DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 and 13 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This action is FINAL.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 8, filed 11/21/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 1, “In Wulf on the other hand, and with particular reference to column 9, lines 48 - 63, and column 15, lines 55 - 58, it is described that compensation braking can be performed if an expected target longitudinal vehicle dynamics deviate from a currently identified actual longitudinal vehicle dynamics.
The compensation braking is only carried out if ABS control is not active, i.e. an ABS control intervention has not been detected.
The compensation braking strategy of Wulf differs from the backup motion control system functionality of claim 1. In particular, Wulf does not describe that an active deactivation of the ABS control is performed whereafter the wheel brakes are engaged. On the contrary, Wolf describes a criterion where it is allowable to carry out compensation braking. As clearly described in column 9, lines 60 - 61of Wulf, and as indicated above, the compensation braking is carried out when an ABS control intervention has not been detected. The ABS control in Wulf is thus not deactivated, but the compensation braking is performed if ABS control intervention is not detected.
Accordingly, Wulf fails to describe "controlling the anti-lock braking system for the wheel brakes of the steerable wheels to be arranged in a disabled state" as recited by claim 1 of the pending application.” (Remarks, pg. 9-10)
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding point (a), Wulf teaches only executing the braking control when the ABS is not activated (Wulf, [Col. 9 lines 58-63] “This compensating braking is preferably only carried out if ABS control is not active in the automatically controlled brake system, i.e. an ABS control intervention has not been detected. The safety and the reliability of the corrective braking intervention can thus be increased since the risk of instability triggered by the redundant braking is reduced.”), and further teaches ABS brake valves being electronically controllable (Wulf, [Col. 11 lines 18-30] “The brake system 100 is designed to brake the vehicle 200 via wheel brakes 1, which are each associated with wheels 2 of a vehicle axle 3 and upstream of which electronically controllable ABS brake valves 4 are optionally connected.”). In other words, because the compensation braking is only carried out when the ABS control is not active, Wulf teaches that the ABS must be arranged in a disabled state before the braking control is executed. Additionally, the braking only occurs in response to the difference in motion and the ABS being deactivated (Wulf, [Col. 9 lines 48-57] “On the other hand, if the expected target longitudinal vehicle dynamics deviate from the currently identified actual longitudinal vehicle dynamics and this deviation can be compensated safely and reliably by a corrective braking intervention, a correction deceleration and/or a correction velocity which can realize this compensation is determined by the monitoring device.). Because the ABS must be deactivated before the braking compensation is controlled, Wulf teaches controlling the anti-lock braking system to be arranged in a disabled state and engage the brakes when the difference between the current motion and the desired motion exceed a threshold.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wulf (US 11052889 B2; hereinafter Wulf).
Regarding claim 1,
Wulf teaches:
A method of controlling a backup motion control system for an autonomous vehicle, the autonomous vehicle comprising a primary steering system for controlling steering operations of a pair of steerable wheels, wherein each of the steerable wheels comprises a wheel brake, the wheel brakes being connected to an anti-lock braking system for preventing the wheel brakes from being locked when the anti-lock braking system is arranged in an enabled state, the method comprising:
(Wulf – [Col. 5 lines 20-29] “The automatic control in this case takes place in particular as a function of a vehicle movement planned at the third control device, in particular taking into account the current vehicle state and environment recognition, wherein, for automatic control by means of the request signal, different actuators, for example the wheel brakes in the brake system, a sustained-action brake (retarder), an engine, a gear unit, or the steering can be controlled to implement the planned vehicle movement in the appropriate manner.” [Col. 11 lines 18-30] “A detail of a brake system 100 of a vehicle 200 is illustrated as a block diagram in the embodiment according to FIG. 1. Accordingly, the brake system 100 has a first control device 110, a second control device 120 and a monitoring device 140. The brake system 100 is designed to brake the vehicle 200 via wheel brakes 1, which are each associated with wheels 2 of a vehicle axle 3 and upstream of which electronically controllable ABS brake valves 4 are optionally connected.”)
