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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of the Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed by the Applicant listed below:
July 22, 2025
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites:
“.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description support for the recited limitation because the Specification fails to disclose sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. In particular, the Specification does not disclose any meaningful algorithm, mathematical formula, sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
To satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). In addition, the specification must “demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes the following:
In S150, an indirect expression of intention to perform the yielding behavior Ag by a target occupant, who is an occupant of the target vehicle 30 whose deceleration has been sensed, may be monitored based on recognition data including sensing recognition information. The intention of the yielding behavior Ag is expressed by at least one of the following actions related to the target occupant: facial expression, head movement, and hand gestures.
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶
There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. Instead, the claimed limitation is set forth as result oriented black box to which input(s) are provided and output(s) result as follows:
Inputs: monitoring of the yielding behavior of the target vehicle by monitoring an indication made by an occupant of the target vehicle for which the deceleration is sensed
Outputs: .
As noted in the MPEP § 2161.01 I, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved”. In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the Specification with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. The specification does not describe the steps / procedure involved in performing the claimed limitation and achieving the result thereof which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure / algorithm, mathematical formula, complete sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the claimed function is performed or how the claimed result is achieved raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The term "" is a relative term in that it is a subjective term. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV). The term “” is not defined by the claim and the Specification does not clearly indicate, define or explain what the term “” encompasses. Furthermore, the Specification does not provide a standard for determining what is considered "". This renders the claim vague and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant may overcome a rejection by amending the claim to remove the subjective term, or by providing evidence that the meaning of the term can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "wherein the at least one processor is configured to notify a start of the entry behavior of the host vehicle in a manner recognizable by an occupant of the host vehicle during controlling of the entry behavior of the host vehicle".
However, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the phrase. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of this limitation, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
As set forth in the claim language, the relationship of is unclear.
Specifically, it is unclear how the entry behavior itself is notified.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what this limitation is intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
Regarding Claim ,
The term "" is a relative term in that it is a subjective term. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV). The term “” is not defined by the claim and the Specification does not clearly indicate, define or explain what the term “” encompasses. Furthermore, the Specification does not provide a standard for determining what is considered "". This renders the claim vague and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant may overcome a rejection by amending the claim to remove the subjective term, or by providing evidence that the meaning of the term can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure.
Regarding Claim ,
The term "" is a relative term in that it is a subjective term. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV). The term “” is not defined by the claim and the Specification does not clearly indicate, define or explain what the term “” encompasses. Furthermore, the Specification does not provide a standard for determining what is considered "". This renders the claim vague and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant may overcome a rejection by amending the claim to remove the subjective term, or by providing evidence that the meaning of the term can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure.
Regarding Claim ,
The term "" is a relative term in that it is a subjective term. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV). The term “” is not defined by the claim and the Specification does not clearly indicate, define or explain what the term “” encompasses. Furthermore, the Specification does not provide a standard for determining what is considered "". This renders the claim vague and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant may overcome a rejection by amending the claim to remove the subjective term, or by providing evidence that the meaning of the term can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure.
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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being by (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
A driving assistance system that assists a driving of a host vehicle, the driving assistance system comprising:
at least one processor (140) with a memory (150) storing computer program code, See at least ¶¶0049, 0057;
wherein the at least one processor with the memory is configured to cause the driving assistance system to:
schedule a lane change of the host vehicle; See at least ¶¶0047, 0058-0062 “”
sense a deceleration of a target vehicle traveling on a rear side of the host vehicle in a target lane, the target lane being a driving lane toward which the host vehicle plans to make the lane change; See at least ¶¶0017, 0096-0097
monitor a yielding behavior of the target vehicle when a deceleration of the target vehicle is sensed, the yielding behavior being a behavior in which the target vehicle yields an entry space of the target lane as a lane change destination to the host vehicle; See at least ¶¶0058-0062; and
control an entry behavior of the host vehicle, the entry behavior being a behavior in which the host vehicle moves to the entry space located on a front side of the target vehicle by which the yielding behavior is made. See at least ¶¶0009, 0019 , 0059, 0129 “”; “”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to monitor the yielding behavior of the target vehicle by monitoring a notification of the yielding behavior from the target vehicle for which the deceleration is sensed. See at least ¶¶0058-0060, 0096-0097; “”; “”
Regarding Claim , (as best understood by the examiner)
disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to notify a start of the entry behavior of the host vehicle in a manner recognizable by an occupant of the host vehicle during controlling of the entry behavior of the host vehicle. See at least ¶¶0058-0060, 0096-0097; “”; “”
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
A driving assistance method executed by at least one processor (140) to assist a driving of a host vehicle, the driving assistance method comprising:
scheduling a lane change of the host vehicle; See at least ¶¶0047, 0058-0062 “”
sensing a deceleration of a target vehicle traveling on a rear side of the host vehicle in a target lane, the target lane being a driving lane toward which the host vehicle plans to make the lane change; See at least ¶¶0017, 0096-0097;
monitoring a yielding behavior of the target vehicle when a deceleration of the target vehicle is sensed, the yielding behavior being a behavior in which the target vehicle yields an entry space of the target lane as a lane change destination to the host vehicle; See at least ¶¶0058-0062; and
controlling an entry behavior of the host vehicle, the entry behavior being a behavior in which the host vehicle moves to the entry space located on a front side of the target vehicle by which the yielding behavior is made. See at least ¶¶0009, 0019 , 0059, 0129 “”; “”
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a driving assistance program for assisting a driving of a host vehicle,
the driving assistance program comprising instructions for causing at least one processor (140) to:
schedule a lane change of the host vehicle; See at least ¶¶0047, 0058-0062 “”
sense a deceleration of a target vehicle traveling on a rear side of the host vehicle in a target lane, the target lane being a driving lane toward which the host vehicle plans to make the lane change; See at least ¶¶0047, 0058-0062 “”
monitor a yielding behavior of the target vehicle when a deceleration of the target vehicle is sensed, the yielding behavior being a behavior in which the target vehicle yields an entry space of the target lane as a lane change destination to the host vehicle; See at least ¶¶0047, 0058-0062 “”; and
control an entry behavior of the host vehicle, the entry behavior being a behavior in which the host vehicle moves to the entry space located on a front side of the target vehicle by which the yielding behavior is made. See at least ¶¶0009, 0019 , 0059, 0129 “”; “”
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 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to monitor the yielding behavior of the target vehicle by monitoring whether the target vehicle, for which the deceleration is sensed, travels at a speed lower than a speed limit of the target lane
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to determine whether to continue or cancel lane change assist control. See at least ¶¶0096-0101.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to determine whether to continue or cancel lane change assist control. See at least ¶¶0096-0101; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to control a blinking rate of a direction indicator attached to a mirror of the host vehicle, in which the target vehicle is displayed, to a rate slower than a preset normal rate during controlling of the entry behavior of the host vehicle.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of controlling a blinking rate of a direction indicator attached to a mirror of the host vehicle, in which the target vehicle is displayed, to a rate slower than a preset normal rate during controlling of the entry behavior of the host vehicle in order to notify pedestrians or vehicles that the vehicle may change lanes. See at least ¶¶0041, 0060-0061 “”; “”; (Fig 12).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in in order to notify pedestrians or vehicles that the vehicle may change lanes. See at least ¶¶0041, 0060-0061; (Fig 12); MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
fail to explicitly disclose:
a rate slower than a preset normal rate during controlling of the entry behavior of the host vehicle.
