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
This is the second Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-17 are currently pending. Claims 1-9 and 13-17 are currently amended.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 09/30/2025 have been entered.
In view of the Abstract, Applicant’s amendment has been acknowledged and objection has been withdrawn.
In view of the Claim Objection, Applicant’s amendment has been acknowledged and objection has been withdrawn.
In regards to the Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s amendment has been acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 10, filed 09/30/2025, with respect to the objections to the Abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the Abstract has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 10, filed 09/30/2025, with respect to the claim objection has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection to claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 10-12, filed 09/30/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1, 14, and 17 recite the limitation “controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle based on at least the predicted trajectory Y.” However, Examiner does not believe that paragraph [02] of the original specification is enough to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of controlling operation of an autonomous vehicle based on the predicted trajectory at the time of filing. Accordingly, the limitation “controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle based on at least the predicted trajectory Y” constitutes new matter not supported by the originally filed disclosure, as discussed in more detail below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 14, 17, and depending claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 14, and 17 recite the limitation “controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle based on at least the predicted trajectory Y.” However, the original specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of controlling operation of an autonomous vehicle based on the predicted trajectory at the time of filing. Applicant indicates paragraph [02] “Predicting future trajectories of road users is a fundamental prerequisite task for motion planning of autonomous driving systems” as support for the limitation, however, in view of the specification, as a whole, does not provide any additional suggestion of possession. The mere suggestion that the predicted trajectory may be considered or evaluated in the context of autonomous driving systems is not sufficient support. Furthermore, the specification describes methods and systems for generating at least said predicted trajectory Y of an agent using a temporal transductive alignment (TTA) module such that the predicted trajectory is temporally consistent across different time-steps over a short time, but the specification does not describe using the predicted trajectory to control operations of an autonomous vehicle. Essentially, the specification stops at generating a predicted trajectory without tying a predicted trajectory to a vehicle control action such as modifying operational commands (e.g., steering, braking, acceleration).
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 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A method of predicting at least one trajectory
Y
of at least one autonomous vehicle [[agent]] a, the autonomous vehicle [[agent]] a being in a state
s
A
at a time
t
, where
t
∈
T
o
b
s
, where
T
o
b
s
=
-
t
0
,
…
,
0
areobservations time steps, the agent a being configured to be mobile according to at least one map Map, the method being executable by a processor of an electronic device, the electronic device being communicatively coupled to at least one database and/or at least one set of sensors, the method comprising:
acquiring at least one preliminary predicted trajectory
Y
~
, the preliminary predicted trajectory comprising a set of predicted points
P
T
, the set of predicted points
P
T
defining the preliminary predicted trajectory
Y
~
, each point of the set of predicted points
P
T
comprising at least one spatial coordinate and one temporal coordinate;
aligning at least one point
P
T
i
of the set of predicted points
P
T
with at least one point
P
T
j
of the set of predicted points
P
T
using a mask, the aligning comprising:
selecting at least the point
P
T
j
taken among the set of predicted points
P
T
using the mask, the mask being configured to mask [[the]] a point
P
T
k
, k being different from j, of the set of predicted points
P
T
; and
generating at least an aligned point
P
T
i
'
by processing at least one spatial coordinate of the point
P
T
i
according to at least one spatial coordinate of the point
P
T
j
, the aligned point
P
T
i
'
comprising [[the]] a same temporal coordinate than the point
P
T
i
; and
generating at least the predicted trajectory
Y
of the autonomous vehicle [[agent]] a at a time
t
'
where
t
'
∈
T
p
r
e
p
, where
T
p
r
e
p
=
1
,
…
,
t
p
are future time steps, the predicted trajectory
Y
comprising at least the aligned point
P
T
i
'
controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle based on at least the predicted trajectory
Y
.
