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
No amendments are made. Claims 1-3, 5-17, and 19-20, as filed 14 January 2026, are examined herein. No new matter is included herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the outstanding 35 USC §103 rejections, Applicant argues (1) that the claimed diffuser and chamber is not taught or suggested. Specifically, Applicant argues that “Mehotra’s fiber delivery is for beam transmission, but the claimed "diffuser" is configured to provide highly localized, uniform, and controlled heating through a chamber wall, which is not shown or suggested in the cited art. The claimed diffuser is not merely a fiber optic cable or lens, but a structure that enables precise, repeatable, and safe initiation of thermal runaway by coupling the heat source through a chamber wall. The cited art does not address the unique safety and control benefits of a diffuser as claimed, nor does it suggest the combination of a chamber wall, diffuser, and non-contact heat source in the claimed manner.” Applicant's argument is not persuasive. Examiner notes that claim 1 requires “a diffuser coupling the heat source to an inside of a chamber…” and that Mehotra discloses (page 1) the use of a laser to trigger thermal runaway in a battery, and further discloses (page 5) the use of a laser with fiber coupled output (diffuser coupling) and lens, which allows the test setup to be isolated from the laser and discloses (page 9) a laser outside of an enclosure and the battery inside the enclosure. While the features of “highly localized, uniform, and controlled heating through a chamber wall” are not included in the instant claim 1, Examiner notes that lasers provide these features. Regarding “precise, repeatable, and safe initiation of thermal runaway”, Examiner notes that these features are not set forth in the instant claim and are commonly associated with the use of lasers.
Applicant further argues (2,3) that the claimed test location is not a mere design choice, specifically, Applicant argues that the location is selected to induce a localized internal short circuit with minimal risk of damaging the jellyroll or draining cell capacity. Applicant's argument is not persuasive.
Examiner notes, again, that the specification at [0020] discloses that heating can be applied in 4 different areas (center side, corner side, bottom center side, and terminal side). At FIG. 4 these are illustrated as (center side, corner side, bottom center side, and thermal side), showing small and large target areas for each. At FIG. 1A, the specification contemplates applying a pin-point heat source to create a localized internal short, where (112) the section of the electrochemical cell is an area that is less than 10% of the total area. At (115) the localized internal short is a localized shrinking of an insulation layer positioned between a negative and a positive electrode. This is discussed at [0021] of the specification. FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 show the heat source approximately targeting the top corner of the battery (FIG. 2) and the end of the battery about 25% below the upper corner (FIG. 3).
Applicant specifically argues (page 10) that that the test location at the bottom corner initiates separator shrinkage without causing jellyroll damage and without draining the cell capacity. However, the specification does not disclose any nexus between any specific test location on the battery, and the alleged benefit of causing separator shrinkage without causing jellyroll damage and without draining the cell capacity. Said differently, there is no evidence of critically of the test location with respect to the desired result of a localized internal short circuit. Absent any evidence of criticality of the test location at the bottom corner, the test location is determined to be a design choice. Applicant states “the claimed method achieves a new and unexpected result – controlled initiation of thermal runaway with minimal collateral damage. However, Applicant has not provided evidence that this feature can be obtained at the claimed location and not at the other taught locations.
Applicant argues (4) that the combination of a less than 1% spot size, the use of a diffuser, and the specific area [of heating] is not taught or suggested by the prior are. This is not persuasive. The heating location has been discussed above. Examiner notes that the spot size of laser heating device is determined inter alia by a laser lens and diffuser combination. Therefore, a person desiring a less than 1% spot size would select an appropriate diffuser and lens, rendering obvious the selection of the combination.
Applicant further argues (page 5 of Remarks dated 14 January) that the single point of contact between electrodes is not inherently disclosed or suggested. Applicant further argues that the specific configuration of single electrodes and insulation layers, and the technical effect of this precise localization are not taught. Examiner notes that “the technical effect of this precise localization” is not set forth in the claim. Regarding the single point of contact and single electrodes or insulation layers, Examiner notes that Ruiz as set forth in the instant 103 rejection discloses the use of “laser impact light beam” to create a “single or multilayer strike”, which meets the instant claim limitations.
