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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1 and 4-19 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
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process) and independent claim 19 is directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1 and 19 are each 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.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The apparatus of claim 19 mirrors claim 1, and is analyzed similarly. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of data from one or more edge devices, wherein each respective edge device of the one or more edge devices is associated with a corresponding edge site location;
storing at least a portion of the plurality of data as stored data objects within a fleet map data
volume;
receiving one or more user inputs for viewing a subset of the fleet map data volume, wherein the one or more user inputs indicates a selected geographic view area;
obtaining, from the fleet map data volume, stored data objects corresponding to the subset;
generating a fleet map graphical user interface (GUI) view using the stored data objects corresponding to the subset, wherein the fleet map GUI view comprises a geographic map of the selected geographic view area, and wherein the stored data objects corresponding to the subset are rendered at corresponding locations within the geographic map; and
outputting the fleet map GUI view for display.
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, a human fleet operations manager could mentally generate a fleet map visualization by examining stored data about vehicle locations and geographic coordinates, and conceptually map those data points onto a mental map showing vehicles within a geographic area of interest. This could also be done by the fleet operations manager with pen and paper. 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”):
A method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of data from one or more edge devices, wherein each respective edge device of the one or more edge devices is associated with a corresponding edge site location;
storing at least a portion of the plurality of data as stored data objects within a fleet map data
volume;
receiving one or more user inputs for viewing a subset of the fleet map data volume, wherein the one or more user inputs indicates a selected geographic view area;
obtaining, from the fleet map data volume, stored data objects corresponding to the subset;
generating a fleet map graphical user interface (GUI) view using the stored data objects corresponding to the subset, wherein the fleet map GUI view comprises a geographic map of the selected geographic view area, and wherein the stored data objects corresponding to the subset are rendered at corresponding locations within the geographic map; and
outputting the fleet map GUI view for display.
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 “obtaining a plurality of data …”, “storing at least a portion of the plurality of data …”, “receiving one or more user inputs …”, “obtaining, from the fleet map data volume, stored data objects …”, and “outputting the fleet map …” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (circuitry) to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining, storing, receiving, and obtaining steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering edge device data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The outputting step is recieted at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting a resulting fleet map in a GUI display), and amount to mere post-solution communicating, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “circuitry” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computerized vehicle environment.
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 (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 1 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 circuitry to perform the generating a fleet map GUI view … 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 “obtaining a plurality of data …”, “storing at least a portion of the plurality of data …”, “receiving one or more user inputs …”, “obtaining, from the fleet map data volume, stored data objects …”, and “outputting the fleet map …”, 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 “obtaining a plurality of data …”, “storing at least a portion of the plurality of data …”, “receiving one or more user inputs …”, “obtaining, from the fleet map data volume, stored data objects …”, and “outputting the fleet map …” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as outlined in the prior art rejections below. 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, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 4-18 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. Said claims as a whole recite a mental process because the claims recite, under their broadest reasonable interpretation as drafted,
Displaying health status information for edge devices based on metadata or historical information; grouping edge devices according to various edge device attributes, user inputs, according to dynamic rules, according to renewable energy operation; applying various logical overlays n the GUI; storing data with timestamps; obtaining data from a satellite constellation and an internet backhaul network; wherein data includes inference predictions generated at an edge device; associating sensors with a local network of a containerized edge compute unit; obtaining aggregated or batched data from an edge device or a subset of edge devices. Therefore, dependent claims 1 and 4-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 and 4-19 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10, 12-14, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davidson (US PGPub. No. 2012/0253862).
