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 .
Applicants' arguments, filed 04/21/2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “wherein the fatty acid ester is or…” and should read “wherein the fatty acid ester is…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 2nd ¶
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 14-25 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.
Claims 14, 15, 23, and 24 recite a low foam crop protectant composition comprising the composition of claim 1 comprising: one or more silicone-based defoamers 1), one or more fatty acid esters 2), etc., and it is unclear if the one or more silicone-based defoamers and fatty acid ester are the silicone based defoamers and fatty acid esters of newly amended claim 1, or different a silicone based defoamer and fatty acid ester. For purposes of examination, the silicone based defoamers are interpreted as the silicone based defoamers of claim 1, wherein the silicone based defoamer is a linear polydimethylsiloxane and the fatty acid esters are interpreted as the fatty acid esters of claim 1, wherein the fatty acid ester is 3,5,5-trimethylhexyl-3,5,5-trimethylhexanoate 3,5,5-trimethylhexyl-7-methyloctanoate, 2-ethylhexylpalmitate, 2,3,4-tris (2-ethylhexanoyloxy)butyl-2- ethylhexanoate, neopentyl glycol diethylhexanoate, or 1,3-bis[(2-ethylhexanoyl)oxy]propan-2-yl-2- ethylhexanoate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bramati et al (US 20050164884 A1) in view of PubChem (“3,5,5-Trimethylhexyl 3,5,5-trimethylhexanoate”, 2005, hereinafter referred to as PubChem 1), as evidenced by Frisch et al (US 20050266999 A1).
Bramati et al disclose a defoaming composition for a plant protection formulation comprising PHYTOROB 810.01 (a mixture of C8-10 methyl esters, solvent) and RHODORSIL 481 (silicone based defoamer, linear polydimethylsiloxanes, see pg 4 of the instant specification) (¶¶ 225-234). The ratio of PHYTOROB 810.01 to RHODORSIL 481 used in the particular embodiment was 99/1 (¶ 227). Suitable solvents include esters of linear or branched mono- or dicarboxylic acids comprising 2 to 15 carbon atoms (¶¶ 25, 31), and alcohol moieties comprising linear or branched mono-alcohol or polyol comprising 1-13 carbon atoms (¶ 25). As evidenced by Frisch et al, RHODORSIL 481 is a medium viscosity linear silicone oil from the group of linear polydimethylsiloxanes, comprises silica, and has a dynamic viscosity at 25 deg C of about 4500 mPas (¶¶ 95, 96, 98). Bramati et al disclose that it was observed, unexpectedly, that a synergy exists between the solvent and the associated antifoam substance (¶¶ 14, 15), resulting in a higher defoaming compared to either component used alone (¶¶ 233, 234). The solvent to antifoam substance ratio is between 99.95/0.05 and 90/10 (abs, ¶ 107).
Bramati et al do not specifically disclose the fatty acid esters as instantly claimed, nor a specific embodiment with the ratios instantly claimed.
PubChem 1 discloses 3,5,5-Trimethylhexyl 3,5,5-trimethylhexanoate was a known fatty acid ester with a carboxylic acid moiety and an alcohol moiety, each comprising 9 carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to select a silicone based defoamer that is a linear polydimethylsiloxane, such as RHODORSIL 481, as taught by Bramati et al.
Regarding the fatty acid ester, where Bramati et al teach a broad genus of suitable fatty acid esters discussed above, it would have been obvious to include a known species of fatty acid ester that falls within the genus taught by Bramati et al, such as 3,5,5-Trimethylhexyl 3,5,5-trimethylhexanoate as taught by PubChem 1, where the carboxylic acid and alcohol moiety each comprise 9 carbon atoms.
Regarding the ratio, it would have been obvious to adjust the ratio of silicone based defoamer to fatty acid ester to those taught to be suitable for antifoam compositions, such as 0.05/99.95 and 10/90, as taught by Bramati et al, thereby overlapping the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regards to claim 5, while not explicitly stated as being an emulsion, where the linear polydimethylsiloxanes and fatty acid esters are added to an aqueous plant protection formulation, it would be expected that an emulsion would form.
