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 .
Claim 11:
A method for obtaining a quantity of decision points from a backend server to a vehicle during a driving process using the vehicle, the method comprising:
sending a first request message to request a first quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server;
receiving from the background server the first quantity of decision points using the vehicle, responsive to the first request message;
determining a traversal of a decision point of the first quantity of decision points using the vehicle; and
if a decision point from the first quantity of decision points has been traversed:
sending a second request message to request a second quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server; and
receiving from the background server the second quantity of decision points using the vehicle, responsive to the second request message.
Claim 29:
A method for providing a quantity of decision points from a backend server to a vehicle during a driving process using the vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving a first request message to request a first quantity of decision points from the vehicle at the backend server;
determining the first quantity of decision points using the backend server;
reducing the number of decision points of the first quantity of decision points by the backend server; and
sending the reduced first quantity of decision points as the first quantity of decision points in response to the first request message from the backend server to the vehicle.
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 11, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to a method for obtaining a quantity of decision points (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 29 is directed to a method for providing a quantity of decision points (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 29 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 11 recites:
A method for obtaining a quantity of decision points from a backend server to a vehicle during a driving process using the vehicle, the method comprising:
sending a first request message to request a first quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server;
receiving from the background server the first quantity of decision points using the vehicle, responsive to the first request message;
determining a traversal of a decision point of the first quantity of decision points using the vehicle;[mental process/step] and
if a decision point from the first quantity of decision points has been traversed:
sending a second request message to request a second quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server; and
receiving from the background server the second quantity of decision points using the vehicle, responsive to the second request message.
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. For example, “determining a traversal …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method for obtaining a quantity of decision points from a backend server to a vehicle during a driving process using the vehicle, the method comprising:
sending a first request message to request a first quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server;[pre-solution activity]
receiving from the background server the first quantity of decision points using the vehicle, responsive to the first request message;[pre-solution activity]
determining a traversal of a decision point of the first quantity of decision points using the vehicle;[mental process/step] and
if a decision point from the first quantity of decision points has been traversed:
sending a second request message to request a second quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server; [post solution activity] and
receiving from the background server the second quantity of decision points using the vehicle, responsive to the second request message.[post-solution activity]
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 “sending a first request message…,” “receiving,…, ” and “sending a second request message…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (backend server) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “backend server” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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 computer 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. see 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 Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 11 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 using a backend server to perform the determining a traversal point… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “sending a first request message…,” “receiving,…,decision points…,” and “sending a second request message…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) [12-20, 26-28] do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application [sending a third request, providing a quantity of decision points, determining a specified maximum number of decision points justify that the claims do not amount to something significantly more]. Therefore, dependent claims [12-20, 26-28,] are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [independent claim].
Therefore, claim(s) [11-20, 26-29] is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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) 11-13, 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Konig et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20170314944).
Regarding claim 11, Konig et al. disclose a method for obtaining a quantity of decision points from a backend server to a vehicle during a driving process using the vehicle, the method comprising:
sending a first request message to request a first quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server; (See paragraph 0043)
[0043] “Of course, the steps of the method of the present invention in any of its aspects or embodiments may be carried out in part by a server and in part by a navigation apparatus. For example route generation may be carried out by a server, e.g. at the request of a navigation device, and provided to the device for output to a user. The steps of the method may be performed exclusively on a server, or some on a server and the others on a navigation device in any combination, or exclusively on a navigation device. Performance of one or more of the steps on the server may be efficient and may reduce the computational burden placed on a navigation device. Alternatively if one or more steps are performed on the navigation device, this may reduce any bandwidth required for network communication. Thus, the system of the present invention may be provided in part by a navigation device or other mobile device, and in part by a server.”
receiving from the background server the first quantity of decision points using the vehicle, responsive to the first request message (See paragraph 0079);
[0079] “Data indicative of the main route, and optionally an alternative route between the origin and destination of the second origin-destination pair, or a decision point and the destination of the second origin-destination pair, is preferably output to a user via a mobile device. The mobile device may be associated with a vehicle in which the user is travelling, and is preferably a navigation device. The navigation device may be an integrated navigation device or a portable navigation device (PND), e.g. handheld device, associated with the vehicle. The device is preferably the same device which performs some or all of the steps of generating routes through the network in accordance with the invention. However it is envisaged that some or all of the route generation steps may be carried out by a remote device, e.g. a server, and transmitted to the device for output to a user.”
determining a traversal of a decision point of the first quantity of decision points using the vehicle; (See paragraph 0085);
[0085] “Generating an alternative route in respect of a decision point along a main route, e.g. the first or a next decision point, may be triggered, e.g. by the current position of the user coming within a predetermined distance of the decision point, or by the user passing a preceding decision point. Preferably the step of generating an alternative route from a decision point of a main route to the destination is carried out during travel along the main route, e.g. when approaching the decision point.”
and if a decision point from the first quantity of decision points has been traversed:
sending a second request message to request a second quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server; and receiving from the background server the second quantity of decision points using the vehicle, responsive to the second request message (See paragraph 0085, 0079).
