DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is the second and final action on the merits.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, and 16 have been amended. Claims 2, 12, and 17 have been canceled. Thus, claims 1, 3-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Arguments
The double patenting rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of Applicant’s reply, filed 12/02/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, new rejections have been made in view of Applicant’s amendments (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below).
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 11, and 16 and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application. The Office has modified the rejections using the previously cited prior art to address Applicant’s amendments (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 below).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“computing system” in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. (Specification: Par. 45, Par. 52, Par. 77, Par. 83-84, Par. 94)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a per-segment MPEE (miles per expected event) score" in line 5 and “a threshold” in lines 6-7. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to, is related to, or operates as the same as the “per-segment performance metric threshold” in claim 1. For the purpose of examination in this office action and as best understood by the examiner, the “threshold” limitation in claim 9 will be interpreted to mean “the per-segment performance metric threshold.”
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required to remedy the above-referenced deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 11, 13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kislovskiy (US 2018/0340790 A1) [disclosed in IDS filed 08/06/2024] in view of Bin-Nun (US 2019/0163185 A1) [disclosed in IDS filed 08/06/2024] and Lyle (US 11,107,358 B1) [disclosed in IDS filed 08/06/2024].
Regarding claim 1, Kislovskiy discloses (Kislovskiy does not disclose the strikethrough portions):
A computer-implemented method comprising: (Kislovskiy - computer-implemented method -> Par. 26; processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium, memory -> Par. 41-42)
receiving, by a computing system, a location of a user and a destination of the user associated with a transportation request; (Kislovskiy - transportation request with location of user and destination -> Fig. 8, Par. 29)
determining, by the computing system, a plurality of routes based on the location and the destination, wherein determining the plurality of routes comprises: (Kislovskiy - determining a plurality of routes based on location and destination -> Par. 27, Par. 32-36)
determining a first route to serve the transportation request using a non- autonomous vehicle, and (Kislovskiy - determining a plurality of routes based on location and destination wherein the routing engine creates routes for both non-autonomous and autonomous vehicles (operating design domain for automated system based on risk parameters) -> Par. 27, Par. 32-36)
determining a second route to serve the transportation request using an autonomous vehicle (Kislovskiy - determining a plurality of routes based on location and destination wherein the routing engine creates routes for both non-autonomous and autonomous vehicles (operating design domain for automated system based on risk parameters) -> Par. 27, Par. 32-36)
selecting, by the computing system, a route from the plurality of routes based on factors related to user experience; and (Kislovskiy - select route based on user experience -> Par. 32, Par. 58, Par. 62)
Bin-Nun teaches a system and method for improving autonomous vehicle safety performance, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
determining a first route to serve the transportation request using a non- autonomous vehicle, and (Bin-Nun - determine separate routes for human drivers and AVs that fall within their respective risk tolerance/ODDs by aggregating risk factors of each road segment -> Par. 42-58)
determining a second route to serve the transportation request using an autonomous vehicle by selecting a plurality of road segments that (1) fall within an operating design domain (ODD) associated with a fleet of autonomous vehicles and (2) satisfy a per-segment performance metric threshold, and assembling the plurality of selected road segments as the second route, (Bin-Nun - determine separate routes for human drivers and AVs that fall within their respective risk tolerance/ODDs by aggregating risk factors of each road segment -> Par. 42-58)
wherein the second route is different from the first route when at least one segment of the first route is outside of the ODD or fails the per-segment performance metric threshold; (Bin-Nun - determine separate routes for human drivers and AVs that fall within their respective risk tolerance/ODDs by aggregating risk factors of each road segment -> Par. 42-58)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kislovskiy to include determining different routes for human drivers and autonomous vehicles wherein the autonomous vehicle route determination selects road segments based on whether each of a plurality of road segments fall within an ODD and satisfy a per-segment performance metric threshold as taught by Bin-Nun.
