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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1 – 13) and Species (I A) & Species (II B) in the reply filed on (2 – 04 – 2026) is acknowledged. Accordingly, Claim(s) 14 – 19 and non-elected species are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the same reply filed on (2 – 04 – 2026).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the raw material mixing unit 10 of embodiments comprises at least one operating unit (not shown) comprising at least one motor, and the operating unit rotates with being connected to a shaft (now shown), and a stirring blade (not shown) mixes a prepolymer and a foaming agent rotated and supplied by the shaft in the inside of a raw material mixing container 11 and a shaft (not shown) connected to a motor (now shown) under power and disposed in the uniformizing housing 71 to be rotatable, and a uniformizing plate 73 arranged along the length direction of the shaft and in which a flow hole 731 is formed and the filter housing 211 may comprise an opened hole on which a cover (not shown) is disposed to be detachable and on the outer circumference of the holder 222, a scraper (made from CORNE and not shown) may be disposed and the mold (not shown) may comprise a mold which can form a shaped body having a regular thickness and shape, and the shaped body formed by the mold may be applied by itself as a polishing layer, or may be applied after passing through an additional shaping machining as a polishing layer, it should be noted that emphasis is added to highlight the item(s) are not illustrated as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain
meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also
commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification
when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when
the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption
that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under
35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation
recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the
recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A raw material mixer preparing a mixed raw material, as recited in claim 1.
A first filter for filtering the mixed raw material depending on a size of the mixed raw material, as recited in claim 2.
A second filter for separating metallic matters from the mixed raw material, as recited in claim 3.
An inlet to which the mixed raw material is introduced to the filter space, as recited in claim 6.
An outlet for emitting the mixed raw material, as recited in claim 6.
A first operating component to be rotatable, as recited in claim 11.
At least one second operating component to be rotatable, as recited in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
equivalents thereof.
(Pgs. 1 - 3) of the instant application’s specifications teaches more details regarding the raw material mixer.
(Pgs. 2, 4 – 5, 7, 15, 17 – 18 & 20) of the instant application’s specifications teaches more details regarding the first filter.
(Pgs. 2, 4 – 5, 7, 15, 17 – 18 & 20) of the instant application’s specifications teaches more details regarding the second filter.
(Pgs. 2 – 3, 14 – 16, 18 & 26) of the instant application’s specifications teaches more details regarding the inlet.
(Pgs. 2 – 3, 14 – 16, 18 & 26) of the instant application’s specifications teaches more details regarding the outlet.
(Pgs. 2 – 3, 11 – 13) of the instant application’s specifications teaches more details regarding the first operating component.
(Pgs. 2 – 3, 11 – 13) of the instant application’s specifications teaches more details regarding the second operating component.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 6 – 8 is/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.
The term “lower portion” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lower portion” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, it will be understood to be the bottom / lower half.
The term “upper portion” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “upper portion” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, it will be understood to be the top / upper half.
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.
A.) Claim(s) 1 – 4, 10 & 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirohito et al. (JP 2018051731 A) in view Ogawa et al. (JP 2004188716 A, hereinafter Ogawa)Regarding claim 1,
An apparatus for mixing a resin composition for manufacturing a polishing pad comprising:
a raw material mixer preparing a mixed raw material comprising a prepolymer and
a foaming agent;
a filter connected to the raw material mixer for filtering the mixed raw material; and
a pad composition mixer connected to the filter to prepare a curable mixture comprising the mixed raw material after being filtered and
a curing agent,
wherein the raw material mixer comprises a plurality of rotators having different rotation speeds.
Hirohito teaches the following:
([0012]) teaches a first tank contains a liquid containing hollow microspheres and a prepolymer. ([0041]) teaches that The hollow fine particles 111 are introduced from the container 212 into the first storage tank 201 via the flow path 503 . By introducing the hollow fine particles 111 from the container 212 into the first storage tank 201 through such a flow path 503, scattering of the hollow fine particles 111 outside the first storage tank 201 is suppressed. ([0024]) teaches that the prepolymer can be a compound having an isocyanate group terminal. ([0026]) notes a variety of polyisocyanate compounds that may be used, noting that one or more of these can be used. As such, a first polyisocyanate compound acts as the prepolymer. Accordingly, the first tank is understood to act as a raw material mixer preparing a mixed raw material comprising a prepolymer.