determining a current motion for the autonomous vehicle, the current motion being generated by a steering operation of the pair of steerable wheels caused by the primary steering system;
(Wulf – [Col. 7 lines 50-62] “To include the current actual longitudinal vehicle dynamics, a variable describing the current actual longitudinal vehicle dynamics is used by the monitoring device, wherein this variable characterizes the current movement of the vehicle itself in a longitudinal direction. This variable can be for example an actual vehicle velocity and/or an actual vehicle acceleration and/or an actual vehicle direction, which indicates the velocity or the acceleration of the vehicle itself in the longitudinal direction of the movement direction of the vehicle, i.e. forwards, stationary or reverse.”)
comparing the current motion with a desired motion for the autonomous vehicle; and when a difference between the current motion and the desired motion exceeds a predetermined threshold limit:
(Wulf – [Col. 4 lines 35-56] “According to embodiments of the invention, in electronically controllable brake systems having an electronically and/or pneumatically controllable redundancy, which is enabled by a redundancy arrangement, a monitoring device is provided, which is designed to plausibility-check a request signal, which is specified for automatic operation of a vehicle, in particular a utility vehicle, and transmits automatically specified requests to actuators of the vehicle, for example a target vehicle acceleration, a target vehicle velocity and/or a target vehicle direction. If it is concluded from the plausibility check that at least one of the automatically specified requests is not implemented completely or without error, or cannot be implemented completely or without error, i.e. a current actual state relating to the longitudinal dynamics of the vehicle itself deviates from a target state resulting from the automatically specified requests, taking into account a tolerance, a correction signal, which conveys for example a correction deceleration and/or a correction velocity, is sent to a control of the redundancy arrangement so that this can then request electronic-pneumatically controlled redundant braking, for example, which corresponds to the correction signal.”)
controlling the anti-lock braking system for the wheel brakes of the steerable wheels to be arranged in a disabled state; and
(Wulf – [Col. 9 lines 58-63] “This compensating braking is preferably only carried out if ABS control is not active in the automatically controlled brake system, i.e. an ABS control intervention has not been detected. The safety and the reliability of the corrective braking intervention can thus be increased since the risk of instability triggered by the redundant braking is reduced.” [Col. 11 lines 18-30] “The brake system 100 is designed to brake the vehicle 200 via wheel brakes 1, which are each associated with wheels 2 of a vehicle axle 3 and upstream of which electronically controllable ABS brake valves 4 are optionally connected. For the sake of simplicity, only a right front wheel 2 of a front axle 3 of the vehicle 200 is illustrated way of example in the embodiment according to FIG. 1. Further wheels can be constructed in a corresponding manner with or without ABS brake valves 4.”)
engaging the wheel brakes of each of the steerable wheels.
(Wulf – [Col. 9 lines 48-57] “On the other hand, if the expected target longitudinal vehicle dynamics deviate from the currently identified actual longitudinal vehicle dynamics and this deviation can be compensated safely and reliably by a corrective braking intervention, a correction deceleration and/or a correction velocity which can realize this compensation is determined by the monitoring device. To this end, a correction deceleration of less than −4 m/s.sup.2 can also be stipulated, for example to achieve as short a braking distance as possible, for example for emergency braking before an obstacle.”)
Regarding claim 2,
Wulf teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Wulf further teaches:
wherein the wheel brakes are applied by a brake force, wherein a magnitude of the brake force is based on the difference between the current motion and the desired motion.
