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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 27-35 are pending in the application. Claims 1-26 have been cancelled. Claim 27 is withdrawn from consideration due to Applicant’s elections.
The amendments to claims 27-28 and 33, filed on 1/23/2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Claim Objections
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 33 recites the limitation “one or more of a short-chain polyol with a molecular weight less than 1000 Daltons and carbohydrate-based polyol.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 28, 30, 33 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2013/0289171 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Miller teaches a binder composition that is particularly useful as a binder composition in fiberglass insulation and in methods of making fiberglass insulation ([0123]). The fibers can be in a variety of forms including, e.g., individual fibers, nonwoven and woven fibrous webs, sheets, lofty fibrous products, filaments, strands, ropes, rolls, batts, reinforcing mats for roofing applications, mats for flooring applications, reinforcement scrims, and combinations thereof ([0125]; also [0123]). The glass fibers of the nonwoven web of the insulation are preferably maintained in fixed relation to each other through the dried composition ([0123]). The drying and curing functions can be carried out in a single step or in at least two steps (a plurality of fibers bound together by a cured aqueous binder composition, as claimed) ([0122]). The aqueous binder composition preferably cures to form a binder that is humidity resistant ([0028]).
Miller teaches that the binder composition is useful for forming composites which can be used in a variety of applications including boards ([0126]). Miller also teaches that the webs formed from fibers treated with the binder composition and webs that include the binder composition can be used in a variety of applications including substrates for printed circuit boards and duct boards ([0128]). The examiner notes that Miller’s disclosure of boards would meet the claimed “ceiling board” limitation.
Miller teaches that the aqueous composition includes a first polymer that includes carboxyl groups, and a component (e.g., an emulsion) that includes a water insoluble polymer and a stabilizer, at least one of the water insoluble polymer and the stabilizer comprising functional groups that react with the carboxyl groups of the first polymer during cure ([0005]). Examples of useful carboxy functional polymers include α,β-ethylenically unsaturated mono- and dicarboxylic acid in polymerized or copolymerized form including (among others) (polyacrylic acid) (a crosslinking agent, as claimed) ([0086]). Useful stabilizers include, e.g., protective colloids (e.g., reactive protective colloid), surfactants (e.g., reactive surfactants), and combinations thereof ([0050]). Useful classes of protective colloid stabilizers include (among others) polyvinyl alcohol (a thermally degradable polyol) ([0053]; also see [0047]). In addition, or in the alternative, the examiner notes that Miller’s emulsion includes the water insoluble polymer and the stabilizer ([0005], [0048] and [0051]). The water insoluble polymer may be polyvinyl acetate, and the stabilizer may be polyvinyl alcohol, either or both of which meet the claimed limitation “a thermally degradable polyol” ([0036] and [0053]).
The binder composition optionally includes a pH neutralizing agent (i.e., an agent that neutralizes pH) ([0109]). Useful pH neutralizing agents include bases (an acid/aldehyde scavenger material, as claimed), preferably non-volatile bases, including, e.g., amines (e.g., alkylamines including, e.g., ethylene diamine, triethyleamine, and diethylene triamine, morpholine, 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol, and alkanolamines (e.g., mono-, di- and triethanolamines including e.g., monoethanolamine), cyclic amines pyrrolidine, piperidine, piperazine and morpholine), ammonia, ammonium hydroxides (e.g., t-butylammonium hydroxide), alkali metal hydroxides sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide), metal carbonates (e.g., sodium carbonate), and combinations thereof ([0110]).
Miller does not explicitly disclose wherein the acid/aldehyde scavenger material is located on at least one of the first side and the second side of the nonwoven mat, atop the cured binder composition.
However, Miller teaches that the binder composition can be applied using a variety of application techniques including, e.g., spraying, soaking, immersing, saturating, coating, e.g., roll coating, curtain coating, brush coating, beater deposition, and combinations thereof ([0127]; also see [0122]-[0126]). Miller further teaches that, although the curable aqueous composition has been frequently referred to as a binder composition, the composition can be used for a variety of purposes and applications including, coating continuous and discontinuous coatings), layers, films, fibers, and filaments ([0176]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the cured binder composition, which comprises the bases (the acid/aldehyde scavenger material), both within the nonwoven web and as a distinct layer or film on the surface of the nonwoven web because Miller teaches that the binder composition may be applied using combinations of application techniques such as saturating and coating (e.g., roll coating or curtain coating), and that the composition may specifically be used for a variety of purposes and applications, including coating continuous or discontinuous coatings, layers or films ([0127] and [0176]).
