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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/18/2025 was filed before the mailing of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-40 have been added as new claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-40 are objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claims 21, 33, and 40 recite a “VTOL” aircraft. The first instance of the abbreviated or acronym “VTOL” should have the full term written out. Appropriate correction is required.
The dependent claims (22-32 and 34-39) are also objected to due to their dependency on the objected independent claims.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 21-32 recite a method (i.e. process), claims 33-39 recite a system (i.e. machine), and claim 40 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. machine or article of manufacture). Therefore claims 21-40 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 21, 33, and 40 recites the limitations: accessing a battery model of [a VTOL aircraft], the [battery model] being configured to model one or more performance characteristics of [one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft] based on the structure of [the one or more batteries]; computing, using a candidate model, a plurality of candidate flight itineraries for [the VTOL aircraft]; computing, for the plurality of candidate flight itineraries, one or more constraints associated with charging [the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft]; initializing a simulation based on [the battery model] of the aircraft, the plurality of candidate flight itineraries, and the one or more constraints associated with charging the one or more batteries; and simulating, using the initialized simulation, a performance [the VTOL aircraft] within a simulated environment, wherein simulating the performance of the VTOL aircraft comprises simulating, using the battery model, a performance of [the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft] across a plurality of simulated flights within the simulation environment, the plurality of simulated flights being based on the plurality of candidate flight itineraries and the constraints associated with charging [the one or more batteries]. The invention and claims are drawn towards facilitating multi-modal transportation services for rider and optimizing flight itineraries including considering battery data associated with the transportation vehicle, and the claim limitations directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, relationships, or behavior; commercial interactions (business relations)) as evidenced by limitations relating to computing flight itineraries in which passengers travel and performing simulations based the flight itineraries, constraints, battery model. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) since the limitations involve the observation or evaluation of various data. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above Step 2A Prong One section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong two and Step 2B.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a VTOL aircraft, one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft, one or more processors (claims 33 and 40), one or mor tangible non-transitory computer readable media (claims 33 and 40). The additional elements of the one or more processors and one or mor tangible non-transitory computer readable media are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the additional element of a VTOL aircraft and one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (facilitating multi-modal transportation services for riders). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 26 and 38 recites the limitation of outputting instructions indicative of the selected flight itinerary to [a computing device associated with the VTOL aircraft]. The limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of a computing device associated with the VTOL aircraft. The additional element amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22-25, 27-32, 34-37, and 39 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 22-25, 27-32, 34-37, and 39 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21-23, 31-35, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (2018/0308366) in view of Gu (2020/0218270).
Claim 21: Goel in view of Gu discloses: A computer-implemented method for simulating aircraft battery performance, the method comprising:
accessing a battery model of a VTOL aircraft, the battery model being configured to model one or more performance characteristics of one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft based on the structure of the one or more batteries;
Goel discloses accessing a battery model of a VTOL aircraft, the battery model being configured to model one or more performance characteristics of one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft: (Goe1 ¶0064 disclosing a parameter selection module that presents various parameters to be used in modelling the transportation network including battery consumption rate at cruising; battery consumption for take-off and landing; battery recharging rate, etc.). Goes does not explicitly disclose that the battery model is based on the structure of the one or more batteries. Gu suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Gu ¶0063 disclosing receiving data including an identifier of a type of battery of the vehicle and/or an identifier that otherwise identifies one or more characteristics of the battery (e.g., number of cells, age, chemistry, etc.); ¶0064 disclosing training instance input includes an identifier that identifies one or more characteristics of the battery, training instances can be generated in method that are based on various types of batteries having varying characteristics; the machine learning model can be trained based on such training instances; the model predicts an appropriate output given the characteristics of an indicated battery (as indicated by input data being processed), while enabling the machine learning model to be trained based on training data that is based on vehicles having a variety of batteries having a variety of characteristics). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goel to include accessing a battery model of a VTOL aircraft, the battery model being configured to model one or more performance characteristics of one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft based on the structure of the one or more batteries as taught by Gu since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Goel, as modified above, discloses the following limitations:
computing, using a candidate model, a plurality of candidate flight itineraries for the VTOL aircraft; (Goel ¶0111 disclosing determining routing for a fleet of VTOLs within a transport network.; ¶0113 disclosing the routing data is information about the routes assigned to each VTOL; a route may include information such as: a destination, way points to visit en route; ¶0063 disclosing the route optimization system that determines the routing of VTOL aircrafts; ¶0097 disclosing the network flow module determines how to route VTOL aircraft through the transport network; network flow module may calculate a probability of each request being serviced by each mode of transport based on factors such as: the origin, the destination, the time, convenience (e.g., ingress and egress times), demographics, and the like. In other embodiments, different models for optimizing the routing may be used)
computing, for the plurality of candidate flight itineraries, one or more constraints associated with charging the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft; (Goel ¶0025 disclosing the system including information regarding the hubs the VTOLs travel to which include whether a hub has multiple charging stations for recharging battery-powered VTOL aircraft, or whether a hub is located in a sparely populated suburb might include infrastructure for a single VTOL aircraft and have no charging station (constraints), ¶0026 the hub management system monitors he hubs to which the VTOLS fly into and/out of and determines whether there is a fault in a charging station making it unavailable at a hub (constraints); ¶0063 disclosing the route optimization subsystem determines the routing of VTOL aircraft; ¶0064 disclosing parameter selection module (like its counterparts in the candidate hub identification subsystem and hub optimization subsystem ) provides a user interface for defining various parameters to be used in modelling the transport network; for each VTOL type, the VTOL parameters may include: battery consumption rate when cruising, battery consumption for take-off and landing, battery recharging rate, whether the battery may be switched at a hub and how long switching takes, etc.; the parameters include the data available from the hub management system (including the unavailability of charging stations, etc.)
initializing a simulation based on the battery model of the aircraft, the plurality of candidate flight itineraries, and the one or more constraints associated with charging the one or more batteries; and (Goel ¶0066 disclosing the flow modelling module models the flow of VTOL aircraft and riders through the transport network trying to maximize efficiency in view of the selected objective (listed for the above limitation in ¶0064 and also mentioned in ¶0065 that other objectives and parameters may be used); the flow modelling module discretizes time into segments and calculates an optimum or substantially optimum routing for the fleet of VTOLs for each segment to determine how each VTOL aircraft should be routed to meet the selected objective; ¶0067-¶0091, etc. disclosing the parameters used in the network flow model (including battery charging, constraints, itineraries (nodes, hubs, etc.))
simulating, using the initialized simulation, a performance the VTOL aircraft within a simulated environment, wherein simulating the performance of the VTOL aircraft comprises simulating, using the battery model, a performance of the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft across a plurality of simulated flights within the simulation environment, the plurality of simulated flights being based on the plurality of candidate flight itineraries and the constraints associated with charging the one or more batteries. (Goel ¶0097 thus, the network flow module can determines how to route VTOL aircraft through the transport network by finding the shortest path using negative weights and fuel constraints; ¶0098 disclosing route visualization module presents the results of modelling the flow of VTOL aircraft; ¶0099 disclosing if the user selects a VTOL flightpath, information about the corresponding VTOL aircraft and the flightpath may be shown (e.g., an identifier of the particular VTOL aircraft, identifiers of the riders currently being serviced, origin and destination hubs, battery charge remaining, and time remaining to arrival; (recall from above: ¶0066 disclosing the flow modelling module models the flow of VTOL aircraft and riders through the transport network trying to maximize efficiency in view of the selected objective (listed for the above limitation in ¶0064 and also mentioned in ¶0065 that other objectives and parameters may be used); the flow modelling module discretizes time into segments and calculates an optimum or substantially optimum routing for the fleet of VTOLs for each segment to determine how each VTOL aircraft should be routed to meet the selected objective; ¶0067-¶0091, etc. disclosing the parameters used in the network flow model (including battery charging, constraints, itineraries (nodes, hubs, etc.))
Claims 33 and 40: Claims 33 and 40 are directed to a system and one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media, respectively. Claims 33 and 40 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 21, which is directed towards a method. Claims 33 and 40 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 21. Furthermore claims 33 and 40 recite:
(Claim 33): A computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer readable media that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: (Goel ¶0103 the storage device is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; memory holds instructions and data used by the processor)
(Claim 40): One or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising: (Goel ¶0103 the storage device is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; memory holds instructions and data used by the processor)
Claim 22: The computer-implemented method of claim 21,
wherein the structure of the one or more batteries indicates at least one of: a cell type, a cell chemistry, an organizational structure of cells, how cell modules are packed together, or a material used in the one or more batteries.
