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
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-26 are pending.
Applicants have amended the independent claims that state the feeding device is to be disposed between and separately from the compensation container and extrusion die.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1, 3-9, and 11-26 have been considered and but are not persuasive in light of the rejections below.
The arguments by the applicants based upon the latest amendment that emphasizes in the independent claims that the feeding device is disposed between and separately from the compensation container and the extrusion die. The claimed features have been reviewed and there are a number of issues raised based upon the amended changes from the initial filing of the application. There does not appear to be support for the particular arrangement of the feeding device to be separate and between the compensation device and mixing device. Further, there appears to be a contradiction in the claimed features, see the claimed feature that the “electrode compound passed on by the mixing device to the feeding device are compensated by storing the electrode compound intermediately between the mixing device and the feeding device in a compensating container” as the new addition to the claims now add that “wherein the feeding device is disposed between and separately from the compensation container and the extrusion die”.
The argument presented by the applicants are based upon the latest changes to the claims. Wherein, the argument over the MOTOI and DREVET reference are that the manifold is integral to the die and of the features of the compensation container which is not separate and with the feeding device to be between the compensation container and die. This is noted but unpersuasive in light of the latest reference. Here, the arrangement of the devices can be changed including making the compensation container and feeding device separable. Currently, the interpretation from the claimed invention is that the compensation/compensating container is disposed between the mixing device and feeding device as this was initially stated in the original set of claims and taught in both the instant specification and Figures.
Whereby, the interpretation of MOTOI can be seen with the manifold 11 that includes a larger channel flow that allows for the incoming flow 16 to flow around and allows for additional material to be stored as it flows out towards the die 10, see also the view in Figures 2, 6, and 8. The applicants arguments concerning the arrangement and of the particular elements, mainly the compensation container is noted but unpersuasive. Further, the claimed compensation container has a broad interpretation of the feature and is encompassed by the teaching in MOTOI.
It is noted that additional rejections should have been raised from the amendment of 11/10/2025 when applicants amended the claims with the additional features that stated that the feeding device is disposed between the compensation container and extrusion die.
Further, the claimed feature that the feeding device is to be separately from the compensation container and extrusion die having a broad interpretation as it is not specifically stated in the specification as to the degree of separation (see both feeding device being taught as being in the compensation/compensating container via the gear pumps, and in general with the indication of element 20 in Figure 1), or if it is to be of separable units.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 2-9, and 11-26 are 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.
The claimed invention is supported in the instant specification and Figure 1, where the compensating containers is listed as element 24, and wherein the feeding device is element 20, and wherein the teaching of the feeding device may be a gear pump, see page 15 of instant specification, line 21 of the clean copy version, and wherein, this can be seen in Figure 1.
However, the latest amended claim is stating that the feeding device is disposed between and separately from the compensation container and extrusion die. This does not appear to be taught in the instant specification nor in the Figures. The applicants have stated that the changes are supported between pages 14 to 15 of the specification and in review of this feature, the Examiner cannot discern such teaching that would support the amended claim features. Instead the teaching from the Figures is the feeding device that points overall towards the compensation device, and wherein feeding device teaching that may be a gear pump which appears to be located inside the compensation container as seen in Figure 1.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The features in claims 1 and 9 both state that the compensating/compensation container is disposed between the mixing device and feeding device, however, later the claim further states the feeding device is disposed between and separately from the compensating/compensation container and extrusion die (feeding device). The teaching in specification as seen in marked up Figure 1 below shows that the feeding device is both in general element 20, extrusion die 18, and gear pump which are all either with the same location as the compensating/compensation container or afterwards, there does not appear to be a teaching of the feeding device that is disposed between the container and the mixing device, nor does there appear to be teaching in the specification that lays out this particular arrangement.
PNG
media_image1.png
560
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-26 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.