Applicant further argues (claims 11-12, 14-17, 19-20) that the thermocouple, explosion proof window, pinpoint section, shrinking of insulation layer, and heat source types are not disclosed.
Applicant further argues against the motivation to modify Shironita in view of Mehrotra and Ruiz, with the explosion-proof glass. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, a person of ordinary skill would understand that thermal runaway of a battery (which the instant invention intends to trigger) is a type of explosion or is similar to an explosion. Further, a person of ordinary skill would understand the glass is breakable, and that humans in the vicinity of glass during an thermal runaway of a battery would be concerned about fail of the glass, which could cause bodily harm to humans. Therefore, the person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use explosion-proof glass for a instant test fixture.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 includes the limitation “applying a heat source to a section of the electrochemical cell, via a diffuser coupling the heat source to an inside of a chamber through a wall of the chamber and without the heat source physically contacting the electrochemical cell.” Claim 11 has a similar limitation. FIG. 2 shows heat source 210 applied to a limited section of the electrochemical cell 200. At [0020] the specification states that the heating source can be anything such as a flame, a hot air heater, an electric heater, and/or a laser. FIG. 2 does not show that the heat source is outside of the enclosure. FIG. 3 shows hot air generator 320 and temperature controller 325 outside of the enclosure, and diffuser 330 penetrating the enclosure wall 311. At [0022] the instant specification states that the diffuser is “coupling the hot air generator to the chamber” and “… the hot air generator applies heat to a pin-point section of the electrochemical cell via the diffuser.” Examiner understands diffuser 330 of claims 1 and 11 to be a tube, duct, optical diffuser, or hollow cylinder conveying light energy or hot forced air from the heat source into the chamber, configured to provide localized heating to the battery.
Claim 11 includes the limitation: “wherein the system is operable for testing … wherein the localized internal short circuit comprises a number of negative electrodes, positive electrodes, and insulation layers that comprises less than 1% of a total number of negative electrodes, positive electrodes, and insulation layers in the electrochemical cell.” Examiner notes that because the instant claim is for a system, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant limitation includes a system capable of creating the localized internal short circuit comprises a number of negative electrodes, positive electrodes, and insulation layers that comprises less than 1% of a total number of negative electrodes, positive electrodes, and insulation layers in the electrochemical cell.
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 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, 5, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shironita (Shironita et al (2021). Thermal runaway characteristics of a LiFePO4-based lithium-ion secondary battery using the laser-irradiation method. Journal of Energy Storage, 40, 102715.in view of Mehrotra (Mehrotra, et al (2018) Triggering TR in Li-ion Cells with Laser Radiation. In NASA Battery Workshop (No. JSC-E-DAA-TN64226)).
Regarding claims 1, 3- 4, 5, and 10, Shironita teaches (abstract) a process to test an electrochemical cell comprising:
applying a heat source to a section of the electrochemical cell …. thereby causing a thermal runaway condition due to a localized internal short circuit in the electrochemical cell (page 4 col. 1 and 2 “laser irradiation to battery”, “hard short circuits”)
regarding the limitation without the heat source physically contacting the electrochemical cell, Examiner notes that a person of ordinary skill would understand that a laser is typically a non-contact heating source and would be motivated to use the laser as a non-contact heating instrument to avoid damage to the laser.
determining whether the electrochemical cell has vented, ruptured, or exploded in response to the application of the heat source to the section of the electrochemical cell; (FIG. 3 “point B corresponds to vent release”)
wherein the section of the electrochemical cell comprises an area of the electrochemical cell that is less than 1% of a total area of the electrochemical cell. (Table 1, battery length 65.5 mm, Page 5 col. 2 “damage size was 0.4 mm in diameter”) Examiner notes that 0.4 mm/65.5 mm = 0.6% of the longest dimension of the battery, which creates a spot area substantially less than the total surface area of the cell.
Examiner notes that (abstract) thermal runaway in a battery is a known safety issue. At FIG. 3, the battery experiences temperatures over 300 ˚C. However, Shironita does not explicitly teach that the laser irradiation is carried out via a diffuser coupling the heat source to an inside of a chamber through a wall of the chamber. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to carry out the testing of Shironita in an enclosure, with the laser outside of the enclosure, for the purpose of improved safety.