With regards to claim 17, where the defoaming composition is added to an aqueous plant protection formulation, the defoaming composition reads on a product, as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
First, Applicants assert there is no reason to combine Bramati et al with PubChem, and there is nothing in the reference or in the art that would direct the skilled artisan to the specific combination of components recited in claim 1, let alone in the specifically claimed ratio. Second, Applicants briefly assert that even if it were obvious, Table 5 shows that compositions falling within the claims have significantly lower foam than comparative formulations falling outside the claims.
First, this argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, Bramati et al teach the combination of fatty acid esters with a defoamer, the fatty acid esters include esters of linear or branched mono- or dicarboxylic acids comprising 2 to 15 carbon atoms and alcohol moieties comprising linear or branched mono-alcohol or polyol comprising 1-13 carbon atoms. It would therefore be obvious to select from known species of fatty acid esters that fall within the genus of fatty acid esters taught by Bramati et al, such as 3,5,5-Trimethylhexyl 3,5,5-trimethylhexanoate (a 9 carbon atom carboxylic acid and 9 carbon atom alcohol), known from PubChem 1 as discussed above. Regarding the ratio, Bramati et al teach ratios 0.05/99.95 and 10/90 were suitable, therefore it would have been obvious to select from within the disclosed ratio, overlapping the claimed range.
Second, this argument is not persuasive. Applicants briefly assert the combination instantly claimed has unexpected results with lower foam, however this result appears to be expected where Bramati et al teach the combination of solvent (fatty acid esters of the genus taught by Bramati et al above) and defoamer, including linear polydimethylsiloxanes, results in a synergistically higher defoaming compared to either component used individually. Examiner notes that the instantly claimed fatty acid esters are all species of the genus taught by Bramati et al, and would therefore be expected to have synergistically higher defoaming when used in combination with a linear polydimethylsiloxane defoamer. From Applicants results in Table 5, every tested embodiment had less foam at 12 min than at 0.17 minutes, and in some cases, the silicone based antifoam performed better by itself than when used in combination with a fatty acid ester (e.g., RF-2 vs. EX-14), which is contrary to Applicants assertion of lower foam with the instantly claimed combinations. While the Examiner recognizes that there are some examples with lower foam compared to other embodiments, it is not clear what critical feature of the invention lead to these results. For example, EX-28 has a ratio of silicone based defoamer to fatty acid ester that falls outside those instantly claimed (1:6.66), yet has lower foaming than EX-30 which has a ratio of components falling within the claimed ratio range (1:20), each having the same components and amounts of other ingredients.
A proper showing of unexpected results, for example, would be a showing that the claimed combination shows an improvement over combinations of linear polydimethylsiloxane based defoamer with other fatty acid esters that are not those instantly claimed, that rises above what is taught by the prior art.
Claims 14-16 and 18-25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bramati et al (US 20050164884 A1) and PubChem (“3,5,5-Trimethylhexyl 3,5,5-trimethylhexanoate”, 2005, hereinafter referred to as PubChem 1) as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 17 above, and further in view of Frisch et al (US 20050266999 A1).
Bramati et al are discussed above and further teach a plant protection formulation comprising 1 wt% of the 99/1 ratio defoamer discussed above (¶ 227).
Bramati et al and PubChem 1 do not directly teach an embodiment comprising components (a)-(i) of claims 14-16, 18-25, nor their amounts.
Frisch et al teach preparations for active ingredients in the crop protectant field (agrochemical active ingredients) (¶ 1), comprising: 1% to 50% by weight of water-soluble active crop protectant ingredients (type (a) active ingredients), 0% to 40% by weight of water-insoluble active crop protectant ingredients (type (b) active ingredients), 0% to 50% by weight of organic solvents (preference given to polar organic solvents (¶ 55)), 1% to 80% by weight of nonionic, anionic, cationic and/or zwitterionic surfactants, 0 to 20% by weight of other nonionic, anionic, cationic and/or zwitterionic surfactants, 0 to 30% by weight of customary formulation assistants (i.e., defoamer, emulsifiers, etc.), 0.1 % to 90% by weight of water (claims 1-3 and ¶ 103-112), wherein it is often advantageous to add defoamers, preferably silicone based defoamers, such as RHODORSIL Antifoam 416 or 481, etc. (¶ 94-98). Frisch et al also teach a process for producing a crop protectant composition, which comprises mixing components, and if desired, mixing further components present in the formulation with water (claim 8).