(Wulf – [Col. 12 line 48 – Col. 13 line 14] “In this case, the monitoring device 140 establishes whether the request signal S1 or at least one of the requests aTarget, vTarget, LTarget, RTarget transmitted thereby is, or can be, implemented correctly, i.e. without error and completely, by the actuators 1, 50, 51, 52, 53, i.e. whether an actual state, in particular the actual longitudinal vehicle dynamics DActual, deviates from the target longitudinal vehicle dynamics DTarget characterized by the requests aTarget, vTarget, LTarget, RTarget, taking into account a tolerance T. If this is not the case, the monitoring device 140 provides a correction signal SK to the second control device 120, wherein the correction signal SK contains a correction deceleration zCorr and/or a correction velocity vCorr. By means of the correction deceleration zCorr and/or the correction velocity vCorr, the redundancy arrangement 20 conveys a corrective request with which the incorrect or incomplete implementation of the request signal S1 is compensated or with which the incorrect or incomplete implementation should be addressed, wherein this takes place through an intervention in the wheel brakes 1 via the redundancy arrangement 20… Therefore, the redundancy valve 21 is controlled as a function of the correction deceleration zCorr and/or the correction velocity vCorr and the control valve 10 provides a wheel-brake control pressure pA corresponding to the pneumatically specified redundancy control pressure pR.”)
Regarding claim 5,
Wulf teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Wulf further teaches:
wherein the autonomous vehicle comprises at least one pair of non-steerable wheels, each of the non-steerable wheels comprising a wheel brake, wherein the method comprises:
(Wulf – [Col. 7 line 63 – Col. 8 line 6] “The actual vehicle velocity and the actual vehicle acceleration are identified by any redundant velocity sensor, for example one or more wheel speed sensors at the wheels of a non-driven vehicle axle, preferably the front axle, and/or by a redundant acceleration sensor when travelling. The velocity sensor is preferably designed in such a way that an actual vehicle direction can be identified from its measurement values.”)
engaging the wheel brakes of each of the non-steerable wheels when the difference between the current motion and the desired motion exceeds the predetermined threshold limit.
(Wulf – [Col. 4 lines 35-56] “If it is concluded from the plausibility check that at least one of the automatically specified requests is not implemented completely or without error, or cannot be implemented completely or without error, i.e. a current actual state relating to the longitudinal dynamics of the vehicle itself deviates from a target state resulting from the automatically specified requests, taking into account a tolerance, a correction signal, which conveys for example a correction deceleration and/or a correction velocity, is sent to a control of the redundancy arrangement so that this can then request electronic-pneumatically controlled redundant braking, for example, which corresponds to the correction signal.” [Col. 5 line 65 – Col. 6 line 16] “To control the wheel brakes in the automatic operation outside the redundancy situation, i.e. in normal automatic operation, as a function of the target vehicle acceleration and/or the target vehicle velocity electronically transmitted via the request signal, at least one control valve, for example an axle modulator or a relay valve, is controlled by the first control device, which control valve controls the wheel brakes of at least one vehicle axle pneumatically via a wheel-brake control pressure if a reduction in the target vehicle speed, i.e. braking, is required to implement the automatically specified request.”)
Regarding claim 6,
Wulf teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Wulf further teaches:
wherein the wheel brakes of the non-steerable wheels are connected to a second anti-lock braking system, the method comprising:
controlling the second anti-lock braking system for the wheel brakes of the non-steerable wheels to be arranged in an enabled state for preventing the wheel brakes of the non-steerable wheels to lock when being engaged.
(Wulf – [Col 7 lines 63-67] “The actual vehicle velocity and the actual vehicle acceleration are identified by any redundant velocity sensor, for example one or more wheel speed sensors at the wheels of a non-driven vehicle axle, preferably the front axle, and/or by a redundant acceleration sensor when travelling.” [Col. 11 lines 18-30] “The brake system 100 is designed to brake the vehicle 200 via wheel brakes 1, which are each associated with wheels 2 of a vehicle axle 3 and upstream of which electronically controllable ABS brake valves 4 are optionally connected. For the sake of simplicity, only a right front wheel 2 of a front axle 3 of the vehicle 200 is illustrated way of example in the embodiment according to FIG. 1. Further wheels can be constructed in a corresponding manner with or without ABS brake valves 4.”)
Regarding claim 7,
Wulf teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Wulf further teaches:
wherein the current motion is a current steering direction for the autonomous vehicle, and the desired motion is a desired path to follow by the autonomous vehicle.