Goel discloses a battery of the VTOL, but does not explicitly disclose that the structure of the one or more batteries indicates at least one of: a cell type, a cell chemistry, an organizational structure of cells, how cell modules are packed together, or a material used in the one or more batteries. Gu discloses these limitations/concepts: (Gu ¶0037 disclosing the battery can include one or more cells of the same or different battery chemistries; ¶0063 disclosing receiving data which may include a type of battery of the vehicle and/or an identifier that otherwise identifies one or more characteristics of the battery (e.g., number of cells, age, chemistry, etc.)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goel to include the structure of the one or more batteries indicates at least one of: a cell type, a cell chemistry, an organizational structure of cells, how cell modules are packed together, or a material used in the one or more batteries as taught by Gu since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 34: Claim 34 is directed to a system. Claim 34 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 22, which is directed towards a method. Claim 34 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 22.
Claim 23: The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the one or more performance characteristics comprise at least one of: an expected short-term performance or an expected long-term performance of the one or more batteries. (Goel ¶0064 disclosing parameters may include battery consumption rate when cruising, battery consumption for take-off and landing, battery recharging rate; ¶0113 disclosing the parameter selection module retrieving current VTOL data including current battery level, a maximum battery level)
Claim 35: Claim 35 is directed to a system. Claim 35 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 23, which is directed towards a method. Claim 35 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 23.
Claim 31: The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the one or more constraints associated with charging the one or more batteries comprise at least one of: an available charging time, an available type of charge, or available charging equipment. (Goel ¶0025 disclosing the system including information regarding the hubs the VTOLs travel to which include whether a hub has multiple charging stations for recharging battery-powered VTOL aircraft, or whether a hub is located in a sparely populated suburb might include infrastructure for a single VTOL aircraft and have no charging station, ¶0026 whether there is a fault in a charging station making it unavailable at a hub (all of these are constraints))
Claim 32: The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the one or more constraints associated with charging the one or more batteries comprise: a current constraint associated with charging the one or more batteries or a predicted constraint associated with charging the one or more batteries. (Goel ¶0025 disclosing the system including information regarding the hubs the VTOLs travel to which include whether a hub has multiple charging stations for recharging battery-powered VTOL aircraft, or whether a hub is located in a sparely populated suburb might include infrastructure for a single VTOL aircraft and have no charging station, ¶0026 whether there is a fault in a charging station making it unavailable at a hub (all of these are constraints))
Claim(s) 24-30 and 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (2018/0308366) in view of Gu (2020/0218270) further in view of Bolotski (US 10,663,529).
Claim 24: The computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising:
computing, based on the performance of the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft within the simulated environment, a health of the one or more batteries for each of the candidate flight itineraries.
Goel in view of Gu discloses a battery health, but does not explicitly disclose computing, based on the performance of the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft within the simulated environment, a health of the one or more batteries for each of the candidate flight itineraries. Bolotski suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Bolotski Col. 2, Ln. 30-35 disclosing the battery charging device may send a battery health report to the battery management service; the health report may describe one or more attributes of a rechargeable battery; the health report may include the internal resistance and/or capacity of the rechargeable battery, a current duty cycle, and a predicted life duty cycle; Col. 2, Ln. 49-58 disclosing the battery management service may determine a probability of failure of a battery; the battery management service may generate a prediction model for predicting a failure of a battery and/or a threshold degradation of a battery's charge capacity based at least in part on charging logs associated with the battery and/or one or more health reports associated with the battery; the battery management service may update the prediction model as additional battery charging logs and/or battery health reports are received from battery charging devices). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goel in view of Gu to include computing, based on the performance of the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft within the simulated environment, a health of the one or more batteries for each of the candidate flight itineraries as taught by Bolotski. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Goel in view of Gu in order determine optimal battery charge settings for one or more battery types (see col.3, Ln. 35-37 of Bolotski).
Claim 36: Claim 36 is directed to a system. Claim 36 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 24, which is directed towards a method. Claim 36 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 24.
