DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-11, and 13-14 are examined in this office action as claims 2-3 and 12 are canceled and claims 1, 4-11, and 13-14 were amended in the reply dated 10/7/25.
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.
Claims 1, 4-11 and 13-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the first and second powders are of the same type of powder” in lines 8-9. It is not clear what is meant by “same type”. It is not clear whether this means these powders have the same composition, whether these powders are of the same family of materials such as metals or ceramics, whether these powders have the same size or shape, or some other meaning. Claims 4-11 and 13-14 are also rejected as they depend from claim 1 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “first recycled powder”, “second recycled powder” and “which has been recycled to a greater extend relative to the first recycled powder” in lines 10-12. It is not clear what is meant by recycled powder and recycling to a greater extent. It is not clear whether this refers to the number of times the powder has been used in an additive process and then recycled, whether this refers to a purity of the powder after recycling, or some other meaning. Claims 4-11 and 13-14 are also rejected as they depend from claim 1 and do not solve the above issue.
Claims 1 and 13-14 all recite the limitation “the ratio of the first powder to the second powder” in the first two lines of each claim. It is not clear what this ratio relates to. It is not clear whether this is a mass ratio, volume ratio, molar ratio, or some other ratio of properties or amounts of the first powder to the second powder. Claims 4-11 are also rejected as they depend from claim 1 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 4 recites “the step of”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation of “a step”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the build is oriented at an angle between 45° and 90° relative to the build platform”. While this angle is measured in relation to the build platform, it is not clear how this angle is measured of “the build”. As there is not an inherent orientation to “the build” it is not clear what is necessarily creating the angle with the build platform that is being measured.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite predicting regions of stress in the article; identifying an optimal build orientation for the article, and dispensing a first powder and/or a second powder to form the article, wherein the first and second powders are of the same type of powder and the first powder is a non-recycled powder or a first recycled powder and the second powder is a second recycled powder which has been recycled to a greater extent relative to the first recycled powder, and wherein the orientation of the build is optimized to minimise the use of the first powder in the article.
These limitations are all ones that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the dispensing of a first powder and/or a second powder. The prediction of regions of stress in the article can be calculated using the force applied to the material divided by cross-sectional area and an optimal orientation of a part that reduces the quantities of powder can also be determined using calculations or by other metal processes. Further, performing a stress analysis and rotating the model can also be determined using calculations or by other metal processes. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011), see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only step recited other than "predicting" and "identifying" is the dispensing of a first powder and/or a second powder to form the article. Powder bed additive manufacturing always involves the dispensing of powders to form the article followed by solidification. This is an essential and fundamental step in carrying out this sort of additive manufacturing process and therefore adding mental steps followed by this description of a powder bed additive manufacturing process does not integrate the “predicting” and “identifying” into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the dispensing of powders to form the article, as noted above, is an essential and fundamental step in carrying out a powder bed additive manufacturing process and it is recited at a high level of generality and therefore it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art, see MPEP § 2106.05(d). Further, the dependent claims also recite metal steps such as claim 2 of performing a stress analysis, claim 3 of slicing the model, claim 4 of rotating the model, claim 5, optimizing build orientation to minimize support structure volume, claim 6 involving the orientation being self-supporting, and claim 7 referring to selecting an orientation angle. Further, with respect to the selection of a ratio of powders in claims 1 and 13-14, applicant notes in the specification that “a user or an algorithm is able to determine an appropriate mix ratio of powder A to powder B for each layer” (applicant’s specification, pg. 8, first paragraph) indicating that this selection is also a mental step. Therefore the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 4-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0059315 A1 (as cited on IDS received 6/17/22) of Baudimont in view of US 2018/0339466 A1 of El Naga.
As to claims 1 and 13-14, it is not clear what is meant by “same type”, the build”, and the “extent” of recycling, see 112(b) rejections above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring when there is a first and second powder, these powders have the same chemical composition, that they have been recycled a different number of times, and that the orientation of the build refers to the article while during the build refers to the process of building. Also, it is not clear what is meant by “the ratio of the first powder to the second powder”, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring some ratio of amounts of mass of the first to second powders.
