www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/224,910
`
`04/07/2021
`
`Yuta MIURA
`
`083710-3283
`
`7526
`
`McDermott Will and Emery LLP
`The McDermott Building
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`WOOD, BLAKE ANDREW
`
`3664
`
`04/28/2023
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`mweipdocket@mwe.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-8 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`Cj} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected.
`1) Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)1) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1... Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1) Certified copies of the priority documents have beenreceived in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20230424
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`47/224,910
`MIURAet al.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`BLAKE A WOOD
`3664
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 01 March 2023.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is beingexamined under the first inventortofile
`
`provisions of the AIA.
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1, 2,4,5,7,and 8 have been amended. Claims 1-8 are pendingin the present application. The
`
`previous objections of claims 1, 2, and 5, and the previous 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of claims 1-8 have been
`
`withdrawnas aresult of amendment.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`3.
`
`Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new
`
`ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejectionof record for anyteaching or
`
`matter specifically challenged in the argument.
`
`4.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`(f} Ele ment in Claim for a Combination. —An elementin a claim for a combination may be expressed as
`a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts
`in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material,
`oracts describedinthe specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`An elementin aclaimfor a combination maybe expressed as a means or step for performing a
`specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and suchclaim
`shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described inthe
`specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`5.
`
`The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable inter pretation using the plain meaning
`
`of the claim languagein light of the specification as it would be understood by one ofordinary skillintheart. The
`
`broadest rea sonableinterpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited
`
`by the description inthe specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,is invoked.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page3
`
`As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection|, claim limitations that meet the following three-prongtest will
`
`be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`(A)
`
`the claim limitation uses the term “means”or “step” or a term usedas a substitute for “means” thatisa
`
`generic placeholder (alsocalled a nonce term or a non-structural term havingno specific structural
`
`meaning) for performing the claimed function;
`
`(B)
`
`the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholderis modified by functional language, typically, but
`
`not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking wordor phrase, such
`
`as “configured to” or “so that”; and
`
`(C)
`
`the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholderis not modified by sufficient structure, material, or
`
`acts for performing the claimed function.
`
`Use of the word “means”(or “step”) ina claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption
`
`that the claim limitationis to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlIA35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA35 U.S.C.
`
`112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely
`
`perform the recited function.
`
`Absence of the word “means”(or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim
`
`limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The
`
`presumptionthat the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitationrecites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or
`
`acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Claim limitations inthis application that use the word “means”(or “step”) are being interpreted under 35
`
`U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`Conversely, claim limitations in this a pplication that do not use the word “means”(or “step”) are not being
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated inan
`
`Office action.
`
`6.
`
`This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” butare
`
`nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because theclaim
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page4
`
`limitation(s)uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient
`
`structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
`
`Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
`
`“Map acquisition unit” in claim 1, whichis being interpreted as a computer;
`
`“Positional relationshipacquisition unit’, which is beinginter preted as a computer; and
`
`“Cleaning plan construction unit’, which is being interpreted as a computer, in claim 1, along with:
`
`“Map construction unit’, which is being interpreted as a computer, in claim 2.
`
`Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA35 U.S.C.
`
`112, sixth paragraph, it/theyis/are being interpreted to cover the correspondingstructure described in the
`
`specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
`
`If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s)to avoid it/them being interpreted
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA35U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph(e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the
`
`claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to
`
`perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`112, sixth paragraph.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`7.
`
`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 fora claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed inventionis
`notidentically disclosed as set forth ins ection 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 ofthe claimed invention to a person having ordinarys killin the art to which the
`claimed invention pertains. Pa tentability s hall not be negated by the mannerin which the invention
`was made.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 1, 2,3, 7 and 8 arerejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosskopf (US
`
`20180263449 A1), hereafter Rosskopf, in view of Williams (US 20160297072 A1), hereafter Williams.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page5
`
`Regarding claim 1, Rosskopf teaches a vacuum cleaner system comprising:
`
`A vacuum cleaner that autonomouslytravels ina cleaning area to clean the cleaning area, the cleaning
`
`area beingpredetermined (0073, floor cleaningapparatus is a cleaning robot, 0046, cleaningapparatusvisits dirty
`
`spots ina targeted manner);
`
`A plurality of first markers to be placed inthe cleaning area (0029, one or more beacons placed inthe
`
`environment); and
`
`A map acquisition unit that acquires a mapof thecleaning area (0031, storage memberin whicha map of
`
`the floor surface is stored), wherein:
`
`The vacuum cleaner includes a positional relationship acquisition unit that acquiresa first positional
`
`relationship indicating a positional relationship between the vacuum cleaner and the plurality of first markers in
`
`the cleaning area, anda marker information acquisition unit that acquires first marker information carried by the
`
`plurality of first markers (0032, cleaning device located via the localization member based onthe position of at
`
`least one position landmark, 0080, localization member receives radio signals, which are different from one
`
`another); and
`
`The vacuum system further comprises a cleaning plan construction unit that constructs a cleaning plan
`
`based on the first marker information, the first positional relationship, and a self-position corresponding to
`
`information on a position of the vacuum cleaner in the map (0099,floor cleaning apparatus approaches the user
`
`location, detects the dirt and determinesitis in the requested | ocation, 0098, localization of the floor cleaning
`
`apparatus realized ina relative reference system of the position landmarks).