Particularly in claims 1 and 9, it is unclear how the claimed compensation container being disposed between the mixing device and feeding device is in relation to later teaching that the feeding device is disposed between and separately from the compensation container and extrusion die (feeding device). There appears to be a contradiction in the arrangement of the features and whereupon, the claims appears to be indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 16-19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOTOI (JP 2018037206 A, see NPL google machine translation) in view of DREVET (US 2011/0128666 A1, “DRE”).
Re Claim 1, MOTOI teaches of a method for producing an electrode for a battery (see page 1 of NPL for manufacturing of a battery electrode plate), comprising:
applying an electrode compound (slurry 3) to a carrier (substrate) using an extrusion process, wherein, in the course of the extrusion process, the electrode compound is fed through an extrusion die (die 10) by a feeding device (see Fig. 1);
a source tank (22) that provides the electrode compound (slurry 3);
and the source tank passing the electrode compound to the feeding device, wherein fluctuations of a mass flow of the electrode compound passed on by the source tank device to the feeding device are compensated by storing the electrode compound intermediately between the source tank (22) and the feeding device in a compensating container (see manifold 11) to provide the electrode compound uniformly to the carrier and wherein the feeding device is disposed between the compensation container and the extrusion die (10) (see fig. 1, see also teaching in NPL page 3).
MOTOI fails to teach of a mixing device for mixing a plasticizer and an active material to form the electrode compound, and instead teaches of a source tank for providing the electrode compound.
Wherein, DRE teaches of a method for producing an electrode (see [0026]) for a rechargeable battery (see [0001], electric power storage devices), comprising:
applying an electrode compound to a carrier using an extrusion process (see first steps 10, 20), wherein, in the course of the extrusion process (see [0103]), the electrode compound is fed through an extrusion die (see die 21) by a feeding device; mixing the electrode compound in a mixing device (see extruder 11);
and the mixing device (extruder 11) passing the electrode compound to the feeding device, see Fig. 1. The mixing device of DRE teaches of mixing of plasticizer and of the active filler, see abstract, whereby in forming the electrode paste (or electrode compound).
The extruder of DRE provided being an alternative source for the electrode compound in the process system wherein.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of MOTOI with the substitution of the source tank with that of a extruder as taught in DRE that provides the electrode compound for the process to the die, this is seen as combination via KSR rationales, see MPEP 2143, see combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding the compensating container to be separate from the extrusion die, this particular feature can be seen as making separable of the adjacent features, see MPEP 2144.04 (V) (C), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the MOTOI manifold and die elements to be separable.
Claim 3 (upon 1) The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein, to compensate for the fluctuations, the electrode compound is returned to the mixing device. The combination of MOTOI with DRE would teach of the return of electrode compound to the mixing device, as MOTOI already teaches of the material returned to the source tank. This is also relevant in the teaching by DRE regarding recycling, see Fig. 10, see [0099]. Whereby, the combination of MOTOI in view of DRE would include the material recycled back to the mixing device (extruder).
Claim 4 (upon 1), wherein the electrode compound is applied to the carrier in the form of an uninterrupted strip, extending in a direction of application, of at least 2 m in length. See teaching of DRE of the formed extrudate 4 that can be caused over 15m, see [0100].
Claim 5 (upon 1), wherein the electrode compound is applied to the carrier in such a way that there forms on the carrier along the electrode compound a strip that is free of electrode compound, extending parallel to the direction of application of the electrode compound. See in DRE, the application upon collector film 5, see also [0093-0094], see Fig. 2.
Claim 6 (upon 1), wherein the electrode compound is kept in a flowable state between leaving the mixing device and entering the feeding device. See teaching of DRE regarding the use of an extruder 11.
Claim 7 (upon 1), wherein the temperature of the electrode compound between leaving the mixing device and entering the feeding device is always at least 80"C. See DRE that includes teaching of around 90C for the mixing, see [0114], and teaching of heating of suspension at 75C, see [0198].
Claim 8 (upon 1), wherein the electrode compound has ethylene carbonate as a plasticizer. See DRE teaching of ethylene carbonate, [0035], being used as liquid softener (or plasticizer).