Regarding claim 1, Davidson discloses a method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of data from one or more edge devices [102], wherein each respective edge device of the one or more edge devices is associated with a corresponding edge site location (¶0072);
storing at least a portion of the plurality of data as stored data objects within a fleet map data
volume (¶0141);
receiving one or more user inputs for viewing a subset of the fleet map data volume, wherein the one or more user inputs indicates a selected geographic view area (¶0145-0147, ¶0149);
obtaining, from the fleet map data volume, stored data objects corresponding to the subset (¶0148-0150);
generating a fleet map graphical user interface (GUI) view using the stored data objects corresponding to the subset, wherein the fleet map GUI view comprises a geographic map of the selected geographic view area, and wherein the stored data objects corresponding to the subset are rendered at corresponding locations within the geographic map (¶0145, ¶0150-0151); and
outputting the fleet map GUI view for display (¶0145, ¶0150-0151).
Regarding claim 2, Davidson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating the fleet map GUI view includes:
receiving a user input indicative of a request to view real-time data from a first edge device associated with the subset (¶0115, ¶0222-0223; at least data indicating weight, number of units, or type of items being delivered, and data associated with the current time in the employee Gantt chart are types of real-time data a user may select for display in the GUI);
establishing a live channel using at least the first edge device and the fleet map GUI view (¶0115, ¶0222-0223; Davidson’s provision of current shipment details and current vehicle information represent a type of live channel using a first edge device);
receiving continuous real-time data of the first edge device over the live channel (¶0115, ¶0222-0223); and
dynamically updating the fleet map GUI view to include a live view of the real-time data of the
first edge device (¶0115, ¶0222-0223).
Regarding claim 4, Davidson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating the fleet map GUI view includes:
determining respective health status information for each respective edge device associated with the stored data objects corresponding to the subset (¶0078; ¶0085; ¶0339; Davidson’s discussion of vehicle engine faults, diagnostic codes, and edge device error codes each represent types of health status for respective edge devices); and
generating the fleet map GUI view to include a rendered icon for each respective edge device, wherein each of the rendered icons is indicative of respective health status information of a respective edge device (¶0145, ¶0150-0151).
Regarding claim 5, Davidson discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the respective health status information is reported by the fleet of edge devices and obtained from the fleet map data volume (¶0078; ¶0085; ¶0141; ¶0339).
Regarding claim 6, Davidson discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the respective health status information is determined based on analyzing metadata information or time-series historical information associated with the respective edge devices (¶0101, ¶0113; ¶0357, ¶0366).
Regarding claim 7, Davidson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more edge devices are grouped into one or more edge device asset groups based on one or more of:
grouping edge devices deployed to a same edge site location (¶0388-0399);
grouping edge devices deployed within a same geographic region (¶0349-0350);
grouping edge devices based on a configured granularity level indicated by one or more user configuration inputs (¶0274-0275; ¶0288-0289; ¶0295-0296); or
grouping edge devices based on one or more dynamic grouping rules, wherein an edge device is included in a first dynamic group based on comparing one or more dynamic parameter values for the edge device to one or more threshold values or rules configured for the first dynamic group.
Regarding claim 8, Davidson discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the configured granularity level corresponds to an organizational unit of an enterprise entity, and wherein the organizational unit comprises one or more of a factory, a warehouse, a distribution center, or a railyard (¶0152, ¶0373).
Regarding claim 10, Davidson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating the fleet map GUI view comprises rendering one or more logical overlay GUIs in combination with the geographic map, wherein the one or more logical overlay GUIs are indicative of real-time or derived information corresponding to the selected geographic view area (¶0162; Davidson’s overlay of coded delay segments that represent traffic delays represent a type of real-time traffic overlay).
Regarding claim 12, Davidson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
each stored data object from the plurality of data is stored in the fleet map data volume with a corresponding timestamp value (¶0072, ¶0084, ¶0100); and
the corresponding timestamp value for a respective stored data object comprises a native timestamp value or a synthetic timestamp value estimated based on metadata information for the respective stored data object (¶0072, ¶0084, ¶0100).
Regarding claim 13, Davidson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
a first portion of the plurality of data is obtained from a satellite internet constellation communicatively coupled to at least a first edge device (¶0084); and
a second portion of the plurality of data is obtained from an internet backhaul network communicatively coupled to at least a second edge device (¶0070, ¶0084, ¶0088).