Regarding claim 12, Konig et al. disclose wherein at least one of the first quantity of decision points is a waypoint at which routes driven by the vehicle branch to different navigation targets (See paragraph 0045)
[0045] “The method of the present invention relates to generating alternative routes through a navigable network represented by an electronic map, and within which a sub-network is defined. The sub-network is represented by a subset of the plurality of segments and nodes which represent segments and nodes of the navigable network. The segments of the sub-network correspond to segments of routes which define a network of intersecting routes through the navigable network between an origin and destination of a first origin-destination pair. The segments of the network of routes intersect with one another at nodes of the sub-network. The nodes of the sub-network include nodes indicative of decision points of the sub-network at which there are two or more outgoing segments. Thus, a decision point of the sub-network is a point at which segments of the sub-network diverge.”
Regarding claim 13, Konig et al. disclose wherein the decision point from the first quantity of decision points is a waypoint at which routes driven by the vehicle branch to different navigation targets (See paragraph 0045).
[0045] “The method of the present invention relates to generating alternative routes through a navigable network represented by an electronic map, and within which a sub-network is defined. The sub-network is represented by a subset of the plurality of segments and nodes which represent segments and nodes of the navigable network. The segments of the sub-network correspond to segments of routes which define a network of intersecting routes through the navigable network between an origin and destination of a first origin-destination pair. The segments of the network of routes intersect with one another at nodes of the sub-network. The nodes of the sub-network include nodes indicative of decision points of the sub-network at which there are two or more outgoing segments. Thus, a decision point of the sub-network is a point at which segments of the sub-network diverge.”
Regarding claims 26-28, Konig et al. disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium for providing a quantity of decision points from a backend server to a vehicle during a driving process using the vehicle, wherein the computer-readable medium comprises instructions which, when executed on a control unit or a computer, ; providing a quantity of decision points from a backend server to a vehicle during a driving process using the vehicle, wherein the system is designed to carry out the method as claimed in claim 11; and a vehicle comprising the system for providing a quantity of decision points from a backend server to the vehicle during a driving process using the vehicle, (See paragraph 0043)
[0043] “Of course, the steps of the method of the present invention in any of its aspects or embodiments may be carried out in part by a server and in part by a navigation apparatus. For example route generation may be carried out by a server, e.g. at the request of a navigation device, and provided to the device for output to a user. The steps of the method may be performed exclusively on a server, or some on a server and the others on a navigation device in any combination, or exclusively on a navigation device. Performance of one or more of the steps on the server may be efficient and may reduce the computational burden placed on a navigation device. Alternatively if one or more steps are performed on the navigation device, this may reduce any bandwidth required for network communication. Thus, the system of the present invention may be provided in part by a navigation device or other mobile device, and in part by a server.” (See also paragraph 0036)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konig et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20170314944) in view of Kane et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20010049581).
Regarding claim 14, 17, Konig et al. disclose all but fail to specifically disclose wherein the decision point of the first quantity of decision points has been traversed when the vehicle first drives into a first, predetermined circle around the decision point and then drives out of a second predetermined circle around the decision point.
In an analogous art, Kane disclose wherein the decision point of the first quantity of decision points has been traversed when the vehicle first drives into a first, predetermined circle around the decision point and then drives out of a second predetermined circle around the decision point. (See paragraph 0025, 0035)
[0025] In a transit domain, each timepoint may be termed a transit point 104. Transit point 104 may include, among other data, any combination of an ID number, a latitude, a longitude, an altitude, a position source, a datum, an estimated horizontal error (EHE), an estimated positional error (EPE), a short name, a long name or description, an attribute set (possibly supplying the type of location, stop, point of interest, etc.) a departure radius, an arrival radius, a list of transit indices, and a layover time. Any combination of this information may be logged at each transit point, by issuing a command to laptop computer 24 to log the point, and stored in database 42.
[0035] Planning system 200 includes logging positions 204. Each position may include, among other data, a coordinate position, such as a latitude or a longitude and altitude, an id number, a source (such as a GPS or a user), a datum, EHE, and EPE. Once a position 204 has been logged, a number of attributes may be attached thereto. For example, a location 208 attribute may be attached to each position 204, location attribute 208 may include an ID number a short name, a long name or description, and an attribute set 212. Attribute set 212 may include an id number, a departure radius, and an arrival radius. The departure and arrival radii provides a level of tolerance such that when a vehicle, or other entity enters the arrival radius or is within the departure radius, the vehicle or entity is defined to be at that navigation point. For example, the arrival radius for a "park and ride" bus stop may be defined to encompass the entire "park and ride" facility. Thus, when the bus enters the "park and ride" facility, the bus is defined as being at the corresponding navigation point.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the system of Konig et al. with that of Kane et al. by having the decision point of the first quantity of decision points has been traversed when the vehicle first drives into a first, predetermined circle around the decision point and then drives out of a second predetermined circle around the decision point since it would have achieved a desired result for traversing the intended route segments.