Claim 25: The computer-implemented method of claim 24, further comprising: computing, based on the health of the one or more batteries for each of the candidate flight itineraries, a selected flight itinerary for the VTOL aircraft. (Goel ¶0109 disclosing the transportation network management system calculates route optimization stats based on selected information including additional parameters such as battery capacity (health); the transportation network management system determines the optimal routing for the VTOL aircraft to meet the hypothetical demand and calculates corresponding routing information)
Claim 37: Claim 37 is directed to a system. Claim 37 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 25, which is directed towards a method. Claim 37 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 25.
Claim 26: The computer-implemented method of claim 25, further comprising: outputting instructions indicative of the selected flight itinerary to a computing device associated with the VTOL aircraft. (Goel ¶0116 disclosing the route optimization subsystem may send routing instructions to some or all of the VTOLs, which may include instructions to fly to a particular hub and charge its battery for a specified time)
Claim 38: Claim 38 is directed to a system. Claim 38 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 26, which is directed towards a method. Claim 38 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 26.
Claim 27: The computer-implemented method of claim 24, further comprising: computing, based on the health of the one or more batteries for at least one candidate flight itinerary, a change to the at least one candidate flight itinerary. (Goel ¶0112 and Fig. 9 disclosing updating the routing data for the fleet of VTOLs based on the current conditions; this involves in ¶0113 retrieving current VTOL and routing data about each of the VTOLs including current battery level, a maximum battery level (both considered battery health), and the like; ¶0116 discloses the routing update based on both current conditions and demand data including the instructions might direct a VTOL to fly to a particular hub, charge its battery for a specified time)
Claim 28: The computer-implemented method of claim 27, wherein the change to the at least one candidate flight itinerary comprises a change to a charging time or a type of charge. (Goel ¶0112 and Fig. 9 disclosing updating the routing data for the fleet of VTOLs based on the current conditions; this involves in ¶0113 retrieving current VTOL and routing data about each of the VTOLs including current battery level, a maximum battery level (both considered battery health), and the like; ¶0116 discloses the routing update based on both current conditions and demand data including the instructions might direct a VTOL to fly to a particular hub, charge its battery for a specified time)
Claim 29: The computer-implemented method of claim 27, wherein the change to the at least one candidate flight itinerary increases a flight range of the VTOL aircraft. (Goel ¶0112 and Fig. 9 disclosing updating the routing data for the fleet of VTOLs based on the current conditions; this involves in ¶0113 retrieving current VTOL and routing data about each of the VTOLs including current battery level, a maximum battery level (both considered battery health), and the like; ¶0116 discloses the routing update based on both current conditions and demand data including the instructions might direct a VTOL to fly to a particular hub, charge its battery for a specified time (thus increasing the flight range)
Claim 30: The computer-implemented method of claim 27, wherein the change to the at least one candidate flight itinerary increases the health of the one or more batteries. (Goel ¶0112 and Fig. 9 disclosing updating the routing data for the fleet of VTOLs based on the current conditions; this involves in ¶0113 retrieving current VTOL and routing data about each of the VTOLs including current battery level and a maximum battery level (both considered battery health), and the like; ¶0116 discloses the routing update based on both current conditions and demand data including the instructions might direct a VTOL to fly to a particular hub, charge its battery for a specified time (thus increasing battery health))
Claim 39: The computing system of claim 36, further comprising: computing, based on the health of the one or more batteries for at least one candidate flight itinerary, a change to the at least one candidate flight itinerary, wherein the change to the at least one candidate flight itinerary comprises at least one of: a change to a charging time, a change to a type of charge, a change that increases a flight range of the VTOL aircraft, or a change that increases the health of the one or more batteries. (Goel ¶0112 and Fig. 9 disclosing updating the routing data for the fleet of VTOLs based on the current conditions; this involves in ¶0113 retrieving current VTOL and routing data about each of the VTOLs including current battery level, a maximum battery level (both considered battery health), and the like; ¶0116 discloses the routing update based on both current conditions and demand data including the instructions might direct a VTOL to fly to a particular hub, charge its battery for a specified time)
Additional Relevant Prior Art References:
Additional references found that are relevant to the applicant’s invention but are not currently relied on in the prior art rejection includes:
Venturelli (2020/0142433): discloses a system that determine a plurality of plans for each of a plurality of UAVs and for a predetermined time period based at least on the first telemetric data, and iteratively revise the plurality of plans
Pandit (2019/0271563): discloses a system that utilized forecasted conditions (including battery) used to generate a flight plan for an aerial vehicle from a start location to an end location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628