Baudimont discloses a method of fabricating a part by additive manufacturing (Baudimont, paragraph [0001]), meeting the limitation of producing an article by additive manufacturing. Baudimont discloses modifying a digital model by adding a sacrificial balancing fraction configured so as to balance the residual stresses that appear in the part while it is being fabricated (Baudimont, paragraph [0019]), meeting the claim limitation of predicting regions of stress in the article as by balancing these stresses, they are necessarily predicted as the model in Baudimont is created before the part is constructed. Baudimont discloses orienting the digital model relative to a construction direction for constructing the part (Baudimont, paragraph [0019]), meeting the claim limitation of identifying an optimal build orientation for the article as by orienting the model to a construction direction, this is optimizing the orientation of the model and thereby the article. Baudimont discloses dispensing layers of powder of a material on a fabrication plate followed by solidification (Baudimont, paragraphs [0006] and [0009]), meeting the claim limitation of dispensing a first powder and forming an article as by solidification, an article is formed from the powder. Baudimont discloses during the orientation step where the model is oriented in such a manner as to minimize the height of the part in the construction direction which serves to minimize the number of layers and thus the quantity of powder used and also the time required for fabrication (Baudimont, paragraph [0042]), meeting the claim limitation of wherein the orientation of the build is optimized so that reduced quantities of the powder which has not been recycled or which has been recycled to a lesser extent is dispensed during the build.
While claim 1 recites a first powder and a second powder that are recycled to different extents, the use of “and/or” means that the inclusion of both powders is a contingent limitation and the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”, see MPEP § 2111.04(II). Thus, as Baudimont discloses the dispensing of a first powder, this meets the claim limitation and there is no requirement that a second powder is dispensed, nor that the prediction of stress in the article relates to the identification of the optimal build orientation nor the dispensing of the first and/or second powders.
Baudimont discloses modifying a digital model by adding a sacrificial balancing fraction configured so as to balance the residual stresses that appear in the part while it is being fabricated (Baudimont, paragraph [0019]) and as this modification is done to balance residual stresses, Baudimont is disclosing where stress analysis is done on a model of the article to predict regions of stress in the article in use, meeting the claim limitations.
Baudimont discloses modifying a digital model by adding a sacrificial balancing fraction configured so as to balance the residual stresses that appear in the part while it is being fabricated and where the fabrication is done layer by layer (Baudimont, paragraphs [0016] and [0019]), as the design of the part is done layer by layer, the analysis of stresses would also necessarily be done in a layer by layer manner to allow for the addition of sacrificial balancing fractions, thereby meeting the claim limitations of slicing the model to produce two-dimensional cross-sections and subjecting the two-dimensional cross-sections to the stress analysis.
Baudimont discloses modifying a digital model by adding a sacrificial balancing fraction configured so as to balance the residual stresses that appear in the part while it is being fabricated (Baudimont, paragraph [0019]), thus meeting where stress in the region of the article is predicted. El Naga teaches where doses of the first metal powder which is non-recycled or recycled “new” powder and doses of a second metal powder which is decontaminated or recycled powder is controlled based on a ratio of amounts of the first and second metal powders (El Naga, paragraph [0079]). El Naga also teaches that the ratio can be based on a number of characteristics of the powder such as flowability, amount of contamination, and print history (El Naga, paragraphs [0068] – [0071]), meeting the claim limitation of where the ratio of powders is varied according to a predicted or analyzed condition of the recycled metal powder and where the ratio is the same or different between layers.
As Baudimont already discloses modifying the digital model based on the stresses in the part and El Naga discloses modifying the ratio of new and recycled powders to one another, 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 ratio of non-recycled or recycled “new” powder to the decontaminated and recycled powder as disclosed in El Naga in response to the stresses in the part as disclosed in Baudimont, thereby enabling the use of recycled powders and reducing costs and reducing negative environmental impact (El Naga, paragraph [0091]) and also preventing interactions with substances that can negatively impact the performance of a powder bed system (El Naga, paragraph [0057]) , thus preventing undesired stresses in the part.
As to claim 4, Baudimont discloses the use computer assisted design (CAD) software in order to define the best position and the best orientation for the part for the purpose of fabricating it layer by layer (Baudimont, paragraph [0016]), where orienting the part would necessarily encompass rotating the model as this is a function of manipulating a model of a part to achieve an optimized orientation.
As to claim 5, Baudimont discloses where the model is oriented in such a manner as to minimize the number of fabrication supports and/or to minimize their sizes (Baudimont, paragraph [0041]), meeting the claim limitation of wherein the orientation of the build is further optimized to minimize support structure volume.
