sNotice 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 08/13/2024 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-201330, filed on 11/29/2023.
Status of Application
Claim 3 is pending.
Claim 3 is the independent claim.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 12/04/2025.
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.
Claim 3 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder (bolded) coupled with functional language (underlined) without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Communication device configured to receive….
Since Claim 3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 3 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In reviewing the specification, the corresponding structure regarding communication device is a generic computer ([0034] & [0089] – [0090]).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 3 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 3 recites the term “the evaluation unit”. However, there is no introduction to “evaluation unit” prior in the claim and it is unclear what the evaluation unit is. For examination purposes, the office is treating “evaluation unit” as part of the processor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 3 is directed to a system. Therefore, claim 3 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 3 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 3 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 3 recites: A driving evaluation system comprising:
a communication device configured to receive, from a position information acquiring unit, a speed sensor, and a recognition unit in a vehicle, position information indicating a position of the vehicle, vehicle speed information indicating a speed of the vehicle, and recognition result information indicating whether a stop sign is recognized from a vehicle front side image captured by a camera in the vehicle; and
a processor configured to
determine, based on the recognition result information, whether the vehicle is approaching an intersection having the stop sign,
in response to determining that the vehicle is approaching the intersection having the stop sign, identify an evaluation target section that is a section from a position at which the stop sign is recognized to a position at which the vehicle has traveled a predetermined distance beyond the stop sign,
evaluate a driving behavior of a driver of the vehicle in the evaluation target section based on the position information, the vehicle speed information, and the recognition result information, and
cause transmission of evaluation result information indicating an evaluation result of the evaluation to a terminal device,
wherein the longer the time over which the vehicle is stopped at the intersection with the stop sign is, or the lower the speed at which the vehicle travels through the intersection with the stop sign is, the safer the evaluation unit evaluates the driving behavior to be.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “determining, identifying, and evaluating” steps encompass a user to gather data and draw conclusions of the data. Determining if a vehicle is approaching an intersection with a stop sign can be done mentally. Based on that determination, identifying a zone can also be done mentally. Evaluating a driving behavior based on sensor data is a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “processor”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining, identifying, and evaluating steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a processor. In addition to that, the examiner submits that receiving position information, speed information, and recognition result information is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a communication device to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and transmitting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining, identifying, and evaluating steps and transferring data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a processor or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 3 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the system amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of receiving data and transferring data, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of acquiring the data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the computers from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional sensors/computers. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, claim 3 is not patent eligible.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20210086773-A1 (“Kogano”).
Regarding claim 3, Kogano teaches a driving evaluation system comprising (Kogano Abstract):
a communication device (Kogano Fig. 1) configured to receive, from a position information acquiring unit (Kogano [0034] “a GNSS sensor 26”), a speed sensor (Kogano [0034] “vehicle speed sensor”), and a recognition unit in a vehicle (Kogano [0036]-[0037] “ECU … scene determination section 46”), position information indicating a position of the vehicle (Kogano [0034] “a GNSS sensor 26 that receives a positioning signal from a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) satellite and acquires GNSS positioning information”), vehicle speed information indicating a speed of the vehicle (Kogano [0034] “the brake pedal sensor 30 included in the sensor group 24 include a vehicle speed sensor that detects the speed of the vehicle”), and recognition result information indicating whether a stop sign is recognized from a vehicle front side image captured by a camera in the vehicle (Kogano Fig. 3 and ref 32 “camera”); and (Kogano [0037] “scene determination section 46 determines a driving scene based on information stored in a scene determination table 42” and [0043] “the scene determination table 42 stores a driving scene in association with at least one of an object included in an image captured by the camera 32 and a vehicle position. For example, a driving scene of “passing through a stop intersection” is associated with a combination in which an object included in an image captured by the camera 32 is a traffic light and the position of the vehicle is within 10 m around the intersection.”)
a processor (Kogano Claim 1) configured to
determine, based on the recognition result information, whether the vehicle is approaching an intersection having the stop sign (Kogano [0051] “In step 102, the parameter extracting unit 48 determines whether the driving scene determined by the scene determining unit 46 is a stop intersection passing scene.”),
in response to determining that the vehicle is approaching the intersection having the stop sign, identify an evaluation target section that is a section from a position at which the stop sign is recognized to a position at which the vehicle has traveled a predetermined distance beyond the stop sign (Kogano [0006] “evaluates a driving behavior with respect to a stop line at an intersection based on an accelerator-on position, which is a last position where an accelerator is changed from off to on in a vicinity of the stop line at the intersection, and a brake stroke amount at a position a predetermined distance in front of the stop line at the intersection.”),
evaluate a driving behavior of a driver of the vehicle in the evaluation target section based on the position information, the vehicle speed information, and the recognition result information, and (Kogano Fig. 6 and [0006] “evaluates a driving behavior with respect to a stop line at an intersection based on an accelerator-on position, which is a last position where an accelerator is changed from off to on in a vicinity of the stop line at the intersection, and a brake stroke amount at a position a predetermined distance in front of the stop line at the intersection.” & [0037] ‘the six types of driving characteristic parameters are (1) the “accelerator on position,” which is the last position at which the accelerator changed from off to on in the vicinity of the stop line, and (2) “brake stroke amount at Xm in front of the stop line,” which is the brake stroke amount at a position Xm in front of the stop line, (3) “safety confirmation time,” which is the time required from the stop position or the lowest vehicle speed position to the last position at which the vehicle stopped in the vicinity of the stop line, (4) “average vehicle speed 1,” which is the average vehicle speed in the section (section 1) from crossing the stop line to entering the intersection, (5) “minimum vehicle speed 1,” which is the minimum vehicle speed in section 1, and (6) “maximum vehicle speed 1,” which is the maximum vehicle speed in section 1.”)