It would have been obvious to include the defoaming composition of Bramati et al into the crop protectant composition of Frisch et al, where both are drawn to agrochemical compositions, and where Frisch et al teach the addition of defoamers are advantageous. Further, it would have been obvious to adjust the amounts of ingredients in the composition, to those amounts taught by Frisch et al. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been obvious to use known amounts of the defoamer disclosed by Bramati et al, that are suitable for plant protection formulations, such as 1 wt%, in the formulations of Frisch et al. Where the ratio of silicone based defoamer and fatty acid ester is 1/99, the amount of silicone based defoamer is calculated to be about 0.01 wt%, and the fatty acid ester would be about 0.99 wt%, based on the total weight of the composition, falling within the claimed range.
With regards to claim 16, it would it would have been obvious to mix the components of the crop protectant formulation, as taught by Frisch et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicants have not provided arguments with respect to the teachings of Frisch et al. Therefore, the claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bramati et al (US 20050164884 A1), in view of PubChem (“3,5,5-Trimethylhexyl 3,5,5-trimethylhexanoate”, 2005, hereinafter referred to as PubChem 1) and Chemical Book (Chemical Book structure listings, 2017).
Bramati et al are discussed above but do not teach wherein the fatty acid ester is 3,5,5-trimethylhexyl-7-methyloctanoate, nor a specific embodiment with the ratios instantly claimed.
PubChem 1 is discussed above for teaching 3,5,5-Trimethylhexyl 3,5,5-trimethylhexanoate was known, which comprises the structure included below:
PNG
media_image1.png
95
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chemical Book teaches fatty acid esters with the following structure was known:
PNG
media_image2.png
85
198
media_image2.png
Greyscale
comprising 1-hexanol and 7-methyloctanoic acid (hexyl isononanoate).
It would have been obvious to select a silicone based defoamer that is a linear polydimethylsiloxane, such as RHODORSIL 481, as taught by Bramati et al.
It would have been obvious to select from other species of fatty acid esters that fall within the genus of fatty acid esters taught by Bramati et al above. When selecting a species of fatty acid ester, a skilled artisan would look to other known fatty acid esters, such as those disclosed by PubChem 1 and Chemical Book. Where fatty acid esters comprising 3,5,5-trimethylhexanol were known from PubChem 1, and fatty acid esters with 7-methyloctanoic acid were known to be formulated with a 6 carbon mono-alcohol, a skilled artisan would recognize that the substituent groups can vary. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the 1-hexanol moiety of Chemical Book, by including known substituent groups, such as the methyl groups at positions 3,5,5, where these are known substituent groups, thereby arriving at 3,5,5-trimethylhexyl-7-methyloctanoate.
Regarding the ratio, it would have been obvious to adjust the ratio of silicone based defoamer to fatty acid ester for the same reasons discussed above by Bramati et al.
With regards to claim 5, while not explicitly stated as being an emulsion, where the linear polydimethylsiloxanes and fatty acid esters are added to an aqueous plant protection formulation, it would be expected that an emulsion would form.
With regards to claim 17, where the defoaming composition is added to an aqueous plant protection formulation, the defoaming composition reads on a product, as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
While Applicants arguments have not addressed this new rejection, Examiner notes that Applicants arguments with respect to unexpected results in lowering foam is relevant here as well.
This argument is not persuasive. It would have been obvious to include known species of fatty acid esters that fall within the genus of fatty acid esters taught by Bramati et al, where it was known that combinations of fatty acid esters and defoamers provides synergistically higher defoaming compared to either component used individually, as discussed above.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bramati et al (US 20050164884 A1), in view of Formstone et al (US 7994095 B2) and Newberry et al (US 20130203842 A1).
Bramati et al are discussed above but do not teach wherein the fatty acid ester is 2-ethylhexylpalmitate, nor a specific embodiment with the ratios instantly claimed.