As to claim 6, Baudimont discloses where the model is oriented in such a manner as to minimize the number of fabrication supports and/or to minimize their sizes (Baudimont, paragraph [0041]), meeting the claim limitation as Baudimont discloses where the number of supports for the structure are minimized.
As to claim 7, it is not clear how the angle is measured of the build, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring some portion of the build to be oriented between 45° and 90° relative to the build platform. Baudimont discloses where a first portion of a part (51) is oriented perpendicular to the plate (Baudimont, FIG. 2A and 2B), meeting the claim limitation as this is an angle of 90°.
As to claim 8, El Naga teaches where doses of the first metal powder which is non-recycled or recycled “new” powder and doses of a second metal powder which is decontaminated or recycled powder is controlled based on a ratio of amounts of the first and second metal powders (El Naga, paragraph [0079]).
As to claim 9, Baudimont discloses dispensing layers of powder of a material on a fabrication plate followed by solidification (Baudimont, paragraphs [0006] and [0009]), however Baudimont does not disclose where there is a first and second powder that both comprise recycled powders.
El Naga relates to the same field of endeavor of material handling in Additive Manufacturing systems (El Naga, paragraph [0001]). El Naga teaches where metal powder that has not been fused after the printing operation is collected in a chamber and if the level of contamination is too high for reuse, the powder can be dumped through a first port in the chamber that leads to a recycling system that can, for example, melt the powder and create new powder from the liquid metal (El Naga, paragraph [0044]). El Naga teaches where new powder formed in this manner can be mixed with powder that has already been used in one or more print operations can be reused by mixing the powder with new powder in an appropriate ratio (El Naga, paragraph [0071]), meeting the claim limitation of where the first powder and the second powder are recycled powders as the “new powder” can be recycled by remelting and the second powder is merely reused. El Naga teaches that this process promotes efficient reuse, recycling, etc., of powder and can offer cost savings for PBF systems and reduce negative environmental impact of such systems (El Naga, paragraph [0091]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a recycled new powder and a powder that has already been used in one or more print operations as taught by El Naga for a powder used in the additive manufacturing process disclosed in Baudimont, thereby reducing costs and reducing negative environmental impact (El Naga, paragraph [0091]).
As to claim 10, El Naga teaches where the non-recycled or recycled “new” powder is dispensed from a first container (1523) and the second recycled powder is dispensed from a second container (1519) onto a build platform (El Naga, paragraph [0088] and FIG. 15), meeting the limitation of where mixing occurs once the powders are deposited on the build platform.
As to claim 11, El Naga teaches where the non-recycled or recycled “new” powder is mixed with the decontaminated or recycled powder in a powder pipe (1527) (El Naga, paragraph [0088]), meeting the claim limitation of where the mixing occurs prior to dispensing of the metal powders onto the build platform.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objections, amending claims 4-11 and 13-14 to recite “The method” cures the previous issue and the objection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 112(b) rejection concerning “same type of powder” in claim 1, applicant argues that this is clear and the specification makes clear on page 6 that the powders are the same and only differ in the extent to which they have been recycled (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 5, last two paragraphs – pg. 6, first two paragraph).
Applicant is arguing that these powders are identical save for their extent of recycling, however this does not comport with the scope of the claim. “Type” is a much broader term that encompasses composition, family of material, size, and other identifying features. Carbon steel and stainless steel are both the same type of metal – they are both steels – but they are not identical to one another. Further, the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite, see MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(E). Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
With respect to the 112(b) rejection concerning “the build”, applicant’s amendment to recite “the article” cures the previous issue and the rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 112(b) rejection concerning the antecedent basis of “the powder”, applicant’s amendments cure the precious issue and the rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 112(b) rejection concerning recycled to different extents, applicant argues that this would be understood by a person of ordinary skill that this is the number of times the powders have been used in build cycles (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 6, 3rd paragraph).
However, as noted by applicant, the specification recites that it is “typical within the industry” to re-use or recycle the unfused powder in another build and thus the specification is not creating a definition for recycle to be reuse of the powder, but instead is disclosing them in contrast to one another – re-use or recycle (emphasis added). Further, it is well known in the art that recycling metal powder typically involves more than mere reuse of the powder as sieving is generally applied to remove solidified particles and virgin powders are often added to counter the strength of the recycled powder that is lost through heating cycles. Thus, stating that powder is recycled to a greater extent can also refer to the purity or amount of recycling that a powder has undergone. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
With respect to the 112(b) rejection concerning “the step”, while applicant’s deletion of steps in claim 1 and cancellation of claims 2 and 3 cure those issues, claim 4 still recites “the step” and therefore the rejection is maintained for that claim.