Miller does not explicitly disclose wherein the aqueous binder composition is free of added formaldehyde.
However, the examiner notes that, in embodiments, Miller teaches examples in which no formaldehyde is added (Emulsions 1-10 and Examples 1-10, as described in paragraphs [0142]-[0152] and Table 1). Miller also teaches use of the same components, including the claimed acid/aldehyde scavenger, in the same amounts as those disclosed by applicant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have similarly not added formaldehyde in the various embodiments of the binder compositions of Miller in order to obtain the advantages of Miller’s invention (e.g., see [0022] and Table 1). In addition, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that the disclosed aqueous binder compositions would have the claimed properties (i.e., would be free of added formaldehyde), as the reference teaches the same materials and compositions as those claimed, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials.
Regarding claim 30, Miller remains as applied above to claim 28. The examiner notes that the claimed limitations also include product-by-process limitations. The product being claimed appears to be the same as or obvious over the prior art product, in which case differences in process are not considered to impart patentability. Thus, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any differences in process would result in difference, including an unobvious difference, between the claimed product and the prior art product. In addition, Miller teaches that the binder composition can be applied using a variety of application techniques including, e.g., spraying, soaking, immersing, saturating, coating, e.g., roll coating, curtain coating, brush coating, beater deposition, and combinations thereof ([0127]; also [0027] and [0122]).
Regarding claim 33, as applied above to claim 31, Miller teaches that examples of useful carboxy functional polymers include α,β-ethylenically unsaturated mono- and dicarboxylic acid in polymerized or copolymerized form including (among others) (polyacrylic acid) (a crosslinking agent comprising a homopolymer or copolymer of acrylic acid, as claimed) ([0086]). The aqueous binder composition preferably includes no greater than about 80% by weight, at least about 5% by weight, at least about 10% by weight, at least about 15% by weight, from about 20% by weight to about 70% by weight, or even from about 30% by weight to about 60% by weight carboxy functional polymer based on the weight of solids in the aqueous binder composition ([0085]).
Miller teaches that the aqueous composition includes the first polymer that includes carboxyl groups, and a component (e.g., an emulsion) that includes a water insoluble polymer and a stabilizer, at least one of the water insoluble polymer and the stabilizer comprising functional groups that react with the carboxyl groups of the first polymer during cure ([0005]). Useful classes of protective colloid stabilizers include (among others) polyvinyl alcohol (a thermally degradable polyol) ([0053]; also see [0047]). In an embodiment, the ratio of the weight of the first polymer based on solids to the weight of the solids in the emulsion is from about 10:90 to about 90:10 ([0020], [0027] and [0029]). The emulsion preferably includes no greater than about 20% by weight, at least about 1 by weight, at least about 3% by weight, at least about 5% by weight, from about 10% by weight to about 20% by weight, or even from about 20% by weight to about 30% by weight stabilizer based on the weight of solids in the emulsion ([0051]). Thus, the examiner notes that the amount of the stabilizer (the thermally degradable polyol), based on the weight of solids in the aqueous binder composition, would be within the claimed range of 3.0 to 30.0% by weight (e.g., as calculated by the examiner, no greater than about 18%, where 90 x 0.20 = 18).
In addition, or in the alternative, the examiner notes that Miller’s emulsion includes the water insoluble polymer and the stabilizer ([0005], [0048] and [0051]). The water insoluble polymer may be polyvinyl acetate, and the stabilizer may be polyvinyl alcohol, either or both of which meet the claimed limitation “a thermally degradable polyol” ([0036] and [0053]). In an embodiment, the ratio of the weight of the first polymer based on solids to the weight of the solids in the emulsion is from about 10:90 to about 90:10 ([0020], [0027] and [0029]). Therefore, the examiner notes that the polyvinyl acetate and/or the polyvinyl alcohol would be present in the aqueous binder composition in amounts that overlap with the claimed range of “from about 3.0 to 30.0% by weight solids of a thermally degradable polyol” (also see [0048] and [0051]).
