DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3, 5-16, and 19-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,266,949 ('949 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical to that of the ‘949 patent, as illustrated in the table below, they are not patentably distinct as claims 1-30 are anticipated and/or would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of claims 1-26 of the ‘949 Patent.
Current Application
‘949 Patent
1. A first user equipment (UE), comprising:
a memory;
at least one transceiver; and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the at least one transceiver, the at least one processor configured to:
receive, via the at least one transceiver, an indication of a set of resources associated with a data communication from a first device to a second device, wherein the first device and the second device are separate from the first UE; and
perform radio frequency energy harvesting (RF-EH) on at least part of the set of resources.
20. A base station, comprising: … transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a message including an indication of the one or more resources available for EH … wherein the UE is configured to determine whether to harvest energy … from an uplink transmission from one or more neighboring UEs
2. The first UE of claim 1, wherein the first device corresponds to a base station and the second device corresponds to a second UE, and the set of resources comprises a set of downlink resources.
22. The base station of claim 20, wherein transmission over the at least one of the one or more resources available for EH further includes: a downlink transmission from the base station to the one or more neighboring UEs of the UE.
3. The first UE of claim 1, wherein the first device corresponds to a second UE and the second device corresponds to a base station, and the set of resources comprises a set of uplink resources.
20. A base station, comprising: … transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a message including an indication of the one or more resources available for EH … wherein the UE is configured to determine whether to harvest energy … from an uplink transmission from one or more neighboring UEs
5. The first UE of The first UE of wherein the indication is received from a second UE, or wherein the indication is received from a base station.
20. A base station, comprising: … transmitting, to a user equipment (UE),
6. The first UE of claim 1, wherein the reception of the indication is based on the data communication satisfying one or more RF-EH criteria.
Although not expressly described in the ‘949 Patent claims, nevertheless, in the same art of energy harvesting, Elkotby et al. (US 2022/0225402)(“Elkotby”) teaches a system for determining a set of resources for energy harvesting based on RF-EH criteria including at least a transmission power level associated with the data communication (i.e., “minimum amount of power within a fixed/dynamic narrowband or a wideband that is associated with either DL and/or UL”, see ¶0103).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of the ‘949 Patent claims with the teachings Elkotby to consider criteria including at least a transmission power level associated with the data communication when determining whether to indicate a set of resources for energy harvesting. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to guarantee the transfer of a minimum energy for energy harvesting purposes.
7. The first UE of claim 6, wherein the one or more RF-EH criteria comprise: a transmission power level associated with the data communication, or a beam radiation pattern associated with the data communication, or a combination thereof.
Although not expressly described in the ‘949 Patent claims, nevertheless, in the same art as noted above, Elkotby teaches a system for determining a set of resources for energy harvesting based on RF-EH criteria including at least a transmission power level associated with the data communication (i.e., “minimum amount of power within a fixed/dynamic narrowband or a wideband that is associated with either DL and/or UL”, see ¶0103).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining the ‘949 Patent claims with Elkotby in claim 6 applies equally well to claim 8.
8. The first UE of claim 1, wherein the indication is broadcast in a location region.
Although not expressly taught by the ‘949 Patent claims, nevertheless, in the same art as noted above, Elkotby teaches sending a broadcast message to WTRU(s) within a location region (i.e., tracking area) for indicating EH opportunities (see ¶0196).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of the ‘949 Patent claims with the teachings of Elkotby to indicate use a broadcast message to indicate EH resources to a group of WTRUs in a location region, i.e., tracking area. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to inform WTRUs in an RRC Idle state of available EH opportunities if interested (see Elkotby ¶0196).
9. The first UE of The first UE of wherein the location region is associated with a transmission beam from a base station, or wherein the location region is associated with a sidelink transmission range from a second UE.
Although not expressly taught by the ‘949 Patent claims, nevertheless, in the same art as noted above, Elkotby further teaches at least wherein the location region is associated with a transmission beam from a base station (i.e., gNBs, see ¶0196).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining the ‘949 Patent claims with Elkotby in claim 8 applies equally well to claim 9.
10. The first UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit, via the at least one transceiver, an RF-EH request, wherein the indication is received in response to the RF-EH request.