([0003]) teaches that the methods for forming the voids include foaming with carbon dioxide gas produced by the reaction of water with an isocyanate compound. ([0010]) teaches that foreign matter produced by the reaction between the water adhering to the thermoplastic resin and the prepolymer is removed by the strainer 400, thereby preventing the foreign matter from being mixed into the polishing pad. Highlighting, that the strainer 400 is found after the storage tank 201 and a portion of a flow path 503. Namely, foaming (with water) is understood to take place prior to the filter i.e., within first storage tank 201. As such, the water / carbon dioxide gas acts as a (chemical) foaming agent. Accordingly, the isocyanate compound prepolymer is understood to be mixed with the foaming agent.Alternatively, ([0026]) notes a variety of polyisocyanate compounds that may be used, noting that one or more of these can be used. As such, a second polyisocyanate may also act as the foaming agent. Consequently, the isocyanate compound prepolymer is understood to be mixed with the foaming agent.
([0046]) teaches the strainer 400 can remove foreign matter contained in the liquid containing the hollow fine particles 111 and the prepolymer before the liquid is supplied to the stirring tank 203. As such, the strainer 400 acts as applicant’s filter connected to the raw material mixer for filtering the mixed raw material.
& e.) ([0041]) teaches the second reservoir 202 can contain a curing agent that cures the prepolymer. In the stirring tank 203, a liquid containing hollow fine particles 111 and a prepolymer is mixed with a curing agent to form the polishing material 301. As illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 2) after the a liquid containing hollow fine particles 111 and a prepolymer is moved from the first storage tank 201 through such a flow path 503 that comprises strainer 400, it is moved to the stirring tank 203 in which a curing agent is also added to the stirring tank 203 from second reservoir 202 via flow path 502a.
Regarding Claim 1, Hirohito is silent on the raw material mixer comprises a plurality of rotators having different rotation speeds. In analogous art for a polishing pad manufacturing apparatus that comprises a mixer and implements an isocyanate prepolymer, ([0009]), Ogawa suggests details regarding the raw material mixer comprises a plurality of rotators having different rotation speeds, and in this regard, Ogawa teaches the following:
(Pg. 4) teaches the present invention provides a method for producing a polishing pad made of a fine celled foam by mixing a first component containing an isocyanate group containing prepolymer and a second component containing an active hydrogen group containing compound, the method comprising the steps of: using a stirring device equipped with a stirrer and a mixing vessel; followed by a second mixing step with a the second component with the bubble dispersion to form a curable bubble dispersion.
As such, the process disclosed implements a (similar) two-stage mixing step, with the first mixing comprising mixing a isocyanate group containing prepolymer along with other components, and a second comprising adding a curing agent to the isocyanate group containing prepolymer composition. (Pg. 5) teaches that the air bubble dispersion obtained by mechanical stirring. The size of the bubbles can also be adjusted by appropriately selecting the rotation speed and shape of the stirring blades in the stirrer. (Pg. 8) teaches that two stirring blades are provided perpendicular to the rotating shaft, and the rotor blades 14A and 14B attached to the two rotating shafts rotate in opposite directions (arrows) so as not to interfere with each other. As such, the stirrer is understood to comprise a plurality of blades 14A and 14B / rotators.(Pg. 6) teaches that the size of the bubbles can also be adjusted by appropriately selecting the rotation speed and shape of the stirring blades in the stirrer, the type of surfactant, and the like. (Pg. 15) teaches adjusting the rotation speed of the stirring blades, so as not to entrain large bubble. As such, the speed of shape of the stirring blades in the stirrer are understood to be a result effective variable that impacts the size of the bubbles produced in the mixture. Accordingly, it is understood that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to optimize the plurality of rotators to have different rotational speeds. Adding, that having different rotational speeds is understood to be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, i.e., rotators to have different rotational speeds, rotators to have same rotational speeds, rotators to have no rotational speed.