Regarding claims 15, 18, Konig et al. disclose all but fail to specifically disclose wherein a radius of the first circle is smaller than a radius of the second circle (See paragraph 0025, 0035 which teaches an arrival radius and a departure radius, while Kane et al. does not specifically state that the arrival radius is smaller than the departure radius, this is obvious in the teaching as a departure radius would be larger than an arrival radius to indicate that it is outside of the arrival area).
Regarding claims 16, 19, 20, Konig et al. disclose all but fail to specifically disclose wherein the vehicle receives the radius of the first circle and the radius of the second circle for each decision point with the first quantity of decision points from the backend server.
Kane et al. disclose wherein the vehicle receives the radius of the first circle and the radius of the second circle for each decision point with the first quantity of decision points from the backend server (See paragraph 0022, 0025, 0035). (See at least Kane 0022 “Referring again to Fig.1, is an exemplary embodiment, after all of the timepoints have been logged, the associated data is stored in a database on laptop computer 24. The laptop database may be downloaded into a database 42 on database 42 on dispatch computer 40”.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konig et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20170314944) in view of Vigild et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20210293557).
Regarding claim 29, Konig et al. disclose a method for providing a quantity of decision points from a backend server to a vehicle during a driving process using the vehicle, the method comprising: receiving a first request message to request a first quantity of decision points from the vehicle at the backend server (See message (See paragraph 0079);
[0079] “Data indicative of the main route, and optionally an alternative route between the origin and destination of the second origin-destination pair, or a decision point and the destination of the second origin-destination pair, is preferably output to a user via a mobile device. The mobile device may be associated with a vehicle in which the user is travelling, and is preferably a navigation device. The navigation device may be an integrated navigation device or a portable navigation device (PND), e.g. handheld device, associated with the vehicle. The device is preferably the same device which performs some or all of the steps of generating routes through the network in accordance with the invention. However it is envisaged that some or all of the route generation steps may be carried out by a remote device, e.g. a server, and transmitted to the device for output to a user.”
determining the first quantity of decision points using the backend server; (See paragraph 0085);
[0085] “Generating an alternative route in respect of a decision point along a main route, e.g. the first or a next decision point, may be triggered, e.g. by the current position of the user coming within a predetermined distance of the decision point, or by the user passing a preceding decision point. Preferably the step of generating an alternative route from a decision point of a main route to the destination is carried out during travel along the main route, e.g. when approaching the decision point.”
It does not specifically disclose reducing the number of decision points of the first quantity of decision points by the backend server; and sending the reduced first quantity of decision points as the first quantity of decision points in response to the first request message from the backend server to the vehicle.
In an analogous art, Vigild et al. disclose reducing the number of decision points of the first quantity of decision points by the backend server (See at least claim 1; “and selecting, from a plurality of potential routes to each destination, at least one route to each destination with the highest statistical likelihood, represented by an aggregate statistical likelihood that the vehicle remains on the potential route when passing through all intersections along the route”)
and sending the reduced first quantity of decision points as the first quantity of decision points in response to the first request message from the backend server to the vehicle (See at least claim 1 of Vigild et al.). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the system of Konig et al. with that of Vigild et al. by reducing and sending the first quantity of decision points as the first quantity of decision points in response to the message request message from the backend server to the vehicle because it would have achieved a desired result for routing interaction request.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-25, 30 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 prior art does not specifically disclose receiving the first request message to request the first quantity of decision points from the vehicle at the backend server (See paragraph 0079); but fail to specifically disclose: determining the first quantity of decision points by means of the backend server;
reducing a number of decision points of the first quantity of decision points by the backend server; and sending the reduced first quantity of decision points as the first quantity of decision points in response to the first request message from the backend server to the vehicle.
Nor does it disclose sending from the vehicle to the backend server a third request message to request a third quantity of decision points, depending on the distance of a current position of the vehicle from at least one decision point from the first quantity of decision points.
Nor sending from the vehicle to the backend server a third request message to request a third quantity of decision points, if a time for receiving a response to a latest request exceeds a specified time period.
Nod does it disclose if a distance of the vehicle from a next decision point falls below a specified distance threshold or a time period for reaching the next decision point falls below a specified time threshold, then suppressing at least one of the group consisting of: the first request message; the second request message; and a third request message to provide a third quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server.
Nor does the prior art specifically disclose wherein the reduction of the number of decision points of the first quantity of decision points comprises: filtering the first quantity of decision points depending on an importance of the decision points; or merging decision points lying within a specified radius or multiple specified radii of circles around a position of the decision point; or determining a specified, maximum number of decision points for the first quantity of decision points, depending on the importance of the decision point.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20190235505) disclose According to some embodiments, a system receives a first set of reference points based on a map and a route information, the first plurality of reference points representing a reference line in which the ADV is to follow. The system selects a second set of reference points along the reference line, including iteratively performing, selecting a current reference point from the first set of reference points, determining a sampling distance along the first set of reference points based on the currently selected reference point using a nonlinear algorithm, and selecting a next reference point based on the determined sampling distance such that a density of the second set of reference points closer to the ADV is higher than a density of the selected reference points farther away from the ADV. The system plans a trajectory for the ADV using the second set of reference points to control the ADV.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30-8:00 EST.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661