)
Wajs et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the asset repository stores at least one other asset for the at least one other processor.
Iacoletti et al. discloses:
wherein the asset repository stores at least one other asset for the at least one other processor (Figures 1 and 2, column 2, lines 57-67, column 3, lines 17-35, column 4, lines 5-12, the server is accessible by multiple computing systems)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Iacoletti with the system of Wajs such that the asset repository stores at least one other asset for the at least one other processor as described in Iacoletti. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of, for versions of software tracked in a repository, “easily track[ing] changes made and [providing] a way to roll back to earlier versions should the need arise” across their networked computing systems (column 2, lines 45-48 of the Iacoletti reference).
Regarding claim 21, Wajs et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 1)
Wajs et al. additionally discloses:
wherein a configuration of the first vision pipeline is stored in a configuration file (paragraph [0042], control data is used to configure the nodes of the pipeline)
Wajs et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the method further comprises storing different versions of the configuration file respectively specifying different states of the assets at different times.
Iacoletti et al. discloses:
wherein the method further comprises storing different versions of the configuration file respectively specifying different states of the assets at different times (col. 2, lines 44-48, "The source code repository may include a version control system. Once added to the repository, changes to the files are tracked and managed This gives system administrators another way to easily track changes made and a way to roll back to earlier versions should the need arise.").
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Iacoletti with the system of Wajs such that the system would have stored different versions of the configuration file respectively specifying different states of the assets at different times as described in Iacoletti. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of, for versions of software tracked in a repository, “easily track[ing] changes made and [providing] a way to roll back to earlier versions should the need arise” across their networked computing systems (column 2, lines 45-48 of the Iacoletti reference).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Wajs et al. and Iacoletti discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 21).
Wajs et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the different versions of the configuration file are managed using at least a first distributed version control system, and wherein the method further comprises:(a) retrieving a version of the configuration file representing a past system configuration; and(b) reverting to the past system configuration.
Iacoletti et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the different versions of the configuration file are managed using at least a first distributed version control system, and wherein the method further comprises:(a) retrieving a version of the configuration file representing a past system configuration; and (b) reverting to the past system configuration (col. 2, lines 44-48, "The source code repository may include a version control system. Once added to the repository, changes to the files are tracked and managed This gives system administrators another way to easily track changes made and a way to roll back to earlier versions should the need arise.").
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Iacoletti with the system of Wajs such that the system would have different versions of the configuration file managed using at least a first distributed version control system, retrieving a version of the configuration file representing a past system configuration and reverting to the past system configuration as described in Iacoletti. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of, for versions of software tracked in a repository, “easily track[ing] changes made and [providing] a way to roll back to earlier versions should the need arise” across their networked computing systems (column 2, lines 45-48 of the Iacoletti reference).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Wajs et al. and Iacoletti et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 21).
Wajs et al. additionally discloses:
wherein at least two of the nodes of the first vision pipeline are collectively referenced in the configuration file as a pre-configured asset (paragraph [0042], the control data specifies the functionality for each node and the interconnections between nodes)
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Wajs et al. and Iacoletti et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 34).
Wajs et al. additionally discloses:
wherein all of the nodes of the first vision pipeline are collectively referenced in the configuration file as the pre-configured asset (paragraph [0042], the control data specifies the functionality for each node and the interconnections between nodes)
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Wajs et al. in view of Iacoletti et al., in further view of Lakshmanan et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0114166).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Wajs et al. and Iacoletti et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 17).
The combination of Wajs et al. and Iacoletti et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the asset is stored in a hashed path in the asset repository.
Lakshmanan et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0114166) discloses:
wherein the asset is stored in a hashed path in the asset repository (paragraph [0049], a hash value is derived from a path where the code file is stored in a repository)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Lakshmanan with the combination of Wajs et al. and Iacoletti et al. such that the asset would be stored in a hashed path in the asset repository as described. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of appropriately tracking “when portions of the function prototype change….[such that] [t]he new FID would appear in a new function log for a new function and the function log for the old FID would indicate the removal of the old function” (paragraph [0049] of the Lakshmanan reference).
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Wajs et al. in view of Iacoletti et al., in further view of BGC (“Basic Git Commands”, Bitbucket Data Center and Server 7.19 I Atlassian Documentation, copy provided, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Wajs et al. and Iacoletti et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 23).
