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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed July 29, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 63-64 have been amended; support for the amendments can be found at least in paragraph [0053]). Claims 1, 4-7, 12, 14, 18-19, 22-24, 26-27, 30, 34-35, 39, 42-44, 51-52, 54, 57, 61, and 63-64 remain pending with claims 26-27, 30, 34-35, 39, 42-44, 51-52, 54, and 57 being withdrawn. Claims 1, 4-7, 12, 14, 18-19, 22-24, 61, and 63-64 have been examined on their merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 29, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues a) the rejection of Okuno in view of Ha relies on impermissible hindsight reconstruction to derive the presently claimed invention and b) the prior art of record does not teach an electrical resistance of 30 ohm-cm2 or less.
Regarding arguments A and B, Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below in view of Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1, 63, and 64.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 14, 19, 23-24, 61, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20160149185 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yoon.
Regarding claim 1, Yoon teaches a separator for a high power electrochemical devices (“a polyamide-imide coated separator for a high energy or high voltage rechargeable lithium battery”) (see e.g., Abstract and paragraph [0005]). Yoon teaches the separator includes a porous polymer film (see e.g., paragraph [0012]) with a porosity from 0.01 to 50 µm (“a microporous polymeric layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0021]). Yoon teaches the separator includes a polymer coating layer formed on one surface or both surfaces of the porous polymer film (see e.g., paragraph [0012]), wherein the polymer coating layer including at least one type of particles of organic particles including polyamide-imide and binder polymer including polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene (“a polyamide-imide layer comprising polyamide-imide (PAI) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), and being free from acrylics, and disposed on at least one side of the microporous polymeric layer”) (see e.g., paragraphs [0012], [0022], and [0026]). The binder polymer including polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene as taught by Yoon meets the claim limitation of “polyvinylidene fluoride” as the Instant Specification teaches the ionically conductive polymer may be a PVDF such as a PVDF-HFP (see e.g., paragraph [0022]).
Yoon teaches a composition ratio of the particles (polyamide-imide) and the binder polymer (polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) in the porous coating layer is in a range of 50:50 to 99:1, based on weight (“wherein said polyamide-imide layer has a PAI/PVDF solid ratio of 60/40”) (see e.g., paragraph [0075]).
Yoon teaches the polymer coating layer comprising polyamide-imide and polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene provides a separator with improved structure stability, increased air permeability and ionic conductivity (see e.g., paragraph [0010]), and reduce or prevent thermal shrinkage (see e.g., paragraph [0032]), thereby providing the properties “adapted to provide oxidation resistance, block dendrite growth, add dimensional stability, reduce shrinkage, and to prevent electronic shorting at temperature above 200 °C.” The examiner notes that there is no quantification of the claimed properties, and thus the multilayer structure, corresponding to identical materials, will have the same properties.
Yoon teaches the pore structure of the porous coating layer provide a channel for movement of the lithium ions of the electrolyte solution to operate a battery (“wherein said microporous polymeric layer is adapted to hold liquid electrolyte and to conduct ions”) (see e.g., paragraph [0106]).
Yoon teaches a separator suitable for the design of high power electrochemical devices needs to have a low electrical resistance (see e.g., paragraph [0005]). Yoon teaches the examples of the separator have an electrical resistance (ER) ranging from 0.5 to 0.6 Ω (see e.g., Table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the porous coating layer of Yoon have an electrical 30 ohm-cm2 or less as claimed because Yoon teaches a low electrical resistance, such as the electrical resistance (ER) ranging from 0.5 to 0.6 Ω (see e.g., Table 1), is suitable for the design of high power electrochemical devices (see e.g., paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Yoon teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yoon teaches the porous coating layer has pore sizes in the range of 0.001 to 10 µm (“wherein said polyamide-imide layer is semi-porous, microporous, mesoporous, microporous, and/or nanoporous”) (see e.g., paragraph [0104]).