Although not expressly taught by the ‘949 Patent claims, nevertheless, in the same art as noted above, Elkotby further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit, via the at least one transceiver, an RF-EH request, wherein the indication is received in response to the RF-EH request (see for example, ¶0120, i.e., “A message requesting a minimum ofE1, Joules to be transferred within a certain period T”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of the ‘949 Patent claims with the teachings of Elkotby to transmit, via the at least one transceiver, an RF-EH request, wherein the indication is received in response to the RF-EH request The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to ensure an adequate energy transfer is met.
11. The first UE of claim 1, wherein the set of resources comprises a set of time resources, a set of frequency resources, or a combination thereof.
21. The base station of claim 20, wherein the one or more resources available for EH include one or more of: a frequency resource; or a time resource.
Claims 12-16 and 19-30 recite substantially identical subject matter as claims 1-3 and 5-11, and are therefore rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of the '949 patent for the same reasons as noted above. Any differences between the ‘949 Patent claims and claims 12-16 and 19-30 of the current application do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the the '949 patent claims and/or the above cited art.
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 12-28 and 30 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim 12, “the set of resources for radio frequency energy harvesting (RF-EH)” (i.e., “transmit, via the at least one transceiver, to at least a first user equipment (UE), an indication of the set of resources for radio frequency energy harvesting (RF-EH)”) lacks antecedent basis in the claim. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“…determine a set of resources for radio frequency energy harvesting (RF-EH) associated with a data communication from a first device to a second device; and
transmit, via the at least one transceiver, to at least a first user equipment (UE), an indication of the set of resources …”.
Claims 13-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) based on their dependency to claim 12.
Claim 30 recites substantially identical subject matter as claim 12 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) for the same reason as noted above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-12, 15, 16, 19, 24, 26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Balasubramanian et al. (US 12,219,554)(“Balasubramanian”).
As per claim 1, Balasubramanian teaches a first user equipment (UE)(i.e., EH-WTRU), comprising:
a memory (see Fig. 1B, ref, 130/132);
at least one transceiver (see Fig. 1B, ref, 120); and
at least one processor (see Fig. 1B, ref. 118) communicatively coupled to the memory and the at least one transceiver (see Fig. 1B), the at least one processor configured to:
receive, via the at least one transceiver, an indication of a set of resources (i.e., frequency/time resources elements for energy harvesting, see col. 27, lines 50-56) associated with a data communication from a first device (i.e., legacy WTRU) to a second device (i.e., gNB) (see abstract, “to harvest energy from uplink signals of other WTRUs”, and col. 16, lines 41-44, i.e., “the EH WTRU switches on its receive circuitry during the sub-frame/slots/symbols during which there are uplink transmissions”) wherein the first device and the second device are separate from the first UE (see Figs. 5-10); and
perform radio frequency energy harvesting (RF-EH) on at least part of the set of resources (see Fig. 18, ref. 1809).
As per claim 2, Balasubramanian further teaches wherein the first device corresponds to a base station and the second device corresponds to a second UE, and the set of resources comprises a set of downlink resources (see abstract, col. 17, lines 5-11 and see col. 19, lines 49-54, i.e., “the EH may receive from the gNB the expected utilization of a certain band with DL transmissions…”).
As per claim 3, Balasubramanian further teaches wherein the first device corresponds to a second UE (i.e., legacy-WTRU) and the second device corresponds to a base station (i.e., gNB) (see Figs. 5-10), and the set of resources comprises a set of uplink resources (see col. 16, lines 41-44, i.e., “the EH WTRU switches on its receive circuitry during the sub-frame/slots/symbols during which there are uplink transmissions”).
As per claim 5, Balasubramanian further teaches ... wherein the indication is received from a base station (see Fig. 18, ref. 1803).
As per claim 6, Balasubramanian further teaches wherein the reception of the indication is based on the data communication satisfying one or more RF-EH criteria (see col. 26, lines 64-66, i.e., based on location of WTRUs and/or channel conditions history).
As per claim 10, Balasubramanian further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
transmit, via the at least one transceiver, an RF-EH request (see for example, col. 26, lines 42-47, where the EU WTRU signaling its location and energy harvesting capabilities, serves as an implicit request) wherein the indication is received in response to the RF-EH request (see col. 26, line 48 – col. 27, line 28).
As per claim 11, Balasubramanian further teaches wherein the set of resources comprises a set of time resources, a set of frequency resources, or a combination thereof (i.e., PRB sets, see for example, 24, lines 46-60).