With respect to the 112(b) rejection concerning “the model”, it is agreed that the amendments to claim 1 provides antecedent basis for the recitation therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 112(b) rejection concerning “substantially” in claim 6, applicant’s deletion of the term cures the issue and the rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 112(b) rejection concerning “angle”, applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill would understand the article is being built to be self-supporting so as to minimize support structures and as such a person of ordinary skill would understand this to be the main body to be at an angle between 90 and 45 degrees to the build platform (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 7, 1st paragraph).
However, this does not address what a primary orientation of a “main body” is and how it is to be determined such that it can be oriented in relation to the build plate. Applicant does not use the term “main body” in the specification and the included figures do not elucidate how a primary axis of a body is ascertained such that it can be oriented in relation to the build plate. Thus, it is not clear how an article is oriented at an angle relative to the build platform and therefore the rejection is maintained.
With respect to the 112(b) rejection concerning “the build platform”, applicant’s amendment to recite “a build platform” cures the antecedent basis issue and the rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 112(b) rejection originally of claim 12 and now of instant claim 1 concerning “the ratio” applicant argues ratio is clear as it simply refers to the relative proportions of each powder (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 7, 4th paragraph).
However, this doesn’t address the issue raised in the rejection, namely that it is not clear what this ratio is. It is not clear whether this is a weight ratio, a volume ratio, a number ratio, content ratio or some other meaning. It is clear from the claim that the first and second powder are in a ratio to one another, it is not clear how those two powders are varied in relation to one another. A 1:2 ratio in terms of volume would be distinct from a 1:2 ratio by mass, which would be distinct from a 1:2 ratio in terms of particle numbers. Thus, the mere statement of the particles being in a ratio to one another is not clear and this is not solved by the specification which on pg. 8, first paragraph merely discusses the powders having a mix ratio and does not state how this ratio is being measured. Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
With respect to the 101 rejection, applicant asserts that the rejection has been addressed by the amendments to the claims (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 8, 1st paragraph), however as these are all mental steps outside the deposition of powder and the deposition of powder is an essential and fundamental step in carrying out this sort of additive manufacturing process, therefore adding mental steps followed by this description of a powder bed additive manufacturing process does not integrate the “predicting” and “identifying” into a practical application. Thus applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
With respect to the art rejection over Baudimont in view of El Naga, Applicant argues that as Baudimont is more concerned with residual stresses that accumulate during the fabrication of the part, a person of ordinary skill would not obviously orient the part to optimize the use of high and low value powders (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 8, 2nd to last paragraph – pg. 9, 1st paragraph).
However, the claim merely requires “performing a stress analysis on a model of the article to predict regions of stress in the article in use”, and as Baudimont discloses performing stress analysis to identify regions of stress, these areas would exist in the article in use and thus Baudimont meets the claim limitations. As El Naga teaches varying the ratio of virgin or less recycled powders to more recycled powders, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the variance of this ratio to the higher and lower areas of stress to reduce the cost of the part.
Applicant also argues that while Baudimont’s teachings concerning orientation relate to reducing overall powder used in the build, the instant claimed method is more nuanced and enables the dispensing of the first more valuable powder only in regions that will experience high levels of stress in use (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 9, 1st full paragraph).
However, Baudimont’s teachings concerning the optimization of orientation will reduce the amount of powder applied and when combined with El Naga will result in the reduction of the amount of virgin or less recycled powder being used. Further, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Finally, applicant argues that El Naga teaches that the ratio of new powder to recycled powder can be varied, but only based on characteristics such as powder flowability, contamination, and print history and not to the predicted stress of the article in use (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 9, 2nd full paragraph).
In response to applicant's argument that the properties for variance of the ratio of powders from El Naga must be incorporated into Baudimont, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). As El Naga teaches applying a ratio of virgin to recycled powders in different portions of the part and Baudimont teaches modifying the build of the part based upon predicted areas of stress in the part, it is obvious to combine these teachings to apply a ratio of virgin to recycled powders to regions of higher and lower stress to thereby reduce the cost of the part and increase the strength in the areas undergoing the highest stress. Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
With respect to the Double Patenting rejection, as applicant has cancelled claims 16-23 in copending application 17/048250, the double patenting rejection is rendered moot and is therefore withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733