Regarding claim 14, Yoon teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yoon teaches the porous coating layer further comprises inorganic particles (“said polyamide-imide layer further comprises other additives or fillers”) (see e.g., paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 19, Yoon teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yoon teaches the porous polymer film is a porous polyolefin film (see e.g., paragraph [0019]) that may include polyethylene or polypropylene (“said microporous polymeric layer is a polyolefinic membrane that is a polypropylene and/or polyethylene containing membrane”) (see e.g., paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 23, Yoon teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yoon teaches a separator for a high power electrochemical devices (“a high voltage rechargeable lithium battery”) (see e.g., Abstract and paragraph [0005]). Yoon teaches the electrochemical device including a cathode (“a cathode”), an anode (“an anode”), and a separator interposed between the cathode and the anode, wherein the separator is the above-described separator for an electrochemical device (“a separator according to claim 1 disposed between said anode and said cathode”) (see e.g., paragraph [0028]). Yoon teaches an electrolyte solution (see e.g., paragraph [0114]), wherein the electrolyte solution has a channel for movement of lithium ions essential to operate a battery through the pores or the porous coating layer (“an electrolyte in ionic communication with said anode and said cathode via said separator”) (see e.g., paragraph [0106]).
Regarding claim 24, Yoon teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yoon teaches a separator for a high power electrochemical devices (“a high energy rechargeable lithium battery”) (see e.g., Abstract and paragraph [0005]). Yoon teaches the electrochemical device including a cathode (“a cathode”), an anode (“an anode”), and a separator interposed between the cathode and the anode, wherein the separator is the above-described separator for an electrochemical device (“a separator according to claim 1 disposed between said anode and said cathode”) (see e.g., paragraph [0028]). Yoon teaches an anode active material includes a lithium metal or a lithium alloy (“an anode containing lithium metal or lithium-alloy or a mixture of lithium and/or lithium alloy and another material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0116]). Yoon teaches an electrolyte solution (see e.g., paragraph [0114]), wherein the electrolyte solution has a channel for movement of lithium ions essential to operate a battery through the pores or the porous coating layer (“an electrolyte in ionic communication with said anode and said cathode via said separator”) (see e.g., paragraph [0106]).
Regarding claim 61, Yoon teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yoon teaches the polymer coating layer includes at least one type of particles of organic particles including polyamide-imide and binder polymer including polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene (“said polyamide-imide layer contains at least polyamide-imide and one or more other polymers or co-polymers, and may be non-porous, semi-porous, microporous, nanoporous, or porous”) (see e.g., paragraphs [0012], [0022], and [0026]).
Regarding claim 64, Yoon teaches a separator for a high power electrochemical devices (“a polyamide-imide separator for a high energy or high voltage rechargeable lithium battery”) (see e.g., Abstract and paragraph [0005]). Yoon teaches the separator includes a porous polymer film (see e.g., paragraph [0012]). Yoon teaches the separator includes a polymer coating layer formed on one surface or both surfaces of the porous polymer film (see e.g., paragraph [0012]), wherein the polymer coating layer including at least one type of particles of organic particles including polyamide-imide and binder polymer including polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene (“at least one polyamide-imide layer, wherein the polyamide-imide layer comprises polyamide-imide (PAI) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)” and “wherein the polyamide-imide layer is free from acrylics”) (see e.g., paragraphs [0012], [0022], and [0026]). The binder polymer including polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene as taught by Yoon meets the claim limitation of “polyvinylidene fluoride” as the Instant Specification teaches the ionically conductive polymer may be a PVDF such as a PVDF-HFP (see e.g., paragraph [0022]).
Yoon teaches a composition ratio of the particles (polyamide-imide) and the binder polymer (polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) in the porous coating layer is in a range of 50:50 to 99:1, based on weight (“w a PAI/PVDF solid ratio of 60/40”) (see e.g., paragraph [0075]).
Yoon teaches a separator suitable for the design of high power electrochemical devices needs to have a low electrical resistance (see e.g., paragraph [0005]). Yoon teaches the examples of the separator have an electrical resistance (ER) ranging from 0.5 to 0.6 Ω (see e.g., Table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the porous coating layer of Yoon have an electrical 30 ohm-cm2 or less as claimed because Yoon teaches a low electrical resistance, such as the electrical resistance (ER) ranging from 0.5 to 0.6 Ω (see e.g., Table 1), is suitable for the design of high power electrochemical devices (see e.g., paragraph [0005]).
Claims 5-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (Published Patent Application US 20160149185 A1) in view of Mizuno et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2015/0050542 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mizuno.
Regarding claim 5, Yoon teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yoon teaches in a state that the particles are packed in the porous coating layer and come into contact with each other, the particles are bound with each other by the binder polymer, thereby interstitial volumes are formed between the particles and the interstitial volumes between the particles become a void space to form pores (see e.g., paragraph [0105]). However, Yoon does not explicitly teach the porous coating layer is made porous by removing plasticizer, pore former, and/or particles from a coating formulation of at least polyamide-imide and at least one of a plasticizer, pore former, particles, or combinations thereof.
