DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority Statement
2. Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later- filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. l 12(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed provisional application, No. 62/269,334, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Specifically, the parent application listed above does not provide adequate support or enablement for the limitations;
" b) two unmanned aerial vehicles onto each of which is mounted one of the two cameras;
c) a mounting system configured for mounting the cameras to the unmanned aerial vehicles wherein the mounting system is further configured to stabilize the cameras, the mounting system comprising a three-axis gimbal;
d) two camera modules, one of which is associated with each of the cameras, wherein the camera modules are adapted to capture the 2-D images;
e) at least one processor comprising a multi-core processor or position sensor being in electronic communication with at least one of the camera modules;
f) a memory device adapted to store images captured by the camera modules;
g) a wireless antenna associated with cameras, the wireless antenna being adapted to send and receive wireless signals including data signals;“ as disclosed in claims 1 and 2.
In result, the effective filing date of this application is considered to be the filing date of 15/383,826 and which is 12/31/2015 and any prior art with a critical reference date of more than 1 year prior to 12/31/2015 will bar issuance of a patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
This includes Applicant's own works with a critical reference date of more than 1 year prior to 12/31/2015. (See MPEP 211.05(B), MPEP 706.02(Vl)(B), MPEP 2133.01, In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 296-97 (Fed. Cir. 1995), In re Van Langenhoven, 458 F.2d 132, 136-37 (C.C.P.A.1972)), Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012), and Studiengesellschaft Kahle, M.B.H. v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Double Patenting
3. Claims 1-20 of the instant Application are patentably indistinct from the matter claimed at the issued patents US 12,063,911; US 11,678,647; US 11,120,260 and of US 10,621,433.
The nonstatutory obviousness 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.
When two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822
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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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.
The instant Claims 1- 20 are rejected for claiming the same invention [where the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970)] with the conflicting patents listed below.
The rationale for this rejection is found in the claims reciting identical methods and apparatus performing similarly for reaching the same transformation without changing the scope of the invention. Specifically, each and every claim 1-20, of the instant application recites matter being fully encompassed into the patents granted below, but not necessarily in the same claiming order as detailed below.
2(i). At Claims 1-20, of the issued patent US 12,063,911 (of App. No. 18/310,716).
2(ii). At Claims 1-17, of the issued patent US 11,678,647 (of App. No. 17/474,262)
2(iii). At Claims 1, 4 and 12 of the instant application are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 2 and 12 respectively, of the issued patent US 11,120,260 (of App. No. 16/846,645).
The claims 2-3, 5-11 depending from claim 1 and 13-17 depending from claim 12 are also rejected under this statute for being identically claimed at dependent claims 3-11 and 13-17 respectively of the conflicting patent.
2(iv). At Claims 1, 4 and 12 of the instant application are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 3 and 10 respectively, of the issued patent of the US 10,621,433 (of App. No., 15/397,702).
The claims 2-12 depending from claim 1 and 14-20 depending from claim 13 are also rejected under this statute for being identically claimed by the said conflicting patents (although in different order the claims recite identical scope and use similar or synonym wording).
A Terminal Disclaimer is requested for every conflicting patent herein cited.
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.
4. Claims 1-2 and 13-14, 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims, reciting; “3) measure an attribute of the animal using the 3-D data model.”, do not find a clear written description in Specification.
Though an associative term to the claimed “attribute” may be inferred from Par.[0047] of the PGPUB, citing; “the process can identify specific features such as deer antlers….”, where the term “feature” would represent a supported alternative term, according to dictionary interpretation and where the claimed process being directly linked to the “feature”, i.e., the deer antlers, finding support in the written description would represent the proper term. On analysis, the recited “attribute” may comprise positive, neutral or negative characteristics or properties which are not addressed in the claims or Specification and may accordingly be interpreted as new matter.
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.
5. Claims 1-2 and 13-14, 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.
Specifically, the claims, reciting:
“3) measure an attribute of the animal using the 3-D data model.”, do not find a clear description in Specification.