(Wulf – [Col. 11 lines 44-62] “In this case, the request signal S1 is identified as a function of the planned vehicle movement F, wherein, as a function of the current position of the vehicle 200, the route ahead, e.g. a distance and elevation profile, are for example detected via environment recognition and requests are then identified for the individual actuators 1, 50, 51, 52, 53 in the vehicle 200 with which the planned vehicle movement F can be accomplished. The requests can be in particular a target vehicle velocity vTarget, a target vehicle acceleration aTarget, a target vehicle steering angle LTarget and a target vehicle direction RTarget, which are output via the request signal S1 and received by the corresponding actuators 1, 50, 51, 52, 53 or their controllers via the CAN bus 60 in order to implement the respectively relevant request aTarget, vTarget, LTarget, RTarget in the appropriate manner.”)
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 recites a system comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11,
Wulf teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Wulf further teaches:
An autonomous vehicle comprising a pair of steerable wheels, a primary steering system configured to control a steering operation of the steerable wheels, and a backup motion control system according to claim 10.
(Wulf – [Col. 7 lines 50-59] “This variable can be for example an actual vehicle velocity and/or an actual vehicle acceleration and/or an actual vehicle direction, which indicates the velocity or the acceleration of the vehicle itself in the longitudinal direction of the movement direction of the vehicle, i.e. forwards, stationary or reverse.” [Col. 11 lines 18-30] “Accordingly, the brake system 100 has a first control device 110, a second control device 120 and a monitoring device 140. The brake system 100 is designed to brake the vehicle 200 via wheel brakes 1, which are each associated with wheels 2 of a vehicle axle 3 and upstream of which electronically controllable ABS brake valves 4 are optionally connected.”)
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wulf (US 11052889 B2; hereinafter Wulf) in view of Zagorski (US 20090192687 A1; hereinafter Zagorski).
Regarding claim 3,
Wulf teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Wulf does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Zagorski teaches:
wherein the wheel brakes of each of the steerable wheels are engaged by a brake force having a maximum brake force capability, the wheel brakes being engaged by a brake force corresponding to the maximum brake force capability when the difference between the current motion and the desired motion exceeds the predetermined threshold limit.
(Zagorski – [0034] “When the collision is not avoidable, the CPS 210 issues an autonomous braking command of maximum deceleration. The vehicle path control algorithm 100 becomes active. Because the vehicle is traveling in a straight line, the yaw rate is about 0 degrees/second. The steering wheel angle is around zero, indicating that the driver is requesting a yaw rate of 0 degrees/second. Because the actual vehicle path matches the driver-intended path, the commanded deceleration is not lowered. The actual path is checked and compared to the desired path every 20 milliseconds until the event has concluded.” [0086] “Further it to be understood that the vehicle path control algorithm 100 applies to autonomous braking, in the sense that the autonomous braking is additive to driver is requested braking. For example when autonomous braking is implemented by a CPS, the present invention adjusts the braking in the event the actual vehicle travel path is at least substantially different from the driver intended vehicle path and the autonomous braking is generally above what the driver is requesting, if any.”)
Zagorski is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of controlling the braking of an autonomous vehicle based on the intended path. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wulf with Zagorski to include braking for maximum deceleration in order to keep the vehicle headed in the intended direction (Zagorski, para. [0016]).
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wulf (US 11052889 B2; hereinafter Wulf) in view of Horiguchi et al. (US 20200307551 A1; hereinafter Horiguchi).
Regarding claim 4,
Wulf teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Wulf does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, Horiguchi teaches:
wherein the current motion is associated with a steering angle of the steerable wheels, and the desired motion is associated with a curve angle of a road currently operated by the autonomous vehicle, the method further comprising:
alternatingly engaging and disengaging the wheel brakes of each of the steerable wheels when the steering angle exceeds the curve angle.
(Horiguchi – [0120] “When the vehicle speed is constant (that is, the vehicle is at the target vehicle speed) along such a curved road having the constant curvature, the yaw rate and the steering angle are constant if the vehicle is in a stable state.” [0122] “In the example illustrated in FIG. 3, an oversteer behavior occurs in the vehicle, and an actual yaw rate indicated by a solid line deviates so as to become larger than the model yaw rate.” [0123] “Thereafter, when the deviation between the actual yaw rate and the model yaw rate reaches a behavior stabilization control intervention threshold indicated by a dotted line, the behavior control unit 40 cause the behavior stabilization control to intervene to reduce an engine output and generate a yaw moment to prevent the oversteer behavior by generating a braking force on wheels at a turning outer wheel side.”)