Regarding claim 14, Davidson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of data includes one or more of:
sensor data generated by the one or more edge devices (¶0072); and
operational metrics or status information associated with respective edge devices of the one or more edge devices (¶0146).
Regarding claim 17, Davidson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of data are obtained as aggregated or batched data corresponding to a subset of the one or more edge devices (¶0370).
Regarding claim 19, Davidson discloses an apparatus comprising:
at least one memory [210] (¶0083); and
at least one processor [201] coupled to the at least one memory (¶0083), the at least one processor configured to:
obtain a plurality of data from one or more edge devices [102], wherein each respective edge device of the one or more edge devices is associated with a corresponding edge site location (¶0072);
store at least a portion of the plurality of data as stored data objects within a fleet map data volume (¶0141);
receive one or more user inputs for viewing a subset of the fleet map data volume, wherein the one or more user inputs indicates a selected geographic view area (¶0145-0147, ¶0149);
obtain, from the fleet map data volume, stored data objects corresponding to the subset (¶0148-0150);
generate a fleet map graphical user interface (GUI) view using the stored data objects corresponding to the subset, wherein the fleet map GUI view comprises a geographic map of the selected geographic view area, and wherein the stored data objects corresponding to the subset are rendered at corresponding locations within the geographic map (¶0145, ¶0150-0151), and output the fleet map GUI view for display (¶0145, ¶0150-0151).
Regarding claim 20, Davidson discloses the apparatus of claim 19, wherein, to generate the fleet map GUI view, the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive a user input indicative of a request to view real-time data from a first edge device associated with the subset (¶0115, ¶0222-0223; at least data indicating weight, number of units, or type of items being delivered, and data associated with the current time in the employee Gantt chart are types of real-time data a user may select for display in the GUI);
establish a live channel using at least the first edge device and the fleet map GUI view (¶0115, ¶0222-0223; Davidson’s provision of current shipment details and current vehicle information represent a type of live channel using a first edge device);
receive continuous real-time data of the first edge device over the live channel (¶0115, ¶0222-0223); and
dynamically update the fleet map GUI view to include a live view of the real-time data of the first edge device (¶0115, ¶0222-0223).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 15-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson as applied to claims 2, 14, and 17, respectively, above, and further in view of Ghadiok et al. (US Patent No. 11,322,017).
Regarding claim 3, Davidson discloses the method of claim 2 (Davidson ¶0072, ¶0115, ¶0141, ¶0145-0147, ¶0148-0151, ¶0222-0223), but appears to be silent on the method further wherein establishing the live channel is based on brokering notification messages with at least a containerized edge compute device connected to the first edge device over a local network.
Ghadiok, however, teaches a method for managing traffic rules comprising providing live event feeds and live maps from information provided by edge devices over local networks (Ghadiok Col. 6, lines 8-30; Col. 19, line 35 - Col. 20, line 4), and further that software may be containerized via docker images directly on edge devices (Ghadiok Col. 20, line 57 - Col. 21, line 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Davidson in view of Ghadiok. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Davidson, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include wherein establishing the live channel is based on brokering notification messages with at least a containerized edge compute device connected to the first edge device over a local network, as doing so was a known way efficiently routing information and inferences from a containerized edge compute device to a user GUI, as recognized by Ghadiok (Ghadiok Col. 6, lines 8-30; Col. 19, line 35 - Col. 20, line 4; Col. 20, line 57 - Col. 21, line 4).
Regarding claim 15, Davidson in view of Ghadiok teaches the method of claim 14 (Davidson ¶0072, ¶0115, ¶0141, ¶0145-0151, ¶0222-0223), wherein the plurality of data further includes:
inference predictions generated based on the sensor data or operational metrics information, using one or more edge-deployed machine learning (ML) or artificial intelligence (ML) models (Ghadiok Col. 8, lines 22-25), as previously modified, and with the same motivation as applied in regard to claim(s) 3, above.