Mehrotra provides further evidence for the placement of the laser outside of the enclosure. Mehrotra discloses (page 1) the use of a laser to trigger thermal runaway in a battery, and further discloses (page 5) the use of a laser with fiber coupled output (diffuser coupling) and lens, which allows the test setup to be isolated from the laser and discloses (page 9) a laser outside of an enclosure and the battery inside the enclosure.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the testing method of Shironita by placing the laser outside of the enclosure and using a diffuser coupling to bring the heat source into the enclosure, in order to allow the use of a laser to trigger thermal runaway while both protecting the laser and test operators, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the limitation the section comprising a bottom corner of the electrochemical cell opposite an end of the electrochemical cell comprising a terminal, Shironita at Table 4 shows the laser targeting the approximate middle of the length of the battery cylinder. Shironita does not teach against the targeting of any other location on the battery. Mehrotra at page 6, page 7, and page 14 discloses targeting the battery at multiple different locations including a center side, lower side, upper side, and bottom surface. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select any spot location taught by Mehrotra for the battery thermal runaway testing of modified Shirota, with a reasonable expectation of successfully initiating a cell into thermal runaway.
In the specification at paragraph [0020], Applicant discloses that heating can be applied in 4 different areas (center side, corner side, bottom center side, and terminal side). At FIG. 4 these are illustrated as (center side, corner side, bottom center side, and thermal side), showing small and large target areas for each. At FIG. 1A, the specification contemplates applying a pin-point heat source to create a localized internal short, where (112) the section of the electrochemical cell is an area that is less than 10% of the total area. At (115) the localized internal short is a localized shrinking of an insulation layer positioned between a negative and a positive electrode. This is discussed at [0021] of the specification. FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 show the heat source approximately targeting the top corner of the battery (FIG. 2) and the end of the battery about 25% below the upper corner (FIG. 3). However, the specification does not disclose any nexus between any specific test location on the battery, and the claimed result of a localized internal short circuit. There is no data showing that a bottom corner location results in a localized internal short circuit, and no evidence that targeting a different location will not result in a localized internal short circuit. Said differently, there is no evidence of critically of the test location with respect to the desired result of a localized internal short circuit. Absent any evidence of criticality of the test location at the bottom corner, the test location is determined to be a design choice. Therefore, the test location is determined to be a design choice and selection of that location is therefore obvious. See MPEP 2144.04.VI.C. “Rearrangement of Parts”.
This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 3 “wherein the localized internal short circuit occurs at an internal or external jellyroll layer of the electrochemical cell” (FIG. 6), the limitation of claim 5, (the section comprises a pinpoint section) and the limitation of claim 10 “wherein the heat source comprises one or more of a flame, a hot air heater, an electric heater, and a laser.”
Regarding claim 9, Shironita in view of Mehrotra teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Regarding the limitation wherein the localized internal short circuit comprises a localized shrinking of an insulation layer positioned between a negative electrode and a positive electrode, Shironita (abstract) discloses “the separator shrink occurs, which was followed by an internal short circuit caused by the subsequent heating.” Shironita at FIG. 5(c) shows the separator located between a negative electrode and a positive electrode and shrinkage of the separator due to heating. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would expect that the localized internal short circuit meets the instant claim limitation.
Claim(s) 2, 6- 8, 11-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shironita (as set forth above), in view of Mehrotra (as set forth above), and in further view of Ruiz (Ruiz, V. and Pfrang, A., JRC exploratory research: Safer Li-ion batteries by preventing thermal propagation, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018, doi:10.2760/786907, JRC113320).
Regarding claim 2, Shironita in view of Mehrotra teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. The localized internal short circuit comprising a single point of contact between a positive electrode and a negative electrode may be an inherent feature of the test process of Shironita in view of Mehrotra, however Shironita does not explicitly teach this feature.