However, Mizuno teaches a battery separator that includes a porous membrane A and a porous membrane B laminated on the porous membrane A, the porous membrane A including a polyolefin resin, the porous membrane B including a polyamide-imide resin and inorganic particles or cross-linked polymer particles (see e.g., Abstract). Mizuno teaches the porous membrane B is made porous by a phase separation aid (“a pore former”) (see e.g., paragraph [0073]). Mizuno teaches the phase separation process to form pores utilizing a phase separation aid produces uniform micropores and improves cost (see e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would produce the pores of the resin layer of Yoon by utilizing a phase separation aid to create the pores with a phase separation method, as taught by Mizuno, in order to produce uniform micropores and to improve cost (see e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Yoon, as modified Mizuno, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described.
Yoon, as modified Mizuno, does not explicitly teach the heat-resistant adhesive porous layer may be made semi-porous or porous by removing at least some of the particles from a coating formulation of at least polyamide-imide and particles, polyamide-imide, another polymer and particles, or polyamide-imide, polymers and particles.
However, Mizuno teaches the porous membrane B is made porous by a phase separation aid (“a pore former”) (see e.g., paragraph [0073]). Mizuno teaches the phase separation process to form pores utilizing a phase separation aid produces uniform micropores and improves cost (see e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would produce the pores of the resin layer of Yoon, as modified Mizuno, by utilizing a phase separation aid to create the pores with a phase separation method, as taught by Mizuno, in order to produce uniform micropores and to improve cost (see e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 7, Yoon, as modified Mizuno, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described.
Yoon, as modified Mizuno, does not explicitly teach wherein: said particles are selected from PVDF, polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene (PVDF-HFP), others that are ionically conductive, or mixtures thereof; inorganic or ceramic particles are also part of the coating formulation and are removed; said particles, including said inorganic or ceramic particles, are removed with one or more solvents; said particles, including said inorganic or ceramic particles, are removed with one or more solvents, wherein said one or more solvents are water, water-based solvents, HF, or mixtures thereof; inorganic or ceramic particles are also part of the coating formulation and are not removed; or said particles are solvent dissolvable particles or polymers, or are not solvent dissolvable particles or polymers.
However, Mizuno teaches the porous membrane B is made porous by a phase separation aid (see e.g., paragraph [0073]), wherein the separation is caused by removing the membrane-forming solvent to obtain a porous membrane (“inorganic or ceramic particles are also part of the coating formulation and are removed”) (see e.g., paragraph [0047]). Mizuno teaches the phase separation process to form pores utilizing a phase separation aid produces uniform micropores and improves cost (see e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would produce the pores of the resin layer of Yoon, as modified Mizuno, by utilizing a phase separation aid to create the pores with a phase separation method, as taught by Mizuno, in order to produce uniform micropores and to improve cost (see e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 12, Yoon, as modified Mizuno, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described.
Yoon, as modified Mizuno, does not explicitly teach wherein: said polyamide-imide layer is made semi-porous or porous by removing plasticizer from a coating formulation of at least polyamide-imide and plasticizer; or said polyamide-imide layer is made semi-porous or porous by removing pore former from a coating formulation of at least polyamide-imide and pore former.
However, Mizuno teaches the porous membrane B is made porous by a phase separation aid (see e.g., paragraph [0073]), wherein the separation is caused by removing the membrane-forming solvent to obtain a porous membrane (“said polyamide-imide layer is made semi-porous or porous by removing pore former from a coating formulation of at least polyamide-imide and pore former”) (see e.g., paragraph [0047]). Mizuno teaches the phase separation process to form pores utilizing a phase separation aid produces uniform micropores and improves cost (see e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would produce the pores of the resin layer of Yoon, as modified Mizuno, by utilizing a phase separation aid to create the pores with a phase separation method, as taught by Mizuno, in order to produce uniform micropores and to improve cost (see e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Claims 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (Published Patent Application US 20160149185 A1) and Mizuno et al. (Published U.S. Patent US 2015/0050542 A1), and further in view of Sugawara (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2017/0018749 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Yoon, as modified by Mizuno, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described.
Yoon, as modified by Mizuno, does not explicitly teach wherein before being removed said particles comprise between 20% to 80% by weight of the polyamide-imide and the particles combined.