Regarding claim 16, Davidson in view of Ghadiok teaches the method of claim 15, wherein:
a first subset of sensor data is obtained using one or more sensors associated with a local network of a containerized edge compute unit (Ghadiok Col. 6, lines 8-30; Col. 19, line 35 - Col. 20, line 4; Col. 20, line 57 - Col. 21, line 4); and
the inference predictions generated based on the first subset of sensor data are generated using one or more edge-deployed ML or AI models implemented on the containerized edge compute unit (Ghadiok Col. 8, lines 22-25).
Regarding claim 18, Davidson in view of Ghadiok teaches the method of claim 17 (Davidson ¶0072, ¶0115, ¶0125, ¶0141, ¶0145-0151, ¶0154, ¶0159, ¶0222-0223, ¶0370), wherein:
data aggregation is performed for a subset of the one or more edge devices associated with the edge site location (Davidson ¶0125, ¶0154, ¶0159); or
data aggregation is performed for a subset of the one or more edge devices associated with a containerized edge compute unit, the containerized edge compute unit configured as an aggregation point (Davidson ¶0125, ¶0154, ¶0159; Ghadiok Col. 6, lines 8-30; Col. 19, line 35 - Col. 20, line 4; Col. 20, line 57 - Col. 21, line 4), as previously modified, and with the same motivation as applied in regard to claim(s) 17, above.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Agyekum et al. (US PGPub. No. 2022/0335837).
Regarding claim 11, Davidson discloses the method of claim 10 (Davidson ¶0072, ¶0115, ¶0125, ¶0141, ¶0145-0151, ¶0154, ¶0159, ¶0162, ¶0222-0223), but appears to be silent on the method wherein the one or more logical overlay GUIs include one or more of: a weather information overlay GUI indicative of real-time weather data for the selected geographic view area; a connectivity availability information overlay GUI indicative of satellite internet constellation connection links or coverage within the selected geographic view area; or an energy cost information overlay GUI indicative of real-time energy cost information for different regions within the selected geographic view area.
Agyekum, however, teaches a flight management method specifically comprising providing a fleet map for tracking a fleet of helicopters, including provision of a weather overlay (Agyekum ¶0067). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Davidson in view of Agyekum. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Davidson, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include the method wherein the one or more logical overlay GUIs include one or more of: a weather information overlay GUI indicative of real-time weather data for the selected geographic view area, as doing so was a known way of logically incorporating relevant environment data to a fleet view GUI, as recognized by Agyekum (Agyekum ¶0067).
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim(s) 9, Examiner deems a method comprising: obtaining a plurality of data from one or more edge devices, wherein each respective edge device of the one or more edge devices is associated with a corresponding edge site location; storing at least a portion of the plurality of data as stored data objects within a fleet map data volume; receiving one or more user inputs for viewing a subset of the fleet map data volume, wherein the one or more user inputs indicates a selected geographic view area; obtaining, from the fleet map data volume, stored data objects corresponding to the subset; generating a fleet map graphical user interface (GUI) view using the stored data objects corresponding to the subset, wherein the fleet map GUI view comprises a geographic map of the selected geographic view area, and wherein the stored data objects corresponding to the subset are rendered at corresponding locations within the geographic map; and outputting the fleet map GUI view for display wherein the one or more edge devices are grouped into one or more edge device asset groups based on one or more of: grouping edge devices deployed to a same edge site location; grouping edge devices deployed within a same geographic region; grouping edge devices based on a configured granularity level indicated by one or more user configuration inputs; or grouping edge devices based on one or more dynamic grouping rules, wherein an edge device is included in a first dynamic group based on comparing one or more dynamic parameter values for the edge device to one or more threshold values or rules configured for the first dynamic group wherein a renewable energy dynamic group is associated with a threshold value indicative of a minimum percentage of renewable energy operation, and wherein an edge device is included in the renewable energy dynamic group based on a real-time energy consumption of the edge device exceeding the minimum percentage of renewable energy operation to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying the prior art of record to include XXX.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V KERRIGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-8:00pm.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/MICHAEL V KERRIGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664