(Pg. 4) teaches a silicon-based nonionic surfactant to the isocyanate group-containing prepolymer and stirring the resulting mixture with a non-reactive gas using the stirring device to disperse the non-reactive gas as bubbles to form a bubble dispersion. As such, the non-reactive gas acts as a foaming agent within the first mixture. (Pg. 14) teaches that the non-reactive gas used to form the fine bubbles is preferably one that is not flammable, and specific examples include nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, rare gases such as helium and argon, and mixtures of these gas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a polishing pad that comprises a first storage tank 201 can contain a liquid isocyanate prepolymer compound which are mixed with hollow fine particles 111, and a second storage tank 202 (second tank) with curing agent which are further mixed to form a polish pad solution of Hirohito. By modifying polishing pad mixing and fabrication apparatus to comprise a first storage tank 201 / mixing vessel that includes a mechanical stirring device equipped with a stirrer comprising a plurality of mixing blades / rotors, as taught by Ogawa. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a mechanical stirring device equipped with a stirrer comprising a plurality of mixing blades / rotors as it provides tailoring the density of the foam, (Pg. 4) allowing for producing a foam of any density, (Pg. 9). Highlighting, that it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B). Additionally, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success and/or applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. Adding, that the use of a known material, i.e., non-reactive gas, in a known environment, namely a first mixture comprise a liquid isocyanate group-containing prepolymer, for its intended purposes namely, a bubble dispersion that provides the polyurethane foam with reducing density variations between production lots, provides to the reaction of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the filter comprises a first filter for filtering the mixed raw material depending on a size of the mixed raw material.
Hirohito teaches the following:
([0046]) teaches that the strainer 400 is not particularly limited as long as it can be connected to a flow path and has a filter that removes foreign matter, but for example, a strainer having a Y-type, U-type, or W-type shape is used. The strainer 400 may be provided, for example, in the middle of the flow path 501 a and upstream of the pump 401. The foreign matter may be larger than the diameter of the hollow fine particles 111, for example, particles having a particle diameter of more than 200 μm. ([0047]) teaches that a filter 400f is provided within the strainer 400. The filter 400f has, for example, a plurality of through holes. The filter 400f is made of, for example, a mesh member, a porous plate material, or the like. A plurality of filters 400 f may be arranged within the strainer 400 . The hollow particles 111 and the prepolymer pass through the through holes, but foreign matter larger in diameter than the hollow particles 111 cannot pass through the filter 400f. As such, the filter 400f within the strainer 400 is found to provide for filtering the mixed raw material depending on a size of the mixed raw material.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 2,
Wherein the first filter comprises:
a first filter housing, in which the mixed raw material moves; and
a filtering wall disposed in the filter housing, through which the mixed raw material passes,
wherein the filtering wall allows the mixed raw material in a predetermined size or less to be passed.
Hirohito teaches the following:
([0047]) teaches that filter 400f is provided within the strainer 400. As illustrated in (Fig. 2), the strainer 400 is shown to have a cover / housing.
& c.) ([0047]) teaches that the filter 400f has, for example, a plurality of through holes. The filter 400f is made of, for example, a mesh member, a porous plate material, or the like. A plurality of filters 400 f may be arranged within the strainer 400. The hollow particles 111 and the prepolymer pass through the through holes, but foreign matter larger in diameter than the hollow particles 111 cannot pass through the filter 400. As such, the filters 400 f provide within strainer 400 are found to have a filtering wall / a porous plate material in which the filtering wall / porous plate material allows the mixed raw material in a predetermined size or less to be passed.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the filter comprises a second filter for separating metallic matters from the mixed raw material.
Hirohito teaches the following:
([0053]) teaches that in order to remove such metal components, the strainer 400 may have a metal adsorption mechanism that can remove the metal components.
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the raw material mixer comprises:
a mixing container, in which a raw material mixing space is disposed; and
a raw material stirrer disposed in the raw material mixing space and may be moved by the plurality of rotators,
wherein the raw material mixer mixes the prepolymer and the foaming agent, accommodated in the raw material mixing space, and
disperses the foaming agent in the mixed raw material.
