DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues: a) the claimed subject matter provides an improvement in the functionality of the computer, b) the judicial exception is implemented with or used in conjunction with a particular machine, c) the judicial exception is used or applied in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In light of the Applicants first argument a), the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.05(a). The applicant states that the claimed sub-Nyquist sampling approaches employ, “a simpler architecture with frugal hardware” and that the use of Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) enables the method and system of the disclosure to find “wide application in remote sensing.” MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” As seen in paragraphs [040], [055], and [056] of the specification, sub-Nyquist sampling and ADMM both require and encompass mathematical calculation and are therefore directed to a judicial exception. Further MPEP 2106.05(a) states ”if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” The applicant’s specification merely asserts that sub-Nyquist sampling and ADMM elicit the above “improvements,” lacking a clear technological explanation as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicants argument that the claimed subject matter provides an improvement in the functionality of the computer.
The Applicant argues that b) the judicial exception is implemented with or used in conjunction with a particular machine by pointing to paragraph [0052] of their specification for support. Paragraph [0052] references generic hardware processors, FMCW radar, a transmitter mounted on a moving platform. Initially, it is noted that the moving platform is not claimed and is exclusively referenced in the applicant’s specification. On of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that the listed components are common and standard in the art. MPEP 2106.05(b)(I) states, “Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection.” The apparatus the Applicant points to is expressed in a high level of generality and does not qualify as a particular machine. Further MPEP 2106.05(b)(II) states “the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” The data collection and analysis steps as laid out in the claims merely invoke computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the judicial exception is implemented with or used in conjunction with a particular machine.
The Applicant further argues that c) the judicial exception is used or applied in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. In support for this argument, the applicant points to MPEP 2106.05(e) and paragraph [0066] of their specification. Paragraph [0066] of their specification discloses several mathematical operations elicited by the claimed ADDM process. On page 12 of their remarks, with respect to paragraph [0066], the applicant points to commonly practiced data manipulation procedures to support their position in argument. It is unclear how this cited paragraph is intended to be in support of the Applicant’s claim that the judicial exception is used or applied in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, as the paragraph does not reference a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.05(h) states “employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more.” Neither the claims nor the cited paragraph amount to more than generally linking to a specific technological environment.
With respect to the Applicants general statement that the claimed subject matter is integrated into a judicial exception the Applicant argues on Page 12 that the judicial exception is integrated into practical application by "temporally sampling the pulse compressed signal." Examiner disagrees, as the act of performing temporal sampling upon a pulse compressed signal is well-understood, routine, and conventional as demonstrated by, at least, REN(CN114966687A) and ZHU(CN105242255A). Therefore, this limitation amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
On Page 13 of their arguments the Applicant lists two Subject Matter Eligibility examples in support of their argument. The first listed, Example 38, refers to an application in which mathematical relationships, formulas and calculations are not recited. This example does not apply to the instant application as the claimed subject matter does recite mathematical relationships, formulas and calculations. The second listed, Example 41, refers to an application in which the combination of additional elements use the mathematical formulas and calculations in a specific manner that sufficiently limits the use of the mathematical concepts to the practical application. In reference to Example 41, the applicant argues that the claimed mathematical concepts are “integrated into a process of constructing a dictionary H.” The Examiner disagrees with the assertion that Example 41 applies to the instant application and that the claimed mathematical concepts are integrated into a process of constructing a dictionary. Paragraph [058] of the Applicants specifications discloses that the process of constructing dictionary H is itself a mathematical process. MPEP 2106.04(d) states “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.” As the “process of constructing dictionary H” is itself a judicial exception is not a practical application and does not serve to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The Applicant is respectfully reminded of the listed example practical applications recited in MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
On pages 14 and 15 of their arguments, the Applicant lists purported improvements to the technology purportedly in support of additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained in greater detail above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicants argument that the claimed subject matter provides an improvement in the functionality of the computer. The Applicant is respectfully reminded that the “judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement” MPEP 2106.05(a).