Claim 14. An electronic device configured to predict at least one trajectory
Y
of at least one autonomous vehicle [[agent]] a, the electronic device being configured to:
acquire at least one preliminary predicted trajectory
Y
~
, the preliminary predicted trajectory comprising a set of predicted points
P
T
, the set of predicted points
P
T
defining the preliminary predicted trajectory
Y
~
, each point of the set of predicted points
P
T
comprising at least one spatial coordinate and one temporal coordinate;
align at least one point
P
T
i
of the set of predicted points
P
T
with at least one point
P
T
j
of the set of predicted points
P
T
using a mask; and
generate at least the predicted trajectory
Y
of the autonomous vehicle [[agent]] a at a time
t
'
where
t
'
∈
T
p
r
e
p
, where
T
p
r
e
p
=
1
,
…
,
t
p
are future time steps, the predicted trajectory
Y
comprising at least the aligned point
P
T
i
'
controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle based on at least the predicted trajectory
Y
.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
Claim 1 recites a method (i.e. process) and claim 14 recites a device (e.g., machine). These claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial
exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claims 1 and 14 recite the limitations of “acquiring at least one preliminary predicted trajectory
Y
~
…
"
, “aligning at least one point
P
T
i
of the set of predicted points
P
T
with at least one point
P
T
j
of the set of predicted points
P
T
…
"
, “generating at least the predicted trajectory
Y
of the agent a at a time
t
'
…
"
, or the likes of. These limitations, as
drafted, are a simple process that, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of a pen and paper but for the recitation of
“the method being executable by an electronic device”. That is, other than reciting “the method being executable by an electronic device” nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being perform by using a pen and paper. For example, but for “the
method being executable by an electronic device” language, the claim could implicate a person receiving data, making a preliminary predicted trajectory, aligning points and making a new
trajectory based on observation. The mere nominal recitation of “the method being executable by an electronic device” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Additionally, claim 1 further recites the limitations “selecting at least the point
P
T
j
taken among the set of predicted points
P
T
…
"
and “generating at least an aligned point
P
T
i
'
…
"
. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, that under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “the method being executable by an electronic device”. That is, other than reciting “being
executable by an electronic device” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed by using a pen and paper. For example, but for “the method being
executable by an electronic device” language, the claim encompasses a person performing a simple selection of a predicted point and generation of a new point according to information given. The mere nominal recitation of “being executable by an electronic device” does not take
the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it
integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP
2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the
abstract idea integrates the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional
elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant
extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular
technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical
application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements
that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of “being executable by a processor of an electronic device, the electronic device being communicatively coupled to at least one database and/or at least one set of sensors” and “controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle based on at least the predicted trajectory
Y
”. The processor of an electronic device, database, and/or sensor are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of processing, or data storing or gathering, respectively), and amount to either a means to implement an abstract idea or mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally, the additional element of “controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle based on at least the predicted trajectory
Y
” is recited at a high level of generality and lacks sufficient support from the original disclosure for it to be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art to say there is an improvement to any technology or technical field, therefore, being a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of a processor of an electronic device, database and/or sensors are well-understood, routine, and conventional components because the detailed description of embodiment does not explicitly state that the processor of an electronic device is anything other than a means for executing the method of the instant application, and the summary recites that the database is any structured collection of data and that the sensors are devices or modules configured to collect at least one data, such as a camera, pressure sensor, temperature sensor, localization device, etc... MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) additionally states “Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlinkU”, indicating that the claims must specify how the invention yielded the desired results. The additional element of “controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle based on at least the predicted trajectory
Y
” lacks any support for how the operation of the autonomous vehicle is controlled based on at least the predicted trajectory since this additional step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than what is well-understood. Furthermore, Urai et al. (US20060282218A1) states in [0005] that “There is conventionally known an anti-collision system for vehicles that…estimates the path of travel of the obstruction and the path of travel of the subject vehicle, calculates the possibility of collision between the obstruction and the subject vehicle based on the estimated paths of travel, and, in accordance with the calculated collision possibility, automatically controls the running state of the subject vehicle (such as by controlling vehicle velocity) so as to prevent a collision with the obstruction”, indicating that it is well understood, routine, and conventional to control a vehicle based on a predicted trajectory or path of travel. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-13 and 15-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the claims 1 and 14.