However, Sugawara teaches a porous separator which has excellent handleability and provides a secondary battery with high electrical characteristics (see e.g., Abstract). Sugawara teaches the porous separator is produced by removing the fine particles from a precursor film containing fine particles (see e.g., paragraph [0029]). Suguwara teaches the ratio of the components constituting the precursor film and the fine particles is in a range of 15:85 to 50:50 (see e.g., paragraph [0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would produce the pores of the surface layer of Yoon, as modified by Mizuno, by utilizing fine particles in the range of 15:85 to 50:50, as taught by Suguwara, in order to porous separator which has excellent handleability and provides a secondary battery with high electrical characteristics (see e.g., Abstract).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the ratio of 15:85 to 50:50 overlap with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 22, Yoon, as modified by Mizuno, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described.
Yoon, as modified by Mizuno, does not explicitly teach said particles have an average particle size in the range of 0.001 to 10 microns.
Suguwara teaches the fine particles have an average particle diameter of 100 nm or more and 500 nm or less (see e.g., paragraph [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would produce the pores of the surface layer of Yoon, as modified by Mizuno, by utilizing fine particles with an average particle diameter of 100 nm or more and 500 nm or less, as taught by Suguwara, in order to porous separator which has excellent handleability and provides a secondary battery with high electrical characteristics (see e.g., Abstract).
it has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because average particle diameter of 100 nm or more and 500 nm or less overlap with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2020/0112050) in view of Yoon et al. (Published Patent Application US 20160149185 A1)
Regarding claim 63, Hu teaches a polymer coated separator for batteries. As high energy and high voltage are not quantified, Hu meets the preamble limitations (high voltage properties are also taught in paragraph [0079]).
Hu teaches the separator includes a solid state electrolyte and a polymer coating or layer (see e.g., Abstract). Hu teaches the polymer coating may include one or more polymers (see e.g., paragraph [0099]), which are not particularly limited and may include PVDF (see e.g., paragraph [0101]).
Hu does not explicitly teach that the polymeric layer may include PAI or have a PAI/PVDF solid ratio of 60/40.
However, Yoon teaches a separator for a high power electrochemical devices (“a polyamide-imide separator for a high energy or high voltage rechargeable lithium battery”) (see e.g., Abstract and paragraph [0005]). Yoon teaches the separator includes a porous polymer film (see e.g., paragraph [0012]). Yoon teaches the separator includes a polymer coating layer formed on one surface or both surfaces of the porous polymer film (see e.g., paragraph [0012]), wherein the polymer coating layer including at least one type of particles of organic particles including polyamide-imide and binder polymer including polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene (“wherein the polyamide-imide layer comprises polyamide-imide (PAI) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)” and “wherein the polyamide-imide layer is free from acrylics”) (see e.g., paragraphs [0012], [0022], and [0026]). The binder polymer including polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene as taught by Yoon meets the claim limitation of “polyvinylidene fluoride” as the Instant Specification teaches the ionically conductive polymer may be a PVDF such as a PVDF-HFP (see e.g., paragraph [0022]). Yoon teaches a composition ratio of the particles (polyamide-imide) and the binder polymer (polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) in the porous coating layer is in a range of 50:50 to 99:1, based on weight (“with a PAI/PVDF solid ratio of 60/40”) (see e.g., paragraph [0075]).
Yoon teaches a separator suitable for the design of high power electrochemical devices needs to have a low electrical resistance (see e.g., paragraph [0005]). Yoon teaches the examples of the separator have an electrical resistance (ER) ranging from 0.5 to 0.6 Ω (see e.g., Table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the porous coating layer of Yoon have an electrical 30 ohm-cm2 or less as claimed because Yoon teaches a low electrical resistance, such as the electrical resistance (ER) ranging from 0.5 to 0.6 Ω (see e.g., Table 1), is suitable for the design of high power electrochemical devices (see e.g., paragraph [0005]).
Yoon teaches the composite separator with a porous coating layer comprising polyamide-imide and the binder polymer in order to improved thermal safety, sufficient formation of interstitial volumes between the particles, and prevent a reduction in final battery performance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the polymer layer of Hu to include polyamide-imide and the binder polymer to be in a ratio of 50:50 to 99:1, as taught by Yoon, in order to improved thermal safety, sufficient formation of interstitial volumes between the particles, and prevent a reduction in final battery performance.
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 Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 EST.
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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