Formstone et al teach antifoaming agrochemical formulations comprising a silicone antifoam and a solvent, examples of solvents include C1-10 alkyl esters of fatty acids, wherein the fatty acid moiety contains from 10 to 25 carbons and includes palmitic acid, etc. (abs, col 5 line 63 to col 6 line 4).
Formstone et al do not teach 2-ethylhexyulpalmitate specifically.
Newberry et al teach 2-ethylhexylpalmitate was a known fatty acid ester (¶ 44).
It would have been obvious to select a silicone based defoamer that is a linear polydimethylsiloxane, such as RHODORSIL 481, as taught by Bramati et al.
Regarding 2-ethylhexyl palmitate, where Bramati et al teach a broad genus of fatty acid esters discussed above that were known to have improved defoaming when used in combination with silicone based defoamers, and Formstone et al teach fatty acid esters of palmitic acid were known to be used in combination with silicone based defoamers, it would have been obvious to include a known fatty acid ester that comprises a palmitic acid moiety, such as 2-ethylhexylpalmitate as taught by Newberry et al, where Bramati et al and Formstone et al are both are drawn to agrochemical formulations for reducing foam.
Regarding the ratio, it would have been obvious to adjust the ratio of silicone based defoamer to fatty acid ester for the same reasons discussed above by Bramati et al.
With regards to claim 5, while not explicitly stated as being an emulsion, where the linear polydimethylsiloxanes and fatty acid esters are added to an aqueous plant protection formulation, it would be expected that an emulsion would form.
With regards to claim 17, where the defoaming composition is added to an aqueous plant protection formulation, the defoaming composition reads on a product, as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
While Applicants arguments have not addressed this new rejection, Examiner notes that Applicants arguments with respect to unexpected results in lowering foam is relevant here as well.
This argument is not persuasive. It would have been obvious to include known species of fatty acid esters that were known to be used in combination with silicone based defoamers and where it was known that combinations of fatty acid esters and defoamers provides synergistically higher defoaming compared to either component used individually, as discussed above.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 17, and 28, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bramati et al (US 20050164884 A1), in view of Gotou et al (US 20070190002 A1).
Bramati et al are discussed above but do not teach wherein the fatty acid ester is 2,3,4-tris(2-ethylhexanoyloxy)butyl-2-ethylhexanoate, nor a specific embodiment with the ratios instantly claimed.
Gotou et al teach fatty acid esters compounds of erythritol and 2-ethylhexanoic acid of formula (I) were known:
PNG
media_image3.png
76
367
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, where the R groups are 2-ethylhexanoic acid (¶ 40, preparation example 1).
It would have been obvious to select a silicone based defoamer that is a linear polydimethylsiloxane, such as RHODORSIL 481, as taught by Bramati et al.
Regarding 2,3,4-tris(2-ethylhexanoyloxy)butyl-2-ethylhexanoate, where Bramati et al teach a broad genus of suitable fatty acid esters discussed above, it would have been obvious to include a known species of fatty acid ester that falls within the genus taught by Bramati et al, such as 2,3,4-tris(2-ethylhexanoyloxy)butyl-2-ethylhexanoate as taught by Gotou et al.
Note, it appears the fatty acid ester made obvious by Gotou et al has the same structure as 2,3,4-tris(2-ethylhexanoyloxy)butyl-2-ethylhexanoate.
Regarding the ratio, it would have been obvious to adjust the ratio of silicone based defoamer to fatty acid ester for the same reasons discussed above by Bramati et al.
With regards to claim 5, while not explicitly stated as being an emulsion, where the linear polydimethylsiloxanes and fatty acid esters are added to an aqueous plant protection formulation, it would be expected that an emulsion would form.
With regards to claim 17, where the defoaming composition is added to an aqueous plant protection formulation, the defoaming composition reads on a product, as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
While Applicants arguments have not addressed this new rejection, Examiner notes that Applicants arguments with respect to unexpected results in lowering foam is relevant here as well.
This argument is not persuasive. It would have been obvious to include known species of fatty acid esters that fall within the genus of fatty acid esters taught by Bramati et al, where it was known that combinations of fatty acid esters and defoamers provides synergistically higher defoaming compared to either component used individually, as discussed above.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 17, and 29, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bramati et al (US 20050164884 A1), in view of PubChem (“Neopentyl Glycol Diethylhexanoate,” 2005, hereinafter referred to as PubChem 2).