Hirohito teaches the following:
& c.) Recalling, ([0010]) teaches that foaming (with water) is understood to take place prior to the filter i.e., within first storage tank 201. ([0041]) teaches the first storage tank 201 can contain a content (liquid) including hollow fine particles 111 and a prepolymer. The hollow fine particles 111 are stored in advance in a container 212 provided above the first storage tank 201. As such the first storage tank 201 acts as applicant’s first mixing container, which contains the prepolymer and the foaming agent, accommodated in the raw material mixing space.
([0003]) teaches that for forming the voids include foaming with carbon dioxide gas produced by the reaction of water with an isocyanate compound, which is a raw material for polyurethane; mixing fine air particles into the synthetic resin; and mixing minute hollow spheres into the synthetic resin. As such, the water / carbon dioxide gas (foaming agent) is understood to be dispersed in the mixed raw material.
Regarding Claim 10, Hirohito is silent on the raw material mixer mixes the prepolymer and the foaming agent, accommodated in the raw material mixing space. In analogous art as applied above, , Ogawa suggests details regarding the raw material mixer mixes the prepolymer and the foaming agent, accommodated in the raw material mixing space, and in this regard, Ogawa teaches the following:
(Pg. 4) teaches that using an isocyanate group containing prepolymer as the first component; using a stirring device equipped with a stirrer and a mixing vessel; a bubble dispersion production step of adding a silicon-based nonionic surfactant to the isocyanate group-containing prepolymer and stirring the resulting mixture with a non-reactive gas using the stirring device to disperse the non-reactive gas as fine 26-02-2026 - Page 5 bubbles to form a bubble dispersion. (Pg. 8) teaches that two stirring blades are provided perpendicular to the rotating shaft, and the rotor blades 14A and 14B attached to the two rotating shafts rotate in opposite directions (arrows) so as not to interfere with each other. As best illustrated in (Fig. 1) the mixing container comprises a raw material mixing space in which the raw material is combined and mixed. As such, providing for the raw material mixer to mix the prepolymer and the foaming agent, accommodated in the raw material mixing space.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the stirring blade comprises a helical type stirring blade.
Regarding Claim 13, Hirohito is silent on the structure of the stirring blade comprises a helical type stirring blade t. In analogous art as applied above, Ogawa suggests details regarding the structure of the stirring blade comprises a helical type stirring blade, and in this regard, Ogawa teaches the following:
(Pg. 6) teaches that the size of the bubbles can also be adjusted by appropriately selecting the rotation speed and shape of the stirring blades in the stirrer, the type of surfactant, and the like. As such, the shape of the stirring blades is understood to impact the size of the bubbles provided to the mixture during stirring, which in turn impact the density of the article fabricated, (Pg. 6).
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 2, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well. Accordingly, due to the shape of the stirring blade impact the size of the bubbles, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B). Additionally, the case law for the change in shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.B.) Claim(s) 3 – 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirohito in view Ogawa and in further view of Schaaf et al. (US 20030183580 A1, hereinafter Schaaf)
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the filter comprises a second filter for separating metallic matters from the mixed raw material.
Hirohito teaches the following:
([0053]) teaches that in order to remove such metal components, the strainer 400 may have a metal adsorption mechanism that can remove the metal components.
Regarding Claim 3, Hirohito as modified by Ogawa is silent on a second filter for separating metallic matters from the mixed raw material. In analogous for a method and apparatus that relates to the apparatus and method for separating magnetic particles from a fluid utilizing a tank ([0001]), Schaaf suggests details regarding a second filter for separating metallic matters from the mixed raw material, and in this regard, Schaaf teaches the following:
([0004]) teaches positioning a magnetic assembly within the tank in such a way that the cover must be removed prior to removal of the magnetic assembly. ([0005]) adds that another important object of the invention is to facilitate removal of magnetic particles from a liquid avoiding. As such, a filter for separating metallic matters from the mixed raw material is understood to be provided.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a polishing pad that comprises a first storage tank 201 can contain a liquid isocyanate prepolymer compound which are mixed with hollow fine particles 111, and a second storage tank 202 (second tank) with curing agent which are further mixed to form a polish pad solution of Hirohito as modified by Ogawa. By further modifying the polishing pad mixing and fabrication device to comprise a magnetic filter, as taught by Schaaf. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a magnetic filter as it provides removal of magnetic particles from a liquid avoiding the use of paper filters, thus minimizing waste and resulting contamination from the particle removal process, ([0005]). Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the placement of a magnetic filtration unit at the rear end of the mesh filtration unit. However, the case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited. Where, it has generally been recognized by the courts that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400, MPEP 2144. Additionally, that the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. Provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 3,
Wherein the second filter comprises:
a second filter housing, in which the mixed raw material passes;
a holder disposed in the second filter housing and in contact with the mixed raw material passing therethrough; and
a magnet disposed in an inner portion of the holder and
generating a magnetic power,
wherein the metallic matters are attached to an outer circumference of the holder by the magnetic power and thereby removed from the mixed raw material.