The aqueous binder composition optionally includes a polyfunctional component ([0112]). Examples of a polyfunctional component capable of reacting with the carboxyl group of the solution polymer (i.e., of the carboxy functional polymer) include polyols, i.e., compounds having at least two hydroxyl groups ([0116] and [0083]). Useful polylols (one or more of a short-chain polyol with a molecular weight less than 1000 Daltons and a carbohydrate-based polyol, as claimed) include, e.g., ethylene glycol, glycerol, pentaerythritol, trimethylol propane, sorbitol, sucrose, glucose, resorcinol, catechol, pyrogallol, glycollated ureas, 1,4-cyclohexane dial, alkanolamines (e.g., diethanolamine, triethanolamine, dipropanolamine, and di-isopropanolamine), reactive polyols including, e.g., 13-hydroxyalkylamides bis-[N,N-di(.beta.-hydroxyethyl)]adipamide), and combinations thereof ([0116]).
The pH neutralizing agent neutralizes or at least partially neutralizes the carboxy functional polymer, the reaction mixture used to form the carboxy functional polymer, the binder composition, the optional polyacid monomer (when present) or a combination thereof, to a pH of no greater than 7, no greater than about 6, no greater than about 5, at least 2, at least 2.5, from about 2 to about 6, from about 3 to about 5, or even about 4 ([0109]).
Regarding claim 35, with regard to the claimed Δb* shift property, the examiner notes that the composition of Miller discussed above is the same as or is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant. For instance, applicant has provided at paragraphs [0009]-[0014], [0020], [0043], [0052] and [0075] of applicant’s specification specific structural examples which provide the structure and properties claimed. Thus, it is the position of the Office that the composition of Miller would have the claimed properties as the same compound necessarily has the same properties. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that the claimed properties would be so provided, as the reference(s) teaches the same or substantially similar materials as the claimed structure, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials. Thus, absent an objective showing to the contrary, the examiner expects the ceiling board taught by Miller to have the claimed properties.
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Miller (US 2013/0289171 A1), as applied to claim 28 above, in view of Rinne et al. (US 2016/0319537 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Miller remains as applied above.
Miller does not explicitly disclose wherein the ceiling board further comprises a facing material adhered to at least one of the first side and the second side of the nonwoven mat, and the acid/aldehyde scavenger material is disposed between the nonwoven mat and the facing material.
However, Rinne teaches an insulation member 130 that includes an insulation body 202 and an insulation facing 204 ([0029]). A wide variety of different adhesives can be used to adhere the facing 204 to the insulation body 202 ([0032]). For example, the adhesive can be a water base adhesive, a one part adhesive, a two part adhesive, a powder adhesive, a hot melt adhesive, thin film adhesives, a binder, such as a formaldehyde free binder and a spunbond hot melt adhesive web ([0032]). The adhesive may be applied to the insulation body 202 and/or the facing 204, for example by spraying, rolling, brushing, etc. ([0032]). When a binder is used, the binder may be a binder that is part of the insulation body 202 and/or the facing 204 and curing of the binder adheres the insulation body 202 to the facing 204 ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have adhered a facing to a side of the fiberglass insulation (i.e., to a side of the nonwoven mat) of Miller by using the binder that is applied to the nonwoven mat in order to obtain a ceiling board in which a facing serves as a vapor retarder, a radiant heat barrier, a functional barrier and/or a support that can facilitate proper installation between framing members in the ceiling, as suggested by Rinne ([0031]; also see [0025] and [0029]).
Claims 31-32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Miller (US 2013/0289171 A1), as applied to claim 28 above, in view of O'Brien-Bernini et al. (US 2004/0122166 A1).
Regarding claims 31-32, Miller remains as applied above.
Miller does not explicitly disclose wherein the acid/aldehyde scavenger material is present in an amount up to 5% by weight total solids, based on the total weight of the ceiling board.