As per claim 12, Balasubramanian teaches a communications device (i.e., gNB), comprising:
a memory (see col. 29, lines 47-63);
at least one transceiver (see col. 29, lines 47-63, also see col. 10, lines 58-59); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the at least one transceiver (see col. 29, lines 47-63), the at least one processor configured to:
determine a set of resources (i.e., frequency/time resources elements for energy harvesting, see col. 27, lines 50-56) associated with a data communication from a first device (i.e., legacy WTRU) to a second device (i.e., gNB) (see abstract, “to harvest energy from uplink signals of other WTRUs”, and col. 16, lines 41-44, i.e., “the EH WTRU switches on its receive circuitry during the sub-frame/slots/symbols during which there are uplink transmissions”); and
transmit, via the at least one transceiver, to at least a first user equipment (UE) (EH-WTRU), an indication of the set of resources for radio frequency energy harvesting (RF-EH) (see Fig. 18, ref. 1803 and col. 27, lines 50-56, i.e., frequency/time resources elements for energy harvesting), wherein the first device and the second device are separate from the first UE (see Figs. 5-10).
As per claim 15, Balasubramanian further teaches wherein the first device corresponds to a second UE (i.e., legacy WTRU) and the second device corresponds to a base station (i.e., gNB), and the set of resources comprises a set of uplink resources (see abstract, “to harvest energy from uplink signals of other WTRUs”, and col. 16, lines 41-44, i.e., “the EH WTRU switches on its receive circuitry during the sub-frame/slots/symbols during which there are uplink transmissions”).
As per claim 16, Balasubramanian further teaches wherein the communications device corresponds to the base station (i.e., gNB, see Fig. 5-10).
Claims 19, 24, 26, 28-30 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-12, 15 and 16 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 7-9, 13, 14, 20-23, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian in further in view of Elkotby et al. (US 2022/0225402)(“Elkotby”).
As per claim 7, Balasubramanian does not expressly teach wherein the one or more RF-EH criteria comprise: a transmission power level associated with the data communication, or a beam radiation pattern associated with the data communication, or a combination thereof.
Nevertheless, in the same art of energy harvesting, Elkotby teaches a system for determining a set of resources for energy harvesting based on RF-EH criteria including at least a transmission power level associated with the data communication (i.e., “minimum amount of power within a fixed/dynamic narrowband or a wideband that is associated with either DL and/or UL”, see ¶0103).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Balasubramanian with the teachings Elkotby to consider at least a transmission power level associated with the data communication when determining whether to indicate a set of resources for energy harvesting. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to guarantee the transfer of a minimum energy for energy harvesting purposes.
As per claim 8, Balasubramanian does not expressly teach wherein the indication is broadcast in a location region.
Nevertheless, in the same art as noted above, Elkotby teaches sending a broadcast message to WTRU(s) within a location region (i.e., tracking area) for indicating EH opportunities (see ¶0196).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Balasubramanian with the teachings of Elkotby to indicate use a broadcast message to indicate EH resources to a group of WTRUs in a location region, i.e., tracking area. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to inform WTRUs in an RRC Idle state of available EH opportunities if interested (see Elkotby ¶0196).
As per claim 9, Balasubramanian does not expressly teach, however, in the same art as noted above, Elkotby further teaches wherein the location region is associated with a transmission beam from a base station (i.e., gNBs, see ¶0196).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Balasubramanian and Elkotby in claim 8 applies equally well to claim 9.
As per claim 13, Balasubramanian further teaches wherein the first device corresponds to a base station (i.e., gNB) and the second device corresponds to a second UE (i.e., legacy WTRU) (see Fig. 5-10). Moreover, although Balasubramanian further teaches indicating a set of downlink resources (see abstract, col. 17, lines 5-11 and see col. 19, lines 49-54, i.e., “the EH may receive from the gNB the expected utilization of a certain band with DL transmissions…”), in the context of claim 12, Balasubramanian does not expressly teach indicating the set of downlink resources [for radio frequency energy harvesting (RF-EH)].