Hirohito teaches the following:
([0047]) teaches that a plurality of filters 400 f may be arranged within the strainer 400. As such, a second filter is found within the housing of strainer 400. Highlighting, while a second (separate) filter housing is not provided. The case law for the duplication of parts may be recited. Where, he court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.
([0053]) teaches that there are mentioned porous or fibrous metal adsorbents, those that adsorb metals using magnetic force, and those that chemically adsorb metals using ligands that can form coordinate bonds with the metals. The metal adsorption mechanism may be provided within the strainer 400, may be provided upstream of the filter 400f, or may be provided downstream of the filter 400f.
([0054]) teaches that Furthermore, the inner wall of the flow channel 501 a may be configured with a metal adsorption mechanism
([0053]) teaches there are mentioned porous or fibrous metal adsorbents, those that adsorb metals using magnetic force, and those that chemically adsorb metals using ligands that can form coordinate bonds with the metals. As such, remove unwanted metal components by the use of adsorbing metals using magnetic force / generating a magnetic power is understood to be disclosed.
Regarding Claim 5, Hirohito as modified by Ogawa is silent on the structure of the second filter and its housing. In analogous as applied above, Schaaf suggests details regarding the structure of the second filter and its housing, and in this regard, Schaaf teaches the following:
([0017]) teaches referring more particularly to FIGS. 1 and 2 the tank A is illustrated as including a port 10 having a flanged connection 11 positioned at a lower end of the tank sides 12. ([0020]) teaches that Thus the flow of liquid may be slowed permitting contact with the magnetic assembly over a longer period before passing from the tank through the outlet 20. As such and as best illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 2) the tank A provides for a second filter housing, in which the mixed raw material passes
& c.) ([0016]) teaches that the core assembly includes at least one elongated permanent magnet C and a nonmagnetic tube D covering the elongated permanent magnet receiving magnetic particles from the fluid. As such and as best illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 2) the nonmagnetic tube D provides for a holder in which the permanent magnet C are found within,
& d.) ([0016]) teaches that the core assembly includes at least one elongated permanent magnet C and a nonmagnetic tube D covering the elongated permanent magnet receiving magnetic particles from the fluid. As such, the permanent magnet C is understood to generating a magnetic power that provides for the nonmagnetic tube D to attract / receive the magnetic particles from the fluid,
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 3, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well. Highlighting, that the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. Provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 5,
Wherein in an inner portion of the second filter housing, a filter space, in which the holder is located, is disposed,
wherein in an outer circumference of the lower portion of the second filter housing, an inlet to which the mixed raw material is introduced to the filter space, is disposed in a tangent direction of the outer circumference, and
wherein in the outer circumference of an upper portion of the second filter housing, an outlet for emitting the mixed raw material, which is separated from the metallic matters after passing through the filter space, is disposed.
Regarding Claim 6, Hirohito as modified by Ogawa is silent on the structure of the second filter and its housing. In analogous as applied above, Schaaf suggests details regarding the structure of the second filter and its housing, and in this regard, Schaaf teaches the following:
([0016]) teaches that a magnetic core assembly is receivable within the tank and removable from the tank independently of the closure member for separating magnetic particles from the fluid. As illustrated in (Figs. 1 & 3) the core assembly comprising the permanent magnet C and a nonmagnetic tube D covering are found within an inner portion of the second filter housing, the filtering housing providing for a filter space, in which the holder is located and disposed within.