Therefore, claims 1-16 are ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 17. A computer-readable medium for storing program instructions for causing an electronic device to perform a method of predicting at least one trajectory
Y
of at least one autonomous vehicle [[agent]] a, the autonomous vehicle [[agent]] a being in a state
s
A
at a time
t
, where
t
∈
T
o
b
s
, where
T
o
b
s
=
-
t
0
,
…
,
0
are observations time steps, the autonomous vehicle [[agent]] a being configured to be mobile according to at least one map Map, the method comprising:
acquiring at least one preliminary predicted trajectory
Y
~
, the preliminary predicted trajectory comprising a set of predicted points
P
T
, the set of predicted points
P
T
defining the
preliminary predicted trajectory
Y
~
, each point of the set of predicted points
P
T
comprising at least one spatial coordinate and one temporal coordinate;
aligning at least one point
P
T
i
of the set of predicted points
P
T
with at least one point
P
T
j
of the set of predicted points
P
T
using a mask, the aligning comprising:
selecting at least the point
P
T
j
taken among the set of predicted points
P
T
using the mask, the mask being configured to mask [[the]] a point
P
T
k
, k being different from j, of the set of predicted points
P
T
; and
generating at least an aligned point
P
T
i
'
by processing at least one spatial coordinate of the point
P
T
i
according to at least one spatial coordinate of the
point
P
T
j
, the aligned point
P
T
i
'
comprising the same temporal coordinate than the point
P
T
i
; and
generating at least the predicted trajectory
Y
of the autonomous vehicle [[agent]] a at a time
t
'
where
t
'
∈
T
p
r
e
p
, where
T
p
r
e
p
=
1
,
…
,
t
p
are future time steps, the predicted trajectory
Y
comprising at least the aligned point
P
T
i
'
;
controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle based on at least the predicted trajectory
Y
.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory category – No
Claim 17 recites a computer readable medium. This claim fails to fall within one of the four statutory categories. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a computer-readable medium can be interpreted as a transitory signal. MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental
Processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be
analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following
groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain
methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial
exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim 17 recites the limitations of “acquiring at least one preliminary predicted trajectory
Y
~
…”, “aligning at least one point
P
T
i
of the set of predicted points
P
T
with at least one point
P
T
j
of the set of predicted points
P
T
…”, “selecting at least the point
P
T
j
taken among the set of predicted points
P
T
…”, “generating at least an aligned point
P
T
i
'
…”, and “generating at least the predicted trajectory
Y
of the agent a at a time
t
'
…”, or the likes of. These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of a pen and paper but for the recitation of “causing an electronic device to perform a method”. That is, other than reciting “causing an electronic device to perform a method” nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being perform by using a pen and paper. For example, but for “causing an electronic device to perform a method” language, the claim could implicate a person receiving data, making a preliminary predicted trajectory, aligning points by selecting a point and making a new point in order to make a new trajectory based on an observation. The mere nominal recitation of “causing an electronic device to perform a method” does not take
the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it
integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP
2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the
abstract idea integrates the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional
elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant
extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular
technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical
application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements
that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of causing an electronic device to perform a method and “controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle based on at least the predicted trajectory
Y
”. The electronic device is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of processing), and amount to either a means to implement an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Additionally, the additional element of “controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle based on at least the predicted trajectory
Y
” is recited at a high level of generality and lacks sufficient support from the original disclosure for it to be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art to say there is an improvement to any technology or technical field, therefore, being a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a
whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional
element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See
MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim
amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer
component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception
on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step
2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in
Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-
understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of an electronic device is a well-understood, routine, and conventional component because the detailed description of embodiment does not explicitly state that the electronic device is anything other than a means for executing the method of the instant application. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) additionally states “Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlinkU”, indicating that the claims must specify how the invention yielded the desired results. The additional element of “controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle based on at least the predicted trajectory
Y
” lacks any support for how the operation of the autonomous vehicle is controlled based on at least the predicted trajectory since this additional step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than what is well-understood. Furthermore, Urai et al. (US20060282218A1) states in [0005] that “There is conventionally known an anti-collision system for vehicles that…estimates the path of travel of the obstruction and the path of travel of the subject vehicle, calculates the possibility of collision between the obstruction and the subject vehicle based on the estimated paths of travel, and, in accordance with the calculated collision possibility, automatically controls the running state of the subject vehicle (such as by controlling vehicle velocity) so as to prevent a collision with the obstruction”, indicating that it is well understood, routine, and conventional to control a vehicle based on a predicted trajectory or path of travel. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 17 is ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA
Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657