Claim 16 (upon 1), wherein the carrier is a metal foil. See DRE teaching of metallic films for the carrier, [0003, 0037, 0048-0052].
Claim 17 (upon 4), wherein the uninterrupted strip extends in the direction of application at least 5 m in length. See teaching of DRE of the formed extrudate 4 that can be caused over 15m, see [0100].
Claim 18 (upon 6), wherein the electrode compound is kept in a flowable state between leaving the mixing device and entering the feeding device in an intermediate storage. See teaching of MOTOI regarding the flow of the slurry from the source tank to the feeding device, and see also teaching of DRE regarding use of an extruder.
Claim 19 (upon 1), wherein the temperature of the electrode compound between leaving the mixing device and entering the feeding device is between 90°C, and 120°C. See DRE, [0198].
Re 22 (upon 1), wherein the active material is one of: graphite, lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide, or lithium iron phosphate. See teaching by DRE of graphite [0030], see also of oxides of cobalt or nickel [0031].
Claim(s) 9, 11-13, 20-21, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOTOI (JP2018037206A, see NPL google machine translation) in view of DREVET (US 2011/0128666 A1, “DRE”).
Re 9, MOTOI teaches of an apparatus for producing an electrode for a rechargeable battery (see page 1 of MOTOI NPL), comprising:
a source tank (22) having the slurry of an electrode compound (slurry 3);
a feeding device that feeds the electrode compound through an extrusion die (10); and
an intermediary storage device having a compensation container (see manifold 11) that stores the electrode compound and is disposed between the source tank (22) and the feeding device to compensate for fluctuations of a mass flow of electrode compound-produced by the mixing device and passed on to the feeding device to provide the electrode compound uniformly to the carrier (substrate 2), wherein the feeding device is disposed between the compensation container and the extrusion die (10) (see Fig. 1).
MOTOI fails to teach of a mixing device, and instead teaches of a source tank for supplying the electrode compound.
Wherein, DRE teaches of an apparatus for producing an electrode (see [0026]) for a rechargeable battery (see [0001], electric power storage devices), comprising:
a mixing device that mixes an electrode compound (see step 10, extrusion process [0103]);
a feeding device that feeds the electrode compound through an extrusion die (see steps 20, and die 21, and see also extruder 11).
The extruder of DRE provided being an alternative source for the electrode compound in the process system.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of MOTOI with the substitution of the source tank with that of a extruder as taught in DRE that provides the electrode compound for the process to the die, this is seen as combination via KSR rationales, see MPEP 2143, see combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding the compensating container to be separate from the extrusion die, this particular feature can be seen as making separable of the adjacent features, see MPEP 2144.04 (V) (C), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the MOTOI manifold and die elements to be separable.
re Claim 11 (upon 9), wherein the compensating device has a return device for returning the electrode compound to the mixing device. See teaching by MOTOI by the integrated flow path 40 and first flow path 50 for returning back to source tank 22, see Fig. 1.
Re Claim 12 (upon 9), wherein the mixing device is a multi-screw extruder. See teaching by DRE of dual screw extruder 11.
Re Claim 13 (upon 9), wherein the feeding device is a positive displacement pump. See DRE of booster pump [0118]. See teaching of return pump 32 in IWA, which are recognized as a positive displacement pump.
Re Claim 20 (upon 12), wherein the multi-screw extruder is a twin-screw extruder. See DRE teaching of dual screw extruder 11.
Re Claim 21 (upon 13), wherein the positive displacement pump is a gear pump. See teaching of pumps in DRE, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as an equivalent alternative of a positive displacement pump.
Re Claims 23 and 24, these are seen as intended use of the apparatus, and the claimed materials are material worked upon by the apparatus, see MPEP 2115, the material worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. Further the combined structure of the MOTOI in view of DRE would be capable of working upon such materials.
Re Claim 23 (upon 13), wherein the electrode compound has ethylene carbonate as the plasticizer. Further, see DRE teaching of ethylene carbonate, [0035], being used as liquid softener (or plasticizer). Whereupon, the combined MOTOI in view of DRE would be capable of working the claimed material.