cause transmission of evaluation result information indicating an evaluation result of the evaluation to a terminal device (Kogano [0055] “The output unit 52 may transmit the evaluation result of the driving behavior by the driving behavior evaluation unit 50 to the server 54 via the network 74… Then, the counting result is notified to the vehicle owner or the terminal device 70 by e-mail or the like.”),
wherein the longer the time over which the vehicle is stopped at the intersection with the stop sign is, or the lower the speed at which the vehicle travels through the intersection with the stop sign is, the safer the evaluation unit evaluates the driving behavior to be (Kogano Claims 3 - 4 and [0010] – [0011]).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 12/04/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Office Note: Claims 1-2 has been cancelled, therefore any rejection or objection pertaining thereupon is now considered moot. Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the above Office Action.
With respect to the abstract objection, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant argues: “New claim 3 does not recite the phrases that the Office identified as invoking interpretation under §112(f). Further, claim 3 recites specific structural elements, such as "processor," "communication device," "speed sensor," "recognition unit," and "memory." Accordingly, Applicant respectfully asserts that the claim is no longer interpreted under § 112(f).” However, “communication device” is a generic placeholder that contains functional language with no structure in the claim. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees and the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) remain.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
Applicant argues:
S2A/P1: At the outset, the claim is directed to a vehicle-mounted system for evaluating driver behavior at stop-sign intersections. The system includes concrete components such as a position information acquiring unit, a vehicle speed sensor, a recognition unit that detects stop signs from camera images, a communication device, and a processor executing instructions stored in memory. These are not generic computing elements for actual sensing and control. Also, the claimed operations are not tasks that can be performed mentally by a human. They require machine-based processing and integration of data acquisition. Thus, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception under Prong One.
S2A/P2: Even assuming arguendo that the claims involve an abstract idea, which Applicant disagrees, the claim integrates that the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The system relies on sensor data and image recognition hardware, and the evaluation cannot be performed without these components. The output is a technically meaningful evaluation-result information. Importantly, the invention solves a specific technical problem identified in the specification at paragraph [0007] - how to evaluate driver behavior at stop signs without relying on a cabin-facing camera. Conventional systems used facial monitoring, which is costly, intrusive, and not always available. The claimed system avoids these limitations by using forward-facing cameras and vehicle sensors to define an evaluation target section and assess behavior based on various inputs. This is a concrete improvement to the functioning of driver- behavior evaluation systems.
S2B: The combination of elements, i.e., camera-based stop-sign recognition, a target section creation, speed and time evaluation within the defined section, and transmission of evaluation results, is novel and non-conventional. It solves the technical problem as discussed above using a solution that is absent from the prior art. In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully asserts that the claims are patent eligible, and requests that the rejection under this section be withdrawn.
Office Response:
S2A/P1: The instructions stored in the processor can be done mentally. Determining whether the vehicle is approaching a stop sign can be done mentally. Using that result, identifying a zone can be done mentally. Evaluating a driving behavior using data is a mental process. Assigning points to an evaluation based on time and speed is a mental process.
S2A/P2: The sensor data and image recognition and transmitting limitations are simply means of data transfer that the office believes does not take the mental process outside of an abstract idea. Additionally, these limitations are not an improvement to current driver-behavior evaluation systems (See mapping).
S2B: The combination of elements is not novel (See mapping).
Therefore, the Office respectfully disagrees and the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 remain.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot. However, even though applicant has amended the scope of the claims and the Office has provided new mapping of cited prior art below, the Office is still using the same cited prior art, thus the Office will attempt to address all remarks that remain relevant.
Applicant remarks:
Applicant is unable to locate any portion of Kogano that discloses or suggests (1) detecting a stop sign from the vehicle front image captured by a camera in the vehicle; (2) identifying an evaluation target section from the point where a stop sign is recognized to a point where the vehicle travels a predetermined distance past the stop sign; and (3) evaluating driving behavior based on the position information, the vehicle speed information, and the recognition result information.
As such, Applicant respectfully asserts that Kogano does not destroy the novelty of the present application, and requests that the anticipation rejection over Kogano be withdrawn.
Office Response:
Please see updated mapping of Kogano for new claim 3. Images that capture the ahead surroundings captured by a vehicle camera is disclosed. Target sections from a stop sign to a predetermined distance ahead is disclosed. Evaluating driver behavior based on position, speed, and whether there is a stop sign is disclosed.
Therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666