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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Domestic Benefit
Claim to domestic benefit is acknowledged as requirements of 37 CFR 1.78 and 35 U.S.C. 119(e) are met.
Petition to Make Special
The examiner acknowledges that the petition to make special was granted on 16 July 2025. The examiner notes that in order to comply with the requirements of the program, MPEP 708.02 and 37 CFR 1.102 must be adhered to. The examiner notes that while the original claim set presented 44 claims (in violation of the 30 maximum allowable claims per 37 CFR 1.102), results of election/restriction (discussed further below) withdraw the majority of the original 44 claims in favor of 20 total pending claims. Thus, the application currently complies with the guidelines stated above.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I pertaining to claims 1-17 and 32-24 in the reply filed on 08 December 2025 is acknowledged. Thus, the examiner will provide a first action on the merits regarding the aforementioned claims and will consider claims 18-31 and 35-44 as withdrawn from consideration at this time.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
Reason (1): certain figures are illegible and preclude the examiner from reviewing the presented subject matter. Figures [6, 7, 10, 11] present information which the examiner is unable to read. Below is a direct screen-grab of one of the figures, as an example:
PNG
media_image1.png
430
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reason (2): Figure 2 shows a plurality of discrete steps that are all labeled as "202", failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0077] appears to inadvertently contain two different colors of text (though the examiner is observing the black-and-white version, a difference in hue is observed):
PNG
media_image2.png
737
874
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
The examiner notes that claim 34 pertains to a system claim that references a human. However, the examiner notes that the claim is not interpreted to claim living subject matter, but rather compiling the results of human action. Therefore, the claim is not currently directed to or encompassing living subject matter.
Claims 1 and 32 describe generating a task probabilistic machine learning model "with feasible task plans" using the non-deterministic Buchi Automaton. There are two ways to interpret the aforementioned statement of generating A (machine learning model) with B (feasible task plans); either the non-deterministic Buchi Automaton generates both A (task probabilistic machine learning model) in addition to B (feasible task plans) or the non-deterministic Buchi Automaton generates A (task probabilistic machine learning model) that results in B (feasible task plans). The examiner is interpreting the "with feasible task plans" to mean the latter, that the machine learning model produces the output of task plans, as is noted in the next limitation.
Regarding "Sensor probabilistic machine learning model", the examiner consulted the specification paragraph [0033] and is interpreting this to claim a model of the environment that classifies objects including an estimate of object pose.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 14, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 states “modifying the task plan”, however, a plurality of task plans were discussed in the parent claim. The examiner recommends stating “modifying the selected task plan”, or similar, to remove ambiguity.
Claim 14 states “wherein the task plan”, however, a plurality of task plans were discussed in the parent claim. The examiner recommends stating “wherein the selected task plan”, or similar, to remove ambiguity.
Claim 17 states “stored non-visible marking” but the examiner believes that “non-visible markings” is intended.
Claim 17 states “carrying out the task plan”, however, a plurality of task plans were discussed in the parent claim. The examiner recommends stating “carrying out the selected task plan”, or similar, to remove ambiguity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13, 15-17, and 32-34 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
Claims 1-17 are directed to a method and claims 32-34 are directed to a system. Therefore, claims 1-17 and 32-34 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in MPEP 2106, the claims are to analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groupings 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. Claim 1 recites:
A method for determining a task plan that is usable by a robotic device in a workspace, comprising:
converting instructions received for the robotic device into temporal logic (TL) statements and to a non-deterministic Buchi Automaton;
generating a task probabilistic machine learning model with feasible task plans using the non-deterministic Buchi Automaton;
generating a plurality of task plans using the task probabilistic machine learning model;
constructing a sensor probabilistic machine learning model of the workspace using information from sensors of the robotic device; and
comparing the task plans from task probabilistic machine learning model with the sensor probabilistic machine learning model to select the task plan with a high probability of correlation to the workspace.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mathematical concept” because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a mathematical relationship, mathematical formula/equation, and/or mathematical calculation per the guidance of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I. The steps of converting information, generating a mathematical model, generating plans, constructing a second mathematical model, and comparing information obtained merely obtains and manipulates data without a significant output. The examiner notes that merely “selecting” an output does not positively claim a significant output such as use of the selected plan to control a robot. Therefore, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, there are no further additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea. Thus, no additional elements are present to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
The claim 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. As discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim merely recites a method of obtaining and manipulating data without a significant/tangible/measurable output. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible and as such, the claim(s) is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 32, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 32 merely further recites a generic system comprising a processor and memory, which are interpreted as generic linking elements to a technological environment. The addition of a processor and memory does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components; mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for analogous reasons as those presented in claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-13, 15-17, and 33-34, the claims specify and/or further limits similar to the previously addressed abstract idea above and does not recite additional limitations that present a practical application nor amount to “significantly more” for analogous reasons above.