Ruiz discloses multiple methods of initiating thermal runaway in batteries, including the use of a laser. On page 22, Ruiz discloses the use of “laser impact light beam” to create a “single or multilayer strike”. Examiner notes that a “single layer strike” is expected to generate a single point of contact between the positive electrode and the negative electrode. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a single layer internal short circuit, for the test method of Shironita in view of Mehrotra, because the single layer internal short circuit represents one of a finite number of options as suggested by Ruiz, with a reasonable expectation of successfully initiating thermal runaway.
Regarding claims 6-8, Shironita in view of Mehrotra teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. The localized internal short circuit comprising a single negative electrode, a single positive electrode, and a single insulation layer may be an inherent feature of Shironita in view of Mehrotra, however these references do not explicitly teach (claim 6) wherein the localized internal short circuit comprises a single negative electrode, a single positive electrode, and a single insulation layer; (claim 7) wherein the localized internal short circuit comprises three or fewer negative electrodes, three or fewer positive electrodes, and two or fewer insulation layers; and (claim 8) wherein the localized internal short circuit comprises a number of negative electrodes, positive electrodes, and insulation layers that comprises less than 1% of a total number of negative electrodes, positive electrodes, and insulation layers in the battery.
Ruiz discloses multiple methods of initiating thermal runaway in batteries. On page 22, Ruiz discloses the use of “laser impact light beam” to create a “single or multilayer strike”. Examiner notes that a “single layer strike” is expected to generate a localized internal short circuit comprising a single negative electrode, a single positive electrode, and a single insulation layer, meeting the limitations of claims 6, 7, and 8. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the single layer internal short circuit for the test method of Shironita in view of Mehrotra, with a reasonable expectation of successfully initiating thermal runaway, because the single layer internal short circuit represents one of a finite number of options as suggested by Ruiz.
Regarding claims 11, 16, 17, and 20 Shironita teaches a system (page 2 col. 1 “laser”) comprising:
a heat source: (page 2 col. 1 “laser”)
Examiner notes that (abstract) thermal runaway in a battery is a known safety issue. At FIG. 3, the battery experiences temperatures over 300˚C. However, Shironita does not explicitly teach a chamber; and a diffuser coupling the heat source to an inside of the chamber through a wall of the chamber. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to carry out the testing of Shironita in a chamber, with the laser outside of the chamber, for the purpose of improved safety and to protect the laser from damage.
Mehrotra provides further evidence for the use of a chamber and placement of the laser outside of the chamber. Mehrotra discloses (page 1) the use of a laser to trigger thermal runaway in a battery, and further discloses (page 5) the use of a laser with fiber coupled output (diffuser coupling) and lens, which allows the test setup to be isolated from the laser and discloses (page 9) the laser outside of an enclosure and the battery inside the enclosure.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the testing system of Shironita by placing the laser outside of the hold and using the diffuser coupling to bring the heat source into the chamber, in order to allow the use of a laser to trigger thermal runaway while both protecting the laser and the test operator, with a reasonable expectation of success. This also renders obvious positioning the electrochemical cell in the chamber, as shown at page 7 of Mehrotra.
Shironita further teaches:
applying the heat source … thereby causing a thermal runaway condition due to a localized internal short circuit in the electrochemical cell; (page 4 col. 1 and 2 “laser irradiation to battery”, “hard short circuits”)
regarding the limitation without the heat source physically contacting the electrochemical cell, Examiner notes that a person of ordinary skill would understand that a laser is typically a non-contact heating source and would be motivated to use the laser as a non-contact heating instrument to avoid damage to the laser.
determining whether the electrochemical cell has vented, ruptured, or exploded in response to the application of the heat source to the section of the electrochemical cell; (Fig. 3 “point B corresponds to vent release”)
Regarding the limitation the section comprising a bottom corner of the electrochemical cell opposite an end of the electrochemical cell comprising a terminal, Shironita at Table 4 shows the laser targeting the approximate middle of the length of the battery cylinder but does not teach against targeting any other location. Mehrotra at page 6, page 7, and page 14 discloses targeting the battery at multiple different locations including a center side, lower side, upper side, and bottom surface. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select any spot location taught by Mehrotra for the battery thermal runaway testing of modified Shironita, with a reasonable expectation of successfully initiating a cell into thermal runaway.