Bramati et al are discussed above but do not teach wherein the fatty acid ester is neopentyl glycol diethylhexanoate, nor a specific embodiment with the ratios instantly claimed.
PubChem 2 discloses neopentyl glycol diethylhexanoate was a known fatty acid ester.
It would have been obvious to select a silicone based defoamer that is a linear polydimethylsiloxane, such as RHODORSIL 481, as taught by Bramati et al.
Regarding neopentyl glycol diethylhexanoate, where Bramati et al teach a broad genus of suitable fatty acid esters discussed above, it would have been obvious to include a known species of fatty acid ester that falls within the genus taught by Bramati et al, such as neopentyl glycol diethylhexanoate as taught by PubChem 2.
Regarding the ratio, it would have been obvious to adjust the ratio of silicone based defoamer to fatty acid ester for the same reasons discussed above by Bramati et al.
With regards to claim 5, while not explicitly stated as being an emulsion, where the linear polydimethylsiloxanes and fatty acid esters are added to an aqueous plant protection formulation, it would be expected that an emulsion would form.
With regards to claim 17, where the defoaming composition is added to an aqueous plant protection formulation, the defoaming composition reads on a product, as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
While Applicants arguments have not addressed this new rejection, Examiner notes that Applicants arguments with respect to unexpected results in lowering foam is relevant here as well.
This argument is not persuasive. It would have been obvious to include known species of fatty acid esters that fall within the genus of fatty acid esters taught by Bramati et al, where it was known that combinations of fatty acid esters and defoamers provides synergistically higher defoaming compared to either component used individually, as discussed above.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 17, and 30, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bramati et al (US 20050164884 A1), in view of PubChem (“Triethylhexanoin,” 2005, hereinafter referred to as PubChem 3), as evidenced by OECD (“Chemical substance search,” retrieved 2025).
Bramati et al are discussed above but do not teach wherein the fatty acid ester is 1,3-bis[(2-ethylhexanoyl)oxy]propan-2-yl-2-ethylhexanoate, nor a specific embodiment with the ratios instantly claimed.
PubChem 3 discloses the fatty acid ester
PNG
media_image4.png
207
328
media_image4.png
Greyscale
was known (CAS 7360-38-5). As evidenced by OECD, CAS 7360-38-5 is synonymous with 1,3-bis[(2-ethylhexanoyl)oxy]propan-2-yl-2-ethylhexanoate.
It would have been obvious to select a silicone based defoamer that is a linear polydimethylsiloxane, such as RHODORSIL 481, as taught by Bramati et al.
Regarding 1,3-bis[(2-ethylhexanoyl)oxy]propan-2-yl-2-ethylhexanoate, where Bramati et al teach a broad genus of suitable fatty acid esters discussed above, it would have been obvious to include a known species of fatty acid ester that falls within the genus taught by Bramati et al, such as 1,3-bis[(2-ethylhexanoyl)oxy]propan-2-yl-2-ethylhexanoate as taught by PubChem 3.
Regarding the ratio, it would have been obvious to adjust the ratio of silicone based defoamer to fatty acid ester for the same reasons discussed above by Bramati et al.
With regards to claim 5, while not explicitly stated as being an emulsion, where the linear polydimethylsiloxanes and fatty acid esters are added to an aqueous plant protection formulation, it would be expected that an emulsion would form.
With regards to claim 17, where the defoaming composition is added to an aqueous plant protection formulation, the defoaming composition reads on a product, as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
While Applicants arguments have not addressed this new rejection, Examiner notes that Applicants arguments with respect to unexpected results in lowering foam is relevant here as well.
This argument is not persuasive. It would have been obvious to include known species of fatty acid esters that fall within the genus of fatty acid esters taught by Bramati et al, where it was known that combinations of fatty acid esters and defoamers provides synergistically higher defoaming compared to either component used individually, as discussed above.
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 JOSHUA A ATKINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0877. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM + Flex.
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, Frederick Krass can be reached at 571-272-0580. 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.
/JOSHUA A ATKINSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/MARIANNE C SEIDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600