The combination of Wajs et al. and Iacoletti et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the different versions of the configuration file that correspond to different schema for the configuration file are managed using the first distributed version control system and are respectively stored using different named- branches of the first distributed version control system.
BGC discloses:
wherein the different versions of the configuration file that correspond to different schema for the configuration file are managed using the first distributed version control system and are respectively stored using different named- branches of the first distributed version control system (page 2, Git version control allows for creating a new named-branch and switching to it - “git checkout -b <branchname>)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of BGC with the combination of Wajs et al. and Iacoletti et al. such that retrieving a particular one of the different versions of the configuration file that correspond to different schema for the configuration file are managed using the first distributed version control system and are respectively stored using different named- branches of the first distributed version control system as described in BGC. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of furthering the goal of “more flexibility and ease in accessing and processing data captured” (paragraph [0006] of the Wajs et al. reference) by extending the compatibility of the system to the popular cloud based Git platform.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Wajs et al., Iacoletti et al., and BGC discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 25).
The combination of Wajs et al. and Iacoletti et al. does not explicitly disclose:
retrieving a particular one of the different versions of the configuration file by checking out a tip of the named-branch used to store the particular one of the different versions of the configuration file.
BGC discloses:
retrieving a particular one of the different versions of the configuration file by checking out a tip of the named-branch used to store the particular one of the different versions of the configuration file (page 2, git checkout <branchname>)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of BGC with the combination of Wajs et al. and Iacoletti et al. such that retrieving a particular one of the different versions of the configuration file by checking out a tip of the named-branch used to store the particular one of the different versions of the configuration file as described in BGC. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of furthering the goal of “more flexibility and ease in accessing and processing data captured” (paragraph [0006] of the Wajs et al. reference) by extending the compatibility of the system to the popular cloud based Git platform.
Claim(s) 32-33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wajs et al in view of Iacoletti et al., in further view of Mattonen et al. (“Quantitative imaging feature pipeline: a web-based tool for utilizing, sharing, and building image-processing pipelines”, copy provided, see PTO-892)
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Wajs et al. and Iacoletti et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 21).
The combination of Wajs et al. and Iacoletti et al. does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising maintaining a journal log of system launch configurations, wherein the journal log for each of the system launch configurations comprises a software version, a commit hash of a configuration repository, a duration of each run, and whether the software initialized completely
Mattonen et al. (“Quantitative imaging feature pipeline: a web-based tool for utilizing, sharing, and building image-processing pipelines”, copy provided, see PTO-892) discloses:
further comprising maintaining a journal log of system launch configurations, wherein the journal log for each of the system launch configurations comprises a software version, a commit hash of a configuration repository, a duration of each run, and whether the software initialized completely (Figure 5, page 042803-8, the log shows the instance of the tool being used, the instance of the configuration file, the run duration, and a message indicating that the process is complete)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Mattonen et al. with the system of Wajs et al. and Iacoletti et al. such that the system further maintained a journal log of system launch configurations, wherein the journal log for each of the system launch configurations comprises a software version, a commit hash of a configuration repository, a duration of each run, and whether the software initialized completely as described in Mattonen. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “a user-friendly platform for sharing and assessing…imaging platforms” (page 042803-2 of the Mattonen reference).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Wajs et al., Iacoletti et al, and Mattonen et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 32).
Iacoletti et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the different versions of the configuration file are managed using at least a first distributed version control system, and wherein the method further comprises:(a) retrieving a version of the configuration file representing a past system configuration; and (b) reverting to the past system configuration (col. 2, lines 44-48, "The source code repository may include a version control system. Once added to the repository, changes to the files are tracked and managed This gives system administrators another way to easily track changes made and a way to roll back to earlier versions should the need arise.").
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Mattonen et al. with the system of Wajs et al. and Iacoletti et al. such that different versions of the configuration file were managed using at least a first distributed version control system, and wherein the system retrieved a version of the configuration file representing a past system configuration and reverted to the past system configuration as described in Mattonen. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “a user-friendly platform for sharing and assessing…imaging platforms” (page 042803-2 of the Mattonen reference).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682