By association to the claimed “attribute” it may be found at Par.[0047] of the PGPUB, citing; “the process can identify specific features such as deer antlers….”, that the term “feature” may represent a better alternative choice which would overcome this rejection.
By dictionary interpretation of the terms taken according to the claimed process directed to; “2) generate a 3-D data model using the matched image points ….”, it is concluded that the term “feature” represents the proper descriptive term since the “attribute” may have positive, neutral or negative values hence warranting to be analyzed as representing specific characteristics or properties of the “featured” object.
Correction is required.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Claims 1-4, 6-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David Krien (hereinafter Krien) (US 8,565,490) and Vladimir Kouperman et al., (hereinafter Kouperman) (US 9,445,081).
Re Claim 1. Krien discloses, a system for scoring animals (a system used for scoring sporting trophies, Abstract, Figs.1 at a scoring unit (222) in Fig.2, by camera scanning the sporting trophy to provide 3D image data from multiple 2D collected images, per Fig.7 Col.7 Lin.44-46, or at Fig.8 the imaging camera 612 Col.7 Lin.65-67 being equipped with a range finder, for acquiring the sporting trophy 610, along with the distance 614, to produce relatively exact measurement of the antlers within the picture, thus by matching 2D data with the distance data to generate the 3D images Col.8 Lin.1-18), comprising:
3) measure an attribute of the animal using the 3-D data model (measuring the elements in the picture i.e., the set of antlers features to determine a score by a measurement software 614, perCol.8 Lin.1-15 and Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 15-18 or Abstract).
However, in Krien, the described system performing the claim, is not mounted on an aerial vehicle, UAV, as claimed.
The analogous art to Kouperman teaches about,
a) an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) configured to move to different positions during its flight relative to an animal (an unmanned aerial vehicle, i.e., a drone moving at different positions that can be controlled at Col.7 Lin.8-22 and used to image an object e.g., an animal or person etc., per Fig.1);
b) a camera mounted to the UAV and configured to capture two-dimensional (2-D) images of the animal, wherein the images captured by the camera are correlated from the different positions relative to the animal incrementally over time, and wherein captured images overlap (a single camera mounted on a moving drone, capturing 2D images of frames with overlapped field of view of the object, in an incrementally correlated over time by the iterative closest point (ICP) data point registration, Col.8 Lin.39-67, Col.9 Lin.1-26]);
c) a sensor mounted to the UAV and configured to obtain distance readings of the animal relative to the UAV (a camera sensor generating 3D maps according to the object’s distance to the drone by using the time-of-flight method for depth map computation, Col.10 Lin.17-18 or Lin.51-57); and
d) a processor (the camera imaging processor, Col.10 Lin.20-25) configured to:
1) match image points between overlapping captured images (matching the image points between two consecutive frames within the overlapped field of view captured by the moving drone i.e., UAV, per Col.8 Lin.54-67 and Col.9 Lin.1-17 or by aligning frames from multiple cameras at Col.9 Lin.18-20, and alignment of 2D frames, per Fig.10);
2) generate a 3-D data model using the matched image points and the distance readings (generating based on the previously taught limitations, the 3D data based on depth/distance and matched coordinates by frame alignment, within the overlapped camera fields of view, Col.9 Lin.1-26, Col.10 Lin.45-57, or as processed by the ISP to form the 3D image space, Col.11 Lin.15-20, etc.,);
It is determined that the ordinary skilled in the art would have found obvious before the effective filling date of invention, to combine prior art elements according to known methods by which the teachings in Krien of image capturing serving the utility of animal antlers scoring by imaging in 2D by combining the overlapped frame area into 3D model featuring the respective antlers, a capturing system and method described in detail by Kouperman by providing similar image processing methods for 3D image generation, while presenting the obvious user choice of having the respective imaging system be mounted on an aerial vehicle, UAV/drone, or on any other mechanical supporting structure (Col.7 Lin.1-20) performing the function, by which predictively serving to execute the scope of the claimed matter.