([0020]) teaches that as best shown in FIG. 3, within the tank for receiving fluid from the inlet 10. Thus, the flow of liquid may be slowed permitting contact with the magnetic assembly over a longer period before passing from the tank through the outlet 20. As such, an inlet is provided on the lower portion of the second filter housing, an inlet to which the mixed raw material is introduced to the filter space, is disposed in a tangent direction of the outer circumference
([0020]) teaches that as best shown in FIG. 3, within the tank for receiving fluid from the inlet 10. Thus, the flow of liquid may be slowed permitting contact with the magnetic assembly over a longer period before passing from the tank through the outlet 20. As such, an outlet is provided on the upper portion of the second filter housing, an outlet for emitting the mixed raw material, which is separated from the metallic matters after passing through the filter space.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 3, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the placement of an inlet and an outlet. However, the case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited. Where, it has generally been recognized by the courts that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400, MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 6,
Wherein the outlet is arranged side by side with the tangent direction of the outer circumference.
Regarding Claim 7, Hirohito as modified by Ogawa is silent on the structure of the second filter and its housing. In analogous as applied above, Schaaf suggests details regarding the structure of the second filter and its housing, and in this regard, Schaaf teaches the following:
([0020]) teaches that as best shown in FIG. 3, within the tank for receiving fluid from the inlet 10. Thus, the flow of liquid may be slowed permitting contact with the magnetic assembly over a longer period before passing from the tank through the outlet 20. As such, outlet 20 provides for an outlet that is arranged side by side with the tangent direction of the outer circumference.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 3, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the placement of an outlet. However, the case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited. Where, it has generally been recognized by the courts that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400, MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 6,
Wherein the inlet and the outlet face together in an opposite angle having the holder therebetween.
Regarding Claim 8, Hirohito as modified by Ogawa is silent on the structure of the second filter and its housing. In analogous as applied above, Schaaf suggests details regarding the structure of the second filter and its housing, and in this regard, Schaaf teaches the following:
([0020]) teaches that as best shown in (FIG. 3), within the tank for receiving fluid from the inlet 10. Thus, the flow of liquid may be slowed permitting contact with the magnetic assembly over a longer period before passing from the tank through the outlet 20. As such, the inlet 10 provides for an inlet that is arranged side by side with the tangent direction of the outer circumference.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 3, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the placement of an inlet and an outlet. However, the case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited. Where, it has generally been recognized by the courts that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400, MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 5,
Wherein the second filter further comprises a cover combined with the second filter housing to be separatable and connected to the holder.
Regarding Claim 9, Hirohito as modified by Ogawa is silent on the structure of the second filter and its housing. In analogous as applied above, Schaaf suggests details regarding the structure of the second filter and its housing, and in this regard, Schaaf teaches the following:
([0016]) teaches that A removable closure member B is provided for the tank. A magnetic core assembly is receivable within the tank and removable from the tank independently of the closure member for separating magnetic particles from the fluid. As such, the removable closure member B provide for a cover combined with the second filter housing to be separatable and connected to the holder.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 3, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding a cover combined with the second filter housing to be separatable and connected to the holder. The case law for making separable may be recited. Where, the court has held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of (the prior art's) holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961), MPEP 2144.C.) Claim(s) 11 – 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirohito in view Ogawa and in further view of Megumi et al. (JP 2004033813 A, hereinafter Megumi)
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 10,
Wherein the plurality of rotators comprise
a first operating component and
at least one second operating component,
wherein the raw material mixer comprises:
a rotating body connected to the first operating component to be rotatable, in which the at least one second operating component is disposed; and
at least one raw material mixing component connected to the at least one second operating component to be rotatable,
wherein the at least one raw material mixing component is rotated by the at least one second operating component.
Regarding Claim 11, Hirohito is silent on the structure of the rotators. In analogous art as applied above, Ogawa suggests details regarding the structure of the rotators, and in this regard, Ogawa teaches the following:
(Pg. 7 – 8) teaches that the stirring device 10 has a stirrer equipped with a pair of stirring blades 14A, 14B driven and rotated by a motor 12, and a stirring vessel 16, and the stirrer 20 is mounted so that it can be raised and lowered by a lifting device 24 provided on a support 18. As such, the motor acts as applicant’s first operating component.