Re Claims 24 (upon 13), wherein the active material is one of: graphite, lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide, or lithium iron phosphate. Further, see teaching by DRE of graphite [0030], see also of oxides of cobalt or nickel [0031]. Whereupon, the combined MOTOI in view of DRE would be capable of working the claimed material.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOTOI in view of DRE as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of IWASHITA (US 5989622, “IWA”).
Claim 14 (upon 9), further comprising:
a measuring device that measures a measured variable concerning the electrode compound passed on by the mixing device to the feeding device to measure a filling level of an intermediate storage device and/or for measuring a mass flow returned by the return device.
The MOTOI teaches of flow sensors for the pressure including in the manifold and extrusion die to ensure internal pressure is constant in the first manifold 11. Further, MOTOI teaches of the integrated flow path having an integrated flow rate adjusting unit 45 that controls the flow rate of the slurry 3 in addition to the control of the valves 41-44.
Further, see teaching of IWA with the circulation line from the sub-tank back to the main tank 27, see combination of the references as seen in claim 2 above.
Regarding the compensation for the fluctuation of the material from the mixing device, see in analogous reference of IWA, Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, Col. 5, line 25 to Col. 6, line 9. Wherein, the extrusion coater 20 (equivalent to the extrusion die) applies the extrudate upon a conductive sheet material 13 (copper foil, aluminum foil, et), see Col. 4, lines 18-20. The material feed to the extrusion die being via feed pump 25, and control valve 23 for controlling the flow of the material to the extrusion die. See Col. 4, lines 60 to Col. 5, line 24, wherein the pressure of the material is controlled and variably set, which would encompass the claimed fluctuation and compensation. See teaching by IWA of sub-tank 30, see Figs.1, 3, 5, and 7. Further, see in IWA of teaching of sensor for sub-tank and connection to controller, see Col. 4, line 60 to Col. 5, line 24, and Col. 5, line 51 to Col. 6, line 19. See also about the variably set for suitable levels due to the control and valves, see Col. 5, lines 20-24.
See in MOTOI of the flow back from the manifold to the source tank, see Fig. 1. Further, see in DRE of teaching regarding recycling, see Fig. 10, see [0099]. Lastly, see in IWA, which teaches of the return of material from sub-tank back to the main tank 27, see combination of the references as seen in claim 2 above.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus of the modified MOTOI with the mass flow of the compounds that includes the control of the flow as taught by IWA as it allows for compensation for fluctuations in the system.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOTOI in view of DRE and IWA as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of WOOD (US 2003/0084847).
Claim 15 (upon 14), further comprising: a closed-loop and/or open-loop control device that controls a metering device that meters a constituent of the electrode compound in dependence on the measured variable.
MOTOI and DRE do not specifically teach of the closed-loop or open-loop control device. Though MOTOI does teach of the use of controls to for the controlling the flow of material based upon the sensor readings of the pressure.
However, in a known analogous prior art, WOOD teaches of a closed loop control system that includes control of the speed of the pump and use of sensor, see [0027], as this is a known feature to compensate for variations.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified MOTOI with the closed loop control system as taught by WOOD as it allows for known control system in order to compensate variations.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
MOTOI (JP2018037206A, see NPL google machine translation) in view of DREVET and further in view of IWASHITA (US 5989622, “IWA”).
Claim 25, MOTOI teaches of an apparatus (see Fig. 1) for producing an electrode for a rechargeable battery, comprising:
a source tank device (22) that supplies an electrode compound (slurry 3);
a feeding device that feeds the electrode compound through an extrusion die (10);
an intermediary storage device having a compensation container (see manifold 11) that stores the electrode compound and is disposed between the source tank (22) and the feeding device to compensate for fluctuations of a mass flow of electrode compound-produced by the source device and passed on to the feeding device to provide the electrode compound uniformly to the carrier (see substrate 2), wherein the feeding device is disposed between the compensation container and the extrusion die (10) and wherein the compensation container has a return device (see integrated flow path 40 and further first flow path 50) for returning the electrode compound to the source tank device (22); and
a measuring device that measures a mass flow returned by the return device (see teaching by MOTOI regarding the integrated flow path having an integrated flow rate adjusting unit 45 that controls the flow rate of the slurry 3 in addition to the valves 41-44, see also teaching pressure sensors that read the die 10 and also to keep internal pressure constant in first manifold 11, see page 3 of NPL).