Further, the instant specification discloses ([0020] and FIG. 4) that the test location can be selected from “center side, corner side, bottom center side, and terminal side” (essentially, the test location can be anywhere on the battery.) The specification is silent as to any benefit for placement of the test location in a bottom corner opposite the terminal. Therefore, the test location is determined to be a design choice and selection of that location is therefore obvious. See MPEP 2144.04.VI.C. “Rearrangement of Parts”.
Shironita and Mehrotra do not explicitly teach wherein the localized internal short circuit comprises a number of negative electrodes, positive electrodes, and insulation layers that comprises less than 1% of a total number of negative electrodes, positive electrodes, and insulation layers in the electrochemical cell.
Ruiz discloses multiple methods of initiating thermal runaway in batteries. On page 22, Ruiz discloses the use of “laser impact light beam” to create a “single or multilayer strike”. Examiner notes that a “single layer strike” is expected to generate a localized internal short circuit comprising a single negative electrode, a single positive electrode, and a single insulation layer. Examiner notes that a “back of the envelope calculation” using data from Table 1 and FIG. 5 of Shironita suggests the battery has about 100-120 separator layers (separately counting both left and right sides of a cylindrical cell.) Therefore, a single layer strike meets the instant “less than 1%” limitation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the single layer internal short circuit for the test method of Shironita in view of Mehrotra, with a reasonable expectation of successfully initiating thermal runaway, because the single layer internal short circuit represents one of a finite number of options as suggested by Ruiz.
This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 16, wherein the localized internal short circuit comprises a single negative electrode, a single positive electrode, and a single insulation layer, the limitation of claim 17, wherein the localized internal short circuit comprises three or fewer negative electrodes, three or fewer positive electrodes, and two or fewer insulation layers, and the limitation of claim 20, wherein the heat source comprises one or more of a flame, a hot air heater, an electric heater, and a laser.
Regarding claim 12, Shironita in view of Mehrotra and Ruiz teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Shironita further teaches (page 2 column 2) a thermocouple but does not explicitly teach an apparatus to receive the electrochemical cell. Mehrotra at page 7 shows the use of a vice to secure the battery, an appears to show (left image) a thermocouple at a location near the jaws of the vice. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to secure the battery in a vice as shown by Mehrotra, in order to avoid movement of the battery during the testing.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Shironita in view of Mehrotra and Ruiz teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Shironita further teaches wherein the section of the electrochemical cell comprises an area of the electrochemical cell that is less than 1% of a total area of the electrochemical cell. (Table 1, battery length 65.5 mm, Page 5 col. 2 “damage size was 0.4 mm in diameter”) Examiner notes that 0.4 mm/65.5 mm = 0.6% of the longest dimension of the battery, which is a spot area substantially y less than the total surface area of the cell. This also meets the limitation of claim 15, wherein the section comprises a pin-point section.
Regarding claim 19, Shironita in view of Mehrotra and Ruiz teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Shironita further teaches wherein the localized internal short circuit comprises a localized shrinking of an insulation layer positioned between a negative electrode and a positive electrode. Shironita (abstract) discloses “the separator shrink occurs, which was followed by an internal short circuit caused by the subsequent heating.” Shironita at FIG. 5 (c) shows the separator located between a negative electrode and a positive electrode and shrinkage of the separator due to heating. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would expect that the localized internal short circuit meets the instant claim limitation.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Shironita in view of Mehrotra and Ruiz, as set forth above in claim 11, and in further view of CN 107677966 A (Xu). Page numbers in Xu are to the provided English translation.
Regarding claim 13, Shironita in view of Mehrotra and Ruiz teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Shironita does not explicitly teach wherein the autoclave (chamber) comprises an explosion proof window. Xu teaches [0016] the use of explosion-proof glass in the enclosure and teaches at [0025] the importance of safety of the experimental system.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the test chamber of modified Shironita with the explosion-proof glass of Xu, of the purpose of protecting the health and safety of the equipment operators.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached at 571-270-1292. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/12/2026