(Pg. 7 – 8) teaches that the stirring device 10 has a stirrer equipped with a pair of stirring blades 14A, 14B driven and rotated by a motor 12, and a stirring vessel 16, and the stirrer 20 is mounted so that it can be raised and lowered by a lifting device 24 provided on a support 18. As such, the motor acts as applicant’s second operating component. Highlighting, while only a single motor is disclosed, the case law for the duplication of parts may be recited. Where, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding Claim 11, Hirohito as modified by Ogawa is silent on the structure of the second filter and its housing. In analogous for a method and apparatus for the fabrication of a polishing bad (Abstract), Megumi suggests details regarding the structure of the second filter and its housing, and in this regard, Megumi teaches the following:
(Pg. 14) teaches that a drive shaft 15 is inserted into and fixed to the center hole of the carrier 9 , and its upper end is detachably connected to the shaft of an electric motor 18 via a coupling 17. As such, electric motor 18 acts as applicant’s first operating component.
(Pg. 13) teaches the mixing blade drive device is a planetary gear electric device in which the ring gear 4 is fixed to the support plate 14 and the carrier of the planetary gear is driven by an electric motor. (Pg. 17) teaches that a pinion 44 is fixed to each of the vertical shafts, and the pinion is in mesh with a drive gear 43. Where the pinion(s) 44 acts as second operating component.
(Pg. 17) teaches the drive shaft 45 of the drive gear 43 is driven by an electric motor, the pinion 44 is driven in the same direction at a uniform speed. As such, the drive gear 43 is connected to the motor (first operating component). (Pg. 17) adds that in this device, a drive gear 43 is rotatably supported on a support plate 42. As such, the drive gear 43 is rotatably supported. (Pg. 17) also adding that a pinion 44 is fixed to each of the vertical shafts, and the pinion is in mesh with a drive gear 43. As such and best illustrated in (Fig. 5), the pinions 44 (at least one second operating component) are disposed / meshes with the drive gear 43.
(Pg. 17) teaches that a drive gear 43 is rotatably supported on a support plate 42. The vertical shafts of the stirring blades 31, 31 are rotatably supported on the support plate 42. A pinion 44 is fixed to each of the vertical shafts, and the pinion is in mesh with a drive gear 43 . When the drive shaft 45 of the drive gear 43 is driven by an electric motor, the pinion 44 is driven in the same direction at a uniform speed, and therefore the stirring blades 31, 31 are driven in the same direction at a uniform speed. As such, the stirring blades 31, 31 are found to be connected to the pinion 44 (at least one second operating component).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a polishing pad that comprises a first storage tank 201 can contain a liquid isocyanate prepolymer compound which are mixed with hollow fine particles 111, and a second storage tank 202 (second tank) with curing agent which are further mixed to form a polish pad solution of Hirohito as modified by Ogawa. By further modifying the polishing pad mixing and fabrication device to comprise rotators with the aforementioned structure , as taught by Megumi. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement rotators with the aforementioned structure as it provides for the stirring efficiency in the vertical direction and improving the stirring performance of the highly viscous fluid, (Pg. 2 & 10). Highlighting, that the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. Provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 11,
Wherein the raw material mixing component comprises:
a shaft connected to an operating axis of the at least one second operating component; and
a stirring blade accommodated in the raw material mixing space.