Claims 2 and 33 merely specify how the comparison is made (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
Claim 3 merely performs additional data manipulation (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
Claims 4 and 34 merely perform an additional comparison of data against pre-stored information (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
Claims 5 and 6 merely define what constitutes a successful plan (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
Claim 7 merely performs an additional comparison of data against pre-stored information (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
Claims 8 and 9 merely describe insignificant pre-solutionary activity of data input. (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
Claim 10 merely defines what information constitutes the received data input (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
Claim 11 merely further discloses the specifics of the mathematical model (how data is manipulated) (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
Claim 12 merely defines what information constitutes the received data input (merely further limiting the abstract idea)
Claim 13 merely assigns data identifiers based on received information without significant output/effect (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
Claim 15 merely discusses pre-solutionary activity of modifying the environment to allow the method to be carried out, and does not specify that the robot performs the action (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
Claims 16-17 merely perform an additional comparison of data against pre-stored information (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
Claim 14 is omitted from this rejection as it positively claims control of a robotic device using the (selected) task plan. The examiner recommends incorporation of the limitation from claim 14, albeit with specification that the task plan is the “selected” task plan to incorporate the inventive concept.
Therefore, claims 1-13, 15-17, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
ISSUE 1: The examiner notes that claim 6 utilizes the word “type” in reference to “successful plan”, but the application does not provide the requisite knowledge for understanding what is meant by “type” in an explicit manner. Thus, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) per the guidelines of MPEP 2173.05(b).III.E.
ISSUE 2: Claims 1 (as the independent claim is rejected, all corresponding dependent claims are as well due to dependency), 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, and 16-17 pertain to method claims but are written in passive form (is executed versus executing, for instance), calling to question (clarity) if the actions are positively claimed. The examiner notes that that Patent Trial and Appeal Board has historically quoted case law such as In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) in the interest of arguing for the explicit use of the gerundial form of actions rather than passive voice. The following is a quotation from Appeal 2010-009623: "Instead of beginning with the usual verbal (gerundial) phrase, each of paragraphs (a)-(d) begins with a noun, namely, “division,” “insertion,” “fusion,” and “attachment,” respectively. Because the aforementioned claim terms are all nouns (see MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE® DICTIONARY,
TENTH EDITION, 1997), their plain meaning does not define a positive or active step with the clarity of a gerund or verbal noun. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification). We conclude that this lack of clarity runs afoul of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, i.e., to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention. A claim must be definite so as not to confuse potential infringers in knowing whether it is the end product (or article of manufacture) or method/process for making that end product (or article of manufacture) that they must avoid. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reasoning that lack of clarity as to when a mixed subject matter claim would be infringed renders the claim invalid for indefiniteness). Indeed, we note that the end product (or article of manufacture) of claim 45, purportedly directed to “[a] reinforcing device for load-bearing structures,” recites either identical or practically identical paragraphs (c) and (d), albeit in wherein clauses, in its last four lines. Such identical or practically identical phrases in both method and product (or article of manufacture) claims further points out the ambiguity in the claim language.
Accordingly, we conclude that claim 32 fails to recite a positive, active step, and that it is thus unclear whether claim 32 covers an end product (or article of manufacture) or a method/process of producing such an end product (or article of manufacture). Without the recitation of a positive, active step specifying how the reinforcing device for load-bearing structures is to be produced, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine which production method is encompassed by the claim. See Ex Parte Erlich, 3 USPQ.2d 1011, 1107 (BPAI 1986) (“While . . . the claims need not recite all of the operating details, we do find that a method claim should at least recite a positive, active step(s) so that the claim will ‘set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity,’ and make it clear what subject matter [the] claims encompass, as well as making clear the subject matter from which others would be precluded.”) (citations omitted); see also Clinical Products Limited v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 133 (D.C. D.C. 1966) (“[A] proper process or method claim should recite at least one process step.”)."