Horiguchi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of controlling the braking of an autonomous vehicle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wulf with Horiguchi to include detecting oversteer while driving a curved road in order to prevent oversteer or understeer behavior and stabilize vehicle behavior (Horiguchi, para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 9,
Wulf teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Wulf does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Horiguchi further teaches:
wherein the desired motion is a curve direction of a road currently operated by the autonomous vehicle.
(Horiguchi – [0119] “FIG. 3 illustrates an example (similar to FIG. 4) in which the vehicle is driven, for example, along an arc-shaped curved road having constant curvature.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wulf with Horiguchi to include detecting oversteer while driving a curved road in order to prevent oversteer or understeer behavior and stabilize vehicle behavior (Horiguchi, para. [0003]).
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wulf (US 11052889 B2; hereinafter Wulf) in view of Hayakawa et al. (US 20100318263 A1; hereinafter Hayakawa).
Regarding claim 8,
Wulf teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Wulf does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however, Hayakawa teaches:
further comprising:
determining a current lateral position of the autonomous vehicle relative to a road lane of the desired path for autonomous vehicle;
comparing the current lateral position with a predetermined maximum allowable deviation from a lateral center position of the road lane; and
(Hayakawa – [0045] “More specifically, the start timing adjuster 8Ba suppresses a decision to start the control by comparing when the travel position of the vehicle in the lane width direction is closer to one side of the lane than the center of the travel lane in which the vehicle is traveling and is traveling toward an obstacle from a predetermined prescribed lateral position at the center of the travel lane and when the vehicle is traveling to the opposite side from the obstacle in relation to the prescribed lateral position.”)
controlling the anti-lock braking system for the wheel brakes of the steerable wheels to be arranged in a disabled state and engaging the wheel brakes of each of the steerable wheels only when the current lateral position exceeds the predetermined maximum allowable deviation.
(Hayakawa – [0046] “The braking/drive force controller 8 calculates a yaw moment Ms to control the vehicle in order to prevent it from coming too close to an obstacle when the control start determiner 8B senses a control start.”)
Hayakawa is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of controlling automaking braking controls. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anti-lock brake system taught by Wulf with Hayakawa to include monitoring the lateral position with respect to the center of the road in order to prevent a vehicle from coming too close to an obstacle in the road (Hayakawa, para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 13,
Wulf teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Wulf does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however, Hayakawa teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium carrying a computer program for performing the steps of claim 1 when the program means is run on a computer.
(Hayakawa – [0043] “Controller 8 and the other controllers described herein, generally consist of a respective microcomputer including central processing unit (CPU), input and output ports (I/O) receiving certain data described herein, random access memory (RAM), keep alive memory (KAM), a common data bus and read only memory (ROM) as an electronic storage medium for executable programs and certain stored values as discussed herein.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anti-lock brake system taught by Wulf with Hayakawa to include monitoring the lateral position with respect to the center of the road in order to prevent a vehicle from coming too close to an obstacle in the road (Hayakawa, para. [0007]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Yao et al. (US 20210086623 A1) discloses a system operation status (ABS enable or disable) is determined by a switch position, and the switch position is controlled by a signal. When the ABS enable/disable switch is in position 1, the control system operates in an open loop, as shown in FIG. 7. When the ABS enable and disable switch is in position 2, the control system operates in a closed loop.
Williams (US 20190184950 A1) discloses a processor is configured to send a first brake signal to the first valve output and to ABS of brake valve based on at least one of the first wheel speed signal and the second wheel speed signal. The first brake signal activates or deactivates ABS based on the first wheel speed signal and/or second wheel speed signal.
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 MELANIE HUBER whose telephone number is (703)756-1765. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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, JAMES LEE can be reached at (571)-270-5965. 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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668