Regarding Claim 12, Hirohito is silent on the structure of the raw material mixing component. In analogous art as applied above, Ogawa suggests details regarding the structure of the raw material mixing component, and in this regard, Ogawa teaches the following:
(Pg. 7 – 8) teaches that the stirring device 10 has a stirrer equipped with a pair of stirring blades 14A, 14B driven and rotated by a motor 12, and a stirring vessel 16, and the stirrer 20 is mounted so that it can be raised and lowered by a lifting device 24 provided on a support 18. As such, the motor acts as applicant’s first operating component. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Fig. 2) the stirring blades 14A, 14B driven and rotated by a motor 12
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 5, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.Regarding Claim 12, Hirohito as modified by Ogawa is silent on the structure of the second filter and its housing. In analogous as applied above, Megumi suggests details regarding the structure of the second filter and its housing, and in this regard, Megumi teaches the following:
(Pg. 17) teaches that the vertical shafts of the stirring blades 31, 31 are rotatably supported on the support plate 42. A pinion 44 is fixed to each of the vertical shafts, and the pinion is in mesh with a drive gear 43 . When the drive shaft 45 of the drive gear 43 is driven by an electric motor, the pinion 44 is driven in the same direction at a uniform speed, and therefore the stirring blades 31, 31 are driven in the same direction at a uniform speed. As such and as best illustrated in (Figs. 6 – 8 & 12 – 13), vertical shafts of the stirring blades 31, 31 found to provide for a shaft connected to an operating axis of the pinion 44 (at least one second operating component.
As best illustrated in (Figs. 6 – 8 & 12 – 13), the stirring blades 31, 31 are found within in the raw material mixing space / agitating tank 3
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 11, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the stirring blade comprises a helical type stirring blade.
Regarding Claim 13, Hirohito is silent on the structure of the stirring blade comprises a helical type stirring blade t. In analogous art as applied above, Ogawa suggests details regarding the structure of the stirring blade comprises a helical type stirring blade, and in this regard, Ogawa teaches the following:
(Pg. 6) teaches that the size of the bubbles can also be adjusted by appropriately selecting the rotation speed and shape of the stirring blades in the stirrer, the type of surfactant, and the like. As such, the shape of the stirring blades is understood to impact the size of the bubbles provided to the mixture during stirring, which in turn impact the density of the article fabricated, (Pg. 6).
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 5, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well. Accordingly, due to the shape of the stirring blade impact the size of the bubbles, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B). Additionally, the case law for the change in shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding Claim 13, Hirohito as modified by Ogawa is silent on the structure of stirring blade comprises a helical type stirring blade. In analogous art as applied above, Megumi suggests details regarding the structure of the stirring blade comprises a helical type stirring blade, and in this regard, Megumi teaches the following:
(Pg. 5) teaches that the side of the agitator blade is a spiral-shaped surface, the agitator blade functions as a screw, and the viscous fluid is not only stirred by the rotation of the agitator blade but is also stirred while being pushed radially outward and diagonally downward (diagonally upward depending on the direction of rotation) along the blade surface. (Pg. 7) teaches that he helical pitch of the helical shape is arbitrary, but the smaller the helical pitch, the greater the effect of pushing the fluid downward, and the greater the resistance. On the other hand, the smaller the helical pitch, the slower the downward extrusion speed. The relationship between the pitch and the stirring performance of the stirring blades depends on the rotation speed of the stirring blades, the viscosity of the fluid being stirred and other physical properties, so the optimum pitch cannot be determined in general. As such and as best illustrated in (Figs. 5 – 6 & 11 – 13), the stirring blades are understood to comprise a helical type stirring blade.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 11, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well. Additionally, the case law for the change in shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ahn et al. (US 20210394334 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) that the embodiments relate to a polishing pad for use in a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) process of semiconductors, to a process for preparing the same, and to a process for preparing a semiconductor device using the same.
Jackson et al. (US 20160214117 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) a magnetic filtration apparatus to separate magnet susceptible contaminant material from a working fluid. The apparatus comprises a housing having an internal chamber divided into a plurality of sub-chambers of different internal volume to change the fluid flow speed through the device and optimize filtration performance A plurality of elongate magnetic cores are mounted at a cartridge assembly to allow convenient and rapid interchange of magnetic cores at the same or different configurations.
Kim et al. (KR 102237311 B1) – teaches in the (Abstract) that the invention relates to a polishing pad used in a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) process of a semiconductor, a method for manufacturing the same, and a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device using the same, wherein the polishing pad according to the embodiment relates to a surface of a polishing pad after polishing.
Hyang Park (KR 20150063725 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) that the present invention relates to a magnetic filter housing which makes iron fillings indirectly attached to a magnetic part to enable reuse of the magnetic part when filtering iron fillings contained in a fluid
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743