Nevertheless, in the same art of energy harvesting, Elkotby teaches the ability to harvest energy from a set of downlink resources associated with legacy WTRUs (see ¶0002, ¶0089, ¶0093, ¶0102 (i.e., “it can superimpose an EH signal over a base information signal using a subset or the full set of REs dedicated for one or more information signals and according to an EH signal transmission schedule”), and also ¶0115 (i.e., “…with regard to overlaid EH signal design, an EH signal can be designed as an overlay to a base information signal, the information signal can be intended for the same device employing an in-band EH device or a device other than the targeted EH device”), which suggest that the “downlink energy harvesting”, referenced in ¶0002, can be with respect to DL information signals/resources intended for other devices, e.g., legacy-WTRUs).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further perform energy harvesting on downlink resources. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been for further purposes of battery life extension (see Elkotby, ¶0088).
As per claim 14, Balasubramanian further teaches wherein the communications device corresponds to the base station… (i.e., gNB, see Fig. 5-10).
Claims 20-22 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 7-9 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
As per claim 23, Balasubramanian further anticipates wherein the location region is associated with a sidelink transmission range from a second UE (see col. 20, lines 54-57, i.e. “the gNB may choose to limit the signaling options above to the cases where the EH WTRU 55 is sufficiently close to the legacy WTRU to guarantee a LoS energy harvesting link”, which anticipates signaling to UEs within range of sidelink communication).
As per claim 25, Balasubramanian does not expressly teach wherein the data communication is scheduled on the set of resources based at least in part upon the RF-EH request.
Nevertheless, in the same art as noted above, Elkotby teaches scheduling a data communication (i.e., an EH signal overlaid on a base information signal, see ¶0102 and ¶0115) based at least in part on an RF-EH request (see for example, ¶0119).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further overlay an EH signal on a base information signal based at least in part on a RF-EH request. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to ensure sufficient power for energy harvesting on base information signals in Elkotby.
As per claim 27, Balasubramanian further teaches wherein the communications device corresponds to the first device, further comprising: transmit, via the at least one transceiver, the data communication to the second device on a set of resources associated with legacy WTRUs (see ¶0002, ¶0089, ¶0093, ¶0102 (i.e., “it can superimpose an EH signal over a base information signal using a subset or the full set of REs dedicated for one or more information signals and according to an EH signal transmission schedule”), and also ¶0115 (i.e., “…with regard to overlaid EH signal design, an EH signal can be designed as an overlay to a base information signal, the information signal can be intended for the same device employing an in-band EH device or a device other than the targeted EH device”), which further anticipates energy harvesting of DL information signals/resources intended for other devices, e.g., legacy-WTRUs).
However, Balasubramanian does not expressly teach, in the context of claim 12, … the data communication to the second device on the set of resource [for radio frequency energy harvesting (RF-EH)].
Nevertheless, in the same art of energy harvesting, Elkotby teaches the ability to harvest energy from a set of downlink resources (see ¶0002 and ¶0089).
The same motivation for combining Balasubramanian and Elkotby in claim 13, applies equally well to claim 27.
Claims 4, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian in view of Lee et al., "EHLinQ: Distributed Scheduler for D2D Communication With RF Energy Harvesting", IEEE Systems Journal, US, Vol. 14, No. 2, June 1, 2020, pp. 2281-2292 (“Lee”) (cited in Applicant’s 03/14/2024 IDS).
As per claims 4 and 17, Balasubramanian does not expressly teach wherein the first device corresponds to a second UE and the second device corresponds to a third UE, and the set of resources comprises a set of sidelink resources.
Nevertheless, in the same art of energy harvesting, Lee teaches the use and benefit of harvesting energy from a set of sidelink resources (i.e., RF signals over a D2D link, see for example, pp. 2282, “In this paper, we consider a D2D communication system, where D2D devices have an EH capability. When D2D devices have data to transmit to some 02D devices, they first set up D2D links. Then, each D2D link is appropriately scheduled to transmit data or harvest energy considering the effects of its transmission on the system performance. Thus, only the D2D devices, which set up D2D links, participate in D2D link scheduling, and the other D2D devices which do not set up D2D links harvest energy using the RF signals”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further include a set of sidelink resources used between sidelink/D2D devices for energy harvesting purposes. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to further prolong the battery lifetime of sidelink enabled EH-WTRU devices.
As per claim 18, Balasubramanian further teaches wherein the communications device corresponds to … a base station (i.e., gNB, see Fig. 5-10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brendan Higa whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Hwang can be reached at (571) 272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441