One would be motivated to make this modification to prevent crashes, improve safety, and promote high fidelity performance in the real word (Bin-Nun - Par. 3-4). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kislovskiy and Bin-Nun.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of vehicle route determination and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Kislovskiy and Bin-Nun from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Lyle teaches autonomous services vehicles, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
dispatching, by the computing system, a vehicle based on the selected route. (Lyle - dispatch vehicle based on selected route -> Fig. 3, Col. 5 line 18 - Col. 6 line 20)
The purpose of route determination disclosed in Kislovskiy is to fulfill a transportation request from a requesting user after a vehicle is paired with the user (Kislovskiy - Par. 28-30). Though not explicitly stated, Kislovskiy implies that a vehicle is dispatched after the routing determination is made. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kislovskiy to include dispatching a vehicle based on the selected route as taught by Lyle.
One would be motivated to make this modification to provide a vehicle and service for the requesting user (Lyle - Col. 1-2 (Background + Summary)). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kislovskiy and Lyle.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of vehicle routing and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Kislovskiy and Lyle from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Regarding claim 3, Kislovskiy, Bin-Nun, and Lyle teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Kislovskiy further discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the factors related to user experience comprise at least one of a potential time delay, a distance between a current location and a pickup location, a distance from a drop off location to a destination, or comfort level. (Kislovskiy - distance/time from current to pickup location -> Par. 29, Par. 56, Par. 64, Par. 73)
Regarding claim 4, Kislovskiy, Bin-Nun, and Lyle teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but Kislovskiy does not disclose:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the selecting the route from the plurality of routes comprises:
for each of the plurality of routes, determining a performance metric associated with the route based on a weighted average of performance metric values associated with road segments of the route.
Bin-Nun teaches a system and method for improving autonomous vehicle safety performance, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the selecting the route from the plurality of routes comprises:
for each of the plurality of routes, determining a performance metric associated with the route based on a weighted average of performance metric values associated with road segments of the route. (Bin-Nun - performance metric associated with route based on weighted average of performance metric of road segments -> Par. 77-79)
Regarding claim 9, Kislovskiy, Bin-Nun, and Lyle teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Kislovskiy further discloses (Kislovskiy does not disclose the strikethrough portions):
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining the second route associated with the transportation request and the autonomous vehicle comprises:
determining that (Kislovskiy - determine that candidate route is executable and falls within ODD by determining that score is greater than threshold -> Par. 62, Par. 77-78, Par. 81, Par. 92-94, Par. 133, Par. 159; risk values for path segments use equal path distances leading to drop-off -> Par. 148)
in response to determination that the MPEE score of each road segment is greater than a threshold, determining the candidate route is executable by the autonomous vehicle. (Kislovskiy - determine that candidate route is executable and falls within ODD by determining that score is greater than threshold -> Par. 62, Par. 77-78, Par. 81, Par. 92-94, Par. 133, Par. 159; risk values for path segments use equal path distances leading to drop-off -> Par. 148)
Bin-Nun teaches a system and method for improving autonomous vehicle safety performance, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
determining that each road segment of a candidate route falls within the ODD, wherein each road segment is associated with a per-segment MPEE (miles per expected event) score; and (Bin-Nun - determine separate routes for human drivers and AVs that fall within their respective risk tolerance/ODDs by aggregating risk factors of each road segment -> Par. 42-58)
in response to determination that the MPEE score of each road segment is greater than a threshold, determining the candidate route is executable by the autonomous vehicle. (Bin-Nun - determine separate routes for human drivers and AVs that fall within their respective risk tolerance/ODDs by aggregating risk factors of each road segment -> Par. 42-58)
Regarding claims 11 and 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claims 11 and 16 do not teach or define any new limitations that have not been analyzed beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claims 11 and 16 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claims 13 and 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claims 13 and 18 do not teach or define any new limitations that have not been analyzed beyond those previously recited in claim 4; therefore, claims 13 and 18 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
Claims 5-7, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kislovskiy in view of Bin-Nun, Lyle, and Dean (US 2019/0146509 A1) [disclosed in IDS filed 08/06/2024].
Regarding claim 5, Kislovskiy, Bin-Nun, and Lyle teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but Kislovskiy does not disclose:
The computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising:
determining the performance metric values associated with road segments of the route based on expected outcomes of disengagements that occurred in the road segments.