On Pages 15-17 the applicant points to XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, 968 F .3 1323,1330-32 and Enfish LLC v. Microsoft corporation in further support of their purported improvements to the technology. The Applicant specifically points to filtering duplicate data as a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. As claimed, the specific step of filtering including the removal of duplicate rows recites a mathematical concept (see specification paragraph [063]). Even in light of the above case law, as explained in greater detail above, the “judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement” MPEP 2106.05(a). The Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the Applicants arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-15 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and similarly claims 6 and 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, lines 41-44, “wherein the sub-Nyquist sampling employs architecture with frugal hardware, the dictionary based reconstruction approach, and solving of the formulated optimization problem using an Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) approach applied in remote sensing;” should be read “wherein the sub-Nyquist sampling employs architecture with frugal hardware, using the dictionary based reconstruction approach, wherein the solving of the formulated optimization problem using an Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) approach is applied in the field of remote sensing.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 and similarly claims 6 and 11, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “wherein the sub-Nyquist sampling employs architecture with frugal hardware.” The term “frugal” is a relative term in the form of a term of a “term of degree.” The term renders the claim indefinite as it lacks some standard for determining what hardware is explicitly required (See, MPEP 2173.05(b)(I)). A review of the specification sets forth the term “frugal hardware.” Review of the specification reveals at paragraph [075] “The simpler sub-Nyquist sampling approaches of the present disclosure that employ a simpler architecture with frugal hardware”, but does not provide further clarification of the term “frugal” or a standard for determining what hardware is explicitly required. In light of the specification the scope of the limitation “ wherein the sub-Nyquist sampling employs architecture with frugal hardware” is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “wherein the sub-Nyquist sampling employs architecture with frugal hardware” and clearly disclose what the term means as it is not clear how the Applicant intends to limit the term based on review of the specification.
Claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)).
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites a processor implemented method. The claim therefore recites a process.
Claim 6 (and its dependents) recites a system. The claim therefore recites a product.
Claim 11 (and its dependents) recites non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums. The claim therefore recites a product.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 1 and similarly claims 6 and 11 recite,
constructing, via the one or more hardware processors, a dictionary H based on the temporally compressed sampled signals
This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation, see specifications Pgs.21-22. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
wherein the step of constructing a dictionary H based on the sampled signals comprises one of (i) a union of measurement matrices H,, and H, corresponding to the two sub-sampling factors d, and d, respectively,
This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation in the form of matrix manipulation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
wherein N denote number of time samples, the dictionary H = [H,, H, ], where Hr, is a NK x L dimension matrix, whose (u, w)
PNG
media_image1.png
10
15
media_image1.png
Greyscale
atom is expressed as: [equation not reproduced]
This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical formula. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
where [equation not reproduced], which represents a range from u" radar location to x'h position in an image space,
This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical formula. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
and (ii) a union of measurement matrices H,. and H, ,corresponding to the sub-sampling factor d, on the pulse compressed signal and the delayed pulse compressed signal respectively;
This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation in the form of matrix manipulation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
wherein each atom of the dictionary H is computed based on a time delay;
This limitation is a process that recites the manner in which a mathematical process is carried out. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
formulating, via the one or more hardware processors, an optimization problem comprising the temporally compressed sampled signals, the constructed dictionary and a regularizer.
This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation in the form of constructing a formula. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
estimating, via the one or more hardware processors, a plurality of reflectivity coefficients of the region of interest by solving the formulated optimization problem.
This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation in the form of calculating coefficients. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
wherein [equation not reproduced]denotes a vector of the plurality of reflectivity coefficients, and rows of H, and H, at row position, [equation not reproduced] are duplicates, wherein duplicate rows and corresponding measurements are removed by retaining only one row and the corresponding measurement
This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation in the form of vector manipulation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
And imaging, via the one or more hardware processors, the region of interest by reconstructing a Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) image thereof, based on the temporally compressed sampled signals, using the estimated plurality of reflectivity coefficients.