See precedence of rationale in {KSR-MPEP 2143(A)-(D): “The Federal Circuit recognized Agrizap as "a textbook case of when the asserted claims involve a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that does no more than yield predictable results." Id. Agrizap exemplifies a strong case of obviousness based on simple substitution that was not overcome by the objective evidence of nonobviousness offered. It also demonstrates that analogous art is not limited to the field of applicant’s endeavor, in that one of the references that used an animal body as a resistive switch to complete a circuit for the generation of an electric charge was not in the field of pest control.”}
Re Claim 2. Krien and Kouperman disclose, the system as defined in Claim 1,
Krien teaches about, wherein said processor is configured to calculate a score of the animal based on the measured attribute (the process of image data measurement 114, Col.3 Lin.15-22 is designated for 3D trophy representation 110, for score determination of deer antlers representing the feature, Col.2 Lin.60-67 and Lin.1-5, implemented to score ranking the antlers, based on measured attributes i.e., volumetric displacement, or standard linear measurements, Col.5 Lin.14-56) .
Re Claim 3. Krien and Kouperman disclose, the system as defined in Claim 1,
Kouperman teaches, wherein there is at least a 50% overlap between captured images (the overlap necessary for 3D image generation is within 40%-55%, Col.8 Lin.39-44).
Re Claim 4. Krien and Kouperman disclose, the system as defined in Claim 1,
Kouperman teaches, wherein a flight path of said UAV is selected using waypoints (performing data points interpolation with precise object location by using GPS, at Col.4 Lin.35-67).
Re Claim 6. Krien and Kouperman disclose, the system as defined in Claim 1, wherein:
Kouperman teaches, a) said processor is configured to use the distance readings from said sensor in determining depth and scale for calculating a plurality of measurements of distinct portions of the animal (obtaining and map depth data per Fig.5, 6A, 6B, or 10, Col.4 Lin.61-65, Col.5 Lin.27-30 or Lin.41-50);
b) said sensor is further configured to obtain ground distance readings measuring the distance between said UAV and the ground (computing a depth map i.e., distance to object for depth/distance measurement, Col.10 Lin.45-57]); and
c) said processor is further configured to control an altitude of said UAV based on the ground distance readings (a processor 1210, based navigation controller 1250 (the ordinary skilled in the art would find obvious to consider that the altitude parameter is one of the necessary flight control function), including the platform 1202, and inferring the altitude measurement or distance to ground of the UAV, per Fig.12 Col. 20 Lin.34-42 or Col.22 Lin.11-30).
Re Claim 7. Krien and Kouperman disclose, the system as defined in Claim 1, Kouperman teaches about, wherein said processor is adapted to calculate the scale using the focal length of the camera and the distance readings determined by said sensor (the camera processor determines the focal length as part of the automatic focus (AF) Col.10 Lin.33, or auto-focus Col.18 Lin.41-46, along with distance, i.e., depth map generation shown for 3D image capture of a dynamic object, in Fig.7, by 3D interpolation of data Col.7 Lin.15-26 or Col.10 Lin.17-18).
Re Claim 8. Krien and Kouperman disclose, the system as defined in Claim 1, Kouperman teaches about, wherein a flight path comprises a serpentine pattern (a camera path of movement in Fig.4 and Fig.6A at step 620, or the serpentine/curved path in Fig.9, Col.9 Lin.56-67 and Col.10 Lin.1-4).
Re Claim 9. Krien and Kouperman disclose, the system as defined in Claim 1, Kouperman teaches about, wherein a flight path comprises a spiral pattern (it would be obvious to the ordinary skilled to comprehend that the navigation controller 1250, in Fig.12, would permit multiple degrees of flight patterns or paths, including a spiral path, Col.20 Lin.34-36 by receiving user control signals for one or mapped to virtual navigation features, Col.22 Lin.11-30).
Re Claim 10. Krien and Kouperman disclose, the system as defined in Claim 1, Kouperman teaches about, wherein the camera is mounted to said UAV using a mounting system configured to stabilize the camera (camera mounting and control at Col.23 Lin.63-67 and Col;.24 Lin1-14).