However, O'Brien-Bernini teaches binders that may optionally contain conventional additives such as coupling agents, dyes, oils, fillers, thermal stabilizers, flame retarding agents, lubricants, pH adjusters and the like, typically in amounts not exceeding 20% of the weight of the binder composition ([0040]). In particular, pH adjusters such as ammonium hydroxide may be used to raise the pH ([0040]). The preferred pH for application of the binder is from about 2.5 to about 5 with about 3 to about 4 being the most preferred ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the pH adjusters (an acid/aldehyde scavenger material as claimed) in the binder composition of Miller in amounts not exceeding 20% of the weight of the binder composition because this is a typical amount for such conventional additives, and/or in order to achieve a pH for the binder of from about 2.5 to about 5, as suggested by O'Brien-Bernini ([0040] and Abstract).
Therefore, the examiner notes that Miller in view of O'Brien-Bernini teaches an amount of acid/aldehyde scavenger not exceeding 20% of the weight of the binder composition. Miller further teaches that the fiberglass insulation includes dried binder composition in an amount of from about 1% by weight to about 20% by weight dried based on the weight of the glass fibers, or even from about 3% by weight to about 10% by weight based on the weight of the glass fibers ([0123]). O'Brien-Bernini teaches that fiberglass insulation products can be provided in various forms including batt, board (a heated and compressed batt) and molding media (an alternative form of heated and compressed batt) for use in different applications ([0008]). Therefore, as calculated by the examiner, the amount of acid/aldehyde scavenger in the ceiling board would not exceed 4% by weight of the ceiling board (i.e., 20 x 0.20 = 4%), which overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 34, O'Brien-Bernini teaches that fiberglass board typically has a density of between 1 and 10 lbs/ft3 (16 and 160 kg/m3) with about 7-12 wt% binder ([0008]).
Claim(s) 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Miller (US 2013/0289171 A1), as applied to claim 28 above, in view of Srinivasan (US 2005/0059770 A1).
Regarding claims 33-34, Miller remains as applied above.
Miller does not explicitly disclose wherein the ceiling board has a density between about 1.5 and about 10 pcf.
Srinivasan teaches a new formaldehyde-free binder composition ([0001] and [0031]). Glass insulations having a density less than one pound per cubic foot may be formed with binders present in the lower range of concentrations while molded or compressed products having a density as high as 30-40 pounds per cubic foot can be fabricated of systems embodying the binder composition in the higher proportion of the described range ([0065]). Glass fiber products may be used for applications such as, for example, insulation batts or rolls, as reinforcing mat for roofing or flooring applications, or as roving (among others) ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the ceiling board of Miller with a product density of less than one pound per cubic foot or as high as 30-40 pounds per cubic in order to obtain molded or compressed glass insulation products, as suggested by Srinivasan ([0003], [0065] and [0067]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the following: “Miller does not teach a separate, surface-applied acid/aldehyde scavenger material located on at least one side of the cured product. A surface-applied scavenger functions differently from the scavenger incorporated in a binder matrix as it is more available to react with off-gassing aldehydes and acids at the interface with facers/paints to mitigate yellowing. In contrast, the neutralizing agents of Miller participate in neutralization and cure and are dispersed within the cured matrix, limiting its availability at the surface. Miller's neutralizing agents are expressly disclosed as bases used to react with and neutralize the carboxy-functional polymer or binder mixture to a target pH (Id, paragraphs [0109] [0110]), and are likely fully consumed by the reaction before or during curing. The neutralizing agents become chemically bound within the cured binder matrix, limiting their availability and reactivity at the surface. Miller is silent about solving yellowing/discoloration issues of the fiberglass insulation product.”
Regarding these contentions, Miller teaches that the binder composition can be applied using combinations of application techniques including saturating and coating (e.g., roll coating, curtain coating, etc.) ([0127]). Miller further teaches that the composition can be used for a variety of purposes and applications, including coating continuous and discontinuous coatings, layers, films, fibers, and filaments ([0176]). Therefore, as applied above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably, based on these teachings, have provided the cured binder composition (which comprises the bases, i.e., the claimed acid/aldehyde scavenger material) both within the nonwoven web and as a distinct layer or film on the surface of the nonwoven web because combinations of the disclosed methods would reasonably provide such a structure and because Miller specifically teaches that the compositions may be used for a variety of purposes and applications, including coating continuous or discontinuous coatings, layers or films ([0127] and [0176]). The examiner also notes that, as claimed in claim 28, the form of the acid/aldehyde scavenger material is not limited. Therefore, incorporation of the bases disclosed by Miller in a binder composition that is provided as a layer or film on a cured binder-saturated nonwoven web would meet the claim 28 limitation “an acid/aldehyde scavenger material located on at least one of the first side and the second side of the nonwoven fiber mat, atop the cured binder composition.”