`
`Rosskopf fails to teach, however, wherein the cleaning plan includes different cleaning modes for
`
`different areas inthe map of thecleaningarea.
`
`Williams, however, does teach wherein the cleaning planincludesdifferent cleaning modesfor different
`
`areasin the map of the cleaning area (0125, environment divided into regions, first region cleanedin one cleaning
`
`operation, second region cleaned ina subsequent cleaning operation, oneregion cleaned ina deeper cleaning
`
`mode).
`
`Rosskopf and Williams are analogous because they arein the same field of endeavor, cleaning robots. It
`
`would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page6
`
`invention to have included the different cleaning paths of Williams inorder to provide a means of cleaning
`
`different areas ins pecific ways. The motivation to combine is to tailor the cleaningmethod to each individual
`
`section of the cleaning area.
`
`Regarding claim 2, the combination of Rosskopf and Williams teaches the vacuum cleaner system
`
`accordingto claim 1, and Rosskopf tea chesit further comprising:
`
`A second markerto be placed inthecl eaning area (Fig. 1, two beacons 18|locatedin area).
`
`Williams teachesit further comprising:
`
`A map construction unit that constructs the map based on a second positional relationship between the
`
`vacuum cleaner andthe second marker acquired by the positionalrelationship acquisition unit (0010, operations
`
`include generating a map,identifying the markets on the map based on the markers),
`
`Wherein the map acquisition unit acquires, without interruption, the map under construction by the map
`
`construction unit (0010, operations include generating a map, identifying the markets on the map based on the
`
`markers), and
`
`The cleaning plan construction unit constructs, without interruption, the cleaning plan based on the map
`
`underconstruction acquired by the map acquisition unit (0045, sensors on the robot generatesignals indicative of
`
`structural elements in the environment, enabling the robot to determine behavior used to navigate about the
`
`environment).
`
`Rosskopf, and Williams are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotic controls. It
`
`would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present
`
`invention to haveincluded the simultaneous map andcleaningplanconstruction of Williams in order to providea
`
`means of creating a cleaning plan for the detected environment. The motivation to combine is to allow the robot
`
`to plan acleaningpath tailored for the detected environment.
`
`Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rosskopf and Williams tea ches the vacuum cleaner system
`
`accordingto claim 1, and Rosskopf tea ches it further comprising a ter minal device including the cleaning plan
`
`construction unit (0067, operating unit of the accessory device used to trigger a cleaning order).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page7
`
`Regarding claim 7, the combination of Rosskopf and Williams teaches the vacuum cleaner system
`
`accordingto claim 1, and Williams further tea ches wherein the plurality offirst markers includes a first regulation
`
`line marker that carries, as the first marker information, first regulation line information showinga first end of a
`
`cross-border regulationline and a second regulation line marker that carries, as the first marker information,
`
`second regulation line information showing a second end of the cross-border regulation line (0097, upon
`
`determining that the robot has detected markers 610a and 610b, the robot can designateavirtual barrier based
`
`on the positions of the markers).
`
`Rosskopf and Williams are analogous because they are in thesame field of endeavor, robotic controls. It
`
`would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present
`
`invention to have included the virtualbarriers of Williams in order to provide a means of designating an operating
`
`environment for the robot. The motivation to combine is to allow the robot to be prevented from entering anarea
`
`without requiring a physical barrier.
`
`Regarding claim 8, the combination of Rosskopf and Williams tea ches the vacuum cleaner system
`
`accordingto claim 1, and Rosskopf further teaches the vacuum cleaner comprising:
`
`A positional relationship detector that detects a first positional relationship between the vacuum cleaner
`
`anda first markerincluded in the vacuum cleaner system in the cleaning area (0032, cleaning device located via
`
`the localization member based on the position of at east one position landmark);
`
`An information detector that detects first marker information carried by the first marker (0080,
`
`localization memberreceives radio signals, which are different from one another); and
`
`A marker information acquisition unit that acquires the first marker information detected by the
`
`information detector (0080, localization memberreceives radio signals from beacons).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page8
`
`9.
`
`Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosskopfin view of Williams as applied
`
`to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akamatsu (US20190155275 A1), hereafter Akamatsu.
`
`Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rosskopf and Williams tea ches the vacuum cleaner system
`
`accordingto claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the plurality of first markers includes a start marker that carries, as
`
`the first marker information, start informationshowinga cleaning start position and a goal marker that carries, as
`
`the first marker information, goal information showing a cleaning end position.