Re Claim 11. Krien and Kouperman disclose, the system as defined in Claim 1, further comprising
Kouperman teaches about, a memory device associated with the camera, the memory device being adapted to store the 2-D images captured by the camera (memory 1124, in Fig.11, or Fig.12, Col.19 Lin.48-55, Col.20 Lin.39-42).
Re Claim 12. Krien and Kouperman disclose, the system as defined in Claim 1, further comprising
Kouperman teaches about, a wireless antenna associated with the camera, and configured to send and receive wireless signals including image and location data signals (a communication antenna Col.19 Lin.10-13, Lin.52-53, Fig.12 ).
Re Claim 13. This claim represents the method for scoring animals using a camera mounted to an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), performing each and every limitation of the system claim 1, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 14. This claim represents the method for scoring animals using a camera mounted to an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), performing each and every limitation of the system claim 2, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 15. This claim represents the method for scoring animals using a camera mounted to an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), performing each and every limitation of the system claim 3, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 17. This claim represents the method for scoring animals using a camera mounted to an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), performing and obviating each and every limitation of the system claim 6, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 18. This claim represents the method for scoring animals using a camera mounted to an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), performing each and every limitation of the system claim 4, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 19. This claim represents the method for scoring animals using a camera mounted to an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), performing each and every limitation of the system claim 8, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 20. This claim represents the method for scoring animals using a camera mounted to an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), performing each and every limitation of the system claim 9, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
7. Claims 5 and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krien and Kouperman in view of Rolf Heidemann et al., (hereinafter Heidemann) (US 9,989,357) in lieu of Prov. Appl. No 62/215,978; 62/216,021; and 62/216,027 filed Sep. 9, 2015.
Re Claim 5. Krien and Kouperman disclose, the system as defined in Claim 1,
Kouperman teaches, wherein a plurality of calibration parameters for the camera (calibrating the camera/s by synchronizing the cameras at 604, setting the original position and orientation of the camera 616, from an anchor frame, and chose a master camera, 622, per Fig.6A-6B and aligning the cameras at unit 1118, Fig.10 according to axes coordinates, 1028) comprises:
a) X-coordinate of a center of projection (registering coordinates, Col.5 Lin.12-18);
b) Y-coordinate of the center of projection (registering coordinates, Col.5 Lin.12-18);
Krien teaches about the scoring based on, d) aspect ratio (the length and spacing and circumference determination, Col.2 Lin.1-11); and
AS may be partially inferred from Krien and Kouperman, the calibration of the camera system is taught in detail by;
Heidemann as below,
wherein a plurality of calibration parameters for the camera (automatically update the compensation/calibration parameters, Col.7 Lin.23-30) comprises:
a) X-coordinate of a center of projection (the 3D coordinate system (x,y,z) of the camera position and orientation, Col.7 Lin.28-34);
b) Y-coordinate of the center of projection (the 3D coordinate system (x,y,z) of the camera position and orientation, Col.7 Lin.28-34);
c) focal length (focal length, Col.7 Lin.36);
d) aspect ratio (the aspect ratio is inferred from the image plane of the camera and the size and number of pixels in each of the cameras 310,330,350, Col.10 Lin.36-52); and
e) angle between optical axes (aligning the camera optical axis, Col.13 Lin.25-33).
The ordinary skilled in the art would have found obvious to consider the imaging system in Krien and Kouperman to be tested for calibration in order to obtain precise parametric measurements of the imaged object, as identified from Heidemann at Col.7 Lin.23-27), by which the combination would have been found predictable.
Re Claim 16. This claim represents the method for scoring animals using a camera mounted to an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), performing each and every limitation of the system claim 5, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c) to consider these listed prior arts; (US 2011/0311109); (US 7,711,151); (US 9,445,081); (US 9,102,406); (US 2017/0039765); (US 9,561,095) when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRAMOS KALAPODAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4622. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached on 571-272-7327. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DRAMOS . KALAPODAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/