Thus, the examiner puts forth a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection as a formal notice to the applicant to positively claim method steps through the gerundial form of the actions/verbs. Examples from the aforementioned claims include:
Claim 1 currently states "comparing the task plans from task probabilistic machine learning model with the sensor probabilistic machine learning model to select the task plan…" and should state "comparing the task plans from task probabilistic machine learning model with the sensor probabilistic machine learning model; and selecting the task plan…".
Claim 5 currently states “wherein a successful task plan is defined as successful based in part on completion by a user using the robotic device.” and should state the equivalent of “defining a task plan as a successful task plan when a user uses the robotic device.”
Claim 6 currently states “wherein a plurality of successful task plans may define a variation envelope for a successful plan type.” and should state the equivalent of “defining a variation envelope for a group of successful plans.”
Claim 9 currently states “wherein the instructions are received using at least one of: a verbal query, a text query, or a graphical query.” and should state the equivalent of “receiving instructions using at least one of: a verbal query, a text query, or a graphical query.”
Claim 12 currently states “wherein the sensor probabilistic machine learning model classifies objects and estimates poses of objects in the workspace.” and should state the equivalent of “classifying objects and estimating poses of objects in the workspace by the sensor probabilistic machine learning model.”
Claim 13 currently states “wherein the sensor probabilistic machine learning model can classify objects that need to be manipulated by the robotic device and objects that need to be avoided by the robotic device during task completion.” and should state the equivalent of “classifying objects that need to be manipulated by the robotic device and objects that need to be avoided by the robotic device during task completion by the sensor probabilistic machine learning model.”
Claim 14 currently states "The method as in claim 1, wherein the task plan is executed by the robotic device" and should state "The method as in claim 1, further comprising executing the selected task plan by the robotic device."
Claim 16 currently states “comparing the non-visible markings to recorded non-visible markings stored in a learning data store of successful task plans in order to determine whether a task plan is executing correctly.” and should state “comparing….; and determining whether a task plan is executing correctly by the comparison of the non-visible markings to recorded non-visible markings.”
Claim 17 states "comparing the non-visible markings with stored non-visible marking in order to modify a command for carrying out the task plan." and should state "comparing the non-visible markings with stored non-visible markings; and modifying a command for carrying out the task plan."
As claim 1 is rejected, all claims which depend upon claim 1 are rejected due to dependency. Thus, all of claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Prior Art Rejections Not Being Made
Claims 1-13, 15-17, and 32-34 are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, claims 1-17 and 32-34 are not being rejected by prior art.
The following is an examiner’s reasoning for why there are no prior art rejections:
The prior art of record does not disclose each and every limitation in such a way that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention. A hypothetical prior art rejection would require impermissible hindsight reasoning.
When viewed individually and as a whole, independent claims 1 and 32 were deemed novel and non-obvious over all other located prior art.
Closest art of record found is Kobilarov et al. (US 2019/0101919 A1; published 04 Apr 2019), which discusses methods for autonomous vehicle (robotic device) trajectory (task) generation. Paragraphs [0154-0161] (corresponding to Figure [7]) best outline the close nature to the instant application from steps including: 1) sensing the environment, including objects in the environment, 2) determining temporal logic formula and corresponding Buchi automaton, 3) generating candidate trajectories with a Monte Carlo Tree Search, 4) evaluating candidate trajectories with the automaton, and 5) selecting a trajectory based upon a cost function. While Kobilarov discusses similar methods of trajectory determination using similar architecture, the instant application independent claims and Kobilarov differ in three primary ways: 1) the Buchi automaton of Kobilarov is not used to generate a machine learning model/MCTS, 2) while sensors registering the environmental conditions are used, they are not used to generate a machine learning model of the workspace in Kobilarov, and 3) the candidate trajectories are not compared against a machine learning model of the workspace to select a plan with high probability of correlation to the workspace--instead, the automaton compares candidate trajectories against cost functions in Kobilarov.