`
`Akamatsu, however, does teach wherein the plurality of first markers includes a start marker that carries,
`
`as the first marker information, start information showing a cleaning start position anda goal marker that carries,
`
`as the first marker information, goal information showing a cleaning end position (0012,first marker comprises, as
`
`attribute information, information of a coordinate position of the first marker and informations pecifying the
`
`second marker to be passed next, Examiner’s note, the position of the first markeris being interpreted as aninitial
`
`position, and the information regarding the second markeris being interpreted as the end location of the travel
`
`segment).
`
`Rosskopf, Williams, and Akamatsu are analogous because they areinthe same field of endeavor, robotic
`
`controls. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skillin the art at the effectivefiling date of the
`
`presentinvention to haveincluded the start and end position of Akamatsu in order to provide a means of
`
`determining the required cleaning path. The motivation to combineis to bound thecleaning pathat both endsin
`
`order to better determinean effective cleaning path.
`
`10.
`
`Claims 5 and6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosskopf in view of Williams
`
`as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raman (US 20180093289 A1), hereafter Raman.
`
`Regarding claim 5, the combination of Rosskopf and Williams tea ches the vacuum cleaner system
`
`accordingto claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the plurality of first markers includes a first corner marker that
`
`carries, as the first marker information,first corner information showing a corner of a rectangular area usedin the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page9
`
`cleaning plan and second corner marker that carries, as the first marker information, second corner information
`
`showing a corner diagonally opposite to the first corner marker inthe rectangular area.
`
`Raman, however, does teach wherein the first marker includes a first corner marker that carries, as the
`
`first marker information, first corner informationshowing a corner of a rectangular area used in thecleaning plan
`
`and second corner marker that carries, as the first marker information, second corner information showing a
`
`corner diagonally opposite to the first corner markerin the rectangular area (Fig. 5,0065, local position navigation
`
`system comprises a series of beacons placed in four corners of a rectangular room, Examiner’s note, if beacons are
`
`placedin allfourcorners of a rectangular room, the beacons must be diagonalfrom one another).
`
`Rosskopf, Williams, and Ramanare analogous because they areinthe same field of endeavor, robotic
`
`control. lt would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskillinthe art at the effectivefiling date of the
`
`presentinvention to haveincluded the corner beacons of Ramanin order to provide a meansof designating a
`
`working area. The motivation to combineis to provide a meansof delineating the corners of a navigation s pace.
`
`Regarding claim 6, the combination of Rosskopf, Williams, and Ramanteaches the vacuum cleaner system
`
`accordingto claim 5, and Williams further teaches wherein atleast ei ther of the first corner marker or the second
`
`corner marker carries, as the first marker information, cleaning information showing a cleaning mode in the
`
`rectangular area defined by the first corner marker and the second corner marker(Fig. 5A, robot navigates from
`
`corner to corner, 0010, markers include data indicating the area of operation, 0059, robot navigates along the
`
`surfaceinthe first room).
`
`Rosskopf, Williams, and Raman are analogous because they areinthesame field of endeavor, robotic
`
`navigation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skillin the art at the effectivefiling date of the
`
`presentinvention to have included the cleaning information of Williams in order to providea cleaning path for the
`
`mobile robot. The motivationto combineis to allow the mobile robot to determinea cleaning path fora given
`
`bounded environment.
`
`11.
`
`The priorart made of record and not relied upon is consider ed pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
`
`Conclusion
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 10
`
`Romanov (US 20110202175 A1) teaches a robotic cleaning system with areas bounded by markers in the
`
`environment, wherein the robotic cleaning system can operate along different paths based on the area of the
`
`environment the robotis presently cleaning.
`
`12.
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented inthis Office action.
`
`Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADEFINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time
`
`policy asset forth in37 CFR 1.13 6(a).
`
`A shortenedstatutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing
`
`date of this action. Inthe eventa first reply is filed within TWO MONTHSof the mailing date of this final action and
`
`the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTHshortened statutory period, then the
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisoryaction is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to
`
`37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailingdate of the advisory action. Inno event, however,will the
`
`statutory period forreply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the dateofthis final action.
`
`13.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner shouldbe
`
`directed to BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone numberis (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-
`
`F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
`
`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 (AI R) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Burke
`
`can bereachedon 469-295-9067. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding
`
`is assignedis 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications maybe obtained from Patent
`
`Center. Unpublisheda pplication information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To fileand manage
`
`patent submissions in Patent Center,visit: https ://patentcenter.uspto.gov.Visit
`
`https ://www.us pto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and
`
`https ://www.us pto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page11
`
`contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197(toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO
`
`CustomerService Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
`
`/B.A.W./
`Examiner, Art Unit 3664
`
`/JEFF ABURKE/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
`
`