MOTOI fails to teach of a mixing device that mixes an electrode compound, and instead teaches of a source device that supplies the electrode compound.
Wherein, DRE teaches of an apparatus for producing an electrode (see [0026]) for a rechargeable battery (see [0001], electric power storage devices), comprising:
a mixing device that mixes an electrode compound (see step 10, extrusion process [0103]);
a feeding device that feeds the electrode compound through an extrusion die (see steps 20, and die 21, and see also extruder 11).
The extruder of DRE provided being an alternative source for the electrode compound in the process system.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of MOTOI with the substitution of the source tank with that of a extruder as taught in DRE that provides the electrode compound for the process to the die, this is seen as combination via KSR rationales, see MPEP 2143, see combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Further, MOTOI teaches of flow sensors for the pressure including in the manifold and extrusion die to ensure internal pressure is constant in the first manifold 11. Further, MOTOI teaches of the integrated flow path having an integrated flow rate adjusting unit 45 that controls the flow rate of the slurry 3 in addition to the control of the valves 41-44.
Further, see teaching of IWA with the circulation line from the sub-tank back to the main tank 27, see combination of the references as seen in claim 2 above.
Regarding the compensation for the fluctuation of the material from the mixing device, see in analogous reference of IWA, Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, Col. 5, line 25 to Col. 6, line 9. Wherein, the extrusion coater 20 (equivalent to the extrusion die) applies the extrudate upon a conductive sheet material 13 (copper foil, aluminum foil, et), see Col. 4, lines 18-20. The material feed to the extrusion die being via feed pump 25, and control valve 23 for controlling the flow of the material to the extrusion die. See Col. 4, lines 60 to Col. 5, line 24, wherein the pressure of the material is controlled and variably set, which would encompass the claimed fluctuation and compensation. See teaching by IWA of sub-tank 30, see Figs.1, 3, 5, and 7. Further, see in IWA of teaching of sensor for sub-tank and connection to controller, see Col. 4, line 60 to Col. 5, line 24, and Col. 5, line 51 to Col. 6, line 19. See also about the variably set for suitable levels due to the control and valves, see Col. 5, lines 20-24.
See in MOTOI of the flow back from the manifold to the source tank, see Fig. 1. Further, see in DRE of teaching regarding recycling, see Fig. 10, see [0099]. Lastly, see in IWA, which teaches of the return of material from sub-tank back to the main tank 27, see combination of the references as seen in claim 2 above.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus of the modified MOTOI with the mass flow of the compounds that includes the control of the flow as taught by IWA as it allows for compensation for fluctuations in the system.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOTOI in view of DRE and IWA as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of WOOD (US 2003/0084847).
Claim 26 (upon 25), further comprising: a closed-loop and/or open-loop control device that controls a metering device that meters quantitative ratios of the plasticizer and the active material of the electrode compound in dependence on the measured variable.
MOTOI and DRE do not specifically teach of the closed-loop or open-loop control device. Though MOTOI does teach of the use of controls to for the controlling the flow of material based upon the sensor readings of the pressure.
However, in a known analogous prior art, WOOD teaches of a closed loop control system that includes control of the speed of the pump and use of sensor, see [0027], as this is a known feature to compensate for variations.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified MOTOI with the closed loop control system as taught by WOOD as it allows for known control system in order to compensate variations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form, wherein, the references teach of mixing cylinder with intermediate accumulator (compensation device) to the feeding device, these in particular being relevant to the apparatus claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