Dean teaches autonomous vehicle routing using annotated maps, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising:
determining the performance metric values associated with road segments of the route based on expected outcomes of disengagements that occurred in the road segments. (Dean - expected outcome of disengagement influences weight of cost for particular road segment -> Par. 43-47, Par. 62-67)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kislovskiy to include basing performance metric values on expected outcomes of disengagements as taught by Dean.
One would be motivated to make this modification to apply advantageously precise and detailed road maps for autonomous vehicles (Dean - Par. 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kislovskiy and Dean.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of vehicle route determination and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Kislovskiy and Dean from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Regarding claim 6, Kislovskiy, Bin-Nun, Lyle, and Dean teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 5, but Kislovskiy does not disclose:
The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the disengagements are categorized into at least an adverse outcome category and a no adverse outcome category based on expected outcomes determined by simulation of the disengagements.
Dean teaches autonomous vehicle routing using annotated maps, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the disengagements are categorized into at least an adverse outcome category and a no adverse outcome category based on expected outcomes determined by simulation of the disengagements. (Dean - expected outcome of disengagement influences weight of cost for particular road segment -> Par. 43-47, Par. 62-67)
Regarding claim 7, Kislovskiy, Bin-Nun, Lyle, and Dean teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 6, but Kislovskiy does not disclose:
The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the performance metric values associated with road segments of the route are determined based on the expected outcomes of the disengagements in the adverse outcome category.
Dean teaches autonomous vehicle routing using annotated maps, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the performance metric values associated with road segments of the route are determined based on the expected outcomes of the disengagements in the adverse outcome category. (Dean - expected outcome of disengagement influences weight of cost for particular road segment -> Par. 43-47, Par. 62-67)
Regarding claims 14 and 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 5-6, and it has been determined that claims 14 and 19 do not teach or define any new limitations that have not been analyzed beyond those previously recited in claims 5-6; therefore, claims 14 and 19 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 5-6.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kislovskiy in view of Bin-Nun, Lyle, Dean, and Moran (US 2017/0248949 A1) [disclosed in IDS filed 08/06/2024].
Regarding claim 8, Kislovskiy, Bin-Nun, Lyle, and Dean teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 6, but Kislovskiy does not disclose:
The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the simulation of the disengagements is based on an assumption that external bodies continue behaviors indicated by sensor data captured prior to the disengagements.
Moran teaches alerting predicted accidents between driverless cars, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the simulation of the disengagements is based on an assumption that external bodies continue behaviors indicated by sensor data captured prior to the disengagements. (Moran - simulation of future events based on assumption that external bodies will continue their behavior -> Par. 127)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kislovskiy to include assuming that external bodies will continue behaviors as taught by Moran.
One would be motivated to make this modification to minimize potential damage when predicting the likelihood of accidents in simulated situations to determine hypothetical accident scenarios in a route selection situation (Moran - Par. 19-21). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kislovskiy and Moran.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of vehicle behavior prediction and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 15, and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 10 recites, in part:
in response to determination that a road segment has not been traversed, assigning a default MPEE value to the road segment, wherein the default MPEE value is determined by:
instructing an autonomous vehicle to drive a percentage of miles per time period on road segments outside of the ODD target;
collecting sensor data and disengagement data from the autonomous vehicle driving on the road segments outside of the ODD target; and
determining the default MPEE value for the road segment inside the ODD target based on the collected sensor data and disengagement data.
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious this limitation in the claim.
As noted above, Kislovskiy, Lyle, and Dean teach applying a score to road segments for an ODD target in order to determine factors related to user experience in order to select a route for vehicle dispatch. However, Kislovskiy, Lyle, and Dean do not teach “assigning a default MPEE value” when “a road segment has not been traversed” as claimed. There is no indication or suggestion, in the listed prior art, to assign a default MPEE value in a situation where a road segment has not been traversed. Thus, these differences are not rendered obvious by any other available evidence in the prior art.
Accordingly, claims 10, 15, and 20 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.
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 MICAH C CHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-8983. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/MICAH CHUEN-HIM CHENG/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669