Other similar noted art includes:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2023/0398686 A1
PREDICTING OBJECT MODELS
Tozeto Ramos et al.
Filed: 24 Feb 2023
Pub: 14 Dec 2023
Discusses probabilistic model for object manipulation.
2
US 2023/0297074 A1
INTERPRETING DISCRETE TASKS FROM
COMPLEX INSTRUCTIONS FOR ROBOTIC
SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS
Paxton et al.
Filed: 17 Mar 2022
Pub: 21 Sep 2023
Discusses determination of tasks for robot performance of a complex task using machine learning models.
3
US 2019/0228495 A1
LEARNING ROBOTIC TASKS USING ONE
OR MORE NEURAL NETWORKS
Tremblay et al.
Filed: 23 Jan 2019
Pub: 25 Jul 2019
Discusses determination of robotic task plans using a machine learning system.
4
US 2022/0261644 A1
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING TASK PLAN BASED ON
NEURAL NETWORK
Cho
Filed: 14 Feb 2022
Pub: 18 Aug 2022
Discusses the formation of task plans using machine learning techniques.
5
US 2020/0307561 A1
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RADAR
CROSS TRAFFIC TRACKING AND
MANEUVER RISK ESTIMATION
Bush et al.
Filed: 25 Mar 2019
Pub: 01 Oct 2020
Discusses use of a machine learning component to generate candidate paths and compare against sensed data to select a candidate path with the highest probability of being available/matching/success.
6
US 2020/0159225 A1
END - TO - END INTERPRETABLE MOTION
PLANNER FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
Zeng et al.
Filed: 15 Aug 2019
Pub: 21 May 2020
Discusses a method of path planning for autonomous vehicles (robotic devices) by generating a plurality of potential trajectories (task plans) and selecting a particular trajectory based upon a cost volume generated from sensor data (thus, comparing the potential trajectories with the sensor model of the environment).
7
US 2021/0049776 A1
DETECTOR - TRACKER ARCHITECTURE
Tan et al.
Filed: 02 Nov 2020
Pub: 18 Feb 2021
Discusses track planning for an autonomous device comprising receiving input data of a scene and passing the input data through two machine learning models to obtain candidate tracks and select a final track.
8
US 2020/0089245 A1
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HIERARCHICAL PLANNING IN
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
Yadmellat et al.
Filed: 28 Feb 2019
Pub: 19 Mar 2020
Discusses a method of path planning for an autonomous vehicle (robotic device) wherein a plurality of candidate trajectories may be generated by a machine learning based function (model).
9
CN110014428A
Sequential Logic Task Planning Method Based on Reinforcement Learning
Fang et al.
Pub: 16 Jul 2019
Discusses robotic task planning wherein an input is converted to temporal logic and a non-deterministic Buchi automaton in order to determine a task plan.
10
CN115648202A
Robot Visual Perception and Response Planning Combined Method and System Based on Sequential Logic
Kan et al.
Pub: 31 Jan 2023
Discusses robot task planning involving the steps of establish an environmental model of the robot, converting tasks to be executed into LTL (a type of temporal logic) and Buchi automaton, combining the Buchi automaton model with the environmental model to create a combined state model, and identifying feasible paths based on the model to meet the temporal logic specification.
11
NPL
Optimal path planning for surveillance
with temporal-logic constraints∗
Smith et al.
Pub: 10 Oct 2011
URL: <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/0278364911417911>
Discusses robot task planning using temporal logic constraints and buchi automaton.
12
NPL
Task and Motion Planning for Manipulators Using
Linear Temporal Logics
Liu et al.
Pub: 24-28 June 2024/ 13 Sep 2024
URL: <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10670885>
Discusses use of temporal logic and Buchi automaton for robotic task planning.
13
NPL
MT* : Multi-Robot Path Planning for Temporal
Logic Specifications
Gujarathi et al.
Pub: 23-27 Oct 2022
URL: <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9981504>
Discusses path planning for robotics using temporal logic and Buchi automaton.
The prior art references do not disclose the recited claim limitations when considered individually and as a whole. Thus, the independent claims (1 and 32) are deemed novel and non-obvious. Dependent claims 2-17 and 33-34 are also novel by dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658