This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation in the form of using a mathematical algorithm to reconstruct an image, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(1)(I)(C)(V). Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
the dictionary based reconstruction approach, and solving of the formulated optimization problem using an Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) approach applied in remote sensing.
This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation in the form of solving of the formulated optimization problem. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
Claim 2 and similarly claims 7 and 12 recite,
step of constructing a dictionary H based on the sampled signals comprises the union of measurement matrices Hd3 and Hd3-delayed corresponding to the sub- sampling factor d3 on the pulse compressed signal, wherein [equations not reproduced].
This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation in the form of calculating the union of two matrices. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
Claim 3 and similarly claims 8 and 13 recite,
the formulated optimization problem is represented as: [EQU/formula not reproduced] where R(p) is the regularizer on the plurality of reflectivity coefficients p, A is a penalty term which controls the amount of regularization and rcomp=vec{r}, where ris a collection of temporally compressed sampled signals.
This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation in the form describing a mathematical equation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
Claim 4 and similarly claims 9 and 14 recite,
wherein the formulated optimization problem is solved using the ADMM
This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation in the form solving a mathematical equation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
and a proxy variable v is introduced and the formulated optimization problem is converted into a constrained optimization problem as: [equations not reproduced].
This limitation is a process that recites a formula. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 and similarly claims 6 and 11 also recite,
receiving via a radar a back scattered signal from a region of interest for imaging
Receiving data is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
mixing, via one or more hardware processors, the received back scattered signal with a reference signal to obtain a pulse compressed signal, wherein the reference signal is a conjugate of a transmitted signal by the radar
This limitation merely describes manipulating gathered data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
temporally sampling, via the one or more hardware processors, the pulse compressed signal at two sub-sampling factors, to obtain temporally compressed sampled signals, a signal from each of the two sub-sampling factors, wherein the temporally sampling comprises one of: sub-Nyquist sampling using the two sub-sampling factors (di and d2) which are co-primes
Sampling data is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
and delaying the pulse compressed signal at one of the two sub-sampling factors and performing the sub-Nyquist sampling, using a sub-sampling factor d3 on (i) the delayed pulse compressed signal, wherein an associated delay factor (C1) is not a multiple of the sub-sampling factor d3 and (ii) the pulse compressed signal
Sampling data is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 5 and similarly claims 10 and 15 also recite,
the radar is a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) radar.
The limitation is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment and has been found to be an extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
Claim 1 and similarly claims 6 and 11 also recite,
receiving via a radar a back scattered signal from a region of interest for imaging
Receiving data is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
mixing, via one or more hardware processors, the received back scattered signal with a reference signal to obtain a pulse compressed signal, wherein the reference signal is a conjugate of a transmitted signal by the radar
This limitation merely describes manipulating gathered data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
temporally sampling, via the one or more hardware processors, the pulse compressed signal at two sub-sampling factors, to obtain temporally compressed sampled signals, a signal from each of the two sub-sampling factors, wherein the temporally sampling comprises one of: sub-Nyquist sampling using the two sub-sampling factors (di and d2) which are co-primes
Sampling data is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
and delaying the pulse compressed signal at one of the two sub-sampling factors and performing the sub-Nyquist sampling, using a sub-sampling factor d3 on (i) the delayed pulse compressed signal, wherein an associated delay factor (C1) is not a multiple of the sub-sampling factor d3 and (ii) the pulse compressed signal
Sampling data is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 1 further recites,
A processor implemented method
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
wherein the sub-Nyquist sampling employs architecture with frugal hardware,
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 and similarly claims 10 and 15 also recite,
the radar is a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) radar.
The limitation is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment and has been found to be an extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 11 further recites,
One or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
wherein the sub-Nyquist sampling employs architecture with frugal hardware,
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for estimating, analyzing, and evaluating and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well- understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646