It has been held that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. (See at least MPEP § 2144(I)).
In Applicant’s specification, Applicant does not note that utilizing a blinking rate slower than a preset normal rate during controlling entry behavior of a host vehicle on a vehicle mirror in which the target vehicle is displayed is critical or even has any particular advantage or purpose over the other determination methods.
For example, the Instant PgPub states:
“As shown in FIG. 7 , the blinking of the direction indicator 21 on the target lane 900 t side attached to the side mirror 20 that reflects the target vehicle 30 outside the host vehicle 2 may be controlled by a light-emitting actuator as the actuator system 4, thereby notifying the continuation state of the entry behavior Ae. The flashing speed of the direction indicator 21 for notifying such a continuation state may be controlled to be slower than the normal speed when turning right or left in the host vehicle 2.. (See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶)
The Examiner notes that it is well known in the art to determine the natural frequency of a steering system taking account subcomponents thereof (see e.g. : ¶¶: “The turn signal light can be fixed in color/illumination intensity/repetition frequency (flashing) or vary in color/illumination intensity/repetition frequency (flashing), such as based on various factors, as known to skilled artisans. For example, the turn signal light can preferably blink on and off at a rate of from about 60 blinks per minute to about 120 blinks per minute.”)
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a blinking rate slower than a preset normal rate during controlling entry behavior of a host vehicle on a vehicle mirror in which the target vehicle is displayed in an because applicant does not note that a blinking rate slower than a preset normal rate during controlling of the entry behavior of the host vehicle is critical, solves any stated problem or even has any particular advantage or purpose over utilizing a normal blinking rate. Furthermore, weighing towards obviousness, as evidenced , it is known in the art to vary turn signal repetition (see e.g. Goering et al. ¶¶0041)
Claim are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shin as applied above in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim , (as best understood by the examiner)
fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to display a relative positional relationship of the target vehicle relative to an inter-vehicle distance required behind the entry space in a manner recognizable by an occupant of the host vehicle.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to increase driver safety. See at least ¶¶0061-0066; “FIG. 9B shows a state where … distance to a vehicle in front and the distance to a vehicle in back are displayed … information read from the … distance measuring sensor … is displayed on each of the display devices provided in the … back mirror when necessary”.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to increase driver safety. See at least ¶¶0061-0066; “FIG. 9B shows a state where … distance to a vehicle in front and the distance to a vehicle in back are displayed … information read from the … distance measuring sensor … is displayed on each of the display devices provided in the … back mirror when necessary”; (Fig 9B); MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to display, on a mirror disposed in the host vehicle, the relative positional relationship by displaying an inter-vehicle distance image indicating the inter-vehicle distance in a manner recognizable by the occupant of the host vehicle, and the mirror displays the target vehicle in addition to the inter-vehicle distance required behind the entry space. See at least : ¶¶0061-0066, 0124-0133; “FIG. 9B shows a state where … distance to a vehicle in front and the distance to a vehicle in back are displayed … information read from the … distance measuring sensor … is displayed on each of the display devices provided in the … back mirror when necessary”; (Figs 9B, 16A-D, 17A-B); MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shin as applied above over and as applied above, and further in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim , (as best understood by the examiner)
disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to display the relative positional relationship with an inter-vehicle distance image indicating the inter-vehicle distance required behind the entry space, in a manner recognizable by the occupant of the host vehicle. See at least ¶¶; See at least : ¶¶0061-0066; “FIG. 9B shows a state where … distance to a vehicle in front and the distance to a vehicle in back are displayed … information read from the … distance measuring sensor … is displayed on each of the display devices provided in the … back mirror when necessary”.
fail to explicitly disclose:
displaying a host vehicle image simulating the host vehicle and a target vehicle image simulating the target vehicle, together with an inter-vehicle distance image
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to improve user experience. See at least ¶¶0082-0085.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to improve user experience. See at least ¶¶0082-0085 ; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Terminology
The Examiner notes that the following terms are utilized in Applicant’s specification as follows:
:
See Instant PgPub: ¶¶0016
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or 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, Logan Kraft, can be reached on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