Miller also teaches that the pH neutralizing agent neutralizes or at least partially neutralizes the carboxy functional polymer, the reaction mixture used to form the carboxy functional polymer, the binder composition, the optional polyacid monomer (when present) or a combination thereof to a pH of no greater than 7 ([0109]). The examiner notes that, in embodiments, applicant similarly discloses that pH control of a NAF binder composition occurs by the addition of an acid and/or aldehyde scavenger to the uncured binder composition ([0052]). Applicant further discloses that the pH control increases the pH (within the natural uncured pH of about 2 to 5) about 0.5-2.5 pH units ([0058]). Applicant also discloses, in Example 4, adding NaOH to binder compositions to increase the pH by varying amounts, wherein the binder compositions are impregnated in nonwoven filter sheets as yellowing mitigation solutions that lower the ∆b* shift to at least about 0.2 ([0086] and FIG. 5). Applicant also claims and discloses binder compositions comprising same the components taught by Miller, including polyacrylic acid and polyvinyl alcohol or polyvinyl acetate, in the same amounts. Therefore, it unclear why the compositions and structure taught by Miller would not provide a ∆b* shift of less than 1 as recited in claim 35.
Applicant contends the following: “The Examiner's assertion that coating a binder containing a pH neutralizing agent also forms a layer of acid/aldehyde scavenger material on top of a cured nonwoven mat is not supported by Miller. Miller's binder application techniques (spraying, soaking, saturating, roll coating, curtain coating) are expressly described for the binder composition itself (Id, paragraph [0127]), which is then cured (Id, paragraph [0122]). This yields a cured matrix that binds the fibers (Id, paragraph [0123]). A pH neutralizing agent used within the uncured binder to adjust pH does not form a separate, post-cure surface layer. The Examiner's theory conflates a component of the binder matrix (neutralizing agent) with a separate surface treatment required by claim 28.”
Regarding this contention, as applied and discussed above, incorporation of the bases disclosed by Miller in a binder composition that is provided as a layer or film on a cured binder-saturated nonwoven web would meet the claim 28 limitation “an acid/aldehyde scavenger material located on at least one of the first side and the second side of the nonwoven fiber mat, atop the cured binder composition.” The examiner also notes that independent claim 28 does not limit the form of the acid/aldehyde scavenger material, and claim 30 recites that the acid/aldehyde scavenger material may be applied on the nonwoven fiber mat by an application by curtain or spray coating of solutions or dispersions, which are the same types of application techniques disclosed by Miller.
Applicant contends the following: ‘Regardless of curing extent, claim 28 requires that the fibers are "bound together by a cured binder composition" (i.e., the binder's function and presence are within the fibrous mat to bind the fibers), and separately requires the acid/aldehyde scavenger material to be located on at least one surface of the nonwoven fiber mat. These two features-cured binder within the mat and surface-applied scavenger-together distinguish over Miller's single-step pre-cure incorporation path. Without acquiescing to the merits of the rejections and solely to advance examination of the present application, Applicant has amended independent claim 28 by changing the "at least partially curing" to "cured." ’
Regarding these contentions, as applied and discussed above, Miller teaches that the binder composition can be used for a variety of purposes and applications, including coating continuous and discontinuous coatings, layers, films, fibers, and filaments ([0176]). Therefore, when applying the binder composition to the nonwoven web using combinations of application techniques such as saturating and coating, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have provided the coatings of Miller as distinct layers specifically for the purpose of obtaining layers or films as taught by Miller. Providing the coated binder composition as a distinct layer or film on a binder-saturated nonwoven web, with the binder compositions cured, would meet the claim 28 limitation “an acid/aldehyde scavenger material located on at least one of the first side and the second side of the nonwoven fiber mat, atop the cured binder composition.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789